Vacancy at ECDPM, Maastricht

We have pleasure in announcing the following vacancy:

Research Assistant for the Economic and Trade Cooperation Programme

The European Centre for Development Policy Management (ECDPM) is looking for a creative individual for a 6 month assignment (with possible extension/promotion based upon outstanding performance) to execute activities that will maximize the impact of the Centre's dialogue,
networking and capacity development activities in the context of ACP-EU cooperation.

Your expertise will allow you to assist in the research and execution of activities of the centre’s ACP-EU Economic & Trade Cooperation Programme as well as to assist the manager of the website www.acp-eu-trade.org

Closing date: August 14, 2009

For further details and application form, please visit: www.ecdpm.org/vacancies

Also check out Euforic's newsfeeds on ECDPM, and on ACP trade

The EU as saviour of the African Union?

Two recent reports (in German) by the German Institute of Global and Areas Studies look at Eu-Africa cooperation. Analysing the current status of African continental integration, Christian von Soest concludes that the new African Union Commission faces a major challenge to reduce the economic divides between Africa's various regional blocs before they become greater threats to continental unity. Further, although the African Union Commission should steer the integration process, it lacks the operative capacity doing so.

GIGA's Siegmar Schmidt further examines the role of the African Union in the EU development policy framework for Africa. He looks to EU programmes to help close the capacity gap of the AU. He notes that the EU counts on the AU as central partner within the new EU-Africa partnership, but argues that the AU can hardly meet these high expectations without external help. Consequently the EU supports various areas including peace and security, institutional architecture and the development program NEPAD.

Schmidt warns that even with external donor support, the AU might not yet be a reliable partner. This is shown by the weak reactions taken to deal with the crisis in Zimbabwe. With the raise of Chinese cooperation in Africa, there is furthermore the possibility that some states might lose interest in cooperation with Europe.

Against this background, the EU's engagement will likely be increased so as not to lose influence on its neighbouring continent.

by Martin Behrens

Subscribe to Euforic newsfeed on EU-Africa relations.

Fifth Brussels Development Briefing debated fair trade

On 16 April, CTA, Euforic, and other partners organised the fifth in the series of Brussels Development Briefings, in collaboration with the Fair Trade Advocacy Office.

Several key issues involved in fair trade initiatives were discussed: the benefits of fair trade for development and poverty reduction with special reference to the ACP countries; challenges for market access for ACP producers; the role of the supermarkets in standard-setting and labelling (including food miles issues); and awareness and information campaigns to educate consumers. The programme, presentations and video materials, speaker information, video interviews, and further readings are available at the Brussels Briefings website.

Earlier Brussels Briefings looked at 'The climate challenge for ACP agriculture', 'Aid for Trade', 'Advancing African Agriculture' and 'Challenges to rural development in ACP countries.'

See also Euforic newsfeeds on fair trade and ACP trade

Economic Partnership Agreements: new dangers

Source: CIDSE Advocacy Newsletter, issue 37 (November 2007)

After long negotiations, the EU is again turning the screw on African Caribbean and Pacific Countries (ACP) in a last-ditch attempt to seal a trade liberalization deal. Under a proposal by Trade Commissioner Peter Mandelson, the EU has endorsed a watering down of its demands in the context of Economic Partnership Agreements (EPAs). While this might appear as a conciliatory move towards ACP countries, it is in fact quite the opposite and creates a new danger that poor countries in Central Africa and the Caribbean, among others, will further undermine their food sovereignty.

Initially, the Commission’s Economic Partnership Agreements aimed to secure liberalization in goods as well as services and government procurement markets in ACP countries. The Commission has argued that existing agreements with ACP countries were contrary to World Trade Organization rules and that EPAs would bring these countries in conformity with international rules, as well as promote their economic integration in world markets.

Almost immediately, the proposed agreements were opposed by a majority of ACP countries as well as the NGO community. One of the first reasons for this opposition is the weakness of the EU’s proposals. While it makes very high demands (liberalization of goods, services and government procurement) on poor countries, it offers comparatively very little (quota free access to the EU market for most ACP goods – which they enjoy already and to little advantage).

