Brussels, 07/11/2007 (Agence Europe) - On 5 November in Brussels, two rationales confronted each other during the debate on the economic partnership agreements (EPAs) between Peter Mandelson, European commissioner for trade and the members of the European Parliament's development committee, chaired by Josep Borell (PES, Spain). Faced with the scepticism of the MEPs about the ability of the EPAs (as they are currently negotiated) to act as development objectives for ACP countries (Africa, Caribbean and the Pacific) and the fears provoked by the prospect of free trade between the EU and the group of developing countries, Peter Mandelson put his faith in the EPAs. He said that they were the only way of setting up a new trade regime between the EU and six ACP regions that complied with WTO rules, and were the only healthy alternative to the failure of the unilateral preferences system embodied in the Cotonou system. The commissioner went even further and unambiguously expressed his dissatisfaction with the criticism, which he judged “mistaken” and counterproductive, given that they undermined the efforts made by the Commission to “modernise” relations between the EU and ACP countries. The scale of the difficulties encountered in the three month negotiations, which are due to end on 1 January 2008 (the date set out by the WTO for the entry into force of the EPAs) explains the radicalisation of the positions and the liveliness of the exchanges (courteous, nonetheless) between Peter Mandelson and development specialist MEPs. The latter called on the Commission to include a clause for re-examining the EPAs to guarantee that, in the even of negative impacts on the economy and development in ACP countries, provisions in these agreements for preparing long term free trade can be amended to correct any adverse effects.
Josep Borell opened the debate with a question: “At a crucial moment in EPA negotiations, it is unlikely that an agreement can be signed with the six ACP regions by the end of the year. It appears that we are moving towards the conclusions of partial EPAs focusing on goods, with some regions, indeed, certain countries. What according to you is the role the EPA will play as a development instrument?” Mandelson said that he was convinced that “trade, while not a magic wand, can be a powerful tool for development”. He affirmed that “properly and timed, in a progressive way, flanked with development assistance, it is an engine for growth, job creation and poverty elimination”. The commissioner asserted that opening up trade helped developing countries escape from dependency on external aid and the EPA provided an opportunity for implementing coherency of EU trade and development policies. The commissioner stated: “We have to recognise, while well-intentioned, the Cotonou trade arrangements that lapse at the end of this year have not succeeded in their objective of promoting sustainable development in the ACP. As a result of Cotonou, the ACP, are in the main, no better integrated into the global economy. Although the ACP has far better access to the EU's market access than other developing countries, their share of EU and world trade is falling. For the mostpart, they remain dependent on a narrow export base, mostly of primary commodities whose non-oil prices are falling and whose value is in long-term decline”. Mandelson said that the precise objective of the EPA is to reverse this trend and “run good intentions in to development reality”. This would promote regional integration by initially highlighting the opening up of the ACP markets before thinking about reciprocal openings with the EU. It would be asymmetrical, with very long transition periods, accompanied by rules of good economic governance that targeted development aid on the required adjustments (particularly financial adjustments) to guarantee the success of this change in approach. The commissioner has constantly repeated that EPAs are compatible with WTO rules and protect ACP (particularly banana exporters) from attacks from other developing countries (jealous about the preferences granted to the ACP). Similarly he pointed out that “no legally viable alternative is possible” apart from forcing the EU to “ignore its multilateral obligations, go back on its commitments to other developing countries and defy the WTO membership”.
These arguments did not convince Alain Hutchinson (Socialist, Belgium). He pointed out that the Cotonou agreement was “much more than a catalogue of good intentions and was indispensable for underpinning the policies of solidarity between the North and South”. He described the EPA as nowhere near being a development tool - “it is an attempt to impose on ACP countries the obligations of rapidly becoming what other trade partners could not, in a big market, while most them are unable to open up their markets”. The biggest weakness of the public authorities in these counties is the main cause of the inability to sign, he stressed. He appealed for assurances that once they sign the EPA, the people are not put in a worse position than they are now. Hutchinson said that to plan on signing EPA with individual countries is dangerous. He asked about the compatibility of such a hypothesis with the objective of regional integration that the Commission claims to pursue. Thijs Bermann (PES, Netherlands) said that the suspicion generated by the EPA was down to the fact that the Commission has not expressed its objectives clearly. He asked what were the ACP countries that did not want to sign the EPA and which of them were not LAC. He made this comment in respect of the alternative solution that they had been promised. He said that the GPS was not the only alternative and that an increase in customs tariffs on them could not be avoided “if we show the WTO we are on the right road to concluding regional agreements”. He suggested a clause for re-examining the EPA and greater EU flexibility on rules of origin. Mandelson said that this is no enough to demonstrate that progress had been made and another derogation would not be accepted. German Green Frithjof Schmidt said that legally there was no intermediate agreement at the WTO (on goods: ED) and that there is not reasons to put themselves under the pressure of a timetable to conclude Singapore questions in 2008 as the WTO was not involved. This comment remained unanswered. Nirj Deva (EPP-ED, United Kingdom) said that without foreign investment ACP countries would never have anything to export except for agricultural products (comment made in an ironic reference to “Everything but Arms, except agriculture” provided by the EU to all the ACP that signed an EPA by 31 December. He also said that less investment to increase ACP capacity did not have any sense. Danish Green Margrete Aucken asked, “why talk about opening fair markets when there will be irrational EU agricultural subsidies?” Mandelson said that the EU was, in the Doha Round, committed to getting rid of 80% of agricultural subsidies in Europe that undermined trade by 2013, perhaps even before if others did likewise.
Asked to draw up a balance sheet of the negotiations with the ACP, Mandelson described the ministerial meeting of 29 October with Central Africa (EUROPE 9532) as “very disappointing”. He said that this region was not at all under pressure and some countries ware so poor they cannot sign, whilst others like the Cameroon, which is neither rich nor poor or LAC needed an agreement before 31 December for its bananas. He announced that a common action group would be set up to develop a draft text before 31 December, which could be submitted to the political authorities of both sides. (A.N.)