A Look Behind The News, by Ferdinando Riccardi:
EU-ACP relations: A poisoned dossier on which light should be shed as a matter of urgency
26 September 2007 Agence Europe
Deep-seated differences. The definition of the new agreements between the EU and the ACP has become a political affair that is both dangerous and unpleasant. It is a problem for which no outcome is in sight. The kind of agreements envisaged is rejected in practice by part of the ACP states (mainly in Africa) and criticised by some European political forces and by development cooperation bodies, that accuse such agreements of no longer being effective for the development of the countries concerned.
All those playing a part in the negotiation have a share of the responsibility. The new agreements represent a turning point in the relations that have governed the connection between the European Community (today the European Union) and the former colonies of a number of member states for half a century. Political relations have changed in nature since former colonies have gained independence to become sovereign states, but economic relations are still geared to the two former pillars: preferential access to the European market (thanks to derogations to the GATT rules to begin with, and then WTO rules) and substantial financial support. These pillars are today shaken by evolution along two lines: a) trade exemptions are expiring and preferential schemes are reserved for countries or groups of countries in free trade areas; and b) the EU is largely composed of countries that have never had colonies, or not had colonies for a long while, and that see no reason to grant trade preferences to some poor countries to the detriment of the others. From their point of view, the least developed countries should all benefit from comparable regimes.
Global trade liberalisation is to the disadvantage of the weakest. Negotiation of a new regime has encountered a series of errors and misunderstandings. As an indication of misunderstanding, one could come up with the famous slogan whereby priority should be given to trade: the economic development of a poor country is helped more by opening up export outlets than by subsidies. Who does not agree with this in principle? But in fact, in a system of growing global trade liberalisation and in the absence of trade preferences, the least advantaged countries lose their trade outlets as the emerging countries step into the breach left open and conquer the markets. If the EU accepted what is being asked of it by the major agricultural farming countries in the Doha Round, who would be the first to profit? The answer is obvious: Brazil, India and even more so China, which remains silent but is ready to invade all the western markets, from which Africa would be almost totally excluded.
The EU has made an effort not to open up its borders erga omnes but has given priority to the countries on the UN's list of disadvantaged countries, safeguarding preferences in favour of ACPs. But this direction has been hindered and contested not only by the major agricultural exporting countries (which is only natural) but also by other economic or political forces: international trade (including European importers), and powerful international bodies such as OXFAM, which no doubt has considerable merit in its action in favour of poor countries but which, in the dossier on opening up world agricultural markets, has had a disastrous effect on ACP countries. This has been seen in two specific cases: bananas and sugar. External pressure has practically forced the EU to dismantle its preferential regimes (in the case of bananas, it cannot be reproached for having defended its own interests, as its production is insignificant) by gradually reducing the number of guaranteed outlets, guaranteed prices and the other advantages enjoyed by ACP producers. And this dismantling is set to continue. Some ACP countries have in practice come into line with international pressure in favour of totally opening the European agricultural market, forgetting all solidarity.
Havoc wreaked by a mistaken concept. The above-mentioned cases are an example of the damage done by the tendency to consider that unlimited expansion of trade should take primacy over all other considerations, neglecting true priorities such as: the right of each country or group of countries to a reasonable degree of food autonomy; the fight against famine; preservation of nature; and the security of food products. How many African countries have given way to outside pressure encouraging them to develop single-crop farming for export, with the result that traditional subsistence farming has been destroyed, regional balance demolished (by the swelling and sprawling of towns) and these countries have become totally dependent on food imports for their population!
Two conflicting stances. At present, the question raised is first and foremost that of knowing whether the new agreements envisaged will indeed contribute to the development of ACP countries and correct the existing failings. Opinions expressed, which are no doubt partially exaggerated for the argument, are
at variance. The European Commission continues to defend the Economic Partnership Agreements (EPAs) currently being negotiated, saying that the criticism they receive creates a false impression of them. Last Saturday, European Commissioner for Development Cooperation Louis Michel defended these agreements and their objectives against what he considers to be a distortion of reality (see yesterday's bulletin). Trade Commissioner Peter Mandelson reaffirmed that there was no alternative and spoke of the dangers that ACP countries would encounter if agreements were not concluded by the end of the year. Several days earlier, the GUE/NGL Group at the European Parliament had organised a hearing giving those opposed to these agreements an opportunity to forcefully and fervently air their views (see Aminata Niang's account in our bulletin No.9505). On Thursday 27 September, in Brussels, a Global Day of Action and Protest will be held against EPAs, organised by the ACP and EU civil society organisations. The Development Council meeting in informal session in Funchal is largely in line with Louis Michel's views, but at the same time sets out a number of hypothetical procedures for breaking the stalemate.
