While the exact role played by the Program has varied with circumstances, we found that Program support has been instrumental in supporting coalition-driven, reform processes in three significant area
While the exact role played by the Program has varied with circumstances, we found that Program support has been instrumental in supporting coalition-driven, reform processes in three significant areas:
strengthening the credible representation of private sector influence in regional economic policy-making fora;
securing the highest level of commitment regionally at the Pacific Forum Leaders meeting to addressing youth employment issues; and
initiating and supporting an authentic dialogue within Tonga about the meaning of good leadership against the backdrop of the recent political reforms.
Program support to the Pacific Islands Private Sector Organisation (PIPSO) has been critical in enhancing its leadership capability, and enabling PIPSO’s leadership to build regional credibility, strengthen and mobilise its own network of members and commission research and communicate with influence. This support appears to have underpinned to a substantive degree PIPSO’s own convening and coalition-building capacity.
With this support, PIPSO has secured observer status at the annual Forum Economic Ministers’ Meeting (FEMM) and Forum Trade Ministers’ Meeting (FTMM) – in the past, meetings essentially among governments and donors, with no private sector representation. PIPSO played a leading role in the inaugural Private Sector Dialogue with FEMM in late 2010, helping shape substantive discussion on the issue of access to finance. Similarly, PIPSO led private sector representation to the Second Non State Actor Dialogue on the Pacer Plus trade arrangements (March 2012).
Program support to youth employment advocacy shares a number of similarities with the PIPSO experience, in that it was enabled through a regional partner – the Pacific Youth Council – who has an existing network of national member bodies and whose leadership capabilities had been substantively enhanced with support from the Program. But it differs in that the Program played a more active role in helping the network agree the ‘issue’ to take on (youth employment), and in helping the Council develop its advocacy and influencing strategy for the Forum Leaders’ Meeting. The Program was also able to draw on its own relationships with influential figures to help the Council navigate the channels of access to the Forum Leaders. A further difference lies in the composition of the youth employment coalition, which comprised a wider range of actors outside of the Council’s network – notably ILO, Commonwealth Youth Program and UNICEF.
Securing high-level political commitment on the issue can be viewed as the ‘flagship’ achievement to which the Program has contributed. But the experience also cautions against overly simplistic interpretations of the reform process. Establishing a coalition for action on the issue is still work-in-progress. Interviews with key regional respondents indicated differing views about the degree to which a coherence and commonality of purpose among key players had been developed. In addition, country visits highlighted variations in the strength of links and the level of shared understanding between organisations active on youth employment issues, as well as general lack of clarity about next steps.
In Tonga, the Program has played an active role in convening and supporting a coalition of influential and high profile individuals (National Leadership Development Forum) to develop a national leadership code – at a crucial and opportune moment in Tonga’s history. The process has involved workshops in all ten constituencies of Tongatapu, and eight on other islands, involving up to 40 people per workshop, primarily with Town and District officers and some community leaders. Sectoral workshops have also been held with Youth, Civil Society, Church Leaders, Women’s organisations and the Media. Local officials who have been engaged are now seeking support to conduct similar exercises with each community.
How the initiative will develop and influence political change in Tonga is unclear. It is potentially very significant if it succeeds in stimulating a shift in deep-set beliefs about (traditional) leadership in Tonga, where democracy is still in its infancy. Furthermore, it may deliver this at significantly less cost than most ‘good governance’ initiatives. But at this stage, the initiative is not universally known or understood in Tonga, though among those engaged it does have significant momentum. Leadership Codes have been developed and adopted for the islands of Eua, Ha’apai and Vava’u and some Councillors and MPs have indicated they should be held accountable to these codes at election time. During interviews, local officials suggested that the discussions about their leadership role provided means to help improve their effectiveness. Members of the Leadership Development Forum felt that the process was likely to be more significant in terms of results than the leadership code itself. Perhaps indicative of the gradual shift in social attitudes the Forum is both mirroring and supporting, the Forum has recently received a request from some traditional leaders to provide leadership development support for young nobles.
The Program is looking to build on these successes and existing partnerships and is actively seeking opportunities to support potential or existing reform coalitions. In addition to its on-gong engagement in the areas identified above, it has recently begun to work with the Commonwealth Local Government Forum and some Local Governments around the issue of local economic development, with Vanuatu Department of Women’s Affairs on decision-making, and with the International Union for Conversation and Nature (IUCN) on the issue of Green Economy.
Of course, the Program recognises that supporting the formation of effective reform coalitions is necessarily an uncertain endeavour; the successes achieved to date cannot be viewed as an inevitable outcome of Program support. As recent research concludes, donors cannot create effective reform coalitions; they are the result of endogenous political and policy processes:
there is not a single list of factors that will guarantee that a reform coalition will form...or that it will have a meaningful role to play in ensuring that ...reforms are adopted and implemented.8
