Online subscription.

This event is open to all filmmakers who have produced a documentary on the Pacific within the last three years (please also refer to regulations). The closing date for entries is 1st October 2010 (see entry form and agreement letter).

An international Jury will award the Jury Grand Prize and three special prizes. There will also be an Audience Prize. All the awards include a cash prize.

During the Festival, there will be opportunities for professionals to meet, talk and develop projects together.

This professional and public event is intended to be a meeting place for lovers of the Pacific, our vast region, which boasts such a varied and thriving cultural heritage, synonymous with dreaming, mystery and exploration. This vast maritime continent will emerge in images over the four days of the event. The Festival will offer an enriching, sometimes astonishing, often surprising experience ranging over characters, identities, history and current affairs.

For further information on FIFO, please contact info@fifotahiti.org

All project-proposers (authors, directors, producers) will be granted three to five minutes to present their film idea in front of an audience of international film professionals such as commissioning editors, film funds or other producers. Every contestant should present his project in person and will be given access to audiovisual means to support his presentation. At the end of all the presentations, the participants will have the opportunity to meet each other and exchange on a more personal level.

Precedent to the pitch, a coach will be at disposal to all who are interested, helping them work on their performance. A conference for all participants will be held, informing pitchers on expectations of present commissioning editors and providing useful tips and details on international coproductions.

Every year, the FIFO is attracts more tv and funding representatives from all over the world(ABC Australia, TVNZ, ITVS USA, France Television etc.). This years edition promises to be enriched by the presence of major channels such as ZDF (second German channel), ARTE and others.

Attached to this mail, the inscription form where you will find all necessary information.

The entries for this pitch are now opened and you can send your inscription forms until October 15th, 2010”

Interview with the director Amiel Courtin-Wilson.

How did you meet your key figure, this fabulous and very likeable Jack Charles?

Jack is an old family friend. My mother knew him when she was 15 years old: she used to go to the theatre and see him there. He was a good friend of my uncle who wrote plays. I had never really met him but I had heard about this actor’s mythical and romantic story.

How did you get to meet him?

I had made three documentaries, and I was looking for a new subject for my next film. My uncle told me that Jack had just acted in Sydney and that he was back in Melbourne. The first time that I saw him, I was almost 22, and I knew straight away that I had to make a film about him.

How did your meeting go?

We met in a café. I had my camera in my rucksack – just in case. We began to speak and after two minutes he said, “Why don’t you begin to film me, you should film this conversation.” He made me get out my camera straight away. And from that moment, he really let me enter into his life. Now I am 30. It was a lovely way of spending my twenties.

It took you 7 years to make this film, why did it take so much time?

At the beginning, I thought that it would take me three months like the others. But it was very hard to find the funding because obviously, the life of a homeless, heroin addict, an ‘original junky,’ didn’t really interest the television companies. First of all I filmed for four years before getting something but at the time, the film wasn’t at all what it is today. It was more conventional, with a great deal of Jack in his films and on television, other actors, several one-to-one interviews…

What made you decide to make it less conventional?

The path that his life took. The chosen days in the film became the story’s true subject. The fact that he was chosen to be in a film, that he got his first apartment… These events became more important than his career as an actor. They focussed more on the redemption of a man and the re-birth of a human being.

So after having obtained the first funding, you filmed for three more years… Wasn’t it difficult to film him when he was taking heroin?

It wasn’t easy to find moments of clarity. In fact, we used to film at precise moments in the day, otherwise, he was high. We learnt to work together. I also had to give him money because he would have spent all day trying to find some so we would never have had the time to make the film. So each time we filmed I gave him 50 dollars for the day. With that, he bought heroin. So the following day, we didn’t film, and I tried to find more money again.

It can’t have been easy…

Finally the biggest difficulty was in helping him. For someone who had been through so much in life (uprooted from his family and placed in a home for boys where he was abused…), he is very open, generous and optimistic, like a child in a way. It was difficult seeing him sleep under bridges, in the street. When he went to prison in 2002, obviously I couldn’t film him. We became closer: It was no longer just a relationship between a director and a character. It had become a friendship.

I imagine this friendship was the cornerstone of the story?

The film exists thanks to it. This film is in part a love letter to Jack, a gift for him. The hardest thing was to stop filming as our relationship was fundamentally based on this interview process. So it was very strange to have suddenly finished the film. We used to joke together saying that the only moment that we would stop filming would be when he died. I am pleased that we finished before that.

