| |
Contributions from
the Column
InWEnt Forum
ACP countries: „We know what we want“
EPA negotations: outcome uncertain
Maghreb: New challenges for refuse collectors
06/2006 |
|
[ Interview with Junior Lodge ]
“We know what we want”
Mr. Lodge, are you satisfied with the EPA talks so far?
The negotiations are on track, measured in terms of the schedule we agreed on. However, in terms of substance, one cannot be satisfied at all. It must be recognised that in a vast number of technical issues, major disagreements persist.
Please give some examples.
One example concerns the treatment of regional integration. We agree with the objective that an EPA should strengthen CARIFORUM’s regional integration process. But regional integration must not be seen simply as a lever for making ACP regions conform to EPAs. We cannot contemplate regional commitments in areas where we have neither a regional policy nor regional capacity. We are not prepared to accept a view of regional integration that is not ours. An EPA has to build on the regional integration we have achieved for ourselves. A second area of major divergence concerns EU development support. We strongly believe that development cooperation has to be inserted explicitly in an EPA. The European Development Fund is governed by the Cotonou Agreement, which expires in 2020. So far, we have not received any assurance that development cooperation will continue with the EU after 2020. In any event, the time-sensitive adjustment of ACP regions requires that EC development support is immediately forthcoming if ACP regions are to harness any benefits from an EPA. We are convinced that progress could be secured if CARIFORUM commitments in an EPA were made contingent on and preceded by disbursements of EU development support.
Sometimes there seems to be a sense of uncertainty among policy-makers from ACP countries about what to expect from the EPAs. Do you agree?
I don’t know why you are framing the question like that. You are implicitly suggesting that ACP negotiators do not know what they want. But obviously, ACP regions have their own clear views on what an EPA should entail. The Caribbean is seeking a modern trade and development agreement that enshrines binding commitments on market access, trade and investment rules and EU development support. Our demands include the promulgation and funding of a CARIFORUM Agricultural Development Strategy and a Lisbon-style Competitiveness Programme for the Caribbean that seeks to address the need to radically enhance the competitiveness of our production base.
In public, EU officials always maintain that EPAs will be flexible and take into account different development levels of ACP countries. Does the EU Commission live up to these promises in the negotiations?
I do not think that the Commission really believes that we, the CARIFORUM, will match their degree of market access. The real issue therefore comes down to what degree of trade liberalization is the CARIFORUM ready to contemplate, and at what pace. The recently tabled proposals of the EU Commission would result in the CARIFORUM liberalising 70 % of its trade on the first day of the implementation of an EPA. It’s a classic case of the EU negotiating strategy: Yes, they grant us asymmetry, but nonetheless, their demands are both politically unacceptable and economically injurious.
Do you think that the EU Commission is too dominant in the EPA negotiations?
If you mean that the Europeans have very clear ideas of what they want and are forceful in communicating that – yes, they are dominant. But in this sense we are no less dominant and articulate. Of course, the matter is complicated by the nature of relations ACP regions have with Europe. On the one hand, we are redefining our trade and development relationship through an EPA, on the other hand, we are grateful for European development support. It’s not easy to gauge the leverage the EU has in EPA negotiations because of its role as a donor.
The European Commission often claims that the main objective of EPAs is to promote development. Can one take this altruistic reasoning seriously? What are the interests of the EU?
I have spent four years in Brussels and I’m still struggling to understand what their interests are. I believe that the EU is to a considerable extent serious about wanting to assist ACP countries’ development. However, doing so is not as altruistic as it may sound. Obviously, the EU anticipates that it will benefit in the long run, as the ACP regions develop, their markets are larger and their populace becomes richer. So yes, there is a degree of EU altruism, but this should not mask Europe’s strong mercantilist interests.
Is it realistic to stick to the 2007 deadline for negotiations?
Deadlines are important to focus negotiators’ minds. However, the key thing is not to be fixated with the deadline, but rather to design an EPA that supports CARIFORUM’s respective regional integration processes and supports our aspirations to sustainable development and poverty eradication.
What do you think about the international NGO campaign against EPAs?
The NGOs can put additional pressure, perhaps not directly on the Commission, but rather on EU member states, which in turn put pressure on the Commission. That could be useful. However, the truth is that after last year, when there was a strong wave of criticism of EPAs, particularly by EU-based NGOs, the Commission responded with a volley of public interventions, stressing how pro-development EPAs could be. Regrettably the EC public pro-development stance has not been reflected in the negotiations. There is a wide chasm between the public proclamations of the Commission and its hard-nosed stand in negotiations. One is therefore left to surmise that the NGO campaign has not yet resulted in a fundamental shift in favour of ACP regions. But let us remain sanguine, it might be too early to tell. Questions by Tillmann Elliesen.
Junior Lodge
is Technical Coordinator for the EPA Negotiations at the Caribbean Regional Negotiating Machinery (CRNM) and is based in Brussels.
junior.lodge@crnm.org
|
