In the peaceful north Pacific, a different type of migration has been continuing steadily to the United States for two decades. Visa-free access to the United States enjoyed by citizens of the Federated States of Micronesia, Marshall Islands and Palau has dramatically impacted islanders from these three north Pacific nations in ways both positive and negative. This provision in the Compact of Free Associations with these countries—that gives Washington control of the defense of this vast region, as well as access to an important military installation in the Marshall Islands—has worked as a safety valve for island economies and governments that do not have the ability to provide jobs, education and health care opportunities to meet population growth.

Most of the ‘conversation’ about migration from the islands to the U.S. has focused on the out-bound for obvious reasons: There are estimates that upwards of 40 percent of all Micronesians and Marshallese now reside in the United States and its territories, such as Guam. There is a lot of negative, particularly in Guam and Hawaii where high costs of housing have fueled homelessness, and the large concentrations of islanders in these relatively small populations have in recent years resulted in their being a target of racism and discrimination. Yet, a similar demographic on the mainland U.S.—in Northwest Arkansas, where an estimated 10,000 Marshall Islanders reside in a tri-city area—has been largely positive, with islanders being actively recruited by huge poultry packing companies. Meanwhile, in the western state of Oregon, which has thousands of Micronesians, Marshallese and Palauans scattered in various cities, the island community formed the Compact Action National Network, which has successfully gained Oregon State Legislature adoption of important legislation for resident islanders.

Islanders living in the U.S. mainland do better economically, no doubt because of the lower cost of living in many locations in which islanders have chosen to settle. A small percentage of these out-bound migrants run afoul of the law in the U.S., illegal behavior that often results in deportation and a red-flag status preventing them from returning to the U.S. Deportations have escalated, mirroring the increase in the number of citizens of these three nations living in the U.S. While the number of deportees was generally single digit annually in the early- and mid-2000s, it has risen significantly. In 2015, 70 Micronesians, 23 Marshallese and 11 Palauans were deported from the U.S. Since 2003, the Marshall Islands is averaging 16 deportations annually, with a spike in 2013 to 37. While these numbers are small on a global scale, they are big for small island populations, and have had some negative consequences at home.

An editorial in the October 2, 2015 edition of the Marshall Islands Journal commented on an assault by two attackers that sent a young man to the hospital with a broken jaw and other injuries. ‘The two gentlemen administering the jaw-busting were…deported from the United States for engaging in unbecoming activities,’ the editorial noted. This incident offered ‘a view of the dark side of Marshallese easy visa-free access to the U.S. It is as though we take large groups of our citizenry and transport them off to the States and then, after a period of time, the bad actors are weeded out and returned to Marshall Islands: American employers are beneficiaries of good Marshallese labor while Marshallese citizens here are “beneficiaries” of bashed-in jaws. Is there something wrong with this picture?’

But the in-migration is by no means entirely negative. The Compacts with the Federated States of Micronesia and the Marshall Islands that came into effect in 1986 (and in Palau in 1994) allow islanders to serve in the U.S. Armed Forces. For many young islanders, the U.S. military is their ticket off the island and opens opportunities for post-service education. In fact, by the 2000s, recruitment on a per capita basis from the Compact nations (as well as American Samoa) greatly out-paced enlistment rates of Americans.

An increasing number of U.S. military veterans are returning to Majuro to work. During the past year, we’ve seen demonstrations of what Marshallese veterans with 20 or more years of service bring to the table when they are put into positions of authority. Robson Almen, a ‘lifer’ with over 20 years in the military, retired several years ago, applied for and was hired as the Marshall Islands Chief Electoral Officer in 2014. He established a plan with a timetable and proceeded to implement it in the lead up to the November 2015 national election. It was one of the smoothest-run elections in decades that contrasted sharply with the chaos of the 2007 vote. An editorial in a December edition of the Marshall Islands Journal praised Chief Electoral Officer Almen and Electoral Administration ‘for an efficiently managed national election. In contrast to some past elections, there were very few problems associated with the recently concluded vote.’

In the November national election, Majuro voters elected Kalani Kaneko to serve in the 33-seat parliament. Kaneko retired in 2015 after 20 years of service in the U.S. Army. After President Hilda Heine was elected in late January, she named Kaneko as the minister of health. Solving long-standing problems at the ministry, and in particular Majuro hospital—which suffers from chronic doctor, nurse, medicine and supply shortages—is a Herculean task. Kaneko does not have a health background. What he brings to the table is 20 years experience working in the U.S. Army that inculcated an appreciation of leadership, accountability, systems, and time management. These are the mostly missing ingredients at the Ministry of Health that Kaneko is now working to develop.

The point is, both Almen and Kaneko have an understanding of accountability and systems management from their tenure in the Army, and because of their decades of experience in the military system, they do not seem to have difficulty implementing requirements that lead to improved services to the public while relegating family relationships to a backseat in government service. While opportunities for jobs, health care and education have been the main motivating factors pushing Marshallese and Micronesians to leave to the U.S., in recent years the decline in service by a corruption-riddled government workforce is negatively impacting quality of life for many island residents, and increases motivation to migrate.

President Heine in her inaugural address to parliament in February this year emphasized the need for government workers to improve services for the public. Kaneko, Almen and other U.S. military veterans who have returned to the Marshall Islands are showing how direction, purpose and motivation can be used to engage government workers to deliver services at a higher level.

All of this emphasizes that as dramatic as these north Pacific nations’ experience is with out-migration, it is not a one-dimensional situation of people simply fleeing their islands for greener pastures. It is changing lives of many islanders who have moved to the United States, many for the better, some for worse. But it is also beginning to bring back people with decades of experience that they are putting to work for the benefit of the public.

Caption: Marshall Islands Chief Election Officer Robson Almen (second from left during tabulation of votes from the November 2015 national election) is one of a number of U.S. military veterans who have been returning after years of service in the military to work in key positions in government.

To the surprise of those seated in the crowded Nitijela chamber, as soon as Senator Silk completed his sentence one person clapped politely and briefly. Gauging by the looks of the audience, perhaps this also was without precedent. Clapping in parliament is a motion that is not prompted. In some parliaments it is frowned upon, in others it is the norm, in some it is allowed in some situations and not in other contexts, in some the Speaker regulates this motion or its variations such as clapping on the sides of the chairs or thumping on the desk or standing ovations or saying “hear hear”. The previous day, as the results of the vote of no-confidence against former President Nemra’s Cabinet were tabulated, Speaker Kedi had astutely interrupted the count. He instructed that no one should clap. During the past two weeks, on many occasions the Speaker had invited a clapping applause for other results and reasons. Some parliamentarians had spontaneously clapped after bold speeches had been made during the debates before and after the vote of no-confidence motion was introduced.

