Evidence compelling Caribbean review of EU agreement

Jul 20, 2008 Features / Columnists, Ronald Sanders

---

By Sir Ronald Sanders

It seems that Caribbean countries can now forget any idea of Britain being helpful to them in any attempt to review or re-negotiate aspects of the Economic Partnership Agreement (EPA) between the European Union (EU) and Cariforum countries initialled last December.

Foreign Ministers of Cariforum countries, who travelled to London for a two-day meeting of the UK-Caribbean forum on 15-16 July, found a communiqué already written mostly by the British but with input from some Caribbean High Commissioners.

The draft was a one-sided affair which took no cognizance of the serious disagreements over the EPA that now exist in both the Caribbean and the EU.  Reading it, anyone would be forgiven for believing that the EU had given the Caribbean everything, asking nothing in return.  Indeed, it read as if the EPA was the Caribbean’s salvation.

This is how it read in part: “Ministers welcomed the conclusion of the EU-Cariforum EPA and looked forward to its signature in Bridgetown”.  It continued:  “Services exports to EU markets had also been facilitated by the Agreement so that since 1 January 2008, there is better access for Caribbean professionals to sell services as Contractual Service Suppliers and as Independent Professionals or self employed persons, so that regional tourism professionals, chefs, models and entertainers now have guaranteed access to the EU.”
Fortunately, those words did not stand. The section on services was eliminated and instead of “welcoming” the “conclusion” of the EPA, Ministers “noted” that several CARICOM countries “have completed their internal consultations” and instead of “looked forward to its signature”, Ministers “expressed a readiness to sign with the EU”, but they also had to note that “Guyana would be undertaking national consultations to review aspects of the initialled EPA before taking a decision on signing”, and that “the newly elected Government of Grenada would also be undertaking a review of the Agreement”.   It was left to the UK alone to “encourage timely signing and implementation of the EPA”.

While a gloss of success was put on the outcome of the meeting, it was evident that Caribbean ministers were not altogether happy with the meeting.  Unusually, the Caribbean co-chair of the meeting, Antigua and Barbuda’s Prime Minister Baldwin Spencer, in his closing remarks drew attention to the fact that the two sides had “agreed to disagree on some issues”.

But the disagreements were not all over the EPA.  There appeared to be a remarkable insensitivity by British ministers over the consequences of the loss of a preferential market in the EU for Caribbean banana farmers.  When it was suggested the farmers would turn to the growing of marijuana as a means of survival, a British official short down the idea causing some Caribbean ministers to show some annoyance with the complete lack of understanding of the dire position of banana farmers.

But, the EPA remained the most worrying consequence of the UK-Caribbean forum communiqué.  While Guyana and Grenada have made their position clear – and it is to be hoped that the governments of the two countries will now try to mount a joint team to review the EPA and consider their options, rather than working alone – other Caribbean governments accepted UK language in the communiqué that is not helpful.

Much has been made by the EU of access to its markets for the Caribbean’s services sectors.  I and others have already pointed out that the authority for “the movement of natural persons” and therefore the right to grant or deny visas rests with individual EU countries not with the European Commission.  Therefore, references to this in the EPA are misleading. 

Serious though that restriction is, it is not the only problem related to services.  Professor Jane Kelsey of the School of Law at the University of Auckland has produced a report for the countries of the Pacific highlighting the one-sided nature of the EPA on services.  She points to: the surrendering of autonomy in policy making, the granting to the EU of measures not agreed in the global trade rules at the World Trade Organisation, the harmful effects on development, the onerous and costly obligations of implementing the EPA, and the dangers it poses to regional integration.

For instance, she says quite bluntly: “The EC has used the CARIFORUM EPA to secure ‘state of the art’ rules and commitments under Title II: Investment, Services and E-commerce1 that it hasn’t been able to achieve at the WTO. The EC is expected to use this to undermine their continued opposition to these issues at the WTO if it can get more ACP states to sign a similar agreement”.

Professor Kelsey told the Pacific countries that: “The level of sectoral commitments made by CARIFORUM states in the EPA exceeds the controversial benchmarks proposed by the EC in the GATS 2000 negotiations… “.  And, she warned them: “Comparable liberalisation commitments in the Pacific would have a massive impact on the nature, function and objectives of services and the right of governments to regulate them”.

Tellingly, she observes: “The EPA promises support for small and medium enterprises. Yet governments that make ‘national treatment’ commitments in Title II sign away the right to give small or infant enterprises the additional support they may need to survive once their markets are opened to Europe’s corporations. Only large-scale local firms will be competitive and the most successful of these may become targets for foreign takeovers”.

Caribbean governments initialled the EPA first while others waited.  The EU pushed the Caribbean, and it was clear from the outcome of the UK-Caribbean forum, that the agenda of some EU governments is to hold the Caribbean to signing a full EPA in the EU’s interest. 

But, it remains in the Caribbean’s interest to review and re-negotiate what is clearly harmful to Caribbean businesses and Caribbean autonomy.
The body of evidence justifying the review is compelling.

(The writer is a business consultant and former Caribbean diplomat)
Responses to: ronaldsanders29@ hotmail.com

---

---