Issues and challenges are not uncommon to policing organisations across the globe. For those in Pacific Islands countries and territories (PICTs), common issues such as functioning in a limited or resource-constrained environment and adapting to continuously increasing stakeholder demands are further compounded by geographic context. The region presents unique policing spaces, which means that policing challenges characterised as normal or conventional must be dealt with alongside unconventional policing issues specific to PICTs with varied governance arrangements, strained resources, diverse cultures and traditions, reliance on external support, spaces that are policed by alternative means, and large and often fragmented jurisdictions. This chapter provides an overview of the challenges faced by police organisations in PICTs and shows that policing in these contexts is as much about improvisation as it is about discretion and professional practice. It establishes a context for later discussions about crime in PICTs; formal and informal policing roles across the region underscored by geography, tradition, culture, and religion; international policing agendas; and contemporary shifts in arguments about women in policing.
Introduction
Policing in Pacific Island countries and territories (PICTs) is situated in a context that melds traditional practices with Western models of law-and-order maintenance. The region’s rich history of governance along traditional and cultural lines means that systems of upholding law and order preceded states and state policing models, which were later introduced through colonialism, contact or the adoption of Western constabulary replicas of governance (Jolly, 2016; Putt et al., 2018; Sai, 2007). Prior to the introduction of colonial models, the maintenance of order primarily involved a range of approaches to social conflict management led by non-state authorities (families and communities) headed by male elders, chiefs, or individual ‘big-men’.1 Order maintenance included, but was not limited to, physical action (e.g., warfare and revenge attacks), the sanction of sorcery, the involvement of local leaders (usually representative of extended families within the community), and payments of compensation (Goddard, 2010, pp. 6–9 as cited in Allen et al., 2013; MacDonald, 2001; Pratt & Melei, 2018; Uakeia, 2016). The roles of these individuals took on more of a restorative character rather than one of power, and there was a primary focus on collective dispute resolution in contexts where the priority was peace at the community level (Chambers & Chambers, 2001, p. 63 as cited in Pratt & Melei, 2018). In PICTs where the arrival of religious missionaries preceded that of colonial authorities, the idea of centralised councils was promoted and council positions were often filled by traditional leaders who retained influence in their communities (MacDonald, 2001). The integration of customary approaches with Christian beliefs and Western-style legal adversarialism meant that a hybrid model of justice and governance was in place when colonial authorities later arrived (MacDonald, 2001; Pratt & Melei, 2018). In many colonies (in the Pacific and elsewhere) legal dualism prevailed, where there were in effect two very different systems that applied to Europeans and ‘natives’, respectively. It is important to note that while formally separate (legal) systems existed in many countries and territories, considerable interaction occurred between them in practice. Justice and policing under colonialism were very different to the modern justice and policing systems in independent PICTs.
Contemporary police organisations across the region primarily reflect Western institutional legacies associated with the establishment of states and the sanctioning of the police as the most visible instrument of government authority (Watson & Dinnen, 2020). The constabulary model was the standard initial policing import across the British colonies (Bell, 2013; Dinnen, 2008; Emsley, 2014). Specifically, the Royal Irish Constabulary was paramilitary in form and perceived by colonial administrators as most appropriate for large and sparsely populated places (Emsley, 2014). It was also seen as appropriate for policing (and suppressing) Indigenous populations (primarily in Melanesian countries, such as PNG, where it was largely about extending government influence and implementing ‘native administration’) (Bell, 2013; Dinnen, 2008). The primary focus of these ‘State Military Forces’ (Emsley, 2014) was the protection of the power of the colonial state through internal security and public order maintenance (Bell, 2013). Initially, colonisation undermined local systems and leadership by removing the autonomy and authority of existing leaders and enforcing punishment (Allen et al., 2013). Often, those appointed by colonial authorities, as was the case in Solomon Islands, were not recognised by locals, and those whom the locals wanted to be appointed did not meet requirements set by colonial authorities (Allen et al., 2013). In Solomon Islands, as was the case in other PICTs, local councils were formed to manage customary matters and were managed by British-appointed individuals (Allen et al., 2013). In many PICTs, imported systems eroded traditional hierarchies, then reincorporated them (Allen et al., 2013). Some powers were lost, some were gained, and the Indigenous people, in many instances, adapted to enforce colonial laws (Emsley, 2014).
Advertisement
While the uniqueness and diversity of the Pacific region makes it problematic to articulate an all-encompassing policing narrative about the former or current state of policing, generalisations can be made about the issues and challenges specific to PICTs with strained resources, diverse cultures and traditions, reliance on external support, unconventionally policed spaces, and large and often fragmented jurisdictions. This chapter presents an overview of these challenges and further elaborates on how they impact on policing in specific PICT contexts. It builds on dialogue about the resilience of PICTs, and draws on examples from Melanesia, Micronesia, and Polynesia to show that in addition to the common issues and challenges faced by police organisations, the Pacific landscape presents context-specific realities to be navigated and negotiated by police organisations. This chapter establishes the context for much of what is discussed in the ensuing chapters. It moves from a provision of historical insights into policing in PICTs to a brief discussion of organisational shifts impacting on policing across the region. Issues and challenges related to jurisdiction, funding, and organisational capacity are also explored before an overview of these issues and challenges is presented.