The introduction of the final motion by Senator Silk, with no prompting by the Speaker, was a move that can been viewed as showing a respect not only for the law but also a timely accommodation of the positions held by the two Senators – Note and Riklon (remarkable because both Senators were members of the governing and opposing party to Senator Silk’s). Both Senators had insisted on the Nitijela’s attention and adherence to the Constitutional letter and procedure even if the brief opinions of the relatively young and bashful Acting Attorney General and sort-of-but-not-entirely-convincing Legal Counsel appeared to vary with these interpretations. Senator Riklon had earlier argued politely that according to the Constitution, 14 days had to lapse before another President could be elected. This argument had been overruled by the Speaker, again after the legal opinions of the Legislative Counsel had been recorded. Senator Note had insisted on the casting of the secret ballot. The Senators had persisted even when the Speaker Kedi had plainly cited these opinions as the basis of the Speaker’s impending if not already evident decision on the deemed election of a President by sole nomination. Both soft-spoken Senators requested repeatedly a cautious approach to avoid any ambiguous precedents even if precedents (rightly or wrongly) had already been set in previous elections. Such precedents had been pointed out during the debate. Ironically, one precedent that was contrary to Senator Note’s persistent demand took place when Senator Note had been President!

It can be easily said that both Senators (Ministers at that moment) were deploying a delay-tactic to prolong the life-in-office of the cabinet. However, it can also be suggested that casting a secret ballot in a finale of the electoral process served another purpose. The presidential sole nominee – Dr. Heine was nominated by a self-described less than a fortnight-old coalition. Unprecedented maneuvering, jockeying, shifting and cross-over of party lines, changing membership by number surprising changes in alliances, lobbying by traditional chiefs, the untimely death of an extremely popular high chief presidential candidate, forming of sub-blocs known by colorful descriptions such as traditional twelve solid six fanatic four, claims of buying of membership in parties, forgetting of vows to exclude so-and-so, feuding and solidarity of family, refusals, resignations, ministerial office invitations open until the last minute of the Presidential re-election, etc. had become a well-known and nerve-wracking feature of the political battle for the government during the past month: clearly, loyalties were anything but loyalties; any Senator-voter(s) could change his or her decision at any moment. A secret ballot would colorlessly cast the die, thus making the votes fungible. This is an essence of a democratic free election.

Beyond that, the motion was an expression of an experienced parliamentarian’s intuitive solution to correctly end an impasse that at face value appeared meaningless. Indeed another Senator, Kramer had been quick to fret and seek an immediate dispensation of a “waste time” matter. It was not. Senator Silk’s move also averted notions of a potential legal battle or of a deliberately overlooked procedure in a matter of Constitutional and national importance. It also saved face all around the membership of the Nitijela. These are not trivial facets of the art of the political battle. A save-face tactic is appreciated when battle weary opponents who assuredly are destined to meet each other yet another day are compelled to bluntly face each other with a foregone conclusion.

It is irrelevant whether Senator Silk appreciated or not that Ministers Note and Riklon’s firm stance and demand also covertly allowed for a larger number than 21 senators to vote for President elect (at that moment), Dr. Heine. Nor is it relevant that in a statesman-like move Minister/Senator Note already may have deliberately considered and made space for such a consequence. The result …24, (three more than the predictable 21 votes in favor) itself is relevant. It is a symbolic number that may be optimistically interpreted as if despite the political battles of the past months and weeks some minority number members now accepted the uncomfortable reality of the situation and symbolically said – we are all here, we are willing to move forward and work together.

Rising above partisanship and above party, Senator Silk’s motion, wittingly or not, led to a placated polite procedural election in the Nitijela with Dr. Hilda C. Heine as the elected President. Surely, that final motion deserved an applause; even if only one (just a number) person clapped! After all, when, in an unprecedented moment, as the number goes…if you’re happy and you know it and you really want to show it….clap your hands.

But the Marshall Islands is hardly alone in low academic achievement in its public schools. The Federated States of Micronesia and other island countries are experiencing similar challenges in their government schools.

When the United States government halted funding for school lunches three years ago, the Marshall Islands government largely eliminated the feeding program, although some funding for school lunches was included in the budget for the new fiscal year that started October 1 — and some local vendors have filled the gap by offering discount price plates and snacks on or next to local school campuses.

Meanwhile, several local primary and secondary schools in the Marshall Islands have over the past several years engaged their students in school gardens that provide produce for the feeding program operated by the private schools, while providing vegetables for the students of the public schools. The correlation between the lack of a school lunch program in most public schools and academic under-achievement should be obvious. Less obvious is the lost opportunity for student learning about nutrition, island foods and food culture for lack of a feeding program linked to school gardens and school curriculum. Marshall Islands schools — and indeed, probably many around the region — are missing a golden opportunity for integrating learning, nutrition, and cultural values into their ongoing programs.

A visit last month to the Sanya Elementary School in the Suginami section of Tokyo offered serious food for thought on the matter. Sanya is showcasing a many-layered program of nutrition education and action that engages students in grades one through six in planting, managing and harvesting vegetables in the school garden, teaches them to cook using this produce, has them studying the nutritional value of the foods they are eating, and learning cultural food etiquette. The school also engages many parents in the nutrition and cooking program. What is significant is the result produced through the holistic nature of this integrated learning activity.

Perhaps most important, the eating habits of the students are being shifted to a more traditional Japanese diet, known as ‘washoku’—which is to say, healthier fare. They are enthusiastic about the result, as a meal of fish, rice, miso soup, and mixed vegetables with Sanya fifth graders demonstrated.

As fifth grade students served food to their fellow students, one student rose to explain the day’s meal and its nutritional value. Next, another student stood to lead everyone in expressing appreciation for the meal and everyone involved in its preparation, using the Japanese expression, “itadakimasu.” As soon as the thanks were delivered, everyone dived into the meal. At its conclusion, another student led the group in a closing thank you, “gochisou sama.” Barely a grain of rice remained on the plates of the 25 or so students in the classroom as the lunch concluded.

‘The gardening helps with emotional stability and well-being of the students,’ Principal Kazuyoshi Yamagishi told a group of island journalists visiting his school last month. ‘Most important for the students is through gardening, they learn to appreciate life.’

In the Pacific islands, people are flooding into the urban centers, where community stability and food availability provided by cultural practices in the rural areas are withering as fast as you can say ‘corned beef’. This Japan school program is taking totally urban children, most of whom born and raised in Tokyo, and reinventing their appreciation of food, culture and learning activities.

The school combines a variety of physical activity, gardening, learning about nutrition, and teaching dental hygiene. The school lunch program cost is shared by parents, who pay a monthly fee for their children’s meals, and the government, which pays the salaries of the school’s kitchen staff.

‘A healthy body contributes to sound academic development,’ said Yamagishi. While the school is not at the top of Tokyo elementary schools academically, ‘our school is above the city’s academic average,’ said Yamagishi. At least as important, from Yamagishi’s standpoint, is that as a result of participating in gardening, food preparation, and learning Japanese food customs, ‘fewer children have a frustrated attitude. Surveys show the children enjoy farming and the participation contributes to students’ life in a positive way.’

The school is now mid-way through a one-year pilot project supported by the Ministry of Education to demonstrate the potential for this unique food education learning program.

