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

08-11-2011 Commission sets EPA ultimatum

The European Commission has set an ultimatum for the signing of the Economic Partnership Agreements (EPAs) for ACP countries. ACP countries which have not signed an EPA by 1 January 2014 will lose their beneficial access to the EU market. The EPAs were designed to support development by promoting regional integration of developing countries. However, the EPAs turned out to be some sort of free trade agreement, demanding partner countries to open up their borders to the EU, and to liberalise not only trade, but also services and investments. This would mean that countries that signed an EPA can’t give preferential treatment to local businesses and investors, to stimulate the local production and market. ACP countries fear that they won’t be able to compete with European corporations and producers and that their markets will be disrupted. Critics say that ACP countries should first be able to diversify their economies and to enjoy regional free trade zones, before opening up completely their borders to the EU. Signing an EPA may lead to a reverse of development and an increase of poverty in ACP countries.

Fair Politics is concerned about the ultimatum and urges for equal negotiating grounds between the EU and the EPA regions, as currently there is often a lack of technical capacity at the ACP side, plus EPA regions should be seen as a whole, interim EPAs are causing disintegration. Furthermore more flexibility is necessary when it comes to the contentious clauses like the standstill clause, the Most Favoured Nation (MFN) clause and to the restrictions on export taxes. Putting pressure on ACP countries by setting and EPA ultimatum without a change of attitude on the EU side is highly unrealistic and unfair.

Click here to read our case study on EPAs

Click here for an article by ECDPM on the legal constraints of the Commission’s proposal