EPA Review Annex Documents - DFID

area of regional integration (although interestingly with no explicit reference to the
harmonisation of SPS measures).
Equivalence
From the outset, the ACP states evidently saw the EPA negotiations as a way in which to
achieve specific agreements on equivalency of SPS measures, broadly along the lines of
those in the EU-Chile Association Agreement (see above). The capacity-building needs of
many of these states, however, rendered talks of such agreements superfluous in the short
and medium terms. In some cases, however, the notion of equivalency remained a longterm
aspiration. Thus, the final agreement between the EC and CARIFORUM and the
interim agreement between the EC and the Pacific states make reference to the equivalence
of SPS measures, whether between the ACP signatories or between the ACP signatories
and the EU. In the case of the CARIFORUM agreement, the language is rather weak (see
Article 56 Part 2 above). Indeed, the agreement does not appear to add anything
appreciable to existing obligations under Article 4.2 of the SPS Agreement; for WTO
members to, upon request, enter into consultations with the aim of achieving bilateral and/or
multilateral agreements on the recognition of the equivalence of particular SPS measures.
The interim agreement between the EC and the Pacific states, in contrast, makes a more
explicit commitment to consider the equivalence of SPS measures, notably between the
Pacific states and the EU. Thus, Article 37 states:
1. ‘The Parties recognise the importance of making operational the
provisions of Article 4 of the SPS Agreement and to enable the Pacific
Parties to have the equivalence of their SPS measures recognised by
developed importing countries.
2. The Parties reaffirm the Decision on the implementation of Article 4 of
the Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary
Measures of 23 July 2004 of the WTO Committee on Sanitary and
Phytosanitary Measures. The EC Party agrees to give due
consideration to reasonable requests from one or more of the Pacific
States to examine the equivalence of their SPS measures in areas of
particular export interest to the Pacific States.’
It is easy to make too much of this Article. On the one hand, it could be seen as simply
restating existing obligations under the SPS Agreement (see above). On the other, it is
difficult to envisage widespread equivalence being established in view of the capacity
constraints faced by the Pacific states. Such an explicit reference to the scope for
equivalence between ACP states and the EU, even simply as an aspiration, however, is
glaring in its absence from the other EPAs.
Regional integration
All of the final and draft agreements involving multiple countries put considerable emphasis
on regional integration, notably through harmonisation and/or mutual recognition. However,
there are appreciable differences in language across the agreements with respect to
whether this is seen as an aspiration versus a firm commitment (see harmonisation section
above). Predominantly, the focus of these provisions is on increasing regional trade
between ACP countries. The interim agreement between the EC and Central Africa is a
notable exception is committing the parties to mutual recognition in the case of EU imports to
the region. Thus, Article 46 Point 2 states:
‘With a view to facilitating trade between the Parties and in conformity with
Article 40, the signatory Central African States agree on the need to
harmonise import conditions applicable to products originating in the territory
243