REPA Booklet - Stop Epa

More documents

Recommendations

Info

36 Very Civil Society How are the Pacific governments responding to the requirement to consult non-State actors? That varies. Some national based NGOs who work directly on these issues say they have no knowledge of any consultations; others say there is selective engagement with reasonably informed groups in their countries. Fiji has the most organised structure and process. The Chief Executive of Foreign Affairs (who chairs the Regional Negotiating Team and is on the Trade Experts Advisory Group) has stressed the importance of dialogue with the Forum of Non-State Actors (Fonsa) that groups together NGOs, unions, consumer groups and private sector organisations. “ACP member states are encouraged to consider that the push for trade liberalisation undermines the very principles of human rights, democracy and good governance which are considered as “essential” and “fundamental elements” of the Cotonou Agreement.” (Fonsa, 2002) How is the Fiji government organising that dialogue? It has established a structure and process that mirrors the regional arrangements and provides for nongovernment participation at various levels: - a Focus Trade Development Committee of officials oversees policy and strategy. - an extended Trade Development Committee, which includes the private sector and other ‘non-State actors’, receives reports. - six sectoral working groups cover market access, trade-related issues, services, agriculture and fisheries, development cooperation and legal. Each group is chaired by the Chief Executive of the relevant ministry. Members can include non-government ‘stakeholders’, although that depends on the chair. - cells are being developed in ministries other than Foreign Affairs and External Trade to build the capacity and knowledge base within government to contribute to and lead on particular issues. The list includes the Ministry of Women’s Affairs. - briefings have been held for the Foreign Affairs Committee of Parliament, several of whom sit on sector working groups and are members of the ACP/EU Joint Parliamentary Assembly. - a parallel ‘good neighbour’ policy aims to promote dialogue between the Fiji government and other Islands and encourage a frank exchange of views about Fiji and the Forum. - the National Consultation Forum is formally resourced by the Forum Secretariat, but the Fiji government sets the agenda and has circulated some of its own strategy papers for discussion in advance of making decisions. How does this work in practice? Even the Fiji government faces serious capacity problems. The Working Groups met twice before the formal launch of negotiations in September 2004, but they had no clear sense of direction. They did not meet again in 2004, even though negotiations were underway. The Trade Ministry is very stretched; its officials have to sit on all the working groups and chair two of them. Developing cells in other ministries to share the load takes time, especially with high staff turnover. Some Chief Executives of ministries are more open to non-government involvement in working groups than others, and the private sector, unions and NGOs have limited understanding of the technical issues to allow them to participate effectively. The more informed Suva-based regional NGOs such as Pacific Concerns Resource Centre (PCRC) and Pacific Network on Globalisation (PANG) are not part of the national consultations. How does the National Consultation Forum work in Fiji? The Cotonou consultations with ‘non-State actors’ are organised through Fonsa – the Forum of Non-State Actors that was formed in 2001. Fonsa produced a moderate intervention at the time of the ACP-EU Summit in 2002, which was politely ignored. For historical reasons, its Secretariat is based with the National Council of Women. Some groups and officials feel that Fonsa acts as a gatekeeper and doesn’t always pass on information and invitations. It also tends to focus more on the European Development Fund than on the trade negotiations, partly because most NGO members lack the necessary expertise. Fonsa’s private sector participants are most active in the government working groups and on Fonsa’s executive – something the European Commission’s representative thought was not a bad thing ‘because their interests are primarily affected’ (a revealing insight for the unions and social sectors). Those private sector representatives are themselves bemused by the ‘divisive and unconstructive’ role of more critical NGOs, such as the ECREA, who challenge the European Union’s neoliberal agenda. 70 A People’s Guide To The Pacific’s Economic Partnership Agreement
“It is not true that ACP countries ‘requested’ the EPA: ‘A cow does not choose to go willingly to the abattoir.” (Alhaji Hassan Somunu, Secretary General of the Organisation of African Trade Union Unity, 2004) Isn’t that inevitable when contesting sectors are grouped together as ‘non-State actors’? At the EC Economic and Social Committee (ECOSOC) seminar held in Fiji in October 2004 a speaker from ECREA likened it to putting together lions and fleas, tigers and mice, cats and dogs, giraffes and elephants, snakes and pigeons and expecting them to work together effectively. The business sector won’t see eye to eye with some NGOs, big NGOs will walk over the smaller ones, trade unions will resent being equated with NGOs, and women’s groups will cry ‘foul’ when one group gets more than another. Their perspectives and priorities are so different that it seems calculated to fail. There was one positive outcome – each group had the possibility of becoming better acquainted with the needs and viewpoint of the other. What role are the trade unions playing? There is deep frustration among the unions with the consultation process and