Africa, Development & Aid, Economy & Trade, Europe, Food and Agriculture, Headlines, Health, Poverty & SDGs, Trade & Investment, Trade and poverty: Facts beyond theory

TRADE-AFRICA: EU Embarks on EPA Charm Offensive

David Cronin

BRUSSELS, Apr 18 2008 (IPS) - After attracting a steady flow of criticism for its handling of trade talks with Africa, the European Commission has gone on something of a charm offensive lately.

It has, for example, launched a website dedicated to highlighting any favourable comments that are made about the economic partnership agreements (EPAs) it is negotiating with some of the world’s poorest countries.

This follows the realisation by Brussels officials that the way EPAs have been attacked by anti-poverty campaigners, employers, farmers and many governments in Africa has sullied the Commission’s reputation. One official has gone so far as to describe the talks as a ‘‘public relations disaster’’ for the Commission.

Efforts to project a more positive image appeared to bear some fruit yesterday when Peter Mandelson, the European Union commissioner for trade, hosted a seminar on the EPAs. Although it was jointly organised with the European Parliament, many of whose members have previously been scathing towards Mandelson, he was given a comparatively easy ride.

However, this may have been largely due to a stroke of luck.

The African representatives who addressed the meeting hailed from Mozambique and the Ivory Coast, both of which concluded EPAs before the December 2007 deadline on which the Commission had insisted.


Both participants refuted claims that regional integration in Africa had been harmed by the terms of the accords that were rejected by many of their neighbours.

Helmuth Markov, chairperson of the European Parliament’s international trade committee, said that governments which have been opposed to the suggested EPAs chose not to take part. ‘‘We invited a lot of people,’’ he told IPS.

While 78 African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) countries had been involved in the trade talks, so far EPAs have been reached with just 35 of them. With the exception of the EPAs with 15 states in the Caribbean, all of the deals have been labelled as interim and are mainly confined to trade in goods.

Mandelson yesterday defended efforts being made by the Commission to continue negotiations on the EPAs with a view to extending their scope so that they cover the liberalisation of services, as well as rules on competition and investment.

One common ‘‘misunderstanding’’, he said, is that Europe is ‘‘trying to impose our rules on developing countries.

‘‘With competition, the objective is not to make it easier for our companies to compete in overseas markets,’’ he argued. ‘‘Rather, it is to allow the ACP to adopt rules that prevent companies from forming cartels; and to ensure that markets operate on a fair basis.’’

Following consultations with ACP governments, the Commission has drawn up a list of what it hopes to achieve with each region involved in the EPA talks.

For seven countries belonging to the Southern African Development Community (Angola, Botswana, Lesotho, Mozambique, Namibia, Swaziland, Tanzania), the aim is to conclude a deal on services liberalisation, competition and public procurement within the next three years.

Uncertainty surrounds whether such deal would also extend to South Africa, as it already has a free trade agreement with the EU.

For the East African Community (Kenya, Uganda, Tanzania, Rwanda and Burundi), the aim is to conclude a deal relating to services, food safety, competition, investment and intellectual property. No deadline has yet been set.

For other Eastern and Southern African countries, the Commission is eyeing a deal relating to the rules of origin (which deal with the use of imported ingredients in the manufacturing of goods or processing of food), services, competition, intellectual property and agricultural trade.

And for both West and Central Africa, the aim is to conclude deals on services, competition, investment, public procurement and intellectual property by the end of this year.

While the Commission tries to present the EPAs in a positive light, the negotiations are still being analysed in minute detail by campaigning organisations.

The International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH) has recently urged the Commission to ensure that rigorous assessments of the impact of trade agreements are carried out. The FIDH is a global network of human rights organisations.

So-called sustainability impact assessments have been undertaken on the EPAs but, according to the FIDH, these have been inadequate. There is no mechanism, the group says, to guarantee that issues raised by the studies are taken into account during the talks.

FIDH believes that a wider assessment would be preferable and that particular emphasis should be given to the question of whether the EU would be honouring international human rights commitments during negotiations.

Citing estimates that the elimination of import duties demanded by the EU during the EPAs could reduce the revenues of Angola, the Seychelles and the Democratic Republic of Congo by almost 40 percent, FIDH has expressed fear that the consequent increase in poverty could imperil the realisation of rights enshrined in international law.

Such rights include proper access to food, water, healthcare, employment and the chance to have a decent standard of living.

Grégoire Thery, an FIDH spokesperson, said that conducting human rights assessments would not be a ‘‘very difficult task’’. But it would be ‘‘extremely important’’, he added, that a body independent of EU institutions conducts these assessments.

 
Republish | | Print |


the public speaking playbook pdf