The proposals take no account of ACP’s countries capacity constraints to export towards the EU or meet its stringent sanitary criteria. But most importantly, the EU has failed to explain what “integration” to the world markets would effectively mean and what tangible benefits these countries would derive from it. While the Commission has consistently stressed that these Agreements would promote “growth”, it has failed to explain how this growth would be distributed in ACP economies and whether it would contribute to reduce poverty.

Under the new proposals, the EU would now drop its claims to liberalizing services and government procurement markets in ACP countries, so that EPAs would only cover goods. It also hinted that, in some cases, liberalization could take place over a period of 25 years. Though this seems like a more sensible approach, it still represents a one-sided deal for most ACP countries: the EU merely offers a market access which ACP countries already have and are mostly unable to benefit from. Also, the deal would comprise agricultural goods without discrimination. Such goods still represent the single most important source of revenue in the ACP region. Under a liberalization agreement, ACP countries’ already weak agricultural base would be vulnerable to cheap imports from the EU. This could in turn dramatically undermine the food sovereignty and long-term economic development of ACP countries.

The most worrying development in the EU’s negotiating stance is that it is presenting this proposal as time-bound: countries that wish to have a deal must sign it by the end of this year. This means ACP countries will have less than 6 weeks to examine the proposal and effectively threatens to split the ACP community between the “haves” and the “haves not”. This approach is not only bullish, but deeply irresponsible. It also sheds further light on the “development” character of EPAs.

It now seems rather clear that the EU is not prepared to genuinely engage in a reframing of the Agreements that would put development first and trigger targeted growth in the economic sectors that need it most.

EPAs will be on the agenda of the next meeting of the CIDSE-Caritas WG on Trade and Food Security which will take place in Brussels on 6-7 December.

Read more...

See also Euforic's dossiers on trade and EU-ACP cooperation

EPA development benchmarks and monitoring

A workshop on EPA Development Benchmarks and Monitoring took place on 23-24 April in Nairobi and was organised by CUTS, ECDPM and FES in cooperation with APRODEV. The multi-sectoral workshop envisioned a cross-sectoral fertilization of ideas to enable Kenya and the ESA region to propose indicators used in monitoring the EPA process. A development benchmarks approach to assess the conduct and outcome of EPAs could provide an important tool for the development-focused monitoring of the EPA
implementation and thus link the two processes. Moreover, ECDPM and DIE (German Development Institute) have launched a joint activity that aims to elaborate options for monitoring the implementation and impacts of EPAs (see www.ecdpm.org/trade/epamonitoring).

An important contribution was provided by the advisor to the Ethiopian government Mr Ahmed Hashim outlining preliminary set of benchmarks and provisions for the ESA EPA text. This was complemented with a contribution by Mr Werner Corrales-Leal from ICTSD describing the conceptual and strategical implications in linking development goals, policy actions and trade disciplines. Development benchmarks would need to be defined according to identified supply side impediments and the set of actions or measures needed to attain increased production, value addition and diversification for specific crops or sectors. Development benchmarks would be a tool to describe development strategies that aim at building supply capacity by means of flexibilities (policy space), active policies (social, economic, political and environmental)and development finance (additional resources). This way, benchmarks are process outcomes that allow measuring the level of achievement of set development objectives by use of specific instruments (policies, rules, resources) as defined in trade supported development strategies. Principles for such a monitoring mechanism would be mutual accountability on commitments taken by EU and ACP countries and ownership of development strategies. Necessarily, a monitoring mechanism of process outcomes (benchmarks) set to achieve specific development goals should allow and lead to possible revisiting of (EPA) trade provisions. The results of the workshops are twofold: On the one side, there was support that any EPA text would need to recognise the principle of trade liberalisation that is supported by development strategies and flexibilities to achieve sustainable development goals, and that any EPA text would need to introduce the concept and need for monitoring and benchmarking along with clear recommendations for further implementation and elaboration of indicators. On the other side, the workshop revealed the challenges ahead to clarify the understanding and to build capacity of NSA to engage in defining trade related development strategies that are supported by a benchmarking approach.

