EPAs negotiations and grassroots Involvement
By African Monitor, 17 March 2008
The purpose of this article is to review grassroots involvement in the Economic Partnerhsip Agreement (EPAs) negotiations to date.
Introduction
Economic Partnership Agreements (EPAs) are a form of Free Trade Area between the European Union on one hand and the different configurations for Africa Carribean and Pacific Countries (ACP) on the other. They epitomize the “maturity” in trade and economic relations between the European Union and the ACP countries, which dates back to the Yaunde Conventions of the 1950s. The Yaounde Conventions gradually gave way to the Lome I-IV agreements. This later paved way for the Cotonou Agreement and now EPAs. The officially recognized reason for providing trade and support during this period was to encourage sustained exports of ACP products (mainly primary products) into the EU market. Other non-official reasons (which are however debatable) include; the cold war need to keep ACP countries away from the Socialist Soviet; as well as the need to provide an uninterrupted source of raw materials for Europe’s industrial growth, among others. All these reasons notwithstanding, it was clear that a framework of trade and development cooperation between the EU (colonizer) and the ACP (colonized) was essential to guide trade and development relationship between the two blocs.
It is important to note that the major principle underlying the trade arrangements (between ACP and EU) from Yaunde Conventions to the Cotonou Agreement was that of non-reciprocity. This means that the EU gave market access concessions (zero duty) to goods originating from the ACP but did not compel the ACP to do the same for its goods. Therein lies the major difference between the family of old regime and the new regime represented by EPAs. The EPAs introduce reciprocity, that is, the EU is now requiring the ACP countries to reciprocate any favours they give. This undoubtedly introduces so much uncertainty and a whole set of challenges to the whole trading framework between EU and ACP. Whilst it would be tempting and interesting to get into the reasons for such unfolding of events, this article will restrict itself to EPAs and the grassroots.
The EPA negotiations started at different time periods for the different regions. For the COMESA and SADC regions, the negotiations started in 2004. A quick stakeholder analysis of EPA negotiations indicates that in almost all regions, the main players were noted to include; national governments, secretariats of regional bodies, private sector, Civil Society, the grassroots (however defined). As the negotiations started, the involvement of the named stakeholders was uneven, as others participated more than others, while others were not consulted long enough. Among those not consulted for long enough were the civil society and grassroots. In several countries, civil society had to demand audience and space for participation.
Against this background, this article will serve to highlight the role played by grassroots in the negotiations to date. Grassroots are defined as the poor living in the rural areas as well as the urban marginalized. Consulting grassroots groups for any policy or developmental matter varies from one region to the other as well as one country to the other. Hence it is always a challenge and subsequently a measure of inclusivity to analyze the extent of their inclusion.
Grassroots buy-in in EPA negotiations
Having said that, a reflection of the general negotiation structure of the regions is quite insightful. The general negotiation structure for all the regions involve (to a greater or lesser extent) the following structures; the National development and Trade Policy Frameworks, the Regional Negotiation Forum, the Ambassadorial level, the Ministerial level. In the case of SADC and Eastern and Southern Africa (ESA), the apex body with decision-making authority is the Council of Ministers. Below them are the Ambassadors (in the case of ESA) and Lead Negotiator in the case of SADC. Below these are the Regional Negotiating Foras (RNF). These are tasked with coming up with regional positions on issues of interest for the negotiating block. Below these are the National Development and Trade Policy Foras. These Foras were specifically formed for consultative purposes for EPA negotiations.
Whilst the consultations and involvement of the grassroots may be quite interesting at all the other levels, it is mostly noted at the base (the NDTPF). At the NDTPF level, member countries are expected to consult the generality of its stakeholders (including grassroots) and then come up with a national position to be fed into the RNF so that it can become a regional position. At such foras, grassroots with an interest on trade (such as cross-border traders, small scale producers based in the rural areas) are expected to make their contributions in shaping the EPA process.
A review of EPA negotiations for the COMESA region (undertaken by this author) as well as at the continental region (undertaken by Economic Commission for Africa) indicates that participation in general and that of grassroots in particular in the negotiations process was stunted and in some cases token, yet the impact that EPAs (once signed and rolled-out) will have on the grassroots is clear and quite frightening. Thus their “lack of voice” in the negotiations is unfair, to say the least.
Among the several reasons given for not involving grassroots in policy consultations in general and EPA negotiations in particular is that; these groups are not very organized and as such difficult to systematically involve. While such an argument may be true in some countries, in others, where the grassroots are well heeled in terms of having viable apex bodies and links with civil society, consultations for purposes of EPA negotiations has been erratic and far from satisfactory. It was noted that in some countries, the NDTPFs fell victim to “elite capture” and were subsequently converted into an elite forum for business and civil society organizations hereby squeezing out grassroots involvement. Although it is generally easy to blame these groups for hijacking such a forum, in several of the reviewed countries it was noted that these groups were simply filling a yawning vacuum left by the grassroots (by the virtue of absence of coordinated apex bodies truly representing their concerns). The challenge then is to ensure that grassroots are organized and coordinated enough to make their presence felt in such fora. Of equal importance is the need to ensure grassroots (through apex and other bodies) have adequate capacity (in terms of information and financial resources) to sustainably participate in EPA negotiations at the various levels.
The least they can do is to participate at the NDTPF level. But there still exist scope for them to participate at regional level. As such the regional bodies should be encouraged to provide space for grassroots groups to participate ain regional foras such as RNFs. Their concerns should not just be seen to be heard/token but should be acted upon with the urgency it deserves.
EPA monitoring
Now that the interim EPA agreements have been initialed/signed (whichever the case maybe), the EPA movement and its impact are now real. As such there is need for content monitoring of the negotiations, stakeholder monitoring to ensure grassroots is sustainably involved, as well as monitoring implementation of to date, so that wherever the prospects for early harvest exist, they are taken advantage of and wherever prospects for negative consequences are likely, then mitigatory measures can be put into place not only by organized private sector but for grassroots also.
Monitoring EPA negotiations and implementation of the agreements will be crucial given that a lot of work still remain to be concluded this year, since countries agreed to embark on a two step procedure in negotiations (that is to agree to market access and development issues by Nov 2007 and rolling-back the remaining issues of Fisheries, agriculture, trade related issues and services. Since all these issues have a direct and ultimate impact on grassroots, their meaningful involvement should be much more than before.
Conclusion
Some development commentators who have been so disillusioned by the lack of grassroots involvement in the negotiations have gone as far as suggesting that although EPA negotiations are still ongoing, and infact are in sudden death extra time, and faced by situation where the refree (World Trade Organization) appears to have thrown away the whistle, it is not unthinkable for grassroots to mobilize their lot and invade the “negotiation pitch” and either force an abandonment or replay on neutral ground.
Against this background, this article argues that it is still not late for grassroots organizations (organized and otherwise) to make their case heard. In fact they should not only be content in making themselves heard, but should ensure that their concerns are acted upon by the powers that be in a way that preserves and expand their livelihoods. This they can do through using existing structures as mentioned above or through creating other fora for engagement. They need not be reminded that they remain “THE MISSING LINK” in these negotiations and their long-term livelihood concerns should guide the negotiations and not allow these to be cheaply traded for “pie in the sky” promises under current EPA negotiations.
** African Monitor will conduct a research on EPAs at a time to be determined.