Some interim EPAs may not be concluded
Inter Press Service (Johannesburg) | 17 June 2008
Some Interim EPAs May Not Be Concluded
By Hilaire Avril
Paris
Some of the 35 African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) states that have initialled interim economic partnership agreements (EPAs) may still withdraw from the process — apart from the 44 states that have so far refused to sign EPAs with the European Union, according to researchers studying the fraught trade negotiating process.
"There is certainly the possibility that some countries which have initialled interim EPAs may not go on to sign them, although we expect most to do so," says Dr. Christopher Stevens, director of programmes at the Overseas Development Institute’s (ODI) international economic development group and co-author of a recent report on the EPAs.
"The [European] Commission originally had June as the deadline for signature. That has been pushed back to September, and some member states believe that to be optimistic," he adds.
"Whether full EPAs will ever be finalised, as envisaged, remains open," says Dr. Mareike Meyn, a researcher with the ODI and co-author of the comparative analysis of the EPAs. The ODI is a British think tank working on development and humanitarian issues.
The report highlights that "the EPA process has not been an easy or friendly one; words and deeds have often been at odds, and tension has flared up.
"Lack of capacity has also hampered the effective consultation, involvement and participation in the EPA process of ACP civil society, private sector and parliamentarians...
"As a result, the EPA process has generally not been effectively embedded in national policy processes in the ACP and in extreme cases it has generated a general public hostility towards the EPAs," it adds.
Meyn argues that the European Commission should "talk to the countries, and try to find pragmatic solutions.
"If a country, for instance, doesn’t want to open up its services [sector], public procurement or intellectual property rights, which the EU would like to include in the full EPAs, then there is no sense in pushing through these reforms if they are not wanted by the country," she concludes.
The EPAs are almost as numerous and diverse as the countries negotiating them. Stevens and Meyn wrote the report to chart the progress with the EPAs, along with Jane Kennan and the European Centre for Development Policy Management (ECDPM). The report is called "The new EPAs: Comparative Analysis of their Content and the Challenges for 2008". The ECDPM is an independent foundation working at improving ACP relations.
The report sheds light on discrepancies between the EPAs and offers insight into what might improve negotiations between countries of the ACP block and the European Commission.
For close to 30 years, trade between Europe and ACP countries was regulated by the 1975 Lomé agreements and their successor, the Cotonou treaty. In the spirit of these treaties, preferential access to the European market was granted to ACP countries, in order to promote growth and development in what have been some of the most destitute regions of the world.
In 2000, the Cotonou agreement was signed in Benin’s largest city by 79 ACP countries and the European Union. Its most radical departure from the previous accords is its trade agenda, which is to be embodied in complex treaties known as EPAs.
According to Meyn, "these agreements are very different from Cotonou and Lomé, because they are not preferential, but reciprocal trade agreements".
Whereas Lomé provided regulations according to which Europe favoured ACP exports, Cotonou established the basis for a new, reciprocal trade regime with the EPAs.
Under existing World Trade Organisation rules, ACP countries are now required to open their markets to "substantially all trade".
However, the benefits of EPAs to ACP countries are not clear. "About 98 percent of ACP products were already exported duty free to the EU before the EPAs. Receiving full duty-and-quota-free market access under the EPA only improves the EU’s access to ACP markets," Meyn says.
"On the other hand, the challenge of opening up their markets to about 80 percent of European goods is huge for many ACP countries," she adds.
According to the authors of the report, it "has been described as ’encyclopaedic’ — another way of saying ’mind bogglingly complex’. If so, it reflects the character of the EPAs themselves".
It describes a wide variety of situations. As of December 2007, 18 African, 15 Caribbean and two Pacific states out of 79 ACP countries had initialled interim (that is, partial) EPAs.
But most agreements differ with regards to the tariff liberalisation schedules; their impact on regional integration initiatives; as well as on market opening to the EU. Some of these discrepancies hold implications for development.
For instance, "no clear pattern can be identified that the poorer countries have longer to adjust than the richer ones or of the EPAs being tailored to development needs", according to the report.
Moreover, differences in the agreements can be attributed to the individual negotiating capacity of countries.
Observing that countries have deals that reflect their negotiating skills, the authors believe that there is a need to reduce negotiation asymmetries between the EU and some ACP countries.
"This needs to be done through adapting the pace of negotiations as well as the style of interaction between the parties and through capacity-building measures under the Aid-for-Trade initiative," according to the report.
Another worry is that "there is little coherence between the EPA agenda and the regional integration processes in Africa. One particular concern has been that countries in the same economic region might liberalise different baskets of products and so create new barriers to intra-regional trade in order to avoid trade deflection".
Negotiations for the EPAS started in 2002 with the EU setting the deadline for December 31 2007. However, the deadline was missed by most states. No region except the Caribbean was able to finalise the negotiations towards an all-embracing EPA in time.
The Commission therefore agreed to EPAs covering trade in goods only, and to continue negotiations on services, intellectual property and other outstanding issues.
