REPA Booklet - Stop Epa

Is the Commission prepared to come up with additional funding for the Pacific?
In line with the all-ACP position, Pacific Islands want more funding than that provided in the European Development
Fund for ‘adjustment’ costs. They have designed an integrated trade and development package that tries to put
the development dimension at the centre. While the Joint Road Map recognises the Islands would need financial
assistance to meet ‘significant adjustments’, it only says that all the existing Cotonou funds and complementary
resources from European Union Member governments and other sources will be used.
“Only when regional
integration is well
established, should
we pursue a second
phase where the
objective involves
reciprocal access for
EU goods and
services. Then, at
the very end of this
negotiating process,
comes full
integration into the
global trading
system – but only
after lengthy
periods of
transition.”
(Peter Mandelson, EU
Trade Commissioner,
December 2004)
Is there a timetable for negotiations?
They will be in 2 stages: (an interim, but already outdated, timetable is in Annex II)
Stage I. October 2004 to December 2006 will aim to reach substantive agreement on the basic principles and
elements to be integrated into an Economic Partnership Agreement, its structure and most points of detail;
Stage 2: January 2007 to December 2007 will finalise any outstanding issues and translate Stage 1 into a
binding legal text.
Does the Road Map indicate how the Islands plan to avoid pulling PACER’s triggers?
You have to read between the lines. PACER is only triggered by negotiations on trade in goods, and trade in
goods is not explicitly mentioned. The ‘basic elements’ referred to in Stage 1 are ‘(e.g. investment, fisheries,
services, etc.)’. This suggests a plan to negotiate services, investment and specific sectors like fisheries first and
to leave any discussion on goods to last – if at all. Other ACP groupings are likely to have concerns about putting
services and investment on the table now, as the Commission is likely to use it as a precedent.
Has the European Commission agreed to that approach?
The wording seems deliberately ambiguous. Because the Pacific approach is so different from the other ACP
regions, the Commission will also be concerned not to create a precedent on goods for others to use. Indeed,
it interprets Article 36 of the Cotonou Agreement as requiring the removal of barriers to trade in goods:
The Parties agree to conclude new World Trade Organisation (WTO) compatible trading
arrangements, removing progressively barriers to trade between them and enhancing cooperation
in all areas relevant to trade.
What if the Europeans say no to the Pacific’s plan?
If the Commission rejects these proposals, the Pacific ACP strategy will be in trouble because all energies and
resources seem to have been ploughed into developing this plan.
How is the new European Trade Commissioner Mandelson approaching the Pacific negotiations?
Peter Mandelson isTony Blair’s former right-hand man, and has a formidable reputation as a political dealmaker
and spin-doctor. He has been making lots of speeches that stress development, but key Pacific players suspect
he will be like his predecessor Pascal Lamy – the fine words go out the window when the EU’s interests are at
stake.
Has the Commission indicated that they have any base lines for the Pacific Negotiations?
There appear to be three:
- regional integration: in the words of one Commission official ‘we can’t go anywhere if we consider what
is being proposed is negative for regional integration’. Their ultimate goal is to deal with each ACP
region as a single entity. For that to happen the Islands would need to go beyond PICTA and to form
a customs union in which all the Islands apply a common tariff to imports from all other countries.
- sustainable development: this sounds benign, but it says the region will be guided by the best expertise
and analysis possible on sustainability issues – from the IMF and World Bank on trade and poverty
and the OECD on investment issues - and (less worrying) the Forum Fisheries Agency on fish.
- WTO Compatibility: this was described by one Commission official as ‘a political mantra’ - but one on
which the Europeans have a more moderate position than other countries, such as Australia.
A People’s Guide To The Pacific’s Economic Partnership Agreement 55