Links to all documents here

The international conference held in Timor-Leste from 25^th  - 28^th February 2013, ended with a resounding call for a new development deal after the MDGs expire in 2015. Much was discussed and debated at the conference in an effort to make development more meaningful and inclusive of the most vulnerable and marginalised. The concept note and background paper for the conference highlight the achievements of the MDG and point out lessons to be learnt in designing the new agenda.

But it was the participation of g7+ countries, not least the hosting of the conference by the youngest democracy —once a conflict ravaged nation itself— was not only symbolic of this new development agenda but also specific in its call for country-owned and country-led goals that mirror national development priorities. Supported and facilitated by the government of Timor-Leste, the Pacific Institute of Public Policy (PiPP), UNESCAP and AusAID, the conference provided a platform for nearly 50 countries to contribute to the Dili Consensus, which will be presented to the UN High Level Panel of Eminent Persons by the Timor-Leste finance minister Emilia Pires.

Dr Noeleen Heyzer, Under-Secretary-General of the United Nations and Executive Secretary of ESCAP (the Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific) spoke about the experience of Asia and how the country was transformed only a generation ago into what is arguably the engine of the world’s global economic recovery after the financial crisis of 2008.

The conference delegates —numbering 227— were welcomed by Timor-Leste prime minister Xanana Gusmao in a speech that advocated peace and security as necessary preconditions for development. Afghanistan—a late entrant to the global development effort following the 2001 war between the armed forces and the Al Qaeda, sounded a note of caution that global ambitions should not define local agendas. Also, Dr Kuntoro Mangkusubroto spoke about the post-conflict and post-disaster experiences of Aceh and Nias in Indonesia’s efforts to bring service delivery to the peoples of the two provinces using simple technologies that work best for them.

All the other briefing papers for the conference can be downloaded here.

Nearly 50 countries, including 18 involved in the g7+ group of nations have backed The Dili Consensus on future development, which emerged from a major global conference held in Timor Leste this week.

Download the full press release here: PRESS RELEASE-Dili Consensus

Following a roundtable discussion to influence the UN High Level Panel, they released a communiqué aimed at getting a strong Pacific voice into this important global forum.

Where the original MDGs were decided without much Pacific input, this conference, hosted by the Timor Leste government and the Pacific Institute of Public Policy (PiPP), sought to highlight Pacific issues relating to the post-2015 development agenda.

Dame Carol Kidu from PNG was appointed the Pacific representative and delivered the communiqué on the first day of the g7 Plus gathering of 48 nations, following a televised address by UN Secretary Ban Ki Moon. Present at this conference is the Under Secretary General of the UN and Executive Secretary of ESCAP (Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific) Dr Noeleen Heyzer.

Pacific delegates noted shortcomings of the original MDG process and hoped for a more inclusive
process for future development goals that reflected Pacific and national needs.

According to the communiqué:

“We agreed the MDGs have played an important role in focusing our development efforts, facilitating dialogue and making our development strategies more results-orientated. However, the MDGs do not fully reflect our national development priorities and sometimes distort them by emphasizing the quantity of outputs over the quality of outcomes.”

“As a region we have been labelled a failure in terms of meeting the MDGs. This raises concerns about the application of global goals at the regional and national level, particularly in areas over which Pacific island countries have little or no control, such as carbon emissions. There is no one-size-fits-all approach to implementing our development aims.”

In its discussions five broad areas were identified that were not adequately covered in the MDGs: inclusive economic growth, environmental and natural resource management, state effectiveness, peace and justice and aspects of social delivery.

“Our focus in these areas is on the human dimension of development, based on our own conceptions of poverty and well-being”.

Climate change and “owning our own problems to find our own solutions” emerged as key issues. In his opening remarks at the start of the g7Plus conference, Prime Minister Xanana Gusmao said this was the largest conference ever held in Timor Leste, while many delegates expressed their hope for solidarity and “a new deal” on development. Timor Leste’s Finance Minister and current chair of the g7Plus Emilia Pires endorsed the communiqué and will take it to the UN’s High Level Panel on development with her call for “development for all”.

The full communique is available on PiPP’s website: pacificpolicy.org

The g7 Plus incorporates 18 nations: The G7 Plus countries are Afghanistan, Burundi, Central African Republic, Chad, Union of the Comoros, Côte d’Ivoire, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Guinea Bissau, Guinea, Haiti, Liberia, Papua New Guinea, Sierra Leone, Solomon Islands, Somalia, South Sudan, TimorLeste (Chair) and Togo.

