Delegates at a joint conference of the African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) grouping have recommended that the ACP convene a joint meeting with the European Commission ministerial trade committee to resolve contentious issues in the various Economic Partnership Agreements (EPAs) signed in the different regions of the ACP.

They also suggested that the ACP Secretariat consider setting up a “clearing house” mechanism as well to share information on the EPA process in the different regions.

The conference was told that with 35 of the 77 ACP countries having signed EPAs there is now a multiplicity of trade regimes between the two groupings.

Several ACP States said it was necessary to examine the content, character and implications of the various agreements that have been concluded so far.

The meeting was held in Cape Town, South Africa last week.

Participants included ACP regional EPA negotiators, government ministers, senior technical officers, Brussels and Geneva-based ambassadors and private sector representatives.

They felt particular attention should be paid to cross-cutting issues such as rules of origin, safeguards, dispute settlement, Most Favored Nation (MFN) status and new generation issues.

The meeting was chaired by the deputy minister of Trade and Industry of South Africa, while T&T was represented by this country’s Trade and Industry Minister, Dr Keith Rowley, who is also the Caribbean Community’s (Caricom) spokesperson on bilateral trade, and this country’s deputy high commissioner to South Africa, Dennison Webster.

Cariforum, the regional grouping comprising Caricom and the Dominican Republic, initialled an EPA in December 16, 2007, just before the December 31,2007, deadline for the conclusion of negotiations between the EU and all ACP States.

Rowley said: “Caricom has always been a cohesive unit, and that worked to our advantage in dealing with the EU.” He added: “the process we followed allowed us to get the support which seems to be absent in some other regional groupings, and indeed some of them could benefit from our experience in dealing with the EU.”

Meeting participants agreed that evaluation of initialled EPAs should be based on the general and specific objectives set out in the Cotonou Agreement. They were advised that whether states had initialled a full or interim EPA, there was still legal space to negotiate resolution of any contentious issues. In fact, participants agreed that there was an urgent need to review these issues to ensure eventual consistency with national and regional development plans and aspirations.

In addition, there was general agreement that the development dimension of EPAs reaches beyond financial assistance and aid for trade support, and includes all aspects impinging upon the ability of ACP governments and regions to restructure their economies and to achieve underlying objectives regarding poverty alleviation, employment creation and income growth.

The meeting identified a strong need for ACP regions to clearly define their product and trade adjustment needs with their wider developmental objectives. They also recommended that the ACP should strive to seek greater understanding and support for their positions in the wider EU constituency and other stakeholders of the ACP group and that ACP trade ministers keep close oversight of the progress of all these negotiations.