EPA Review Annex Documents - DFID

2006. Moreover, PACP countries considered that the initial EC proposals focused more
on the EU’s particular needs rather than the special circumstances of their countries. 69
By the beginning of 2007, negotiations were held around specific points of the
agreements. The Pacific countries thought that individual members should have the right
to negotiate bilateral fisheries agreement with the EU rather than a global agreement.
Eventually, both parties agreed to explore the possibility of the implementation of a
regional fisheries component as an integral part of the EPA. Respect to rules of origin,
PACP considered a change in tariff sub-heading at the six digit level in the definition of
rules of origin. Both parties agreed to explore this possibility. 70
However, the PACP could not establish the RPTF that would have helped, in the EU’s
view, to match development resources to the EPA’s needs by mid 2007. The PACP felt
that there was already a regional mechanism to deal with the existing regional
programme resources.
By mid 2007, the EC commission presented its rules of origin proposal to the PACPs
and confirmed that it intended to review EBA and GSP rules of origin in the following
year. The PACP’s negotiators argued that the proposal did not address regional
concerns and suggested that several manufactured products would not qualify for DFQF
treatment under EPA’s.
In the services negotiations, the EC considered that the PACP proposal was going
beyond mode 4 provisions but expressed that it was willing to explore other options that
would be of interest to both parties.
By September 2007 it was foreseen that PACP would not meet the deadline in
negotiations and no agreement would be reached given the slow movement in key
Pacific areas such as fisheries, rules of origin and services. However, the possibility of
an optional participation on the Goods Agreement in the EPA’s was welcomed by the
PACP. 71
By the end of 2007, the EU and Pacific agreed to complete an interim EPA. The
agreement would include a liberalisation schedule for goods, rules of origin and
safeguards. Five Pacific countries presented their market access offer. The EC asked
the PACP to open 90% of their trade while the Pacific wanted to open only 80%. The
dispute settlement mechanism and the customs cooperation remained unsettled and the
MFN clause generated some problems. However, the PACP seemed pleased with the
improved rules of origin for fish. However, by the end of 2007, Fiji and Papua New
Guinea signed the interim EPA. This affected the cohesion and the regional relations.
At the beginning of 2008 it was decided to continue negotiating a collective and
comprehensive EPA. However, the EC refusal to discuss important key issues (mode 4
particularly) generated some tensions and PACP became less favourable to negotiate
on services. During the first half of 2008 there was no progress on this area.
69 Trade Negotiations Insights, Vol. 5, No. 6, December 2006.
70 Trade Negotiations Insights, Vol. 6, No. 1, February 2007.
71 Trade Negotiations Insights, Vol. 6, No. 6, October 2007.
26