Free trade by any other name

In frustration, the EC resorted to divide‐and‐conquer tactics and arm twisting with individual countries to persuade them to sign “interim agreements.” The EC split African countries into least developed countries (LDCs) and non‐LDCs and warned that Europe would not extend the Cotonou Agreement ‐ the current EUAfrica trade framework ‐ and that non‐LDCs had to either accept “Interim Agreements” or face high tariffs in European markets. In the end, a number of countries succumbed and reluctantly signed these agreements, either as a region or as individual countries.

Nonetheless, negotiations continue in the hope of finding a compromise for full agreements that would satisfy both African and European countries. Such a compromise will be difficult to find, however. The Africans are calling for “development‐friendly” agreements, while the Europeans seem more interested in promoting their commercial interests. Moreover, by forcing individual countries to enter into “interim agreements,” the EC has shown that the only form of African integration it really supports is one that would

provide a large and open market for European goods and services, not one that would serve Africa’s interests.

The EC conception of EPAs is fundamentally contrary to Africa’s interests because for Europe, they are basically “free‐trade” agreements, given that they must be compatible with WTO rules. In short, EPAs, as conceived by the EC, are a major obstacle to African regional integration, to food sovereignty, and to African industrialisation prospects. They would also sap Africa’s resources by increasing the repatriation of

profits and worsening tax evasion and other forms of capital flight. Furthermore, these costs will be compounded by the costs of fiscal adjustment to trade liberalisation, without any guarantee that the EC will

provide enough resources to compensate for those losses.

The ongoing food, energy, and financial crises are inextricably linked to the implementation of “free trade” policies and unregulated capital flows and offer a preview of what is in store for African countries if they enter into a “free trade” agreement with the EU. Africa must reject the EPAs in their current form and move toward alternatives. This does not mean a rejection of any kind of cooperation with Europe. Africa wants a genuine form of co‐operation with Europe, but co‐operation free from neocolonial paternalism, domination, and exploitation, and based on mutual respect and the promotion of mutual interests.

by Demba Moussa Dembele* ‐ The East African, Kenya

Demba Moussa Dembele is the director of the African Forum on Alternatives (Senegal).

Africans Should Confront ’’Blind Governments’’ on EPAs

IPS interviewed him at a ‘‘reflective meeting on the state of the economy and sustainable alternatives’’, held last week by the Zimbabwe Coalition on Debt and Development (ZIMCODD) in Zimbabwe’s capital Harare. ZIMCODD is a coalition of like‐minded Zimbabwean civil society organisations working in the field of

trade and economic development. ‘‘Resources permitting, we need to educate people on what their governments are negotiating for them,’’ Machemedze told IPS.

ZIMCODD is holding meetings in an attempt to step into the breach. ‘‘This meeting is meant to basically try

and give participants a clear picture as to how a country’s economy operates within the global economy.

We want to help them understand and give them a clear picture of the global market place,’’ Dakarayi Matanga, ZIMCODD’s director, told IPS. One of these people is Sarah Mwandiyambira, a Zimbabwean crossborder trader. She had heard about EPAs before but had not had a chance to get a proper explanation in order to understand what they are and what they really stand for.

At one time she was close to her tears after she was given the lowdown on how the EPAs will work once they are signed into binding instruments by the European Union (EU) and African countries. ‘‘This is scary.

Something must be done to stop the EPAs. I am only a single woman who survives on cross‐border trade to

send my children to school.’’

The EPAs have been criticised for opening African countries’ markets too quickly to products from the EU, thereby destroying local production ‐ whether agricultural or industrial. The EU’s efforts to impose new issues such as equal treatment of foreign and local companies when it comes to government procurement,

the liberalisation of services, and other issues, have also drawn protest.

Said Mwandiyambira, ‘‘I can’t believe this is what our governments are negotiating for us. I believe if all Zimbabweans are to be educated on these EPAs they will disapprove of them. They are only there to take away our economic means. After these discussions I can tell you that this is a very serious issue which we are taking lightly as Africans.’’