Has he seen the film?

Yes. He didn’t want to see any of the rushes but just the film as it is now. We sat together and we linked arms, hand in hand. He began to cry, I cried too. He held me very tight and told me, “You have done a great job.” “Thanks Jack, you have done a great job too,” I replied. He was happy. Me too. In fact I was very scared of his reaction, because some of the scenes show him really drugged up. But because he had come off heroin when we finished the film, he was able to start a new chapter in his life.

And this 1st special jury prize?

I feel very privileged, very happy and honoured that the film was shown to an international audience because several times when I tried to get funding I was told that the story was too "local". Receiving this prize finally shows that Jack’s story is universal. In addition, it is my first international prize. I feel ‘over the moon.’

Do you have any projects with Jack?

We are currently writing a book about his life, with some photographs and some passages written by him. We have also recorded some songs. In short, we are not going to stop mid-flow. It keeps going!

Manon Hericher

Philippe Machenaud, Government Secretary-General, Patricia Lincoln, Cabinet Director of the Ministry for the Development of the Louis Frébault Archipelagos, Eric Spitz, High Commissioner Secretary-General, Tearii Alpha, Minister of Land Affairs, Development, Housing and Equipment, responsible for town-planning, Eugène Sanford, Head of the Computer Department, Marc Debene, Professor at UPF, Irmine Tehei and Christophe Psychogios, respectively Treasurer and Vice-Chairman of the Te Tia Ara Association for Consumer Defence, Marcel Desvergne, debate leader and Michel Paoletti, Chairman of Digital Encounters, were gathered around the table for an inventory and report of the situation in French Polynesia and to discuss ways of facilitating the way forward in particular for the most isolated users.

« Electronic administration is not a whim or a fashion but notably an economic must,” assured Eric Spitz. “In a budget situation under strain, administration must inevitably work more and more efficiently, when a certain number of measures are put in place and electronic administration progresses, there is an economy of paper, time…Very simply because administration must improve its services in a context of globalization, new budgetary requirements and an increase in client expectation, there is no choice.”  “Administration in Metropolitan France,” he pursued, “carried out some research on users, from the strong points in our lives and highlighted some of the painful moments when, in fact, administration and the increase in the number of administrative processes adds to this pain (bereavement, divorce…). A website is up and running and allows each user to resolve a certain number of steps, without having to go anywhere.” If French Polynesia is not yet at the same level as Metropolitan France today, there are nevertheless a certain number of procedures electronically accessible from now on to public service users. But to guarantee the success of the introduction of electronic administration, Eric Spitz lay down three essential conditions. First of all, there must be a strong vision and political will. Then, electronic administration, not being an end in itself, cannot be an isolated process – it must be integrated into a wider framework, notably one with fixed objectives regarding the management of the public .Lastly, you need to put yourself in the place of the user and have a certain number of follow-up methods and a process of evaluation. “We should not content ourselves with self-satisfaction.”

Teari Alpha confirmed her political will to accelerate the setting up of an administration: “Polynesia is going to and must participate in this digital evolution and obviously wants to participate in any technological advance. The administration needs to be updated, to restructure and to be closer to its users.” When Michel Paoletti stressed the subject of land affairs, which constitutes a large problem in the country for a good number of citizens, the Minister continued “200,000 documents are produced annually by the Management of Land Affairs. Digital could allow us to bring together this database of the villages. We are in discussions with the OPT to create specific work networks, digital work environments, notably for the villages and administration. Of course several legal constraints regarding the confidentiality of certain access needs to be removed, but I think that the political will of the country today is to be able to achieve this type of research and that it will be very well received by the users. […] There is notably a tool that we should create at all costs, it is the system of geographical information that we should be able to pool and share with businesses, private individuals and users. There are three levels of use: the village user, far away from Tahiti, whose presence in offices in Papeete could be avoided to obtain information; manufacturers, businesses and research departments, with whom we could work more easily by digital connection; and the political decision-makers.”

