EPA Review Annex Documents - DFID

More documents

Recommendations

Info

eliminate unnecessary obstacles to trade between the Parties as a result of technical regulations, standards and conformity assessment procedures applied by either Party while not affecting the capacity of the Parties to protect public, plant and animal health.” In a number of cases there is also a commitment to enhance the capacity of the ACP state to improve public health through capacity enhancement, suggesting a focus not just on trade but also on domestic capacity more broadly. While there is a clear thrust in all of the agreements towards trade directed at the EU, in the case of the final agreement between the EC and CARIFORUM and the interim agreement between the EC and SADC emphasis is also placed on facilitating greater regional trade. For example, Article 57 of the interim EPA between the EC and SADC states: 1. ‘The Parties agree to facilitate trade and investment within the SADC EPA States and between the Parties while ensuring that measures adopted shall apply only to the extent necessary to protect human, animal or plant health or life in accordance with the provisions of the SPS Agreement. 2. The Parties undertake to cooperate in strengthening regional integration and specifically SADC EPA States' cooperation on matters concerning sanitary and phytosanitary measures (hereinafter referred to as "SPS measures") and to address problems arising from SPS measures on agreed priority sectors and products1 whilst giving due consideration to regional integration. 3. As a result thereof, the Parties agree to promote bi-regional collaboration aiming at recognition of appropriate levels of protection in SPS measures. 4. The Parties agree to establish and enhance SADC EPA States' technical capacity to implement and monitor SPS measures, including promoting greater use of international standards and other matters concerning SPS.’ The final agreement between the EC and CARIFORUM uses even more specific language with respect to regional integration, focusing on the establishment of regional standards and promoting regional equivalence. Thus, Point (c) of Article 53 states: ‘Assist CARIFORUM States in establishing harmonised intraregional sanitary and phytosanitary (hereinafter SPS) measures also with a view to facilitating the recognition of equivalence of such measures with those existing in the EC Party.’ It is interesting to note that the agreement between the EC and the Pacific states makes reference to the capacity constraints faced by parties to the agreement that are not currently WTO members. Thus, Article 36, in outlining the rights and obligations of the parties, states that: ’The EC Party will take full account of the capacity constraints in the shortterm of the non-WTO members to comply with the provisions of this agreement.’ There is no such provision, however, in the interim agreement between the EC and EAS, despite the fact that five of the countries in this regional grouping are not WTO members. 237
Specific provisions While the final and interim agreements share a considerable amount of common language, they differ significantly in the range and scope of their specific provisions. Broadly, where specific provisions have been agreed, the language tends to be rather vague and noncommittal, the final agreement between the EC and CARIFORUM is testament to this point (ECLAC, 2008). At the same time, there are some notable instances where specific provisions, for example related to equivalence or regional harmonisation are given more prominence and/or make firmer commitments. Competent Authority The EU’s approach to the control of food safety in imports of food and feed from Third Countries has increasingly relied on the recognition of an approved component authority in the exporting country. Such a system has been in place for some time in the case of food of animal origin and for phytosanitary controls (European Commission, 2006). While, imports of many foods of non-animal origin are not subject to controls by an approved component authority, it is evident that Regulation (EC) 882/2004 puts greater emphasis on the ability of Third Countries to demonstrate that their food controls are equivalent to those in the EU and provides for the inspection of these systems by the European Commission. This suggests that component authorities in Third Countries will play an increasing role for exports to the EU of all