Another participant, Sekai Saungweme, a legal and research consultant based in Harare, was left fuming at the Zimbabwean government after gaining an understanding of what the EPAs are all about: ‘‘It’s a very sad scenario and one wonders what our governments are getting into. What was on their minds when they initialled the EPAs? Why did they initial such a flawed deal?’’ Machemedze urged African governments to establish a common togetherness when approaching the negotiations, which have been provisionally signed but are still to be finalised. African governments are not doing what they should be doing, Machemedze insisted. He also blames European governments and other Western powers of using divisive tactics and the carrot and stick approach in trade talks.

‘‘It’s a colonial problem. The powerful nations use divide and rule tactics. For example, if an African country is seeking funding for a dam project then that country is told that if you want funding then you must support EPAs,’’ alleged Machemedze, who has been attending trade negotiation meetings over the past four years. ‘‘Midnight calls are the order of the day at these meetings. There are no fair negotiations.

There are visits to the hotel rooms of African negotiators at night where they are promised all kinds of aid.’’

Machemedze also contends that even with the existence of an arbitration court at the WTO, African countries will not be able to take on European countries because of the sheer amount of resources that such cases demand. He believes that Zimbabwe ‘‘should delink itself from international trade. People might

say we are in a global village but what has Africa benefited from it? We have to build our local markets first

and then trade on a scale that we can sustain.

He suggested that African countries should strengthen their local markets and then try and establish trade

links with emerging economic giants such as Brazil, Argentina and India. ‘‘At least they can identify with these emerging economies and learn from these countries,’’ Machemedze concluded.

By Stanley Kwenda ‐ Inter Press Service

European Parliamentarian says Pacific EPAs must be changed

Glyn Ford, the Member of the European Parliament responsible for reporting on negotiations for an Economic Partnership Agreement (EPA) with Pacific countries said he would recommend the European Parliament vote “no” to the interim agreement unless contentious issues in the interim EPAs are addressed.

Outlining concerns about the agreements for PNG and Fiji, Mr Ford said the European Commission should allow Pacific countries to use export taxes for development purposes and that EPAs should include adequate protection for infant industries. Mr Ford also said any new deal on services must allow Pacific workers entry into Europe to provide services. Mr Ford raised concerns about intellectual property protection, saying new rules in the EPA should not be “just for Western technical artefacts”. He also said opening up public procurement to foreign business must be “consistent with Pacific states’ needs”.

Pacific Network on Globalisation coordinator Maureen Penjueli welcomed the intervention from Mr Ford. “We urge all members of the European Parliament to support Mr Ford’s recommendation and vote no if the European Commission fails to accept renegotiation of contentious clauses within the current interim EPAs,” said Ms Penjueli. PNG and Fiji initialled interim‐EPAs in late 2007 to protect market access for exports of tuna and sugar to Europe. If PNG and Fiji go ahead and sign the interim EPAs, the deals then go to the European Parliament for discussion and approval. However, PNG and Fiji remain unhappy with the terms of the interim agreements. Throughout 2008, Pacific Trade Ministers have told the European Commission, the body responsible for negotiating Europe’s trade deals, that rules on export taxes, infant industry and the ‘Most Favoured Nation’ clause contained in the interim EPAs should be changed.

Today, Mr Ford asked the European Director‐General for Development Louis Michel, if the European Commission would offer “feasible alternatives” that would allow Pacific countries to maintain market access to the European Union if they choose not to sign an EPA. Mr Michel responded in one word, saying “yes”. Ms Penjueli said the EPA proposed by the European Commission posed serious dangers for Pacific countries ‐ including dramatic losses in government revenue and the cutting off of policy space that could be used to stimulate development. “The European Commission continues to be completely unreasonable in

its negotiations with the Pacific,” said Ms Penjueli. “Given that the EPA has not been designed to meet the Pacific’s development needs, and that the Commission has shown a reluctance to move on key issues for Pacific negotiators, now is the time to start looking at alternatives.” She said the European Union should offer immediate access to the EU’s“Enhanced” General System of Preferences (GSP‐plus) that would allow Pacific states to continue to access European markets, and that Pacific countries “should formally request these alternatives”. More than 100 parliamentarians from across 27 EU countries and 79 ACP countries are

meeting in Port Moresby this week to debate trade and development issues affecting their relationship as part of the 16th session of the ACP‐EU Joint Parliamentary Assembly.

