Advertisement

Trade Agreements with ACP Countries

  • Arlo Poletti
  • Daniela Sicurelli
Chapter

Abstract

The EPAs are the most development-friendly PTAs concluded by the EU in the 2000s. The EU conceded the longest transition periods for market liberalization to ACP countries and concluded goods-only agreements with Sub-Saharan African states. Exporter and import-dependent interests did not have major stakes in the negotiations, due to the lack of domino effects with major trade powers and the low integration of these countries in GVCs. For these reasons, the politics of the EPA negotiations was mostly affected by European farmer organizations and NGOs. As an exception to these trends, import-dependent service industries actively participated in the Commission’s consultations concerning the negotiations with CARIFORUM. Extensive mobilization of European NGOs, coupled with the lack of European offensive interests, resulted in substantial concessions from the EU to its ACP partners, and especially the African delegations. At the same time, CSOs obtained the inclusion of the most stringent norms concerning sustainable development and human rights in the agreements. On the producers’ front, agricultural organizations were able to obtain protection for European-sensitive agricultural products, especially sugar. Service interest groups, in turn, pushed for liberalization commitments regarding key sectors relevant for European importers in the EPA negotiations with CARIFORUM.

Keywords

Caribbean countries Sub-Saharan Africa European farmers service industry NGOs 

References

  1. Agritrade. 2007. EU Farmers’ Reaction to Revised EC Proposals. Press Release, 13 August.Google Scholar
  2. Alter and Meunier. 2006.Google Scholar
  3. Bilal S., and I. Ramdoo. 2016. Sustainability and Human Rights in EPAs. A Comparative Analysis Between the Caribbean and African EPAs. Discussion Paper, 198. European Centre for Development Policy Management. September. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Sanoussi_Bilal/publication/308160463_Sustainability_and_human_rights_in_EPAs_A_comparative_analysis_between_the_Caribbean_and_African_EPAs/links/57db964c08ae5292a376b2d2.pdf.
  4. Borrmann, A., and M. Busse. 2007. The Institutional Challenge of the ACP/EU Economic Partnership Agreements. Development Policy Review 25 (4): 403–416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brundsen, J. 2008. EPAs Pose Threat to ACP Regional Integration. European Voice, 18 March.Google Scholar
  6. Byron, J., and P. Levis. 2007. Formulating Sustainable Development Benchmarks for an EU-CARIFORUM EPA: Caribbean Perspectives. Report Prepared for the International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development and the Association of World Council of Churches related Development Organizations in Europe.Google Scholar
  7. Center for International Environmental Law. 2008. Intellectual Property in European Union Economic Partnership Agreements with the African, Caribbean and Pacific Countries: What Way Forward After the CARIFORUM EPA and the Interim EPAs? Policy Report.Google Scholar
  8. Commission of the African Union and the Economic Commission for Africa. 2007. Short Background Brief on Economic Partnership Agreements.Google Scholar
  9. Daugbjerg, C., and A. Swinbank. 2008. Curbing Agricultural Exceptionalism: The EU’s Response to External Challenge. World Economy 31 (5): 631–652.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Deckwirth, C. 2005. The EU Corporate Trade Agenda: The Role and the Interests of Corporations and Their Lobby Groups in Trade Policy-Making in the European Union. Policy Paper, Brussels/Berlin (November).Google Scholar
  11. Dür, A., and D. De Bièvre. 2007. Inclusion Without Influence: NGOs in European Trade Policy. Journal of Public Policy 27 (1): 79–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Euractiv. 2008. EU-Africa Economic Partnership Agreements: Opportunity or Car Crash? Brussels, 11 January.Google Scholar
  13. Eurocommerce. 2007. Preferential Rules of Origin. Comments on the Proposed Reform. Position Paper, Brussels.Google Scholar
