REPA Booklet - Stop Epa

What position has the ACP taken on services negotiations under Cotonou?
As with agriculture, the ACP said they have limited services that they can supply competitively. So they need to
build up their own services capacity and competitiveness and proper regulatory frameworks before they try to
liberalise them. The Commission should recognise the need for asymmetry in any services negotiations and
provide additional funds to help build this capacity. There is also real nervousness that foreign firms will gain
control of their water, health and education services, especially given the tendency of transnational companies
to ‘cut and run’ when economic, social or political conditions deteriorate.
“We declare our
fourth goal to be for
Papua New Guinea’s
natural resources
and environment to
be conserved and
used for the
collective benefit of
us all, and be
replenished for the
benefit of future
generations.”
(Constitution of Papua
New Guinea)
Why does the Commission want to bring services into an Economic Partnership Agreement?
The European Commission has big ambitions for its firms in the current WTO services (GATS) negotiations, but
it is making slow progress. In 2003 its ‘requests’ were leaked. They wanted access to the water, education,
telecommunications, maritime transport and many other services of the poorest countries of the world, including
the ACP. According to a Commission official, these GATS requests are likely to be the starting point in negotiations
on services under Cotonou, because they represent the Commission’s position towards those countries. The
Cotonou Agreement has singled out two key services of interest to the European Union:
- maritime transport, which could guarantee the European Union’s firms unrestricted access to the
international maritime transport market of ACP countries and the same access as locals to ports,
infrastructure and auxiliary services, including facilities for loading and unloading; and
- information and communication technology.
Is the Commission targeting any particular sectors of importance to the Pacific Islands?
Perhaps the most explosive request that the Commission made of PNG and the Solomon Islands (among many
other countries) is to remove all restrictions on foreign ownership of land. The request to PNG reads:
Papua New Guinea specifies under [market access] that “foreign nationals and foreign-owned
companies may not purchase land, but may lease from government or land-holding groups through
the Department of Lands”. EC Request: Eliminate this restriction.
Despite this, a Commission representative vigorously denies that it would target land ownership in a Pacific EPA.
Does the European Commission have its eyes on any other essential services?
There are strong suspicions that it wants ACP countries to open up their water services and is preparing the
way through a new Water Facility. The Commission initially proposed a $1 billion water facility for ACP countries,
which it planned to take out of the European Development Fund; but there wasn’t enough so it was cut back to
E250 million, with possibly E250 million more later. This will provide loans for water projects, based on
competitive applications from ACP governments and regional development banks, that can be used as leverage
to secure more money from other lending facilities – preferably those that give foreign firms guarantees for their
investment and profits. These loans will be governed by confidential contracts, making it impossible for citizens
to monitor any conditions and guarantees. The target is Africa, but the Pacific can apply. One Pacific Island
Ambassador complained there was no prior consultation: ‘the EU just announces it, then tells people how good
it is for them.’
Is it realistic to think that ACP States could gain access for their services workers under an EPA?
Caribbean and Pacific countries want the Commission to ease restrictions on their nationals going to Europe
temporarily to work in semi-skilled or unskilled service jobs, such as hotels or security. Their remittances would
help to compensate for the loss of tariff revenue under an Economic Partnership Agreement and the workers
could use their new skills to build the country’s services when they return home. This might include a quota, but
also require less onerous visa procedures, commitment to skill development and training and mutual recognition
of qualifications. Some suggest that Article 41 of Cotonou supports this idea. But it only promises to ‘give
sympathetic consideration’ to the ACP’s priorities in the GATS negotiations. In relation to an Economic Partnership
Agreement, Cotonou just says the European Union will support ACP efforts to strengthen their capacity to
supply services, especially labour, business, distribution, finance, tourism, culture, construction and related
engineering services, and by doing so increase their trade in services.
32
A People’s Guide To The Pacific’s Economic Partnership Agreement