Trades and Development Studies Centre

Report of a regional Conference on ACP-EU Negotiations on Economic
Partnership Agreements (EPAs)

Preparations for SADC and COMESA” held on
12-13 September 2002, at Sheraton, Harare

The workshop was organized by Trade and Development Studies (Trades) Centre, Friedrich Ebert Stiftung,

ACP Business Forum and Institute for Global Dialogue (IGO). The workshop was to prepare SADC/COMESA for oncoming ACP-EU trade negotiations starting on September 2002 and to continue for 6 years. The conference objectives were five fold naniely:

Comparison of EU and ACP/COMESA/SADC negotiating mandates/guidelines so as to identify areas of agreement and disagreement as negotiations start on 27 September 2002.

the institutional vehicle for negotiations,
the mandates/guidelines that remain vague and strategic interests,
the capacity gap and
role of NSA including immediate actions needed to backstop negotiations.

Cross-culling issues that emerged from the discussions include: the need to include a strong development dimension in EPAs taking into account the supply rigidities in ACP countries and that there are both costs and benefits to the process; the need for capacity building; the need for research organizations, ministries and academi9s to simplify trade issues for effective inputting by all stakeholders; and that in all the researches towards the negotiations, capacity permitting, local expertise should be preferred to foreigners.
The conference highlighted that ACP countries have failed to take advantage of Lome provisions partly because in the last twenty five years economies were mainly inward looking, and also because of the consistent decline in the prices of primary commodities. Therefore a new trade relationship udder EPAs has to address these issues.
Also noted was the fact that schemes such as EPAs and AGOA could be divisive and there is need for negotiators to bear that in mind as they negotiate, and as such there’ is greater need for pro activity on the part of all the stakeholders.
There is need to harmonize policies among member states. Rules of origin within SADC are more complex than those under COMESA, creating the impression that members are suspicious of trading with each other. In spite of this and other significant differences SADC and COMESA should focus on areas where they have similarities, and should work closely together, at least during the negotiations. The issue of overlapping membership between them also obviates the necessity for these regional groups to work together.
There was general consensus that the EU is not timely availing adequate funds to ACP countries for capacity building purposes. Thus even though allocation of funds to ACP countries as a whole and acceding EU members may differ in quantum, more funds under less onerous procedures should be availed to ACP members.
It was also noted that although the EU already has a mandate for EPA negotiations the ACP still has guidelines. A closer look at the ACP and EU negotiating mandates/guidelines reveal the differences and similarities in conception, content and components of EPA negotiations
There was general consensus among participants that negotiations under EPAs should assume a two tier format. This means that broader ACP level being tackled at the regional level.
Although there is need to ensure compatibility of EPAs with WTO, developing countries aspirations should not be limited by existing agreements such as the WTO. In fact existing agreements and provisions should be tailor-made to suit changing aspirations of the members rather than the opposite.
It was also highlighted that although there will be some positive effects from EPAs, the region should not expect the EPA negotiations to be the solution to all there problems. They should bear in mind that competitiveness of their economies is less addressed by trade policy (EPAs), but are addressed more by macroeconomic policies.
There is need for heavy investment in public-private sector dialogue under the Cotonou framework so as to effectively equip negotiators with information regarding the stakeholders' varied concerns. Successes in public-private sector dialogue should not remain
elusive as countries such’ as Barbados have proved to the contrary.
The group discussions reiterated the vision of SADC/COMESA people, that is, for policy makers and negotiators to always consult all the stakeholders in their diversity, when it comes to policy agreements that fundamentally transform the livelihoods of different social groups. In all these negotiations special emphasis should be placed on voicing the concerns of those marginalized groups among them.
From the group discussions it also emerged that the key issues that COMESA/SADC need to focus on in evolving negotiating guidelines/mandates include tariff reduction, market access, inclusion of a development dimension in EPA negotiations, advocating for Special and Differential Treatment, among others.
Since EPAs will bring with them increased adjustment costs and revenue losses for the ACP countries there is need for; provision of resources with flexible and rapid dispensing and accessing mechanisms, provision of assistance for fiscal restructuring in member states, and provision of support to ~educe structural rigidities.
From the discussion it also emerged that negotiators should ensure that within the EPAs debt is accorded a central role. This means that EPAs should be debt reducing in focus).
On the issue of the appropriate institutional vehicle for the negotiations of a COMESA/SADC-EU EPA, it was highlighted that a working group of representatives from SADC, COMESA and EAC be set up to spearhead cohesion among the groupings.
The conference identified the current state of affairs characterizing the relationship between policy makers and NSA to be unsustainable. Among the issues nosed are; the need for negotiators to be drawn from all the stakeholders and not just the Ministries. This will ensure that SADC/COMESA negotiators have more political support behind their voices.
Civil Society, private sector and governments strategic interests during the negotiations should reinforce each other.
The participants also identified key capacity and research gaps as well as short and long-term strategies to be used to get the most out of the negotiations.
The participants agreed that there is need for ACP countries to define their space within the globalization and multilateral framework. Rejection of EPAS is no option but they need to tailor EPAs towards their development needs. In the long run, other countries (namely China and Russia) that once opted out of the multilateral framework of WTO are now coming back seeking accession.

The organizers, welcomed all the participants to the workshop. They outlined the objectives of she workshop as seeking:

They noted that if the Lome experience is anything to go by, then there is a greater onus on SADC and COMESA to put in place a culture of working together to develop their economies and rid their nations of poverty. They also emphasized that the negotiations are going to be contentious and complex, but expressed hope that the results of negotiations should better inform decisions.

Emphasis was also placed on the need for the various SADC and COMESA countries to involve all stakeholders in trade issues, since the issues are not well understood (especially the nature of the agreements and modes of participation. They also emphasized that the future of SADC and COMESA countries does not lie in individual economies but in their collective approach to issues, hence the need to quickly move from an active to a pro.active mode.

He welcomed all the participants on behalf of the ACP business forum and thanked them for having made it to such an important meeting, as the meeting comes at an appropriate juncture just before the commencement of the trade negotiations in Brussels and as such forms a key component in ensuring that the region is adequately prepared.

The ACP business forum was officially launched in 1998 in Brussels. The objective of the forum is to ensure that the ACP private sector participates fully in the Cotonou framework; the business forum brings together the key private sector players in the entire ACP region. A board was also appointed to give direction and vision and to ensure that the ACP private sector is fully represented and help shape trade and economic relations with the EU To date one of the key achievements of the business forum has been our private/public sector dialogue pilot project. This project was launched by the business forum with a responsibility of first of mapping private sector associations that are in existence in the ACP countries and then documenting various case studies of private/ public sector dialogue. Three countries were reviewed namely Barbados, Botswana and Senegal. Based on the results of these case studies a best practice dialogue model has been developed which will now be tested in Fiji over the next few months. The pilot project will be going out to Fiji to help initiate public/private sector dialogue it is hoped that in the future lessons learnt from Fiji can be used in other parts of the ACP region to ensure that there exist strong forms of dialogue. As a business forum we recognize that for us to succeed we need partnerships. A strong partnership between the private/ public and civil society is key to any nation’s development. The forthcoming ACP-EU negotiations can only succeed if there is a meeting of minds of the key players in the individual countries...