Pacific Policing Historical Insights
The Pacific Islands region is often viewed as comprising three broad cultural and geographic sub-regions—Melanesia, Micronesia, and Polynesia. Scattered across an enormous expanse of ocean, each country has its own distinct history and socio-political characteristics, making it difficult to generalise across the region as a whole. Differences exist in terms of political status and population size, as well as in key social and economic indicators. Most Pacific Island countries are microstates with small populations dispersed across numerous low-lying islands. Approximately 90% of the region’s population of around 11 million people live in the independent Melanesian states of Papua New Guinea (PNG), Fiji, and Solomon Islands (United Nations Population Fund [UNFPA], 2014, p. 5). Approximately 9 million of these live in PNG alone, which dominates the region in terms of land mass and population size (Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade [DFAT], 2021) (Fig. 2.1).
Fig. 2.1
The Pacific Islands
(Source CartoGIS College of Asia and the Pacific, Australian National University)
×
Variations in population sizes are reflected in those of Pacific police organisations, which range from fewer than 20 officers in tiny Niue to around 7000 in PNG (Putt et al., 2018). Other differences include levels of crime and insecurity in different countries, as well as in policing traditions derived from the histories of police development in each country, including legacies from colonial pasts and the continuing influence of external powers providing policing assistance in the post-colonial present.
Colonial Policing
Prior to colonisation and contact with the West, traditional policing mechanisms upheld order and security in PICTs (Boodoosingh & Schoeffel, 2018; Jolly, 2016; Putt et al., 2018; Sai, 2007). Differentiations between precolonial policing and broader justice mechanisms are not readily available in Pacific policing literature. However, scholarly accounts allow us to make informed interpretations about the mechanisms that preceded what is now known as policing across the region. Precolonial or traditional policing mechanisms largely consisted of peacemaking between tribes or families, which was usually brokered by elders or community/tribal/clan leaders (Jolly, 2016). Such undertakings included the resolving of disputes between individuals (MacDonald, 2001). Variances in these policing mechanisms can be seen in examples drawn from Melanesia, Micronesia, and Polynesia.
Advertisement
In the Melanesian islands that became Solomon Islands, there were a range of social and regulatory systems, which involved leadership roles being occupied by hereditary chiefs or individual big-men, or a combination of both (Putt et al., 2018). Similarly, in PNG, headmen, big-men, or chiefs provided clan leadership and guidance, with nuances of titles and terms differing across regions (Sai, 2007). Fiji also had a hierarchical society with hereditary tribal chiefs who maintained order using customary law based on traditional social order (Jowitt, 2009).
In the Micronesian country of Kiribati, communities were governed by an Unimwane or group of male elders who represented a family or clan, and by the maneaba or community council (MacDonald, 2001; Uakeia, 2016). Maneaba also refers to a village meeting house, and the social and political centre of a district (MacDonald, 2001; Uakeia, 2016). Maneaba was associated with several kainga, which were the basic residential units—each containing extended families and a number of households (MacDonald, 2001). Disputes among kainga members were handled out of maneaba, but if two or more kainga were involved, maneaba involvement usually occurred (MacDonald, 2001). If participants refused to accept the consensus decision reached (Uakeia, 2016), recourse to arms usually occurred (MacDonald, 2001). In addition to maintaining order, maneaba disseminated and implemented government (council) policies (Uakeia, 2016).
In the Polynesian country that was to become Tuvalu, maintenance of law and order involved male community elders (taumatua/te sina o fenua/matai) acting as representatives of extended families to resolve disputes and provide advice to individuals charged with leadership roles. These leadership roles included the council of chiefs (kau aliki or kaiga aliki) and reigning chiefs2 (ulu aliki) who represented a number of extended families in a district and had the authority to make final decisions (Pratt & Melei, 2018).
Similar systems existed across the Pacific with a common purpose of maintaining order at the family, village, community, district, or island level; resolving disputes; determining appropriate reprisal or compensation; and ensuring the maintenance of societies (Goddard, 2010, pp. 6–9 as cited in Allen et al., 2013; Pratt & Melei, 2018; Uakeia, 2016).
Colonisation and Policing
The colonial history of the Pacific region documents various interfaces with Christianity before the presence of colonial authorities. Examples of this were evidenced in Kiribati and Tuvalu (MacDonald, 2001; Pratt & Melei, 2018). As was the case in other countries, Christian missionaries encouraged the formation of centralised councils to oversee the maintenance of law and order. A merger between traditional and foreign practices of order maintenance occurred in places such as Kiribati and Tuvalu, as council positions were often filled by traditional leaders who, therefore retained influence in their communities in new ways (MacDonald, 2001). MacDonald (2001) states that Kiribati was less welcoming of imported structures and values, and did so only as a means of controlling or mitigating colonial influence. The integration of customary approaches with Christian beliefs fostered a hybrid model of justice and governance prior to the arrival of British authorities in the late 1890s, which is discussed further in Chapter 4 (MacDonald, 2001; Pratt & Melei, 2018).