Source: EU News - Issue 3, May 2007 (APRODEV, CIDSE, Caritas Europa).

See also Euforic dossier on ACP trade.

EU strategy on Aid for Trade: EC communication and working paper

In the beginning of April, the Commission adopted a communication entitled 'Towards an EU aid for trade strategy - the Commission's contribution'. Together with a staff working document, the Communication was transmitted to the Council of ministers who will discuss it at the GAERC meeting of 14 and 15 May. This Communication is the Commission's contribution to further expanding EU support for Aid for Trade, with a view to the adoption of a joint EU strategy by the Council in the second half of 2007, as agreed by the Council in October 2006.

The communication states that "Aid for Trade is a key complement to trade negotiations. It is not a substitute for a pro-development outcome of these negotiations but should be delivered independently of progress in the negotiations. The Communication also refers to the fact that as the Council drew specific attention to the Aid for Trade needs related to the ongoing negotiations of Economic Partnership Agreements (EPAs) with ACP countries, the EU strategy should pay similar specific attention to these developments, in order to help realise the full development potential of EPAs". It seems to be the intention of the Council of ministers to include a commitment to the fact that the EU will strive to increase its trade related assistance to 2 billion per year (1 billion from the EC and 1 billion from the MS) by 2010 in the Conclusions on EPA negotiations that will be adopted at the same GAERC meeting.

On that specific commitment to significantly increase trade related assistance in the coming years, the Commission's makes the following recommendations:

• A linear trend from the present situation to their 1 billion target would imply that the collective commitments to TRA by EU Member States should rise to at least € 600 million by 2008;
  
• The EU strategy should underline the importance of integrating trade-related concerns into national development strategies and identify criteria for when it is acceptable to finance trade-related priorities in anticipation of national development strategies being updated.

Chapter 5 of the Communication is devoted to the specific ACP angle of the strategy with, among others, the following recommendations:

• The EU strategy should provide guidance on the amounts involved in the Council's commitment to allocate a "substantial share" of the additional TRA to ACP countries with a view to increasing the share of overall TRA allocated to the ACP.
  
• The strategy should include a political commitment on the part of the EU to strengthen its support for traderelated infrastructure, productive capacity and trade-related adjustment, starting by supporting good coverage of such wider issues in trade needs assessments.
  
• The strategy should outline how to strengthen support to regional trade needs assessments, in support of regional integration. In the EPA context, this includes a particular emphasis on the EPA Regional Preparatory Task Forces.
  
• The strategy should indicate a priority to EPA regions as regards coordinating delivery modes and supporting regionally owned initiatives, such as regional EPA funds.

Other chapters of the strategy refer to enhancing quality of aid for trade, monitoring and reporting and EU capacity for aid for trade.

Source: EU News - Issue 3, May 2007 (APRODEV, CIDSE, Caritas Europa).

See also Euforic dossier on EU cooperation.

CONCORD at the EU-ACP Joint Parliamentary Assembly

The Joint Parliamentary Assembly brought together parliamentarians from ACP countries with Members of the European Parliament to discuss the issue of governance in a hearing on 21 March 2007. CONCORD had the opportunity to sent two representatives: Angela Haynes, from HelpAge International and representing BOND, who presented the European NGO perspectives, and Paul Samangassou, Incoming Executive Secretary of Caritas Africa, who presented perspectives from African civil society.

Angela Haynes emphasised the importance of good governance for sustainable development and highlighted the need for a European Union concept of good governance to be based on international human rights law, to promote domestic accountability and to include an international dialogue for all countries to share learning and best practice. She also raised key concerns highlighted in the Cotonou Working Group's paper "Whose Governance", calling for clarification on the criteria, indicators and forms of measurement to be used in the "governance profiles" which will assess a country's performance and its eligibility for funds from the 2.7 billion Euro incentive tranche. She stressed the need to work within the framework of the Cotonou Agreement to ensure real partnership between the ACP and EU countries in developing an owned good governance agenda, and real participation by parliaments and civil society, including the most marginalised.

