Members of the African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) Group and the European Union (EU) met on 31 May 2011 in Brussels, Belgium to continue ongoing negotiations on Economic Partnership Agreements (EPA). The ACP Ministers re-iterated their request for more flexibility on the part of the EU, including trade in medicines, and called for the reinforcement of the development components of EPAs. They also called for regional integration initiatives to be given precedence and for the preferential market access currently being provided under the EU’s EPA Market Access Regulation to be maintained and extended to other ACP countries until negotiations are concluded. In contrast, the EU Commissioner warned that the market access provided since 2007 to ACP countries that concluded EPA negotiations is temporary and predicated upon implementation of EPAs by ACP countries. He also announced that, owing to prolonged delays and stalemates in the negotiations, by the end of 2011 both parties will have to assess whether concluding negotiations is actually feasible within a realistic timeframe.
Health equity in economic and trade policies
Although the Swazi government has reaffirmed its commitment to the second phase of negotiations towards a full EPA (economic partnership agreement) with the European Union (EU), which relates to trade in services and investment, economists continue to argue that it will be detrimental to the domestic industry. Economist Thembinkosi Dlamini stated: “If one looks at the EPA for what it really is, it is clear that it wants those things that are under the Doha Development Agenda, that is, trade in services and investment as well as government procurement.” He said that Swaziland or the Southern African Development Community (SADC) would not be able to compete with a European company for trade in services.
The High Level Technical Meeting in Cape Town, South Africa, 7-8 April, 2008 undertook a comprehensive stock taking of EPAs that have been concluded in order to provide countries with an objective and accurate assessment of the content, character and implications of the various agreements that will help guide and inform their policy choices. For example, specific studies on particular issues identified useful to assist in the negotiations should be conducted and the ACP Secretariat/Commonwealth Secretariat should assist in organising sensitisation seminars for government officials and Parliamentarians and other stakeholders on EPAs and related issues.
This Africa Progress panel Report argues that African policy makers have critical choices to make. They can either invest their natural resource revenue in people to generate jobs and opportunities for millions in present and future generations, or they can squander this opportunity, allowing jobless growth and inequality to take root. In many African countries, natural resource revenues are widening the gap between rich and poor. Although much has been achieved, a decade of highly impressive growth has not brought comparable improvements in health, education and nutrition. The Africa Progress Panel is convinced that Africa can better manage its vast natural resource wealth to improve the lives of the region’s people by setting out bold national agendas for strengthening transparency and accountability. The Panel consists of ten distinguished individuals from the private and public sector who advocate for equitable and sustainable development for Africa.
This year’s Africa Progress Report rejects the view that Africa is blighted by a “resource curse” – an affliction that automatically consigns the citizens of resource-rich nations to a future of economic stagnation, poverty and poor governance. Instead, the Panel argues that the malaise that has afflicted natural resource management in Africa is caused by the wrong domestic policies, weak investment partnerships and failures in international cooperation. This will require decisive leadership by African governments, backed by multilateral action and a commitment by foreign investors to adopt best international practices. There is cause for optimism. Global market conditions point to another decade of high prices for natural resources, creating an environment conducive to economic growth. The report argues that improvements in policies, in public finance management and moves towards greater accountability enables Africa to escape the boom-bust cycle associated with past upswings in commodity markets.
This statement was compiled to prepare a position to feed into the 11th Regional Negotiating Forum for EPAs 14-16 May (SEATINI representatives attended this meeting which was the official meeting of ESA governments). The statement that is attached is from the meeting that was attended with other CSOs from Malawi, Zambia, Burundi, Rwanda, Kenya, Uganda, Zimbabwe and Tanzania.
The European Commission’s demand for Most Favoured Nation (MFN) treatment for European Union in all future free trade agreements (FTAs) between SADC EPA countries and any third parties are among the main reasons why Namibia failed to initiate the Interim Economic Partnership Agreement (IEPA) with EU. Acceptance of such an offer, Minister of Trade and Industry, Immanuel Ngatjizeko said at a press briefing in mid-December 2007, would pre-empt Southern African Development Community (SADC) EPA countries’ negotiating space as EPA-plus preferential treatment would be accorded to the EU without any further concession from the EU side.
The European Union's only directly elected institution is at loggerheads with the bloc's 27 governments over a measure officially designed to ensure that poor countries have access to affordable medicines. In 2003, the EU helped broker a temporary waiver to the World Trade Organisation's (WTO) agreement on intellectual property rights, which is known by the acronym TRIPS. Meeting on July 17, however, the European Parliament's committee on international trade decided to delay giving its assent to ratification because it is not satisfied that the EU is doing enough to boost the supply of vital drugs to the needy.
African, Caribbean and Pacific countries have two more years to negotiate economic partnership agreements (EPAs) with the European Union (EU), before the decision is taken to withdraw their free access to the EU market, according to amendments to the market access regulation adopted on 13 September 2012. Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) voted to extend the 2014 deadline proposed by the Commission and give ACP countries until 2016 to ratify their EPAs before losing the right to duty-and-quota-free access to the EU that they have been enjoying since 2007. The content of the EPAs have been contested in some countries in Africa. MEPs consider that unlimited and unconditional preferences are not a sustainable option but also agree that the EU should allow them a ‘realistic timeframe’ to work towards ‘fair and development-focused’ EPAs with African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) partners. Eight countries have not ratified EPAs: Botswana, Namibia, Cameroon, Fiji, Ghana, Ivory Coast, Kenya and Swaziland.
Pharmaceutical companies are manipulating the intellectual property rights system and are ‘actively trying to delay the entry of generic medicines onto their markets,’ a top EU official has said. As a result, there has been a decline in the number of innovative medicines getting to the market. The European Commissioner for Competition, Neelie Kroes, has announced that the first antitrust case resulting from the inquiry is now open. It alleges breaches of European rules on ‘restrictive business practices’ and ‘abuse of a dominant market position,’ and is filed against French company Les Laboratoires Servier and five generics with which it had made deals, according to a separate press release. The slowdown in novel medicines entering the market – 27 annually since 2000 as compared to 40 annually between 1995 and 1999 – was a systemic problem and the causes need to be identified.