Tuesday, October 28, 2008

Why Civil Society should make maximum use of the Mandatory EPA Review in the Joint Declaration

Click here
http://www.normangirvan.info/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/girvan-the-mandatory-review-summary.pdf

Norman


4 comments:

  1. Hi Norman,

    Just trying to clarify. Are these new provisions or were they part of the agreement all along?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Hi Roosevelt,

    it is new provision--part of the Joint Declaration that was appended at the insistence of Guyana

    Norman

    ReplyDelete
  3. Norman

    I want to be lucidly clear on this. First, is a joint declaration an instrument that normally accompany agreements like this? Second, are you saying that the following text is what Guyana negotiated in order to safeguard CARICOM interests:

    “in the context of our continued monitoring of the Agreement within its
    institutions, as provided for under article 5 of the Agreement, a comprehensive
    review of the Agreement shall be undertaken not later than five (5) years after the
    date of signature and at subsequent five-yearly intervals, in order to determine
    the impact of the Agreement, including the costs and consequences of
    implementation and we undertake to amend its provisions and adjust their
    application as necessary.”

    I am therefore, taking it for granted that your opinion (at: http://www.normangirvan.info/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/girvan-the-mandatory-review-summary.pdf) examines the extent to which this insertion protects our interests???

    ReplyDelete
  4. Dear ROK,

    the EPA contains several accomanying Joint Declarations, e.g. on Development Cooperation, on Bananas, etc. The others were there from the start, i.e. from the initialled text in December 2007.

    The JD containing the paragraph you quote is the same as the JD to which Havelock Brewster refers in his piece as 'clearing the way for Guyana to sign' the EPA, which was published in your blog. This particular JD was negotiated in the final week or weeks before the October 15 signing, on Guyana's insistence. The actual negotiation, I believe, was between the Caricom Secretariat and the European Commission, but Guyana was closely involved, and the other Caricom govts agreed to it.

    All this information, including the text of the JD, and Guyana's position, and the sequence of events, are in the public domain, in documents published on my website at "EPA latest".

    My opinion examines the extent to which the mandatory review provided by this JD can be utilized by Caricom governments and other stakeholders, including civil society, to address the contentious features of the EPA in the future. It follows on Brewster's memorandum and elaborates on the possibilties afforded by the review commitment by referring to how far it goes beyond the review provisions contained in the text of the EPA, as originally negotiated.

    My opinion has been supported by several experts--Sir Shridath Ramphal, Ambassador Havelock Brewster, and Dr Lorand Bartels, international trade lawyer at Cambdidge University, who follows WTO and EPA matters closely.

    But everything depends on all stakeholders making maximum use of the mandatory comprehensive review in the coming months and years. It will not happen automatically.

    Norman

    ReplyDelete