Brussels, 19/09/2007 (Agence Europe) - Opponents of Economic Partnership Agreements (EPAs), as currently negotiated between the EU and six regions of the ACP (Africa, Caribbean, Pacific) group, under the Cotonou Agreement, have not said their last word. The European Parliament gave them the opportunity to have their say at the hearing, “Economic Partnership Agreements: a threat to development?”, organised by the GUE/NGL political group in Brussels on 18 September. All, whether GUE or Green MEPs, representatives of African farmers' organisations or members of European civil society, responded to the above question in the affirmative.
Three months before the deadline for the conclusion of phased-in liberalisation agreements, supposedly to come into effect on 1 January 2008 (on the expiry of the derogation obtained at the WTO which allowed the ACP-EU preferential regime to be maintained) and which aim to create a new trading system between the EU and the ACP regions that complies with WTO rules, speakers criticised the neo-liberal logic of the European Commission - a logic they feel to be contrary to the development interests of some of the world's poorest countries, which are not able to withstand competition from developed countries. Their battle against free trade at the expense of the weakest will culminate on 27 September, at the international action day organised by ACP and European civil society to say “No to EPAs” and call for alternatives.
Fierce opponent of free trade, and particularly between unequal partners, Francis Wurtz (GUE, France), who has been involved in the EU-ACP for about 15 years, saw in future EPAs the conclusion of a change begun with the fourth Lomé Convention (1990-2000).
“For the first years of Lome IV, the Commission used the poor results of its previous development policy to challenge the very principle of the EEC-ACP preferential scheme. Thus the way was gradually prepared for the change from the spirit of Lomé to the logic of Cotonou: the taboo of non-reciprocity between unequal partners was broken. We praised the virtues of free trade at the service of development,” he said, regretting that the EU had never called on the WTO - not even in Doha - to review Article XXIV governing regional agreements. He recalled the ACP states' “immediate and lively protests” as soon as EPAs were spoken about when the Cotonou Agreement was negotiated - the Commission turned a deaf ear to the “cries on the consequences of such a shock to their fragile economies, especially on the budget, balance of payments, meagre regional trade flows, agricultural and industrial production”. Similarly, Wurtz reproached the Commission of having “brushed under the carpet” the first EPA impact studies, carried out “under pressure from the ACP countries” on each of the six regions. And for a very good reason. According to Wurtz, the mixed conclusions highlighted: - that the positive effects of discounted investment were not certain; - that the current regime was more favourable to the least developed countries; - that ACP countries which were not among the least developed would lose out, especially in their regional trade where they would face competition from Europe. The result was that EPAs were included in the Cotonou Agreement as new agreements to be concluded between the parties by gradually removing barriers to trade between them (Article 36), thus sounding the death knell of non-reciprocity and also making some aid conditional on economic performance, with the whole process linked to regular re-assessment of “the ability of ACP countries to adjust their economies,” said Wurtz. If that were not enough, the 2005 United Nations Development Programme report on human development noted that, in general, the mandates of European negotiators on EPAs had the potential to produce unbalanced and unfavourable results. All of these points justified Wurtz's opinion that we should be alarmed at their incompatibility with the Millennium Development Goals. Luisa Morgantini (GUE/NGL, Italy), the author of an own initiative report criticising the Parliament on EPAs, had, correctly, Wurtz said, highlighted this (see EUROPE 9163). In Wurtz's opinion, the 27 September, just like the EU-Africa summit on 8-9 December, had to be put to good use “to clarify this project, demand a public assessment that contradicts its effects, and produce alternative proposals.”
The date of 27 September as the world day of protest and action against EPAs was chosen to coincide with the fifth anniversary of the launch of negotiations between the EU and the ACP group as a whole. Organisations, coalitions and protest networks in the EU and the ACP countries, and also in other regions of the world, are invited to unite to call for a new approach in EU-ACP trade relations which: - supports sustainable development and economic, social and environmental rights in ACP countries; is based on the principle of non-reciprocity and special and differentiated treatment for the least advanced countries; recognises and supports the right of ACP producers to make use of trade protection within their national and regional markets where they and their governments see fit; recognises and supports the right of ACP countries to food sovereignty; and respects the right of ACP countries to have the political space required to formulate and pursue their own development strategies.
