NEGOTIATIONS for the proposed free trade agreement between Australia, New Zealand and the Pacific Islands, known as PACER-Plus, are expected to start at the end of April. For the Pacific, it's a case of ready or not.

The scheduled Pacific Islands Forum Trade Ministers Meeting to be held in Port Vila, Vanuatu from April 27 - 29 will have on its agenda the framework for a trade agreement between the countries. Despite all the noise made by the Australian and New Zealand governments about 'development' being the 'plus' part of the agreement, it seems by not postponing the meeting until the Pacific Islands are in a position to engage properly, their focus is on putting the pace into PACER-Plus.

With few Pacific Island countries having started, let alone finished their national consultations on PACER-Plus, the starting of preliminary negotiations risks locking in a framework that is uninformed and not responsive to the needs of Pacific communities. With trade officials and Ministers set to discuss issues such as labour mobility, quarantine restrictions on exports, and development assistance, the lack of completed consultations raises many questions about how the Pacific Islands can effectively put forward the interests of their constituents.

Undertaking national consultations however for the Pacific isn’t a straight-forward task. Solomon Islands Foreign Affairs and Trade Minister William Haomae summed up the situation for his country’s ability to undertake national consultation as “an extreme capacity constraint problem” which means that they “would have problems with putting into place the structure for the PACER Plus national consultations”

The Pacific Island Leaders have conveyed their desire to complete consultations prior to any negotiations taking place that view doesn't seem to be shared by Australia's Trade Minister Simon Crean. Mr Crean, when addressing the Australian Parliament said “to do nothing until all consultations are concluded is just a recipe for delay. What are we supposed to consult on, realistically, if we have not commenced negotiations?” Given the concerns that Islanders believe PACER-Plus could have on Pacific land ownership, service provision, government revenue, food security, and manufacturing jobs to name just a few, it's not hard to see that indeed there is a lot to talk about.

The lynch-pin of the Pacific's capacity to enter into negotiations on PACER-Plus is the Office of Chief Trade Advisor. The recently appointed advisor, Dr Chris Noonan, has only been in the job since March despite being appointed to the position six months ago. The delay was on account of fears that the Office would have its independence jeopardised by having to answer to, and make all documents available to, the Forum Secretariat Director of Economic Governance, former AusAID Trade Official, Dr Chakirya Bowman. The Pacific Islands demanded that there be an independent Office of Chief Trade Advisor prior to any negotiations on PACER-Plus, which resulted in a cancellation of a Trade Ministers meeting in Adelaide and an independent role for Dr. Noonan.

The delay in the starting of the Chief Trade Advisor however places the Pacific Islands at a distinct disadvantage. The Pacific Islands are only now meeting with Dr Noonan to discuss the negotiations, what outcomes they want, what the potential impacts could be, and what strategies they could adopt. One doubts Australia or New Zealand would ever enter into negotiations without deciding exactly what they wanted and how they were going to get it.

Added to the problems for the Chief Trade Advisor is the limited funding for the Office. Australia and New Zealand have both promised $500,000 each year for three years, an amount insufficient for the functions that the Pacific Island countries need from the Office. The recent decision by the European Union to not provide any funding for the Office is seen by many as a rebuff to Australia, New Zealand and the Forum Secretariat. The European Union has supported the Pacific Islands for the negotiations with the EU for the Economic Partnership Agreements and as such feel they shouldn't be the ones subsidising Australia and New Zealand's free trade agreement.

Despite the politicking around funding, the Office of Chief Trade Advisor has to face the reality that it is still coming up short on funds to be able to operate at the capacity needed for the Pacific Islands. Without proper funding it will make it all the more difficult for the Islands to get themselves into the best position possible to engage with these negotiations. If Australia and New Zealand are genuine about this being a 'development' agreement then they have to put their money where their mouth is and fund the capacity of the Pacific Islands to engage properly through the mechanisms they have agreed upon.

The rate that PACER-Plus is moving is undermining any hint of 'development' it may contain. Substance needs to be seen as the priority, not speed. The upcoming Forum Trade Ministers Meeting should be postponed until the Pacific Islands are in a position to effectively engage with all the necessary support, strategy and information they need. Pacific Network of Globilation, 09/04/10.