Missionary influence and Christianisation also impacted Solomon Islands. However, the missionaries had less significant influence in shaping law and order in some parts of Solomon Islands compared with their role in the early colonisation of Tuvalu and Kiribati. Early missionary efforts in Solomon Islands were mainly coastal and more widespread efforts did not commence until the introduction of the British Protectorate in 1893 (Hilliard, 1974). Colonial leaders viewed the disparate centralised council systems in Solomon Islands as lacking order and saw a society in need of other governance methods (Putt et al., 2018). In 1970, there were about 50 local courts in Solomon Islands and their main role was to resolve land matters according to customary law and to address minor criminal issues (Cox et al., 2012). The courts operated according to colonial authority guidelines (Nanau, 2017). Local councils were scrapped in 1998 (Allen et al., 2013) and local courts dwindled, with active numbers limited to around five by 2008 (Cox et al., 2012). In Tuvalu, in 1997, local councils on eight islands obtained power over their own administrative affairs (Fraenkel & Corbett, 2016). These councils are mainly dominated by (male) elders and chiefs, sometimes with influence from church leaders; however, there are indications that roles for women on island councils are increasing (Fraenkel & Corbett, 2016).
Colonial administrators recruited Indigenous people as policemen to serve as intermediaries between colonisers and Indigenous people (Allen et al., 2013; Putt et al., 2018; Sai, 2007). Countries such as Fiji and Solomon Islands had small armed constabularies, with European officers and ‘native’ police (Putt et al., 2018). The legitimacy of headmen appointed by the colonisers was often challenged because of non-adherence to Indigenous hierarchies of authority, and those nominated by locals for appointment were often deemed unworthy by the colonisers (Allen et al., 2013). Local councils managed by British-appointed headmen were formed to manage customary matters (Allen et al., 2013). In many instances, colonial systems were perceived to erode the traditional hierarchies, before reincorporating them (Allen et al., 2013) and empowering Indigenous people to enforce colonial laws (Emsley, 2014). Different forms of resistance to colonial rule resulted in an acknowledgement of the need to reorient or train local leaders within established jurisdictions to provide a middle ground for law-and-order maintenance discussions, decisions, and actions, and to validate colonial structures involving local elders, chiefs, and councils (Allen et al., 2013).
Pluralised regulatory arrangements often cause challenges for police and local leaders. Chiefs of police across the region have in the past commented on officers being confused about governance and formal processes among local leaders (Boswell, 2010). Efforts to decentralise and work with local systems while still working with colonial models of governance usually translated to police officers being unclear on formal processes (Boswell, 2010). In some parts of the Pacific, there was (and continues to be) a lack of understanding among local leaders about how to work with formal systems, despite efforts by governments to educate, and police are placed in the awkward position of navigating interactions (Boswell, 2010). Challenges usually presented where traditional leaders acted both formally and informally. As expressed by Farran, discussing Vanuatu, the blurred lines between customary practices and codified law refer to whether ‘traditional leaders involved in rule making, law enforcement, and dispute resolution are acting in a public capacity as agents of the state’ (2006, p. 102). If they were not acting as state agents, they could not be held legally responsible for decisions that violated the constitution (Farran, 2006), complicating legal culpability.
From Independence to Modern-Day Policing
Despite independence, British colonial systems continued to shape policing in many PICTs (Bull et al., 2019). Fiji, Kiribati, Solomon Islands, and Tuvalu (and arguably other PICTs) all feature some hybrid of customary and colonial (or non-state and state) policing systems, with various levels of international policing present (Watson, 2020). Non-state authorities (i.e., family, church, and community) continue to play a significant role in addressing most conflict and security matters in PICTs. The geographical spread of populations in PICTs means that state policing does not reach all areas, and minor disputes and daily security needs continue to be managed locally by councils in most rural and some urban spaces, without the engagement of central authorities (Allen et al., 2013; Putt et al., 2018). Central policing authorities across the region continue to improve their legitimacy and distance themselves from negative images. For example, in Kiribati, the Commissioner of Police changed the name from the Kiribati Police Force to the Kiribati Police and Prison Services, respectively, to reflect a shift towards community collaboration in crime prevention and solving (Carswell & Loughlin, 2016).
Despite continued attempts at rebranding and strategising to disassociate from a longstanding colonial, paramilitaristic image, police organisations—primarily in Melanesia (but also in other parts of the Pacific)—continue to be viewed by international bodies, non-governmental organisations, and scholars as state apparatus of suppression and control of those deemed less powerful or those adhering to practices or behaviours that contradict the ideologies of state power brokers or rule of law. In Melanesian countries such as Fiji, Solomon Islands, and Vanuatu, strong remnants of the constabulary model remain in the police forces. Reference to human rights protections and civil liberties is absent from police Acts of Parliament, which instead focus on the role of police in law-and-order maintenance (Prasad, 2006). Other problematic aspects of colonial (state) policing include the absence or weakness of external civilian governing bodies and external methods of accountability (Prasad, 2006). For example, the Fiji Police Force is not subject to external oversight (Amnesty International, 2016), whereas in Samoa the Ombudsman’s office is responsible for investigating complaints against the police (Ombudsman Samoa, 2020).