Helmut Markov (GUE/NGL, Germany), President of the European Parliament's International Trade Committee, evoked the famous Scream painting by Norwegian artist Edvard Munch, saying that if we don't scream resistance, if we don't ask for anything else, the battle will be lost before it's even started, but it is worth fighting the EU's attempt to bring free market philosophy into all bilateral agreements, whether with North Korea or ACP countries. He said that challenging the EPAs such as they are currently being negotiated will feed into a crucial debate on food security, healthcare, alternatives to the EPAs, the reality on the ground in Africa, and reflection on proposals from social movements. He said what was needed was to ensure that the negotiations led by the ACP with the EU were managed by ACP governments along with civil society.
This view was shared by Mamadou Cissokho of Senegal, President of the ROPPA peasant farmer group and the West African peasant movement, who said he knew the EPAs were a threat to food security for West African countries. Launching an attack on the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, which he said were managed by a majority of EU member states, he lashed out at the straitjacket imposed on ECOWAS countries by the structural adjustment programmes. He said the ACP states had been forced to abandon their prime sovereignty, the sovereignty to ensure a healthy food policy and the food security of their citizens. He said West Africa was different from other regions, with 66% of the population living in the countryside contributing 33% of GDP, and with vast potential farming capacity (500 million hectares of useable land, huge rivers and a billion cubic metres of water a year). He regretted that local people had fallen into abject poverty due to lack of public investment to promote agriculture, commenting that self-sufficiency was a cultural and historic principle, a guarantee of security for populations and in the negotiations with the EU he wanted to use this as a starting point. The opening up of markets does not provide food for the 66% of the population living in the countryside as it does not allow sorghum and millet to get ahead in regional markets that have not even been set up yet. He said this threatened food security and the EU would be revising the CAP in 2012 but was asking the ACP to sign EPAs right now. Cissokho added that he regretted that the ACP governments were not negotiating but were simply reacting to the EU documents used as the basis of negotiations.
Italian GUE/NGL MEP Vittorio Agnoletto, a member of the European Parliament's International Trade Committee and the ACP-EU Joint Parliamentary Assembly, slammed the claims by EU Trade Commissioner Peter Mandelson that the EPAs favoured the development of Africa, as was their aim. To this end, Agnoletto cited a special study from the United Nations Development Programme on the potential impact of EPAs in Africa. The study explains that liberalising trade between Burundi and the EU would lead to losses of US$19.782 million for Burundi in the first year alone, or 3% of its GDP (the introduction of trade would be wholly to the advantage of the EU, which would gain $13 million, while the sale by the EU of cheaper products in Burundi would lead to savings of $1.8 million for Burundi consumers). The losses for Kenya would amount to over €300 million. Agnoletto said that the EU's stance on the EPAs was akin to trying to make people believe that David and Goliath stood on an equal footing.
Agnoletto, an expert in legal property rights (TRIPS) also challenged what he said had become an obstacle to the respect of rights to health, particularly poor countries' rights to access pharmaceutical products. Convinced that the exception foreseen in the 30 August 2003 WTO agreement would not change anything given the sheer complexity of the mechanism, he regretted that from 2006 onwards, it has been planned to include TRIPS+ in bilateral agreements between the EU and developing countries, which suggests that the EPA will be covered. A statement by the Council suggests the opposite, he added, but noted that there had been no assurance about that. He said inclusion of the TRIPS agreements in the EPA would go well beyond the requirements of the WTO and the Cotonou Agreement.
Belgian Marc Maes, a member of the 'No EPAs' campaign ('Non aux APE'), regretted that the Commission had been deaf to the concerns of some ACP regions which had pointed out that they were not yet prepared and, like West Africa, requested a three year breathing space to sign an EPA. Maes also expressed astonishment that the Commission had lodged EPA projects in different regions, dropping a chapter here and there but keeping the same approach to investment issues, competition and intellectual property rights. He said that this had not escaped the notice of West Africa, which had not accepted the negotiating document, and most regions have said that they will be putting forward their own documents. He also highlighted the problems in the current negotiations over rules of origin and disagreements over approach with the EU. The EU wants an approach based on value-added whereas ACPs are calling for a change to tariff rules. Clearly the negotiations are far from over… (an)