Radical opposition. Let us look at these two theses a little closer. The offensive by opponents of EPA is bitter and deep-seated. During the hearing of 18 September, Francis Wurtz, President of the European United Left/Nordic Greens Left (GUE/NGL) parliamentary group, complained that Europe had broken the taboo of non-reciprocity when it comes to trading matters between developed and poor countries. The latter's fragile economies cannot face up to the shock of competition, with repercussions on their budget (import duties are the main income for some African countries) and balance of payments. They will no longer be able to develop their modest agricultural and industrial production sectors, and will also lose the few outlets that they have in neighbouring countries, where European products will take the place of their products. A number of impact studies have been carried out, but the EU has apparently chosen to neglect or dismiss them. German MEP Helmuth Markov and Italian MEP Vittorio Agnoletto echo Wurtz's words. As do the representatives of civil society in certain ACP countries. It is true that the GUE/GNL group is one of the smallest at the EP (41 members out of 785), but it has its supporters. At the meeting in Funchal, Socialist member Glenys Kinnock also criticised the EPAs and made several suggestions for an alternative solution. She said that first and foremost one should face the facts - the new agreements will not be signed by the end of the year. In which case, we shall have to make do with framework agreements fixing a few principles and objectives, and extending the GSP system (Generalised System of Preferences) to all ACP countries. See Aminata Niang's report on the Funchal meeting.
Vigorous support. The European Commission's strong support can be seen in its forceful rejection of conflicting theses. Louis Michel has affirmed that, in reality, EPAs are development agreements that invite ACP states to take the road followed by Europe itself in its process of integration. ACP countries must begin to trade among themselves as there is no development without integrated regional markets. The opening up of their markets to Europe will be very slow: other than the products needed by the ACP states, liberalisation will take time - sometimes 20-25 years - and in some cases no time limit is foreseen.
Risks for ACP states. Trade Commissioner Peter Mandelson, for his part, took up what he had explained on 11 September before the international trade committee at the European Parliament. The current EU/ACP trade regime will expire at the end of this year. Without a new agreement in line with WTO rules, the EU and ACP states will be guilty of infringement and will be confronted before the Geneva organisation in January 2008 (the recent complaint filed by Ecuador against the EU's banana regime shows there will be no holding back). ACP countries will not be able to benefit from the GPS Plus regime in 2008 (not even those that appear on the UN list of least advantaged countries), as this regime is subject to compliance with several international conventions or standards, in social matters and respect of human rights. Verification will be made in 2008 and, according to Mr Mandelson, very few ACP countries will meet the conditions set. The 31 ACP states that do not appear on the UN list will lose their current tariff advantages for textiles, tuna, cocoa, bananas, etc. For EPAs to take effect in good time, negotiations should end next month. We are still a long way off, according to the European commissioner, as negotiations are blocked with Western African and Eastern Africa; Southern Africa depends on the attitude adopted by South Africa, which is not clear; Central Africa is moving forward but there are still difficulties to be overcome; the Caribbean is making progress but the EU still awaits an offer of trade reciprocity; and the messages sent out by the Pacific region are contradictory.
As you can see, the situation is a complex one. Tomorrow, I shall try and draw a few conclusions.
Power Struggle Continues With Unbalanced EPA Talks
Inter Press Service (Johannesburg) 21 September 2007
By David Cronin
African nations have been reduced to "begging" in negotiations on their future economic ties with the European Union (EU) in what has turned into exercise "assaulting democracy," according to trade unionists and policy analysts from both north and south.
Trade talks have intensified in recent weeks between the EU's executive, the European Commission (EC), and representatives of African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) governments. The Commission wants ACP countries to sign market-opening deals known as Economic Partnership Agreements (EPA) with it by the end of this year.