With this mention of the islanders, who don’t have easy access to information, the notion of digital rupture was evoked by Marc Debene. “This rupture may be territorial but also social. And alongside the principle of equality, there is also continuity: it is necessary that the public service functions in a continuous way,” he detailed, “now at the present time, when looking at public service sites, I noticed that many sites were under maintenance which is not really compatible with the principle of continuity.” As for Christophe Psychogios he recalled that, “The problem of user access to these new resources will be problematic, first of all in terms of content (the problem of the visibility of information), but also in terms of accessibility, acquisition of means and product use, which doesn’t say much to these users for whom oral communication is used in particular. […] 65% of homes have a computer, which then leaves 35% of households for whom a computer is an unknown domain. The main thing which concerns the island citizens is anything to do with land and I wish to stress the fact that as soon as there is a step to be made, it is a real battle ground. I would like to point the finger at the Registry Office Service. It would seem that the previous prosecutor closed access to the Court Registry Office and sent the users to each village to establish their genealogy and find the certificates. This does not facilitate the tasks of users when trying to assert their rights in land matters. To remedy this could we have a unique digital counter where the citizens would have use of all the Land and Registry Office information? An effort really must be made.

Eric Spitz underlined the fact that the situation wasn’t at all satisfying, specifying “We have a lot of work to get to where we want to, to work with all the administrative authorities that give shape to Polynesian life.” In the public sector, Karl Reguron responded to the idea of a digital counter suggesting that free internet access terminals are put in OPT offices at the disposal of users, “To at least allow them to consult the territory sites, to look for information.” “The objective that we set ourselves regarding land matters,” detailed Tearii Alpha, “is to relocate the expertise of the representatives, through whom families often go about these land problems, on a village level.”

“E-administration is in the process of being set up but it has not yet been accomplished. It needs to evolve,” ascertained a confident Philippe Machenaud. Michel Paoletti concludes, sharing his frustration at not having obtained provisional dates as an answer to the question, “When will the villages be ready to help the users of the different municipalities?”

Manon Hericher

Considering the new capabilities that digital resources offer, the means of artistic expression are exploding and the creations demand constant updating. Today Polynesia must find itself a means of existing on the network. Yes, but how? The objective of this meeting was to provide some answers.

Viri Taimana, Director of the Centre for Art Professions, Moana Brotherson for OPT, Claire Schwob, co-founder and Artistic Director of Tahiti.tv, Manea Castet, video games concept designer, Emmanuel Kasarhéou, Director of the Agency for the Development of Kanak Culture at the Tjibaou Cultural Centre, and René Barsalo, for the Society of Arts and Technology, took part by videoconference from Montreal. Heremoana Maamaatuaiahutapu, Director of the Maison de la Culture, and Eric Bourgeois, Director of the Institute of Audiovisual Communication, developed the subject in general.

The question is really to know what digital can bring to creation and in what form (musical, visual…).Cable is coming, 99,99%  of what we receive will be from outside Polynesia, the question is what will we send back in return. So we began by examining what already existed and we then questioned the means and the fields that can be developed to create multimedia content in Polynesia.

We thought that it would be limited but in fact there are many things in the making. Digital can undoubtedly be a basis for creation and some of our guests showed us by presenting their work to us. We invited artists (creators of video games, computer graphic designers, 3D animators, Web TV directors…) to encourage young people to get involved in this area, for in fact the jobs are nothing new but very few Polynesians are doing them.

The advantage of the internet is that a multitude of things can be done with very little. It is today’s big lesson: contrary to what we hear “I work in culture so I need a lot of money,” a huge cultural content can be produced with very little means. There is no need to have millions, digital allows creativity with little cost: hosting an internet site will cost for example $6 per month; today there is free access to practically all the software to make music on the computer…

Digital creation needs to move forward in Polynesia, which will allow a response to the imminent invasion, without being subjected to it. The more people that do things, whether small or big, the better it will be. What is important is to exist and to give something in exchange for what is received.

And now, the word needs to be spread to make people aware that everything is possible.

Get straight to your computers!

Manon Hericher

Once upon a time there was Takuu, a small island off Papua New Guinea, lost in the Pacific. How did you discover it?

The film director Briar March, read an article by Richard Moyle, an anthropologist at the University of Auckland, who has worked in particular on Takuu for many years. In this article, he described the situation on the island and talked about the fact that the inhabitants were to be moved in light of the first devastating effects of climate change. I contacted him and because he has close links with the island, he was able to gain authorisation to film there.

Did you decide to make the film for the environmental aspect?

In effect no. Briar wanted to do it and I wasn’t clever enough to say no (laughs). Above all I found that it was a good story. At the beginning we explored the fascinating idea that the island was in the process of being submerged. It turned out subsequently that it wasn’t being submerged but that it suffers from severe flooding, water enters the houses, the storms are more and more intense and there is no support, no help for these people. They don’t have a spokesperson either. I felt responsible to stand for their cause.

