THE Caribbean Community and Common Market (Caricom), in celebrating its 37th anniversary with the hopes of fully operationalising the Single Market and Economy (CSME) in 2015, now faces acute and growing challenges of fragmentation, loss of direction and a paralysing inertia.

The need for serious reflection on the state of the regional integration movement is widely recognised and it serves no useful purpose by expediently sweeping problems under the proverbial carpet for some future period.

Ironically, government leaders, the executive managers within the Community Secretariat, technocrats, as well as citizens of the integration movement themselves at times publicly express dissatisfaction with how “Caricom’s business” is being run.

This unfortunate state of affairs has often been addressed by leading journalists in and outside of the Caribbean. Commentators are dismayed, if not disillusioned, with what appears to be a lack of political will and managerial fortitude to engage in urgent, thorough and strategic action to overhaul and modernise the governance and executive management of Caricom.

After years of task forces and/or working groups, the implementation of decisions by heads of government continues to be selective, at times tardy, partial or half-hearted — at worst, shelved.

An instructive example of “selectivity” was the apparent anxiety, if not exceptional speed, with which an institutional audit of the then Caribbean Regional Negotiating Machinery (CRNM) was completed – in a record three months – to result in its replacement by what now functions as the Office of Trade Negotiation (OTN) within the Caricom Secretariat where, perhaps, it belonged from the outset.

But some 14 months after the signing of a full Economic Partnership Agreement (EPA) by the CARIFORUM countries (Caricom plus the Dominican Republic) with the European Union, very obligatory World Trade Organisation (WTO) requirements for technical data remain unfulfilled. More importantly, the proposed date and venue for the inaugural Joint Council with the EU remain unknown.

Not surprisingly, the Committee of Economic Development Trade and Finance of the African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) Parliamentary Assembly was to learn from a Caribbean parliamentarian that EPA implementation” is virtually at a standstill”.

In the circumstances, one can reasonably question whether decision-making in Caricom is guided by the necessary thinking through the relevant administrative, managerial and institutional arrangements.

This should be normal practice, informed by creative policy papers, human resource and financial management costs, as well as the strategic objectives and time-tabling for relevant action, before being presented for consideration by the ministerial councils and heads of government.

Some commentators have alluded to the lack of creative thinking by the initial response of the Community to the negative impact of the global financial crisis and economic crisis with associated threats to food and energy security.

One may well ask what was really derived from the “merry-go-round” of, first, a January 2009 ‘task force’, then a ‘special team of experts’ three months later, followed by a so-called ‘high-level mobilisation task force’, comprised of heads of government. The ensuing cynicism across the region became more pervasive on Caricom’s future.

That approach in dealing with the global financial crisis is, unfortunately, just another instance of short-term, knee-jerk reactions. It is partly the result of a “policy vacuum” arising from the inordinate and stymied delays in arriving at a comprehensive and dynamic Regional Development Strategy (RDS).

That was exactly meant to be the next step in the initial work led by Professor Norman Girvan for the sequential operationalising of the CSME, consistent with the stated commitment “Towards A Single Economy for a Single Development Vision”.

It represents a seminal work done in collaboration with the Community Secretariat. It was officially submitted since October 2006 and unanimously approved by heads of government. Regrettably this most important document remains another submission of good work somewhere on the shelves of the Caricom Secretariat and the ministries of member governments, with some leaders apparently yet to acquaint themselves with even its core recommendations.

Overcoming paralysis

Faced with this paralysis, Caricom needs to pursue, on a systematic basis, a twin-track approach to lift the stature of and overcome the inertia within the region’s economic integration movement.

First, take on board, as soon as possible, the idea, originally raised 20 years ago by the West Indian Commission in its very valuable “A Time for Action” Report, of the creation of a Caricom Commission to help with executive authority to effectively manage the business of the Community under the supervision of heads of government.

Unfortunately, misconceptions and unnecessary fears about “supra-nationality” had emerged to prevent implementation, in any form, of a new administrative structure under the guidance of the proposed Caricom Commission, with some heads of government talking about a “Community of 14 sovereign states”, as if those to be chosen to serve on a new governance mechanism will undermine this recognised “sovereignty”.

Today, however, I am inclined to believe that the political directorate has reached a more nuanced understanding of “regional governance”, thanks to the Technical Working Group (TWG) of 2006, headed by Dr Vaughn Lewis.

The fundamental recommendation of the 2006 TWG for the introduction of a Single Caricom Act, ratified in all member states, within the framework of the Revised Treaty (which is really the Caricom Constitution), needs to be adopted without further foot-dragging and more word games.

For, in acting on the basis of combined strength with a “single vision” in a globalised world, it should enable Caricom’s voice and policies to more effectively resonate in the international arena.

A delimiting of competencies is a standard rule practised by supra-national organisations. Relevant examples are to be found in the European Union’s Council of Member States, its Executive Commission (EU) and an elected Parliament.

Action on new governance

The forthcoming Inter-sessional Heads of Government, scheduled for Dominica next month, should mandate a task force, or some similar mechanism, to prepare priority options for appointment of a high representative in EACH of the four pillars of the Community to initiate action proposals and exercise his/her executive authority.

Given the serious and complex issues now faced by the Community, with their international dimensions in multilateral, regional and bilateral fora, it seems reasonable to first consider the appointment of a high representative with responsibilities as an executive chairperson for the Council for Foreign and Community Relations (COFCOR) and its areas of competency.

At the level of executive management in the Secretariat, the long-serving and hard-working Secretary General Edwin Carrington has held this post from 1992. Despite the brilliance and exceptional talent that any individual may possess, 18 years of continuing service is excessive.

The wide range of responsibilities and pressures of physical health place unreasonable demands for such an office holder to be ever conversant, alert and innovate in matters requiring new thinking on account of complex and turbulent times.

As an initial step, the Inter-sessional Conference should appoint a search committee with appropriate terms of reference for a succession process in the Office of the Secretary General as well as review the role and functions of other executive management offices.

The writer is a senior Caribbean diplomat who contributes to the region’s media under his pen name.