Parliament calls on EU to recognise ACP countries as equal partners

The text, which was adopted by 340 votes to 225, with 13 abstentions, differs from the version approved by the development committee last December, two points having been withdrawn at the request of the international trade committee. The replacement resolution, drafted by Jürgen Schröder (EPP-ED, Germany), with the backing of the UEN, no longer says that the compatibility of EPAs with WTO (World Trade Organisation) rules relates only to trade in goods (and so not necessarily to services). Also removed from the text is reference to the parliamentary body from the Joint ACP-EU Parliamentary Assembly, which was to monitor the implementation of the EPAs. The PES, Greens/EFA and GUE/NGL groups voted against the replacement resolution, having themselves unsuccessfully proposed an alternative text closer to the original. In a press release published on the eve of the vote, the Socialists said that Conservative and Liberal MEPs were “ganging up on the poorest countries”, pushing them to conclude dubious trade agreements which would open up their economies to EU exports.
While negotiations are on-going on full EPAs with most regional groups, Parliament has called on all parties to do their utmost to restore a climate of confidence and constructive dialogue, after the damage done during negotiations. It also called for ACP countries to be recognised as equal partners in the negotiation and implementation process. Concerned by the effects of the world financial crisis on Official Development Aid (ODA), MEPs called on member states to meet their commitments. They also recommended increases in aid for trade, through, for example, ancillary measures at regional level for the implementation of EPAs. They said that EPAs were a development tool that should reflect both the national and regional interests and needs of ACP countries in poverty reduction, realisation of the Millennium Development Goals and respect for basic human rights, such as the right to food and the right of access to basic public services. Noting that signing EPAs with individual ACP countries or with groups of countries that did not include all the countries of the region could have a harmful effect on the process of regional integration, MEPs called on the Commission to recalibrate its approach. The Commission also had to ensure that ACP negotiators had sufficient time to allow them to consider the agreement and make suggestions before it was adopted, taking account of WTO timetables. MEPs also called for a five-yearly review clause to be included in the EPAs, with scrutiny by national parliaments, the European Parliament and civil society. Calling on the Commission and the ACP countries to make better use of aid for trade funding to support the reform process in areas that were essential for economic development, MEPs also expressed their hope that there would be a strengthening of good governance in the countries of the South. This was particularly the case in public administration, including the management of public finances, collection of customs duties, the system of tax revenues, and tackling corruption and poor management. Parliament called too, for greater transparency in negotiations, and for development criteria to be included in EPAs so that their socio-economic impact in key sectors could be measured.

Greens disappointed by the changes in the interpretation of Schröder report

UK Green MEP Caroline Lucas, member of the European Parliament's international trade committee, commented: "I am disappointed that a Conservative-Liberal majority in the European Parliament has today succeeded in reinforcing unfair economic partnership agreements. Trade should offer a good deal for all countries, but EPAs have today been given free rein to continue a shameful EU tradition of social and environmental exploitation in African, Caribbean and Pacific countries.
In 2000, the EU committed to examine all alternatives to EPAs for countries unable to enter into such agreements and to consider socio-economic effects and the partner country's level of development. It has however ignored its own commitments and the concerns of ACP governments, NGOs, churches and others and persists with bullying and divisive tactics, pressing for free trade bilateral deals with individual countries instead of systematically striking cohesive deals for wider regions. If these EPAs are as beneficial as some claim, why does the EU need to apply so much pressure for developing countries to sign?
The Greens had called for the European Parliament to delay its vote on assent to allow democratic debate in African, Caribbean and Pacific parliaments. Conservative and Liberal MEPs have however imposed their vision of free trade that too often means the EU is free of responsibility for socially and environmentally sustainable development. Unfettered trade might bring profits to global corporations but benefits simply do not trickle down to the people who need them most. If the European Union was serious about social and environmental standards, it would uphold these values beyond its backyard. Today has shown that the EU talks development, but votes big business."

Link to the text adopted February the 5th :

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//TEXT+TA+P6-TA-2009-0051+0+DOC+XML+V0//EN&language=EN

The former version: EPAs must ensure a real impact on development

Flanking measures in the form of aid for trade should be used to help the ACP countries, for example to offset any loss of customs revenue. The report, drafted by Jürgen Schröder (EPP-ED, DE), urges the Council and Commission to accept any goods-only WTO-compatible proposals from ACP countries. The compatibility of the EPAs with WTO rules (GATT Article XXIV) pertains only to trade in goods and requires a “substantial part of the trade” to be liberalized “within a reasonable length of time”, says the report. MEPs reminded the Council and Commission that neither the conclusion nor the renunciation of an EPA should lead to a situation where an ACP country may find itself in a less favourable position than it was under the trade provisions of the Cotonou Agreement.

Aid for trade

The former version called that only strong accompanying measures will enable the ACP countries to benefit from the opportunities available under EPAs. Such measures must offset any net loss in customs revenue and be invested in order to diversify export production and produce more higher added-value export goods, says the Development Committee’s report.

Review clause and regional integration The former report stressed that EPA agreements should include a clause requiring a review within five years of the date they are signed. National parliaments, the European Parliament and civil society should be involved, according to the report. This five year period should allow an assessment of the impact of the EPAs on the economies of the ACP states and on the ability of these agreements to strengthen regional integration. A revision of the content of these agreements should be possible.

To prevent EPAs concluded with individual ACP countries or with groups of countries that do not cover an entire region from hindering the regional integration process, MEPs call on the Commission to redefine its approach and ensure that the conclusion of EPAs does not undermine this process.

Of the 15 countries of the Pacific region (including East Timor), where the 16th session of the ACP-EU Joint Parliamentary Assembly was held from 24 to 28 November 2008 (in Port Moresby, Papua-New Guinea), only Papua and Fiji have signed provisional agreements. The erosion of trade preferences - sugar for Fiji and tuna for Papua-New Guinea - prompted these countries to sign a provisional accord in November 2007.