So there is no political activism?

To tell you the truth when we began the film, we were still wondering if climate change was a reality. People’s awareness of this problem was very different from today. So we are a little avant-garde in this domain for this type of reportage. Now it seems to have changed: it is clear that beyond the simple question of the environment, it is becoming a problem for societies, in the plural, and I am very happy that the film is coming out at a time when people are beginning to seriously reflect upon the subject. I hope that a solution will be found.

At the moment Takuu’s inhabitants are hesitating to leave their island because of this new reality, through fear of abandoning their way of life, their culture. What is their alternative?

The government of Bougainville, the main island which they are dependent upon, envisage their move as a long term solution. They still have the choice to stay. Besides most of them don’t want to move, but they are torn. When we were there, there was a huge flood. All of a sudden, they are under pressure to decide. Should they stay or go? It is fear of the unknown.

How was the filming?

We did it in two parts. First of all two months, when just the director and a technical advisor went, then another month, during which I went with them. By radio, Richard Moyle was able to warn the inhabitants about our arrival. I think that they were happy that we were interested in their problems.

Have they seen the film?

Not yet, I tried to bring them before coming to FIFO but the boat which serves the island isn’t very reliable and I wasn’t able to go there again. But it is obvious it is very important that they see it. We plan to return there in April, if it is possible. Richard Moyle has planned to go there.

The project took four years to come to fruition…

It was very difficult to film because there is no money for overseas films. We needed four years to gather the funds to finance the film. First of all we had to wait for a year at the outset and again two years afterwards in order to be able to return to the island. In the end we were very lucky to have a lot of support from industry but we had to fit into the planning of others.

Today, for your first film as a producer, you have just won this jury grand prix. An important first step…

I am delighted that the film has been recognised after four years of work and I am also really very happy that the first worldwide projection of the film began on such a good footing.

Do you have any other projects at the moment?

I currently have two documentary projects at the development stage but I can’t talk about them yet as I still have research to do.

What can we wish for you whilst waiting for the next productions?

I hope that this evening’s prize will permit us to show the film to many people and to get everyone talking about this problem.

Manon Hericher

As is the custom, the suspense was held until the end for the winner of the jury prize. The special prizes (300 000 Fcfp each) were awarded first of all. The third for, ‘The Untouchable Girls’ from New Zealand, an 82 minute film by Leanne Pooley who shows the life of funny and lively lesbian twins. It is a joyful film, which offsets the generally more austere trend. The second was awarded to Keala Kelly from Hawaii, for her 73 minute film called, ‘Noho Hewa.’ It is about Hawaiians who denounce the continual desecration of graves and sacred places, the American military presence in Hawaii and the dispossession of the Hawaiian people by the American colonial occupation. The first prize went to Amiel Courtin-Wilson for, ‘Bastardy,’ an 83 minute film, “Funny and dramatic at the same time, but with an amazing actor. It is a film with all the necessary ingredients to please, which it will do for everyone.’ The public prize was then awarded to, ‘Native Land, Return to Rurutu,’ directed by Jean-Michel Corillon, who was able to narrate the problem of adoption, “Full of modesty, without pathos, without voyeurism. This was a difficult exercise.”

Out of the five films awarded at this seventh edition, two are from New Zealand as it was,‘Te Henua E Noho,’ by Briar March, which was awarded with the jury grand prix in the end (500 000 Fcfp prize money). It is an 80 minute film, on an island off the coast of Papua New Guinea, threatened by rising sea levels, raising important questions for inhabitants. Florence Aubenas highlighted, “With this prize we wanted to award both the flapping of butterfly wings, that is to say a very small island in the middle of the ocean which will be submerged by the sea and which demonstrates this problem at the heart of this continent, and also the human adventure that it represents, to know these people who suddenly have a choice to make: to be the first to leave or the last to stay. It is a human choice that is extremely captivating and well narrated since each of the inhabitants explains their choice, what makes them change their mind… It is an extremely moving film which is what we wanted to award.”

The Chairwoman of the jury admits that the choice was however hard. “It was very close,” she admitted. “We quarrelled a little, as is normal. We hesitated, argued, it lasted longer than we thought it would. But we are very pleased with our prize list and very happy with the winner. […] We would like to state the extent to which we have been happy and proud to take part in this adventure which is a documentary school in the middle of Oceania. During our numerous discussions, Olivier Poivre d’Arvor used to say, "What would Cannes be without its festival"; It will soon be said, "What would Tahiti be without FIFO?”!”