For any media enquiries, please contact Dulciana Somare-Brash on +670 78091660 or email dsomarebrash@pacificpolicy.org

The conference theme is ‘Development for All: Stop conflict, build states and eradicate poverty’.

It will seek to build consensus from a gathering of government policy-makers and global thinkers in shaping a “post-MDG world”. This is a reference to the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) established by the UN as the core roadmap for poorer nations to achieve benchmarks in a wide range of social and economic areas. It was intended that by 2015 all nations would have achieved their “goals”.

However there has been some criticism that the original MDG concept was driven by unrealistic expectations and did not to take into account the views of the most vulnerable countries themselves.

The original concept, agreed to in 1999, put the onus on poor countries and did not take into account climate change, nations emerging from conflict and the need for the developed world to end its own conspicuous consumption.
Now it may be time to put the onus on rich nations to learn from the rest of the world how to live more simply and sustainably; to focus less on economic growth and “measuring poverty” and more on cutting greenhouse emissions and providing these 18 nations with more opportunities in trade, migration and environmental protection.

Derek Brien, Executive Director of PiPP, says

“PiPP is honoured to have been asked to help facilitate this important gathering of Pacific and international leaders to help envision a post 2015 development framework so that these most vulnerable countries, and those partners assisting them, can have a more realistic and inclusive approach to building a sustainable future.”

“It is an opportunity to now include the voices of the previously voiceless to help end conflict, tackle extreme poverty, build confidence in state institutions and manage climate change. The Pacific region has much to offer the rest of the world in terms of sustainable living for the future”.

On November 21, 2012, the Pacific Institute of Public Policy will host a public forum in Koror, Palau bringing together Senators, civil society and regional thinkers from around Micronesia to discuss a range of issues affecting small island states.

“Micronesian Futures” will be a chance to hear new ideas about governance and economics for smaller Pacific nations.

There will be provocative questions asked, such as whether small states will ever be economically viable –so is it time to start thinking about shared sovereignty?

As we enter an era of rising food and energy prices, climate change impact and a post-MDG (Millennium Development Goals) world, what is the role of government? Should they be concentrating more on protecting “the commons” rather than facilitating economic growth at all costs?

Panelists will include Fr. Fran Hezel S.J. (Guam), Semdiu Decherong (Palau), Kalafi Moala (Tonga), Hon. Surangel Whipps Jr. (Palau), Hon. Hilda Heine (RMI) and will be moderated by Joe ‘Tutii’ Chilton.

It will be filmed for regional broadcast by our local partner for the event, Oceania TV and Roll’em Productions.

This forum will be held at Sea Passion hotel, from 11am until 2pm, on November 21. The public is encouraged to attend and participate.

The pacific Institute of Public Policy (PiPP) has released a briefing paper PACER Plus: the art of negotiation in an attempt to focus discussion to address the fundamental question: What should a Pacific Agreement on Closer Economic Relations between the Pacific island countries, Australia and New Zealand entail?
Mr Derek Brien, Deputy Executive Director of PiPP says “PACER Plus is essentially a blank canvas waiting to be painted jointly by the parties”. He adds “as with any painting, first the artist needs to have an idea of what they want to paint, then sketch it out, often many times, and finally, start applying the paint to canvas. Essentially, Australia and New Zealand want to start painting now. The Pacific island countries are in some cases still formulating ideas, and in others going through the process of sketching out these ideas”.
The Pacific islands have called for a “phased approach” to negotiations, and this is understood to include national consultations and further research to determine national interests. This may come as a surprise to many, including Australian and New Zealand officials, having assumed these tasks would have been completed during the EPA negotiations with Europe. 

