REPA Booklet - Stop Epa

27
‘The Way Forward’
Do ordinary Pacific Islanders know what their governments are proposing?
The strategy documents and most of the background studies are not publicly available. The Forum Secretariat
has prepared a helpful glossy booklet called The Way Forward that sets out the basics of their position and is
now on their website along with the Road Map (but not much else on the Cotonou negotiations).
“The
opportunities
afforded by the
Cotonou
Agreement for
promoting trade
and economic
cooperation with
the EU are
welcomed by the
Pacific ACP
Group. However,
such
cooperation
must be based
on a sound
appreciation of
regional
realities,
including the
unique situation
of Pacific ACP
States and their
capacity
constraints.”
(The Way
Forward)
Does The Way Forward identify any base lines for the Pacific Islands side?
Sort of. It says an Economic Partnership Agreement must have a number of general qualities, but stops short of
saying the governments won’t sign something that doesn’t:
- reflect the diversity and specific needs and circumstances of the Pacific Islands;
- promote and support development and trade capacity in fisheries and tourism in all States and agriculture,
mining and forestry in those Islands with export interests;
- enhance the ability of Pacific Islands to attract foreign direct investment;
- stress trade facilitation and trade promotion, not simply access to and for the European Union; and
- address the diverse adjustment needs of the Islands.
How do they deal with the issue of WTO-compatibility?
They try to soften the meaning of GATT Article XXIV (and the counterpart for services in the GATS). They point
out that the current Doha negotiating agenda endorses both the Small Economies Work Programme and the
review of Special and Differential treatment. They then assume that these negotiations will deliver everything
they have been asking for and will therefore form part of the WTO rules then prevailing at the time when the
Economic Partnership Agreement negotiations end. This was also the ACP’s negotiating position in Phase 1
which the European Commission did not support. It is an understandable tactic, but not at all realistic.
What happens to Islands that can’t cope with a WTO compatible agreement?
The Pacific Islands plan is to have two levels of agreement:
1. a ‘master’ or ‘umbrella’ agreement that sets out the principles to govern the Economic Partnership
Agreement relationship, including principles that would govern subsidiary agreements. Because this
would not be a free trade agreement itself, it would not have to comply with GATT Article XXIV (the same
approach was taken with PACER). It is suggested that all the Pacific ACP States could sign this
agreement.
2. a series of subsidiary agreements which countries could join as and if they felt it was appropriate, on:
- Reciprocal free trade in goods (that would have to satisfy GATT Article XXIV)
- Trade in services (that would have to satisfy GATS Article V)
- Trade facilitation and trade promotion
- Investment
- a Fisheries Partnership Agreement
- Tourism
- Agriculture
- Mining
- Forestry.
Would this mean they could avoid an agreement on trade in goods and not trigger PACER?
The idea is to seek deals with the Commission in specific areas of special interest – tourism, fisheries, the sugar
protocol, temporary presence of services workers in the European Union – and avoid both the WTO straitjacket
and PACER. But the Commission would have to agree to that.
What is the minimum the Pacific Islands are likely to settle for?
They will want more than they could already get from the General System of Preferences or Everything But
Arms. It looks like they would walk away from a deal that does not provide two things:
- temporary access for a significant number of semi-skilled and unskilled services workers to Europe; and
- an investment agreement that includes facilities that could encourage foreign investors to the Islands.
56
A People’s Guide To The Pacific’s Economic Partnership Agreement