In much of Micronesia and Polynesia, state policing organisations have undergone multiple adaptations to foster more community-oriented approaches to policing. Initiatives include inviting and incorporating feedback from community stakeholders to inform organisational change, adapting foreign policies to suit local communities, and organisational restructuring to align with international best practices. Examples can be seen in Tuvalu, Guam, Fiji, Solomon Islands, Vanuatu, and more generally in the greater Pacific region. In 2013 and 2017, the Tuvalu Police Service requested country-wide research to elicit feedback from community stakeholders about their views on the state of policing in Tuvalu and ways to improve service delivery (Watson, 2018). A similar initiative was undertaken in Guam in 2018 (Watson et al., 2019). In 2013 and 2017, respectively, the Fiji Police Force and the Guam Police Department introduced the Duavata Community Policing Concept and the Mandaña Community-Oriented Policing Strategy (Fiji Police Force, 2013; Watson et al., 2019). Both reflect adapted versions of international community policing models to suit local policing contexts, and both are premised on established partnerships with local communities. Solomon Islands’ adaptation of New Zealand’s Crime Prevention Policy and No-Drop Policy are other examples of borrowing policing strategies and adapting and implementing them with consideration of local alignment. International shifts have resulted in the police organisations of PICTs reviewing gender policies and practices (Carswell & Loughlin, 2016; Goldsmith & Dinnen, 2007), revising or revisiting information-sharing arrangements and agreements (Putt et al., 2018), and increasing the emphasis on fostering community partnerships and empowering local stakeholders (Goldsmith & Dinnen, 2007; Turnbull, 2011). Against a backdrop of longstanding issues and challenges impacting policing operations, there continues to be a general consensus among PICTs’ police leaders about the need for the advancement of policing practices within their respective jurisdictions.
Key Challenges for Policing in the Pacific
Challenges for policing roles across the Pacific region are underscored by geography, tradition, culture, and religion; international policing agendas; and contemporary shifts surrounding arguments about women in policing.
Organisational Shifts
The organisational mandates for policing organisations in some PICTs differ in important ways from those of policing organisations in the global North, from which Pacific policing organisations borrow operational frameworks, policies, and practices. Police organisations comprise one of multiple arms of national security service providers. As is the case with many metropolitan police organisations, they work alongside other stakeholders, including but not limited to immigration, national coast guard, and customs. The arrangements that exist in PICTs vary. Some PICTs maintain strong remnants of the colonial policing models as reflected in the police forces of Fiji and PNG, while others—such as Tuvalu Police Service (Government of Tuvalu, 2016; Pratt & Melei, 2018) and the Federated States of Micronesia Police—have been expanded to take on greater security service provision roles within their jurisdiction, such as border security and maritime offences. At the same time, others have shifted to adapt more service-oriented models, as reflected in the police services of Kiribati and Samoa (see e.g., Carswell & Loughlin, 2016; Samoa Police Service, 2021). Like policing organisations across the globe, those in PICTs are required to adapt in response to global shifts, international conventions, legislative advancements, crime evolution, and ever-increasing stakeholder demands.
Policing Large and Fragmented Jurisdictions
As a region with small populations inhabiting numerous islands and atolls dispersed across approximately 15% of the globe (World Bank, n.d.) policing organisations in PICTs face multiple challenges associated with large and often fragmented jurisdictions (Newton, 1998). For many police organisations across the region, the policing of large expanses of surrounding waters is one of many responsibilities, which include but are not limited to support for other arms of security, disaster response, and responding to public calls for service. Reference to the situation in Tuvalu provides contextual insights into one example.
Tuvalu has a population of approximately 11,000. The population is spread across nine islands and atolls, and over 26 square kilometres of land, dispersed over the 1.3 million square kilometres of the central Pacific Ocean (DFAT, 2020b; Fraenkel & Corbett, 2016). Tuvalu has a 900,000-square-kilometre exclusive economic zone (Fraenkel & Corbett, 2016). With a total of 101 sworn officers, the Tuvalu Police Service has responsibility for all calls for services within its jurisdiction on land and sea, as well as responsibility for managing disaster responses. Until Australia gifted a patrol boat to the Tuvalu Police Service in 2019, the organisation had just one boat for patrol purposes, responding to maritime calls for services, inter-island supply and communication, disaster support, and all other required policing purposes (DFAT, 2019). More than 80% of police personnel are based on the main island of Funafuti, where the capital is situated. The remainder is posted on seven of the outlying islands, and the remaining island has no police presence. Police posts on five of the outlying islands are staffed by one sworn officer who is supported by one unsworn community police member (Watson, 2018; Watson et al., 2021). There are also strong police–community relations for the maintenance of law and order, with communities having primary responsibility for dispute resolution and state police being involved as deemed necessary or appropriate at the community level. Further information on parallel policing arrangements in other PICTs is provided in Chapter 4. The realities for policing of PICTs with multi-island or otherwise geographically fragmented jurisdictions are very similar. For example, Solomon Islands, which is significantly larger in scale and population size than many other PICTs, has a land area of 28,400 square kilometres consisting of a double chain of six large islands and hundreds of smaller ones, forming nine main island groups (DFAT, 2020a; Putt et al., 2018). Similarly, Kiribati has a population of approximately 117,606 across 33 islands (Uakeia, 2016; World Bank, 2020). The policing challenges across their respective jurisdictions are numerous.