  14. European Commission. 2006. Global Europe: Competing in the World. COM (2006) 567 Final, 4 October.Google Scholar
  15. ———. 2008. Caribbean Region—Regional Strategy Paper and Regional Indicative Programme, 2008–2013. Strasbourg, November 15.Google Scholar
  16. ———. 2010. The Public Consultation on the Future EU Trade Policy: Overview of Contributions. Report. http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2010/september/tradoc_146556.pdf.
  17. ———. 2011. Civil Society Dialogue Meeting on Economic Partnership Agreements (EPAs) and on the Review of the Generalised System of Preferences (GSP) Regulation. http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2011/june/tradoc_147962.pdf.
  18. ———. 2012. Economic Partnership Agreements (EPAs): State of Play. Meeting, Brussles, February. http://trade.ec.europa.eu/civilsoc/meetdetails.cfm?meet=11382.
  19. Europeanmilkboard. 2016. Europe’s Dairy Sector Has Its Eyes on West Africa, June. Report. http://www.europeanmilkboard.org/fileadmin/Dokumente/Newsletter/2016/EtudIndusLait-EN-Web.pdf.
  20. Faber, G., and J. Orbie. 2007. The EU’s Insistence On Reciprocal Trade With The ACP Group. Economic Interests in the Driving Seat? In Beyond Market Access for Economic Development: EU-Africa relations in Transition, ed. G. Faber and J. Orbie, 38–64. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  21. Flint, A. 2009. The End of a ‘Special Relationship’? The New EU-ACP Economic Partnership Agreements. Review of African Political Economy 119: 79–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. FOE 2006. Corporate Conquest. Why the UK and Its EU Partners Must Stop Forcing Economic Partnership Agreements (EPAs) Upon Developing Countries. Report, September. https://www.foe.co.uk/sites/default/files/downloads/corporate_conquest.pdf.
  23. Gammage, C. 2017. North-South Regional Trade Agreements as Legal Regimes. A Critical Assessment of the EU-SADC Economic Partnership Agreement. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Girvan, N. 2010. Technification, Sweetification, Treatyfication: Politics of the Caribbean-EU Economicpartnership Agreement. Interventions 12 (1): 100–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Heron, T. 2011. Asymmetric Bargaining and Development Trade-Offs in the CARIFORUM-European Union Economic Partnership Agreement. Review of International Political Economy 18 (3): 328–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Heron, T., and P. Murray-Evans. 2017. Limits to Market Power: Strategic Discourse and Institutional Path Dependence in the European Union-African, Caribbean and Pacific Economic Partnership Agreements. European Journal of International Relations 23 (2): 341–364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Heron, T., and G. Siles-Brügge. 2012. Competitive Liberalization and the ‘Global Europe’ Services and Investment Agenda: Locating the Commercial Drivers of the EU–ACP Economic Partnership Agreements. Journal of Common Market Studies 50 (2): 250–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kategekwa, J. 2013. Opening Markets for Foreign Skills: How Can the WTO Help? London: Springer.Google Scholar
  29. Kerremans, B., and M.M. Gistelinck. 2009. Labour Rights in EPAs: Can the EU-CARIFORUM EPA Be a Guide? In Beyond Market Access for Development: EU-Africa Relations in Transition, ed. G. Faber and J. Orbie, 304–321. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  30. LaForce, V.C. 2014. The EU-Caribbean Trade Relationship Post-Lisbon: The Case of Bananas. Journal of Contemporary European Research 10 (2): 66–279.Google Scholar
  31. Langan, M. 2014. Decent Work and Indecent Trade Agendas: The European Union and ACP Countries. Contemporary Politics 20 (1): 23–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Montoute, A. 2016. Deliberate or Emancipate? Civil Society Participation in Trade Policy: The Case of the CARIFORUM–EU EPA. International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations 27 (1): 299–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Nord, R. 2015. Global Value Chains: The Missing Link in Sub-Saharan Africa’s Trade Integration. Blog Ideas for Development: Agence française de développement, 13 July. http://ideas4development.org/en/global-value-chains-the-missing-link-in-sub-saharan-africas-trade-integration/.
