VZCZCXRO3545
RR RUEHKN RUEHKR RUEHMJ RUEHPB
DE RUEHSV #0341/01 2402328
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
R 282328Z AUG 06
FM AMEMBASSY SUVA
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC 3256
INFO RUEHBJ/AMEMBASSY BEIJING 0195
RUEHBY/AMEMBASSY CANBERRA 1270
RUEHKN/AMEMBASSY KOLONIA 0140
RUEHKR/AMEMBASSY KOROR 0079
RUEHMJ/AMEMBASSY MAJURO 0592
RUEHFR/AMEMBASSY PARIS 0051
RUEHPB/AMEMBASSY PORT MORESBY 0880
RUEHWL/AMEMBASSY WELLINGTON 1062
RUEHIN/AIT TAIPEI 0158
RHHMUNA/HQ USPACOM HONOLULU HI
RHHJJAA/JICPAC HONOLULU HI

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 03 SUVA 000341 
 
SIPDIS 
 
SENSITIVE 
SIPDIS 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: AORC PREL EFIS EAID SENV SPC PIF XV
SUBJECT: PACIFIC THOUGHTS ON RESTRUCTURE OF REGIONAL 
ORGANIZATIONS - ACTION REQUEST 
 
 
Summary 
------- 
¶1. (U) Pacific leaders tasked a group of experts to consider 
ways regional agencies might be rationalized.  The experts' 
report advocates realigning 10 regional agencies into three 
pillars.  The Pacific Island Forum (PIF), the regional 
policy-oriented body, would acquire policy/negotiation 
aspects of the Forum Fisheries Agency (FFA).  The Secretariat 
of the Pacific Community (SPC) would become an umbrella, 
amalgamating Pacific technical agencies, including the 
Secretariat of the Pacific Regional Environmental Agency 
 
SIPDIS 
(SPREP), the South Pacific Applied Geoscience Commission 
(SOPAC), and technical aspects of the FFA.  The third pillar, 
regional educational institutions, would be unchanged. 
 
¶2. (SBU) Given that the USG is a member of the SPC and SPREP 
and contributes to those agencies' funding, the 
technical-pillar proposal deserves particular attention from 
the U.S.  The aim of amalgamation is to consolidate oversight 
of regional technical assistance, minimize redundancies, and 
increase cost efficiency, though the proposal advocates 
against any shift of current agency locations.  An aspect 
that remains unclear to us is what impact, if any, the 
amalgamation would have on SPC contributions for governments 
like the U.S. that are members of some but not all the 
technical agencies.  The proposal will be considered at a 
Forum Officials Conference (FOC) just prior to this year's 
PIF meeting, now expected to be held in Nadi, Fiji, in late 
October.  Action request: please provide USG comments or 
questions well in advance of the FOC.  End summary. 
 
Expert review of Pacific regional-organization structures 
--------------------------------------------- ------------ 
¶3. (U) The Pacific Plan Action Committee met in Nadi, Fiji, 
on August 24-25 to consider a broad agenda.  Included were 
reports from a group of regional experts tasked to consider 
proposals for "Reforming the Pacific Regional Institutional 
Framework" and for revising the Post-Forum Dialogue (see 
septel).  The U.S. and French embassies in Suva sought and 
received the opportunity to observe those latter two 
sessions. 
 
Juggling "political" and "technical" agencies 
--------------------------------------------- 
¶4. (U) The experts group recommended a major restructuring of 
the ten regional agencies represented on the Council of 
Regional Organizations in the Pacific (CROP): the PIF; the 
SPC; SPREP; FFA; SOPAC; Fiji School of Medicine (FSM); 
Pacific Islands Development Program (PIDP); South Pacific 
Board of Educational Assessment (SPBEA); South Pacific 
Tourism Organization (SPTO); and the University of the South 
Pacific (USP).  An independent expert, Tony Hughes, had 
provided the PIF a report in 2005 that proposed to 
consolidate five major organizations: PIF, SPC, SPREP, SOPAC, 
and FFA.  Many leaders and observers quickly concluded such 
an approach was unrealistic, particularly in its attempt to 
blend the "political" PIF with apolitical "technical" 
organizations.  The Hughes model would have created 
significant political difficulties for the U.S. and some U.S. 
territories, which are members of the SPC but are not members 
of the PIF. 
 