The constraints of resources available to policing organisations—including the limited range, upkeep, and usage of available technological resources—often translate to the allocation of the majority of resources to the most densely populated areas or immediate organisational priorities (Watson, 2020). Some organisations face challenges such as inadequate budgets to fund essential operations (Watson, 2020)—a challenge that can be further compounded by poor resource management (Stretem Rod blong Jastis mo Sefti, 2016). Such resource prioritisation results in a lack of immediate access to local police in many outlying islands and villages across the region (Boswell, 2010).
Policing arrangements across fragmented jurisdictions differ throughout the region. In some contexts, police posts on outlying islands or in remote regions exist with minimal staffing and minimal operational capacity (Allen et al., 2013; Evans et al., 2011; Putt et al., 2018). In PNG, communities based in rural and remote mountain areas, as is the case in most parts of Melanesia, have little or no police contact (Peake & Dinnen, 2014). While officers in such postings usually have full police powers, they are often supported by—or seen by residents as secondary to—non-state policing arrangements that exist at the community level (Bull et al., 2019; Farran, 2006; Lievore & Fairbarn-Dunlop, 2007; Pratt & Melei, 2018). There are also instances where no police posts are present on sparsely populated outlying islands or isolated regions (Boswell, 2010; Evans et al., 2011; Peake & Dinnen, 2014). Notwithstanding differences in consequences based on place, population size, and historical conflicts, such examples can be found across all of Melanesia, Micronesia, and Polynesia. Many countries in the Pacific include outlying islands and villages with small populations and no police posts (Boswell, 2010). In some of these contexts, partnerships exist between the police and communities to maintain law and order, whereas in others, extended family units determine accepted standards for behaviours and self-regulatory practices (Bull et al., 2021; Evans et al., 2011; Howes et al., 2021; Pratt & Melei, 2018). While these arrangements vary from one context to another, they generally involve community leaders or elders presiding over disputes, grievances, or perceived breaches of upheld laws and referring matters to formal policing authorities as they deem necessary (Pratt & Melei, 2018; Putt et al., 2018).
A limited police presence or the lack of a police presence in outlying islands and regions introduces issues of police legitimacy. The presence and functionality of alternative (largely customary) forms of law-and-order maintenance render the police (usually regarded as an external authority) a role as a state-centric entity that is unfamiliar and its members as unwarranted strangers (Bull et al., 2019; Peake & Dinnen, 2014). Several other factors also influence the effect of imported justice systems. These include regulatory pluralism, which formally and legally recognises customary laws and/or structures (Boodoosingh & Schoeffel, 2018; Fraenkel & Corbett, 2016; Siikala, 2014); informal norms around customary practices and other social and community norms (Lievore & Fairbarn-Dunlop, 2007; Pratt & Melei, 2018). All of these are bolstered by strong ties to culture and local identity (Putt et al., 2018). While policing hierarchy and state justice models remain largely Westernised, the complexities of law-and-order maintenance in many PICT contexts challenge the authority of the colonial systems (Bull et al., 2019).
The inability of the countries’ legal systems to handle the types or magnitude of crimes taking place within them is further compounded by limitations in the resources needed to facilitate the policing of large geographic expanses (Boswell, 2010; DFAT, 2017a; Newton, 1998; Watson et al., 2021). For example, DFAT states that Fiji’s ‘geographic spread is a challenge, with some difficulty in providing advanced police capabilities to remote islands’ (2017a, p. 27). Similarly, Connery and Claxton stated (with reference to 2014 figures): ‘The [Royal Papua New Guinea Police Force] numbers around 6000 sworn and unsworn members, plus reserves and auxiliaries. This makes it a very small force when the size of PNG’s population [9 million] and the complexity of the nation’s geography are considered’ (2014, p. 8). Patrolling within marine borders presents a significant challenge for police across the region. Increases in criminal activities in the surrounding waters of many PICTs highlight the vulnerabilities of the region by opportunistic criminal elements who attempt to capitalise on the challenges police face in detecting, monitoring, investigating, and responding to illegal activities (McNulty, 2013; United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime [UNODC], 2016). Criminal activity, and the transportation of contraband items and unauthorised fishing catches over long distances with little detection from law enforcement, are enabled by the transnational mobility of fishing boats (McNulty, 2013). In 2012, a yacht that had been tracked from South America became stranded in Tongan waters. A dead man was found on-board and 200 kilograms of cocaine were found in the hull (McNulty, 2013).