Note: Papua New Guinea currently has an export tax on the export of logs (worth well over K100million each year). PNG Forestry Minister, Belden Namah, also announced earlier this year plans to ban all round log exports by 2010 to encourage development of the local forestry industry. Under the terms of the interim

EPA initialled by PNG in 2007, PNG will not be able to maintain export taxes on logs or impose new bans on

log exports if it goes ahead and signs the deal.

Fiji currently has an export ban on round logs which has helped develop its local furniture industry.

Solomon Islands also has an export tax on round logs which accounts for around 14% of government revenue.

By Online Editor ‐ Pang

“Partnership Agreement Must Be Rooted in Devt”

Making this known recently through its ’contributions on the EPA negotiations process’, the coalition insists

that regional development and integration should be taken into account in the agreement both in form and

in substance, just as is the case with the special and differential treatment in the WTO texts.

According to the information gathered from the headquarters of the National Association of Nigerian Traders, Abuja, the group affirmed that the heads of state in the region have given an explicit mandate to ensure that the agreement is rooted in the region’s vision of integration and development, recalling that the latest ministerial monitoring committee held in Nouakchott in February also re‐affirmed such a political

will.

For the civil society platform, the group stressed the ’development’ potential of the EPA, if it exists, can by

no means be in the signing of a free trade agreement whose asymmetric character is widely doubtful, on the one hand, and the compilation of the EPA development programme (PAPED), consisting of a list of infrastructure projects attached to that agreement, on the other.

Cote d’Ivoire succumbs to EU

More than 80 percent of the taxes levied on imports from the EU will be eliminated over a 15‐year‐period as a result of the free trade deal, formally copper‐fastened in Abidjan Nov. 26. Under the agreement, Cote d’Ivoire will immediately open its markets to chemicals and vehicles, that it does not produce domestically.

Despite the steep loss in government revenues this will incur for a country where the national income per capita is only 900 dollars a year, the European Commission, the executive arm of the EU, sought to put a positive spin on the deal. It promised that an unspecified amount of aid will be given to help the Ivorian economy adjust to the slump in earnings from tariffs.

Brussels officials have attached the prefix ’stepping stone’ to the agreement, stating that they hope it will lead to a similar agreement involving most, if not all, of the countries in the west African region. Almost 80 countries from Africa, the Caribbean and the Pacific have been involved in EPA negotiations.

"Economic partnership agreements will allow developing countries to benefit from open trade, while protecting some of their key interests over a long period of time," said Louis Michel, the European commissioner for development and humanitarian aid. "They have a strong development dimension, and will bring the reforms necessary for economic integration within the region and beyond."

But anti‐poverty activists accused the Commission of putting pressure on the Ivorian government to sign a

deal that is not in the country’s interests.

Oxfam argued that after the EU had failed to reach an EPA with the 16 countries in a West African regional grouping during October 2007, it decided to pressure Cote d’Ivoire into signing an accord on its own.

Threats were made to punish the country if it did not sign by applying duties on exports to Europe of coffee, bananas and cocoa, according to Oxfam. The group is concerned that by applying a different trade regime to Cote d’Ivoire than to its neighbours, the deal will have deleterious consequences for regional integration in west Africa.

"With this signature, the European Commission is reinforcing its pressure on the entire region," said Jean‐ Denis Crola from Oxfam France. Until the end of last year the preferential market access granted by the EU to African exports was subject to a waiver from the rules of the World Trade Organisation (WTO). Crola contended that the Union had unfairly invoked WTO rules to browbeat African countries into liberalizing trade. "Out of fear of being faulted by the World Trade Organisation, the European Commission is putting in danger the imperatives of development and regional integration in West Africa," Crola added. "The signature of a ’stepping stone’ agreement with Ivory Coast (Cote d’Ivoire) reflects the scorn of the European Commission for the internal dynamics of the region."

Nigeria has been the most reluctant country in the region to sign an EPA. Its oil comprises about half of all exports from West Africa to the Union. While oil has been unaffected by its refusal to sign an accord, according to the Commission, the EU imposed extra duties of 4.3 percent and 6.3 percent on exports of cocoa butter and coca liquor respectively. With 95 percent of Nigeria’s cocoa exports destined for the Union, the increased levies cost the country about five million dollars by end of March this year. Beverage manufacturers using cocoa have relocated their production from Nigeria to Ghana.

