MEPs recently gave the green light to a new trade deal between Europe and Caribbean countries.

MEPs recently gave the green light to a new trade deal between Europe and Caribbean countries. It is part of the “Economic Partnership Agreements” being negotiated with African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) countries, who have long had preferential access to EU markets, after the World Trade Organisation struck down existing agreements as detrimental to other developing countries. Negotiating the new accords has proved controversial. We asked some MEPs for their views and we want yours too.

The European Commission’s EPA proposals were severely criticised in the EU by NGOs and academia and by ACP governments, who refused to sign the new regional agreements. Worries centred on the imbalance between the trading partners, loss of tariff income for poor countries and the possible adverse effects of liberalisation on developing economies. As the 2008 deadline elapsed, interim agreements had to be found.
 
On 23 March, MEPs finally endorsed the first comprehensive regional EPA, despite some very different opinions. Here is what some MEPs with distinctively different views said:
 
Does trade with Europe help ACP countries to develop? Are they getting a fair deal with the proposed EPAs?
 
Yes! Polish Christian Democrat Zbigniew Zaleski acknowledges the “echo of colonial memories” and the “fear that the new strategy is a new way of exploitation”, but is convinced that through “exchange of goods, contact of people, and transmission of know-how, trade based on sincere rules benefits both sides and creates wealth”.
 
“We can help by selling technology and expertise, say in banking or water and sanitation. Both sides have something that the other does not have,” he said. But a “gradual approach” is needed.

Mr Zaleski said, “Trade provides models to strive for. We should help people who suffer, but in the long run people in developing countries have to become actors, have to work, and one of the means to make that happen is trade – an honest trade, not taking advantage of their weaknesses. It is however important that they produce processed products, including labour, not just primary goods.”
 
No! German Green Frithjof Schmidt warns that the EPAs are too “targeted at free trade and too little towards development” and are likely to mean “loss of income from tariffs and negative effects for local production”. He warns that “ACP countries will lose the means to shield their economies, while the EU hasn't kept its promise to end agricultural export subsidies.”
 
Under certain conditions “In the abstract, open trade is good for jobs, good for investment. But nearly all developing countries have difficulties in securing reliable revenue. Tariff duties were one of the few reliable sources, and they are going to disappear. Therefore the liberalisation needs to be over a long period of time so they can find alternative sources of income,” said British Labour Member David Martin. “In theory trade flows both ways, but in practice African and Caribbean countries find it difficult to trade into the European market because they find it difficult to meet the standards we have in areas such as environmental standards.”
 
“We therefore insisted on an ‘aid for trade’ budget to help them adapt and to actually access the European market. And we needed assurances from the Commission that this aid is properly programmed and delivered according to the needs. We also wanted to make sure that nothing in the agreements would stop developing countries from producing generic medicine,” Mr Martin said.