|
Dear Minister Heidemarie Wieczorek-Zeul,
Thank you for your response to our letter of 1 February 2007 to the
German Chancellor regarding the Economic Partnership Agreements (EPAs).
We appreciate your concern for the development dimension of EPAs and
your commitment to promoting this dimension during the German Presidency
of the European Union. We also appreciate your readiness and efforts
to continue dialogue with civil society on this issue.
We believe that improving trade relations between the EU and ACP offers
an opportunity to support many of the world’s poorest countries
in transforming their economies and improving the livelihoods of their
citizens. However, we are concerned that development has become a secondary
concern in the negotiating approach of the European Commission.
On 14 and 15 May you will be meeting with your European colleagues
and the European Commission in the General Affairs and External Relations
Council. This meeting will be, in part, dedicated to EPA negotiations
and the formal review. Despite repeated commitment on all sides to a
thorough and comprehensive review process, we are concerned that this
process has not been allowed to run its course, and that conclusions
are not being taken seriously. We would have wished for genuine readiness
on behalf of the EC to listen to the concerns raised.
We urge the Council to take fully into consideration the EPA review
reports in the Pacific and African regions as these clearly demonstrated
that the regions are not sufficiently prepared to conclude negotiations
this year.
The African Continental Review concluded that “[i]t appears very
unlikely that any of the four regions will be able to complete the negotiations
and come up with an EPA agreement before 31st December 2007.”
The Pacific review report concluded that “realism on the timing
of the negotiations will be necessary as one year may not be sufficient
to solve the weaknesses of the EPA process and the deadlock in terms
of substance of the negotiations.”
The West African review report proposed extension of the negotiations
by two years; the ESA review report recommended an extension by three
years.
All of this contrasts sharply with the press statement at the end of
the Informal EU-ACP Ministerial Meeting in Bonn in March, that “[e]verybody
is cooperating now to make sure that EPAs are completed within the tight
timeframe of 2007.”
The reviews in all regions also noted that high quality and thorough
assessments of the sustainable development impact of EPAs have not been
completed, particularly with regard to agriculture and issues such as
services, investment, public procurement and the enforcement of intellectual
property rights. As such, ACP countries are negotiating in the dark.
With regard to the trade in goods, we remain convinced that reciprocal
trade relations with the EU could harm most ACP countries’ economies
and we stress that current signals to limit long-term transition periods
for tariff elimination under EPAs to “very exceptional cases for
very sensitive products” contrast sharply with repeated past assurances.
We also call upon the EU to make substantial and substantive commitments
on the removal of export subsidies and the simplification and improvement
of the rules of origin, in line with the requests from ACP countries.
We very much regret that, in spite of requests from ACP countries, alternatives
to EPAs have not been thoroughly and comprehensively assessed.
We, furthermore, urge the European Commission and the EU Member States
to refrain from pressurising ACP countries to negotiate on services,
Singapore issues and increasingly onerous intellectual property rights
commitments.
In addition to shortcomings in the review process, awareness and involvement
of all stakeholders, especially parliaments and national governments,
has been insufficient in the ongoing negotiations in general. We therefore
call on the EC to adhere to the Cotonou Agreement and consult all affected
stakeholders.
We also remain concerned that many ACP countries, especially in Africa,
are still far from adequately prepared to implement the many burdensome
commitments that EPAs would impose.
We deplore the fact that insufficient regard is being paid to the financial
resources needed to finance the vast economic reform and structural
adjustment brought about by EPAs and that no adequate financial commitments
are being made. With regard to the existing aid commitments, we urge
both Member States and the Commission to follow the principles of ownership
and genuine partnership in the design and allocation of EU aid, and
to ensure quality and timely delivery of EU trade related aid.
Conclusion: Re-direct the negotiations towards pro-poor development
and alternatives to reciprocity
We are deeply concerned that the political commitment and pressure
to complete negotiations in 2007 will jeopardise the development dimension.
ACP negotiators, especially in the non-LDC countries, are under great
pressure to conclude negotiations by the deadline, both from the side
of the EC and from the side of their exporters who are uncertain about
the trade regime that will be in place at the beginning of 2008 if by
then no EPA has been concluded. We urge the Council to propose a solution
in case such a likely scenario would take place in at least one region.
Whilst the EU cites WTO rules to justify the shift towards reciprocal
trade relations, we are concerned that this reflects an overly narrow
and selective use of WTO rules. Like the African Ministers who met in
Addis Ababa in January 2007, we do not see the current GATT article
XXIV as an appropriate instrument for sustainable development. The Enabling
Clause offers a far more development-friendly basis for trade relations
with ACP countries as it provides a basis to provide non-reciprocal,
WTO-compatible, long-term and secure trade preferences to ACP countries.
An improved GSP+, for example, could provide a basis to continue current
trade relations immediately after the expiry of Cotonou preferences.
Stating that the EU can only offer the current GSP to those countries
that will not be in a position to sign EPAs is also in breach of Art.
37.6 of the Cotonou Agreement, which commits the EU to provide those
countries with an alternative trading arrangement “which is equivalent
to their existing situation and in conformity with WTO rules”.
We are alarmed that at this late stage of the negotiations the substantial
critique of EPAs as well as requests and proposals for alternatives
from ACP governments have not been addressed seriously by EC negotiators.
We urge you and your fellow Ministers to change the direction of the
present negotiations towards pro-poor development and non-reciprocal
alternatives to EPAs that would fulfil your often stated commitment
that the trade arrangements in the context of the Cotonou Agreement
will truly be “tools for development”.
We look forward to further discussions on these matters and invite
EU Ministers to put sustainable development firmly at the heart of the
EU-ACP relations.
Yours sincerely,
Signed,
cc: EU Ministers and Commissioners for Development Cooperation and
Trade
|
