Brussels, 22/10/2007 (Agence Europe) - Full of obstacles, the negotiations between the EU and the ACP countries (Africa, Caribbean and the Pacific) for implementation of a new trade regime compatible with WTO rules are not so far finding any success. The European Commission says that the situation is serious but not desperate. Three months after the 1 January 2008, the cut-off date set by the WTO for entry into force of the EPA between the EU and the sub-region of all the ACP regions, the European Commission is aware that it would be made to hope to conclude in the given deadline, complete EPAs with the six regional sub-regions that are negotiating. In fact it publicly admitted this at the beginning of October, after West Africa had requested a two year postponement of the deadline in order to continue negotiations, a request that the Commission rejected with a non-receipt, estimating that such a postponement was still not possible. The announcement on 17 October by South Africa of its categorical refusal to conclude an EPA covering other aspects as well as goods before the end of the year, was another hard blow to the new, together with Southern Africa, this time, given that it will prevent Namibia, Lesotho and Swaziland of any chance of liberalising investment and services. The Commission is not giving up, however hopes of reaching by the end of the year, and with a maximum of ACP regions in difficulty, the conclusion of a framework agreement containing a clause for finalising the entry into force of a complete EPA in 2008 (EUROPE 9521).
The progress in negotiations with different integrated regional entities (SADC) for southern Africa, CEMAC for central Africa, the CEDEAO for west Africa and ESA for eastern and southern Africa, as well as the Caribbean), the nature of the difficulties encountered and the possible scenarios in the three months of intense negotiations to come will be at the heart of a communication the European Commission will adopt on 23 October. Prepared by the services of Commissioner Peter Mandelson, in close cooperation with the services of his colleague Louis Michel (development), this document was announced at the last informal development Council (Funchal, 21-22 September), as a tool for clarifying what needed to be done in the ACP regions experiencing most difficulties in concluding negotiations. This clarification will also be used on the eve of a crucial negotiation session between ACP trade ministers and the European Commission on 29 October in Brussels.
Through Peter Mandelson, the Commission has repeated ceaselessly that, on 1 January 2008, if there is no EPA, there will be no other alternative for those ACP countries which are not among the least developed countries (the ACP group has 42 least advanced countries and 36 which do not fall into this category) but the generalised system of preferences, and that any extension of the WTO derogation or a change to GSP Plus rules can only be a matter for conjecture. Hence the urgency to get down to work to find a solution acceptable to both parties, which would not be subject to attacks from other developing countries at the WTO and would avoid uncertainty for ACP and European operators in bilateral EU-ACP trade flows.
In its communication, the European Commission is likely to consider three scenarios: 1) with the whole regions furthest forward in negotiations full EPAs could be signed, focusing on both goods and so-called new generation issues (services, investment, trade facilitation rules, competition, public procurement). “This is possible with some regions,” said a Commission official. This should be the case with the Caribbean, since virtually all the texts are complete. The issues still to be settled concern market access and compatibility with WTO rules. More simply, it is about finding agreement on the extent and timetable for liberalisation. Central Africa could also come into this category. 2) with regions that need more time, there could be an agreement on goods, linked with a commitment to conclude a full EPA as quickly as possible in 2008. The Pacific region comes into this scenario, and this would avoid any breaks in the trade flow on 1 January 2008. The same would be the case for Southern Africa where a landmark agreement with the whole region (except Tanzania, which will have to choose between Southern and Eastern Africa) is possible. 3) where there is no prospect of a full EPA with a whole region, there is no other option but to offer the GSP.
The Commission communication will also check the financial resources available for development aid and trade aid to help EPA implementation in line with the development aims of the ACP countries. (A.N.)