Para 4 of the adopted report
reads: The Prime Minister Andrianarison noted
the complexity of the ACP-EU relationship and the need
to formulate appropriate strategies and structures for
preparation and conduct of the EPA negotiations. He further
said that it was important for ESA countries to fully
prepare themselves for the negotiations with the EU and
to ensure that any eventual agreement to be signed with
the EU should serve the interests of ESA states.
SEATINI noted that such an advise during the official
opening of the RNF seem to have been ignored by some participants,
particularly those who have assumed the authorities to
direct the pace of coming up with cluster positions. During
the meeting different signals and positions have been
mentioned which disrespect the unity of purpose expected
to guide the ESA-EPA negotiations. This include:
•
The compromise agreement on Marine Fisheries Rules of
Origin and finalisation of the Marine Fisheries Framework
Agreement which could be used by ESA coastal or island
countries wishing to negotiate a national Fisheries Framework
Agreement with the EU. Marine fisheries countries have
been meeting since the first RNF meeting in Mombasa. This
happens when the inland fisheries are scheduled to have
the first Dedicated Session on fisheries in January 2005.
It is hoped that may be by that time the studies of the
inland fisheries covering all the concerned countries
will be finalised so as to provide information to this
process. At the meantime, ESA seem to have adopted dual
routes, which will eventually produce two frameworks for
this cluster. The challenge relates to how the two positions
will be emerged before actual negotiations with the EU
started.
• Already the Regional Preparatory
Task Force (RPTF) has agreed on sequencing the clusters
for negotiating with the EU. Ambassadors and the secretariat
are pushing for this sequencing and the capitals are mere
passive participants in this area. In fact the capitals
were informed of the second RPTF meeting scheduled at
just at the end of the RNF meeting. Although delegates
questioned the purpose and the sponsor of the meeting,
it was finally agreed to proceed since is the EC delegates
were already in the capital.
• In the capitals,
lack of common purpose is reflected by the manner in which
consultations and involvement of all concerned citizens
is largely lacking. In some countries civil society bodies
remains fairly weak and underdeveloped while other member-states
exhibit serious constraint of democratic space. All this
limits the nature and content of consulting and involving
widely. Eventually this vividly shows lack of common purpose
leading to a common ESA-EPA outcome.
• Countries
are at different levels of development and engagement.
Some delegates are huge and composed of all the interested
stakeholders while others are merely two-man band - one
government and private sector.
All the above are crakes that has negative implication
to the ESA goal of negotiating a fair and just trade pack
with the EU. Para 5 of the report reads:
The Prime Minister reiterated that the EU was a very
strong and powerful negotiating partner and hence ESA
countries needed to build and strengthen their negotiating
capacities and consolidate their positions in the six
clusters of the negotiations.
• However, SEATINI has noted the above weakness
of consolidating regional common positions before negotiations
with the EU.
• In addition, it is very important for the NDTPFs
to ensure that serious scrutiny of the impact assessment
studies which informs the development of national and
regional positions. However, only five countries have
completed the studies, and in many countries there is
capacity constraints in terms of critical analysis of
the process including the studies. This in turn affects
the political capacity of the capitals, which seem to
be surrendering the authorities to direct and guide
the process to the COMESA secretariat and the Ambassadors.
Weakness of the NDTPFs is exposed by total failure to
submit written progress reports, which informs the regional
participants on what transpired in each respective country.
All the above indicates the need to build capacity to
equip the capitals, which is fast loosing authority
to dictate the pace of this process.
• Para 12 of the RNF report noted that some delegations
expressed concern over the quality of NIAS reports and
on the need to ensure a high and consistent standard
of reporting. It was also noted in para 13 that the
studies should be undertaken in a comprehensive way
and a thorough analysis done. However, despite all this
pointers, RNF machinery only wants to press on with
this flawed process whose outcome is clearly a bad EPA
outcome. ;
Para 15 noted that the RPTF agreed
on its Terms of Reference, addressed the sequencing
of the negotiations (suggesting that Fisheries, Development
Issues and market Access be addressed from July 2004
to March (2005) and the ESA region gave a progress report
on preparations being made for the negotiations. The
EC felt there was a need to further discuss how to prepare
discussions and negotiations in each cluster in more
detail and spoke of information sharing. They also wanted
to focus on the region’s integration efforts and
wanted clarification on the regional FFA.
• First, this is an informal structure of ESA,
which is dominated by the Ambassadors and the COMESA
secretariat. The capitals are not involved. Ironically,
this informal structure during its first meeting in
July agreed to sequence the clusters for negotiations.
Its deficient from reality is exposed when the lists
targeted left out an important common sector in the
ESA configuration – that is – agriculture
cluster. The capitals then protested that agriculture
cluster be included if the bilateral trade negotiations
are to remain relevant to the ESA citizens.
• In the same para, EC is even cautioning us to
prepare adequately and to remain focusing on our regional
integration efforts. SEATINI then wonders why the rush
when the counterpart is showing leniency to the process.
Why is that ESA is not paying attention to all this
valuable ideas and pointers?
• It is also necessary for ESA to focus on building
regional integration markets that the South-South trade
promotion. This is a noble idea that if well articulated
and promoted within all the layers of ESA will assist
in slowing down the process. SEATINI wonders why ESA
seem to be in a hurry to make history by quickly entering
into some negotiations and conclude well before other
regions? Enough advice was given to ESA by consultants
regarding the position of South Africa (which is currently
re-negotiating what it failed to get or do not want
from its trade pack with EU through SADC-EPA) and Egypt.
All this advice is on paper. Even the ACP delegate advised
ESA not to hurry to negotiate and sign any cluster positions,
for once signed, it becomes very difficult to get out
of it. ESA will not have a second chance like for instance
South Africa.
Para 19 noted that regarding the Chief
Technical Advisor, the Secretariat reported that it
had requested a number of capitals to provide names
of possible candidates to the post. It had also suggested
that each country contribute COM12 000 per anunum to
pay for this office. …
• The subsequent para further noted that some
member-states proposed that the contributions be reduced
while others suggested that full remuneration for the
CTA office should be sourced from donors. This shows
lack of seriousness and./or failure to appreciate this
office. Why should this important office be donor-funded?
Zimbabwe had a view of locating this office within the
COMESA secretariat arguing that the proposal reduces
costs and makes the office accessible to the capitals
where action is concentrated. This proposal was however,
short down by the fellow member-states who argued that
discussions of this issue should not be opened again.
Given the powers now being assumed by the Ambassadors
and COMESA through the informal RPTF structure (see
above), locating this office in Brusseles will further
renders the capitals powerless in terms of driving the
negotiations process.
Para 54 noted that the meeting agreed
to address the issue of sequencing, both in terms of
issues of priorities and in terms of activities at the
regional and national levels, at the end of the meting,
as a substantive agenda item.
• SEATINI noted that this item was not discussed
at the end of the meeting. It is likely to remain silent.
SEATINI will whistle this to the capitals for future
debates.
|