  34. Nyaga Munyi, E. 2016. Beyond Asymmetry: Substantive Beliefs in Preference Formation and Efficiency of Asymmetrical Negotiations. New Political Economy 21 (1): 49–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Oxfam. 2005. Making Trade Work for Development in 2005: What the EU Should Do. Briefing Paper, May.Google Scholar
  36. ———. 2006. Unequal Partners: How EU–ACP Economic Partnership Agreements (EPAs) Could Harm the Development Prospects of Many of the World’s Poorest Countries. Briefing Note, September. https://www.oxfam.org/sites/www.oxfam.org/files/unequal%20partners.pdf.
  37. ———. 2008. Partnership or Power Play? How Europe Should Bring Development into Its Trade Deals with African, Caribbean, and Pacific countries. Briefing Paper.Google Scholar
  38. Poletti, A. 2012. The European Union and Multilateral Trade Governance: The Politics of the Doha Round. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  39. Poletti, A., and D. De Bièvre. 2014. Political Mobilization, Veto Players, and WTO Litigation: Explaining European Union Responses in Trade Disputes. Journal of European Public Policy 21 (8): 1181–1198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Robinson, D., and C. Gibson. 2011. Governing Knowledge: Discourses and Tactics of the European Union in Trade-Related Intellectual Property Negotiations. Antipode 43 (5): 1883–1910.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Sauvé, P., and N. Ward. 2009. The EC-CARIFORUM Economic Partnership Agreement: Assessing the Outcome on Services and Investment. Report, European Center for International Political Economy, Brussels, January, 2009.Google Scholar
  42. Sicurelli, D. 2010. The European Union’s Africa Policies. Norms, Interests and Impact. Farnham and Burlington, VT: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  43. Spence, M. 2009. Negotiating Trade, Innovation and Intellectual Property: Lessons from the CARIFORUM EPA Experience from a Negotiator’s Perspective. UNCTAD, Policy Brief, N. 4, September. http://unctad.org/en/Docs/iprs_pb20094_en.pdf.
  44. Stevens, C. 2008. Economic Partnership Agreements: What Can We Learn? New Political Economy 13 (2): 211–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Stop Epa. 2007. Economic Partnership Agreements: Building or shattering African regional Integration? Policy Report. http://www.stopepa.de/img/traidcraft_etal_building_or_shattering.pdf.
  46. Suvye Phiri, D. 2009, Economic Partnership Agreements and Intellectual Property Rights Protection: Challenges for the Southern African Development Community Region, South African Institute of International Affairs, Occasional Paper 48, October.Google Scholar
  47. Tempest, M. 2017. Merkel’s ‘Man in Africa’ Downbeat on Prospects for Africa-EU Summit. Euractiv, 12 April.Google Scholar
  48. The Economist. 2007. A Desperate Suitor. After China and America, It Is Europe’s Turn to Woo Africa, 6 December.Google Scholar
  49. Trommer, S. 2014. Legal Opportunity in Trade Negotiations: International Law, Opportunity Structures and the Political Economy of Trade Agreements. New Political Economy 19 (1): 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Vahl, R. 2011. From Cotonou to Bridgetown: The Birth of the Caribbean EPA. In The CARIFORUM-EU Economic Partnership Agreement: A Practitioner Analysis, eds. A. Beviglia Zampetti and J. Lodge, 1–10.Google Scholar
  51. Weinhardt, C. 2014. The Recent EU-West Africa Trade Deal Is Not Everybody’s Success Story. Bridges Africa 3 (3), 9 April. http://www.ictsd.org/bridges-news/bridges-africa/news/the-recent-eu-west-africa-trade-deal-is-not-everybody%E2%80%99s-success.
  52. Woolcock, S.J. 2014. Differentiation Within Reciprocity: The European Union Approach to Preferential Trade Agreements. Contemporary Politics 20 (1): 36–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Arlo Poletti
    • 1
  • Daniela Sicurelli
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Sociology and Social ResearchUniversity of TrentoTrentoItaly

Personalised recommendations