Timothy Kondo from the trade union umbrella group Alternatives to Neoliberalism in Southern Africa (ANSA) said that the Commission has not been taking the concerns of poor countries seriously in the talks. Instead, it has been concentrated on reducing obstacles faced by western firms wishing to do business abroad.
"The attitude of the EU has to change," Kondo told IPS. "Our governments in Africa have not been negotiating in the proper sense of the word. They have not been involved in what we trade unionists call collective bargaining. They have been involved in collective begging."
"That is not to blame our governments. You shouldn't blame the weak. The level of development between Europe and Africa is not the same. But the focus of the EPAs has been on removing barriers to trade between partners that are not equal," Kondo continued.
Kondo took part in a Sep. 18 conference on the EPAs organised by left-wing members of the European Parliament.
He complained that suggestions put forward by ACP governments during the talks have been rejected by EU officials.
ACP countries have long argued, for example, that the talks should not cover such topics as competition, investment and government procurement. Yet the draft EPAs prepared by the Commission in the past few months have contained provisions on these issues, which primarily relate to the access that foreign firms would have to ACP markets.
Marc Maes, a trade campaigner with the Belgian anti-poverty group 11.11.11, said that most of the six ACP regional configurations with which the EU has been negotiating have refused to accept the Commission's drafts. "West Africa has been very explicit on that," he noted.
Nonetheless, the Commission has decided to keep its proposals on the table. "The texts that the Commission has tabled have reflected the Commission's approach to global trade," said Maes. "They do not reflect the interests and needs of ACP countries."
The Commission has threatened to impose punitive tariffs on ACP exports bound for Europe if their governments do not sign EPAs by Dec. 31.
Earlier this month, the European commissioner for trade Peter Mandelson told members of the European Parliament (MEPs) that he would not consider offering more preferential treatment to ACP countries than the EU's general system of tariffs if the Dec. 31 deadline cannot be met.
London Green MEP Caroline Lucas said that she had become accustomed to Mandelson's "very blunt manner" from his involvement in British politics during his time the closest confidant to former UK Prime Minister Tony Blair. "But even I was shocked by the aggressive and bullying tone he adopted (in ruling out alternatives to the EPAs)," she said.
Addressing the European Parliament's international trade committee on Sep. 11, Mandelson said it was "irresponsible" for anti-poverty activists to claim that tariffs would not have to be imposed on ACP countries if they do not sign the EPAs by the end of this year.
Mandelson maintained he has "no legal option" other than imposing tariffs in such an eventuality under rules set by the World Trade Organisation. A waiver to WTO rules applying to current EU-ACP trading arrangements will expire on Jan. 1 2008.
"I have no hat and no rabbit to pull out of it," Mandelson said.
Mamadou Cissokho, president of the Network of Peasant Organisations and Producers in West Africa (ROPPA), said that ACP governments "are not negotiating, they are simply reacting to proposals put to us by Europe." "European Union documents have been taken as the basis of our negotiations," he said. "And all of the negotiation meetings have been funded by the EU."
He pointed out that the EU spends 130 billion dollars per year on agricultural subsidies, even though farmers comprise just 4 percent of the Union's population. Despite the huge competitive advantage enjoyed by European farmers, the Commission has urged ACP governments to reduce, and in many cases eliminate, the tariffs they apply to food imports from Europe.
Such trade liberalisation will have profound implications for small-scale African farmers and "jeopardise" the continent's ability to feed itself, according to Cissokho. "Opening up markets willy-nilly means the traditional production methods we have in Africa are not going to be guaranteed or maintained," he said.
Italian MEP Vittorio Agnoletto said that the Commission is trying to "claim that David and Goliath are equal" in the EPA talks.
"Frankly, this is a farce," he added. "In this case Goliath - that is, the EU - is playing a false hand because it is not removing agricultural subsidies aimed at its exports."
Agnoletto voiced concerns, too, over how the Commission has suggested that the EPAs commit the ACP side to a robust protection of intellectual property rights. By doing so, he contended, countries would be impeded from circumventing patents on drugs by importing cheap generic versions of treatments for AIDS and other major diseases. Some 30 million people in Africa are HIV positive.
