EU-AFRICA-CARIBBEAN-PACIFIC TRADE: UNEQUAL PARTNERS, UNFAIR RULES

By Luisa Morgantini and - - Reprint | | Print |

This column is available for visitors to the IPS website only for reading. Reproduction in print or electronic media is prohibited. Media interested in republishing may contact romacol@ips.org.

BRUSSELS, Dec 10 2007 (IPS) - The December 31 deadline for ratification of the EU-ACP Economic Partnership Agreements (EPAs) between the European Union and the ACP Group (Africa, the Caribbean, and the Pacific) should be extended for negotiating these agreements, writes Luisa Morgantini, vice president of the European Parliament. In this analysis, Morgantini writes that numerous studies show the effect of eliminating preferences and implementing the sort of trade liberalisation that the EU wants to introduce would be devastating to the African economies. Two economies at completely different phases of development should not be treated as if they were equal. It is wrong to pretend that the liberalisation \’\’of almost all trade\’\’ between them can generate development. The assumption that the EPAs and WTO rules are unavoidable ignores the possibility of working through this organisation to change the rules. It is to be hoped that the Commission will listen to the arguments of the many voices who have called for an extension of the deadline for negotiating the EPAs, for exclusion of discussion of the \’\’Singapore issues\’\’, and for the EPAs to be transformed into true instruments of co-operation for development and not mere free-trade accords.

Discussion of the EPAs has been underway since the Cotonu Agreement was established in Benin in June 2000, when the decision was taken to revolutionise trade relations between the EU and the ACP Group through preferences for ACP exports into the European markets. Changes in the agreements were deemed necessary to adapt them to the rules of the World Trade Organisation (WTO). For certain sectors, these changes are welcome, given that in the thirty years since the implementation of this asymmetrical system of trade preferences, the ACP countries have seen no significant economic benefit.

But there are aspects that EPA supporters do not take into account when they assert first that agreements must be adapted to WTO rules and second that this will benefit the ACP group. The fact that the asymmetrical system was not a success is not enough to prove that eliminating it would be beneficial. On the contrary, numerous studies show that the effect of eliminating preferences and implementing the sort of trade liberalisation that the EU wants to introduce would be devastating to the African economies. These studies, in truth, do little more than confirm what common sense already tells us: that two economies at completely different phases of development should not be treated as if they were equal. It is wrong to pretend that the liberalisation ”of almost all trade” between them can generate development.

Moreover, the assumption that the EPAs and WTO rules are unavoidable ignores the possibility of working through this organisation to change the rules. If the problem is only these rules, it is hard to understand why the European Union is pushing to negotiate liberalisation, not only in the goods sector but also in the service sector and the so-called ”Singapore issues” (bids, investment, and competition) that were excluded from world trade negotiations during the WTO Ministerial in Cancun in 2003, and now would be introduced by the back door.

It seems clear to me that the EPAs are neither necessary nor appropriate, but it is worth asking if they even feasible? Up until a few weeks ago commissioner Mandelson held that there was no alternative plan to the EPAs and that many regions were ready to approve them. Now, in contrast, it seems that it will be possible to approve a few ”light” versions of EPAs, meaning they would apply only to goods and not to services or the ”Singapore Issues”. Worse, it seems that the regional unions that the EPAs should favour are in fact falling apart. As a result in certain cases only a few of the countries that make up the various blocs will sign the agreement. In other cases it will only be possible to reach provisional agreements. Meanwhile in Kenya two organisations have initiated a judicial action to block any signing of EPAs on the grounds that because they are harmful to development they violate human rights.

It is to be hoped that the Commission will listen to the arguments of the many voices who have called for an extension of the deadline for negotiating the EPAs, for exclusion of discussion of the ”Singapore issues”, and for the EPAs to be transformed into true instruments of co-operation for development and not mere free-trade accords.

The declaration adopted in Kigali, Rwanda, on November 19-22 of this year by the EU-ACP parliamentary assembly states that the ACP countries that are ”under pressure from the European Commission to sign the EPAs”, must have more time to evaluate their consequences. It also states that no ACP country that signs an agreement –whether an EPA or an interim agreement– can find itself in a less advantageous position than before. Parliamentarians also hold that the EPAs must contribute effectively to ACP countries’ efforts at regional integration, which must be negotiated in a spirit of true co-operation, and that no economic aid can be made conditional on the approval of EPAs.

I am among those who argue that signing the EPAs should be tied to a concession by the EU of suitable measures to compensate the asymmetries with regard to the ACP countries, and that it should be guaranteed that the effects of the new agreements on local communities will be closely watched by the parliaments and civil society of the countries affected.(END/COPYRIGHT IPS)