Parliamentary scrutiny of the implementation of EPAs

The implementation of the EPAs should be monitored by a parliamentary body, says the report. In each case, this body should derive from the ACP-EU Joint Parliamentary Assembly.

Parliament’s assent The European Parliament will have to give formal approval (known as its “assent”), probably in spring 2009, to enable these agreements to enter into force. Since the accords have a significant trade component, this procedure will be the responsibility of the EP’s International Trade Committee.

The negotiations with ACP states were opened in 2002, following the adoption by the Council of the negotiating brief on 12 June 2002. The negotiations are being conducted with six regions (Caribbean, West Africa, Central Africa, Eastern and Southern Africa, Southern African Development Community, Pacific). Procedure: Own-initiative (assent for the agreements themselves) Committee vote: 15 in favour to 13 against. Plenary vote: February 2009.

In the chair : Josep BORRELL FONTELLES (PES, ES)

REF.: 20081208IPR43988

Link to: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/expert/infopress_page/028-43989-343-12-50-903-20081208IPR43988-08-12-2008-2008-false/default_en.htm

Replace controversy with debate, says Ashton

TNI: What is needed for the successful completion of the EPAs? Do you expect negotiations to be completed within the deadlines set in the interim EPAs?

Ashton: The top priority is to get the substance of each EPA right. There are complex issues of timing and content but I believe the political willingness is there. Both member states and ACP partners have regularly restated their commitment to EPAs and there is an increasing consensus about the way forward. No one is questioning the fundamental idea that we need WTO-compatible agreements and if we can match the political willingness with agreements tailor-made to the aspirations of each region, the EU can effectively support economic development and regional integration with our ACP partners. We should also remember that the dates specified in the interim EPAs aren’t deadlines – they’re targets. We have a series of ambitious negotiating calendars that have been agreed with each region but these are under continuous review. No one can be pushed into a deal before they are ready.

TNI: You have emphasised that you wish there to be a ‘different character’ to the EPA negotiations, the process of which has been widely criticised by civil society organizations and leaders across the ACP. How will you ensure that the asymmetries in negotiating power between the ACP and the European Commission are overcome?

Ashton: We must reflect on the state of play and make sure that Economic Partnership Agreements work for everyone involved. The EPA process only makes sense if all parties are brought in, so addressing any questions about trust or confidence is a priority for me. Of course there has been some criticism of the process, and negotiations haven’t always been easy, but there are always going to be different views – that is the nature of any trade negotiation. What is important is that we don’t lower our ambitions to the lowest common denominator. That would be bad for development and bad for regional integration. So we need to listen to the concerns of each region and replace controversy over interim agreements with a positive debate on full EPAs. We can take huge inspiration from the full EPA recently agreed with Caribbean countries and I am confident that we can make real progress in 2009.

TNI: What scope is there to renegotiate the ‘contentious issues’ (as identified by the African Union Ministers of Trade and Finance in April 2008 and endorsed by the ACP Council of Ministers) of the interim EPAs in the context of the comprehensive EPA?

Ashton: Getting to full regional EPAs is an ongoing process involving both ACP countries that did not join interim agreements as well as those that did. All issues tabled during negotiations, contentious or otherwise, are open for discussion. That’s why EU and ACP negotiators are regularly re-examining provisions in the interim agreements as well as exploring new areas, such as services, that were not included in the 2007 deals. Obviously, we still need solutions compatible with international trade rules and the Cotonou Agreement. At the same time, working region by region, we are successfully addressing specific regional concerns and edging closer to full agreements.

TNI: How much flexibility is there to deviate away from Commissioner Louis Michel’s previously-held arguments in favour of the Most Favoured Nation provision that the EU is generous in giving duty-free and quota-free access to EPA signatories, but is not naïve enough to allow them to give better access to the EU’s “economic adversaries”?

Ashton: To answer this question we first need to understand the Most Favoured Nation provision. It has two elements. The first element is binding on the EU. It guarantees that all ACP regions have the automatic right to claim any provision agreed with another ACP region either now or in the future. This ensures that no ACP region needs to hold back in negotiations for fear another will agree a “better” provision later. It also ensures equal and open treatment of all ACP regions in the spirit of the overarching Cotonou Agreement. The second element is binding on the ACP and covers special treatment, such as an exemption from liberalization for certain imports justified on the grounds that the sector is sensitive to competition. If an ACP region subsequently agrees to remove these tariffs on imports from another major trading economy, then arguably the original development justification has changed, and this treatment should also be extended to the EU. However, we have to be clear that this provision doesn’t apply either to imports from other ACP countries or, in practice, to the overwhelming majority of South-South trade deals.

TNI: In one of his final speeches as EU Commissioner, Mandelson signalled his desire to have bans on export taxes inserted into all free trade agreements that the European Union concludes. Do you share this view?

Ashton: The commitment to removing trade barriers like export taxes must be a cornerstone of EU trade policy. I am a firm believer in the benefits of open markets and of the opportunities it can deliver to businesses and individuals. One of my tasks as EU Trade Commissioner is to help entrench and extend those opportunities and I agree that we should use all tools – including trade agreements but also other mechanisms such as the EU’s dialogues with strategic partners – to further breakdown barriers to effective trade. Against the backdrop of the financial crisis, we need to enhance openness in the global economy, not undo it. There are, of course, some exceptions. The world’s poorest countries need to protect infant industries and its only right that both multilateral and EU trade regimes give those industries the space and time to grow. So we will continue to look at the role of export taxes on a case-by-case basis, in order to make sure that, at the same time as promoting openness in the world economy, we are underpinning long-term economic development in the poorest countries.

TNI: The EU has highlighted that regional integration is a major benefit of the EPAs, while interim EPAs seem to have divided ACP regions. How will you ensure that existing ACP regional integration processes are re-established as a guiding principle for EPAs?

