|
The ACP have indicated that they wish to obtain
a WTO waiver to cover the period to 2010, and an integral part of the EU’s proposal
is that a waiver be sought at least to 2005. Hence, any post-Lomé strategy is likely to
incorporate some provision to obtain a new WTO waiver. |
|
The report argues that:
- a carefully constructed waiver, accepted by consensus, would provide the ACP with
legally secure preferences;
- but this may be difficult to achieve.
|
|
It is very important that the ACP
begin as soon as possible the task of building a consensus within the WTO in support of a
waiver. It would be imprudent to rely on the EU to do this. Achieving such a consensus
would require overcoming a range of possible objections from other developing countries
and transition economies, as well as from some developed states. |
|
As the banana panel ruling
demonstrates, it is also vital that any waiver be drafted in such a way as to provide
secure support for all those facets of the current trade regime that the ACP wish to
protect. The required level of specificity will make the task of achieving a consensus
more difficult because it will reduce the scope for compromise through the use of general
terminology. |
|
The ACP have indicated that the
GSP as currently formulated represents an inadequate alternative to Lomé, but the
possibility remains open that an improved one could form an important part of a post-Lomé
strategy. At the very least, it would provide a safety net against the failure to obtain
either a WTO waiver or acceptable terms for a REPA. |
| |
The report identifies a strategy
for improving the GSP in key areas. This would involve removing the deficiencies of the
origin rules as compared with those in Lomé and providing a means whereby market access
for non-least developed ACP states could be brought up to Lomé standards. |
|
No single criterion would distinguish all ACP
states as a separate category. Such separation is required to allow the EU to offer to the
ACP, and only to the ACP, improved terms under the GSP. Without it, the EU would have to
generalise the improvements to a range of other medium-income and poor states. This would
not only be politically unacceptable to the EU but would vitiate the objective of
providing a competitive advantage to ACP states. |
|
However, a combination of criteria can be
devised which would tend to include all ACP states but exclude most others. It would
involve a combination of income, vulnerability and size as the determinants of a group of
states deserving of special treatment. |
|
Identifying technical criteria is only the
first stage; the key task would be to persuade other WTO members that this was a
legitimate and acceptable method of classification. As in the case of a waiver, therefore,
the main task for the ACP is the political challenge of pressing their case in the WTO.
The function of technical reports such as the present one is to supply helpful analysis to
support this political strategy. |
