EPA Review Annex Documents - DFID

Pacific countries were members of the Pacific Agreement of Closer Economic Relations
(PACER), including Australia and New Zealand (ANZ). It was agreed that any trade
agreement entered by PACP with a developed country would require consultations with
ANZ, as starting negotiations may extend the same agreement to them (a less stringent
MFN clause). As a consequence of the interim EPA signed by Fiji and Papua New
Guinea appeared to have triggered this clause. PACP countries considered that this
clause only applies when PACP signs the agreement and not just its individual
members. However, the implications on fiscal revenues and impact on the local markets
of such an extension would be very important. This created another difficulty for
negotiations. 72
The services negotiations remained stalled. PACP requested by mid 2008 to focus on
outstanding EPA issues including trade in goods (but as an optional protocol), dispute
settlement, fisheries and development; but suspended negotiations on services and
inserted a binding clause in the EPA that would commit both parties to discuss services
in the future. 73 This proposal was not answered on time by the EC and negotiations
halted for several months. The EC, by June 2009, expressed that it might be more
flexible in the interpretation of “substantially all trade” in the WTO provisions. 74
The very little trade existent between the EU and PACP undermined the interest of
PACP in signing a full EPA. Moreover, the possibility that this agreement could have
(particularly on market access) on third trade agreements also played an important role.
Despite the progress on several key interests from PACP countries (i.e. rules of origin
and fisheries) the lack of a comprehensive and interesting agreement in services, has
also reduced the incentives of PACP on establishing a long and sustainable agreement
with the EU.
3. Summary of the Interim EPAs
This section intends to briefly highlight the main differences between the interim EPAs
signed, initialled to date or the EPA regional framework. This section is schematic and
not analytical. As a consequence, we present some tables that are self-explanatory and
will help to give the main points of conflict and characteristics of each of the interim
EPAs. We will not cover all the provisions of the agreement but highlight the main
conflictive points and their provisions. 75
72 Trade Negotiations Insights, Vol. 7, No. 6, August 2008.
73 Trade Negotiations Insights, Vol. 7, No. 7, September 2008.
74 Trade Negotiations Insights, Vol. 8, No. 6, August 2009.
75 A comprehensive review of the EPAs is available at ODI-ECDPM, “The New EPAs: comparative
analysis of their content and the challenges for 2008”.
27