Ashton: Supporting regional integration within and between ACP markets has always been a key objective of the EPA process. By simplifying trade rules and replacing the complex maze of bilateral agreements with a handful of region-to-region trade interfaces, we can create bigger regional markets that are more attractive to investment, which developing markets need in order to create jobs and growth. Nothing in the interim agreements changes this; ACP countries sign interim EPAs when they are ready and that sometimes means at different times. It shows we are moving at the right pace for each partner, not that the process is dividing regions. Of course, how we tackle the issue of regional integration in the full EPAs is going to vary by region. Some regions, like West Africa, have clear integration processes that the EPA can fit around. In other regions the processes may be overlapping or less clear and we need to build in flexibility to reflect this. Again, the Caribbean EPA provides a good example of how we can institute this kind of flexibility. Provided we meet the basic criteria of WTO-compatibility we can set up a framework that allows everyone to move at their own speed while respecting the overall process of integration.

TNI: What is the link between Aid for Trade and EPAs? What do you see as the role of the European Commission in coordinating overall EU Aid for Trade, including accompanying measures for EPAs? Ashton: This is one of the areas of greatest concern to our ACP partners. But the EU is also in a difficult situation. On one hand, some ACP countries are reluctant to agree to trade commitments without up-front finance while on the other hand, the EU cannot make concrete pledges until the details of those commitments are known. We cannot make access to development funds conditional on signing a trade deal – EU finance mechanisms are set up to deliver development funds through clear programmes, not on the basis of progress in trade talks. So we need to reassure ACP countries that they are not taking on an unfunded mandate to implement these agreements. This is why my colleague Louis Michel, as EU Development Commissioner, has taken steps to increase the visibility of development funds. And just as in the Caribbean EPA, each regional agreement has a specific development financing element. In fact, EPA-related finance has already been built into the 10th European Development Fund and the forthcoming EU Aid for Trade Strategy, which includes ACP regional “Aid for Trade” packages. The funds are there and we have the right framework in place – it’s now about communication and delivery.

Link to: http://ictsd.net/news/tni/

EPAs: the state of play

ACP Council

The Africa, Caribbean, and Pacific (ACP) Council of Ministers adopted a resolution reiterating their commitment to conclude inclusive (involving all members of regional integration groupings) Economic Partnership Agreements (EPAs) that contribute to their countries’ economic growth, sustainable development, and regional integration on 18 December 2008. They also called for contentious issues that have dissuaded some ACP States from entering into EPAs to be addressed. Only the EU Council that gave the mandate to deliver development through EPAs to the European Commission could instruct the European Commission to amend their EPA negotiating positions (though the European Parliament could withhold its assent and national parliaments could refuse to ratify EPAs). In light of this, the ACP Ministers expressed regret that their request for high-level ACP-European Union Member States consultations to address their EPA concerns had not yet taken place and they called on the EU Presidency to facilitate the convening of the meeting as soon as possible in 2009. The ACP Council also called on the EU to provide a roadmap for the implementation of its Aid for Trade commitments in relation to EPAs. In addition, the ACP Committee of Ambassadors was mandated to consider the feasibility of establishing an independent monitoring entity that would evaluate, assess, and recommend how EPAs can meet their development objectives.

Central Africa

An interim EPA (IEPA) between the EU and Cameroon was signed on 15 January 2009. In the Agreement, the EU committed to assisting Cameroon in improving its competitiveness. The IEPA also allows Cameroon to continue duty-free, quota-free access to the EU market, but with an asymmetric and gradual opening of its own markets to EU goods. Improved rules of origin will be given only if agreed in a comprehensive regional EPA that will also cover trade in goods, services, and other trade-related issues, though no regional EPA negotiating rounds have occurred in the past two months. The final goal remains to conclude a comprehensive EPA with all members of the Central African region. How Cameroon’s market access provisions can be folded into a regional offer is expected to be a difficult exercise. Sceptics claim Cameroon’s economy may suffer losses of 20 billion Euros over the next 20 years as a consequence of the EPA. Ministers from the Communaute Economique et Monetaire de l’ Afrique Centrale/The Economic and Monetary Community of Central Africa (CEMAC) meeting on 19 December 2008 instructed the CEMAC Secretariat to convene a meeting of Ministerial EPA Negotiators as soon as possible to provide new orientations to technical negotiators in view of the persistent blockage in the EPA negotiations.

West Africa

To ensure the signing of a comprehensive, equitable, development focused agreement by June 2009, the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) Summit on 19 December 2008 called for the acceleration ofnEPA negotiations. A meeting of the four major economies of the region (Côte d’Ivoire, Ghana, Senegal, and Nigeria) on 2-4 December 2008 led to agreements on 90% of the tariff lines for the region’s common market access offer for goods in the EPA negotiations. They also agreed that the liberalization of pharmaceutical products must be further considered in view of the fact that they should be easily accessible, while allowing space for the industry to develop. At a meeting of the West Africa Regional Preparatory Task Force (RPTF), from 11-12 December 2008, discussions were mainly focused on the EPA Development Programme (Programme de l’APE pour le Développement (PAPED)). The PAPED covers a broad range of domains, including infrastructure, agri-food, textiles, and tourism, with financing requirements totalling 9.5 billion Euros for 5 years. The aim is to finalise the programme during the first semester of 2009. Ghana’s signature of its IEPA was postponed due to their change of government; they are now waiting on a date for signing.