The integrated program doesn’t stop at the school gates, or limit itself to students learning to cook. Every year in the spring, fifth graders travel for an overnight visit to a village near Mount Fuji, where they plant rice in a sizeable plot. Later in the year, they return for the harvest that generates 400 kilograms (880 pounds) of rice that is used for meals during a special ‘harvest week’ the school celebrates late in the year, bringing parents and community volunteers together for meals and activities with the students.

Sixth graders are taught the custom of washoku including the arrangement of bowls, plates and chopsticks in the traditional style of their elders. As the students gain experience in the gardens and kitchen, they begin to differentiate between imported and local foods, said Yamagishi. ‘The students pay attention to domestically grown foods and prefer them,’ he said. ‘I hope (through this program) the students will learn to love their country’s own food.’

The permutations of this food education program at Sanya Elementary are limited only by the imagination of the teachers and students.

One wonders what opportunities such a program could offer urban schools in the region, particularly those in cities like Majuro and Ebeye, where private vendors offer dollar plates of greasy fried chicken and rice to students.

The Sanya elementary teaching program is surely relevant to the Marshall Islands and other Pacific islands, particularly in the urban centers where child nutrition has deteriorated as people shift from a diet of locally grown and caught food to store-bought processed foods. An epidemic of diabetes and other non-communicable diseases is now sweeping through the islands, causing a high level of sickness impacting the workforce and placing a huge financial burden on already cash-strapped hospitals. This school-based food education program is an innovative way of getting students and parents learning about island food culture and preparation, nutrition, and ways to improve their health.

Sanya elementary offers a model that could be exported as part of Japan’s technical assistance to its island allies or through a sister school approach. The Japan International Cooperation Agency already supplies dozens of math and science volunteer teachers to schools around the Pacific, in addition to its export of volunteers in medicine and other areas of expertise. Exporting the Sanya school food education model would be a brilliant extension of cooperation between Japan and the Pacific. Island schools, of course, could simply launch their own integrated food learning programs. But since Japan has developed a model that could easily be hybridized, it offers the opportunity for a culturally appropriate and sustainable intervention that portends improvements in health, academic performance and appreciation and understanding of customs that have governed life for generations but ones that are being lost to urbanized youngsters.

Caption: Fifth grade students at Sanya Elementary School in Tokyo leave nothing behind from their lunches, which are prepared with student participation as part of a food education learning program that integrates gardening, nutrition, cooking and culture. Photo: Giff Johnson.

It has been over a year since your declaration of a ‘Decade (2014-2024) of Sustainable Energy For All’ so we are hereby sharing our ideas about the topic.

Mr. Secretary-General, it is apparent to us that as ‘island nations’ we have one vote only in the United Nations and we have no economic power to engage the issues of climate change. This is not a statement seeking pity or money; this is a statement of fact. Island nations contribute very little to climate change, yet we are the ones losing our land.

Mr. Secretary-General, we ask that you consider our words and share them with others with the resources to combat climate change. We know there are still people out there saying climate change is not happening. Well, we can’t speak for people who live in larger cities and continents and have no clue about what is going on in our part of the world. We can only speak for ourselves. We are seeing greater changes to our environments. High tides that used to come to the shore-line next to the mangroves or next to the rock-walls now come into our porch areas and recently, they have come into our homes. We see subtle changes that we cannot explain. We will leave that for the scientific community to answer. Our place here is to bring the voice of island nations to show what we are going through in the midst of a global political posturing.

Island nations are full of creative, loving, hospitable and caring human beings. We are not characters in travel magazines, or some out of the way noble savages. Let us remember the nuclear testing in the Marshall Islands which happened years ago but which has seen women continue to give birth to babies bearing the effects of radiation. We are not some footnote in history news reels saying we “agree for the benefit of humanity.” Now humanity is benefiting and island nations are forced to be at the front line of the climate change debate. Mr. Secretary-General, once again we are not writing these words to gain your sympathy, we write them to remind you and the United Nations that every action has a consequence, and we are experiencing it right now.

So we propose a simple vision, one that is taken from the last sentence of the preamble of the Constitution of the Republic of Palau which can be used as a road map to create technology, policy and action to deal with climate change. The preamble states, “In establishing this Constitution of the sovereign Republic of Palau, we venture into the future with full reliance on our own efforts and the divine guidance of Almighty God.” We want to highlight how we can venture into the future with full reliance on our own efforts. Remember the old saying, “Give a man a fish and he eats for a day, teach him to fish and he will eat every day.” This is what we propose to create as the vision for the decade.

Climate change and environmental issues can be debated till every expert have had their say but it will not address our problem. We need solutions now and we propose to focus on the following three areas: Human development; low technology solutions; and creating an example of excellence.

Too often we put too much emphasis on economic development believing that a strong economy will create a better society. I beg to differ with this easy and lazy analysis of island nations that we only need to have a more transparent government, a vibrant economy, and a better tax structure to bring in foreign investors and then everything will be better. What this does is it continues to create dependency, not self-reliance. We know no one can be isolated from the global economy but we need to set policies that every nation will try to do for themselves in the best way possible, then incorporate new technology, economy and practices to support what they are already doing. In his book “Foreign Flower” Peter Lamour warns us of the danger of taking one institution and placing it in another country and expecting success. Instead we must seek to understand and respect the values, culture, and practices of a particular nation so an appropriate system can be put in place.

We must focus on human development by training future leaders to be creative, energetic and skilled. These young men and women will be trained to have the skills to address the problems that confront our future. As Albert Einstein said, “we can’t solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them.” We need to ensure future leaders have a sound thinking process so they can adequately solve our problems.

Secondly, we need to create and endorse low-tech solutions that consider our environment and our resources. This can be accomplished when we take our first goal, human development and identify the priority fields for future leaders. We need to encourage our children to become engineers, scientists, teachers or agriculturalists and who can incorporate traditional knowledge with contemporary technology. The best example is of a young engineer who is able to create a diverse low-tech alternative energy solution for island nations. The outline of this system will be how to coordinate our environmental resources; sun, ocean, wind and bio-diesel to create a power generating plant that will not depend on imported fossil fuels and can meet the demands of a growing economy. The system can use solar panels and bio-diesel to maintain the minimum energy required to operate the power plant. The bio-diesel can be produced by creating an aquaculture plant like algae or seaweed for bio-diesel that uses the ocean’s tidal, wave, current and thermal energy to support the production of power.

Thirdly, we can use the wind with kites and wind turbines to help in power production. Other products that can be developed with low-tech solutions are food and transportation. Specifically the call to eat organic local foods is both economically and medically sound and it is better for the environment as it limits our carbon footprint. We could also revive the canoe tradition to remind people we can travel without fossil fuels. Again, these are just ideas but they can happen.

Finally, Mr. Secretary-General, we need to create a model nation that will be a global example of excellence. Albert Bandura’s work on behavior states, “If you want to change how [people] behave, you have to first change how they think.” Mahatma Ghandi also said, “you must be the change you wish to see in the world.” We envision a vibrant and creative future generation that can come up with this type of alternative energy plan and put it to action. This will be a good example the United Nations can honor and point to as a starting point.

Our islands have abundant natural resources that we can draw energy from in a sustainable way – help us to help ourselves and create low-tech solutions for energy provision that can help mitigate the effects of climate change we are already experiencing.

