EPAs as they are currently being set up and negotiated are essentially Free Trade Agreements.

Consistently, the EU has insisted that EPAs be based on a tight interpretation of WTO rules aiming for the elimination of all trade barriers on more than 90% of EU-ACP trade, within the shortest possible transitional time period. In addition the EU is demanding negotiations in the field of investment, competition, trade facilitation, government pro-curement, data protection and services. These negotiations were rejected by ACP countries in the WTO because of their negative implications for development. However, under the guise of a ‘development partnership’, the EU is re-introducing its WTO free trade agenda through EPAs.

Despite a great deal of reluctance from ACP countries, the European Commission has put heavy economic and political pressure to rush into the EPA free trade negotiations without sufficient preparation. Those voices in Europe and the ACP urging the Com-mission to look for other options were ignored. As a result of heavy dependence on aid, ACP governments have little choice but to give in to the EU’s demand that they open up their markets to European goods and services. The overwhelming emphasis on liberalisation in the EPA negotiations proves that these negotiations are about expanding Europe’s access to ACP markets, rather than about the development of ACP coun-tries.

Regional integration efforts are central to the development strategies of ACP countries. EPAs will endanger the fragile processes of regional integration and expose ACP pro-ducers to unfair European competition in domestic and regional markets. The result will be deeper unemployment, loss of livelihoods, food insecurity and social inequality. ACP governments will face significant losses in public revenue from the elimination of import duties and will continue to suffer the problem of capital flight associated with liberalisation. While the European Commission argues that EPAs are ‘instruments for develop-ment’ all assessments so far indicate that the burden of adjustment for EPAs will be carried exclusively by the ACP countries, including those that are LDCs.

The EU has narrowed the Cotonou objectives of poverty eradication and sustainable development to a self-serving trade and investment liberalisation agenda. EPAs will increase the domination and concentration of European firms, goods and services. As such, EPAs will deepen - and prolong - the socio-economic decline and political fragility that characterises most ACP countries. EPAs based on reciprocal trade agreements do not make sense economically or developmentally for ACP countries.

Therefore, we reject these “Economic Partnership Agreements” as currently en-visaged. We call for an overhaul and review of the EU’s neo-liberal external trade policy, particu-larly with respect to developing countries. We demand that EU-ACP trade cooperation should be founded on an approach that is :

 Based on a principle of non-reciprocity, as instituted in GSPs and special and differential treatment in the WTO ;

 Protects ACP producers and domestic and regional markets ;

 Reverses the pressure for trade and investment liberalisation ; and

 Allows the necessary policy space and supports ACP countries to pursue their own development strategies

Signed by : 11.11.11 - Belgium / Action for Southern Africa (ACTSA) - United Kingdom / Africa Europe Faith and Justice Network, Belgium / Both Ends - Netherlands / Centre du Commerce International et Developpment (CECIDE) - Guinea / EcoNews Africa - Kenya / Economic Justice Coalition - MozambiqueENDA Tiers Monde - Senegal / Gender and Trade Network Africa (GENTA) - South Africa / Mwelekeo wa NGO (MWENGO) - Zimbabwe / Pacific Concerns Resource Centre (PCRC) - Fiji / SOMO (Centre for Research on Multinationals) - Netherlands / Southern and Eastern Africa Trade Negotiations Initiative (SEATINI) - Zimbabwe / Third World Network-Africa Secretariat - Ghana / Tradecraft - United Kingdom / World Economy, Ecology and Development (WEED) - Germany