Anti-Economic Partnership Agreements (Epas) campaigning resurfaced last week, with Oxfam International reiterating its desire to see African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) countries analyzing Epa impacts before turning their interim Epas with the European Union (EU) into legally binding arrangements.

In its newly launched report titled 'Partnership or Power Play? How Europe should bring development into its trade deals with Africa, Caribbean and Pacific', Oxfam gives many reasons to describe Epas as a 'failed document,' summarised below:

Reason one: Does not support creation of new employments

In the eyes of Oxfam, the deals initialed in December last year by 35 ACP countries fail to support economic diversification in ACP countries - hence restricting them (ACP countries) from developing new industries and creating jobs.

Oxfam feels the EU will be using the so-called 'Stand-still' clause to compel ACP countries to freeze all their tariffs at current rates even on products that are due to be opened up for another ten or 20 years.

The interim Epas provide for ACP to use tariffs to nurture new industries through the so-called 'infant industries safeguard' clause, Oxfam feels.

To the contrary, a close scrutiny indicates that the clause was designed only to protect current industries if they are damaged and has nothing to encourage the formation of new industries, the charity organisation states.

Reason two: Little commitment on infrastructure upgrading

Oxfam records indicate that Africa alone needs at least $200billion to upgrade its infrastructure to competitive levels before tackling all other costs associated with boosting competitiveness.

However, the EU has just pleaded to give ACP countries a total of 23billion euros during the 10th European Development Fund replenishment exercise which covers the period 2008 to 2013. Since it is just part of the money that will be earmarked for infrastructure upgrading, Oxfam feels the money is nowhere near sufficiency.

Consequently, Oxfam is concerned that the EU had at several instances not met its promises in as far disbursement of funds is concerned.

The group of non-governmental organizations from three continents working worldwide to fight poverty and injustice believes that the EU was required to deliver significant additional support for infrastructure and tackling competitiveness constraints.

"It's also important for Europe to dramatically improve the efficiency, predictability and accountability of aid for trade disbursement," it says the charity.

Reason three: Epas create barriers to integration processes of developing countries

In the eyes of Oxfam, the pressure that brought about delays in the signing of Epas in December led to a fragmentation of Africa's blocs - hence making a mockery of regional integration objectives.

It believes that from the start, the six Epa negotiating regions were problematic since they cut across regional integration regions. "The Southern African Development Community (Sadc) for instance has 13 members split between three different Epa negotiating blocs," reads a statement in the report.

Alternatively, the Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa (Comesa) now seems to be divided with the Epas. Five countries of Kenya Uganda, Rwanda, Burundi and Tanzania (which alone belongs to Sadc) have signed under East African Community (the EAC Epa text).

The other five have signed through the Eastern and Southern Africa (Esa text) while six - yet another group of Comesa members - have chosen to stay with Everything But Arms (Eba). "This poses severe problems for creation of a common external tariff," notes a statement in the report.

Reason four: No commitment to technology transfer

So far according to Oxfam, it is only Caribbean negotiators who have succeeded in getting technology transfer into the December Epa texts. Oxfam however finds problems with wording - noting that it indicates that the EU does not make technology transfer to be a binding commitment.

Consequently, Oxfam believes that it was high time that Europe put in measures to develop and uphold intellectual property rules that are appropriate to ACP countries' local contexts.

In the fifth step Oxfam sees that the full Epas as initialed by the Caribbean states is a blow to the Doha Development Round of the World Trade Organisation (WTO) negotiations.

The report notes that while the Doha Round calls for Least Developed Countries (LDCs) to be exempted from tariff cuts, the Epas need all ACP countries to eliminate applied tariffs on 80-98 per cent of trade with Europe.

It should however be noted that anti-Epa campaigns come at a time when Tanzania and other EAC member states are meeting regularly - with the utmost goal being to finalise and hence turn the Epas that were initialed in December into legally binding documents.

"We meet once every month and everything is going on smoothly," said a member of Tanzania's Epa negotiating team who opted for anonymity.

Tanzania along with other East African Community (EAC) partner states signed the framework Epa last year under which the EU had given the EAC a 100 per cent duty and quota free market access.

Consequently, under the framework which was the first towards a comprehensive Epa, which is expected to be in place by July 1, 2009, the EAC agreed to liberalise 80 per cent of its market to EU exports, and within a period of 15 years expect the same for rice and sugar, which are to be liberalised gradually within a timeframe that is already agreed and factored in the framework agreement.

Oxfam however attacks the EU for opening up while simultaneously forcing ACP countries to reciprocate.