Thank you.

Photo credit: Last months heavy downpour in Kiribati resulted in the overflow of the pond in Anraei Bonriki leading to the flooding of many homes – Humans of Kiribati

The overlay of western-style democracies on centuries old customary practices—that emphasize consensus and harmony, while frowning on openly voiced criticism and complaint—is an ongoing source of tension in many Pacific islands in this modern era. While customary practices of non-confrontation and indirectness may serve the interests of wily political leaders, today’s leaders are confronted with two norms now prevalent in the region: Local populations are, after more than 30 years of political independence, accustomed to democratic practices that include the free exercise of individual rights; and the digital age, in fact the remarkable leaps in connectivity over just the past five years, has generated a level of public information availability and scrutiny of government performance that is unprecedented.

In today’s world, there are global reports on sustainable development, doing business, trafficking in persons, freedom of the press and religion, climate action, money laundering and tax havens, government bankruptcy and debt, and more. They are all now easily accessible to anyone with an Internet connection. No longer can governments control the message, much as some may try. Perhaps more to the point, island governments that not only desire but actively seek benefits from engagement in the world community can, of course, cherry pick the advantages while ignoring the requirements of compliance to gain these benefits—but doing so means the country can suffer reputational risks or, in worst case scenarios, sanctions from other governments and aid agencies.

A couple of cases in point:

• The Marshall Islands suffered the largest demotion of any Pacific nation in the recently released World Bank’s Ease of Doing Business report for 2015, dropping 25 points to a 139 ranking out of 189 countries evaluated. Likewise, the Marshall Islands was the only Pacific nation to be demoted to “Tier 3” (the worst level) on this year’s U.S. State Department Trafficking in Persons report. Whether or not all people reading these reports accept these findings—certainly governments in the spotlight often dispute them vociferously—these reports are in the public domain for anyone to read. And when a country is receiving multiple negative reports, disputing these reports is both futile and lacking in credibility. In the case of the Marshall Islands, when it was listed on the trafficking report’s “Tier 2 Watch List” last year for the second year in a row, the Foreign Minister called the report “BS.” This year, government officials simply did not comment publicly on the trafficking report. On a positive note, efforts to deal with improving capacity to legislate, investigate, prosecute and enforce acceptable standards related to human trafficking have moved into higher gear in recent months, largely as the result of U.S. State Department funding to the International Organization for Migration, which is spearheading collaborative work with Marshall Islands government agencies to address a checklist of problem areas that should move the country off Tier 3. The question that needs to be asked, however, is why did the Marshall Islands government allow it to happen when it has the experience—it successfully removed itself from a global money laundering blacklist over a decade ago and has remained in good standing because of ongoing engagement on the issue—to avoid the demotion?

• The Nauru government’s actions over the past two years have hurt its reputation as a functioning democracy. Among other actions, it recently confiscated the passport of one member of parliament who is in the opposition, and suspended several MPs for speaking to international news media; it cut off access to Facebook for the country (joining such anti-democratic nations as Syria, China and Iran); deported or refused re-entry to two judges, fired its police commissioner, revoked a visa for the expatriate wife of an opposition MP, and made it difficult for opposition MPs to bring in Australian attorneys to represent them in court; and imposed a US$7,000 non-refundable application fee for journalists wishing to visit the island, effectively preventing journalists from covering developments in Nauru. Although these actions recently prompted both Australian and New Zealand leaders to speak with Nauru leaders about democracy issues at home, the Nauru government simply says these are domestic matters and it is following the rule of law. United Nations Special Rapporteur David Kaye, who visited the country earlier this year, had a different view, saying: “It should lift all restrictions to access Internet and social media, and facilitate access to the media in the country. Nauru should revise its course of action and take measures to fulfill its human rights obligations.”

The governance picture is certainly not all bad news in the region. A number of island governments are improving their international reputations by adhering to global governance standards. Papua New Guinea, for example, was the only Pacific nation on “Tier 3” human trafficking status last year, and improved to “Tier 2 Watch List” this year. The Federated States of Micronesia, similarly, was on the “Watch List” last year, and improved its standing to “Tier 2” in 2015.

For the most part, these global rankings evaluate what systems governments have in place to foster what can be described as good governance or best practices. We may not think we have human trafficking or money laundering happening in our countries, but if we have no process for investigating and asking the questions, who can say for sure? No government in the region condones illegal practices, such as human trafficking, but obviously simply being against something is not an adequate response in today’s world where trafficking, terrorist financing and worse are global problems with local ramifications.

The island norm of not asking questions and refraining from open confrontation—generally a necessity for functional democracies—may be most extreme in atoll nations, where getting-along at all costs is simply a requirement of life. Still, even the smallest of our islands need systems in place to promote democracy and accountability, and to reasonably ensure that illegal activities ranging from money laundering to trafficking are not happening. And if they are discovered, there is a mechanism in place for action.

Prior to the Internet age reaching the Pacific and the ramp up in global awareness of best practice systems, most of the Pacific islands were literally on the outer fringes of world consciousness. Not many knew what was happening in our islands, and even fewer cared. Not so anymore. And as countries in our region sign up to international conventions and treaties, take sides at the United Nations on key issues of the day, demand action on climate, fishery and other challenges from developed nations, and seek donor aid for development, there is a price to pay, not so much in dollars and cents, but in government responsibility to meet global good governance standards and in the public obligation to hold our governments accountable for delivering the benefits of this international engagement to people in the community.

Photo: Ebon Atoll in the Marshall Islands, by Megan Coe.

New Zealand wasn’t the only target of French special ops three decades ago. Nor was the Rainbow Warrior.

The attack on the Greenpeace environmental flagship 30 years ago was part of a Pacific-wide strategy to crush pro-independence movements in both New Caledonia and French Polynesia during the 1980s.

And Operation Satanique, as the Rainbow Warrior sabotage plan was aptly named, got the green light because of the political rivalry between then socialist President Francois Mitterrand and right-wing Prime Minister Jacques Chirac that pushed them into point-scoring against each other.

Although misleading and laughable as early New Zealand press reports were about who was responsible for the bombing on 10 July 1985 in Auckland Harbour – focusing on mercenaries, or the French Foreign Legion based in New Caledonia and so on – there was certainly a connection with the neocolonial mind-set of the time.

New Caledonia then had the largest military garrison in the Pacific, about 6000 French Pacific Regiment and other troops, larger than the New Zealand armed forces with about one soldier or paramilitary officer for every 24 citizens in the territory – the nearest Pacific neighbour to Auckland.

New Caledonia … highly militarised with French troops in the mid-1980s.
PHOTO: David Robie

A small Pacific fleet included the nuclear submarine Rubis, reputed to have picked up one unit of the French secret service agents involved in Operation Satanic off the yacht Ouvea and scuttled her in the Coral Sea and then spirited them to safety in Tahiti.

A long line of human rights violations and oppressive acts were carried out against Kanak activists seeking independence starting with a political stand-off in 1984, a year before the Rainbow Warrior bombing.

