EPA Review Annex Documents - DFID

CARIFORUM also expressed some concern about the EC inserting binding
commitments on sustainable development and good governance was not matched by
the non existence of binding commitments on trade capacity building support on the EU
side. The EC maintained that issues of sustainable development and good governance
were relevant and fundamental to EPA’s. 57 The development dimension of EPA’s was a
sticky point during mid 2006 in negotiations. The Caribbean wanted the EC to translate
their positions on development dimensions on particular policies. The Caribbean
requirement that some countries be excluded from liberalisation commitments to reduce
the impact on fiscal revenues was rejected by the EC. 58
In contrast to other regions, the EC accepted that CARIFORUM would need periods of
up to 25 years for sensitive products. Despite progress in the development chapter,
there was, however, at the beginning of 2007 disagreements about how to make
operational the cooperation activities for EPA’s implementation. Also, the Caribbean
insisted that an EPA should include a legally binding non-execution clause. In light of
this, if promised EU development cooperation is not delivered, the Caribbean would
suspend concessions in other areas. This was ultimately rejected by the EC. 59
Despite the progress exhibited (which was more important than any other ACP region),
they struggled to prepare the CARIFORUM market access offer. Diverging views within
Caribbean existed in reciprocal trade and its impact on fiscal revenue; the amount of
trade sectors to be covered and excluded from EPA’s. Also, the EC market offer in terms
of sugar, rice and bananas was not what the Caribbean counties would have liked. 60
The fact that the Caribbean was not a Customs Union complicated the negotiations on
market access. The proposal of national exclusions lists was rejected by the EC.
Moreover, some members were not willing to accept a full reciprocity given the sizes of
their economies. It was agreed, on the other hand, that each Caribbean country would
be recognised by international law as a party to EPA’s. This would exempt CARIFORUM
from exposure of collective sanctions.
The market access negotiations remained to be complicated during the last months of
2007. Eventually, the Caribbean presented its market access offer. However,
divergences continued in product coverage, transition periods, MFN and issues of
governance.
In the first two weeks of December 2007, the agreement was closed. The CARIFORUM
market access offer was made on 1 st December. The original offer considered 25 years
implementation period. This was rejected by the EU. On 7 th December the Caribbean
heads of government met. They decided to reduce the implementation period to 15
years in a race to not lose the preferences on sugar, bananas, rum and rice. A week
later, the full EPA was initialled. 61
Finally, CARIFORUM agreed to liberalise 82.9% of their trade over a period of 15 years
(with a moratorium of three years). The MFN clause was also part of the agreement. In
57 Trade Negotiations Insights, Vol. 5, No. 2, April 2006.
58 Trade Negotiations Insights, Vol. 5, No. 5, October 2006.
59 Trade Negotiations Insights, Vol. 6, No. 1, March 2007.
60 Trade Negotiations Insights, Vol. 6, No. 4, August 2007.
61 Trade Negotiations Insights, Vol. 6, No. 8, December 2007.
23