Eastern and Southern Africa

The end of year deadline to conclude a comprehensive regional EPA was missed by the Eastern and Southern Africa (ESA) EPA regional configuration. Both ESA and the European Commission agreed that the timeline set to complete the negotiations could not be met because of the number of issues to be addressed; it was thus decided to pursue negotiations beyond 2008. With regard to the negotiations towards a regional EPA, the ESA Council of Ministers decided at a 5 December 2008 meeting to establish a high-level technical teamcomprising of chairpersons from the five new negotiation clusters (market access for goods, development, trade in services, trade-related issues, and dispute avoidance and settlement). The team will develop options to progress negotiations on each of the contentious issues for the consideration of the ESA Ministers, while the ESA also continues discussions with EU Member States. In the margins of the Council, there was also a meeting of the Implementation Committee on the IEPA and it was decided that Mauritius will host the Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa (COMESA) Fund. ESA Ministers also stressed the need to ensure the implementation of the regional Tripartite Summit (initially agreed on 22 October 2008) on the harmonisation and coordination of EPA negotiations amongst the three Regional Economic Communities (COMESA, the Southern African Development Community and theEast African Community) to ensure convergence and monitoring.

East African Community

The EAC missed its end of year deadline to complete its internal negotiations and sign the EAC Common Market Protocol. The new deadline is April 2009 to provide enough time for the protocol to be implemented in 2010. Consensus on new issues was reached at the EAC Common Market High Level Task Force negotiations held on 2-10 December 2008. Tanzania’s stance on land ownership and issuance of regional identity cards, however, prevented overall agreement. Experts warn that unless a compromise is found, the EAC integration project could be permanently undermined. The pace of EAC-EU EPA negotiations is dependent on the EAC integration process, which will determine the commitments the EAC are ready to take in the EPA.

Southern African Development Community

The impasse between members on how to move forward on the EPA failed to break at the SACU Council of Ministers meeting on 5 December 2008. Unless a compromise is found quickly, the signing of the SADC IEPA could lead to serious divisions among members, the collapse of regional SADC EPA negotiations, and the dismantlement of SACU with serious consequences for poorer countries in the region and a deterioration of relations with the EU. The European Commission put forward a “non-paper” for a tariff alignment deal aimed at preserving SACU tariff coherence at a meeting between SADC Ambassadors and European Commission officials on 10 December 2008. The “non-paper” proposes that South Africa align its tariffs to the commitments taken by Botswana, Namibia, Lesotho, and Swaziland (BNLS) under the IEPA in return for improved access for South Africa to the EU market. The European Commission indicated that it is also willing to go beyond this and include further market access concessions on both sides if South Africa is in agreement with the proposal. The governments of South Africa, Namibia, and Angola (ANSA) wrote to EU Member States on 6 January 2009 welcoming the European Commission’s “non-paper” as a positive acknowledgement of the ANSA contention that the IEPA, in its current form, will undermine the SACU common external tariff. ANSA stated that this positive development could constitute a basis for addressing concerns with the IEPA that moves away from a piecemeal and partial approach to one that is decisive and comprehensive, in order to effectively promote regional development and integration and to meaningfully strengthen trade relations between Southern Africa and the EU. ANSA called on the EU Council to delay the signing of the IEPA so as to allow time to create the conditions for all Members of the SADC EPA group to participate in a final EPA outcome and establish a single regional trade arrangement with the EU. South Africa and the EU agreed at the South Africa-EU Strategic Partnership Ministerial Troika Meeting on 16 January 20098 that both sides should consider the implications of the EPA on current processes of regional integration in SADC. They agreed that both sides should seek to find mutually acceptable solutions to the concerns raised in the negotiations. South Africa and the EU remain committed to reaching an outcome that consolidates SACU’s common external tariff and which constitutes the essential underpinning for the proper functioning of the customs union. European Trade Commissioner Ashton visited South Africa and met bilaterally with the South African Minister of Trade and Industry, Mandisi Mpahlwa, as well as jointly with the Trade Ministers of Angola, Namibia, and South Africa to discuss their concerns.

Caribbean

Following the signing of a full EPA in mid-October 2008, the focus in the Caribbean is now on implementation; the CARIFORUMEUEPA began to be provisionally applied as of 29 December 2008.10 Most Caribbean countries have started to make progress in addressing the requirements of implementation at the national level. The more sensitive issue of addressing implementation requirements at the regional level, however, must be dealt with through regional consensus amongst the Caribbean Forum of African, Caribbean, and Pacific States (CARIFORUM). The Dominican Republic is leading a call – that is increasingly backed by a number of Caribbean governments – to determine the best regional vehicle to ensure the EPA is effectively delivered. The country tabled a Statement on Matters Related to Institutional Arrangements at the 3 December 2008 Caribbean Community and Common Market (CARICOM) Council for Trade and Economic Development (COTED) meeting. The statement proposes options for a regional EPA implementing institution that calls for an explicit consensus of all CARIFORUM representatives. Emerging regional positions on this issue appear to point towards delegating responsibility either to the Caribbean Regional Negotiating Machinery or the Caribbean Export Development Agency; the CARICOM Secretariat is viewed as unacceptable. Positive development could constitute a basis for addressing concerns with the IEPA that moves away from a piecemeal and partial approach to one that is decisive and comprehensive.

The United Kingdom Parliament has not started ratifying the CARIFORUM EPA because Haiti has yet to sign. Parties are working with Haiti to ensure that the country is in a position to sign shortly, however. The issue may need to be resolved before all national ratification processes are completed. The EU-CARIFORUM EPA has been placed in the World Trade Organization (WTO) category of Regional Trade Agreements for which factual presentation is on hold because it includes a non-Member of the WTO (Bahamas). Such inclusion has implications on the examination process for which there is no consensus yet in the WTO on how to proceed; the issue is still under consideration at the WTO.

Pacific

The Pacific ACP (PACP) countries also missed their 31 December 2008 deadline for completing regional EPA negotiations, though talks with the EU have advanced via e-mail exchanges since the last round of negotiations in September 2008. It may be necessary to move negotiations forward at the Ministerial level to resolve issues that cannot be addressed at the technical level. The European Commission is working on its reply to the Pacific’s EPA draft text covering mutually agreed areas (goods, fisheries, development chapter, etc.). The European Commission’s proposal to sign the IEPAs with Fiji and Papua New Guinea has been transmitted to the EU Council for approval. Translation is complete and the Council Secretariat is preparing the final documents for approval and signature.