Chibuzo Nwoke from the Nigerian Institute of International Affairs said that the EU has assumed "the amazing double role of partner and umpire" in the EPA negotiations. While the Commission has been portraying the Nigerian government as recalcitrant, an impact assessment requested by Nigeria predicted that the country would have lost 478 million dollars in revenues this year if it had scrapped most of its tariffs on European imports, as required by an EPA.

"The EPA negotiations exist within a framework of two distinct political groups of vastly different power,"said Nwoke. "It is a ’partnership’ between donors and debtors, between benefactors and consistent

dependencies, and between former colonial empires and their former colonies. "It pits a group of the world’s most advanced economies against a group of the world’s least developed, mono‐cultural and raw material exporting economies. In such a skewed relationship, it is clear who would drive the negotiations, dictate the rules, enforce them and dole out punishment to partners who breach them."

By David Cronin ‐ Inter Press Service

Les médicaments divisent le Nigeria et les pays de l’UEMOA

"Il y a une position forte du Nigeria qui veut que l’on protège les produits pharmaceutiques, contrairement aux pays membres de l’UEMOA qui considèrent que les médicaments sont des produits sociaux sur lesquels, un taux zéro doit être appliqué", a affirmé M. Seck au cours d’une journée de réflexion sur l’Accord de partenariat économique en négociation entre l’UE et l’Afrique de l’Ouest.

On rappelle que l’UEMOA compte 8 pays : Bénin, Burkina Faso, Côte d’Ivoire, Guinée Bissau, Mali, Niger, Sénégal et Togo. Les divergences de façon générale portent sur 10% des produits sensibles de la région, a expliqué M. Seck, ajoutant que ces divergences concernent aussi certains produits comme le lait et le blé qui sont des intrants pour certains pays et des produits finis pour d’autres.

"Certains pays veulent qu’on les libéralise, d’autre souhaitent qu’on les protège", a t‐il indiqué avant d’appeler à la "solidarité et au compromis" au niveau de la région. Il espére cependant que les consultations bilatérales permettront de rapprocher les différents points de vue. De manière générale, il y a

un consensus sur les questions de développement du côté des pays d’Afrique de l’Ouest, au sujet de la prise en compte de ce volet dans les négociations avec la partie européenne, a estimé M. Seck qui fait remarquer que la région est en train d’élaborer un programme APE pour le développement (PAPED).

C’est un programme régional adossé sur des programmes nationaux et régionaux avec des "critères définis pour permettre aux pays d’être éligibles à ce programme une fois que tous les projets seront centralisés", a

t‐il souligné. Un Accord de partenariat économique instituant une zone de libre‐échange devrait être signé entre l’Afrique de l’Ouest et l’UE au plus tard le 30 juin 2009 après l’échec des premières négociations qui prévoyaient la conclusion d’un accord le 31 décembre dernier.

by Afrique en ligne

Expert calls for establishment of services coalition

Chaitoo stated that such a coalition would have various responsibilities including mapping the services industry and taking inventory of the services sector on the island. Chaitoo stated that this coalition would help facilitate a smooth implementation of the EPA because the information gathered, would be used to help decide which parts of the EPA would get particular focus.

The optimal result of such an exercise would be the tailoring of the EPA to Antigua and Barbuda’s specific needs and goals. Chaitoo also helped to clear up certain questions people had about the nation’s obligations under the EPA. For example, Chaitoo stated that the EPA does not take away the country’s right

to regulate nor does it put restrictions on the country’s ability to place visa restrictions where it sees fit.

Chaitoo also stated his position on the establishment of a separate unit with the responsibility of dealing with the EPA implementation. The unit, announced by Cabinet on 21 Oct., and which would be referred to as the EPA Co‐ordination Implementation Unit (CIU), was, according to Chaitoo, a necessary endeavour.

According to Chaitoo, the EPA is a dense, technical document, and to implement it satisfactorily, would require the unadulterated focus of a set of individuals, dedicated to organising, manoeuvring and establishing the EPA requirements. During the session, some of the restrictions being kept by Antigua were revealed, including work‐permit requirements for non‐nationals, labour market/economic needs tests to see if any locals can provide the service before engaging a European, and local certification requirements for accountants, auditors and bookkeepers before they can open an office on the island.

One specific detail revealed by Chaitoo was that the EPA grants Europeans, “full access maritime transport

trade services”. Chaitoo stated that this could, in fact, prove to be very beneficial for Antigua and Barbuda.