Paul Samangassou highlighted some of the negative consequences of poor governance including abuse of power due to lack of government accountability and elections which are not fair or transparent. He identified the need for increased participation by citizens in decision-making in order to achieve good governance. The role for civil society organisations (CSO) in this is to create spaces to facilitate participation by citizens, but they need to work with public institutions. He gave the example of Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers: while this is an example of how CSOs can play a role, it is not enough in terms of good governance.

The ensuing debate was wide-ranging and included a discussion on the role of governance in the Cotonou Agreement, the ACP's understanding of good governance, the African Peer Review Mechanism and need for best practice examples, and the role of CSOs. Some ACP parliamentarians criticised CSO criticism and monitoring of governments, arguing that they should work with their governments instead. Others welcomed the distinct role of CSOs in ensuring participation, accountability and scrutiny of government, but there was agreed recognition of the distinct roles played by civil society and parliaments. There was consensus on the fact that donor funds should not go to corrupt governments, but also concern that EU member states need to address their responsibility in causing or perpetuating bad governance in ACP countries.

Angela Haynes concluded that European NGOs fulfill a range of roles, but one very important one is holding their governments and the EC to account for their actions and behaviour in relations to partners in the South. While NGOs are not in favour of externally imposed conditionality, they do support conditionality from below, where calls for governance reforms by broad-based coalitions of in-country actors including parliamentarians and civil society are supported by external donors. For his part, Paul Samangassou concluded that the role of parliaments and CSOs are complimentary, as was demonstrated in Cameroon where CSOs organised workshops to raise parliamentarians' awareness on issues relating to the EPAs. CSOs have also stepped in in situations where governments have not been capable of playing their role, taking on their functions.

For further information: Angela Haynes, EU Representative HelpAge International: ahaynes@helpageinternational.org

Source: CONCORD Flash - March 2007.

See also Euforic dossiers on ACP-EU cooperation and governance.

Allow more time for negotiating fair Economic Partnership Agreements

The negotiations between the European Union (EU) and the ACP countries on the Economic Partnership Agreements (EPAs) are at a critical stage. European and ACP civil society organisations are deeply concerned about the impact of the proposed agreements on the economies, environment, regional integration initiatives
and livelihoods of the people in ACP countries.

European NGOs seized the opportunity presented by the EU-ACP Joint Ministerial Trade Committee (1 March) and the Informal Development Ministers Meeting (12 and 13 March) to stress their major concerns regarding the ongoing negotiations. In a letter, European NGOs call for the negotiations to be delayed in order to ensure that EPAs are good development tools.

It is imperative to take the time pressure off the negotiations in order to ensure that the results of the review process are thoroughly analysed. Singapore issues (investment, competition, transparency, government procurement and trade facilitation) should be omitted, as the ACP countries have repeatedly stated that they refuse to negotiate deals on these issues with the European Union. The EU should offer the ACP countries some alternatives to the EPAs, as envisaged in the Cotonou Agreement, and should uphold the principle of non-reciprocity and the right for developing countries to protect their economies. In addition, the EU should promote self-determination in the regional integration processes of ACP countries and ensure transparency and participation by civil society.

For more information: Marc Maes (marc.maes@11.be), Ester Asín Martínez (ester.asin@concordeurope.org)

Source: CONCORD Flash - February 2007.

See also Euforic dossier on ACP trade.

NGOs denounce EU pressure over new African Trade deals

An informal coalition of Non-Governmental Organisations including 11-11-11, ActionAid International, Oxfam International, and Enda today called on the European Commission to stop pressuring Africa to agree new trade relationships by the end of the year, warning that the current proposals would have very damaging implications for development.

The NGO warning follows a meeting of UN experts, African trade ministers, and civil society representatives in Nairobi on Monday and Tuesday, in which a review of EPAs was discussed.

The review, carried out by the UN Economic Commission for Africa (UNECA) and endorsed by the African Union Trade Ministers, concludes that none of the four African regions have sufficient information or are adequately prepared to finalise deals in time for the official deadline of 31 December 2007. It also raises strong concerns about the capacity of developing countries to implement EPAs and highlights an 'alarming lack of transparency' in the negotiations.