How do editors, writers and journalists…perceive digital’s advance and what equilibrium is forming between these forms of expression and digital technology?

At first glance we are fearful and believe that digital technology is going ‘to kill’ lots of jobs, and then we realise that finally, in a sector like that of books, considered one of the last bastions of traditional industry, digital is already everywhere in the production chain. Cable will for example allow much larger files to be sent (as an example: a book can be between 10 and 100 mega and an illustrated art book from 30 to 40 giga). The Honotua cable will then allow a larger data flow, but in reality not everything is digital in the last phase in the world of books (the format and the screen is still unknown).Today the book chain is very structured; in the virtual world there is a tendency to ignore steps and so to abolish intermediaries like the editor or the bookshop for example. Nothing prevents a writer from putting a book online without going through an editor, like certain artists make themselves known on the web without going through a publisher and without editing a CD, but care must be taken with the economic model chosen and to place the holders of the rights at the centre (writers, composers, editors..), as there is a real danger if it is the access providers who possess the command of the cultural product.

In addition, Haere Po’s experience of putting certain work online was interesting for several reasons: it is a way of getting the product known, to prevent over printing and also to transport it to the other side of the world, as the export freight costs for a local editor are very expensive. A newspaper can be distributed more widely and without cost with digital support (on the islands for example). Digital kiosks can be pictured to consult or print newspapers from around the world.

The internet is a tool very adapted to the media and the distribution of information. Anything which is free regarding books is harmful. The SNE (National Editors Trade Union) complained against Google which puts thousands of books online although complete publication sections are already available digitally (encyclopaedias, travel guides…) It has been realised that digital, a development factor, distribution ease… is not frightening since it always situates the creator at the centre of the process and that is where there are still blurred areas.

The revolution is digital. It condemns the existing economic models which must imperatively reposition themselves or risk disappearance. Society, trade bodies must adapt to this new technology which evolves very quickly but which cannot be ignored today. And insofar as everyone has the possibility of leaving a mark on the net, the added value becomes primordial and makes the difference (pertinent analysis, expertise for the journalist for example).

Two steps are important on the net: to build an audience and monetize it (through advertising bias, sale of content and the creation of paying areas).

In the United States, for example, internet users financed journalists on a site to follow Obama’s presidential campaign. E-learning is booming in universities and the arrival of the iPad which offers sound, image and video…replacing the iPod and the computer together, shows that the evolution is constant and that the tools are more and more efficient. Digital should then be seen as means of development but it will not kill creation in any way. Writers will continue to write, musicians to compose and painters to paint.

After a discussion on Tuesday dedicated to funding, the presentation on Wednesday by the NC 2011 Games Committee Team about the technical system for the coverage of the event and the creation coming from a pool collating images and programmes of the games, yesterday’s debate was structured around attempts at co-production and the implementation of regional projects. Guy Muller, the Conference Organiser and consultant, spoke about it in detail.

At this point does the fourth conference meet your expectations?

The number of participants on average is from 18 to 20 people. This year is all the better as we have succeeded in making television broadcasters meet (including the new internet broadcasters, like Richard Broadbridge, Chairman of MaiTV in Fiji) and producers and directors. It a step in the right direction which shows that we are making the debate professional, and from the moment that it becomes professional, well often it leads to something concrete. It is then very positive as the essence of these conferences is to reach something tangible. There, we have gone past the framework of the discussion and we are trying to reach the decision making stage.

Notably you spoke again about the idea of creating a regional production support fund - this had already been touched upon on Tuesday…

Yesterday three projects were presented: ‘One short - One movie’ by Fred Premel (a coproduction project between directors and producers from Metropolitan France and overseas); ‘Yumi Piksar’ by Verena Thomas; and mine ‘Melanesian Beats,’ which I can talk about. This project regroups four television stations (Salomon, Vanuatu, Papua New Guinea and Fidji – so we really are in a firm association of professionals, aiming to lead into a programme project, in this case, a sitcom pilot). 80% of it is financed by the European Commission through the ACPFilms programme, which aims to promote the production, distribution and training of people in the film domain and audiovisual production in the largest sense. In 2008, the European Commission made a budget of 6.5 million Euros available (3.8 for production support, 1.7 for the promotion and distribution of works and 1 million for training – a category to which the Melanesian Beats project belongs). What I deplored is that out of 24 projects selected and financed by Brussels, only two or three were from the Caribbean, and only one from Melanesia. It proves that Brussels is still not looking closely at this zone in which we live and that this Oceania zone is little known. And yet it has potential, the people have ideas and competencies.