Chaitoo also said that Antigua and Barbuda needed to beef up its competition laws in order to meet its obligations under the EPA. While the EPA condemns predatory pricing and discriminatory pricing practices,

Chaitoo stated that these regulations would be more efficient if they were in harmony with existing regulations in local legislature.

Ideally, EPAs are supposed to promote sustainable development, poverty reduction and regional integration, in an effort to extricate African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) states from the third world and integrate them into the global economy. The Cariforum‐EU EPA is the same agreement but on a smaller scale involving the European Union and the Caribbean member states that make up Cariforum. Under the Cariforum‐EU EPA, trade between the two parties would occur within the constraints set by the World Trade Organisation (WTO), whereby trade would be liberalised and trade preferences that Cariforum has been given in the past would be eliminated.

by Aarati Jagdeo ‐ Antigua Sun

EPAs: the state of play

EU Commission concerned by IEPA signature delays

European Commission procedures, which require interim EPAs be translated into 23 EU languages are delaying notifi cation of the final texts to increasingly impatient WTO members, the Director General of the European Commission’s Trade Directorate, David O’Sullivan admitted to International Trade Committee MEPs on October 13.

Translation is needed before the EU Council will authorise the Commission to sign and then notify them to the WTO. The Commission aims to sign and notify the IEPAs with Ghana, Côte d’Ivoire and Cameroon in November or December and with the Southern Africa Development Community (SADC), Eastern and Southern Africa (ESA) and the Pacific in early‐mid 2009. Ratification by Parliaments can then begin, though some IEPAs may only be ready for approval after the new EU Parliament is elected in June 2009.

ACP to meet key EU member states on EPAs

The ACP Secretary General and President of the ACP Council are to work on agreeing modalities by the end of October to allow ACP leaders to engage in high‐level consultations on EPAs with certain EU member states. This was agreed by ACP Heads of State and Government at their summit in Accra on October 2‐3.

The summit also instructed its Council of Ministers to further consider the creation of an ACP Free Trade Area. In a separate declaration, ACP leaders reiterated that further progress in the EPA process must be based on adequately addressing the ACP’s legitimate concerns.

Progress made on African EPA template

A template to guide African groups towards negotiating comprehensive pro‐development EPAs, was the subject of a workshop organised by the African Trade Policy Centre (ATPC) and the Economic Commission for Africa (ECA) on October 8‐10 in Addis Ababa. The template incorporates common African positions on EPAs and WTO negotiations.

During the meeting, it was agreed to focus attention on overcoming shortfalls in the EPA implementation process and seeking ways to ensure that all stakeholders, notably those involved in infrastructure development and productive capacity issues, are involved in EPA activities. It was also acknowledged that while the different negotiating groups should aim for common positions on key aspects of the negotiations,

inevitabley they would adopt different positions on other aspects. It was therefore stressed that the template should capture elements where the regional negotiating groups have the same positions vis‐à‐vis

the EU.

Central Africa refuses to discuss market access offer

Central African EPA negotiators maintained their proposal for market access liberalisation of 71% over 20 years, with a 5 year preparatory period, at the EU‐Central Africa Technical and Senior Official EPA negotiations on September 30‐October 7 in Brussels. They called on the European Commission to interpret

WTO provisions on this issue flexibly. The Commission maintains that trade liberalization under 80% is not

WTO compatible. Without a revised EU proposal, Central Africa refused the Commission’s request to jointly

examine its market access offer and try to improve it.

Central Africa called for the priorities of the Joint Orientation Document (JOD) on reinforcing production capacities and increasing economic competitivity to be adopted by both parties for inclusion in the EPA text. The Commission said the JOD can be referred to and annexed in the EPA. After much debate, important differences of opinion continue on this issue.

West Africa in difficult process to agree regional market access offer

Discussions to define the list of sensitive products to be included in West Africa’s market access offer to the EU were diffi cult, during an ECOWAS‐UEMOA validation workshop in Ouagadougou on October 15‐16. While member states thought the proposal had been improved, they still proposed further changes. Several major questions need consultation and internal negotiation in order to reach regional compromises. These include the definition of rules of origin and trade defence instruments, the treatment of inputs produced in the region, pharmaceutical products, basic food products for food security, ocean resources and textile products.

