The Cotonou Agreement states that the objective of the Economic Partnership Agreements (EPAs) is "to reduce poverty by supporting the sustainable development and the gradual integration of the ACP countries into the world economy".
 

Together, these aims constitute the core benchmarks, or as defined here, Development Benchmarks. When the Africa, Pacific and Caribbean (ACP) countries entered into the EPA negotiations, they believed that these objectives would be achieved through the signing of an agreement. With the December 2007 deadline fast approaching, negotiators still face the challenge of creating a coherent and systematic framework that fosters these benchmarks within the EPAs.

In order to genuinely deliver on these goals, EPA provisions have to be linked with real development prospects for the ACP. This can only happen, however, once ACP countries increase the revenue, diversity and value addition of their exports. If they do not, any incentive that the EPAs offer may not only fail to work, but could also generate undesirable results and continue to perpetuate the status quo.

While trade liberalisation is a fundamental piece of the EPA puzzle, it is not sufficient in and of itself. Adequate institutional capacities, coupled with complimentary domestic policies that support liberalisation, are necessary to make the process effective and beneficial.
 

Trade agreements must therefore incorporate analysis that focuses not only on the immediate implications of trade liberalisation and reform, but also on other policy areas that support the overarching development strategies, if their benefits are to be fully realised.
 

Analysis should inextricably link trade agreements to development goals by benchmarking targets in relation to national poverty reduction and development strategies. These components will thus enable trade agreements to effectively support accelerated and sustained development.

It follows that the EPAs must be based on stages of ACP countries' development, rather than arbitrary timetables. These stages must be identified by setting milestones, which once reached, should be followed by the implementation of reforms - including tariff dismantling.
 

A regular review of the ACP states must also be undertaken to determine each country's progress against the set targets. These evaluations must determine whether the milestones have been reached by the individual ACP country, and how - if at all - the European Union's (EU) trade and development policies have contributed towards meeting these objectives.

This 'Trade for Development' framework introduces a novel way of enabling trade agreements to work for ACP countries. Not only does it mandate that any trade agreement, including an EPA, acts as a vehicle for achieving sustained development, but this framework requires that countries are also accountable for their progress through rigorous review mechanisms. These pieces of the puzzle were clearly lacking from previous preferential trade agreements like the Lomé Convention, to the detriment of ACP countries.
 

WHY ARE DEVELOPMENT BENCHMARKS DESIRABLE?
 

Arbitrary mechanisms - such as universal timetables for development - are ineffective and lack causal explanations for their reforms precisely because of their arbitrary nature. The implementation of dated milestones, however, provides a useful and logical explanation for liberalisation commitments.
 

Aid for Trade (AfT), a concept wholeheartedly supported by major trading countries, including the EU, articulates a similar message. One of the founding pillars of AfT says that if market access is to be meaningful, beneficiary countries must own the process, from conceptualisation to operationalisation.
 

This sense of ownership and accountability often maximises potential benefits by ensuring that the process is demand-driven and needs-based. The Trade for Development framework fine tunes this concept by providing a clear definition and a realistic expectation about what can be achieved and the context in which it can be implemented.
 

If the EPAs are to deliver on their objectives, they must address a lack of genuine market access and the supply-side constraints that relegate most of the ACP's exports to primary commodities. This implies that the EPAs incorporate a consistent, comprehensive and predictable set of actions that systematically, and within a definite timeframe, oblige the contracting parties to address the problems.
 

Moreover, the Development Benchmarks have to be quantifiable and set clear goals for ACP countries to strive for individually and as a region. At the same time, only robust and sustainable economic growth will enable ACP states to achieve the Development Benchmarks. The issue therefore becomes how best to use the EPAs as a tool to achieve and sustain better economic performance in each ACP country.
 

In order to accomplish the Development Benchmarks, ACP countries must be able to fulfil the following indicators or 'key tests': Increase their current export volume and revenue; diversify their export base; and add value to their current exports.
 

Sustaining a vigorous level of growth and transformation of exports requires policy actions in each ACP country that may not be directly addressed in the EPA negotiations. However, bolstered by national development policies, these goals have a chance of being attained.

What is suggested here is not an outcome, but a consistent trade related set of actions taken in an expected and definite timeframe by both the EU and the ACP. If implemented, this may lead to the realisation of the key indicators outlined above, which in turn could boost overall economic growth and set the ACP countries on a definite course to achieve the Development Benchmarks.