REPA Booklet - Stop Epa

17
Phase 1 Negotiations
It sounds like the ACP agreed to negotiate on Europe’s terms?
They secured a few concessions on the time frame and funding, but essentially the ACP governments gave
away the right to use vital development instruments and locked themselves into the European Union’s agenda.
Not surprisingly, the European Commissioner for Development Cooperation hailed the outcome as proof ‘that
there is still room for a true and deep relationship between the North and the South’, despite the collapse of the
WTO ministerial meeting in Seattle in 1999. This was now a ‘true partnership’ that would take an ambitious
approach to major challenges. The Agreement ‘made clear the link between development support and the
establishment of a policy framework favourable to trade development and investment’ and recognised that
‘[e]ach country must own and be accountable for its policies’.
“The pace of the
negotiations has
caught our countries
without adequate
considerations of
the options open to
us, or understanding
of their implications,
and we are becoming
hostage to target
dates that have been
hastily set without
the participation of
our respective
‘parliaments’.”
(East African
Parliamentarians
Liaison Committee,
2004)
How did the ACP Group portray the outcome?
The immediate response - that Cotonou was less harsh than they expected – fostered the illusion that these had
been genuine negotiations. In theory, ACP States maintained the right to decide their own level for negotiations
and reject Economic Partnership Agreements in favour of alternative arrangements provided they were WTO
compatible’. In practice, the Commission got virtually everything it wanted.
What was the ACP’s game plan for the first phase of negotiations?
The ACP Group agreed on Draft Negotiating Guidelines in June 2002. These set out their approach to the
Economic Partnership Agreements and the principles that should inform the negotiations. They also proposed
a strategy, structure and time line that was totally at odds with what the Commission had in mind.
What were the ACP’s guiding principles for the negotiations?
Sustainable development-oriented Economic Partnership Agreements: to achieve sustainable
development and eradication of poverty in ACP States and to foster their smooth and gradual integration into the
world economy, recognising that 40 of the 78 ACP States are Least Developed Countries and most others are
on the margins;
ACP unity and solidarity: recognising that ACP States would secure a better deal collectively and gain
strength from unity, including in Geneva at the WTO;
Preservation and improvement of the Lomé Acquis: no ACP State should be worse off after 2007 than it
was under Lomé. Given the possible adverse effect of Economic Partnership Agreements on production and
fiscal stability, ACP States could not agree a priori to reciprocity or the same level of commitments as the
European Union, especially on market access;
WTO compatibility: by securing changes to current WTO rules on regional trade agreements, development,
and special and differential treatment that are imbalanced against the development needs of ACP States, so
those States will be in a position to agree to Economic Partnership Agreements that are compatible with ‘WTO
rules then prevailing’;
Special and Differential treatment: between the ACP and European Union on the basis of equity and
different levels of development, with special treatment to Least Developed Countries and vulnerable small,
landlocked and island States.
Flexibility: shown by the Commission to the ACP States, and then injected into WTO rules so the proposed
Economic Partnership Agreements then become compatible with the WTO;
Sustainability: viewed in terms of the adjustment costs of Economic Partnership Agreements, their social and
political implications, institutional and human resource capacities, and the stability of ACP States;
Coherence and consistency: including across Economic Partnership Agreements and a reformed WTO;
Priority for regional integration over Economic Partnership Agreements: consolidating regional initiatives
and their capacity to negotiate and implement agreements;
Legitimacy: establishing the legitimacy of Economic Partnership Agreements, especially their contribution to
the sustainable development of ACP countries, must involve as a matter of principle all stakeholders, public
scrutiny and parliamentary follow-up, creating a level playing field in their capacity to negotiate, and negotiating
procedures that are inclusive and transparent.
A People’s Guide To The Pacific’s Economic Partnership Agreement 35