Pacific Coordination

There was a consensus that genuine partnerships are the foundation of effective engagement in the Pacific. For some, partnerships involve tough conversations and forging a shared vision of the region. For others, it’s plainly clear that some development assistance is motivated by geopolitical competition, making partnership more about maintaining access and influence. When we asked the room how to strike the right balance between a donor’s strategic interests and development outcomes, we heard mixed perspectives.

Some thought there was a way for donors to be more frank about their national interests, and look for opportunities where those interests aligned with other donors, as well as Pacific partners to unlock development impact. In some cases, one donor could engage in an area – for example, anti-corruption or agriculture/rural development – that another partner was unwilling or unable to tackle. Others thought donors need to do more work to look at their own incentives, capabilities and systems, as well as how to avoid frequent politically driven reprogramming that stymies mid- to long-term development impacts.

Situation Room attendees also discussed that size matters – many new and emerging donors to the region have small budgets and are dwarfed by existing partners in the region. But, our participants agreed, that didn’t mean that they couldn’t have impact – if they targeted their assistance well, pooled their efforts and worked in sectors that weren’t already crowded. Participants identified civil society, democratic voice, human rights and cultural exchanges as areas where investment was sorely needed and can have an outsized impact.

The perfectly co-financed and co-delivered multi-donor program is shockingly rare. We asked participants if perhaps just simply more visibility on priorities and programming was a more realistic cooperation goal that may lead to more progress. Many agreed that it would be a good starting point, and suggested that a transparent listing of what each donor was doing in each country – a donor map would help, for example. Another point of discussion was the role of the national Ministries of Finance as well as multilateral agencies in enhancing coordination as well as shared analysis.

Other great, practical ideas we heard to improve donor coordination included aligning and even sharing our due diligence and compliance requirements to reduce the burden on delivery partners, and putting specific support behind our Pacific government counterparts and regional bodies so they can lead donor coordination internally.

There was also plenty of enthusiasm for the idea of a regular donor coordination forum – perhaps here in Canberra, or maybe in the region, where partners could regularly share updates on their programs and, more importantly, enhance the complementarity of their activities.

As international partners flood into the Pacific, there is consensus from Pacific partners and international actors alike that complementary efforts are necessary. After all, the last thing Pacific partners need is international donors tripping over themselves or swamping small island states with well-meaning but ineffective support. But it’s easier said than done, and despite our best intentions there is still a long way to go.

With COP26 on the horizon, the next Quad meeting coming up and US President Joe Biden’s upcoming visit to Australia next month – surely, it’s time to break the impasse and show some practical Australian leadership on this front.

Special thanks to ISE’s Martina Zapf, whose experience working internationally and whose co-chairing of this Situation Room made the event such a success.