REPA Booklet - Stop Epa

35
Where are the Social Impact Assessments?
Are there any studies of what an Economic Partnership Agreement would mean for Pacific people?
The only official Impact Assessment on the Pacific was prepared for the ACP Group by consultant Robert
Scollay in 2002, before phase 1 negotiations began. Half the report examines the positive and negative
economic impacts from his perspective as a free trade economist and suggests strategies. The other half
examines these impacts at a national level for each Island.
“We express
disappointment
that no
comprehensive
people-centered
social impact
studies have
been done on
the sectors that
may be
addressed in the
EPA
negotiations.
Government
must not enter
into any EPA
commitments
until it has
examined the
economic,
social,
environmental
and gender
impacts of
existing free
trade
commitments.”
(Fiji Civil Society
Statement,
September 2004)
Did the Scollay report assess the likely social, cultural and political impact?
There is a cursory two page section on regional ‘Social and Political Impact’ which says the impact will be
greatest on Fiji and PNG because they have the largest trade. For Fiji, losing access to the European market
for sugar would create social dislocation from rural to urban areas, where there is already major unemployment,
and could disturb the ‘fragile equilibrium’. While serious structural change in the sugar industry is inevitable and
will cause dislocation, loss of market access to Europe could mean the total collapse of the industry. In PNG, loss
of access for tree crop exports would seriously affect the rural economy with adverse political effects. The
impacts of PACER would intensify the urban stress in both countries, as the garment sector is already ‘downsizing’
in Fiji and there is high urban unemployment in PNG. Scollay notes that all the Islands will face problems in
sustaining economic ‘reforms’, especially loss of revenue. He concludes that ‘The political challenges facing the
introduction of the proposed new trading arrangements should not be under-estimated’ – and stops there.
Does the EU’s Sustainable Impact Study (by PriceWaterhouseCoopers) offer anything useful?
No. The Phase 1 report barely mentioned the Pacific. The Phase 2 sectoral study on Pacific fisheries has
produced an eight page scoping discussion, and its value has been questioned in a British Parliamentary
committee. More worrying is the fact that Forum Secretariat staff said they knew nothing about it until January
2005. On Friday 18 March an electronic notice was circulated among Pacific NGO’s advising them of a weeklong
electronic discussion on the PWC paper - that began on March 15!
Didn’t the Pacific Leaders call for a social impact study of trade agreements several years ago?
In 1999 the Forum Trade Ministers asked the Forum Secretariat to assess the possible social impacts of free
trade agreements. But the terms of reference were limited to PICTA and the report was superficial. It assumed
that PICTA would produce very few economic benefits, so its social impacts would also be minimal and concerns
about its impact were deemed ‘groundless’ – even though PICTA would require policy changes that included
deregulation of the commercial and labour markets, budget discipline and cuts to the public sector. Instead, the
consultants relied on economic theory to conclude that PICTA would produce lower unemployment, rising
incomes, better living standards and improved status for women. They recommended follow-up monitoring of
PICTA to minimise any negative impact. There was no attempt to evaluate the likely impact of PACER because
its terms had not yet been defined.
What has happened since then?
The Forum Trade Ministers ‘noted’ the report at the same meeting as they signed PICTA and PACER! They
asked the Forum Secretariat to convene a regional workshop on training and preparations to establish a
monitoring framework for free trade agreements and encouraged each country to establish its own monitoring
framework – without providing any resources to do so. Three years later the Secretariat has contracted two
regional organisations – Pacific Foundation for the Advancement of Women (PACFAW) and the United Nations
Development Fund for Women (UNIFEM) – to work alongside it to provide national training on social impact
assessment. Consultants from each organisation will conduct the training in different parts of the Pacific using a
common training package.
Who is developing the social impact assessment package, to train whom, to do what and when?
The package will be developed by a separate consultant. The appointment criteria required knowledge of trade
agreements and the theory and practice of social impact assessment – but knowledge and experience of the
Pacific Islands context was just ‘a distinct advantage’. The terms of reference were published in late 2004, and
require particular attention to gender impacts. The consultant is only expected to take 10-15 working days to
prepare a generic training package that can be adapted for different Islands. The package will then be tested
through a ‘training of trainers’ workshop. When it is finalised, the three organisations will conduct training for
68
A People’s Guide To The Pacific’s Economic Partnership Agreement