Parties favouring independence came together that year under an umbrella known as the Front de Libération Nationale Kanake et Socialiste (FLNKS) and began agitating for independence from France with a series of blockades and political demonstrations over the next four years.

The bombed Rainbow Warrior in Auckland Harbour … not the only target of the French military. PHOTO: John Miller/Eyes of Fire

Melanesian activism
The struggle echoed the current Melanesian activism in West Papua today seeking political justice and independence from Indonesian colonial rule.

The Greenpeace tragedy was one of several happening in the Pacific at the time, and this was really overshadowed by the Rongelap evacuation when the Rainbow Warrior crew ferried some 320 islanders, plagued by ill-health from the US atmospheric mega nuclear tests in the 1950s, from their home in the Marshall Islands to a new islet, Mejato, on Kwajalein Atoll.

Rainbow Warrior crew helping Rongelap islanders board the ship for one of four voyages relocating them to Mejato islet in May 1985. PHOTO: David Robie/Eyes of Fire

Over the next few years, after the start of the Kanak uprising, New Caledonia suffered a series of bloody incidents because of hardline French neocolonial policies:

• The Hiènghene massacre on 5 December 1984 when 10 unarmed Kanak political advocates were ambushed by heavily armed mixed-race French settlers on their way home to their village after a political meeting. (Charismatic Kanak independence leader Jean-Marie Tjibaou lost two brothers in that ambush when almost all the menfolk of the village of Tiendanite were gunned down in one deadly night.)
• The assassination of Kanak independence leader Eloï Machoro and his deputy, Marcel Nonaro, by French special forces snipers at dawn on 12 January 1985 during a siege of farmhouse at Dogny, near la Foa.
• The infamous cave siege of Ouvea when French forces used a “news media” helicopter as a ruse to attack 19 young militant Kanaks holding gendarmes hostage, killing most of them and allegedly torturing wounded captives to death. The 11th Shock Unit carried out this attack – the same unit (known then as the Service Action squad) to carry out Operation Satanic against the Rainbow Warrior.
• The human rights violations involved in this attack were exposed in the 2011 docudrama Rebellion (originally L’ordre et la morale) by director Mathieu Kassovitz, based on a book by a hostage negotiator who believed he could have achieved a peaceful resolution.
  [http://www.pjreview.info/sites/default/files/articles/pdfs/PJR18%282%29_Reviews_Rebellion%20pp212-216.pdf ]
• France had its problems in Vanuatu too. Founding Prime Minister Father Walter Lini’s government expelled ambassador Henri Crepin-Leblond shortly before the election on 30 November 1987, accusing Paris of funding the opposition Union of Moderate Parties – a claim denied by the French.

French CRS special police confronting Kanak activists demanding independence in New Caledonia. PHOTO: David Robie

Social scars
The social scars from these events affected France’s standing in the Pacific for many years. While relations have dramatically improved since then, it still rankles with both many New Zealanders and Greenpeace that Paris has never given a full state apology.

Interviewed on Democracy Now! recently, Rainbow Warrior skipper Pete Willcox, who is returning to New Zealand to captain the ship for a tuna fishing campaign, criticised the failure of France to apologise for being “caught red-handed” in state terrorism.

However, the American also delivered a strong warning about climate change – the main contemporary environmental issue.

Explaining his more than three decades of campaigning, Willcox said: “We know what climate change is doing. We’re the richest country in the world. We can support, if you will, a drought.

“Countries like in East Africa and other places of the world, Bangladesh, where it’s going to displace millions of people, can’t deal with it. And it’s coming.

“And it’s only coming because we’re not willing to change the way we produce energy, we make energy. We have the technology. We don’t have the will. And that’s just ridiculous.”

In January 1987, a year after my book Eyes of Fire was first published – four months before the first Fiji military coup, I was arrested at gunpoint by French troops near the New Caledonian village of Canala.

Tailed by agents
The arrest followed a week of me being tailed by secret agents in Noumea. When I was handed over by the military to local gendarmes for interrogation, accusations of my being a “spy” and questions over my book on the Rainbow Warrior bombing were made in the same breath.

But after about four hours of questioning I was released.

David Robie presenting an earlier edition of Eyes of Fire to former Vanuatu Prime Minister Ham Lini in 2006. PHOTO: Pacific Media Centre

This drama over my reporting of the militarisation of East Coast villages in an attempt by French authorities to harass and suppress supporters of Kanak independence was a reflection of the paranoia at the time.

Then it seemed highly unlikely that in less than two decades nuclear testing would be finally abandoned in the South Pacific, and Tahiti’s leading nuclear-free and pro-independence politician, Oscar Manutahi Temaru, would emerge as French Polynesia’s new president four times and usher in a refreshing “new order” with a commitment to pan-Pacific relations.

Although Tahitian independence is nominally off the agenda for the moment, far-reaching changes in the region are inevitable.

President Baldwin Lonsdale remarked about the Rainbow Warrior bombing in a welcome for the ship’s namesake, Rainbow Warrior III, in Port Vila recently on her post-cyclone humanitarian mission.

He recalled how the Vanuatu government representative, the late Charles Rara, sent by founding Prime Minister Walter Lini on board the Rainbow Warrior to New Zealand, had been ashore on the night of the bombing. Rara was at the home of President Lonsdale at St John’s Theological College in Auckland, where he was studying.

The late Charles Rara, Vanuatu’s “diplomatic” representative on board the Rainbow Warrior bound for Auckland in 1985. PHOTO: David Robie/Eyes of Fire

“When Charles got back to the ship that night, he found the Rainbow Warrior had been bombed, it had been destroyed,” President Lonsdale said.

“I think the main intention of the French [military] who carried out the bombing was because the Greenpeace movement was trying to bring about peace and justice among island nations.”

‘Living reef’
After being awarded $8 million in compensation from France by the International Arbitration Tribunal, Greenpeace finally towed the Rainbow Warrior to Matauri Bay and scuttled her off Motutapere, in the Cavalli Islands, on 12 December 1987 to create a “living reef”.

An earlier compensation deal for New Zealand mediated in 1986 by United Nations Secretary-General Javier Perez de Cuellar awarded the Government $13 million (US$7 million) – the money was used for an anti-nuclear projects fund and the Pacific Development and Conservation Trust.

The agreement was supposed to include an apology by France and deportation of jailed secret agents Alain Mafart and Dominique Prieur after they had served less than a year of their 10-year sentences for manslaughter and wilful damage of the bombed ship (downgraded from charges of murder, arson and conspiracy).

They were transferred from New Zealand to Hao Atoll in French Polynesia to serve three years in exile at a “Club Med” style nuclear and military base.

But the bombing scandal didn’t end there. The same day as the scuttling of the Rainbow Warrior in 1987, the French government told New Zealand that Major Mafart had a “serious stomach complaint”. The French authorities repatriated him back to France in defiance of the terms of the United Nations agreement and protests from the David Lange government.

It was later claimed by a Tahitian newspaper, Les Nouvelles, that Mafart was smuggled out of Tahiti on a false passport hours before New Zealand was even told of the “illness”. Mafart reportedly assumed the identity of a carpenter, Serge Quillan.

