REPA Booklet - Stop Epa

$ We strongly support the stand of ACP member states at the WTO to exclude the ‘Singapore issues’
(trade facilitation, competition, government procurement, foreign investment) and insist that these
issues be excluded from the EPA negotiations.
$ Governments must recognise that the EPA is part of wider trade liberalisation processes and what is
agreed to with the EU may have to be offered to other countries such as major trading partners like
Australia and New Zealand with even more damaging effects. The removal of special treatment or
preferential clauses in trade agreements will be detrimental for Pacific countries because of economies
of scale.
$ Because of ‘major adjustment’ and projected loss of tariff revenue under these new WTO-compatible
trade agreements, there is the very real danger that VAT and other taxes that hurt consumers will be
increased to recoup losses in government revenue, and resources for social sectors may be
diverted or reduced. This will mean further deterioration in the quality of public health, water, education
and agricultural services due to cost cutting and downsizing measures.
$ Governments should resist the use of aid or development assistance by the EU as a pre-condition/
bribe to make free trade commitments in the EPA. The EU must take responsibility to match or
increase its aid commitments to the Pacific without trying to force Pacific states to make damaging
commitments on trade issues, many of which are being rejected within the WTO itself.
$ The EPA explicitly promotes privatization (Article 21 of Cotonou). For the benefit of ordinary people
and the poor, government should respect and protect the rights of people to basic services, and that
these remain the responsibility of the State. The cost of basic public services should be kept at
affordable levels for our citizens, and not a ‘commodity’ that brings in huge profits for shareholders.
$ The EU promotes a structural adjustment model as a means for alleviating poverty. This model has
not been thoroughly researched and there is no evidence provided by the EU to prove that this
model has been successful in other parts of the world. In effect it undermines vulnerable communities
with little or no consideration of their lifestyles, needs and basic principles upon which communities
are established.
$ We call for the protection of Intellectual Property Rights including traditional medicines and culture of
indigenous peoples in the EPA negotiations, and reject the WTO-compatible approach to IPR.
$ We call for the assured protection of indigenous land rights. In the EPA negotiations the EU may
demand that communal ownership of land gives way to private ownership that satisfy the requirements
of investors. The EU has already asked PNG and the Solomon Islands to remove their communal
land ownership laws that don’t allow foreigners to own land.
$ The Sovereign right of government to decide policy in the interest of their peoples should not be
undermined by trade rules neither should these undermine the democratic rights of citizens to
determine their own development.
Signed:
The Ecumenical Center for Research, Education and Advocacy, Fiji Women’s Crisis Centre, Fiji Nursing
Association (FNA), Fijian Teachers Association, Fiji Teachers Union, National Council of Women Fiji, Consumer
Council of Fiji, Pacific Conference of Churches, World Council of Churches – Office in the Pacific, Save the
Children Fund Fiji, Citizens Constitutional Forum, Live and Learn Fiji, Pacific Foundation for the Advancement
of Women, Fiji Forum of Non-State Actors, Council of Pacific Education, Pacific Concerns Resource Centre,
Pacific Island Association of NGOs, Pacific Network on Globalisation.
What was the official response to this statement?
The Pacific Islands governments ignored it publicly, although some ‘noted’ it privately. The European Commission
was most unhappy, especially with the statement about the threat to land rights (see section 14). It must also be
noted that the private sector bodies whose names were associated with the statement by implication through
Fonsa were not pleased, either.
A People’s Guide To The Pacific’s Economic Partnership Agreement 73