May 19
EPA Negotiations with Central Africa: The state of play, by Claude Maerten and Elisabeth Tison, March 2009
‘The EU has no wish to exercise pressure at the risk of obtaining agreements that might not meet the specific needs of each region…
This seems to be a total different approach from the EC compared to the concluding of the EPA and interim EPAs in December 2007 with the 15 Cariforum Countries, the 18 African and the 2 Pacific countries. The position of the EC is now that the EPAs should not be rushed. So the 42 Countries in Africa and the Pacific that did not sign EPAs in December 2007 can take their time to negotiate a good agreement and to prevent the mistakes of the ACP countries that already signed. They did not conclude nor signed a EPA in December 2007 because they were not sure about the impact of the EPA for their economies and for coming generations and their future. They wanted to have more time for discussions with all the stakeholders in their countries, more research and data. So the negotiations between the four regions of Africa, the Pacific region and the EC have continued since January 2008. Progress has been made with some regions like Central Africa, draft texts are available, but no EPA has yet been signed.
The ACP Heads of States have sent a request for a meeting to the European Council to discuss the EPAs and other ACP-EC-partnership issues at the highest level. This is not the first time they are officially requesting such a meeting, but like before their request has been refused with the argument that the dialogue should take place in the institutions the ACP-EC-Partnership Cotonou Agreement provides for, such as the ACP-EC-Council of Ministers.
It is not understandable why ACP and EU-Heads of States should not meet each other on regularly basis and discuss what is important for their cooperation and their countries. This is not promoting real ACP-EC-partnership and cooperation nor bridging the gap between North and South, EU and ACP.
Joyce Van Genderen-Naar
Lawyer and Journalist (Suriname)
Brussels
Joyce, I believe this is another cynical, self-serving manouevre by the EC. The 42 countries that did not sign before December 2007 are probably all Least Developed Countries (LDCs) that can already export to the EU duty-free under the ‘Everything But Arms’ initiative of the EU. The EC cannot use the threat of tariffs as it did with the other ACP countries to force these LDCs to agree to EPAs. My take on the article is that the EC is trying to convince the LDCS that the EC will be ‘accommodating’ to their needs; in the hope that the LDCS will agree to negotiate EPAs that will open their markets to EU goods and investment and submit to the other WTO-plus rules that they want to include in the EPAs. Of course, this is the same EC that told other ACP countries that they had to agree to EPAs by December 2007, ‘or else’.
Its all about the power relationship. We need to go behind the ‘sweet talk’ to understand the negotiating tactics of EC officials. Do the LDCs really need EPAs at all? That is highly debatable.
Norman
The CARICOM Statement on Bananas shows how serious and urgent this issue is for the Region. The folllowing comments came from the Caribbean, UK and the USA:
From the UK : “About 4yrs ago I was able to buy bananas from the West Indies in Waitrose (at a higher price than others) but this has now been discontinued “.
From the Caribbean: “those who could pay expensive lobbyists are in less of a need and if this is about development, it should be more highly considered that we don”™t have the money to lobby. If that is the case we will remain undeveloped and then development would be about who could afford it. We are struggling nations. We just had to spend money on swine flu protection, making sure all our hospitals are outfitted and that human response and other resources are in a state of alert and readiness. These were unbudgeted funds”.
From Boston, USA: “The article is interesting, but sad to know that these EU does not fulfill the partnership agreement with the ACP. Its high time for these countries to realise the current situation on the global recession (which occurred mainly because of these kind of attitude) and come forward with a open mind.”
Recently, I along with 9 others from across the European Union, were invited by Centre of European Studies to discuss and ask questions on issues which are important to us.
We met and discussed our concerns with members of the EPP(European Peoples Party), the Director of the MEP(Members of European Parliament), senior staff members of CES, a representative from the EU Commission, a cabinet member in President Barroso”™s office and President Barroso himself.
One of my many concerns is CARIFORUM-EC EPAs.
Thanks to those who contributed to my request for input on this issue.
Below are the concerns and questions. These were sent to my contact in President Barroso”™s cabinet.
I was informed that these are being dealt with.
—————————————————————————————————
1. The CARIFORUM-EC EPAs , which have recently been signed, have come about without due respect balancing the interests involved, and due respect for political procedures in the process of establishing this agreement.
2. Many influential voices in the Caribbean have raised concerns and protested. Amongst other they say:
” the EU was pushing for a quick decision under threat of counter measures if the decision was not taken in a certain time frame”, ” ACP countries generally
lack the expertise for assessing all the implications of this agreement”, ” The agreement was not fully understood by those who lead the negotiations” and
“the public in the Caribbean have not been informed or consulted about this agreement which is of major influence on the economic development of the countries involved.”
3. There seems to be sufficient ground for reconsidering the signed CARIFORUM-EC EPAs.
4. Grounds on the implications for EC negotiating a non-reciprocal agreement with a developing region.
5. Grounds on how these are to be implemented and the requirements of such agreements.
6. Grounds on the different approach the EC has now towards Africa and the Pacific regions regarding the EPAs negotiations.
7. Grounds on and in light of this approach with Africa and the Pacific region, why was the Caribbean rushed into the signing of EPAs?
8. Why it is now been said that there is no need for the EPAs to be rushed?
9.The question is: do you think it is viable to start a movement to contest the legitimacy of the CARIFORUM-EC EPA, and to have it renegotiated or revoked?
10. And, what are the political, economical and social consequences of such action?
Another comment of a concerned ACP citizen:
“The principle of preference erosion is applied in International Agreements, therefore it is the right of ACP countries to fight to maintain their acquis.
