From Stabroek News, 28/04/08
On April 17, 2008 Martinique mourned the loss of its favourite son; the Caribbean lost one of its greatest poets, playwrights, essayists and politicians; and the world was left the poorer for the passing of Aimé Fernand Césaire…
Read In the Diaspora: the passing of Aime Cesaire by Linden Lewis
A comprehensive analysis of the provisions of the Cariforum-EC EPA from a critical standpoint. Click below to access PowerPoint Presentation.
Prepared for a Seminar held at the European Commission, February 2008. Dr. Bartels is Lecturer in International Law, Cambridge University
‘This agreement has not yet been notified to the WTO, despite the fact that EU preferences are being granted under the EPA Regulation. And yet the WTO Transparency Decision provides that such preferences may only be granted once an agreement is notified to the WTO. Clearly, this is not in compliance with this Decision. What is also striking, I think, is how this relaxed attitude to WTO obligations, now that there is an initialled text, compares to the frenetic pressure to initial agreements before 31 December 2007 (pressure also reflected in the EPA Regulation). It does tend to make that pressure look a little manufactured…
Public Lecture, UWI, Cave Hill, Barbados, April 18, 2008
We are at fork in the road in Caricom’s development. One path, represenented by the shape and content of the EPA, leads to greater differentiation, fragmentation and loss of autonomy for the region …the other path leads to greater integration, gradual convergence of core living standards and citizens’ economic social and political rights, and greater autonomy, that is to say greater capacity to chart our own way in this world with dignity and self-determination. That path is represented by the CSME, with all its deficits of participation and implementation and other imperfections; by the Single Development Vision…
Text of a paper presented at the Commonwealth Secretariat High Level Technical Meeting: EPAs: The Way Forward for the ACP. Cape Town, South Africa, 7-8 April, 2008
The basic development problem of the ACP Group of Countries…is inadequate, uncompetitive and undiversified productive capacity. Yet the present Agreement that the European Community (EC) has designed for them, that purports to be an Economic Partnership Agreement (EPA), is almost entirely about market access and other trade-related modalities…
Originally published as a series of articles on the EPA in the Stabroek News.
This paper offers from a CARICOM perspective a strategic appraisal of the CARIFORUM-EC, EPA, recognised as the first “full and comprehensive” EPA among the six being negotiated by the EU among the ACP group of countries. The EPA is both a legal document and an instrument designed to promote specified development objectives. Its strengths, weaknesses, as well as the opportunities it will create and the threats it faces, will unfold during its implementation…
Also:
The EPA sets up an elaborate institutional machinery for implementation, monitoring and review. At the apex is a Joint Council with power to take legally binding decisions. The Joint Council is supported by a Trade and Development Committee, which has wide-ranging powers and functions. The Special Committe on Trade Facilitation and Customs Cooperation is also important. There are also a joint Parliamentary Committee and a Consultative Committee; these are mainly for dialogue and consultation.
Click here for EPA Governance Diagram
Click here for EPA Governance Matrix showing functions, powers and composition of the Committees (Excel file).
Click here for a discussion of the‘Parties‘ to the EPA.
One of the curious features of the EPA is the definition of ‘Parties’ to the Agreement and the way the definition is used. …The definition is important not only to determining rights and obligations under the Agreement but also has a bearing on when CARIFORUM is represented by a single joint representative on the implementation Committees of the EPA…
Article 19 of the Cariforum-EC EPA commits Cariforum to grant Europe the same treatment it grants to any ‘major trading economy’ in subsequent free trade agreements; defined as a country or group of countries that accounts for more than 1 percent or 1.5 percent respectively of world merchandise exports. It is believed that the ‘Interim’ EPAs signed with several African and Pacific states contain a similar provision.
This concession would apply to future trade agreements made with developing countries such as China (8.2 percent of world merchandise exports), Brazil (1.14) and India (1.00) and with the MERCOSUR group (Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay and Uruguay, 1.53 percent). In a statement to the WTO’s General Council, Brazil has argued that the EPA MFN clause is inconsistent with the GATT-WTO provisions for Special and Differential Treatment to developing countries and will inhibit South-South trade.
Posted below are the text of the relevant clause of Cariforum-EC EPA (Article 19), the text of Brazil’s statement, and a comment by David Jessop, trade writer.
Article 19 of the CARIFORUM-EC EPA
Brazil’s Statement to the WTO of February 4, 2008
Most Favoured Nation concession a danger for the Caribbean - David Jessop Jamaica Gleaner, 14/03/08
To acccess the Oxfam Report on the EPAs, click here
