1 / 15

PREAMBLE OF THE FSM CONSTITUTION:  RATIFIED 1978

PREAMBLE OF THE FSM CONSTITUTION:  RATIFIED 1978 WE, THE PEOPLE OF MICRONESIA, exercising our inherent sovereignty, do hereby establish this Constitution of the Federated States of Micronesia.

cooper
Download Presentation

PREAMBLE OF THE FSM CONSTITUTION:  RATIFIED 1978

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. PREAMBLE OF THE FSM CONSTITUTION:  RATIFIED 1978 WE, THE PEOPLE OF MICRONESIA, exercising our inherent sovereignty, do hereby establish this Constitution of the Federated States of Micronesia. With this Constitution, we affirm our common wish to live together in peace and harmony, to preserve the heritage of the past, and to protect the promise of the future.  To make one nation of many islands, we respect the diversity of our cultures. Our differences enrich us.  The seas bring us together, they do not separate us. Our islands sustain us, our island nation enlarges us and makes us stronger.  Our ancestors, who made their homes on these islands, displaced no other people.  We, who remain, wish no other home than this.  Having known war, we hope for peace.  Having been divided, we wish unity.  Having been ruled, we seek freedom. Micronesia began in the days when man explored seas in rafts and canoes. The Micronesian nation is born in an age when men voyage among stars; our world itself is an island.  We extend to all nations what we seek from each: peace, friendship, cooperation, and love in our common humanity.  With this Constitution we, who have been the wards of other nations, become the proud guardian of our own islands, now and forever.

  2. Policies, Principles, Agreements Speaking with a Unified Voice Connectivity (Communications & Governance) LAB

  3. Managing Regionalism:The “No Man’s Land” • It is between: Development Partners & Donors What happens here? Focus of 52nd PIHOA Meeting Small recipient countries and territories

  4. No Man’s Land Activities Convening meetings Setting the agenda Facilitating and interpreting Deciding who speaks Defining what is “participation” and “consensus” Assessing needs Allocating resources Developing policy; identifying values Hiring staff for regional efforts Developing regional strategies and work plans

  5. No Man’s Land . . . • Between: Donor agencies It matters how this is managed and governed Small recipient countries and territories

  6. Anatomy of No Man’s Land Four “IONS” of managing regional resources: Planning/Prioritization Implementation Evaluation Coordination

  7. Prioritization/Planning • What’s the process for identifying USAPI needs? • Who is consulted, how, using what venues? • How are these venues decided upon? • Is prioritization done in a way that ensures buy-in, ownership and mutual trust? • Is there agreement about what the benchmarks are, about what standards we’re shooting for? How is the model for health infrastructure decided? • Do the jurisdictions speak clearly and accurately about their own needs? And do they have the planning capacity to do so? • Are we focusing on the right skills sets? For example, facilitation, negotiation, communications.

  8. Prioritization/Planning • Consultation principles/protocols • Local planning capacity • Consensus health systems standards (US? WHO? FAS? Territories?) • Regional advocacy and communications capacity (US Agency Leadership, Congress, NGOs) • New skill sets: Facilitation, negotiation, communications

  9. Implementation • Are programs structured in ways that maximize alignment with local conditions? • How is this alignment achieved? • How is alignment monitored and adjusted overtime, at both the programmatic and policy levels? • Is there a structured, formal process for harvesting and documenting promises practices and “models that work” in USAPI development? • Does each jurisdiction have the capacity to manage projects effectively and where there are weaknesses, what should be done?

  10. Implementation • Local project management capacity • Competency/skills of US/NGO project officers • Promising practices in interventions (collection, archiving, dissemination) • Standards of practice for Pacific meetings and communications • Special regulatory consideration for FAS/Territories that allow greater flexibility (along with a process for adjustment) • In region federal leadership/policy/strategic liaisons • Focus on new skill sets: business management (procurement, HR, etc…)

  11. Evaluation • How are the impacts of external resources evaluated? • Who evaluates them and how? • Who decides the structure and priorities of the evaluation? • Are they done in such a way that the maximum number of body of stakeholders hold them credible and trustworthy? • At what level are evaluations undertaken? (Program? Policy? High-level, strategic, and comprehensive?) • Who receives the results and how is it used to improve health outcomes?

  12. Evaluation • Protocols and consultation for designing evaluation; alignment of evaluation with local priorities • Selection of evaluating entity or entities (Objective? Capable? Trusted)

  13. Coordination • How do development partners consult and coordinate to minimize fragmentation and duplication and maximize health outcome locally? • Is there a formal mechanism for International/US coordination? • Are there coordination bodies in the USAPI (PIHOA, HLC, MCES) that have the capacity to engage with the corresponding coordination bodies of development partners?

  14. Coordination • Formal coordinating bodies with TORs and appropriate staffing • Linkages between DP and USAPI coordinating bodies

More Related