It should first be noted that there has not been extensive debate about the purpose, range and forms regionalism should take in the future in spite of the plan’s consultation process. The EPG review consultations that were carried out in 2003 focused primarily on re-examining the role of the forum. The specific outcomes of the EPG review, as stated in its terms of reference, were ‘a refreshed mandate and vision for the Pacific Islands Forum and an improved capacity within the Forum that allows it to provide leadership to the region on regional cooperation and integration’ (EPG 2004: 58). While the idea of a Pacific Plan for greater regional cooperation grew out of that review, the process of consultation for the review did not focus on what sort or the extent of regionalism the peoples of the region aspire to. In addition, even though the EPG did consult with a variety of groups and institutions, the process was rushed, with the review team having less than a month to meet people face to face.

The initial draft Pacific Plan, dated December 2004 and put together by the Plan Task Force, was made available for national and regional consultations held in all countries of the region. But because the draft itself made assumptions about the benefits of regionalism (initiatives were presented under three time lines: early practical, medium-term and longer-term benefits), it might have pre-empted a debate about the benefits and costs of moving from one form of regionalism to another. Understandably, the authors of the draft were keen to set a framework for discussions, but, as a result, questions such as who currently benefits from regionalism, in what ways, whose interests regionalism serves, what sort of regionalism would benefit which countries (according to size, population, resources, etc.), and what sort of region is envisaged in 10 years and 20 years, were not widely asked, far less answered. Yet they were to some extent raised in the Toward a New Pacific Regionalism report that the Task Force used in framing the various drafts. Unfortunately, the way the drafts were designed and the way the plan now stands are not conducive to asking or answering these fundamental questions before moving on to practical initiatives. The plan process should have provided an opportunity for a thorough stocktake of regionalism and allowed for the development of a clear vision through a longer and more widespread consultation process.

These important questions about the raison d’être and finality of regionalism as well as its possible forms tie in directly to the question of cultural identity at the regional level. This was recognised in the terms of reference of the Task Force, which stated that one of the issues the Task Force should consider was: ‘A practical definition of a Pacific regional approach (i.e., a definition of “regionality”) noting Leaders’ declaration on the importance of maintaining and strengthening Pacific cultural identity.’ However, defining ‘regionality’ with a strong focus on cultural identity was eschewed by the Task Force. This, in combination with the lack of widespread consultation during the drafting phase of the plan, has led to questions about the plan’s suitability for the region, an aspect that is discussed in some of the plan submissions by regional civil society organisations.