REPA Booklet - Stop Epa

sector acting ‘in their personal capacity’. Because they are not representatives they are not accountable to
anyone. Their discussions and reports are ‘confidential’ until they are released by the Forum – usually after
decisions have been made, and sometimes not then. In one sense this is understandable because the Pacific
side doesn’t want to show its hand to the Commission. But it also means that the key studies and discussions on
strategy are shielded from critique and other perspectives can’t be heard. That is especially important when
government advisers and politicians depend so heavily on the advice and analysis of TEAG.
“The lack of
socio-economic
and political
analysis of the
sub-regional
challenges and
dynamics … is
worsened by
little scrutiny
from memberstates
coupled
with their
seemingly
passive attitude
that results in
surrendering the
whole process to
the coordinating
regional
secretariat.”
(Richard Kamidza,
SEATINI 2004)
Is there any ‘civil society’ representation on TEAG?
When TEAG was first created there was a discussion with the regional NGOs, who agreed that Pacific Concerns
Resource Centre would provide a member from ‘civil society’. The NGOs intention was to provide input in and
information out. But the ‘civil society’ representative has not been invited to all TEAG meetings and receives the
documents too late to consult other NGOs to develop a common position - something that sits uncomfortably with
TEAG’s confidential way of working anyway. There are no resources for this work, either. All this undermines
the ability of ‘non-state actors’ to have genuine input into the decision making process.
Does the European Commission give the Pacific governments funding to help with the process?
The Commission has provided E200 million for ACP ‘capacity building’; the Pacific got E29 million. E12 million
has been allocated to ‘trade-related’ assistance under the Pacific’s Regional Economic Integration Plan to fund
studies, technical expertise and meetings. Most of this goes to regional organisations, especially the Secretariat.
Any further money that comes from the mid-term review of the European Development Fund in 2005 is also
likely to go through the Forum. Although a new capacity building fund for all trade negotiations ‘TRADE.COM’
came on stream in 2004, that and other Commission money is administered through the Development Directorate,
which has complex approval processes and moves very slowly. The recent changeover of Commissioners for
both Trade and Development means more delays as they settle in.
So how can national governments stay on top of the issues during the regional negotiations?
They are supposed to feed in to the decisions through their Ministers and officials at periodic regional meetings.
However, the channels of communication are problematic. Information often doesn’t find its way to the most
appropriate ministries and staff. There are also serious capacity problems. Governments complain that most
money goes to the Forum Secretariat, when they need funding to develop their own capacity so they can play
an active and informed role. Some have no trade policy. They have few – sometimes one – staff to cover the
whole array of trade negotiations, as well as other projects, who often struggle with the complexities. High
turnover means loss of institutional memory and skills. So pragmatism prevails and they do what they can.
Is there any effective way to support national governments?
The Commonwealth Secretariat has created a scheme that ‘lends’ advisers to governments to ‘champion the
rights’ of their host countries. This ‘hub and spoke’ project provides a senior adviser at the regional level and
recent graduates to national governments. The Pacific’s ‘hub’ was appointed to the Forum Secretariat for two
years, starting in July 2003. With 6 months to go he still hadn’t been able to develop the trade policy programme
because the Commission had only just been released the funding. The Pacific ‘spokes’ were allocated to Fiji,
PNG, Vanuatu, Tonga and the Forum Secretariat. They arrived in late 2004 full of enthusiasm and goodwill. But
most of them are just out of university and few know anything about the countries they are meant to ‘champion’.
Given all this, is the Commission prepared to extend the December 2007 negotiating deadline?
No, the clock keeps ticking, making a mockery of the rhetoric about development. The Commission says the
timeframe is driven by external factors – when the WTO waiver expires – and its adamant that it won’t seek a
further renewal. If more time is required, the best it is likely to offer is a bridging arrangement that other WTO
Members won’t object to – which means negotiations will need to be making progress towards satisfying the
GATT Article XXIV requirements. No one is prepared to discuss this up front because it would make missing the
deadline almost inevitable. Pacific Island governments could refuse to play the game on these terms, but none
of them seems prepared to. So their officials and Secretariat staff will work to the current mandate until someone
blows the whistle.
A People’s Guide To The Pacific’s Economic Partnership Agreement 53