Editorial
Discuss this publicationShare your views with other visitors, and read what they have to say
What happens after a trade deal is signed? In theory, governments get down to the work of implementing the agreement. But in the case of the Cariforum-EU Economic Partnership Agreement, not much seems to be happening. Why does this matter? In part because the EU is in the process of forming free trade agreements with countries in Latin America, explains David Jessop, the Director of the Caribbean Council. In our lead article this month, Mr. Jessop warns that any competitive advantage currently enjoyed by Cariforum countries may soon diminish unless governments move more quickly.
Our next article offers advice for those countries still engaged in the EPA negotiations. A long standing point of concern for developing country exporters is the system of EU standards for protecting health and safety, also known as sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) measures. In particular, it has been argued that the EU’s food-safety regime can present unnecessary barriers to trade. However, according to Martin Doherty, Head of Research with the international trade consultancy Cerrex Limited, the EPAs present an opportunity to address this problem. Using the fisheries sector as an example, he demonstrates how new provisions in the EPAs can clarify areas of ambiguity in the WTO Agreement on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures, and thus help ensure that SPS measures do not unnecessarily interfere with ACP trade to the EU.
The EPAs also offer a chance to promote innovation and technology transfer, argues our next contributor, Ruth L. Okediji, a Professor of Law at the University of Minnesota. She points out that the EPAs have so far taken a standard approach to intellectual property rights based on the provisions of the WTO’s TRIPS agreement. But Professor Okediji suggests that if the ACP countries are to benefit from greater access to innovative technology, the EPAs need to take more proactive steps. This is because structural issues have prevented many developing countries from experiencing developmental gains from their IP commitments. By taking an “active” approach to IP rules, including concrete pledges of financial and technological assistance, the EPAs can help address these pitfalls.
Turning from the EPA negotiations to the WTO, Mário Jales, a PHD candidate at Cornell University, offers fresh insights into one of the most sensitive issues in the Doha Round negotiations - the trade rules applied to cotton. Summarizing his recent research on the effects of a trade deal in cotton, he concludes that the Doha Round can have a positive impact of world cotton prices, benefitting developing country exporters. Yet this hinges on ambitious reductions in cotton subsidies - a key sticking point in the negotiations, so far.
Our final guest feature addresses the issue of food aid, another topic in which African countries have been active at the WTO. Here there is a need to ensure that emergency food aid flows to countries in need, but that it doesn’t undermine local agricultural production. Hilton Zunckel, a director with the South African trade law practice Trade Law Chambers, argues that achieving this balance requires strong voices from the African continent. Unfortunately, however, food-aid recipients have been excluded, or have provided little input, in some key food-aid related fora and treaties.
As always, the editorial team at ECDPM and ICTSD welcomes feedback or offers to contribute articles. These can be directed to Damon Vis-Dunbar at dvisdunbar@ictsd.ch.
To subscribe electronically to TNI, please go to http://ictsd.org/news/tni/ or request a hard copy at: http://ictsd.org/subscribe/english/?publication=tni
Add a comment
Enter your details and a comment below, then click Submit Comment. We’ll review and publish the best comments.