The EU and ACP countries are negotiating new Economic Partnership Agreements and a free trade area because the preferential trade agreements between the EU and ACP countries that were in place until January 2008 were incompatible with World Trade Organization rules. But the interpretation of article 24 of the GATT is not objective according to ACP countries.

And there is a lot at stake for ACP countries. Full trade liberalisation would mean that ACP countries lose their preferential treatment as compared to non-ACP countries with regard to trade with the EU. The implications for trade flows could be enormous. The European Commission has estimated that if ACP countries are charged the same tariffs on imports to the EU as non-ACP countries, the losses for West Africa could amount to over €1 billion, and for Central Africa about €360 million.

Mahamet Saleh Annadif, ambassador of the permanent mission of the African Union (AU) in Brussels, is charged with overseeing negotiations between the AU and the EU. He is therefore keen to receive and to share research evidence that may be relevant to the EPA negotiations. ‘I receive information about development-related publications by email alert. I need to be informed myself, and I have to inform political leaders including presidents and ministers to help them to define our policies.

Research indispensable

Interactions between researchers and policy makers are indispensable, Ambassador Annadif believes. ‘All politicians, whatever happens, need to take decisions, and these need to be supported by firm arguments. The researcher comprehends all elements to enable objective judgements about certain issues. No politician can take himself seriously without being founded by elaborated research.’ Ambassador Annadif sees an important role for researchers in facilitating the process and in providing data that will stimulate discussions.

In April 2008, the AU permanent mission in Brussels assigned to the European Centre for Development Policy Management (ECDPM) the task of facilitating the EPA negotiation process. ECDPM researchers have undertaken critical analyses of the interim EPAs that have been signed by some African nations and the EU, as well as a comparative analysis of how the agreements have worked out in practice in a number of Caribbean and Pacific countries. These research findings have now been been discussed at several seminars and international conferences. Ambassador Annadif appreciates the role that ECDPM has managed to play, since dialogue between the EU and the AU has not always been easy. Essential for the facilitation, Ambassador Annadif thinks, is that ECDPM is familiar with the issues of interest, which the researchers can only know after intensive consultations with stakeholders. ‘They talk with all stakeholders, analyse their positions, and summarise points of agreement or controversy, enabling politicians to understand each other’s concerns.’

Building trust

Although the potential of evidence-based research is gradually becoming clear, many African politicians and policy makers do not yet have confidence in researchers, notes Ambassador Annadif. Some are suspicious that researchers who have close relations with political structures – as in the case of ECDPM with the European Commission – may manipulate information. ‘Researchers need to be more confident,’ says Ambassador Annadif, ‘and to convince policy makers of the objectivity of their research methods, data collection and analysis.’ He understands the hesitation about researchers’ credibility and objectivity, for every researcher is a human being talking to certain segments of society, but Ambassador Annadif is convinced that politicians or their intermediaries are capable of making objective judgements based on evidence with certain margins of error. They will then select the information that can lead to good decisions.

Scientific language and clarity of reasoning may be a problem for politicians and policy makers, ‘but what we reproach researchers most,’ Ambassador Annadif adds, ‘is that they remain at their computers. We want see them in the field, talking to people involved in projects and those in need of support. They are the real researchers, not those who only collect information from internet.’

Good governance

The situation also needs to be improved on the side of politicians and policy makers, if they are to profit fully from the interaction between evidence-based research and policy making, Ambassador Annadif admits. Political leaders will need time to become more confident in researchers, but he sees positive developments emerging from the emphasis on the notion of good governance: ‘Decision makers will be able to say: I administer in a transparent way, come and ask me questions. The more we move towards good governance, the more accommodating we will be about critical analysis, for it can really help us move forward.’

Further reading

Christopher Stevens et al. (2008) The New EPAs: A Comparative Analysis of their Content and the Challenges for 2008. ODI/ECDPM.

For more information see also www.acp-eu-trade.org.