For a longer version of the EPA update, please see: http://www.acp-eu-trade.org/newsletter/tni.php

ACP wants early 2009 talks with EU over EPAs

ACP Ministers acknowledged at their end of December 2008 meeting in Brussels, their commitment to concluding EPAs that will “contribute to growth development and enhance regional integration.” Fourteen* out of 15 states of the Caribbean regional grouping, CARIFORUM, are the only ones to have to date signed a fully fledged EPA with the EU as a regional grouping, covering not only trade in goods but many other areas such as services. Other “goods only” EPAs have been initialled with the EU either by groups of countries within an ACP region, or with ACP countries on an individual basis.

Some countries have specific questions before signing up to fully fledged EPAs. In a recent interview with ‘The Courier’ in Botswana, the country’s Director of International Trade, L Phuti, indicated that whereas Botswana is interested in a comprehensive EPA, it does not want to be swamped with providers of services. For example, it already has three cell phone operators within its small market. Botswana is one of four countries of the South African Customs Union (SACU) to have so far initialled a “goods only” EPA.

Link to: http://www.acp-eucourier.info/Newsview.79.0.html?&tx_ttnews[tt_news]=735&tx_ttnews[backPid]=6&cHash=02df68dbd9

*Haiti is still considering whether to sign in the wake of specific economic difficulties.

Amazing story (1): Cameroon

EU and Cameroon sign trade agreement

The EU and Cameroon have signed a 'stepping stone' Economic Partnership Agreement (EPA), the first of its kind between the EU and a Central African trade partner. Louis Paul Motazé, Cameroon's Minister for the Economy, Planning and Land Settlement and Peter Thompson Director of Development and EPAs in DG Trade at the European Commission signed the agreement in the Cameroonian capital Yaoundé. The agreement combines the benefits of a trade agreement with development assistance targeted at accelerating growth and development in Cameroon. The final goal remains to conclude a full EPA with all the members of the Central African region that will promote competitiveness, growth and investment while accelerating regional integration.

EU Trade Commissioner Catherine Ashton said: "I am strongly committed to pursuing and concluding regional negotiations in Central Africa and this agreement should be seen as a milestone on the path to the successful conclusion of a regional Economic Partnership Agreement with Central Africa." EU Development Commissioner Louis Michel said: "Economic Partnership Agreements encourage developing countries to benefit from global trade, while maintaining a certain level of protection for some of their key interests. I trust that this agreement with Cameroon will pave the way for the regional integration sought after by Central African countries. It has a very strong development element that will support the implementation of reforms necessary for this regional integration."

The stepping stone or 'interim' EPA gives Cameroon duty free quota free access to the EU market, with only an asymmetric and gradual opening of its own economy. Cameroon has excluded a number of agricultural and manufactured goods from liberalisation, and will liberalise 80% of imports from the EU over a period of 15 years. The Agreement also includes commitments by the EC and its Member States to assist Cameroon to improve its competitiveness as well as measures to help exporters to meet EU import standards (sanitary and phyto-sanitary (SPS) measures). Also included is cooperation on more efficient customs procedures, as well as on fiscal adjustment to ensure that removal of tariffs does not destabilise the country's public finances.

European Parliament Softens Position on EPA Trade Deals

By David Cronin

The European Union’s only directly elected body is demanding that a new trade deal between the bloc and Cameroon should not be applied to other countries in central Africa. In an economic partnership agreement (EPA) formally signed on January 15, Cameroon has undertaken to remove 80 percent of the tariffs it levies on imports from the EU within a 15-year period. Cameroon is alone among eight countries in a central African regional grouping to have concluded such an accord. As the remaining countries are all poorer than Cameroon, members of the European Parliament (MEPs) are seeking a guarantee that flexibility will be shown towards them.

In a draft resolution, MEPs urge the European Commission, the Union’s executive branch, to consider favourably a proposal made by the Central African governments during the EPA talks. Under it, 71 percent of tariffs would be scrapped over two decades and the region would be given five years to prepare to introduce these changes. Throughout its negotiations aimed at securing the trade deals known as EPAs with almost 80 nations in Africa, the Caribbean and the Pacific, the Commission has argued that at least an 80 percent elimination of tariffs is needed to comply with rules stipulated by the World Trade Organisation. But French Socialist MEP Kader Arif, who drafted the Parliament’s resolution, described the Commission’s stance as ‘‘an extreme interpretation’’ of those rules. Arif added that EU negotiators have not taken into account that they are dealing ‘‘with some of the poorest countries in the world and that this massive liberalisation of trade might seriously destabilise many economic sectors, especially the most fragile ones.’’ His resolution is part of a series on the EPAs slated for approval by the 785-seat Parliament in the coming months.

Karin Ulmer, a trade campaigner with the anti-poverty organisation Aprodev, complained that the agreement was signed with Cameroon without a proper study on its impacts being conducted. ‘‘Whatever Cameroon signs has an immediate impact on other countries in Central Africa,’’ she added. ‘‘The dilemma created by this signature is that we don’t have any guarantees that the other countries will get a fair deal.’’ Although Cameroon has been classified as a lower-middle income economy by United Nations agencies, five others in the Central African grouping are officially recognised as least developed countries. They are the Democratic Republic of Congo, Equatorial Guinea, São Tomé and Principe, Chad and the Central African Republic. The draft resolutions relating to EPAs reached with other parts of Africa also suggest that the EU has not paid sufficient heed to development issues.