Captain Prieur was also repatriated back to France in May 1988 because she was pregnant. France ignored the protests by New Zealand and the secret agent pair were honoured, decorated and promoted in their homeland.

Supreme irony
A supreme irony that such an act of state terrorism should be rewarded in this age of a so-called “war on terrorism”.

In 2005, their lawyer, Gerard Currie, tried to block footage of their guilty pleas in court – shown on closed circuit to journalists at the time but not previously seen publicly – from being broadcast by the Television New Zealand current affairs programme Sunday.

Losing the High Court ruling in May 2005, the two former agents appealed against the footage being broadcast. They failed and the footage was finally broadcast by Television New Zealand on 7 August 2006 – almost two decades later.

French secret agent Alain Mafart pleads guilty to reduced charges of manslaughter and wilful damage in November 1985 (courtroom CCTV footage). PHOTO: TVNZ

They had lost any spurious claim to privacy over the act of terrorism by publishing their own memoirs – Agent Secrète (Prieur, 1995) and Carnets Secrets (Mafart, 1999).

Mafart recalled in his book how the international media were dumbfounded that the expected huge High Court trial had “evaporated before their eyes”, describing his courtroom experience:

I had an impression of being a mutineer from the Bounty … but in this case the gallows would not be erected in the village square. Three courteous phrases were exchanged between [the judge] and our lawyers, the charges were read to us and the court asked us whether we pleaded guilty or not guilty. Our replies were clear: ‘Guilty!’ With that one word the trial was at an end.

Ironically, Mafart much later became a wildlife photographer, under the moniker Alain Mafart-Renodier, and filed his pictures through the Paris-based agency Bios with a New York office. Greenpeace US engaged an advertising agency to produce the 2015 environmental calendar illustrated with wildlife images.

As Greenpeace chronicler and photojournalist Pierre Gleizes describes it: “Incredibly bad luck, out of millions, the agency bought one of Alain Mafart’s pictures to illustrate a Greenpeace calendar. Fortunately, someone saw that before it got distributed. So Mafart got his fee but 40,000 calendars were destroyed.”

French nuclear swansong
France finally agreed to sign the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty after a final swansong package of eight planned nuclear tests in 1996 to provide data for simulation computer software.

But such was the strength of international hostility and protests and riots in Pape’ete that Paris ended the programme prematurely after just six tests.

France officially ratified the treaty on 10 September 1996.

When Tahitians elected Oscar Temaru as their territorial president in 2004, he had already established the first nuclear-free municipality in the Pacific Islands as mayor of the Pape’ete airport suburb of Faa’a.

Having ousted the conservative incumbent for the previous two decades, Gaston Flosse – the man who gave Mafart and Prieur a hero’s welcome to Tahiti, Temaru lost office just four months later.

He was reinstated to power in early 2005 after a byelection confirmed his overwhelming support. But since then Temaru has won and lost office twice more, most recently in 2013, and Flosse is fighting ongoing corruption charges.

Since the Temaru coalition first came to power, demands have increased for a full commission of inquiry to investigate new evidence of radiation exposure in the atmospheric nuclear tests in the Gambiers between 1966 and 1974.

‘Contempt’ for Polynesia
Altogether France detonated 193 of a total of 210 nuclear tests in the South Pacific, 46 of them dumping more than nine megatons of explosive energy in the atmosphere – 42 over Moruroa and four over Fangataufa atolls.

The Green Party leader in Tahiti, Jacky Bryant, accused the French Defence Ministry of having “contempt” for the people of Polynesia.

Replying to ministry denials in May 2005 claiming stringent safety and health precautions, he said: “It’s necessary to stop saying that the Tahitians don’t understand anything about these kinds of questions – they must stop this kind of behaviour from another epoch.”

Bryant compared the French ministry’s reaction with the secretive and arrogant approach of China and Russia.

However, Britain and the United States had reluctantly “recognised the consequences of nuclear tests on the populations” in Australia, Christmas Island, the Marshall Islands and Rongelap.

In 2009, the French National Assembly finally passed nuclear care and compensation legislation, known as the Morin law after Defence Minister Hervé Morin who initiated it. It has been consistently criticised as far too restrictive and of little real benefit to Polynesians.

In 2013, declassified French defence documents exposed that the nuclear tests were “far more toxic” than had been previously acknowledged. Le Parisien reported that the papers “lifted the lid on one of the biggest secrets of the French army”.

It said that the documents indicated that on 17 July 1974, a test had exposed the main island of Tahiti, and the nearby tourist resort isle of Bora Bora, to plutonium fallout 500 times the maximum level.

US radiation fallout
This had been echoed almost two decades earlier when The Washington Post reported that US analysts had admitted that radiation fallout from their nuclear tests of the 1950s was “limited”.

In fact, federal documents, according to The Post in the February 1994 article, had revealed that “the post-explosion cloud of radioactive materials spread hundreds of [kilometres] beyond the limited area earlier described in the vast range Pacific islands”.

Thousands of Marshall Islanders and “some US troops” had probably been exposed to radiation, the documents suggested.

“One of the biggest crimes here is that the US government seemed to clearly know the extent of the fallout coming, but made no attempt to protect people from it,” said Washington-based lawyer Jonathan Weisgall, author of Operation Crossroads, a book about the Marshall Islands nuclear tests.

The Rainbow Warrior bombing with the death of photographer Fernando Pereira was a callous tragedy. But the greater tragedy remains the horrendous legacy of the Pacific nuclear testing on the people of Rongelap and the Marshall Islands and French Polynesia.

More information about the Rainbow Warrior affair can be found here.

Every week seems to bring a new revelation about un-democratic behavior by its national leadership undermining the rule of law. And despite denials this past week of bribery involving current Nauru government leaders by an Australian company, payoffs to political leaders are hardly a new phenomenon in Nauru, or indeed in the Pacific.

The justification advanced for ordering Digicel, Nauru’s single telecom service, to eliminate access to Facebook is as thin—‘to prevent access to pornography’—as the list of nations that ban Facebook, which includes such notoriously anti-democratic nations as N. Korea, Iran and China.

Should the region shrug this off as something we may not like, but it’s none of our business? After all, Nauru is just 10,000 people on a tiny bit of land in the central Pacific that, save for its now expanding Nauru Airlines, would be one of the most isolated countries in the world. In former U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger’s immortal—if apocryphal—comment about Micronesia, ‘Who gives a damn?’

The Australian and New Zealand governments cared a lot about democracy, or lack thereof, in Fiji by imposing a slew of sanctions after then-Army Chief Frank Bainimarama’s coup in 2006. Many of these remained in effect for eight years until Fiji’s national elections last September. Nauru doesn’t have an army to mount a coup. Still, to date, Nauru’s current government has:

• Arrested and deported Nauru’s Magistrate Peter Law in January 2014 while Law was preparing an inquiry into the death of Justice Minister David Adeang’s wife, who burned to death outside the family home in April 2013. Nauru also cancelled the visa for its Chief Justice Geoffrey Eames to return to work from vacation last year.
• Fired its Australian police commissioner as an investigation into bribery allegations involving Nauru President Baron Waqa and Justice Minister Adeang was in progress.
• Directed Digicel to shut off access to Facebook for the nation and subsequently refused to let the general manager of Digicel back into the country.
• Suspended five opposition senators from the 18-seat parliament chamber over a year ago.
• Revoked the visa of Katy Le Roy, legal counsel to the Nauru parliament and wife of suspended opposition MP Roland Kun, so she cannot enter the country.
• Imposed a non-refundable US$7,000 application fee for any off-island journalist interested to visit Nauru, effectively preventing foreign media from visiting Nauru.