East African Community raises concerns on EPAs

Regional integration is not well respected in EPA negotiations because EAC countries are forced to negotiate issues that they are not able to properly study, according to EAC representatives at a workshop organised by ATPC and EAC on October 8‐10 in Addis Ababa. One of the main areas to be negotiated is development that reflects regional integration ambitions. The EAC is not yet ready to negotiate on services

and although partner states are interested in trade related issues, capacity building is required in this area before an offer can be made to the EU.

EAC governments were asked to scrap the IEPAs by regional parliamentarians at the Inter‐Parliamentary Relations Seminar in Kigali, Rwanda on October 1‐3.5 However the IEPA has to be ratified by national, not regional, parliaments.

ESA region prepares for difficult negotiations with the EU

The EAC’s split from ESA in the EPA negotiations is making it difficult to finalise the COMESA Customs Union by 2010, according to ESA representatives at the same ATPC‐ECA workshop. They also said that the issue of export taxes is impacting on regional integration. Divergent views remain among the Europeans on the contentious standstill clause to raise tariffs for infant industries and there is still no agreement on substantially all trade, timeframe, flexibilities or bilateral safeguards. The development component is still empty. The European Commission wants to include investment in the services negotiations, whereas ESA does not. ESA does not want to go beyond TRIPs on intellectual property rights. Zambia concluded negotiations with the EU on its market access offer for the ESA IEPA on October 1.6

SADC also preparing for EPA negotiations with the EU Botswana, Lesotho, Mozambique and Swaziland are ready to sign the IEPA according to SADC EPA representatives at the joint ATPCECA workshop in Addis. However, Namibia has concerns it seeks to redress ahead of signing. These countries now fear that if they do not sign they will lose their trade preferences from the EU. South Africa and Angola have not yet even initialled the IEPA and worry that early signature by the others would have implications on how their concerns will be addressed. There is also apprehension about subjecting Parliament to two ratifi cation processes, i.e. for the IEPA and the final EPA. These countries seek assurances that there will be no loss of market access while their issues are being addressed and that they will sign and ratify one single agreement that accommodates all parties and addresses every outstanding concern.

EAC‐ESA‐SADC agree to merge into a single REC with an FTA

The first ever Tripartite Summit of the Heads of State and Government of the Common Market for East and

Southern Africa (COMESA), East African Community (EAC) and the Southern Africa Development Community (SADC) met in Kampala on October 22.7 The summit agreed on a programme for harmonizing trade arrangements, the free movement of business persons and the joint implementation of inter‐regional

infrastructure programmes, as well as institutional arrangements that the RECs would use to foster cooperation. The summit directed a Task Force to develop a roadmap for the implementation of this merger to be considered at its next meeting.

Caribbean signs comprehensive EPA with the EU

Thirteen of the fifteen CARIFORUM countries and the EU signed an EPA on October 15. Guyana signed the EPA five days later9 following intense discussion and eventual agreement on a joint declaration between the European Commission and CARIFORUM. In a media release the government stated that due to “the imminent threat of GSP sanctions, Guyana will be signing the EPA.” As we go to print, Haiti has not signed the EPA. Some African governments were watching closely to see if the EU would increase tariffs for Guyana. However, given that Guyana has signed, EU member states did not have to vote by qualified majority on whether to remove the country from EU Council Regulation 1528/2007, which would have resulted in Guyana being subject to the EU’s standard GSP system. African countries will now have to test the EU’s will themselves should they choose not to sign an EPA.

Pacific

Pacific ACP (PACP) trade ministers met in Nadi, Fiji on October 20‐21. Ministers reaffirmed their commitment to continue to negotiate the EPA as a single region. Ministers recognized that while progress had been made on various technical issues at an earlier meeting of PACP and European Commission officials in September, a signifi cant number of EPA issues remained outstanding and required time to work

through. Ministers directed their officials to continue efforts on these issues and to meet directly with the European Commission as soon as possible to make signifi cant progress. Minsters also agreed that a comprehensive EPA might include provisions relating to intellectual property.