Alexandra Strickner from the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy (AITP) in Austria argues that there had been a lack of debate in both Europe and in developing countries about the likely implications of the EPAs. It is particularly vital, she said, that parliaments should be given a formal role in scrutinising the accords.
"Mandelson is saying he would like to have the EPAs implemented immediately, without any ratification process in the ACP or in Europe," she explained. "This is an incredible assault on democracy."
(EU) UE/ACP: les adversaires des APE accusent la Commission de pousser les ACP à signer des accords de libre-échange contraires à leur développement - Résultat d'une audition de la GUE au Parlement européen
Bruxelles, 19/09/2007 (Agence Europe)
Les adversaires des accords de partenariat économique (APE), tels qu'actuellement négociés entre l'UE et six régions du groupe ACP (Afrique/Caraïbe/Pacifique) au titre de l'accord de Cotonou, n'ont pas dit leur dernier mot. Le Parlement européen leur a donné la parole, le 18 septembre à Bruxelles, à l'occasion d'une audition organisée par le groupe politique GUE/NGL sur le thème: « Les accords de partenariat économique UE-ACP: une menace pour le développement ? Une question à laquelle tous ont répondu par l'affirmative, qu'ils soient parlementaires de la GUE ou des Verts, représentants des organisations paysannes africaines ou de la société civile européenne.
A trois mois de la date-butoir pour la conclusion d'accords de libéralisation progressive, censés entrer en vigueur le 1er janvier 2008 (à l'expiration de la dérogation obtenue à l'OMC pour le maintien d'un régime préférentiel ACP/UE) visant à instaurer entre l'UE et les régions ACP un nouveau régime commercial compatible avec les règles de l'OMC, les intervenants ont dénoncé la logique néolibérale poursuivie par la Commission européenne - une logique jugée contraire aux intérêts de développement de pays parmi les plus pauvres au monde, et qui ne sont pas de taille à affronter la concurrence des pays développés. Leur combat contre le libre-échange sur le dos des plus faibles culminera le 27 septembre prochain, lors de la journée de mobilisation internationale organisée par la société civile ACP et européenne pour dire « Non aux APE » et réclamer des solutions alternatives.
Pourfendeur du libre-échange, surtout entre partenaires inégaux, Francis Wurtz (GUE/NGL, Français), impliqué dans le partenariat ACP-UE depuis une quinzaine d'années, voit dans les futurs APE l'aboutissement d'un «tournant », amorcé dès la quatrième Convention de Lomé (1990-2000).
« Dès les premières années de mise en uvre de Lomé IV, la Commission a pris appui sur les faibles résultats de sa politique antérieure en matière de développement pour mettre en cause le principe même du régime préférentiel CEE-ACP. Ainsi fut préparé graduellement le passage de l'esprit de Lomé à la logique de Cotonou: on brisa le tabou de la non-réciprocité entre partenaires inégaux. On loua les vertus du libre-échange au service du développement », a souligné l'eurodéputé, déplorant que l'UE n'ait jamais demandé à l'OMC - pas même à Doha - la révision de l'article XXIV régissant les accords régionaux. Et de rappeler les « contestations immédiates et vives » des Etats ACP dès que l'on commença à parler d'APE quand fut négocié l'accord de Cotonou - la Commission étant restée sourde aux « interpellations sur les conséquences d'un tel choc sur leurs économies fragiles et notamment sur le budget, la balance des paiements, les maigres flux commerciaux régionaux, la production agricole et industrielle ». De la même façon, l'eurodéputé français reproche à la Commission d'avoir « mis sous le boisseau » les premières études d'impact des APE sur chacune des six régions, réalisées « sous la pression des ACP ». Et pour cause. Selon M. Wurtz, ces conclusions « mitigées » soulignaient: - que les effets positifs des investissements escomptés n'étaient pas garantis ; - que le régime actuel était plus favorable aux PMA ; que les ACP non PMA seraient perdants dans l'affaire, notamment dans leur commerce régional où ils seraient concurrencés par l'Europe ; - qu'une division pouvait en résulter entre pays ACP. Résultat: les APE ont été inscrits dans l'accord de Cotonou en tant que nouveaux accords à conclure entre les parties « en supprimant progressivement les entraves aux échanges entre elles » (article 36), sonnant ainsi le glas de la non-réciprocité, et instituant le conditionnement d'une partie de l'aide aux performances économiques, tout le processus étant assorti de réexamens réguliers de « la capacité des pays ACP à ajuster leurs économies », déplore M. Wurtz. Et comme si cela ne suffisait pas, le rapport du PNUD sur le développement humain de 2005, remarque que « dans l'ensemble, le mandat (des négociateurs européens) pour les APE a le potentiel nécessaire pour produire des résultats déséquilibrés et défavorables ». Autant d'éléments, cités par M. Wurtz et justifiant à ses yeux que l'on s'alarme de leur incompatibilité avec les objectifs de développement du Millénaire. Luisa Morgantini (GUE/NGL/Italie), auteur d'un rapport d'initiative critique du Parlement sur les APE, l'avait, à juste titre, souligné (EUROPE N° 9163), a-t-il fait observer. De l'avis de Francis Wurtz, la journée du 27 septembre, comme le Sommet UE-Afrique des 8 et 9 décembre doivent être mis à profit pour « faire la clarté sur ce projet, exiger une évaluation publique et contradictoire de ses effets, produire des solutions alternatives ».
