BRIDGETOWN, Barbados – Caribbean states that are party to the full Economic Partnership Agreement (EPA) with the European Union (EU) have another six days to sign the accord, but 14 of them, including Guyana, are expected to do so today in Barbados along with participating EU member countries.

Guyana, which had originally signalled readiness to sign a “goods only” agreement for compatibility with World Trade Organisation (WTO) requirements pending resolution of outstanding differences with clauses of the EPA in their present form, seemed set as of last evening to join today’s signing ceremony at the Shebourne Conference Centre.

Only Haiti will avoid signing without endangering its position since as under the EU’s prevailing concession of “everything but arms” (EBA) for UN-designated Least Developed Countries (LDCs), it would have until some time in 2010 to do so.

A significant development since last month’s decision by 13 of the 15 CARIFORUM countries (Caricom plus the Dominican Republic) to sign the text of the EPA – as initialled by officials of the European Commission (EC) and the Caribbean Regional Negotiating Machinery (CRNM) – was the crafting of a Joint Declaration for release today, as a direct result of an initiative by Guyana to secure some precise understanding to avoid problems for the region’s economic integration movement.

One such condition was a consensus for mandatory review of the EPA every five years starting from the date of signing; and secondly, that conflict arising from implementation of the EPA would avoid undermining the Revised Caricom Treaty as it relates to the Single Market and Economy (CSME).

In the end a compromise formula was worked out between representatives of the European Commission (executive arm of the EU) and CARIFORUM ambassadors in Brussels with the approval of their respective governments.

According to a copy of the proposed Joint Declaration on the Signing of the EPA, a consensus has been reached to ensure that consistent with Article 4 of the Agreement, its implementation “will pay due regard to the integration processes in CARIFORUM”.

“Including,” it assures, “the aims and objectives of the Caricom Single Market and Economy, as outlined in the Revised Treaty of Chaguaramas. In such implementation, special consideration will be given to reinforcing the regional integration schemes of the CARIFORUM states and ensuring their further sustainable advancement.”

The proposed Joint Declaration further states in relation to the need for specified review of the EPA, that under provisions of Article 5 of the Agreement, “a comprehensive review shall be undertaken not later than five years after the date of signature and at subsequent five yearly intervals of implementation…”.

This will be done with a view “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”.

However, while representatives of CARIFORUM and the EU were arriving yesterday for today’s signing ceremony, intense dialogue continued on the Internet among some leading academics, international specialists in trade and foreign relations over various aspects of the EPA and what needs to be avoided in the coming new trade negotiations with Canada and the United States of America on issues such as reciprocity – as distinct from proportionality – and More Favoured Nation (MFN) treatment.

Professor Norman Girvan, for example, contends that if the EU insists on MFA treatment from Caricom under the EPA, “the result would be to considerably accelerate the speed and extent of import liberalisation from the EU above what is provided in the EPA schedule”. He further argues that once signed for implementation, “then the US is likely to demand reciprocal FTA (Free Trade Area) with Caricom…”.

President of the US-based Manchester Trade group of international trade advisors, Stephen Lande, in arguing strongly against the MFN provision in the EPA, feels that the US will most certainly want to negotiate for reciprocity given to Europe when negotiations begin with the Caribbean for a FTA.

It was, therefore, incumbent on Caribbean governments to discuss in detail the “potential impact of both the MFN clause in the EPA and potential FTA negotiations with the US”, according to Lande.

However, international relations and former technocrat with the CRNM, Anthony ‘Peter’ Gonzales, differs and offers the point of view that the EU had also entered into FTAs with other developing countries, while it has given CARIFORUM “much more than WTO-compatible flexible thresholds.

This approach for the EPA with CARIFORUM, Gonzales said, was adopted by the EU on the grounds as argued with the WTO that this group of countries constitutes what’s regarded as “small and vulnerable economies (SVEs). Consequently, he feels that since SVEs are now “an established entity in the WTO”, this should not prove a problem for the USA in future negotiations for a FTA.

That’s for the future; now for today’s signing ceremony of the CARIFORUM/EU EPA in Barbados.