Policy recommendations

05-06-2009 To sign or not to sign? ACP countries are doubtful about the EPAs.

The Economic Partnership Agreements (EPAs) that the EU is trying to conclude with the seven regions that together cover the ACP (African Caribbean and Pacific) group of countries, continue to be newsworthy. When the EPA negotiation process started in 2002, one would not have imagined that by 2009 only one full EPA had been signed. However, this is actually the case. The Caribbean states, together also known as Cariforum-group, have signed a full EPA In October 2008 and the process of implementation has started. Only six more to go. The Commission has mentioned June 2009 as the new deadline for all interim agreements signed so far to be transposed into full, regional EPAs, but recent developments indicate that this date is too optimistic.

These six intended full, regional EPAs will differ considerably in terms of content of course. As MEP David Martin said it during plenary session of the Parliament in March: the Cariforum could be the basis for others, but each EPA has to have its own individuality.[1] The remaining 5 African regions and the Pacific region differ immensely in areas as the state of economic, social and human development, economic needs, problems, mutual relationships and geopolitical factors.  Countries within individual regions possibly differ even more. Consequently, all regions require specific measures  which leads to different negotiations in terms of issues at stake. In the past, it has proven difficult for the different regions - and specifically the African regions - to work together and reach compromises on certain issues. If they cannot find common points of view in their own region, how will they find agreement with the European Commission?

These and other factors have delayed the negotiation processes time and again. As a temporary solution, several interim agreements were initialled by the European Commission. A number of African countries have signed these temporary agreements that are seen as a phase prior to a full EPA, but most countries chose not to do so: Overall, governments representing 33% of the population of sub-Saharan African countries have initialled interim EPAs, while governments representing 67% of the sub-Saharan African population have so far declined to initial interim EPAs. [2] Most of the interim EPAs have been signed by countries and not regions, such as Ghana and Cote dIvoire; countries that have relatively advanced economies and do not belong to the group of least-developed countries (LDCs). As LCDs can rely on other existing trading schemes, such as Everything But Arms, they have seen no reason to sign an interim EPA. This has led to a situation where, within a single region, various trading schemes with the European Union are effective. This could be seen as a failure towards the importance that the EC attaches to regional integration.

These facts and figures do not signify a stop to negotiations on interim and full EPAs. They are of course still ongoing. Several recent developments have showed once again that it is very difficult to reach those agreements. On May 7^th 2009, five  countries of the Southern African region (SADC region) were expected to sign an interim EPA, but Namibia withdrew at the last moment. South Africa and Angola, also part of the SADC region, indicated at an earlier stage that they were not satisfied with certain aspects of the agreement. So the countries with the largest markets(and therefore the most important ones from a EU point of view) are still not convinced of the mutual advantages an EPA would provide. This example of the recent developments in the SADC region are representative for the situations in other ACP countries and regions. 

Besides the country-specific requests and issues of individual countries such as Namibia, some concerns have a common ground among all the developing ACP countries. A lot of the discontent among these countries has to do with the apparent lack of flexibility that the Commission shows during the negotiations and the priority that is given to trade rather than to development, although EPAs are intended to address both policy fields simultaneously.

These are issues that MEPs obviously also have noticed in the past, seeing as several of them asked questions to Commission and Council regarding the different EPAs ongoing negotiations.

Fair Politics EU recognizes that the basic idea of an EPA, namely the mutual reinforcement of trade and development policies by creating a single instrument, could in theory be of huge benefit to developing countries. Regional integration could potentially stabilize and reinforce the economic situations in many developing countries and perhaps even the political relations in certain regions. However, we share the concerns that the MEPs, just as many NGOs worldwide, have expressed in their questions to the European Commission and Council: Will the developing countries have enough possibilities to protect their vulnerable and infant industries? Will the Intellectual Property Rights provisions included in the EPAs not exceed TRIPS standards, in other words not be stricter than absolutely necessary, so that the access to (generic) medicines is secured? Can the Commission ensure that the Parliament will be well informed and involved in the process of negotiating and closing of the EPAs?

These and other questions are of major importance to Fair Politics EU, since they are crucial for the interests and needs of developing countries to be at the basis of the EPA negotiations. MEPs have recognized that DG Trade, now that it is led by Commissioner Catherine Ashton, has been more flexible in its approach to the negotiations than before. Still, we urge the Commission to make an effort to look at the EPA process from a developing countrys point of view. And we ask the Parliament to stay aware and involved in this rather important issue for developing countries.

All MEPs who have asked questions regarding the different EPAs and who have specifically addressed the issues important to developing countries interests, will be rewarded with a coherence star:
Helmut Markov (GUE/NGL), Glyn Ford (PSE), Robert Sturdy (PPE-DE), Daniel Caspary (PPE-DE), Kader Arif (PSE) and Erika Mann (PSE).

The questions asked by the MEPs can be found in the attachment to this news item. The discussion that followed in plenary session can be found here.

Information about the ongoing EPA negotiations is largely present. A few helpful links will provide you with detailed and up to date information:

Bilaterals
Agritrade
EC DG Trade
ACP-EU Trade
Tralac   

Notes
[1] Plenary debate on March 25th 2009. To be found on: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=CRE&reference=20090323&secondRef=ITEM-014&language=EN
[2] Agritrade: EC review of state of play in EPA negotiations. May 2009. To be found on: 
http://agritrade.cta.int/en/Key-topics/EPA-negotiations/General/News/EC-review-of-state-of-play-in-EPA-negotiations

Monitor

S&D

Documents

Box: EU-ACP partnership for development

Box: interim trade regime

Cotonou Agreement

Box: ERO/FOS questions & amswers about EPAs

Box: Oxfam briefing note 2006 Unequal partners

News archive of the EPAs case 2007-2008