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

14-07-2009 MEP Claude Moraes wants to be sure EPA's will serve development

Claude Moraes (S&D) rightly asks the Commission how they will safeguard development needs of West African states in the ongoing Economic Partnership Agreement (EPA) negotiations.

Fair Politics has a case study on the EPAs that highlights the lack of developmental perspectives in this quasi free trade agreement. As many EPAs are still under negotiation largely due to resistance from the developing countries involved it is important to keep viewing these processes and Fair Politics would like to thank Claude Moraes for reminding the Commission of the ultimate goal of EPAs: a fair chance to develop.

See below for the question that was taken to the part-session in September. For his efforts to enhance PCD in relation to the EPAs MEP Claude Moraes will be granted a point in our monitoring system.

Monitor fair: S&D

 

Parliamentary questions - 14 July 2009 H-0263/09 
ORAL QUESTION for Question Time at the part-session in September 2009 pursuant to Rule 116 of the Rules of Procedure by Claude Moraes to the Commission

Subject: EU-West Africa EPA negotiations 


What progress can the Commission report on the negotiations with West African countries on the future Economic Partnership Agreement (EPA) with that region?

How are the EU's development priorities being incorporated into the negotiations, and what reassurances can the Commission provide that the development needs of West African states will be safeguarded?