By Melissa Julian ECDPM

Decision on Economic Partnership Agreement of the 6th ACP Summit of Heads of State and Government on Economic Partnership Agreement

Touching on aid effectiveness, The Secretary general said that “the ACP States and the European tax payers are confounded by the fact that despite many years of donor‐aid, the beneficiary ACP States continues to languish in poverty. It is necessary to address the cause for the ineffectiveness of aid”. Therefore, it is fitting that has been held an international High‐Level Forum on Aid Effectiveness. “We look forward to the effective implementation of the Accra Agenda for Action”, stated John Kaputin. The process has let to a split of the Group into states that have embraced the full EPAs and others which have doubts, and have persistently expressed concerns about the scope and content of these agreements.

Addressing all contentious issues will smooth the way for the successful conclusion of the EPA process and produce an agreement that will be embraced by both sides. “This important and topical issue is on your agenda – added Kaputin ‐ and you will be called upon to provide the political guidance and leadership, in charting the best way forward, taking into account the need to retain the European Union as a key development partner

To download full document

Final Communiqué of the COMESA‐EAC‐SADC Tripartite Summit of Heads of State and Government.

In the area of trade, customs and economic integration, the Tripartite Summit:

i) approved the expeditious establishment of a Free Trade Area (FTA) encompassing the member/partner States of the 3 RECs with the ultimate goal of establishing a single Customs Union;

ii) directed the three RECs to undertake a study incorporating, among other things, the following elements:

a) development of the roadmap, within 6 months, for the establishment of the FTA which would take into

account the principle of variable geometry;

b) the legal and institutional framework to underpin the FTA;

c) measures to facilitate the movement of business persons across the RECs;

iii) directed that the study report from (ii) above be presented to a specially convened Tripartite Council of Ministers for consideration within 12 months to among other things determine the time frame for the establishment of a single FTA encompassing the three RECs;

iv) directed the Chairpersons of the Councils of Ministers of the three RECs to ensure that the three RECs speed up the development of joint programmes that enhance co‐operation and deepening of co‐ordination in industrial and competition policies, financial and payments systems, development of capital markets and Commodity Exchanges; and

v) directed the Chairpersons of the Councils of Ministers of the three RECs to ensure that the Secretariats participate, coordinate and harmonise positions on the EPA negotiations and other multilateral negotiations including the WTO Doha Development Round Negotiations.

The Tripartite Summit also noted with great concern the current global financial crisis undermining the economic stability of the world and posing a serious threat to the growth of African economies particularly in terms of demand for African exports of goods and services including tourism, foreign direct investment, remittances of the African diaspora, employment, development cooperation, achievement of the Millenium Development Goals and the willingness of the donor community to meet aid commitments.

The Tripartite Summit called for collective action to help African and other developing and least developed countries to address the adverse impact of the financial crisis and the global economic meltdown and urged international financial institutions to adopt effective remedial measures to mitigate the risks. The Tripartite Summit further noted the continued world food crisis and agreed to make strategic interventions to exploit the potential of African economies in the production of food and enhance accessibility to markets.

To download full document

Economic Partnership Agreements and the Future of the ACP group

The introduction of a regional approach to trade relations with the ACP, combined with the reciprocal nature of the EPAs, have contributed to test the cohesion of the ACP Group. ACP countries were not only seeking better treatment for their exports, as in the case of the past revisions of the Lomé and Cotonou unilateral preferences. They were also faced with the request to open up their markets. For the first time, the ACP and the EU were engaged in real trade negotiations, touching upon national and regional interests in the ACP. While the ACP Group attempted to maintain a unified front in the initial phase of the negotiations (the all‐ACP Phase of 2001‐2002), the EU was eager to engage on substantive negotiations with ACP regional groupings; and some ACP regions were similarly prompt at breaking away from an all‐ ACP approach to pursue their interests in regional talks with the European Commission.

The ACP Group has made collective decisions and recommendations throughout the negotiation process through numerous declarations, but responsibility for implementation lies at the national/regional level. The bilateral negotiation process has meant that countries and regions have had to make concessions to the EU. Defining offensive and defensive national and regional interests in the process has compromised the unilateral decisions taken at the ACP level. The European Commission has also been accused of pursuing a divide‐and‐rule strategy, in an attempt to prevent a unified front from the ACP, hence further straining the cohesion of the ACP Group.

