THE NEED FOR INCLUSIVE DIALOGUE
The Pacific Institute of Public Policy has released its latest briefing paper to stimulate thought on how to develop an informed and inclusive series of national dialogues to bring about wider participation in PACER Plus discussions.
PACER Plus has proven to be a particularly divisive topic in the region, mirroring the global debate for and against free trade agreements. Pacific Islands Forum ministers and officials meet this week in Brisbane to map out a framework to move negotiations forward.
Despite an exhaustive (and perhaps exhausting) tour of the Pacific this year by Australian and New Zealand ministers and officials – a tour that sought to assure governments and the public that PACER Plus would be development focused and more than just a trade agreement – there remains an overwhelming public perception that PACER Plus is not in the best interest of the islands. Pacific leaders have also sought to quell fears that they have been ‘ambushed’ and assert PACER Plus is not being ‘forced’ upon them.
So why, after clocking up so many air miles and so much media space, are civil society groups and the wider population still not convinced?
Mr Derek Brien, Deputy Executive Director of PiPP, says “if we are to get a true picture of the potential impact of PACER Plus – both positive and negative – then we need to open up the discussion beyond the narrow confines of existing trade relationships. It is, after all, a Pacific Agreement on Closer Economic Relations”.
The briefing paper suggest that as a starting point, the Australia New Zealand Closer Economic Relations agreement presents a more relevant model than traditional trade agreements.
“A Closer Economic Agreement in the Pacific needs to consider a whole range of issues, such as improving living conditions, consumer protection, business development, social inclusion, infrastructure, the environment and migration. Pacific leaders have demonstrated a long-standing commitment to regional integration, and PACER Plus presents an opportunity to build on the deep social, cultural and commercial linkages between the Pacific islands, Australia and New Zealand,” says Mr Brien. “But we wont get there unless we change the language of the debate. Just releasing an avalanche of technical studies is not enough. Framing the discussion in trade jargon excludes most people, and prevents a more thorough appraisal of the options for mutually beneficial integration.”
There is no one-size-fits all framework to guide national consultations as each country has specific national interests as well as political, social and economic context. Defining a consultation framework will require the involvement of key stakeholders from across government, business, industry bodies and civil society.
The Pacific island governments have called for space to undertake national consultations. This space should be allowed within the negotiation time line, bearing in mind that a well managed national dialogue will both inform and be informed by ongoing research. It is not about slowing the process; it is about achieving better outcomes.
A copy of the briefing paper is available here.
