The EPA and Caribbean Confusion

The regional media has been taken up over the past weeks with news and commentary on the fate of the regional movement.

One finds a portrait of a regional camp filled with confusion. Some weeks ago, regional governments appeared fully committed to signing the Economic Partnership Agreement.{{more}} Guyana first signalled its intention not to sign on the agreed date, claiming the need for stakeholder discussions. It was never clear to me why the necessity for national consultations only emerged at this late stage.

The new Grenadian government used its newness to argue about wanting to fully examine the document and then St. Lucia began having second thoughts, looking for a review of the document. Opposition to the signing of the agreement as it now stands has grown among academics, the labour movement and non-governmental organisations. These voices have clearly begun to impact on the regional leaders to the point where no one was sure how many countries were prepared to sign the document on the date initially agreed on, September 2. The Barbados Government which is prepared to host the signing ceremony felt terribly peeved by the pussyfooting. The Barbados Prime Minister was of the view that it was too late to call for any renegotiation and eventually agreed to host a meeting on September 10 to discuss the concerns being raised and to arrive at a common position. Why do our governments never learn? It is true that the negotiations and the process were terribly complicated, as reflected in the final document. But like other things there were no major consultations with stakeholders, some of whom are now demanding a review of the document before signing.

Norman Girvan, former Secretary General of the Association of Caribbean States and fellow economist Havelock Brewster have been among the early critics of the Economic Partnership Agreement and have made their positions known for some time. In a paper captioned “Observations on the State of Play in the Cariforum/EC Economic Partnership Agreement (EPA) Negotiations”, they were critical of the positions taken by some governments that they needed to sign the EPA by the proposed ‘EC-imposed deadline’ to prevent loss of existing market access to the EU. According to them, the ‘reality is that the value of such market access has shrunk rapidly due to preference erosion and changes in domestic EU policies on sugar. Thus there is danger of trading certain long-term development possibilities and options of the region in return for an advantage that is highly temporary, when the adjustment to the new situation is in any case unavoidable. Such adjustment needs to proceed as a matter of urgency, and in an efficient and coherent manner, in accordance with CARICOM’s own Development Vision and the Regional Strategic Development Plan now under preparation.” Brewster, in another article, seemed to be suggesting that if the region went ahead with the EPA as it now stands it had better think of winding up the CSME.

There are of course others who are of a different view and while admitting certain shortcomings in the EPA agreement ask what the alternatives are. Anthony Peter Gonzales has taken the critics head on in an article entitled “The EPA Critics: Where they went wrong.” My concern is that these arguments are taking place at a late stage in the game. The point is that this is all familiar territory, the technocrats and the politicians holding matters of concern to the region’s people close to their chests with the people of the region not being involved until the last moment when they have had to force themselves into the picture. Jamaica is now debating the EPA in parliament. I am not sure how many others have done so and are in fact fully au fait with the content and implications of the document. Consultations where they were held were rather hurried and insufficient information had been presented to the people of the region. There is really need for major public education on this issue. There are some serious issues at stake. In the first ten to fifteen years of the agreement, duties will be removed from over 80 percent of imports from Europe. Are our productive capacities strong enough to withstand such competition? As far as I am aware, the EU will retain subsidies to their farmers. While we might be free to do the same for our farmers, are we in a position to do so? Girvan in an article in the Gleaner makes another important point. He states, “As in the case of goods, therefore, the region’s producers (in services) are facing the prospect of direct competition from large, financially endowed and technologically sophisticated EU firms over a wide range of activities.”

We cannot look at the EPA in isolation. While the region seems very much divided on the way forward, with some countries committed to signing the document, others apparently are having second thoughts and strong voices in opposition are coming from different sectors of the Caribbean society. This is happening while there is growing concern about the fate of the integration movement. For some time now our leaders had been pushing back the date for implementation of the CSME which they once saw as the way forward for the Caribbean. Then other initiatives appeared on the scene, leading persons to question what in fact was happening with the regional movement and creating fears about the CSME and the disintegration of the regional movement. Even before the August 14th Manning, Gonsalves, Thomas and King’s initiative David Jessop was suggesting that the region was on the verge of disintegration. The latest disagreements over the signing of the EPA have only added fuel to fire.

Would the EPA be acting at cross purposes with the principles and design of the CSME as Havelock Brewster seems to be thinking? Would the salvo launched against the CSME process by Dr. Gonsalves force the region’s leaders to attend to some of the inefficiencies? Gonsalves’ criticisms were, however, not against the mechanism and process but thrown at shortcomings within the culture and belly of the countries that have embarked on the journey to a single market and economy.

Speculation about the fate of the integration movement will continue and perhaps the September 10 meeting in Barbados would in fact reveal the true state of things.