It is not yet clear what a PACER Plus version of Pacific economic integration will look like, but two issues look set to dominate discussions: first, labour mobility; and second, how much, if at all, governments will be compensated for import tariff revenue losses. Whilst the establishment of new job opportunities under PACER Plus presents an opportunity – albeit a slim one – many island governments worry about the costs of the agreement. 
The negotiating capacity of Pacific island governments is so limited that they will probably succumb to the demands of their bigger neighbours on tariffs. This is unlikely to be catastrophic. The islands will maintain market access to Australia and New Zealand, even if this is increasingly worthless owing to preference erosion. Further, any tariff cuts by the island governments are likely to be gradual and may be back-loaded by up to 10 years.  
Other than people, the islands have very little to export, meaning that the upside is limited. After more than a decade of trade liberalisation, resulting in broad-ranging goods market access, most regional countries continue to run trade deficits, as they have since independence. Poor infrastructure, unreliable transport, limited access to credit, and growing social inequalities all restrict the development of productive capacity in both goods and services. In this woefully under-developed environment, new foreign competition will do little to generate growth. 
Freer trade is not a panacea and PACER Plus needs to be considered as more than just a free trade agreement. 
Auckland and Canberra should at the very least formalise access to jobs in their own countries, invest in infrastructure, fund financial institutions, enact measures to combat inequality, and deliver more effective aid programmes in line with the Paris Declaration and Accra Forum. 

For their part, Pacific governments need to look beyond the massive imbalances of today and yesteryear to best position their countries in the ever shifting global political and economic landscapes. Nation building requires political foresight to guide the government officials charged with the task of delivering the services and environment to improve the standard of living of the population. Against the backdrop of protecting the national interest, the fundamental challenge for Pacific governments will be how, and over what time frame, to introduce the necessary economic and structural adjustments to maximise future opportunities.

In looking beyond just a free trade agreement, PiPP Board Member Mr Kaliopate Tavola  suggests “the challenge for PACER negotiators is really to put meat into this concept with the aim of producing an agreement that is unique, visionary and enterprising that the region can be proud of”.

It will take time, hard work and creative thinking, but through the fine art of negotiation, PACER Plus offers all parties an opportunity to turn a blank canvas into a collective regional masterpiece.

<ENDS>

Last week’s G20 leaders’ summit in London was an historic event, heralding a new economic world order. What do these new rules of global engagement mean for the Pacific’s own group of nations the ‘P14′?

Last week’s G20 leaders’ summit in London was an historic event, heralding a new economic world order. Prime Minister Gordon Brown declared the old Washington consensus is over. President Obama stressed the need to move beyond the one-size-fits-all approach to economic growth, trade liberalisation and market (de)regulation. The leaders of the world’s biggest economies agreed to a US$1.1 trillion package to counter the challenges facing the world economy. So what do these new rules of global engagement mean for the Pacific’s own group of nations the ‘P14′ group of island member states of the Pacific Islands Forum?
Foremost on most minds is the renewed focus on secretive offshore financial centres. In the lead up to the London meeting a number of ‘tax haven’ countries scrambled to sign up to international information sharing treaties, including the previously unthinkable end to secret Swiss bank accounts.Reports accompanying the G20 announcement include staggering estimates of up to US$11 trillion dollars passing through the global offshore financial services industry. Little wonder governments want to get hold of the estimated US$250 billion in taxable income.
The Pacific is home to six of the world’s 38 financial centres that have committed to the internationally agreed tax standard, but have not yet substantially implemented that is have not signed up to any bilateral tax treaties. This makes up the OECD’s so-called ‘grey’ list not to be confused to the much feared black list that only includes Costa Rica, Malaysia (Labuan) and Philippines. In fact it is worth emphasising the point that the G20 communique does not seek to punish tax havens only non-cooperative jurisdictions – that is those countries on the black list. Blacklisted jurisdictions face the loss of multilateral financial support. Those on the ‘grey’ list will be monitored and could face sanctions for failing to substantially implement the tax standard.
As most countries have already signed up to the international standards on information disclosure we can expect some pressure to now forge ahead with double tax treaties or information exchange agreements. It is likely that the Pacific tax havens will be relatively low on the agenda of most countries except Australia. In order to ‘substantially comply’ with the international tax standard (and join the US, UK and others in the top category) a country would need to sign a minimum of 12 bilateral agreements on sharing tax information.
Mr Nikunj Soni, Executive Director of the Pacific Institute of Public Policy, suggests the news from London does not necessarily spell the end of offshore financial centres or low or zero personal tax rates, but that the Pacific will likely come under further pressure for more exchange of financial information. He says this sector is not new to the spotlight – following the attacks on the World Trade Centre in 2001 it was put on notice to become more transparent and accountable. The Bush administration succumbed to intense industry lobbying and eased up on the tax haven clamp down. But the new global power brokers don’t appear to be as susceptible to industry rhetoric. Mr Soni says it is in the industry’s interest to become more open about its activities.
Global integration requires government and industry leaders to be fully conversant of the rules of engagement and to move strategically. There will be calls for more openness and a commitment to bilateral tax treaties that could effectively erode the client base of the Pacific offshore industry. If the industry is to get Pacific governments to support its cause on the international stage, it will need to demonstrate the contributions to economic growth, which in turn will require a degree of openness and trust. Governments also need to consider the longer term development goals, and it is important to note that the push for further exchange of tax information was just one bullet point of the G20 communique. Other significant measures aimed at stemming the fallout from the global financial meltdown include:

• $250 billion boost for global trade
• Capital injection of $500 billion plus a further $250 billion overdraft facility for the IMF to enable members facing economic problems can resort to these additional resources, including the Pacific economies.
• $100 billion injection for multilateral bank lending (ADB, World Bank, IMF) to developing countries strengthening financial supervision and regulations
• strengthening global financial institutions
• renewed commitment to achieving the Millennium Development Goals.

The paradigm has shifted and it is up to the P14 leaders to position themselves in the emerging new world order. Mr Soni notes of the paradigm shift we need to be more innovative in managing our economies to ensure continuing economic growth and sustainable development.
If it truly is the end of the one-size-fits-all Washington Consensus, there has never been a better time for Pacific leaders to engage in constructive dialogue on the way forward that benefits the particular needs of the small island states.
The Pacific Institute of Public Policy is an independent, non-partisan and not-for-profit think tank based in Port Vila, Vanuatu and exists to stimulate and support policy debate in the Pacific.

<ENDS>

For more information contact:
Derek Brien
Pacific Institute of Public Policy
Tel: +678 29842
Email: dbrien@pacificpolicy.org

Download copy of briefing papers here

Tiny states have for too long been forced to adopt one-size-fits-all trade models. The Pacific Institute of Public Policy (PiPP) has released another in its series of trade briefing papers in an attempt to identify new ways of engaging the small economies of the Pacific in trade deals that are both relevant and beneficial.
Dr Dan Gay, PiPP Advisory Council member and trade expert,  says the Washington Consensus model largely ignores the diseconomies of scale, distance, geographical fragmentation and vulnerability of the Pacific island states.He adds that a new perspective isn’t going to emerge overnight, but we should be striving to find what works, recognise that  aid spending can have a major macroeconomic impact, that markets often fail and efforts to build productive capacity should focus on equity, infrastructure, disaster insurance and mitigating the effects of distance.
The beauty of smallness is flexibility and the global market presents a host of new opportunities. The challenge for governments, donors and the private sector is to identify and promote niche Pacific industries and services that are in demand in the global economy.
According to Dr Gay, the recent global financial meltdown has shown what happens when we rely solely on the magic of markets. Donors and governments should recognise the need to intervene in productive areas to compensate for market failures and help regional companies add more value.
The PiPP paper notes that Pacific island governments have an interest in negotiating effective trade agreements that move beyond just market access. Promoting regionalised trade facilitation measures while recognising country-specific demands are essential elements of any negotiations. Given the limitations on negotiation capacity of the tiny island states, perhaps the best approach is to keep things simple by focusing on a few key areassays Dr Gay.
Small can be beautiful, but only when trade policy is tailored to the needs of the islands.
The Pacific Institute of Public Policy is an independent, non-partisan and not-for-profit think tank based in Port Vila, Vanuatu and exists to stimulate and support policy debate in the Pacific.

<ENDS>

For more information contact:
Derek Brien
Pacific Institute of Public Policy
Tel: +678 29842
Email: dbrien <at> pacificpolicy.org

Download copy of briefing paper here

Globalisation is coming to the Pacific. But are the islands heading for a free-trade paradise; are they forever lumbered with their colonial inheritance; or is there another way – a Pacific way?