Despite regional attempts to address some of these challenges, collaboration is often overshadowed by varying national interests (Rosser, 2016; Schweble, 2009‐2010), non-complementary national legislature, differing priorities of collaborators (Anderson, 2010; Boswell, 2010), and capacity mismatches or shortcomings of some partners (Boswell, 2010; Carswell & Loughlin, 2016; McLeod & Herrington, 2016). Partnerships can be seen as self-serving. For example, Australian interests in Pacific policing may be undergirded by concerns about broader Pacific security due to the close association with Australia’s own national security (Rosser, 2016; Schweble, 2009‐2010). Concerns around business agendas also emerge—with labour contracts given to those from donor countries, rather than to local workers as an opportunity for strengthening the local economy (Anderson, 2010). In interviews with Pacific Island chiefs of police, some participants identified political tensions between the Australian Federal Police (AFP) and New Zealand Police in terms of who was in charge in Pacific policing programs (Boswell, 2010). Similarly, police officers who had received training as part of the Pacific Prevention of Domestic Violence Programme (PPDVP) noted a lack of coordination between the AFP and New Zealand Police, and that duplication needs to be avoided (Carswell & Loughlin, 2016). Participants in police leadership training also noted challenges in applying new skills when there are constant struggles to meet basic policing resource needs (McLeod & Herrington, 2016)—an experience also found in general skills training, such as training around forensic techniques that did not consider the facilities or financial resources available (Boswell, 2010).
For PICTs with uninhabited islands, concerns exist that these islands may be used for illegal activities. Strained resources and resource allocation to other operational priorities account for the low or non-prioritisation of patrols of uninhabited areas. These factors, which are elaborated upon in Chapter 5, partly account for the Pacific being deemed a financially viable transshipment point or corridor for organised and transnational crime (Watson et al., 2021). Authorities in Fiji, Solomon Islands and Vanuatu have reported on challenges in responding to illicit drug and other unauthorised activities on outlying islands and unpatrolled waters in their respective jurisdictions (Australian Fisheries Management Authority, 2019; McDonald & Torrens, 2020). The natural growth of criminalised flora (Bourke & Allen, 2009; Devaney et al., 2006; Halvaksz & Lipset, 2006) also presents a challenge for authorities that are charged with responsibilities for harvesting and destroying feral cannabis. The challenges with large jurisdictions go well beyond those discussed in this chapter, as individual PICTs also face context-specific challenges such as lack of substance-testing facilities, dated (or non-availability of) resources, corruption, and others not elaborated upon here. Some of the common challenges related to funding and organisational capacity are discussed below.
Foreign-Funded Local Police
The Pacific is often described as one of the world’s most aid-reliant regions, with many countries being categorised by the Development Assistance Committee (DAC) as eligible for Official Development Assistance (Dornan & Pryke, 2017). Three PICTs have been identified on the list of least developed countries in the world (Tuvalu, Solomon Islands and Kiribati), three as lower middle-income countries and territories (Tokelau, PNG and Vanuatu) and seven as middle-income countries and territories (Fiji, the Republic of the Marshall Islands, Nauru, Niue, Palau, Tonga, and Wallis and Futuna Islands) (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, 2020). The list of developed countries and economies identified in the United Nations’ World Economic Situation and Prospects (2020) does not include any PICTs. Many of these developing countries rely on external international sources for foreign aid and development assistance to fund police organisations operational budgets, resources and training. The Australian Government committed $79 million over four years (July 2017 to June 2021) to the Solomon Islands Police Development Program and continues to fund the Royal Solomon Islands Police Force’s (RSIPF) operational budget (through assistance provided to the law and justice sector (DFAT, 2017b).
In many (or arguably all) instances, the provision of external support is conditional upon various factors, which include but are not limited to alignment with donor-country priorities, policy revision or implementation guided by international standards, adaptation of external reporting frameworks, and use of donor-country specialists. This conditionality has implications for the operation of the respective Pacific police organisations. In keeping with internationally established standards for the provision of international assistance to less developed countries, aid agendas largely prioritise development assistance and promote self-sufficiency and improved conditions for at-risk groups. Regional assistance to Pacific policing organisations from Australia and New Zealand is primarily channelled through established organisations such as the Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat the Pacific Islands Chiefs of Police Secretariat (PICP), the Secretariat of the Pacific Community and the Pacific Islands Law Officers’ Network. Within many of these bodies, there are sub-groups with a specialised focus on specific areas. For example, the PICP has a sub-group devoted specifically to capacity building and the provision of training for police officers from PICTs referred to as the Pacific Police Training Advisory Group. In addition to existing regional support channels, arrangements exist between smaller groups of PICs and donor organisations. For example, the Pacific Police Development Program—Regional (PPDP-R) is an Australian Government initiative whereby the AFP provides in-country development support to police organisations in Kiribati, Niue, Tuvalu, the Republic of the Marshall Islands, Palau, Cook Islands and the Federated States of Micronesia (AFP, 2016). This is further discussed in Chapter 5. Further fly-in, fly-out assistance is provided as required, to meet the specific needs of these seven PICTs (AFP, 2016). The AFP also assists police organisations in smaller countries such as Tuvalu to develop training plans to strengthen police service provision (Government of Tuvalu, 2016).
