A joint ECDPM / ICTSD informal experts' meeting

Description

Introduction

ECDPM/ICTSD organised a one-day meeting on 27 September 2000, with the objective to contribute to setting an agenda for practical research, capacity building, dialogue and information on trade issues for ACP regions and countries. The focus of the meeting was on the evolving ACP-EU trade relations. Two crucial dimensions, which frame the debate, were addressed: (i) the future of multilateral trade negotiations and the Word Trade Organisation; (ii) the uneven progress of ACP regions towards the formation of trade areas.

Context

In June 2000, a new ACP-EU agreement was signed in Cotonou. On trade, the compromise is an "agreement to agree" later on how to replace the non-reciprocal, preferential regime currently granted by the EU to all ACP countries (except South Africa) with several new, reciprocal, WTO-compatible trade regimes between the EU and ACP countries, called Economic Partnership Agreements (EPAs). The ACP may proceed either as regional groups - the option which the EU favours - or individually. Negotiations on EPAs are due to start after September 2002, for implementation from 2008 onwards.

-- Forthcoming multilateral trade negotiations, after Seattle, will modify the context in which the ACP and EU negotiate, and thus affect their respective objectives.

-- Progress so far towards regional integration amongst the ACP countries has been patchy. This may hinder their ability to form effective negotiating groupings in the EU-ACP negotiations, and the introduction of EPAs may have an effect on further regional integration.

-- The ongoing reform of the European Commission, in the context of changing economic and political priorities of the Union, may also influence the future direction of the EU on trade negotiations with the ACP.

What is at stake?

For the large majority of ACP countries and regional bodies, the challenges ahead are considerable: capacity is scarce at all levels, particularly negotiating capacities for complex trade arrangements, national strategies are often undefined and sometimes potentially conflicting among members, etc. Yet the ACP have merely two years -until September 2002- before they start negotiating the details of possible Economic Partnership Agreements with the European Commission. The technical and political implications of the Cotonou agreement need to be carefully assessed, as many questions remain. How does a country determine if it is in their best interests to form an EPA? What will be the impact of EPAs on ACP regional integration processes? And to what extent can and should regional groupings be the partners for the EU to deal with? Who will negotiate, on the ACP side? Will there be one standard EPA format for all regions/countries or will they differ? What "WTO-compatible alternative trade arrangement" can be envisaged concretely and what could ACP countries accept as a feasible alternative to regional EPAs? Further detailed impact assessments, as well as intensive intra-ACP consultations at all levels, certainly need to be undertaken to thrash out scenarios on the basis of which countries can define their post-Lomé strategies, individually and possibly as regions. 

In that perspective, beyond the ACP's own preparations, various supporting initiatives by the EC and other donors are already planned or implemented, such as regional meetings, the setting up of an ACP representation in Geneva, etc., but gaps remain. This meeting tried to identify those gaps and gather ideas on how best to fill them over the next two years. 

Seminar methodology

· Three notes outlining the main issues were prepared by experts -two from the ACP and one from the EU- and circulated ahead of the meeting to participants.

· The meeting was informal: participants from different backgrounds (e.g. research institutes, ACP and EU officials, etc.) were invited in their own capacity, and not expected to represent the position of their organisation. As such they will not be quoted; the facilitators (ECDPM and ICTSD) encouraged an open and frank debate. Formal presentations were kept to a minimum, allowing for enough time for discussion.

· The meeting was output-oriented: we aimed to have a draft agenda for action by the end of the day, based on a debate involving donors and recipients.

· In the following weeks, a discussion paper consisting of the updated versions of the three background notes, and incorporating the results of the discussion, will be published and circulated, as well as a 4-page ECDPM Policy Management Brief, jointly produced with ICTSD.