|
|
News
| Trade Justice seminar in Ghana |
22/12/2007 |
| This is an article in a Ghanaian newspaper on the recent trade justice seminar organised by the Methodist church. It is so encouraging to see the developments and awareness building. We pray that with efforts on both sides, we can begin to influence our leaders to act justly in matters of trade which so greatly affect the livelihoods of millions. |
|
| The EPA deadline – a threat to fragile economies |
15/12/2007 |
Economic Partnership Agreements or EPAs are trade deals that the European Union (EU) has been negotiating with 76 countries in Africa, the Caribbean and the Pacific (ACP). Many of the countries are amongst the poorest in the world.
Negotiations began in 2002 and are due to conclude in December 2007. The EU is putting considerable pressure on ACP countries to sign by this date.
EPAs are intended to replace existing trade agreements that give ACP countries preferential access to EU markets. From the start, ACP countries have raised objections to the content, process and speed of the talks, questioning the EUs commitment to making sure trade actually does help to relieve poverty.
In reality, many of the countries will be worse off under the proposed EPAs as their economies would not be able to withstand the impact of full liberalization of their markets. In contrast, what they need is continued protection and time to develop more robust economies that will withstand full liberlisation.
In a policy brief entitled "One Minute to Midnight", Claire Delpeuch from Sciences Po, a political studies institute in Paris, has urged world leaders to "avoid a tragic error, slow the rush to conclude hasty and ill-conceived agreements, and find a better track."
More and more people from the private sector, trade unions, farmers, NGOs, academics and think-tanks are adding their voice. Over 150 people from churches in Herne Hill and Dulwich have signed a petition to the government asking them to consider fairer alternatives to the EPA.
Click to find out what action you can take in just 5 minutes! |
|
| The EU is trying to trick developing countries into poor trade deals |
08/11/2007 |
These negotiations are flawed and unnecessarily hurried, say Alex Cobham and Sophie Powell
Thursday November 8, 2007
The Guardian
Peter Mandelson and Louis Michel, the EU's commissioners for trade and development, are staggeringly disingenuous in their broadside at those raising concerns about the impact on poor countries of the EU's stance in trade negotiations (This is not a poker game, October 31). They claim "The economic partnership agreements (EPAs) that the EU is negotiating with six African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) regions [will] take a trading relationship based on dependency and turn it into one based on diversification and growth." Such an outcome is unlikely if they insist on using every trick possible to extract more sweeping deals than ACP countries believe are in their best interests.
The dirtiest trick is the spurious insistence on a December deadline. Mandelson and Michel claim a deal must be done by then to ensure WTO compliance. They say they will have to "fall back on our default preferences scheme" - meaning higher tariffs for ACP countries - if EPAs are not agreed by the end of the year, as "there is no credible alternative". This is untrue. They have choices, but lack political will. For example, the EU could seek to extend its WTO waiver or fine-tune the enhanced general system of preferences (often called the GSP+) to allow all ACP countries to retain market access equivalent to that which they have now. Even if a country brought immediate proceedings against the EU and the ACP, the glacial speed of WTO proceedings would allow ACP countries more time to assess their needs and the deals on the table. Forcing the pace of negotiations can only disadvantage the weakest players.
The opportunism of the European negotiating approach also contradicts the claim that "EPAs will build strong regional markets". The African Union says EPAs could compromise regional integration - a conclusion supported by studies from the UN, the University of Sussex and the Overseas Development Institute, which show that the EU's proposals could lead to a contraction of trade within Africa and increased barriers to trade between African countries. On top of this, the commission's latest approach - that individual countries should sign up to EPAs without their weaker neighbours - reveals how shallow their commitment to ACP regional integration is.
The commissioners deny critics' claims that "EPAs will open ACP markets to EU trade at the expense of local businesses, and local growth". But it is undeniable that the EU is demanding greater and faster liberalisation than regions are willing to offer - and the evidence on rapid liberalisation is clear. A Traidcraft report showed that Jamaica's dairy market liberalisation decimated small farmers, left local milk production with barely a tenth of the market, and led to the EU supplying two-thirds of the island's milk powder. A Christian Aid assessment of tomato liberalisation in Senegal showed that the local price halved, while imports of EU paste increased twenty-fold.
With just eight weeks to go, business contracts and investments are already being affected by the EU's refusal to confirm that it will leave no ACP country with worse market access than now. We demand an end to the shabby tricks and this flawed negotiating process. What is needed to make a good deal possible is more time and more openness to external scrutiny of EPAs' development impact.
- Alex Cobham manages the policy team at Christian Aid; Sophie Powell is a senior policy adviser at Traidcraft |
|
| Whose deadline? |
01/11/2007 |
Brendan Barber - Guardian Unlimited
The EU's economic partnership agreements with developing countries are a good idea, but they must not be hurried through.
November 1, 2007
European Union commissioners Peter Mandelson and Louis Michel argue that critics of the EU's proposed economic partnership agreements (EPAs) with former European colonies in Africa, the Caribbean and Asia-Pacific are threatening the economic prospects of the global south. Critics, they say, are either ignorant or uncaring. In contrast the commissioners claim the moral high ground, interested only in the good they can do for Africa and other poor parts of the world.
But this is not quite the view in Africa. Last weekend, African and European trade unionists met in Lisbon to discuss the EU-African Union summit this December and the EU's strategy for Africa. My opposite number in Ghana, Kwesi Adu-Amankwah, suggested that an African strategy for Europe might be in order, and it is hard to disagree after reading the commissioners' views.
