REPA Booklet - Stop Epa

Forum can’t disband it. However, the Ambassadors have told the COMESA Secretariat that they will decide
what is discussed in the Task Force in the future.
“Access to land as
well as other
natural resources
and the inputs for
production are far
more important
than access to
markets. Africa
must not
compromise on this
during trade
negotiations.”
[Tetteh Hormeku,
TWN-Africa, 2003]
How do the Regional and Brussels processes relate to the nation state level?
With difficulty. Most Eastern and Southern Africa governments lack the technical and financial capacity to take
part in the negotiations. Their Brussels Ambassadors have little experience with trade negotiations. Their
private sector has some involvement, but most ‘civil society’, media and Members of Parliament at the national
level remain on the periphery.
Is the COMESA Secretariat up with the play and accountable to nation states?
Observers say the Secretariat doesn’t have the capacity to deal with the complexity of the negotiations. They
rely on the Commission for funding, which is slow coming through. The Chief Technical Advisor, who was meant
to assist with the negotiations, still hadn’t been appointed in October 2004. The Secretariat’s leadership has
warned countries not to rush into signing any agreements, saying sovereign States have the right to decide
whether the region is ready to negotiate. However the Secretariat itself is being accused of making decisions in
place of the national governments, and creating the equivalent of the invitation-only ‘Green Rooms’ that ACP
governments have strongly criticised at the WTO.
How is the ESA grouping holding together so far?
Not well. Some governments, like Mauritius, have advised caution, saying the poor will bear the burden of bad
decisions. They are stressing the need to build on regional integration at a South-South level (recognised in
Article 37.3 of Cotonou) as the basis for ‘smooth and gradual integration into the global economy’, and they say
this should be the litmus test of whether Economic Partnership Agreements are genuinely about development.
But some Eastern and Southern Africa Members have already broken ranks and made premature commitments
that will be hard to escape from.
“The costs of halfheartedly
concluded
agreements will be
disproportionately
born by the ACP
countries concerned.”
(ECDPM Discussion
paper, 2004)
What’s an example of a bad premature decision?
Coastal and island states ignored warnings to move carefully on fisheries, given the Europeans’ record of overfishing
their own waters. At a Dedicated Session on Fisheries in October 2004 they agreed to a compromise on
Marine Fisheries Rules of Origin. This now forms the basis of a Marine Fisheries Framework Agreement for
Eastern and Southern Africa countries that want to negotiate a national Fisheries Framework Agreement.
Governments with interests in inland fisheries were still working on their studies, so those fisheries have not
been included in the framework. There is a flow on risk that these Rules of Origin and the Framework
Agreement could set a precedent for discussions in other regions, including the Pacific.
What roles are the ‘non-state actors’ playing?
Some Eastern and Southern Africa governments are only involving the private sector. Others have been
including key advisers from the NGOs on their negotiation teams, and the Southern and Eastern African Trade,
Information and Negotiations Institute (SEATINI) was asked by COMESA to be part of the Regional Negotiating
Forum. SEATINI’s then Director Yash Tandon offered the following reflections in June 2004:
Europe has taken advantage of the evolving global trade “regime change” to alter the terms of
engagement between itself and the ACP countries. There is not a single country in Africa that would
want to negotiate an EPA under Cotonou. They are forced to do so on the one hand by the evolving
and seemingly unstoppable stampede to liberalise trade regimes, and on the other by the European
Union that is seeking to end preferences to their former colonies to meet the changing needs of
Europe …
COMESA and the 16 countries should find ways in which they can skirt around the WTO regime
and the limitation placed by the Doha waiver which ends non-reciprocity on 31 December 2007.
They need to carry out proper studies on a number of issues that are crying out for clarification and
analysis. The fact of the matter is that nobody among the ACP countries really knows what the future
holds for them in relation to Europe. They are swimming like dead fish with the powerful current set
in motion by the EU and the so-called gravitational pull of globalisation.
40
A People’s Guide To The Pacific’s Economic Partnership Agreement