Viewpoints
Helping Crop Grow More Fruit
How civil society can play a big role
Ask a sample of villagers in the Pacific who or what CROP agencies are, and it is likely a few would answer, 'the Council of Regional Organisations in the Pacific'. This lack of awareness is not surprising given that CROP agencies operate at international, regional and national strata. Given the size, influence and wealth of this group of regional bodies, however, it is not unreasonable to wonder what benefits they provide to Pacific communities. So does our CROP bear fruit?
Prior to 1995, there were no councils or formalised processes that oversaw coordination between the Pacific inter-governmental organisations (IGOs), such as the Secretariat of the Pacific Community (SPC), Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat and the University of the South Pacific (USP). As such, collaboration between these agencies was infrequent, inefficient and, all too often limited by political agendas.
- ADVERTISEMENT -
Developing the links between IGOs made sense. Pacific islands member countries are small in size, commercially and geographically remote, lacking in technical capacity and are vulnerable to both ecological and natural disasters. It was therefore essential that an IGO body be established to encourage collaboration and maximised resources by reducing unnecessary overlaps that were occurring in regional programming.
To this end, the Council of Regional Organisations in the Pacific (CROP) was formed, and its introduction has potentially taken Pacific regionalism to a new level. The council is made up of heads of each IGO (or CROP agency as members became known), with the Pacific Islands Forum Secretary-General acting as the chair of CROP. Under this structure, the council has implemented several positive initiatives, including the development of a Pacific Regional Strategy and the establishment of CROP informal technical working groups that conduct in-depth sector analysis.
The CROP meetings, held annually and on an ad-hoc basis as well, have also resulted in the development of a collaborative framework. This has had some success in decreasing inefficiencies of programme duplication, with two of the best examples being the annual consultation between SOPAC, SPC and SPREP, and the harmonisation of CROP agency staff's employment conditions.
These are no small achievements, but as yet they do not substantially translate into a benefit at the community or village level. Undoubtedly, the biggest challenge for CROP agencies will be increasing the usefulness of their outputs for Pacific communities' needs.
So, what barriers limit the positive impact on Pacific peoples of CROP agencies?
Perhaps the most fundamental limitation is that there is a chain of weak links between CROP at one end and communities at the other. Without prejudice to the (as yet unreleased) Forum Secretariat review, let us briefly examine the weaker links. The first weak link is between the CROP agency and the national ministry, or 'focal point'. Normally, the latter is ill resourced to effectively deliver its mandate from its home government, let alone carry out additional responsibilities demanded of it by a CROP initiated project. The technical specialisation of CROP agencies often means that they lack the skills to ensure that projects are appropriately designed and implemented to meet the socio-cultural situation special to the Pacific region.
Another weak link is between the national ministry and the communities, sometimes by way of the district/provincial level. These national bodies lack the capacity and resources to deliver services to the communities consistently and effectively, and as a result fail to represent their interests at a regional level. These weak links between government levels result in a chronic obstruction between CROP agencies and the rural communities where the bulk of the population is located, especially in Melanesia.
The burning question is then, how can CROP agencies increase the positive impact of projects at community level?
Do you leave this to national governments alone? Given the vast areas covered by Pacific islands nations and the chronic lack of government resources and skills, this does not seem an option. A growing body of experience has presented a solution in the form of one of the least recognised resources of the Pacific‹its people. Communities have been working with civil society groups such as NGOs to deliver more effective projects to suit their needs and to identify more appropriate solutions to their problems. These processes, which have been evolving over recent decades, have a lot to offer CROP agencies.
To increase their positive impact, regional governments and CROP agencies must officially recognise the important role played by civil society organisations in sustainable development in the Pacific. This will create a conducive working environment towards building smart partnerships that will allow a transfer of many of the skills and processes developed in civil society. This will be the first step towards bridging that yawning divide between policy (at CROP level) and action on the ground.
Obviously, a change of mindset amongst government leaders, CROP agency heads, donors and policy advisors is required. CROP agencies still dismiss calls for increased integration with civil society groups with the claim that their mandate is restricted to government systems and bureaucracy. This attitude not only forgoes practical collaborative opportunities with civil society, but also leaves the voice of civil society susceptible to being muted by political whims. Finding the right way for civil society's voice to be heard is a challenge that needs redressing at every level of society, and it is in the CROP agencies best interest to be a part of that process.
Another step towards improving the delivery of services to communities could be the formation of an independent evaluation and monitoring unit within the Pacfic Islands Forum Secretariat with a specific mandate to evaluate the practical benefit of CROP agencies programmes to communities. Executive summaries of evaluation reports should be made publicly available. The region could learn from the model set up by the Global Environment Facility (GEF).
If civil society organisations have the opportunity to engage in constructive dialogue with CROP agencies, to share the solutions that they have developed in partnership with local communities, then our CROP agencies will certainly bear fruit, and it will be our communities who will harvest the rewards.
Rex Horoi is the Executive Director of the Foundation of the Peoples of the South Pacific International and a former Solomon Islands Ambassador to the United Nations.
Who are the CROP agencies
Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat (PIFS)
Suva, Fiji
Noumea, New Caledonia & Suva, Fiji
Apia, Samoa
Suva, Fiji
Honiara, Solomon Islands
Suva, Fiji
Suva, Fiji
Honolulu, Hawaii
Suva, Fiji
South Pacific Tourism Organisation (SPTO)
Suva, Fiji
Each CROP Agency has a governing body from which it receives its mandate and to which it reports on regular basis.
