EPA Review Annex Documents - DFID

In the case of Ghana, where there is a single chapter for SPS and TBT measures, the
parties also reaffirm their commitment to abide by their rights and obligations under the TBT
Agreement.
It is evident, however, that many of the ACP states had rather grander expectations of the
EPA negotiations. Thus, while there was agreement that the EPAs should address SPS
issues, the starting position of the ACP states included the following provisions (ACP
Secretariat, 2003; Chemnitz and Gunther, 2006):
• A standstill on EU SPS measures as from September 2003, predominantly to enable
the ACP countries to ‘catch up’ with existing regulatory requirements.
• Derogations of five to ten years for ACP countries to provide an extended period for
compliance with EU SPS regulations.
• Conclusion of equivalence agreements with ACP states to facilitate trade in
agricultural and food products.
• Negotiation of additional funds for development cooperation in the area of SPS
measures, which exceed existing commitments under the European Development
Fund (EDF).
The first of these points is clearly in violation of the rights of the EU under the SPS
Agreement, and was always going to be a ‘non-starter’. While the SPS Agreement allows
for special and differential treatment in the case of developing countries, including additional
time for compliance, it is hard to imagine that the European Commission would ever
entertain derogations in compliance for the ACP countries of up to a decade.
The initial negotiations did start with some areas of agreement, notably that the EPAs should
provide a mechanism for coordination and consultation on SPS measures and that the EU
should assist the ACP countries in enhancing their SPS capacity (Chemnitz and Gunther,
2006). Further, the ACP states evidently became more realistic in their expectations with
respect to what the negotiations could achieve, both in terms of what the EU would be willing
to concede and also what they could offer in terms of their own capacity, and also
recognised more fully their role in engendering regional integration rather than simply EU-
ACP trade. For example, while the EU was open to the concept of establishing equivalency
agreements, given that most of the ACP states lacked systems of conformity assessment
that were internationally-accredited, the first stage was inevitably capacity-building. As
highlighted above, the EU was willing to provide assistance to facilitate processes of
capacity-building, although not to commit specific levels of funding, seeing this as a separate
and wider issue within the framework of the EDF.
Scope of the agreements
Of the final or interim agreements agreed to date, they all include provisions for SPS
measures with the exception of the EAC and EAS interim agreements. Both of these
agreements include SPS measures in their rendez-vous clauses. While the final agreement
between the EC and CARIFORUM and the interim agreement between the EC and SADC
have a chapter devoted to SPS measures, all of the other interim agreements have a
common chapter devoted to SPS and TBT measures. In these latter cases it is evident from
the language, however, that SPS measures are at the forefront of the agenda and indeed a
number of the provisions make specific reference to SPS measures.
All of the agreements, in defining SPS measures and outlining the scope of the provisions of
the EPA reference the SPS Agreement and the definitions outlined by relevant international
234