Proposal: three pillars - policy; technical; educational 
--------------------------------------------- ----------- 
¶5. (U) The recommendation is for three "pillars."  The 
Pacific Islands Forum (PIF) would remain as the region's 
political/economic policy-making organization, though its 
"core business" would be more clearly defined than at 
present.  Core competencies would include economic and 
political policy development, human rights, governance, 
trade, and peacekeeping/security.  The one addition to the 
PIF would be the policy/negotiation functions of the Forum 
Fisheries Agency (FFA).  The rest of the FFA, plus other 
"technical" agencies (SPREP, SOPAC, SPBEA, and eventually 
SPTO) would fold into the second pillar, under the governance 
of the existing SPC.  (SPTO consideration is put off in good 
part because the experts couldn't figure how to handle the 
PRC's membership of that regional tourism institution.)  The 
academic and training institutions (FSM, PIDP, and USP) would 
remain unamalgamated entities under the third, education, 
 
SUVA 00000341  002 OF 003 
 
 
pillar.  The group advocates that the new structures be in 
place by January 1, 2009. 
 
SPC umbrella for technical agencies: efficiency goal 
--------------------------------------------- ------- 
¶6. (U) The report argues that merging the technical agencies 
would significantly strengthen regional collaboration.  The 
experts said many critics have faulted the current CROP 
arrangement for providing insufficient inter-agency 
coordination, resulting in mission creep and inefficient, 
confusing overlaps.  Bringing all under an SPC umbrella 
should make the rationalizing of functions easier. 
Consultants have estimated a cost savings from amalgamation 
of US$6 million/year, but the experts group figures US$3 
million is more realistic.  The group emphasized that the 
motivation is not cost savings but more efficient provision 
of important services to the region.  When asked the impact 
on senior staffing in technical agencies, the response was 
that "there will be no clarity until the amalgamated entity 
is up and running."  The transition emphasis will be on 
"maintaining the integrity of service delivery." 
 
Consolidating locations too hot to touch... 
------------------------------------------- 
¶7. (SBU) The report proposes to maintain the current 
locations of the various agencies, apparently even including 
all elements of the to-be-split FFA.  Consolidation is to be 
via management oversight, not co-location, which clearly 
would be too big a political challenge.  At the Nadi meeting, 
the Samoa and RMI delegates complained that maintaining the 
SPC headquarters in Noumea, New Caledonia, is much more 
expensive than headquartering in Suva, and Samoa raised 
concern about "unnecessary" French translation costs.  The 
French observer (DCM in Suva) suggested French subsidies for 
the Noumea operation ease the financial burden; and given 
France's membership in the SPC, translations will be required 
wherever the technical HQ is located. 
 
...but increasing geographic distribution a popular theme 
--------------------------------------------- ------------ 
¶8. (U) We note that the experts group made a separate 
recommendation that regional organizations establish offices 
or at least place staff members in each member country and 
territory in order to strengthen "the nexus between regional 
and national initiatives."  We presume this would mean a 
Pacific regional-organization presence in Guam and American 
Samoa (both of which participate in SPC meetings), as well as 
in the French territories. 
 
Comment 
------- 
¶9. (SBU) The U.S., as a member of the SPC and SPREP, makes 
annual budgetary contributions to both.  The U.S. also 
supports PIDP, located with the East-West Center in Honolulu. 
 We are not members of the other CROP agencies.  While the 
three-pillars approach appears to remove the Hughes Report's 
political issue, it would create management challenges for 
the umbrella SPC, which would be tasked to amalgamate and 
rationalize very rapidly a variety of geographically 
separated, diverse technical agencies.  Left unclear in the 
experts' recommendations is what impact, if any, 
consolidation of additional agencies under the SPC umbrella 
would have on SPC member contributions.  When offered an 
opportunity to comment at the Nadi meeting, we noted a 
long-standing USG interest in keeping the SPC budget lean and 
its programs cost-effective. 
 
Action request 
-------------- 
¶10. (U) The experts' report, newly published, received only a 
modest amount of comment in Nadi; but the chairman made clear 
the proposals will receive further deliberation at a Forum 
Officials Conference (FOC) just prior to the PIF annual 
meeting October 23-26.  (Note: the PIF meeting and its 
Post-Forum Dialogue will now be held in Nadi, rather than 
Tonga, due to the deteriorating health of Tonga's King.)  We 
have provided a copy of the experts' report to EAP/ANP for 
further distribution in Washington.  Please provide USG 
comment on the report ASAP, well before the October FOC 
meeting.  Thanks. 
 
SUVA 00000341  003 OF 003 
 
 
DINGER