Bear in mind the following things:
1. Everything But Arms (EBA) Initiative
The ACP countries are very diverse.
Some countries have an EBA agreement and have preferential access to export all the products they want to the Europe market except arms. In international trade it is a normal thing to grant unilateral preferential access to the ‘so called poor countries’.
The EBA countries are not in a hurry to sign EPAs despite ‘soft pressure’ from the EC.
2. Free Trade Area (FTA).
It it well known that regions or countries could agree to sign FTA allowing each other, on reciprocal basis, to export products to each other markets.
That is the case when regions sign EPAs with each other, for example the Caribbean Region with the European Union. By signing the EPA the Caribbean Region has safeguard its preferential market access.
In this framework Parties agree to apply legally a zero tariff for certain products.
Notice and be aware that preferential agreement is allowed by the regulations from the World Trade Organisation (WTO).
3. Fair Trade.
Indeed ACP countries are not beggars, we are proud people and in favour of fair trade instead of free trade but the playing field isn’t level, therefore ACP countries are in favour to link trade with development that means ACP would like to invest in capacity building and transfer of knowledge as well as processing.
4.Cumbersome procedures of the EC before ACP can have access to EDF funding.
ACP is tired of the cumbersome procedures and also of the fact that EU actors such as consultants benefit from the EDF money. A lot of the EU money goes back to them.
PS: The response below is from my Green contact in Brussels and should not be taken as a signal to go ahead with a petition. At least not for the moment.
The Legitimacy of the CARIFORUM-EC EPAs
Share
Today at 12:07pm | Edit Note | Delete
PS: The response below is from my Green contact in Brussels and should not be taken as a signal to go ahead with a petition. At least not for the moment.
Dear Elaine,
Thanks for your email.
Here the answer.
The question is: do you think it is viable to start a movement to contest the legitimacy of the CARIFORUM-EC EPA, and to have it renegotiated or revoked?
As the population had not been involved; I think it would be productive for the civil society
a. to inform the population of the content,
b. to stimulate a debate,
c. to identify the three, four or five key issues to change,
d. to develop a campaign (within the legal possibilities) to renegociate those points.
Ciao.
In response to my questions and concerns Re: EPA- sent via President Barroso office- please see the response received from Brussels, below:
——————————————————————————
Dear Ms Elaine M. Campbell-Daenen BSc., pGDL.
Thank you very much for the written points and questions on the Economic Partnership Agreement (EPA) with Cariforum that you sent to Mr Klaus of President Barroso’s Cabinet, after your meeting with the President. I have been asked to give you some answers to your concerns.
Regarding the question of balance and due respect of political procedures, let me reassure you that the EPA was carefully negotiated by the Cariforum side, and it was signed by the representatives of all Caribbean States, except for Haiti, in October 2008. The Agreement is now provisionally applied, pending its ratification by all Cariforum States and EU Member States.
Extensive studies as well as national, regional and private sector consultations took place on all aspects of the EPA to foster support and understanding.
The EPA also contains provisions and institutions for monitoring to follow and react to developments in Cariforum States. We are currently setting up the institutions that will enable us to regularly monitor the implementation of the Agreement, which will include stakeholders from Caribbean civil society and local business. In addition, the Agreement contains a provision requiring undertaking comprehensive reviews every five years to determine the impact, costs and consequences of implementation with a view to adjusting or amending the Agreement.
The Cariforum EPA was developed and concluded in a cooperative manner on the basis of partnership between the European Community (EC) and the Caribbean States. The expiry of a waiver for the Cotonou trade regime (that EC and ACP had been granted under the WTO agreement) represented a deadline for both parties to bring negotiations to a close: if no new Agreement had been reached by end-2007, and given that the majority of the Caribbean ACP States are middle income countries, the Caribbean would have lost preferential market access to the EU market.
In this respect, I would also like to assure you that the EU has not changed its approach to other negotiations with African or Pacific regions since then. These negotiations were lagging behind the Caribbean ones, and by the end of 2007, only “interim agreements” that did not include all trade and development relevant aspects could be concluded. The signature of these Agreements only helped us to protect these countries from losing their preferential EU market access. However, we expect to conclude comparable full regional EPAs, always adapted to the specific needs of the regions within due course, to exploit the full developmental benefits of an all-encompassing Agreement.
I would like to underline that EPAs are Agreements which include a reciprocal market opening of “substantially all trade”, which is obligatory to meet WTO requirements, but at the same time provide for asymmetry and differentiated treatment of the developing countries, wherever possible. For example, while the EU is opening up all markets to the Cariforum countries immediately (except for a short transition period for sugar and rice), the Caribbean countries will only liberalise 82% of the trade flows with the EU over 15 years and 86% after 25 years. At the same time, there are safeguards to protect the local markets against sudden surges in imports. In addition, the EPA provides new opportunities for the Caribbean countries to develop their services trade with the EU. The region will benefit from improved Rules of Origin to export to the EU and substantial development assistance will be made available to implement the Agreement.
In summary, we do not share the view that the Cariforum EPA could or should be contested, re-negotiated or revoked. We see the Cariforum-EC EPA as a pioneering agreement in the international trading system. It is the first genuinely comprehensive North-South trade agreement that promotes sustainable development, builds a regional market among developing countries and helps eliminate poverty. It will put the Caribbean on the map as an expanding market where traders and investors can find opportunities for growth and security for their investments.
We should now move on and implement the Agreement. As I have pointed to earlier, the EPA includes the necessary provisions to ensure its implementation and impact are properly monitored and adjustment can take place in time, if necessary.
I hope these clarifications address your concerns in a satisfactory way and remain ..
——————————————————————————-