EPAs: what happened?

In brief, the 35 countries which initialled an EPA have been allowed to maintain the Cotonou treatment, but not the other countries, which are granted the same treatment that the EU applies to all commodities imported from developing countries. But the least developed countries may take advantage of the “Everything but Arms” programme (EBA) which is apparently equivalent to the concessions granted to the EPA signatory countries: in practice, it is inferior due to the greater rigidity imposed by the rules of origin (the rules that establish whether a commodity may or not benefit from tariff exemptions).

In the firsts months of 2008, a veil of silence surrounded these negotiations which were not completed for a series of reasons. First of all, no kind of agreement has been signed so far and no-one is legally bound by it. Second, many African and Pacific countries require the renegotiation of some provisions before they sign as the looming deadline of 31 December 2007 did not allow them to negotiate properly. Third, the EU wants to persuade the 41 recalcitrant countries to sign an EPA, preferably within the framework of the regional integration process.

Last but not least, the EU has expressed the will to include services, public expenditure and intellectual property rights, to name but a few, in the partial agreements that liberalise the trade in goods and crops.

Many doubts have been raised on the EPAs that have been signed up to now, but one thing is sure: the conclusion of interim EPAs has considerably destabilized ACP countries which cannot define themselves as a single bloc any longer, as their trade relations are not homogeneously managed. The European Commission has done its best (or its worst) to settle the question before the deadline expiration, keeping its rigid stance behind the camouflage of compliance with World Trade Organization rules.

But compliance with WTO rules was just a pretext and this was demonstrated by the European Commissioners’ insistence on completing their work, negotiating all those issues that were not relevant to WTO compliance requirements.

The EU-Commissioner for Development Louis Michel lost all patience when fierce criticism was voiced during the last EU-ACP joint parliamentary assembly held in Slovenia in mid-March: “If you want to remain poor, just be against the EPAs”, he complained, confirming once again that the Commission is motivated by good intentions.

But it is precisely this obstinacy and insensitive attitude towards the criticisms expressed also by authoritative international institutions that evidence its weaknesses and failure to conceive alternative ways to help improve the economies of its former colonies.

This attitude seems specially designed to discourage Africa’s desire for decolonisation and trade partner diversification in order to become less dependent on Europe and enjoy greater autonomy in its trade relations.

This is the only explanation for the MFN clause (Most Favoured Nation) which ensures that the EU enjoys a preferential treatment among its competitors, probably dictated by the desperate effort to prevent China and the other emerging countries from taking its place in the trade relations with the African continent.

At first look, the texts agreed upon indicate that the price to pay for keeping the Cotonou treatment in life is very high and it is senseless to insist on defining the IEPAs, like Commissioner Michel, as development tools because they pursue the liberalisation of the commodity market without introducing measures that promote development. Faced with climate change problems, the soaring food and fuel prices, the IEPAs look even more disappointing and inconsistent with real life.

Many ACP countries are not self-sufficient as regards food and the rise in farm product prices increases their expenditure in a time when the tariff reductions on European products deprive their governments of much-needed revenue. The World Food programme (WFP) which provides food to 73 million people in about eighty countries has issued an emergency appeal to cover a shortfall of 500 million dollars caused by skyrocketing prices.

Of course, there are many reasons for this crisis, ranging from the increase in Asian consumption and in the demand for maize generated by agrofuels to financial speculation and so on. But it is also true that we are facing an extremely critical situation that requires skilfully organised and innovative actions and co-ordinated interventions in which trade plays a crucial part.

In a moment like this, ACP farmers need investments in agriculture, funds for specific agricultural research projects, easy access to credits, food sovereignty that helps become less dependent on the international market price fluctuations.

For this reason, the line taken by the EPA negotiations and the arrogance displayed by the two European Commissioners cannot lead to anything good neither for the EPAs nor for us Europeans, because in this globalised world problems are either solved together or not solved at all.

IEPAs are not engraved on stone, they have not been ratified by anyone nor notified at the WTO, therefore they can still be modified so that their principal purpose is building regional cohesion that brings out the best of these people, giving up predatory policies disguised as development tools.

Roberto Meregalli, (Beati i costruttori di pace – Rete di Lilliput - Tradewatch)

The italian full document on the last update on the EPAs is available on the following address:
https://www.beati.org/sites/beati.org/files/aggiornamentoepa_0.pdf