We might well ask, ‘what’s next?’ To date, only the United States government has issued a statement of concern over Nauru’s ban on Facebook.

Why is the Australian government mum on the subject of Nauru? Radio Australia last week quoted Nauru’s former Solicitor General, Australian Steven Bliim, discussing Nauru’s sacking of its previous police commissioner as his investigation into bribery of Nauru leaders by Australian company Getax was advancing. Bliim also briefed Australian government officials after leaving Nauru last year. He was surprised by their lack of interest. “The reaction of the politicians at the time was dismissive, indicating that it was purely an internal Nauruan affair, which seemed at odds with the sort of reaction that was taken, for instance, when the Fiji coups occurred,” Bliim told Radio Australia. “This wasn’t as overt as what happened in Fiji, but the effect of it has been very similar where the country has failed to abide by its own laws and it’s effectively taken steps to make itself not accountable.”

The self-interest of the asylum seekers holding facility on Nauru is clearly the driver of relations between Australia and Nauru now. Nauru is receiving significant funding from Australia for hosting the controversial facility and the Nauru detention center is a key element in Australia’s policy for interdicting refugees aiming for Australia.

The Nauru government has taken to issuing terse statements critical of media reporting as international scrutiny of these issues has expanded. Among these denials includes the assertion this past week that Nauru’s legal system is arguably the most independent, transparent and credible in the Pacific. But this assertion is far from reality. In point of fact, a 2012-2014 governance and transparency assessment of the judiciaries in the 14 independent Pacific nations by the Pacific Judicial Development Programme gives Nauru one of the lowest ratings in the region. The Marshall Islands was at the top in both 2012 and 2014 by meeting all 15 agreed-to indicators for transparency and governance in court operations, and Palau met 14 of these in 2012 and 15 last year. Nauru, however, met only two in 2012 and as of the latest update in April this year, had not filed a report on these indicators for 2014.

A United Nations Special Rapporteur last month raised concerns about recently adopted amendments to Nauru’s Criminal Code, and called on the government to withdraw the legislation restricting freedom of expression. New amendments prohibit use of language that is threatening, abusive or insulting in nature and has the intention to stir up racial, political or religious hatred—which critics say could be used to muzzle political opposition in the lead up to next year’s election.

“Nauru should allow free space for expression without fear of criminal prosecution,” said Special Rapporteur David Kaye. “It should lift all restrictions to access internet and social media, and facilitate access to the media in the country. Nauru should revise its course of action and take measures to fulfill its human rights obligations.”

Unless Nauru’s neighbors, including Australia and New Zealand, get involved in encouraging Nauru to adhere to democratic norms that prevail in this region—including unrestricted debates in parliament, open access to the Internet, and maintaining an independent judiciary—it seems likely the government of Nauru will continue undermining opportunities for its citizens to enjoy freedoms taken for granted in most democracies. This should concern the Pacific Islands Forum, which brings together leaders, governments and island communities over shared goals of democracy, good governance and accountability. Ignoring developments in Nauru undermines the Forum and island leaders’ stated objective of promoting regionalism and raising the quality of life based on the Pacific’s commitment to sustainable development and accountability of governments to their citizens.

In the UNDP’s Human Development Report, only three Pacific nations rank in the “High Human Development” category, with Palau the Pacific leader at number 60 globally. Fiji (88) and Tonga (100) are the others. Samoa, Federated States of Micronesia, Vanuatu and Kiribati make it into the “Medium Human Development” list at numbers 106, 124, 131 and 133, respectively, while Papua New Guinea and the Solomon Islands tied at 157 join mostly African nations in the “Low Human Development” list. Other island nations were not evaluated.

Three of the seven Pacific nations evaluated by the U.S. State Department for Trafficking in Persons are on Tier 2 Watch List or Tier 3—indicating countries that are not in compliance with minimum standards under the U.S. Trafficking Victims Protection Act (TVPA) of 2000. This includes Papua New Guinea (Tier 3) and the Marshall Islands and Solomon Islands on Tier 2 Watch List.

Of the 14 Forum island countries, only five—Cook Islands, Fiji, Niue, Palau, and Tonga—are on track to implement a majority of the seven millennium development goals by next year, according to the Pacific Islands Forum. The other nine are managing to make progress on only one or two MDGs or, as with Papua New Guinea, are off-track on all seven.

Are these reports useful to Pacific island governments? Do they contain information that should be used by individual governments as a basis for improvement?

The short answer is, “yes.” Since performance audits tend to be few and far between, how islands are doing in development, business, trafficking, health and education are key public interest questions. Trying to outrank developed nations that are in the top 10 of various global studies is not a likely scenario for any island nation. But moving from the bottom half of a list to the top half shouldn’t be out of the realm of possibility for many islands in our region.

One of the challenges is that while there are now reams of data available on country performance in every category—both from these international rankings and from domestic planning and statistics offices—political leaders in many island nations grew up in an era where there was little data available and decision-making based on performance indicators and information was virtually impossible. So decisions were made based on whatever set of assumptions leaders brought to the table.

Today, United Nations agencies and big donors in the region such as the United States, Australia and Japan are all aiming for performance, poverty reduction, and invigorating moribund economies heavily dependent on donor aid and government employment. Yet many of our decision makers discount the data being provided.

A classic example was the report for the Marshall Islands, “Juumemmej: Republic of the Marshall Islands Social and Economic Report 2005,” which was attacked by the country’s ruling party in parliament for bluntly talking about poverty and other social problems in the country. Despite the presentation of significant data to support its observations and recommendations, the report was largely discounted by political leaders.

Occasionally, however, governments use these performance reports to galvanize action. In the late 1990s, the Marshall Islands was placed on a global money laundering blacklist by the international Financial Action Task Force (FATF). Because of the significant harm this blacklisting had on banks and business and government operations in the country, an inter-agency group was organized to address the problem. The government brought together such entities as the Banking Commissioner, local banks, National Police, Attorney General’s office, Trust Company of the Marshall Islands (which manages a ship registry and an offshore corporate registry) to deal with the FATF report. It took about two years of concerted legal work, updating laws, putting various anti-money laundering mechanisms in place, training police to investigate financial crimes, engaging with the international community on the issue, and so on. It produced a positive result: the Marshall Islands was removed from the blacklist and has stayed off because of continued engagement.

