Up against the deadline

As of 12 noon on 12th December 2005, 17 countries have initialled EPAs with the EU. This is the first step towards concluding negotiations. Tearfund alongside others in the Trade Justice Movement has analysed the texts of these agreements which reveals the following:

1. Countries pushed into rapid liberalisation.

Africa, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) governments are being pushed to sign up to free trade agreements that require sweeping liberalisation commitments over limited time frames. 

For example, countries in East Africa have taken the first steps towards an agreement with the EU that requires it to liberalise 63% of its trade over only 2 years, and 80% within 15 years, possibly more quickly. Such rapid liberalisation, before industries and agricultural producers are ready to compete, could lead to widespread loss of jobs and livelihoods and threatens both current and future industries.

It could also lead to loss of vital government revenue that might otherwise be spent on health and education. The EC has essentially forced the East African countries to choose between guaranteeing markets for their agricultural exports today, and maintaining a degree of protection to promote future industrial growth - which all developed countries have done in the past.  

2. The continuation of dumping
The texts contain inadequate safeguard clauses for the ACP. They do not require the elimination of export subsidies by the EU and contain clauses which mean that the EU will be able to continue to subsidise and export goods to ACP markets.

3. Locked into discussing new issues
Several ACP countries are being locked into negotiations on investment, services and other trade-related issues, when there is no WTO or Cotonou obligation to negotiate on these issues.

The Commission has conceded that in most regions ‘full EPAs’ cannot be agreed by the deadline. It is therefore proposing a two-step approach – to come to agreements on trade in goods by the end of the year and to postpone other negotiations until next year. Thus the threat of binding rules in the controversial trade-related areas is only postponed.  ACP governments still face the prospect of new rules that limit their ability to manage the social, economic and environmental impact of foreign investment. 

In the SADC region the EC has insisted on commitments for negotiations on binding services and investment agreements – despite the region’s repeated resistance to those controversial topics, and EC assurances that all trade-related issues would be taken off the table until next year to reduce the time pressure in talks. South Africa and Namibia have opted out of this requirement which has now split the SADC region and its own Southern African Customs Union (SACU).  The EC has preferred to force the weaker members of this grouping to commit to these issues than to support regional ownership and regional integration processes. 

4. Still no discussion of alternatives
No alternatives have been offered to the ACP. This is despite the fact that legal analysis shows that feasible alternatives are available.