“The Pacific Ocean is a vital regulator of climate for the whole world and needs a voice.  We, the Polynesian Leaders Group, are the voice for the Pacific Ocean, and wish to carry our strategic vision to deal with the adverse effects of climate change by limiting global warming below 1.5 (degrees Celsius) and having access to tools and means to adapt to the adverse impacts caused by climate change.”

The latest gathering of the Polynesian Leaders Group (PLG) have met in French Polynesia and issued the Taputapuatea Declaration demanding action to keep global land temperature rise at no more than 1.5 degrees Celsius by the year 2100.

The group represents Samoa, Tonga, Tahiti and French Polynesia, Niue, the Cook Islands, Tokelau and Tuvalu.

Their leaders say that their collective EEZs amount to 10 million square kilometres and is one of the biggest carbon sinks in the world, like the largest forests. The full declaration can be downloaded from the Samoan government website.

Acknowledging their vulnerabilities, the declaration implores:

“We want the voice of the Polynesians to be heard at the COP21 in Paris with regards to the intensification of extreme weather events, the loss of territorial integrity, the displacements of populations, the deterioration of our natural and cultural heritage and the management of our common ocean.

We, the Polynesian Leaders Group, state that our islands and peoples are at the frontline of devastation from climate change.

We are victims of climate change. We must be heard. We call for justice and our right of survival.”

Their urgent appeal comes amid dire warnings from a new report by former NASA climate scientist James Hansen and 16 colleagues which claim that:

Glaciers in Greenland and Antarctica will melt 10 times faster than previous consensus estimates, resulting in sea level rise of at least 10 feet in as little as 50 years.

Despite Pacific islanders taking the lead on establishing renewable energy economies at home and demanding action on climate change internationally, they know little can be done to keep targets under 2 degrees if the big players – the US, China and India – don’t get serious. They are also disappointed that two of their most important Pacific partners, Australia and New Zealand, are currently ruled by conservative governments that are paying little more than lip service to climate change and appear to be hostage to the fossil fuel industry.

Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott’s recent attempts to cut funding to renewable energy subsidies for solar and wind power, after scrapping the carbon tax on polluters, continue to outrage social and business commentators, even drawing criticism from fellow conservative politicians in the UK.

Aside from the Polynesian declaration, Micronesian leaders are also on the front foot, asking that any looming UN climate deal must be “shorter and clearer”.

“It should be something that people can understand, be able to work with and negotiate from,” said chief diplomat from the Marshall Islanda, Tony de Brum. As this article suggests: “the current version of the draft text is a bewildering 85-page list of options, incorporating the demands of the nearly 200 nations participating in the process.”

Tony de Brum is also named in this list as among the top officials currently working in climate change diplomacy.

France, as host for the 2015 summit in December this year, is mindful it does not want its Paris summit to be characterized by failure like the Copenhagen summit was in 2009, and has been spending diplomatic capital to bring various parties together behind the scenes.

France and the UN face a big challenge bringing the big emitters to some kind of binding agreement, but they will have the Pacific nations on side, as Pacific leaders fight to have their voices heard.

It is one thing to have a change of government, but it is another thing altogether to bring changes to the system and to change how things are being done; changes to policies, legislations, and practices.

It was Albert Einstein who said: “Insanity is when you do the same thing over and over again, and expect different results.”

An unbending bureaucracy

Reformers who take over the reigns of government are often confronted with an unrelenting and stiff bureaucracy that refuses to do anything different from what it has been doing for decades.

In fact the bureaucracy dogmatically sticks to tradition as its guiding light to anything and everything it does. The bureaucratic system makes it an important duty to resist the facilitation of change.

The view from the traditional bureaucratic body is that changes could bring instability, never mind about improvement to something that may not be working well at all.

The argument is that if changes are to improve the state of things, there must also be stability – or guarding the way things had always been – to the system.

It is no wonder that some reformers of the past have found it necessary to overhaul the system, and in some cases “overthrow” the existing bureaucracy and replace it with another one more conducive to carrying out what they want done.

It is often a case of leadership doing the ‘right thing’ colliding with a bureaucracy just doing things the ‘right way’.

But there is nothing wrong with doing the right things the right way, as long as the so-called right way does not hinder doing the right things.

Reformers sometimes complain that it is hard to work with a bureaucracy that is overly concerned with doing things the right way, that it does not give much care as to what is actually being done.

A case in point is what is happening in the Kingdom of Tonga, whose reformist government came into power only six months ago. Although much has been accomplished so far in such a short time, there are obvious tensions that have arisen between the reformist governors and the existing bureaucracy.

One of the high performing ministers of the government has often had a run-in with the bureaucracy.