The (interim) agreements concluded by only 35 ACP countries at the end of 2007 have resulted in a de facto further differentiation in the treatment of ACP exports to the EU, which now enter the EU under 3 different trade regimes:

(i) an (interim) EPA for those countries that have concluded an agreement,

(ii) EBA for the many ACP LDCs that have not concluded any agreement, and

(iii) the standard GSP for the others.

The various, at times conflicting, interests among ACP regions and countries, and their differentiated treatment has not been conducive to the cohesion of ACP regions, let alone the ACP as a group. However, the EPA process has also allowed regional groupings to pursue their specific interests, which may differ from region‐to‐region. In doing so, it has offered ACP countries the opportunity to better identify areas where their interests converge. Therefore collective action by the ACP Group, which until now has been based on the general principle of solidarity, can be strengthened by defending a well‐defined set of common interests.

Asymmetric negotiating capacity between the parties requires ACP solidarity to counterbalance the EC’s upper hand. The conclusion of interim agreements which contain provisions that many ACP negotiators disapprove of shows the power‐bias in favour of the European Commission and the limitations of ACP countries and regions acting individually. The latest ACP declaration of June 2008 which called for the EU to review ten contentious clauses in the interim agreements is an illustration of the ACP desire to act collectively. Yet, to have an impact, such declarations must be followed by coordinated efforts from the ACP Group to alter the EU position. This in turn requires strong political leadership and commitment by ACP regions and countries to act collectively and not to shift position in bilateral talks with the EU which has been the case not only at the continental level, but also at the regional and country levels. The capacity and at times the will of the ACP countries to effectively work together has been seriously put to the test by the EPA process.

Opportunities for common action will also emerge during the implementation and monitoring phases of the EPAs. These next stages are key to ensuring that EPAs deliver on their development objectives as stipulated in the CPA, “enhance the production, supply and trading capacity of the ACP countries as well as their capacity to attract investment.” Issues that cannot be satisfactorily addressed at the regional EPA level, notably in relation to the CPA framework (e.g. programming and delivery of Community development assistance) or in terms of the EU response, may be more successfully tackled at the continental and all‐ACP levels. Again, strong political leadership will be required to identify anddefend the collective interest in this next phase.

To download full document

EU Commission: Regional integration for development in ACP countries

The EU should support:

– Regional governance and cooperation for peace and stability, between states as well as within states, including the promotion of human rights.

– The improvement of institutional capacities at regional and national level, with renewed efforts to strengthen the national capacities to implement regional policies.

– The simplification of the institutional architecture and integration agendas.

– Stronger ownership of regional integration processes, with broader diversity of stakeholders at both national and regional levels.

To build regional integrated markets the EU – according to the EC ‐ should continue to support regions in this area, including:

– The effective implementation of regional commitments in trade in goods, including the modernisation of customs systems and the collection of public revenue.

– The integration of the services sector and investment with the objective of enhancing competition on the regional markets, lowering the excessive costs of services and establishing more transparent and stable regional investment rules.

– Technical barriers to trade (TBT) and Sanitary and Phytosanitary Standards (SPS): standardisation and harmonisation with international standards remove the need for burdensome controls, improves food safety on a regional level and facilitates access of regionally‐produced goods to international markets.

– Monetary integration: Several ambitious agendas for regional monetary unions in ACP need to take into account that the progress between monetary and economic integration should be closely linked. The EU is ready to share its own experience of integration and policy coordination with ACP partners. The issue of macro‐economic coordination will receive more attention in the context of the dialogue on EC general budget support at national level.

The EU, according to the EC, should assist efforts by the regions to manage common challenges where the regional added value is greatest for the sustainable livelihood of populations. Depending on the region, this may cover:

– Food security and agricultural production: harmonisation of policies and standards, regional information systems allowing better‐functioning of regional markets for food and agricultural inputs, management of regional food stocks, and policies against land degradation and desertification can help improve food security.

– The common management of natural resources: trans‐boundary environmental problems can only be tackled through comprehensive and effective regional policies. The EC will, in particular, support the fight against climate change and biodiversity loss as well as the sustainable management of fisheries, forests, energy resources and water basins.

– Social cohesion at regional level: national and regional redistributive policies are important for the costs and benefits of regional integration to be evenly distributed across and within countries.

The above will also be supported by developing science and technology capacities to enhance science's contribution to tackling shared problems and to fostering growth and reducing poverty.

To download full document