La date du 27 septembre pour cette journée mondiale de protestation et d'action contre les APE a été choisie pour coïncider avec le cinquième anniversaire du lancement des négociations entre l'UE et l'ensemble du groupe ACP. Organisations, coalitions et réseaux de protestation dans l'UE et les pays ACP, mais également dans d'autres régions du monde, sont invitées à s'unir pour demander une nouvelle approche des relations commerciales ACP-UE qui: - soutienne le développement durable et la réalisation des droits économiques, sociaux, environnementaux dans les pays ACP; - repose sur le principe de non-réciprocité et d'un traitement spécial et différencié pour les pays les moins avancés ; - reconnaisse et soutienne le droit des producteurs ACP au protectionnisme commercial au sein de leurs marchés nationaux et régionaux autant qu'eux-mêmes et leurs gouvernements le jugeront nécessaire ; - reconnaisse et appuie le droit des pays ACP à la souveraineté alimentaire ; - respecte le droit des pays ACP à disposer de l'espace politique nécessaire pour formuler et poursuivre leurs propres stratégies de développement.
Helmuth Markov (GUE/NGL, Allemand), président de la commission du commerce international du Parlement, évoquant « Le cri », célèbre tableau d'Eduard Munch, a enfoncé le clou. « Si l'on ne crie pas sa révolte, si on ne demande pas autre chose, la bataille est perdue d'avance ». Or, estime-t-il, le jeu en vaut la chandelle, si l'on veut combattre la tentative de l'UE de « faire entrer la pensé néolibérale dans tous les accords bilatéraux », que ce soit avec la Corée du Nord ou avec les pays ACP ; et remettre en cause les APE tels qu'ils sont négociés permet, selon lui, de nourrir un débat crucial sur « la sécurité alimentaire, les soins de santé, les modèles de rechange pour remplacer les APE, la réalité des pays africains, la réflexion sur les propositions émanant des mouvements sociaux ». Ce qu'il faut, c'est « veiller à ce que les négociations menées par les ACP avec l'UE, soient gérées par les gouvernements ACP, mais aussi par la société civile »
Un point de vue que partage le Sénégalais Mamadou Cissokho, président de l'organisation paysanne ROPPA et du mouvement paysan d'Afrique de l'Ouest, convaincu que les APE sont une menace pour la sécurité alimentaire des pays d'Afrique occidentale. Dans une attaque en règle contre les institutions de Bretton Woods « gérées par une majorité d'Etats membres de l'UE » et contre « la camisole de force » imposée aux pays de la CEDEAO, via les programmes d'ajustement structurel, M. Cissokho a souligné que les pays ACP avaient été contraints d'abandonner « leur première souveraineté, celle d'assurer une politique d'alimentaire saine et la sécurité alimentaire de leurs populations ». Insistant sur la spécificité de l'Afrique de l'Ouest, une région peuplée à 66% de ruraux contribuant à 33 % du PIB, qui a les capacités de production (500 millions d'hectares de terres utiles, de grands fleuves, 1 milliard de m3 d'eau par an), il a déploré la paupérisation des populations rurales, faute d'investissements publics dans la promotion de l'agriculture. « L'autosuffisance est un principe culturel et historique, un gage de sécurité pour les populations. Dans les négociations avec l'UE, nous voulons partir de ce principe. L'ouverture du marché ne règle pas l'alimentation de 66% de ruraux. L'ouverture des marchés ne permet pas au sorgho, au millet, de prendre une longueur d'avance sur un marché régional pas encore construit. C'est une menace pour notre sécurité alimentaire (
). Vous allez revoir la PAC en 2012, mais vous nous demandez de signer des APE maintenant », a lancé M. Cissokho à l'adresse de l'UE. Il a par ailleurs déploré que les gouvernements ACP « ne négocient pas », mais se contentent de réagir aux documents de l'UE, à la base des négociations.