The complaint from the bureaucracy has been that this minister is too much in haste in carrying out his duties, at the expense of the necessary processes. He apparently does things like starting out a project before he applies for the procurement – the process of obtaining funding as budgeted – for the project.

The minister argues that the “procurement process” which is carried out by the Ministry of Finance is often late in responding to the need.

He explains it this way: “If a child falls into the water at the wharf, we must jump in and rescue the child immediately… because it is an urgent matter. If we wait the child may lose its life.”

“Before we do anything to rescue the child, if we stand around to conduct an inquiry into who the parents of the child are, and how he fell into the water, and who may have been responsible, we will be too late to rescue the child.”

He added: “we must rescue this child immediately as a matter of urgency, and then we can conduct the inquiry into the details of who he may be later; that way we save his life first.”

On the other hand, the minister’s critics have pointed to the fact that the minister must in all cases apply the right processes so that no laws or statutory requirements are violated.

The civil service in any country constitutes the eyes, ears, hands, and feet of government. The civil service carries out the execution of government decisions, and the implementation of policies.

It is vital to note that the civil service that served previous governments is essentially the same civil service that serves the new and existing government.

A change in government promises changes (as promised by during a campaign) to what it will do for the people, and the policies it will carry out.

And so changes to the government usually involves a change in leadership, who in turn bring changes to policies and practices to be carried out during its term of government.

But here is the trap. Changes can take place in terms of who is the prime minister and who are the ministers of the different departments and ministries, but nothing will really make a difference unless there are clear changes to the policies and practices of government, and changes to those who carry them out ‘in the engine room of the ship of government.’

Using the illustration of government being a ship, we can change the captain and officers, but unless we give clear directions as to where the ship is sailing, and also make sure the people operating the ship are trained and equipped to carry out the orders of the new captain and officers, there will be problems.

The problems could be that by the time new policies and new practices are implemented, the term of government may already be over. Thus, it is not only important to have a new government reformist in its policies, but that there is a civil service equipped with the necessary knowledge and tools to facilitate the work of reform.

There are very few places in the pacific where this is taking place. The nations that experience the unfortunate changes to government in so many votes-of-no-confidence do not necessarily bring change.

The ship is still heading in the same direction, but despite changes at the top, the crew is carrying out the same duties with very little change to their performance, and thus the outcome produced is the same.

A challenging culture

Institutional bureaucracy often reflects the culture it finds itself in. This is so much truer in the Pacific than most other places. The reason being, is that nations of the Pacific are very steeped in culture, and each of their cultures are not just part of the material cultures of the region, but more so are practiced patterns of behavior rooted in unique belief systems.

The culture of a Pacific nation becomes the basis of identity, and as such, culture is often defended passionately as if one’s life depends on it.

In Samoa, we have the Faa-Samoa (the Samoan way) or the Faka-Tonga as in Tonga. The Fijians too have the Fijian way of doing things, and not to comply is to break protocol with their traditions.

As one Samoan chief stated: “There are three ways of doing things – the right way, the wrong way, and the Samoan way.” Then he added: “The Samoan way is of course the best way!”

As all cultures are, they constitute the behavioral patterns that form the fabric of social intercourse.

Culture governs how we relate to one another. Culture provides the legitimate framework by which we conduct our relationships with others.

It informs the protocols we hold to in everything we do socially.

Culture brings about a sense of formality and continuity to what is otherwise a fluid conduct of our relationships, personally and corporately.

But culture can also be a stumbling block in a society attempting to reform itself.

Reformers often find themselves in tension with cultural norms. There are very few cultural practices in the Pacific that cannot be legislated against.

Almost every Pacific island nation has a cultural practice that had to be abolished as a result of reform, which included the establishment of the rule of law.

In 1862, slavery was abolished in Tonga by a decree of King George Tupou I who was a Christian reformer. He drafted legislation pronouncing ‘emancipation’ to all slaves in Tonga.

There were those who opposed his reformist action, but in the end he liberated Tongan society from slavery.

Despite this act of emancipation, the practice of slavery took many years to eventually cease as people – chiefs in particular – were still holding on to attitudes and behaviors that advocated slavery.

One of the things reformers find it hard to reconcile in the Kingdom of Tonga, for example, is a law which grants a salary to the nobles, not because of any performance or work they do, but just because they hold a noble’s title.

An annual stipend of about $10,000 pa’anga a year is awarded to every noble in Tonga. There is no just reason why they should receive such pay, but in a culture of entitlement for leaders, not too many people in Tonga question it.

Some would argue that there are opportunities for reform on many issues in Tonga, especially now that it has its first democratically elected ‘commoner’ prime minister in ‘Akilisi Pohiva. One such issue that I will address in my next blog centers on women’s rights and the struggle to pass CEDAW legislation.

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.