Other well-known arrangements exist across the region. For example, Fiji signed a memorandum of understanding on police cooperation with China’s Ministry of Public Security (Hill, 2018). Practical support from China has been in the form of vehicles, communication equipment, anti-riot equipment and drones (Hill, 2018). Training support has occurred in the form of specialist senior officers working with Fiji police for a period (Lacanivalu, 2017) and officers travelling to China for specialist training (Kumar, 2018). The Fijian Police Commissioner noted that China was one of the force’s biggest donors (Lacanivalu, 2017). In addition to providing support to Fiji, China has provided policing support to Samoa, Cook Islands, Vanuatu and PNG in the form of equipment, vehicles and infrastructure (Hill, 2018). Led by the New Zealand Police, the Partnership for Pacific Policing is a four-year program for capacity development. It involves seven PICTs (Cook Islands, Kiribati, Niue, Tokelau, Tuvalu, Samoa and Vanuatu), and was established to provide support for police around technical policing skills, management and leadership (New Zealand Police, 2020). Several PICTs were also members of the now complete PPDVP led by the New Zealand Police. This provided mentoring and support from both the New Zealand Police and AFP (Carswell & Loughlin, 2016). Several PICTs were provided with domestic violence coordinators as part of this program (Ronald, 2014).
The commonality among providers of aid to police organisations is an expressed desire to contribute to regional development and democratic policing through the provision of a wide range of support to enhance the rule of law, access to justice, and improved national and regional security. Despite the existence of the Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness, which highlights the need for mutual agreement and commitments among donors and recipients, differing perspectives or a mismatch between donor and recipient priorities is not uncommon. Challenges can be identified across studies of donor invention in policing in the Pacific. Areas prioritised for funding by donors, though valid from donor perspectives, do not always present as the main priorities for aid recipients. As mentioned earlier, a notable study on the perceived impacts of this issue, which involved interviews with 14 representatives from the PICP, documented a number of challenges with aid from Australia and New Zealand to Pacific policing organisations (Boswell, 2010). Similar sentiments were expressed by other scholars in their discussions of themes related to a lack of donor flexibility to local needs and contexts, limited consideration of political context and climate, and limited autonomy and control for local recipients (Cox et al., 2012).
The long-term benefits of policy development funding in contexts where human resources are strained are likely to be overshadowed by the burden of an increased workload. Aid recipients have, in the past, raised concerns about the challenges of accountability and monitoring in regard to aid from Australia and New Zealand, which can place an added strain on limited human resources (Boswell, 2010). A contrast is provided in the aid provided by China and Taiwan, which was able to be accessed with relative ease and under relatively flexible conditions (Boswell, 2010). In countries such as Solomon Islands, a challenge exists in working within uncertain economic and fiscal environments. This issue is compounded by complex externally managed and operated procurement and accountability systems that impact the police organisation’s operational capacity. Recipients of donor aid have also been described as hesitant to criticise donors due to political sensitivities (Boswell, 2010), which limits the opportunity for informative feedback. In addition, power in relation to donor aid is believed to give donor countries the ability to force decisions that benefit themselves (Boswell, 2010).
Donor conditions may not reflect contextual sensitivity and honest dialogue about issues; they may be viewed as detrimental to aid agreements. Furthermore, broader arguments have been raised about a regional approach to external policing inventions. These arguments include the risks of a standardised approach to interventions (Manuel et al., 2013) that may not encourage technical thinking and may lack the necessary engagement to address strategic, political and cultural concerns (Manuel et al., 2013). This position on foreign aid and external policing interventions was common across studies where interviewees also raised the issue of a lack of understanding of local cultures and the country’s needs (Boswell, 2010; Cox et al., 2012; McLeod & Herrington, 2016). The relevance of metropolitan policing to PICTs is also a specific issue (Boswell, 2010; Watson & Dinnen, 2020), which raises further concerns about the value of punitive or retaliatory approaches that are based on international occurrences not necessarily impacting the places where they are being introduced (Anderson, 2010; Dinnen & Watson, 2021; Watson & Dinnen, 2020). Examples can be seen across the region, with policy development aid to match those that exist in donor countries, such as New Zealand’s discontinued domestic violence ‘no drop’ policy being implemented in countries without the capacity to provide victim support. Productive partnerships and a strong understanding of local cultures, though crucial, continue to be underemphasised (Anderson, 2010; Boswell, 2010).
Capacity Growth and Development
As is the case globally, police organisations in PICTs face capacity growth and development challenges. With relatively small organisations, the limited number of officers available to meet operational challenges has implications for capacity growth and development. Estimates of police human resource capacity in the Pacific Island Forum states list organisations with numbers ranging from around 20 sworn officers for a population of approximately 1642–4700 officers for a population of 9 million (Putt et al., 2018). As discussed in Chapter 5, the challenges faced by police are acknowledged by local as well as international stakeholders—as evidenced in continued partnership and support arrangements, collaborative initiatives, and regional and national joint ventures (Boswell, 2010; McLeod & Herrington, 2016). In the Southwest Pacific, the primary support for police organisations comes from Australia and New Zealand, with countries in Asia, Europe and the United States of America typically providing smaller-scale and one-off interventions. PICTs located further north receive greater support and aid from the United States.
The AFP provides capacity growth and development to police organisations in PICTs through various means. Other initiatives include training provided through the Australian Institute of Police Management (AIPM), Pacific Faculty of Policing, which includes in-country training, and professional development training for executives and for women in policing (AIPM, 2020).
