Economic Partnership Agreements and the Future of the ACP group
San Bilal and Aurelie Walker, by ECDPM, drafted a background note for the 6th Summit of the ACP Heads of State and Government, held in Accra, September 22 2008. The Cotonou Partnership Agreement (CPA), they explained, has provided the framework for cooperation between the African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) Group and the European Union (EU) based on three major pillars: political dialogue, development support and economic and trade cooperation. This paper discusses the impact of the EPA negotiations and conclusion of (interim) agreements on the cohesion and role of the ACP Group in the future. It also considers two other important dates in the CPA which also call the ACP Group to examine its future role: the CPA revision in 2010 and the CPA expiry in 2020.
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.
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.