Despite the clearly articulated concerns of African negotiators and observers on content and process, and a stated commitment that no country would be compelled to sign an EPA, the European Commission has been playing hardball over recent weeks, refusing to grant extra time, and issuing warnings about the negative results of not signing.

For example, West African and Central African negotiators were told last week by EU Commissioners, Peter Mandelson and Louis Michel that higher import duties would be re-imposed if EPAs were not concluded by 31 December 2007. In addition, promises of aid are being made conditional on the agreement of an EPA.

"This is tantamount to blackmail", said Bibiane Mbaye of Enda. "The EU has committed to ensuring that alternatives to EPAs are discussed, and that no country will be compelled to sign. However, now they are using the looming deadline to force countries into agreements that could be economically devastating".

"The implication is that there are no other alternatives, but this is not the case," said Luis Morago of Oxfam International. "What is lacking is political will from the EU. Instead of actively seeking ways to extend the deadline and ensure development-friendly deals, they are turning the screws on the African countries, and pushing them into agreements that will hurt poor farmers and undermine future industrial development."

"The EC is trying to sidestep a 'real' development deal by bullying ACP countries with threats of higher import duties", said Mariano Iossa of ActionAid "However, the Cotonou agreement clearly states that no ACP country should be worse off as a result of the negotiations".

The coalition believes:

• Member States should pay more attention to the un-transparent way in which EPAs are being negotiated and the potentially negative impacts for development
  
  
• Member States should ensure that the Commission extends trade preferences at the end of 2007 if EPA negotiations have not been concluded
  
  
• Member States should ensure countries have sufficient information on the impact of an EPA to make an informed and pro-development decision and that alternatives to EPAs are fully explored

Signed by: 11-11-11, ActionAid International, Bread for the World, Church Development Service (EED), Danish Association for International Cooperation, Enda, Finnish NGDO platform to the EU, FinnChurchAid Finland, Friends of the Earth Finland, IBIS – Education for Development, Interchurch Organization for Development Cooperation (ICCO), KOSA (Coordination Southern Africa), Oxfam International, SOMO (Centre for Research on Multinational Corporations), Tearfund, Traidcraft, World Economy, Ecology & Development (WEED), World Rural Forum

For more information, please contact one of the following spokespeople:

• Marc Maes, 11.11.11, Brussels, (Dutch, French, English), marc.maes@11.be, +32 497 600 442
  
  
• Luis Morago, Oxfam International, Brussels, (Spanish, English), luis.morago@oxfaminternational.org, +3225021941
  
  
• Mme Bibiane Mbaye, Enda, syspro2@enda.sn, 00 221 821 70 37
  
  
• Sophie Powell, Trade Policy Adviser, Traidcraft, sophiep@traidcraft.org.uk, +44 20 7242 3955
  
  
• Mariano Iossa, ActionAid, Brussels, (English, Spanish, French and Italian), Mariano.iossa@actionaid.org; +32 484 374236
  
  
• Alexandra Burmann, Bread for the World and Church Development Service, (German, English), epa2007@bfdw-eed.de, +49 160 - 720 58 52

Source: ActionAid International press release

See also europafrica.org and Euforic dossiers on ACP trade, ACP-EU cooperation, Africa.

Critical phase for EPA negotiations: meeting deadlines or providing quality time to meet the development objectives?

From: EU NEWS - Issue 1, February 2007 (APRODEV, CIDSE, Caritas Europa).

24 January 2007: European Parliament - International Trade Committee: presentation by MEP Robert Sturdy of his report on EPAs

In his introduction to his EPA report MEP Sturdy observed that EPAs are remarkably unpopular. Substantial fears from ACP side are justified, and there is recognition that the EU has a bad record on delivering on its promises (see the example of the sugar reform and the mere 110 Mio in Action Plan for Sugar Protocol countries). The notion of partnership in EU ACP relations needs to be recalled, but currently is not a reality.

