Latest update April 27th, 2026 12:30 AM
Latest News
- Chevron shareholder faces questions on lopsided oil contract, lack of full liability coverage in Guyana
- Gas-to-Energy contractor history riddled with FBI raids, severed banking ties and shell companies
- Chinese engineer arrested for hours-long blackout
- Oil prices increase after Iran doubles down on Strait of Hormuz closure
- Glenn Lall sounds alarm on Exxon’s ‘87.5% grab’
The EPA review
After the Economic Partnership Agreement had been initialled by our negotiators at the end of last year, President Jagdeo announced forthrightly 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.”
To those who now claim that the President has not been consistent, the record is there for them to peruse. Just as consistently, the President had declared that Guyana would affix its signature to the agreement only after it had conducted wide-ranging “consultations” with the relevant stakeholders. We believe that these consultations should be conducted promptly, in a very public manner, and that it is the responsibility of the stakeholders to prepare themselves appropriately for the exercise. We are all involved.
In yesterday’s edition, we reported that former Chief Negotiator for Caricom (and former Secretary-General of the Commonwealth) Sir Shridath Ramphal declared in the most unequivocal terms that Caricom should pull out of the ill-negotiated EPA. To the critics who claim that we would be seen as unreliable trade partners, Sir Ramphal said flatly, “The Europeans do it all the time: they initial, they pause, they review, they come back, they regroup, they re-argue.
What has happened to us that we have lost the capacity to manoeuvre?” And this is the premise that is implicit in President Jagdeo’s stand to sign after consultations.
Echoing the President, the top ex-diplomat further opined that the Caribbean governments had “caved in” to European pressure, and in doing so had broken ranks with most of the members of the ACP group that had been in solidarity with them over the last several decades. Only about twenty other members of the ACP have signed EPA’s with the EU, and most of these have been interim agreements to satisfy WTO rules.
What was our rush? Finally, Sir Ramphal pointed out the dangers posed by the present EPA: since even the most enthusiastic backer of the EPA concedes that it was the “best of a bad deal”, they should realise that just as the Cotonou Agreement had to be abrogated because its benefits were not available to other nations, in the same vein the “bad” terms of the present EPA will have to be available to every other nation that the bloc may wish to trade with in the future.
Support for renegotiating our EPA is widespread. At the beginning of this month, Paul Collier, professor of economics at Oxford University and director of the Centre for the Study of African Economies there, made the same recommendation for Africa, the Caribbean and the rest of the ACP. Collier suggests that these countries in particular needed two things from a trade deal that they can’t do unilaterally: firstly a “commitment to technology,” and secondly for improved market access to Europe.
For the first, the EPA would signal that the region is locking its policies in place, but it ought not to commit to liberalise overnight: “Like other regions, it should plan a gradual transition of perhaps two decades, during which firms could adjust production and governments could adjust revenues. The European Commission has plenty of experience with such gradual adjustments, and so agreeing to a reasonable timescale should be within the zone of possible agreement.
Moreover, such an opening of ACPs need not be discriminatory. The decision to set lower tariffs on goods imported from Europe than on those imported from elsewhere — as is currently envisioned — will unavoidably lead to trade diversion. The obvious way of avoiding this is for (them) to apply most-favoured-nation (MFN) treatment to (their) liberalisation, whether or not the EU suggests this. They should therefore negotiate EPAs with this additional liberalisation in mind. In fact, EPA-plus-MFN would also be in Europe’s long-term interest.”
Dealing specifically with our region, Collier concludes, “Cariforum/EU EPA is not only complex, on first reading, but since CARICOM was unable to institutionalise its initial attempt to create an integrated economic region, the present agreement with EU appears to me as a provisional EPA — subject to certain memorandums of agreement on future dealings or whatnots!”
In our estimation, the EPA should be signed as no more than a provisional one, as a compromise gesture.
Share this:
Discover more from Kaieteur News
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.