REPA Booklet - Stop Epa

9
The
ACP on the Back Foot
When and how did the ACP governments respond to the Commission’s draft mandate?
Slowly and inadequately. Although the Green Paper was an internal policy document for discussion in the
European Union, it also became the focal point for discussions at government and ‘civil society’ levels in all 3
ACP regions. All their energies focused on developing a critique and defense, rather than articulating the ACP’s
own post-Lomé agenda and a strategy for engagement on their terms. This became worse when the Commission
sponsored consultations on its position within the ACP regions. By the time the ACP Group began to develop its
own thinking in late 1997, just three months before negotiations began, it had lost the initiative. Even then, it opted
to use the Commission’s language and try to give it a different meaning.
“The outcome of the
negotiations again
indicate the failure of
ACP to determine
their own
development
ideology, take
initiatives and assert
sovereignty in
national economic
policy formulation
and implementation.”
(Tekere, TWN Africa,
2000)
Did the ACP Group have a vision for the future after Lomé?
The Libreville Declaration of ACP Heads of State and Government in November 1997 sounded promising:
We affirm that the development of our countries is first and foremost our responsibility and that of
our peoples. Consequently we agree to lay a firm foundation for a human-centred, equitable and
sustainable development based on sound macro-economic policies, social justice and the rule of law,
and collective self-reliance.
What kind of partnership did the ACP States envisage?
The Declaration talked of
- a ‘renewed, true and more equitable partnership’;
- ‘regional integration, intra-ACP cooperation and cooperation among ACP and other developing
countries as a means of promoting the socio-economic development of our countries and strengthening
our solidarity’; and
- the commitment to ‘preserve and reinforce the unity and solidarity of the ACP Group within the current
geographical framework that has stood the test of time’, while endorsing the principle of regionalisation.
What did they say about the European Commission’s specific proposals?
That was ambiguous. They insisted that the inequities of the international economic order and the lack of a level
playing field required genuinely special and differential treatment. They also pointed to the ‘painful’ structural
adjustment programmes their countries had already undertaken. But they stopped short of challenging the EC
agenda. Instead, they committed themselves to ‘macro-economic policies that create an environment conducive
to expanding trade, encouraging domestic savings and investment and attracting foreign direct investment’.
Maybe they were being pragmatic and thought they couldn’t assert a radically different development agenda;
maybe some ACP States agreed with some of the Europeans’ arguments. Whatever, they chose to adapt the
language of their adversary in ways that limited themselves to doing battle with the Europeans on their terms.
What specifically did the ACP leaders want from the European Union?
For as little as possible to change! Because they had no alternative position, they fell back on defending the
status quo. They said a post-Lomé trade agreement should:
1. maintain non-reciprocal trade preferences and market access;
2. maintain the preferential commodity protocols and arrangements;
3. adhere to transparent processes for consultation with the ACP Group before using any safeguard and
other restrictive trade measure that is likely to adversely affect any ACP States;
4. liberalise and improve the existing rules of origin to foster the expansion and diversification of ACP
exports;
5. maintain and improve STABEX so that its resources are disbursed more expeditiously;
6. maintain and improve SYSMIN so as to accelerate investment in the mining industry;
7. encourage the development of the services sector, including tourism; and
8. strengthen the role of the Centre for the Development of Enterprise to support the ACP private sector and
promote industrial development activities.
A People’s Guide To The Pacific’s Economic Partnership Agreement 23