The Economic Partnership Agreement

May 15, 2008 Editorial

Over the last weekend, the Council for Trade and Economic Development (COTED) of CARICOM held its 26th Special Meeting in Antigua and Barbuda. After its deliberations it made the bold announcement that, “The Economic Partnership Agreement (EPA) between the European Commission and the Caribbean states will be signed in July.” Amazingly, in view of the dissent that the EPA has precipitated in the region, the statement only stressed that, “the EPA deal provides wide access throughout the European Union for goods from member states of CARIFORUM.”

We had hoped that our government would have offered some comment on this proclamation in view of the firm position taken by President Jagdeo when the agreement was first announced at the end of last year. The president declared in no uncertain terms that “the EPA was a well thought-out ploy by Europe to dismantle the solidarity of the ACP (African Caribbean Pacific Group of countries) by effectively dividing the ACP into six negotiating theatres – that is six EPAs – and playing one off against the other, which they did very effectively.”

Even though the EU may deny it, the President concluded, the signing was a situation the region had been forced into. The EPA replaces the Cotonou Agreement that expired on December 31, 2007 and which had codified specified prices for sugar from the ACP countries into the EU.

The President’s frank comments had precipitated wide praise from a range of economic experts and other interested parties in the region – such as the banana producers. Spearheaded by Professors Norman Girvan, Havelock Brewster, and Clive Thomas, they pointed out that “the Caribbean public was not kept fully abreast of the potential implications of the EPA for the course of the region’s economic relations, not only with Europe, but with all other trading partners as it may become a blueprint for future trade negotiations”. They called for “a full and public review of the EPA in order that all its aspects are explained and understood and relevant objections taken into account”.

In January of this year, COTED accepted that there would be an independent review of EPA negotiations and that the outcome will be considered by a Reflections Group comprising senior officials of member states, CARICOM and the Organization of Eastern Caribbean States (OECS) Secretariats, the Caribbean Regional Negotiating Machinery and stakeholders from across the community. Has this review been done? What did they recommend?

Our government had also announced in January that it would “initiate public dialogue and assessment” with relevant stakeholders because the public had had very little or no say at all in the formulation of the agreement. We do not recall any “public dialogue” on this agreement which, from what our experts are assuring us, will have far reaching effects on our trading patterns and opportunities for the next century. The Secretary General of CARICOM had pointed out that “bilateral trade and economic arrangements, including those which are now under consideration, have significant implications not only for the development of the economies of individual member states but also for the development of the Caribbean Single Market and Economy (CSME)”. Several officials stressed that if the EPA were to be signed, it should not conflict with provisions of the revised CARICOM Treaty of Chaguaramas.

Head of the Caribbean Regional Negotiating Machinery (CRNM), Richard Bernal, has consistently defended the agreement that he and his team negotiated. Most recently he has pointed out to critics that “the Caribbean, unlike its African partners in the ACP, had no cushion against open competition for the 450 million market (in the European Union).” He was referring to the Everything But Arms (EBA) that Europe offered to the African nations as bait for them to abandon the joint negotiating position of the ACP. Critics are unconvinced and point to studies that show the EPA’s Europe’s trade to CARIFORUM will expand at a rate far surpassing that of non-European nations.

The advantages offered to the EU through lower tariffs, etc, will act to dampen competition from other sources and thus punish our consumers.

We insist that the government must open up a wide discussion on the EPA before any signing in July.