food and feed products. All of the final or interim agreements make reference to a designated competent authority for the implementation of SPS measures, that the parties are required to specify and communicate to each other. The component authority is charged with the implementation of the measures defined in the EPA, as they apply to SPS measures. Regionalisation Article 6 of the SPS Agreement specifies that WTO Members must adapt their SPS measures to reflect the area from which a product is originated and/or to which it is destined, whether a country in its entirety or only part of a country. Specifically, they must recognise the concepts of pest- or disease-free areas and areas of low pest- or disease-prevalence and adapt their SPS measures accordingly. This requirement is typically referred to as ‘regionalisation’. In assessing the characteristics of a particular region, WTO Members must take into account the level of prevalence of specific diseases or pests, the existence of eradication or control programmes and appropriate criteria or guidelines developed by relevant international organisations. In 2008, the SPS Committee adopted guidelines to facilitate the recognition of pest- or disease-free areas. 163 Critically, under the SPS Agreement the onus is on exporting countries to provide the necessary evidence in order to demonstrate objectively to importing countries that particular regions are free of pertinent pests or diseases and are likely to remain that way. Importing countries must be permitted reasonable access to undertake inspections, testing and the like to confirm conditions in the area. A number of the interim agreements, namely between the EU and Ghana, Cote d’ Ivoire, Central Africa and SADC, make reference to the concept of regionalisation, although referring to it as ‘zoning’. For example, Article 60 Part 4 of the SADC interim agreement specifies: 163 Document G/SPS/48. 238
Page 1 and 2:
EPA Review Annex Documents by Insti
Page 3 and 4:
Part Three: EPAs as Instruments for
Page 5 and 6:
Part One: Literature Review 4
Page 7 and 8:
countries demanded more precision a
Page 9 and 10:
essential and fundamental of EPA (h
Page 11 and 12:
EPA group. However, after phase II
Page 13 and 14:
Disagreements also existed on other
Page 15 and 16:
ules of origin as a basis for negot
Page 17 and 18:
would not meet WTO provisions. Even
Page 19 and 20:
is only just about to conclude an i
Page 21 and 22:
The EC took almost nine months to a
Page 23 and 24:
Caribbean The CARIFORUM EPA was the
Page 25 and 26:
services, CARIFORUM countries commi
Page 27 and 28:
2006. Moreover, PACP countries cons
Page 29 and 30:
Table 3 Main Problems and Divergenc
Page 31 and 32:
4. Final comments The EPA’s negot
Page 33 and 34:
creation) but can also lead to impo
Page 35 and 36:
preferences and hence are likely to
Page 37 and 38:
3. Impact of the EPAs by Region One
Page 39 and 40:
Cape Verde (loss of 4.1% of GDP) an
Page 41 and 42:
SSA ECOWAS CEMAC COMESA EAC Table 2
Page 43 and 44:
Perez (2005) CGE, 2001 base year 80
Page 45 and 46:
Whilst most studies appear to agree
Page 47 and 48:
7. Annex Literature Countries Metho
Page 49 and 50:
Hinkle and Schiff (2004) "Economic
Page 51 and 52:
Milner, Morressey and McKay (2008)
Page 53 and 54:
Karingi et al (2005) “Assessment
Page 55 and 56:
Greenaway and Milner (2003) "a grim
Page 57 and 58:
Perez, R (2005) “ Are the Economi
Page 59 and 60:
Case Studies Lessons 1. Introductio
Page 61 and 62:
trade relation and negotiation matt
Page 63 and 64:
EPAs negotiation process is paralle
Page 65 and 66:
• EPA team The EPA negotiating te
Page 67 and 68:
- State Secretariat of Environment
Page 69 and 70:
Technical Negotiation Group (TNG) m
Page 71 and 72:
spent for these impact assessment s
Page 73 and 74:
Other opportunity costs Another imp
Page 75 and 76:
Since domestic constituencies tend
Page 77 and 78:
Table 11 Negotiating Meetings and R
Page 79 and 80:
• An estimated $214,000 in travel
Page 81 and 82:
The main expectation of the process
Page 83 and 84:
Commission was forced to take up th
Page 85 and 86:
Therefore, while negotiators could
Page 87 and 88:
System Improvement & Human Resource
Page 89 and 90:
Ethiopia - List of RNF meetings Amo
Page 91 and 92:
Nigeria Cost of EPA negotiation-rel
Page 93 and 94:
Dominican Republic Distribution of
Page 95 and 96:
1. Overview of existing resources f
Page 97 and 98:
The FTRD that was responsible for b
Page 99 and 100:
The support of the NDTPF and the ex
Page 101 and 102:
dedicated sessions during the year
Page 103 and 104:
Mauritius, Seychelles, and Madagasc
Page 105 and 106:
3. Quantification of costs of count
Page 107 and 108:
Ethiopia took a clear stance from t
Page 109 and 110:
4. Perspectives on EPA negotiations
Page 111 and 112:
5. Qns: Had you had more resources,
Page 113 and 114:
) Basic knowledge on Cotonou Agreem
Page 115 and 116:
Council of ESA Ministers Committee
Page 117 and 118:
System Improvement & Human Resource
Page 119 and 120:
List of RNF meetings 118 ANNEX VII
Page 121 and 122:
EPA Review Study Nigeria December,
Page 123 and 124:
contains the quantification of cost
Page 125 and 126:
which appear to have crowded out ac
Page 127 and 128:
Table 3 Resource Detail of Intra-Af
Page 129 and 130:
Table 5 Capacity Building Programme
Page 131 and 132:
Table 7 Cost of EPA Negotiation-Rel
Page 133 and 134:
ADDRESSING THE LABOUR MARKET EFFECT
Page 135 and 136:
Table 9 Annual Cost of Nigeria Trad
Page 137 and 138:
Though the current negotiating stru
Page 139 and 140:
• The simultaneous application of
Page 141 and 142:
understand the changing environment
Page 143 and 144:
7. Summary of Findings and Main Les
Page 145 and 146:
opportunity cost could be quite sub
Page 147 and 148:
• There is adequate technical adv
Page 149 and 150:
5. Appendices Appendix Table 1 Rang
Page 151 and 152:
EPA Review Study Dominican Republic
Page 153 and 154:
c. Technical Level At a regional le
Page 155 and 156:
2) From the ministers of trade of C
Page 157 and 158:
The fact that the DR had previously
Page 159 and 160:
- State Secretariat of Foreign Rela
Page 161 and 162:
Table 1 Distribution of the Main Tr
Page 163 and 164:
Figure 2 CARIFORUM Dimensions Diffe
Page 165 and 166:
with the EU, in order to present a
Page 167 and 168:
Table 4 Average Monthly Salaries EP
Page 169 and 170:
In additional there were eight meet
Page 171 and 172:
Per Diem Rate (US$) 500 A- Total of
Page 173 and 174:
5. Perspectives of EPA negotiations
Page 175 and 176:
usiness and political levels repres
Page 177 and 178:
expectation of increases in exports
Page 179 and 180:
8. Annexes Interviews Name Institut
Page 181 and 182:
MAY o 05-06: WTO TWG on NAMA, Barba
Page 183 and 184:
o 05-06: Joint Meeting of the Prime
Page 185 and 186:
o 10-13: 12 th Meeting of CARIFORUM
Page 187 and 188: Trinidad & Tobago, 11-15 mayo 2007
Page 189 and 190: Reviewing services negotiations in
Page 191 and 192: Table 2 MMain differeences in serrv
Page 193 and 194: 3. Services coverage in the CARIFOR
Page 195 and 196: In this exercise, it is important t
Page 197 and 198: 196 ANNEX Provisions of the agreeme
Page 199 and 200: Tariff and Non-tariff barriers in E
Page 201 and 202: products could be extended until ye
Page 203 and 204: extended to the original partner. F
Page 205 and 206: than the rate applied on the proces
Page 207 and 208: RoO and the EPAs 1. Introduction Ru
Page 209 and 210: Table 1 Similarity of EAC countries
Page 211 and 212: that value added in ACP countries o
Page 213 and 214: The EU has yet to deliver a simple
Page 215 and 216: arrangements, are constrained by pr
Page 217 and 218: and non-oil exporting countries wit
Page 219 and 220: Common Market for Eastern and South
Page 221 and 222: to be seen. The Ethiopia case study
Page 223 and 224: fact that countries either export o
Page 225 and 226: development assistance in the EPA.
Page 227 and 228: References Bilal, S. and Stevens, C
Page 229 and 230: SPS Issues in EPA Negotiations 1. B
Page 231 and 232: The SPS committee provides an oppor
Page 233 and 234: of equivalence. Clearly, the Econom
Page 235 and 236: In the case of Ghana, where there i
Page 237: which relevant entities within thei
Page 241 and 242: ‘.....In addition, the Parties sh
Page 243 and 244: imparted to EPA signatories. In pra
Page 245 and 246: of the EC Party when these products
Page 247 and 248: So what have the EPA negotiations a
Page 249 and 250: Region/Country Year Total 2002 2003
Page 251 and 252: EAC CARIFORUM PACP Region/Country Y
Page 253 and 254: EAC CARIFORUM PACP Region/Country N
Page 255 and 256: EAS SADC EAC Country/Region Mycotox
Page 257 and 258: Country/Region West Africa CEMAC Co
Page 259 and 260: Development Finance and EPAs 1. Int
Page 261 and 262: evenues, one of the main sources of
Page 263: References Braun-Munzinger, C. ( 20
show all

EPA Review Annex Documents - DFID

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?