Policy recommendations

  • All elements that are not required to make the EPAs WTO compatible should be taken out of the EPAs. This requires a review of the current provisions on export taxes, and the MFN and rules of origin clauses.
  • EPAs must ensure that ACP regional groups have maximum flexibility over their own market opening. The EU should therefore offer all ACP regional groups a period of 20 years or more for market opening, on an unconditional basis. Each regional group should be offered this full period. Moreover, the liberalisation scheme should be linked to development benchmarks instead of a fixed timeframe.
  • The EU should cut subsidies on products competing with local products, especially in agriculture. As long as the EU subsidises its sectors, ACP countries should not be asked to liberalise tariffs on products that have to compete with EU products.
  • There should be an effective safeguard mechanism for ACP countries to use if faced with a surge of subsidised EU imports.
  • The EU should stimulate regional integration in all ACP regions by approaching regions as collective partners but at the same time acknowledging their differences in economic and social terms. Therefore enough policy space should be provided during the negotiations and no differentiation in terms of EPAs and iEPAs which influence the individual negotiation positions should be pushed for.
  • Investment, competition and government procurement should be removed from the negotiations, unless specifically requested by an ACP regional negotiating group. It is for ACP regional groups to judge the development benefits of any agreements on these issues and the EU should not push for them to be discussed. If included, any negotiations on government procurement should be subject to transparency.
  • A review mechanism for EPAs - with full ACP regional group ownership and participation - should be introduced to ensure the EPAs are delivering the intended developmental benefits.
  • The Commission should be ready to provide an alternative to an EPA at the request of any ACP country. Any alternative offered should provide no worse market access to the EU than is currently enjoyed under Cotonou preferences.

Case: Economic Partnership Agreements

26-03-2009 The European Parliament takes its chance to show commitment to development!

Yesterday, March 25th 2009, MEPs voted for the final and improved resolution regarding the Economic Partnership Agreement (EPA) with Cariforum, 14 Caribbean states. MEPs showed their commitment to incorporating development firmly in the EPA. Fair Politics EU warmly welcomes the decision by the Parliament to do so, and encouraged it to do so only last week.

                           

As stated in the previous article on this web site discussing the development-related substance of the EPA concluded between the EU and Cariforum, the motion for a resolution, as presented during the plenary session in Strasbourg yesterday March 25th, lacked the necessary attention for key development elements. Seeing as one of the primary goals of concluding EPAs is that trade should service the development of the ACP countries, this was clearly a huge deficit. 

Among important issues that were neglected in this motion, were the prevention of the consequences of applying strict Intellectual Property Rights provisions to the access to essential medicines in developing countries, and the fact that financial means that will be used to support the transition of liberalisation of the markets in ACP countries cannot be subtracted from the European Development Fund.

Initially, a first draft for this resolution did enclose both of these points. However the vote, late February, in the International Trade committee of the EP on this document, resulted in a less development-minded version, which we of course regretted deeply. The EU Coherence Programme feels that the European Parliament should express very clearly to the Council and the Commission that certain important development goals in the EPA with Cariforum should not be neglected. Also, other (interim)EPAs under negotiation or concluded with various regional clusters should include solid and substantial development chapters for that matter. By doing so, the EU would live up to its promise to make trade work for development.

Luckily the final resolution that has been voted on by the whole European Parliament gave voice to these concerns. Please find below a few provisions from the adapted resolution to illustrate the development aspects now included:

(The European Parliament)

Calls for an early determination and provision of an equitable share of the Aid for Trade resources; stresses that the Commission and the EU Members States should ensure that these funds represent additional resources and are not merely a repackaging of the European Development Fund (EDF) funding, that they conform to Cariforum priorities. (19)

urges the Commission not to seek to harmonise intellectual property rights standards upwards beyond what is appropriate for the level of development of the Cariforum States; (23)

Urges the Commission to ensure that the provisions regarding enforcement of intellectual property rights will not be used to thwart legitimate competition from generic pharmaceutical suppliers and/or to prevent government purchasing entities from acquiring generic supplies;(25)

Highlights the need for development indicators to be used to measure expected economic and social outcomes (such as poverty reduction, better living standards and opening up of the economy) in implementing the EPA;(32)

We hope that the Commission and Council will take these recommendations seriously and pay attention to them in the process of implementation and monitoring of the EPA with the Cariforum region.

Relevant background documents