This is what the predominantly African trade union summit (two Africans to every European) concluded on EPAs:
"Trade between the two continents must serve development in African countries. Trade unions call on the European commission not to impose demands that go beyond those foreseen in the WTO context. At the same time, the unions maintain that trade integration in Africa, which is still in its initial phase, is a precondition for the completion of bi-regional trade agreements. Accordingly, the unions are convinced that the deadline of 31 December 2007 for the signing of the economic partnership agreements should be revised in order to enable the African states to strengthen their regional integration. All economic policies imposed without trade union involvement have led to unemployment and poverty, factors of migration."
It is the European commission that is demanding a rapid timetable for signing the EPAs. The governments of the global south, while they certainly want a deal that retains or deepens their ability to sell into our markets, are not calling for a rapid deadline. African trade unionists are arguing for a delay until the terms are right.
Trade unionists in Europe stand in solidarity with our brothers and sisters in Africa and other parts of the global south, in calling for trade justice. We want to see growth, yes, but not the jobless growth that previous trade deals have delivered. And we certainly do not want the sort of "growth at any costs" that has both forced workers in the south into the informal economy without workplace rights or safety nets and undercut the rights and conditions of workers in Europe.
The TUC is not part of the "stop EPAs" camp - the vice-president of the Nigeria Labour Congress has said that EPAs are a good idea, but "their time has not yet come". We want to see EPAs that promote development for the poor; protect workers' rights, human rights and the environment; and include aid-for-trade packages. We are not there yet.
And how much better it would be if EPAs were negotiated openly, rather than secretly. |
|
| Critics of the EU's trade agreements are gambling with livelihoods in the developing world |
31/10/2007 |
Peter Mandelson and Louis Michel
Wednesday October 31, 2007
The Guardian
No question in Europe's trade and development policy is more pressing or politically sensitive than how we can use trade to help African, Caribbean and Pacific countries build stronger economies. The key is to give greater confidence and more opportunities to local businesses, attract new investment and build strong regional markets. This will in turn strengthen their capacity to sell goods in a global market. The economic partnership agreements (EPAs) that the EU is negotiating with the six African, Caribbean and Pacific regions are designed to help do all these things. They will take a trading relationship based on dependency and turn it into one based on diversification and growth.
But there are some misconceptions about EPAs that are complicating the job of those in the regions who want and need them. Critics say the EU is steamrolling these regions into completing negotiations this year. It is not the EU that is imposing this deadline. Our current arrangements discriminate in favour of some developing countries - the African, Caribbean and Pacific regions (ACP) - and against others, often equally needy. That is not right morally nor compatible with international trade rules. We promised non-ACP developing countries in 2000, when we agreed our current arrangements, that we would put in place a new system by the end of 2007. When the legal waiver they gave us for these arrangements ends, they can and will challenge us.
Unless we agree WTO-compatible arrangements with ACP countries, we will have to fall back on our default preference scheme for all developing countries, which is less generous than our current scheme. The EU is not threatening to raise tariffs for these countries, but is doing all it can to avoid this.
In some ACP regions there are signs that we will have a full agreement by the end of the year, covering trade opening and regional rules in goods and services, rules of good economic governance and targeted development assistance. Others have shown less willingness to progress as far and will need a little more time for comprehensive deals. But rather than refuse to sign an agreement until every part of a negotiation is complete, we have said that so long as we can reach agreement on the question of trade in goods, we believe we will be on solid ground in the WTO. This means their extended preferential access to the EU market will be safe. We will then complete discussions early in 2008.
Only a comprehensive agreement will deliver the full development potential. But reaching an agreement on trade in goods now will at least prevent a disruption to ACP trade with Europe.
Critics of EPAs claim they will open ACP markets to EU trade at the expense of local businesses, and local growth. Again, this is simply not true. EPAs won't mean "free trade" between the EU and ACP countries from January 1 next year, or any time soon.
From the EU side there will be a full removal of tariffs and quotas on ACP exports, with short transitions for sugar and rice. We will also make sure there are no European export subsidies on any goods where ACP countries remove tariffs. African, Caribbean and Pacific countries will be able to protect and exclude sensitive products and take advantage of long transition periods to nurture growing industry and protect fragile agricultural sectors if that is what they want.
EU companies and investment are not trying to muscle in on markets. The problem is that EU businesses and investors have too little interest in these regions, not that they have too much.
This process is not just about trade, but about bringing economic reform and development assistance together. We want to build regional markets and attract new investment. Not only will the African, Caribbean and Pacific countries continue to benefit from hundreds of millions of euros annually in development aid - €23bn until 2013 - but they will be major beneficiaries of the decision to increase Europe's spending on aid for trade to €2bn a year, with a priority given to measures that help implement EPAs.
No one believes the status quo is working. Africa's dependence on a few basic commodities has seen it fall far behind the poverty reduction and economic growth of Asia and Latin America. Calling for an end to EPA negotiations when there is no credible alternative is playing poker with the livelihoods of those we are trying to help.
Of course, there should be debate over EPAs. But those who suggest that they are a danger to development are not only wrong. They also undermine those in Africa and other ACP countries who are seeking to work constructively for economic reform and a new trade and development relationship with Europe.
- Peter Mandelson is the EU trade commissioner; Louis Michel is the EU development commissioner |
|
|
It is not kings and generals who make history, but the masses of the people.
Nelson Mandela
|