L'eurodéputé Vittorio Agnoletto (GUE/NGL, Italien), membre de la commission parlementaire du commerce international et de l'assemblée parlementaire paritaire ACP-UE, s'est insurgé contre les affirmations du Commissaire Peter Mandelson, selon lesquelles les APE favoriseront le développement de l'Afrique et que tel est leur but. Il s'est appuyé pour ce faire sur une étude modélisée du Programme des Nations unies pour le développement (PNUD) sur les conséquences potentielles des APE sur l'Afrique. Aux termes de cette étude, la libéralisation des échanges entre le Burundi et l'UE occasionnerait, au cours de la première année, une perte de 19,782 millions de dollars pour le Burundi, soit 3% de son PIB (la création d'échanges commerciaux serait entièrement à l'avantage de l'UE en occasionnant un gain de 13 millions de dollars, les pertes de recettes douanières pour le Burundi se chiffreraient à 7, 5 millions de dollars, la vente par l'UE de produits moins onéreux au Burundi se traduirait par 1,8 million d'épargne pour le consommateur burundais). Pour le Kenya, la perte serait supérieure à 300 millions d'euros. Et M. Agnoletto d'ironiser sur l'imposture qui consiste à faire croire aux ACP que « David et Goliath sont sur un pied d'égalité ».
Spécialiste de l'accord sur les aspects des droits de propriété intellectuelle (ADPIC), l'eurodéputé s'en est pris également à ce qui est « devenu un obstacle au respect des droits à la santé, et en particulier à l'accès des pays pauvres aux produits pharmaceutiques ». Convaincu que l'exception prévue par la décision de l'OMC du 30 août 2003 « n'y changera rien étant donné la complexité du mécanisme », M. Agnoletto déplore qu'à partir de 2006, il soit prévu d'inclure l'ADPIC Plus dans les accords bilatéraux entre l'UE et les pays en développement, ce qui laisse à penser que les APE seraient concernés. Une déclaration du Conseil semblerait aller dans le sens contraire, « mais nous n'avons pas d'assurance », a-t-il déclaré. Selon lui, l'inclusion des accords ADPIC dans les APE irait « bien au-delà des exigences de l'OMC et de l'accord de Cotonou ».
Le Belge Marc Maes, membre de la campagne « Non aux APE », déplore quant à lui que la Commission ait fait la sourde oreille quand certaines régions ACP ont fait comprendre qu'elles n'étaient pas prêtes dans leurs préparatifs et demandaient, comme l'Afrique de l'Ouest, un report de trois ans pour conclure un APE. Il s'étonne par ailleurs que la Commission ait déposé des projets d'APE dans les différentes régions, « en renonçant à un chapitre par-ci par-là », mais avec la même approche qui couvre les questions d'investissement, de concurrence, de droits de propriété intellectuelle. « L'Afrique de l'Ouest en a pris bonne note, mais n'a pas accepté le texte de négociation, et la plupart des régions ont dit qu'elles présenteraient leur propre texte ». Il a insisté également sur la difficulté des discussions en cours sur les règles d'origine et sur la différence d'approche entre l'UE qui veut une approche fondée sur la valeur ajoutée, quand les ACP demandent une modification des règles tarifaires. On le voit, les négociateurs ne sont pas au bout de leurs peines. (an)
(EU) EU/ACP: Opponents of EPAs accuse Commission of pushing ACP countries to sign free trade agreements that do not help their development - Outcome of GUE hearing in Parliament
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)