EU - ANDEAN COMMUNITY (CAN) TRADE AGREEMENT Camilo Tovar ALOP

CAN Political Context Colombia - Perú Uribe 2002 Garcia 2006 Affirm neoliberal development model Shrink State – market driven development: de- regulation, privatisation, FTA, competitivity Social conflict: authoritarism (Bagua, Minga, etc...) Ecuador - Bolivia Evo Morales 2006 Correa 2007 Constitutional processes rupture with neoliberal Strengthen State – regulate market: nationalisation, regional, complementarity Space and role of social movement

Differentiation FTAA fails  US FTA with CAN : –Colombia and Perú signed 2006 –Ecuador and Bolvia pull out (election flag) –Venezuela pulls out of CAN (2006 – Crisis) Tense relations: Colombia vs. Ecuador Perú vs. Bolivia Different views on development Different strategies of international insertion

EU Political Context 2004 Enlargement + EU Constitution  Lisbon Treaty : LA less priority Barroso COM 2004  Lisbon Agenda Growth and jobs: internal + external market Global Europe 2006 (Mandelson) Competitiveness + business driven New generation of RTAs/FTAs Raw materials initiative 2008 (key priority)

EU POLITICAL COMPASS 2008 Eastern block  fast free market approach, slow social rights Western block  expansion of neoliberal economics, erosion of some social policies

Additional “pull factors” Doha Development Round (WTO) –2001  Talks collapse Cancun 2003 –2005 Deadline missed (Hong Kong)  extend to end 2006: missed 2008 Geneva: collapse EU loosing market share - emerging economies (China) + US FTA EU regional approach to FTAs

EU - ANDEAN COMMUNITY (CAN) TRADE AGREEMENT 1 st EU-CAN Coop Agreement 1983  Political Dialogue and Coop Agreement 2004 EU-LAC Summit  EU: wait for FTA –EU evaluation of CAN economic integration 2006: EU-LAC Summit - Crisis CAN (Venezuela) June 2007: CAN Summit Tarija –Andean Differences  Decision 667 (framework) July 2007: Agreed modalities for negotiation

EU “marca la cancha” EU format: 3 pillars + region to region Trade: classic FTA format (WTO plus) Objectives: Strength regional integration –Social cohesion  Sust. Development –Free trade Asymmetries: “when possible” –SDT for CAN  mechanism: ≠ speed liberal. CAN Consensus base for negotiation –Possibility of veto (block proposals)

Regional Negotiations Complex negotiation process for CAN –1 st intra-CAN negotiation  position to EU Bolivia: innovative proposals –WG asymmetries and SDT for all agreement –No “across the board” national treatment –No further IPR  TRIPS –Development benchmarks COL + PE: accept but not commit EU: “accept” but dangerous precedent Challenge: new architecture + technical

. Sept 2007 – April 2008: 3 rounds Ecuador: low profile  Quito Bolivia/Ecuador: ≠ FTA – regional integrat. Node: position on biodiversity and IPR CAN Summit Oct 2008  no solution Peru/Colombia: bilateral FTA (not new) 2009: EU propose Multiparty Trade Agree: –Only trade, ± bilateral  regional long term

Multiparty Trade Agreement Ecuador: yes.. but Agreement for Development Bolivia: Out Speedy negotiation: 2009 – 2010: 8 rounds –EU aggresive: US FTA Plus Plus –Col/Peru: accepting conditions Ecuador complex position: –No clear space for alternatives –Correa mandate NO FTA –Banana issue: heavy weight

. July 2009 Ecuador pulls out: –EU comply with WTO rulings on Banana –Include Polit. Dialogue and Coop EU-LAC Summit May 2010: –Conclude, ambitious FTA EU-Col/Perú –Defines scenario for Ecuador and Bolivia Ahead: –ratification process Col/Perú –Ecuador??

Conclusions Regional integration further crisis EU: satisfied  FTA as they wanted Col/Perú: re-affirm dev. Model –Raw materials export-led model (extractive) –Open services, public procurement and IPR –Erosion of State policy space –Static, long term –Investment Ecu/Bol: struggle for alternatives