NGOs welcome the new MEPs: let’s discuss our concerns
Just before the convening of the European Parliament’s Committees on Trade (“INTA”) and Development (“DEVE”), EU CSOs send two EPA papers to the members of the two committees:
- a briefing paper introducing EPAs to the new Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) (Since the June 2009 European elections, 77% of the DEVE members and 60% of INTA members are new to these committees, and about 40% are new to the parliament)
- a discussion paper (“Criticial Issues in the EPA negotiations”) to re-launch the debate on EPAs among European decisionmakers after the June elections
This discussion paper highlights 4 key issues, in relation to which the undersigned CSOs believe the EU needs to change its approach:
1. The development dimension
2. Market access in goods or the issue of tariff elimination
3. The non-goods issues
4. Contentious Issues: revising the interim agreements
The way forward lies within the Cotonou Agreement not beyond
From the start of the EPA negotiations, the EU has been trying to go beyond the WTO and Cotonou requirements to obtain agreements that fit its broader trade policy objectives at the expense of its development objectives. The agreements concluded so far risk hindering, instead of fostering regional integration and sustainable development in ACP countries. A strong turnaround in the negotiations is therefore urgently needed, rather than merely introducing hesitant flexibilities on a few issues.
The EU must at a minimum respond favourably and unconditionally to ACP requests for re-negotiation of contentious issues, and refrain from pushing countries that have initialled EPAs to sign and ratify these agreements in haste and without amendments. But, beyond this, the EU should refrain from further overloading and complicating the negotiations by demanding that ACP countries include issues and rules in the agreements that are not required for WTO compatibility, such as the MFN clause and rules on export restrictions, as well as services, intellectual property rights and the socalled 'Singapore issues'.
The EU should also respond positively to proposals for flexible market access arrangements and to requests for reliable and additional aid for regional economic development programmes. In the case that ACP countries express that they are not ready to conclude an EPA, because they believe the agreement will not facilitate their development, the EU must fully support any request for alternative solutions that ensure that these countries are not left worse off than under the provisions of the Cotonou Agreement that were in place before the end of 2007.
The discussion paper is supported by the following organisations:
Afrikagrupperna/Africa groups of Sweden; AITEC, France; ATTAC France; 11.11.11, Belgium; Both Ends,
Netherland; Coordinadora de ONGD de Euskadi, Spain; CNCD 11.11.11, Belgium; Comhlamh, Ireland; Fair,
Italy; Forum Syd, Sweden; German Stop EPA Coalition www.stopepa.de; Germany; IBIS, Denmark; Micah
Challenge, Portugal; MS ActionAid, Denmark; Oxfam International; Setem-Catalunya, Spain; Traidcraft, UK;
Trocaire, Ireland; World Development Movement, UK; World Rural Forum, Spain.
This web site is produced with the financial assistance of the European Union by Amici dei Popoli NGO in cooperation Cestas, CMO, Hegoa and Risc. The contents of this web site are the sole responsability of Amici dei Popoli NGO and can under no circumstances be regarded as reflecting the position of the European Union.