An analysis of a deal reached with Ghana, for example, draws a stark contrast between the situation of agriculture in Europe and West Africa. Whereas the EU spends 55 billion euros (71 billion dollars) per year on agricultural subsidies, Ghana has not given any such assistance to its farmers since the 1980s. A separate resolution on the East African Community states that the five countries concerned (Kenya, Burundi, Rwanda, Tanzania and Uganda) are in a unique position on the continent as they have accepted identical liberalisation schedules. Nearly 83 percent of tariffs on EU imports would be eliminated over 25 years under these schedules. Helmuth Markov, the German MEP who drafted the resolution, has urged that the EU allows for these commitments to be altered ‘‘if they prove too burdensome to implement’’.

Until his unexpected departure from Brussels to serve as a British government minister last year, the European trade commissioner Peter Mandelson had ruled out renegotiating provisions contained in EPAs secured before an end-of-2007 deadline he had set. Others in the Commission have been eager to sound a more flexible note recently, however. Joao Aguiar Machado, a senior EU trade official, said that clauses are being inserted in some EPAs to ensure that their impact can be reviewed. The EU should be ‘‘careful about generic solutions’’ to problems affecting different countries or regions, he added.

Most of the EPAs signed so far have been dubbed ‘‘interim’’ and have been limited to trade in goods. The Commission has indicated that it wishes to expand them in the future to cover trade in services, as well as rules on competition, public procurement and investment. But Erika Mann, another German MEP who has been tasked with assessing a deal struck with Ivory Coast, warned that any widening of its scope may not win automatic backing from her colleagues. The Parliament may only approve such an extension ‘‘in the case of having a democratically-elected government in place in Ivory Coast’’, she said. After being divided by civil war earlier this decade, Ivory Coast had been due to hold elections in November 2008. But the date passed without the poll happening. French Green MEP Alain Lipietz is seeking a delay from the Parliament in endorsing the agreement with Ivory Coast until the political situation in the country is stabilised. ‘‘If we sign an EPA now, it will seem like we are taking sides in the civil war,’’ he said. (END/2009)

Link to http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=45490

Amazing story (2): Nigeria

Europe applied 'Double Standards on Trade'

By David Cronin, IPS

Double standards are being applied in the way that the European Union awards trade preferences to poor countries, an African exporters grouping has alleged. Two African countries -- Nigeria and Gabon -- were both told this month that they could not benefit from a scheme known as GSP Plus, under which developing countries are allowed to sell goods on the EU's markets without having to pay duties. Eligibility for the scheme is conditional on respect for 27 international agreements dealing with human rights, with a particular emphasis on labour standards. In both cases, the countries had ratified 26 of the conventions. Nigeria was rejected by the European Commission for not yet placing an agreement against genocide on its statute books, while Gabon was rejected because it had not yet fully signed up to a convention of the International Labour Organisation (ILO) on the minimum age for granting employment.

The rigid application of the rules in the cases of the two countries appears to contrast with the leeway that the Commission has shown to Colombia. Despite receiving official complaints from labour rights activists about the systematic persecution of trade unionists in Colombia, the Commission decided to extend until 2011 its trade preferences to the Latin American country. Whereas Nigeria has refused to sign a free trade or economic partnership agreement (EPA) with Europe, Colombia's right-wing government is involved in talks with the Union aimed at clinching such a deal. Ken Ukaoho, a spokesman for the National Association of Nigerian Traders (NANTS), alleged that his country is being punished for declining to sign the free trade agreement sought by the EU during 2007.

Nigeria's stance led the EU to impose extra duties of 4.3 percent and 6.3 percent on Nigerian 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. Many beverage manufacturers using cocoa have relocated their production from Nigeria to Ghana. Ukaoho said that the EU's decisions made a mockery of official assurances that it would demonstrate flexibility towards Africa in trade negotiations and that the economic and social development needs of particular countries would be taken into account. He argued that it is wrong to deny GSP Plus status to Nigeria on the basis that it is not yet enforcing the genocide convention, noting that the Nigerian government has pledged its support for this convention and intends to ratify it in the near future. It is illustrativ e, he noted, that the trade preferences have been withheld from two African applicants but granted to 16 other countries outside that continent. "This goes beyond double standards," he said. "It shows you that the EU has a colonial mentality towards Africa."

A Commission official dealing with trade issues insisted, however, that his institution has been "even-handed and consistent in applying the criteria for countries to benefit from GSP Plus." Unlike Nigeria and Gabon, Colombia has ratified all 27 of the conventions concerned, the official said. (…) Nigeria has been one of the most rigid opponents of the EPAs, which the Commission has been trying to conclude with almost 80 countries in Africa, the Caribbean and the Pacific. Less than half of the ACP countries signed accords by an end of 2007 deadline, and in most cases these were described as 'interim' deals confined to trade in goods. Negotiations are continuing with many countries to try to widen their scope. Elisabeth Tankeu, the commissioner for trade and industry in the African Union, said that these agreements are the "products of a process unequal bargaining", with the European side pressuring the ACP countries into accepting them. In an article in the Geneva-based publication Trade Negotiations Insight, she argued that the interim accords will not help to reduce poverty in Africa. Not enough aid is being offered by Europe to ensure that Africa can adapt to and ultimately benefit from trade liberalisation.

"Unfortunately, these critical issues are yet to be seriously dealt with in the EPA negotiations," she said. "The request of African countries that the development dimension of EPAs be adequately considered through the inclusion of binding commitments on additional resources has been largely ignored." (END/2008)

Link to http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=45201

Nigeria: EU Denies Accusation of Forcing EPA

The European Union yesterday denied the accusation leveled against it that a decision had been taken to force Nigeria to conclude an Economic Partnership Agreement (EPA). A statement from the Delegation of the European Commission in Abuja titled: Nigeria and the General System of Preferences (GSP+) Debate", stated that, the accusation was false.The GSP + offers additional trade preferences to the standard GSP scheme to vulnerable countries that ratify and effectively implement a broad number of international conventions in the fields of human rights, core labour standards, sustainable development and good governance.According to the statement, Nigeria, Pakistan and Gabon have not been granted the GSP+ preferences for not meeting all the criteria required."Nigeria has not yet ratified the UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide which was one of the core human rights Conventions required."Nigeria also did not provide sufficient information concerning relevant domestic legislation and measures to implement all the conventions effectively. Based on this, the Commission was obliged to conclude that Nigeria does not currently meet the GSP+ eligibility criteria," it stated.It further explained that Nigeria would have another opportunity to apply for the GSP+ by April 30, 2010, adding that new GSP regulation envisaged that countries that were unable to meet the criteria could join midway after regularising the outstanding issues."