MEP Sturdy supports the call for an extension of the WTO waiver if need be. The EPA Review is not on course and the EC has not done its job right by not taking on board the options of the others. It is also expected that amendments to the report by other MEPs will support improved Rules of Origin, a Duty Free and Quota Free market access offer by the EU, Special Safeguard Mechanisms, additional funds beyond the10th EDF and the set up of a Parliamentary Oversight Committee on EPAs composed of EU and ACP parliamentarians. There is recognition that trade is not gender neutral but this needs to be further look at. In his response, Karl Falkenberg, Deputy Director of DG Trade, said that the EC will not repeat wild liberalization of the past, and that priority will be given to market building at a regional and South-South level first, and that only over time and once ACP countries have become more diversified and competitive, they will be expected to begin opening their markets vis-à-vis the EU. It is time to put this in writing in the EPA texts rather than to keep pushing for
market access in the negotiations, as done in government procurement negotiations with the Caribbean, to mention just one example.


30 January 2007: European Parliament - Development Committee

German Development Minister Wiezcorek-Zeul called for equal development chances for developing countries that is in the long term interest of the EU and should be part of the understanding of its external relations policies. On EPAs, the objective is to strengthen ACP countries in their capacity to benefit from trade and regional integration and there is full support for long transition periods, asymmetry in liberalization and exemptions. Access to the markets of ACP countries is not part of the agenda.

Another opportunity for political dialogue on the development aspects in the EPA negotiations is the Informal Development Council on 12-13 March in Petersberg Bonn and the German Presidency has made a point in requesting both, Commissioner Michel and Commissioner Mandelson to attend this informal Council meeting, as well as to present two (independent?) status reports on EPA negotiations. Worth mentioning is the explicit support to the Extracting Industry Transparency Initiative that provide
details on financial flows, seen as a pre-requisite for any fight of corruption.

Minister Wiezcorek-Zeul also strongly opposed the use of EDF money for African peace missions and warned of loss of EU credibility with recurrent trends to use ODA labeled money for military interventions- for which the Stability Instrument would be the appropriate instrument. 2007 is half time for the achievement of the MDGs that should be strived to be met. Though worrying enough, expenditures for weapons are
nowadays higher than they were during the cold war (with 1.1 billion US Dollars).


1st February 2007: Meeting between the Development Group of the Council (CODEV) and CONCORD representatives

German chair of the CODEV emphasised that the EPA negotiations constitute the most critical development issue during the German EU Presidency. Arguments presented by the CONCORD delegation illustrated the risk to rush and push for meeting a deadline
that is detrimental to the quality of an agreement. Apart from the Caribbean, none of the ACP EPA regions seems to be prepared to meet the deadline. Whereas it might be technically feasible to conclude EPA negotiations during the German EU Presidency, a hazardous agreement with key ingredients not yet being put on the table does not make any good sense and haste will work to the detriment of the weaker negotiating party. Fundamental differences remain in all six EPA regions on where and how to ensure that a development dimension is an integral part of the EPA provisions. Other key
divergences are on ownership of the regional integration process, lack of adjustment resources, and negotiation of trade related issues. Delay in the negotiations has
occurred as much from the side of the EU who has taken 9 months to respond to the SADC proposal to include South Africa in the regional EPA grouping and to offer contractual 'Everything But Arms' to the SADC LDC members. After four months, the response to the ESA region proposal on a fishery agreement is still outstanding. Furthermore, the EC has not agreed on its market access offer in response to requests for duty free and quota free access for all ACP countries, and will most likely not be ready to offer improved rules of origin by the end of this year. But the rules of origin is one of the single most important condition necessary for any of the ACP LDC countries to benefit from the Everything But Arms initiative.

A bad or second best EPA agreement will not do. Arguing that any bad deal could be corrected by means of review clauses is not an option in asymmetric power relations. Finally, the EC's handling of the EPA Review is less than encouraging, given their fierce opposition to any inclusive and transparent review.

In response, individual Member States representatives expressed their support to arguments in favour of quality agreements, understanding the lack of confidence by the ACP side and the lack of guarantees to cover for EPA adjustment resources. Some of them also spoke in favor of duty free and quota free market access and improved rules of origin.

Source: EU NEWS - Issue 1, February 2007 (APRODEV, CIDSE, Caritas Europa).

See also Euforic dossier on ACP trade.