These partnerships can have unintended negative impacts on policing in PICTs. Although some international policing providers (including the AFP) have gained valuable insight from previous endeavours and have tried to revise and adapt their capacity growth and development activities accordingly, issues with human resource management, ineffective performance management and lack of transparency have been known to impact negatively on such initiatives (DFAT, 2017b; Prasad, 2006). Those selected by their respective organisations for training are not always best suited to ensure knowledge transference or capacity development (Anderson, 2010; DFAT, 2017b). Training, whether conducted locally or abroad, also has direct impacts on available human resources. The timely replacement of skilled and seconded officers, especially individuals with specialist administrative and technical roles, presents major operational challenges. Despite considerable attempts to upskill personnel within organisations, the limited numbers of skilled personnel available within the organisations make it difficult to ensure appropriate levels of transfer. Capacity shortfalls also affect ongoing implementation, monitoring, enforcement, and review of initiatives to ensure that ideas, policies, and procedures become embedded as necessary (DFAT, 2017b).
Retention of skilled personnel is an ongoing challenge for police organisations in PICTs. While maintaining the required human resource capacity is an issue faced by police organisations across the globe, in PICTs this issue is further exacerbated by decreased prioritisation of resources for police organisations in many countries and territories (as climate change, natural disaster support, health care, and education take precedence), increasing demands for better-qualified officers, a mismatch between the supply of—and demand for—female officers, generally high non-completion rates of recruit training programs (Mou, 2015), low incentives relative to job requirements and undoubtedly a plethora of further issues (Wilson et al., 2010).
The best intentions do not always reflect cognisance of context. In smaller countries with no training facilities, there is reliance on other countries to train police officers (using training models likely developed for and suited to the provider country’s context). The extent to which measures are in place to adapt training received to suit local contexts is unknown. The imposition of foreign ideologies with little relevance to local contexts can undermine good intentions and have far-reaching negative implications. For example, the implementation of a gender-balancing 50/50 recruitment strategy by the RSIPF in Solomon Islands (see Chapter 6) to align with international gender equality agendas demonstrates ambitions ahead of in-country advances in gender relations and conditions for women (RSIPF, 2019). A follow-up report indicated higher rates of training non-completion for female recruits, who identified domestic challenges as the primary reason for this. There are also concerns about delays in moving from aid-dependency to sustainability (Manuel et al., 2013), and fears about developing an aid-dependent culture (Anderson, 2010). Often, services related to capacity development are contracted by the aid donor, which sees about 70% of donor aid return to the country of origin (Boswell, 2010). Funds from donors are also sometimes managed independently of the police organisations, which presents challenges for the intended recipients of the funds. The Solomon Islands Police Development Program report (DFAT, 2017b) identified the use of externally managed corporate services for budgeting and human resource management as a challenge to the emergence of strong policing capabilities.
Conclusion
As is the reality for policing organisations in other parts of the world, policing in PICTs is not without issues and challenges. Drawing on examples from across the Pacific, this chapter has highlighted the primary challenges faced by policing organisations, and elaborated on how these challenges impact on the manner in which policing is actioned and the character it takes on in varied contexts. Arguments have been presented to show that the issues and challenges faced by policing organisations are contextually embedded and are as much a part of the local landscape as other issues specific to governance—or, more specifically, law-and-order maintenance. Despite continued attempts by many police organisations in PICTs to improve service provision and engagement with communities, addressing issues of strained resources, limited access to justice and police legitimacy remains a work in progress. Communities identify heavily with customary justice mechanisms and with their own geographical and language grouping, and this complicates the role of central government and police (Putt et al., 2018). For example, in Solomon Islands, ‘[l]ocal identities and allegiances remain strong, while national institutions are relatively weak, as compounded by a small population dispersed across a fragmented archipelago’ (Putt et al., 2018, p. 17). Similarly, Dinnen and colleagues (2006) suggest that traditional mechanisms in Solomon Islands have been drawn upon and adapted in response to the weaknesses of the state becoming apparent. Minor conflicts and everyday security remain local and informally managed in communities, with little resort to police agencies (Lievore & Fairbarn-Dunlop, 2007; Pratt & Melei, 2018; Putt et al., 2018). Social behaviour continues to be viewed as the informal jurisdiction of the village, and local leadership has a strong influence on norms (Meibusch, 2019). The social authority of customary justice systems ensures community participation and agreement on outcomes (Harper, 2011). The legitimacy of these systems in PICTs impacts police legitimacy.
While the historical, traditional, social, political, and economic distinctiveness of PICTs make it impractical to generalise, assume similarities, or transfer inferences, there exist commonalities across PICTs with regard to a number of challenges faced by police organisations. The specific character of the challenges, however, varies based on context and country-specific operational agendas. It is therefore important to acknowledge that the challenges discussed in this chapter, except in instances where specific examples are provided, may not apply to all PICTs or may not adequately represent the magnitude of the issues. Further challenges, which are not outlined or elaborated upon here, are likely to exist. Additional sources should therefore be consulted for country-specific information as necessary.
Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if changes were made.
The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter's Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the chapter's Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.