The decision on Nigeria's application for GSP+ is based solely upon the criteria of vulnerability, ratification and effective implementation of the 27 conventions, and the commitment made to comply with the monitoring and review as stated by the EU regulation," it pointed out.The statement further explained that the EU's intention was not to force any country, let alone Nigeria, into signing the agreement, rather it was engaged in an equal partnership with Africa." What partner would one day engage in an equal partnership and the next day "emasculate or subdue" its partner?,", it asked, adding that "the decision on whether to sign any agreement, including the EPA, lies solely with the Nigerian authorities and the EC respects this decision entirely," it added. (NAN).

Link to http://allafrica.com/stories/200812250177.html

Nigeria gets 600 million euros EU grant for trade and regional integration

African Press Agency

The European Commission (EC) will give Nigeria 600 million euros to assist it in the areas of trade and regional integration, the head of the EC delegation to Nigeria, Mr. Dennis Theulin said here Friday. The grant, which will be formally signed in June 2009, is part of the European Economic Fund (EEF) which was designed to assist Nigeria in good governance and to ensure peace reigned in the Niger Delta, Theulin told the Minister of Commerce and Industry, Chief Achike Udenwa, Friday in Abuja. Theulin, who leads an EC trade delegation said 50 percent of Nigeria’s total import comes from Europe and that the grant from the Union was “expedient putting into consideration the role of Nigeria as a key player in ECOWAS’s regional development and integration.”

The grant, he said created easy access into the European market for Nigeria through the Economic Partnership Agreements (EPA) with its non-oil export products. Udenwa said the grant would be applied to stimulate activities in non-oil exports and to generate more opportunities in the country’s industrial sector. He urged the EC to assist ECOWAS with technical support and capacity building and to assist its integration process to make the region more competitive in the global market.

Link to: http://bilaterals.org/article.php3?id_article=14410

South Africa in Growing Conflict With EU

Botswana, Namibia, Swaziland, Mozambique and Lesotho all gave their initial approval to an EPA with the Union in late 2007. But when the agreement was analysed, some of these governments voiced profound unease about how it could drive a wedge between them and the region's largest economy South Africa, which had decided against joining an EPA. Later this month, the EU's 27 governments are to discuss if they should give the European Commission, the executive arm of the EU, a mandate to proceed with signing and ratifying the EPAs it has negotiated with the African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) bloc. South Africa, Namibia and Angola have called for the brakes to be applied to this procedure temporarily.

Even though European Commission President José Manuel Barroso gave an undertaking in late 2007 that provisions in trade deals which African countries deem to be contentious could be renegotiated, his officials have now declined to accept the appeal. In a document, seen by IPS, the Commission said that reopening an EPA with Southern African countries would not be "practicable" because it would "ignore" the decision of other governments in that region to accept the agreement. The agreement with southern Africa has been given the suffix 'interim' as it primarily relates to trade in goods. The EU is now hoping to widen its scope so that it becomes a 'full' accord, which also deals with prising open Africa's services markets, as well as containing clauses on investment, public procurement and competition.

Paul Goodison from the European Research Office, which monitors EU-Africa economic relations, said that "one way forward" could be to use a technique that trade negotiators describe as 'bracketing'. This would involve placing brackets around provisions in the EPA that Namibia, South Africa and Angola consider inimical to the interests of their region. It would allow the remainder of the agreement to be signed by both European and African governments but with the contentious clauses not coming into effect. Peter Mandelson, Europe's trade commissioner from 2004 until last year, had refused to agree to the use of bracketing. But his successor Catherine Ashton has undertaken to demonstrate greater flexibility in the handling of the EPAs. She will be visiting southern Africa in the coming week.

"The hope is that with a new hand at the helm, substantive changes in the European Commission position could become possible," said Goodison. "It remains to be seen if at the beginning of next week Commissioner Ashton will have given substance to her rhetoric." Interviewed by the publication Trade Negotiations Insight, Ashton stated there is a need to "replace controversy over interim agreements with a positive debate on full EPAs." But she defended the Commission's position on some of the proposals that have most rankled with African countries. Several African governments have taken issue with a demand by the Commission that they eliminate taxes they have imposed on export of raw materials, arguing that such fiscal measures are vital to nurture nascent industries by encouraging the processing of basic resources at home.

While recognising those concerns as legitimate Ashton said: "The commitment to removing trade barriers like export taxes must be a cornerstone of EU trade policy. I am a firm believer in the benefits of open markets and the opportunities they can deliver to businesses and individuals." As Angola is internationally recognised as a 'least developed country', it was able to take a different approach to the EPAs than many of its neighbours. Its status meant that the Commission never threatened to impose higher duties on its exports to the EU if it decided against signing an agreement. Although Angola has remained outside a regional EPA, it has complained that the Commission provided it with "little clarity" about what the implications of signing up would be. Not enough details have been provided, for example, on what financial assistance would be made available to compensate for the revenue losses once it has to reduce most tariffs on imported goods.

As part of an 'aid for trade' strategy formulated in 2007, the EU has agreed to make 2 billion euros (2.6 billion dollars) available to poor countries each year by 2010. But that pledge was made before several EU member states decided to slash their development aid budgets in response to the financial crisis. In recent months, Italy has cut its aid allocations by 56 percent, Ireland by 10 percent, while Latvia has taken steps to abolish its aid budget entirely. Glenys Kinnock, a Socialist member of the European Parliament, noted that there is "nothing legally binding" in an EPA recently concluded with the Caribbean region, the most comprehensive agreement yet reached with the almost 80 ACP countries. "Aid for trade is the elephant in the room," Kinnock added. "Nobody wants to talk about how much (EU) member states are going to contribute."

