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

18-12-2009 ACP-EU JPA Question by MEP Kader Arif on EPA

The Economic Partnership Agreements (EPAs) between the EU and ACP Countries were initially meant to merge development policy and trade policy into a comprehensive framework with the Cotonou agreement and in order to promote regional integration. Negotiations on regional agreements have been extremely difficult, and therefore interim EPAs have been signed with individual ACP countries, on the basis on regional negotiations. These interim EPAs only reinforce disintegration and trade policies that have had a strong priority over development policies in the agreements, creating incoherence between the two areas.

Kader Arif (S&D) asked the Commission how they plan enabling the EPAs to drive regional integration in the next negotiations and what will happen with the interim agreements if they do not succeed in signing on regional EPAs. Arif raises his question because of his concerns for the division of the LDCs and non LDCs are on subjects like the Singapore issues or MFN clause.

For raising his concerns to the EU Commission and for his efforts in making EU policies more coherent and fair we acknowledge Kader Arif as a Fair Politician.

Monitor fair: S&D

 

Parliamentary Question
30 November 2009
18th JPA Session
Question by Kader Arif (S&D) to the Commission

Subject: Economic Partnership Agreements and Regional Integration
As the Commission has kept a number of controversial issues on the negotiating table (services, Singapore issues, MFN clause, etc.) most of the regional groups are currently divided between LDCs and non-LDCs.

In dealing with a situation of this kind, what strategy does the Commission intend to propose to enable the EPAs to really act as a driving force in regional integration? If the negotiations leading to regional EPAs fair, what position will the Commission take on the status of the interim agreements, given that they were concluded representing a stage towards full EPAs? Will they be declared null and void?