During November, a newly established government Office of Commerce and Investment in the Marshall Islands called together government ministry and agency representatives and also local government mayors to review the World Bank’s Doing Business report 2015 on the Marshall Islands. There is no reason the Marshall Islands couldn’t have a better ranking in the World Bank’s Doing Business report. But government legislation, policies and actions are what determine the ranking. What businesses need—Pacific wide—is not more rhetoric from government about how it supports the private sector. They need government agencies and departments to work together to streamline and improve their operations to make life easier for businesses, and put the needs of the private sector, not their government offices, as the priority.

The Office of Commerce and Investment’s proactive response to the World Bank’s report card on doing business in the Marshall Islands is one of the only a handful of times over recent years that the government has taken steps to address this type of performance evaluation. Often, task forces have been established by government, research conducted, reports written, recommendations submitted. And then—nothing. The reports are simply ignored and time renders them moot.

No doubt this situation is hardly unique to the Marshall Islands. Whether proactive government agencies or those in the non-government sector can get the support at the political level to make legislative and policy changes needed to improve government services and performance only time will tell as the information and performance era is up against the thinking of many politicians who are not prone to taking action based on words in a report.

The Parties to the Nauru Agreement (PNA) group are going to be the leading force pushing for ramped up rules to prevent overfishing of tuna in the region at next week’s meeting. But will they be successful in the face of a fishing industry reluctant to change?

Just as PNA-member Kiribati shocked the United States purse seine fishing industry in early October when it announced it would not provide thousands of fishing days to U.S. vessels as it had in the past, the extent to which the PNA will go to limit and in some cases reduce tuna fishing in the Pacific may surprise distant water fishing nations. What it comes down to is Pacific islands taking control of the tuna resource and forcing the industry, long controlled by distant water nations, to follow the rules laid down by the islands.

Many people in PNA are less than optimistic about the chances of getting the WCPFC to take decisive action next week in light of its inability to do so the past several years. “Looking ahead, PNA members will likely need to reassess their approach to bigeye conservation and management if our measure is not approved at WCPFC 11 in Samoa in light of the burden of bigeye conservation and management being placed on small island developing states through the current conservation and management measure,” said Dr. Transform Aqorau, CEO of the PNA, last week. His point: the PNA have already ratcheted up conservation measures in their 200-mile zones—limiting the use of fish aggregation devices, for example—but the WCPFC has not followed suit for the high seas, where most of the longliners, which target bigeye tuna, are fishing.

Pacific islands and distant water fishing nations have been put on notice by the latest regional stock assessment that catches, particularly for bigeye, a tuna coveted by the Asian, American and European sashimi market, must be capped or reduced. The scientists recommended a reduction in bigeye tuna fishing, no increase in catch levels for yellowfin tuna, and setting limits on fishing for skipjack tuna to maintain stocks at current healthy levels. But none of this is doable if the WCPFC fails to act.

The Parties to the Nauru Agreement have put a detailed plan of action on the table that aims to reel in largely out-of-control longline fishing on the high seas and to reduce the use of “fish aggregation devices” — or FADs — that lead to large catches of juvenile bigeye.

But the Fisheries Commission has failed to take decisive action in the past several annual meetings. PNA and Forum Fisheries Agency islands are becoming increasingly disillusioned with the unwillingness of distant water fishing nations to agree to needed cutbacks in fishing for bigeye, as well as limiting catches of yellowfin and skipjack tuna.

And they are showing this by turning the industry on its head. Last month, despite an historic US$90 million one-year fisheries deal reached in Honolulu, all sides say the Pacific’s long-term treaty with the United States must be redrawn. This fisheries deal sparked much media reporting and comment, especially when Kiribati announced it was going to provide only a fraction of the fishing days the U.S. fleet was seeking. Why is Kiribati not providing days to the U.S. fleet through the treaty? It’s about business.

During the most recent negotiating session between the U.S. and the 17 island nations that benefit from the U.S. treaty, the U.S. was shocked to hear Kiribati say it would offer only 300 days for U.S. vessels to use under the treaty—after providing several thousand days annually in recent years. But the U.S. shouldn’t have been surprised by this latest development. It’s been in the offing since 2010.

While leaders from the Forum island countries have said they want their fisheries officials to extend the treaty with the U.S., PNA nations are less than enthusiastic. Why? Because under the treaty, a price is locked in for U.S. access to fishing days that, in the view of PNA countries, undervalues the days. Many PNA countries don’t like being locked into providing days to the U.S. treaty—which requires 8,000 fishing days per year in PNA waters—because they can usually sell those days to other fleets for more money. While the minimum price of a fishing day in 2014 has been US$6,000, we’ve seen days sell for as high as US$13,000 because of heavy demand. In October, virtually all days for the year were sold and fishing companies were scrambling to buy or trade a few more days to continue fishing until the end of the year—a situation that puts a financial premium on days, to the benefit of the islands. But under the U.S. treaty, a price is locked in for the year: the Forum Fisheries Agency gets a management fee for administering the treaty, 15 percent is split equally among all 17 islands, and a few other deductions reduce what is left to pay the islands where U.S. purse seiners actually catch the fish.

With most of the fishing the past two years focused in Kiribati’s vast EEZ, Kiribati knows it can command a premium price because virtually all fleets want to fish in their waters. According to PNA, Kiribati’s message to the U.S. is not ‘don’t fish in our waters’. Instead, Kiribati wants to sell days bilaterally to the U.S.—outside of the treaty—as it does with other fleets so it can control the price.

Another development that has turned the industry upside down is Papua New Guinea’s National Fisheries Authority’s successful public tender of fishing days conducted last month. Although the minimum price for fishing days in 2015 is US$8,000, through the tender, PNG gained payment as high as $12,000 per day. Through the public tender, PNG restructured the number of days allocated to domestic and distant water fishing nation vessels, and addressed the ongoing problem that offloading tuna for domestic processing has not kept pace with requirements for distant water vessels or concessions provided to domestic vessels.

The tender put distant water fishing nations on notice that compliance with agreements that require vessels to land fish for processing will be enforced, pointing out that despite fishing access agreements requiring fishing boats to land 10 percent of their catches in PNG, “not one fish has ever been landed for processing.”

The actions of both Kiribati and PNG have been made possible by the PNA’s “vessel day scheme” (VDS) that allocates a certain number of fishing days for the year to each member country and establishes a minimum day price.  That price has skyrocketed with tuna revenues accruing to PNA members quadrupling, showing how the VDS has allowed PNA to shape the industry over the past five years.

In Apia, PNA faces its greatest challenge: Gaining agreement of distant water fishing nations to reduce mortality of bigeye tuna by reducing catches of longliners and most importantly, getting the Asian longline industry to provide operational catch data that for 10 years it has refused to give to the WCPFC, despite it being an obligation of membership. PNA is calling for catch levels to be cut further for nations that continue to avoid providing operational catch data—which is essential to estimating the total harvest every year and to producing accurate stock assessments.

Bigeye tuna is on the edge of an abyss, and whether it continues to be a billion dollar global industry will be determined by actions taken by islands and distant water fishing nations to reduce catches of both longliners and purse seiners. If these actions don’t come about next week in Apia, the PNA will be forced to do what it has done in the past: make rules for high seas tuna conservation that are a requirement for fishing in PNA zones.