By David Cronin

Link to: http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=45705

For better for worse.....Challenges for ACP-EU relations in 2009

First, the year is one of the EU’s periodic moments of institutional change when many key figures leave their posts and move on to other tasks. European Parliament (EP) elections will be held in June 2009 and a new set of European Commissioners will take office in November 2009. Moreover, changes are expected in the way the Council of Ministers is run, though these continue to be obscured by the lack of a solution to the future of the Draft Treaty of Lisbon. Further changes seem likely to emerge from the new US administration, one aware of the need to rebuild bridges in international affairs and reconnect with popular aspirations around the world. Equally the rise of China and other emerging powers is driving changes in the international order. Closer to home, 2009 brings the second review of the ACPEU Cotonou Partnership Agreement (CPA). In this, a clearer place will be sought for the African Union (AU), recognising the increasing importance of this institution in Africa-European relations.

Authors: James Mackie, Eleonora Koeb, Veronika Tywuschik,

Publisher: ECDPM InBrief No. 22, December 2008

To download full document

“Free trade” agreements contribute to financial and other crises

Terms of these agreements prohibit countries from reforming their financial sector so as to remedy the financial, economic, environmental, food and social crises now growing, and to ensure finance is directed to the transformation into sustainable societies. Our world is not for sale network in the World Social Forum (Belem) distributed a paper which shows how deregulation and liberalisation of financial services is part of the many bilateral and regional free trade agreements (FTAs) that are currently being negotiated or have been implemented over the last years. For instance, the EU-Caribbean Economic Partnership agreement (EPA) exemplifies the model that the EU seeks to impose during all current FTA and EPA negotiations. Some FTAs include a ‘review clause’ which is a commitment to (further) deregulate and liberalise (financial) services through new negotiations at a certain point in time, without public or parliamentary scrutiny.

To download full document

EPA impact on deforestation rates, subsistence farming and food security

The Economic Partnership Agreements (EPAs) being negotiated by the European Union and African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) countries are causing concern. EPAs threaten to undermine economic development in some of the world’s poorest and most vulnerable countries. As a result, many ACP countries are refusing to sign up. This paper clarifies these threats, and shows in details the expected sequences of EPAs.

The paper claims that EPAs look set to force ACP countries to open up their struggling markets to European industrial exports, and to foreign investment targeted especially at the agricultural sector. Liberalising investment in sectors such as forests and agriculture could have a dramatic impact on deforestation rates, subsistence farming and food security. Likewise, there is already considerable evidence to suggest that such rapid and extensive market opening can trigger deindustrialisation. On the other hand, the European Commission (EC) has been reluctant to consider addressing ACP countries’ productive and trading capacities, which would clearly need substantial development.

Another sequence of EPAs may be banning the use of export restrictions in some sensitive sectors. However, there is some debate about what the consequences of removing export restrictions would be, especially in terms of the development of value-added processing within the countries concerned. Nevertheless, the paper finds that trade liberalisation tends to exacerbate problems that lead to increased deforestation and loss of biodiversity. Thus, a prohibition on the use of export restrictions is likely to be counterproductive.

The paper deems that the EC is wrong to argue that the dependence of EU industries on imports from developing countries means they need better access to raw materials to compete on a fair basis. It adds that the EC is also being incorrect when it associates trade liberalisation with development. Consequently, the paper believes that ACP countries may have a great deal to lose if they sign up to and implement EPAs. However, the paper finds that passing the 2007 waiver deadline of the World Trade Organisation (WTO) is a significant advantage for many ACP countries; there is now no real, political deadline for concluding EPAs negotiations.

All things considered, the paper argues that the entire thrust of EPAs is in direct conflict with both the EU’s commitment to sustainable development and the Millennium Development Goals. Therefore, the EU must find alternative routes to assist ACP countries to develop fair and sustainable societies. The paper concludes that the EPA negotiations should be stopped. And those agreements that have already been initialled should be repealed.

Authors: R. Hall - Publisher: Friends of the Earth , 2008

To download full document

World Bank: financial Crisis Could Trap 53 Million More People in Poverty

The new forecasts preceded a meeting of the G7 finance ministers this weekend in Rome.

World Bank President Robert B. Zoellick participated at the meetings. He has urged developed countries to set aside 0.7 percent of their economic stimulus packages for a special Vulnerability Fund for developing countries. “While much of the world is focused on bank rescues and stimulus packages, we should not forget that poor people in developing countries are far more exposed if their economies falter,” Zoellick said. Some 40 countries are “highly vulnerable” due to pre-existing high rates of poverty and expected drops in growth. Millions already living below the poverty line “will be pushed further below the poverty line” as a result of the global financial crisis, according to the new policy note, “The Global Economic Crisis: Assessing Vulnerability with a Poverty Lens.”

To download full document

Five good reasons why West Africa should not sign the EPA

The arguments Berthelot presents are:

1) West Africa should liberalize only 42.3% of its imports from the EU given that its 12 LDCs are exempted from tariff reduction;

2) ECOWAS should not reduce its tariffs at lower levels than the EU on basic food staples;

3) ECOWAS cannot sign the EPA before the conclusion of the Doha Round where the issue of agricultural subsidies is a key component;

4) Signing the EPA before the Doha Round completion would reduce much the safeguards measures of ECOWAS;

5) West Africa cannot sign an EPA without knowing the level of its preference erosion on the EU market stemming from the Doha Round and EU bilateral trade agreements.

Author: Jacques Berthelot – Publisher: Solidarité

To download full document

February - March: Next EPA negotiation rounds: