My own initiative report on the development impact of Economic Partnership Agreements (EPAs) with African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) countries, adopted by MEPs on March 23, is the result of a number of wide ranging views, expressed by different political forces.
The EU began negotiations on the new EPAs in 2002 with 77 ACP countries. For the past 40 years, ACP countries have been granted unilateral preferential access to the European market, under the principle of non reciprocity.
With the Cotonou agreement, the EU and ACP countries established a new legal and institutional framework for their future cooperation.
The agreement also covers trade relations, ?entred on the objective of reducing and eventually eradicating poverty, consistent with sustainable development and the gradual integration of ACP countries into the world economy?
But four years after opening talks, EPA negotiations are no longer focused on poverty eradication or sustainable development.
Under the proposed EPAs, the trade relationship between the EU and the different ACP regional groups will be reciprocal and EPAs will be governed by GATT article XXIV.
Under this article, countries at different levels of development can enter into a reciprocal free trade agreement providing that the liberalisation of ?ubstantially all trade?occurs within a ?easonable length of time.?This has come to be understood as roughly 90 per cent of trade within 10-12 years.
At the moment, nobody knows how EPAs will look in future. The negotiation process is underway and my report attempts to give parliament? position on the issue. Some points are clearly expressed in the report.
First, that we cannot simply just follow the rules of the WTO, but must also act to change them when we think that they go against our global development goals. This is the primary purpose of EPAs, as stated in the Cotonou agreement.
Secondly, the European commission should start developing alternatives to EPAs in order to allow ACP countries to make an informed choice. And, last but not least, the principle of liberalisation between unequal partners as a tool for development has historically proven to be ineffective and even counterproductive.
A recent study (The economics of failure, the real cost of ?ree?trade for poor countries - Christian Aid briefing paper, June 2005) highlighted that without liberalisation, growth could have been higher and poverty reduction faster.
Actually, the results suggest that imports tend to rise faster than exports following trade liberalisation and this results in quantifiable losses in income for some of the poorest countries in the world.
For instance, in Senegal, after liberalisation, the prices farmers received for their tomatoes halved and tomato production fell from 73,000 tonnes in 1990 to just 20,000 tonnes in 1997, leaving many farmers without a cash crop.
In Kenya, both cotton farming and textile production have also been hit. Cotton production fell from 70,000 bales a year in the mid-1980s to less than 20,000 bales in the mid-1990s. Employment in textile factories fell from 120,000 people to 85,000 in just ten years.
The position of the ACP countries has been particularly taken into consideration in the report on the development impact of EPAs, especially as it was expressed by African trade ministers meeting in Cairo in June 2005.
The importance of addressing the supply side constraints which might prevent ACP countries from truly benefiting from a liberalised trade regime with the EU is therefore a central point of the report.
The need to take into account the ACP countries?point of view comes from the principle that they are our partners and we can? impose diktats on them or behave as if they are just poor countries who need money and advice.
At the same time, it is essential that we further involve ACP and EU civil society players, parliaments and local governments in order to have greater transparency with regard to the progress and the substance of the negotiations.
That is why the report was drafted in cooperation with the European group Stop EPAs, the Italian TradeWatch group and also by consultation with African and ACP countries?social movements.
The position of the parliament is clear.
It is built on a negotiation process and it clearly states the necessity of re-centring EPAs around the goal of development and social justice in order to really implement the engagements subscribed by the EU in the Cotonou agreement and achieve the Millennium Development Objectives.