The Pacific Institute of Public Policy (PiPP) has released another in its series of trade briefing papers in an attempt to untangle the complex language of trade agreements and focus discussions to address such fundamental questions as:

1. What will the islands export in order to benefit from trade deals?

2. Are there enough points of different for countries to specialise and trade competitively?

3. What are the benefits of deals with Canberra and Wellington?

4. Can multilateralism bolster commerce with the wider world?

“A key challenge facing Pacific island governments is the shift away from special treatments for exports to former colonial powers,” says Mr John Licht, PiPP Business Development Manager and trade specialist, adding “economic separation is also less feasible and the big trading partners like Europe, Australia and New Zealand have high expectations for the Pacific to further liberalise, and at their pace.”

The PiPP briefing paper notes that special relations with former colonial powers encouraged dependence on a limited range of commodities and a select few export destinations. Tariffs protected Pacific producers from foreign competition and generated significant proportions of government revenue. They also delayed the reality of inefficient and uncompetitive local industries.

Despite the existence of agreements among the Pacific island states, intra-regional trade has been low, mainly due to the massive distances and the lack of products to sell one another. In the words of a Pacifc Islands Forum Secretariat official “the islands are hardly going to sell a lot of coconuts and fish to each other.”

Confronting the challenges of globalisation is no easy task, especially when small, developing nations are at a clear disadvantage in terms of negotiating power. But Pacific island countries can move beyond fish and coconuts and capitalise on a more liberal trading environment.

Each country could benefit from export-oriented trade policy that focuses on a few select areas in which each country has an actual or potential comparative advantage such as tourism, food processing, fisheries and certain agricultural products.

“Doing nothing is not an ideal strategy as the region cannot continue to rely on past arrangements and high tariffs. Being prepared is essential, as to leave everything undecided until the end is to play into the hands of the powerful” says Mr Licht.

The Pacific Institute of Public Policy is an independent, non-partisan and not-for-profit think tank based in Port Vila, Vanuatu and exists to stimulate and support policy debate in the Pacific.

The PiPP trade briefing papers are available online at www.pacificpolicy.org.

<ENDS>

For more information contact:
Derek Brien
Pacific Institute of Public Policy
Tel: +678 29842
Email: dbrien <at> pacificpolicy.org

Download copy of briefing paper here

  
Many people in the Pacific may not be aware that the Asian Development Bank (ADB) is about to ask all of its members for a general capital increase (GCI) – or more simply, a large capital injection.
The Pacific Institute of Public Policy (PiPP) has released a briefing paper in an attempt to explain what the proposed GCI means for Pacific island countries and  highlights the need for Pacific leaders to consider the ramifications of an increase on national budgets as well as ensuring that their voice is heard in the debate. "Traditionally, the Pacific contributes little to the general capital of the ADB and so its representation on the board is left to others. This call for views on increased membership contributions presents as a great opportunity for the Pacific to be heard and to also influence the debate" says Mr Nikunj Soni, Executive Director of PiPP.
The increased membership contributions are required to boost the ADB's general capital and so enable the bank to borrow more and so lend more to members.
The ADB has formally asked shareholders to consider 100 percent, 150 percent and a 200 percent general capital increase.  A further proposal to increase contributions by 250 percent and 300 percent has been put forward by India.

It is expected that the ADB Board of Directors will release a final draft paper proposing the preferred GCI (anticipated to be 200%) on Monday 23 March, 2009. The Bank would then seek final say from the Board of Governors as to their position on the increase at its meeting in Bali on 4 May, 2009.

The PiPP briefing paper notes that if Pacific leaders are to be heard, they will have to act quickly and suggests a number of options including:
1. Asking for more time
2. Securing bi-lateral donor support to fund the additional amounts
3. Recommend one of the lower amounts that have little or no direct cash impact such as the 100% increase
4. Accept a higher GCI increase and seek some reforms of the ADB in exchange.

"The impact of the global economic crisis on the Pacific region has yet to be fully understood, which makes it even more important for Pacific leaders to make an informed and timely decision on this matter" says Mr Soni, adding that "the recently announced MOU between the ADB and the Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat is an indication that the relationship between the Bank and the Pacific is maturing, and in this light we call on each Pacific country to consider its options carefully, discuss with their representative on the executive, and more importantly vote in line with the wishes of their people and governments".
The Pacific Institute of Public Policy is and independent, non-partisan and not-for-profit think tank based in Port Vila, Vanuatu and exists to stimulate and support policy debate in the Pacific.

END

For more information contact:
Derek Brien
Pacific Institute of Public Policy
Tel: +678 29842
Email: dbrien <at> pacificpolicy.org