the impotence of Article 50 of the Cotonou Agreement in which Pacific Islands government affirm their commitment to the ILO’s Core Labour Standards. Governments in many of the Islands are reluctant to involve the trade unions actively in the process and not one of them is actively promoting the ILO Core Standards. While the trade unions resent being lumped in with NGOs they also lack the capacity to take the initiative themselves. In 2004 the South Pacific Council of Trade Unions resolved ‘with the assistance from the CTU and NZCTU to seeking funding for and conducting seminars on trade in each country to build the capacity for engagement with governments, NSAs and the Pacific Island Forum Secretariat’. Even if that eventuates, the negotiations will be advanced before the trade unions are able to engage effectively. Is it possible to challenge the European Union directly about its agenda for the Pacific? Every 6 months ACP-wide consultations with regional NGOs are held in Brussels. But that is more an information gathering exercise than an opportunity to debate the European Union’s ‘development’ agenda. Direct challenges to the Commission come primarily from the Brussels-based coalition of NGOs that was formed to oppose the Economic Partnership Agreements. Occasionally there are discussions outside the EPA process - such as the ECOSOC regional seminar in Fiji in October 2004. But that was a highly structured programme ‘full’ of talking heads presenting the European position. There was no room to challenge the Commission’s right to impose its ‘development’ model on the Pacific. The Commission, in turn, expressed disappointment that the Fiji government didn’t send any representatives to the meeting. Wasn’t there any challenge to the Commission during the Economic and Social Committee seminar? Yes. The following exchange between the Brussels-based Commission official (Mr Dihm) who works on the Pacific Economic Partnership Agreement and the representative from ECREA injected a much-needed critical perspective: ECREA: “If someone wants to rob your house and they find the house protected by a few fierce dogs, they go away and get some juicy pieces of meat and throw them over the fence. While the dogs are busy with the meat, the robbers climb over the fence and rob the house.” The image caught on and many speakers made use of it. After Mr Dihm’s glowing presentation about Cotonou, ECREA’s story was repeated. He was somewhat upset and replied: “ We don’t want to rob your house. But we think your house is falling down. !!**!! Ahem! Ahem! I mean your governments are telling us that your house is falling down and parts of it are on fire and so we are coming to help you restore your house and look after it.” It was too late. A number of speakers took up the phrase “we think your house is falling down” and pursued the implications. What was the outcome of the Economic and Social Committee meeting? The Declaration was exceedingly moderate. It stressed the need for more information, expressed concern at the limited consultation to date, called for more resources and emphasis on social dialogue, and hoped for better from the mid-term review of the Cotonou Agreement. It welcomed Economic Partnership Agreement negotiations, provided the special situation of small Pacific Island states was taken into account and trade liberalisation was not treated as an end in itself - but as a means to foster development, establish regional markets and contribute to poverty eradication. The Commission could have written it itself! A People’s Guide To The Pacific’s Economic Partnership Agreement 71
Page 1 and 2:
A PEOPLE’S GUIDE TO THE PACIFIC
Page 3 and 4:
Foreword One of the callings of the
Page 5 and 6:
Table of Contents Foreword Preface
Page 7 and 8:
Abbreviations ACP African, Caribbea
Page 9 and 10:
Spirituality, family life, traditio
Page 11 and 12:
The description of reciprocal trade
Page 13 and 14:
2 The Lomé Convention Did the same
Page 15 and 16:
3 African, Caribbean & Pacific Soli
Page 17 and 18:
5 Europe’s New Plan for the ACP W
Page 19 and 20: 6 Clearing a Path for Free Trade Wh
Page 21 and 22: 8 The European Union’s Base Line
Page 23 and 24: 9 The ACP on the Back Foot When and
Page 25 and 26: compromise ‘good governance’ wa
Page 27 and 28: Is there another way of interpretin
Page 29 and 30: That sounds pretty watertight. It i
Page 31 and 32: 14 Capturing the ACP’S Services W
Page 33 and 34: 15 ‘New Issues’ through the Bac
Page 35 and 36: 17 Phase 1 Negotiations It sounds l
Page 37 and 38: 18 Unequal Partnership In Practice
Page 39 and 40: 19 Learning from Others’ Experien
Page 41 and 42: 20 Europe’s Quest for Legitimacy
Page 43 and 44: PART TWO The Pacific’s Regional E
Page 45 and 46: 21 The Pacific Negotiating Context
Page 47 and 48: 22 The Domino Effect of a Pacific E
Page 49 and 50: to establish probable coverage, con
Page 51 and 52: unskilled services workers into the
Page 53 and 54: sector acting ‘in their personal
Page 55 and 56: Is the Commission prepared to come
Page 57 and 58: 28 (No) Goods What might a Pacific
Page 59 and 60: will probably approve this, especia
Page 61 and 62: PART FOUR of Origin that have to be
Page 63 and 64: 32 Tourism What kind of tourism do
Page 65 and 66: contracts. They are usually paid th
Page 67 and 68: PART THREE Another Way Forward KEY
Page 69: “Studies ‘confirm the absence o
Page 73 and 74: $ We strongly support the stand of
Page 75 and 76: “The power of the churches’ spi
Page 77 and 78: Appendix I: Regional Pacific ACP Ne
Page 79 and 80: Appendix III: Pacific Island Forum
Page 81 and 82: Appendix VI: Selected References Ac
Page 83 and 84: Nalunga, Jane, ‘Eastern and South
Page 85: A People’s Guide To The Pacific
show all

REPA Booklet - Stop Epa

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?