What do they need to stand out?

Funding is needed and especially institutional or private partners who recognise their existence. It is precisely what we are considering with the creation of this regional support fund and one of next year’s objectives is to bring someone from the European Commission back to FIFO to identify our problems, so that at the next call for proposals, the people in Brussels can better consider the region’s difficulties.

This need to exchange programmes between the broadcasters from the large Oceania zone also obviously implicates supplementary dubbing or subtitling costs…

There is indeed this language problem since between Melanesia, Polynesia and Micronesia, a minimum of two languages is common: English and French. It is good, where possible, that a production takes into account the necessity to work in two languages, but it is something which requires means and that must anticipated in the business plan…Following on from this, Mateata Maamaatuaiahutapu from TNTV, reported that the Pacific Funds had made a budget available to subtitle regional works. But this fund is not specific to audiovisual production. Our fund will be set aside exclusively for that. Besides we are in the process of setting up research to go much further and to be able to say next year, “There is something which has been created.”

What has happened to APAC (Aid for Audiovisual and Cinematographic Production), set up here in 2007?

It doesn’t want to get involved on an international level, no more that the New Zealand or Australian support funds, for structural and status reasons. So the idea really is to create something international, or at the least ‘large regional’ and in particular supple. Financial backers are often reproached for making us enter into a heavy administrative procedure which we cannot cope with here.

I noted that for next year you envisaged that the conference will question the alliance between the different broadcasting aids?

We cannot really continue to work without recognising the existence of new aids and new media. It is obvious that professionals who are around the conference table are concerned with the way in which we can and must produce multi support content (from what we call digital convergence). The conference is sufficiently mature now for us to consider this important problem.

Do you envisage opening a market?

It is the question we are asking ourselves. Introducing pitching sessions, ensuring that people can come here with catalogues or ‘deal memos’ (purchase agreements)… To programme a sort of ‘speed dating’ production, it is totally possible. It is clear that the economic dimension cannot be excluded from this conference and audiovisual industry in Oceania. It is no longer new. It definitely still needs to grow but we really need to think about the way in which it can be done.

For the fourth and last debate, at this very moment in the Maison de la Culture marquee, the Oceania Football Confederation is tackling the question of the training of sports journalists and programme exchanges. With perhaps in the background the creation of  Web TV…

Manon Hericher

-          What terms must the government and the local companies determine so that digital helps the development of the country?

-          How do we enrol the arrival of cable with the aim to make Polynesia a hub of digital exchanges between South America and Asia for example (which is currently done via the United States)?

The country needs a real digital policy with investments and projects and a long term development strategy.

If we note that 75% of local companies are computerised with an internet access level identical to Metropolitan France, Polynesia’s visibility to the exterior is poor. Very few companies develop web sites as they are not accessible from abroad whereas websites are a huge stake for the development of the companies. Furthermore e-commerce could develop, regarding the archipelagos with Tahiti, if the people could pay for their purchases with exclusive cards and not necessarily with Visa, Mastercard or other types of cards.

So there are genuine restrictions at present regarding the development of companies in Polynesia including: the scale of the economy; the cost of the work; the restrained size of the market, but also the limits imposed upon volume in terms of debit and speed (whereas in theory nothing is preventing greater performance); the absence of electronic certification authority fundamental to permit international billing and the absence of policy projection regarding the digital economy. The OPT, justifiably often implicated at times, all the same bears ¾ of the bill which allows Polynesia to catch up with the world and finally try to compensate for the lack of policy for economic development that the successive political powers have never instigated.

Extensive studies were undertaken, concrete proposals have been made and notably that of a ‘Digital Village’ which would permit the country to offer an attractive deal for foreigners as far as the digital economy is concerned with a business centre… but which also raises the urgency of the training of digital technology qualified engineers and it must then be stated that there is already lost time to be made up.

The Honotua cable has unanimous support then in terms of economic resource, its potential is enormous and the expressions used by many, ‘the pace has been set’ or ‘time is running out,’ point out the apparent urgency to work together and quickly, political powers, banks and companies, as without appropriate responses from the country, activity and job creation will take place elsewhere and so the conditions must be created to win this challenge in the digital economy.