Formal Presentation of
Dr. Aliyu Modibbo UMAR (Hon. Minister, Commerce and Industry, NIGERIA) On behalf of all ACP Ministers at the EU-ACP ministerial meeting in Bonn, 13th March 2007 TIMELINE FOR SUCCESSFUL CONCLUSION OF THE EPA NEGOTIATIONS 1. The EPA negotiation process which started in September 2002, is billed to be concluded on 31st December 2007, while the Agreement itself is expected to become effective 1st January 2008 as a framework for trade and economic cooperation between the various ACP regions and the European Union. 2. In view of the expected all-embracing impact of EPA on the ACP population, extra efforts and care must be brought to bear to ensure that avoidable weaknesses and pitfalls are obviated in the agreement. We believe we still have legitimate fears and concerns that drive us to be more careful, we do not sacrifice the livelihoods of our people and their future on the alter of the quest to conclude agreements without properly addressing all the hiccups and impediments they potentially pose to our economies that are still fragile. We must first ensure there is a roadmap and adequate guarantee that glaringly connects the EPAs with the Millennium Development Goals which tally with the objectives of the EPA. In this regard, we must begin to ask ourselves, are we really convinced that all the ACP regions are fully ready to conclude the EPAs within the timeline stipulated in Article 37.1 of the Cotonou Agreement? Can we, within the short period left, be able to conclude all the tasks and challenges facing us in the negotiations? Can we adequately address all the hiccups and potential impediments to the successful implementation of the EPA by end of 2007? Should we not take informed cue from the pitfalls in which the developing countries, including the ACP countries found themselves after the conclusions of the Uruguay Round Agreements? Should we not take extra care to ensure we sign an EPA that will stand the test of time – an EPA agreement that would hopefully facilitate the needed development and poverty reduction of ACP members? We believe that no efforts should be spared at ensuring that we come out with a good and workable EPA. 3. Article 37.4 of the Cotonou Agreement provides for the parties in the EPA to “regularly review the progress of preparations and negotiations, and to, in 2006, carry out a comprehensive review of the arrangements for all countries to ensure that no further time is needed for preparation and conclusion of the negotiations.” The reviews had been carried out in many of the ACP regions with the discovery that not only many essential tasks were still outstanding for the regions, but that there were still many issues yet-to-be resolved before the conclusion of a good Agreement. 4. The Impact Assessment Studies which ought to provide the compass or direction for the navigation of the negotiations are in many regions not yet completed, and those that have been completed through the EU‟s funding have been rejected by the EU itself. At the last meeting in Brussels (1 st March 2007), Commissioner Louis Michelle was short of referring to these studies as „nonsense‟. If this is the case, then upon what scientific basis is the ACP to negotiate EPAs? How then are the regions expected to conclude an agreement that would address their socio-economic problems? Should we at this time be ferociously jumping in a blindfolded manner into the sacrosanct conclusion of the EPAs or looking for the provision of another scientific instrument that would provide a guide to development and poverty reduction in line with the professed objectives of the EPA?
5. Most of the regions are not even certain if the notorious “Singapore issues” of „Investment‟, „Competition‟ and „Government Procurement‟ have been accepted in the EPA negotiations. From all indications, they are still being requested by the EU for inclusion in the negotiations as instrument for development. Many countries of the ACP region especially ECOWAS region do not presently have any regional framework on these items and are therefore making efforts to have a practicable framework on them. They would no doubt want to have regional policy that would guide their negotiations on these issues if they deem these imperative and desired. And of course, we are also aware it took some big regions that have such frameworks some time to experiment and practice them before adopting them into their global frameworks preparatory to negotiations. 6. Accepted, that a deadline of 31st December 2007 was envisaged by Article 37.1 of the Cotonou Agreement. However, it was also the understanding of the parties that the Doha Development Agenda would be concluded by 1 st January 2005, that is, three years before the conclusion of the EPA. It was also the understanding of parties that the WTO provisions would be used as guidelines for the EPA negotiations. The failure of the WTO members to conclude the Doha Development Agenda as scheduled by January 2005 has cast some doubt on whether the EPA would be WTO compatible if the Doha Round and WTO negotiations which was meant to address development concerns of the developing countries is not concluded. The obvious implication of this is that EPAs without the conclusion of the Doha Development Round may be based on Article XXIV of GATT which makes EPAs free trade in outlook and perhaps, in practice. To this end, we are concerned that the ACP continuing with the EPA negotiations without recourse to the outcome of Doha Round would amount to shooting herself on the foot. 7. On the political plain, it should be noted that many ACP countries, especially in the ECOWAS region, are currently involved in election activities. EPA requires full concentration, and for such countries, like Nigeria, political transition is taking maximum concentration that appears to have overtaken every other activity. Our concern here is that without adequate attention and a dedicated environment, we may not be producing an EPA that sees every pothole and seeks to address the needs of our people. More so, in this critical moment, any agreement signed eventually, may be subject to nullification by the in-coming governments which may probably not see to the ratification of such agreement as its priority. 8. In conclusion, we should begin to see the practical wisdom in the pronouncements of the UK Parliament, the French Parliament, and most recently, the European Union Parliament in their declarations which at different times assert and call on the EC not to put undue pressure on the ACPs but to seek ways of obtaining further waivers to ensure that the ACPs are not worse off than their pre-EPA stages.