British High Commissioner Philip Parham
British High Commissioner Philip Parham has said the Economic Partnership Agreements (EPAs) being championed by the European Union are not intended to exploit existing African resources but rather to foster the region`s efforts towards economic prosperity.
Parham said in an exclusive interview with The Guardian in Dar es Salaam yesterday that the agreements were necessary now because they were compatible with World Trade Organisation arrangements.
`The EPAs do not intend to squeeze resources and opportunities from developed countries. Doing so would amount to undermining the EU�s efforts towards supporting the African regional trade,` Parham said.
He explained that the agreements would help to open up markets and boost regional development through aid for trade programmes.
`As we all know, the level of regional trade in African countries is low. Thus, the EPAs would encourage regional trade through trading with Europe,` the envoy pointed out.
He added that it was also a developmental opportunity for countries like Tanzania to secure markets in developed countries.
Parham`s comments come at a time when ministers of the East and Southern African (ESA) grouping are meeting in Brussels next week for negotiations with the EU.
It remains to be seen whether talks will stall and be carried over to next year or if an �EPA-lite� will be accepted.
`EPA-lite` refers to an interim agreement covering the two components of EPA market access in goods on the one hand and development on the other.
There are still major differences between the EU and ESA countries on a variety of basic issues, one being that there has been no meeting of minds about what constitutes `development`.
Both the EU and African countries agreed that `development` sits at the heart of the EPA negotiations but the two sides are worlds apart in translating what this means in practical terms.
The ESA countries see development as the strengthening of their industrial and agricultural production base and have pushed hard for the EU to commit to a list of development projects, complete with financial commitments attached.
However, the EU has not been enthusiastic and has apparently tried to sidestep many of the respective conditions and has succeeded in persuading the ESA grouping to downgrade their demands.
The implementation portion of the `development chapter` in the EPA text has been converted into a `development matrix`.
Now that the matrix has been worked out by ESA, the sides are quarrelling over where to put it.
While ESA wants it appended to the EPA text to ensure that it is legally binding on the EU, the EU says it will only refer to it in the text.
Now, the EU is backtracking even further and it is unclear if such a reference will even be made in the `development matrix`.
In any case, the EU insists that it cannot provide financial assistance in the EPA.
Last month Tanzania said it would not be so generous and free-minded as to open its doors to European goods and services as proposed under the EPAs.
The remarks came as negotiators struggled to beat the deadline for the signing of the pacts.
EPAs have been facing a number of challenges across the region, with some pressure groups saying the agreements would allow EU member states to exploit Africa with impunity.
The WTO has set the end of this year as a deadline for EU member states on one hand and the Africa, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) nations on the other to conclude negotiations and actually start implementing the EPAs.
There is also no agreement on the scope of products that can be exempted from tariff elimination.
The ESA countries, according to a recent dossier by Inter Press Service (IPS) had initially asked for 57 percent of their tariff lines to be protected.
The European Commission (EC) refused to accept the list and have asked ESA to shorten it.
Now the EC is insisting that the exception list should be limited to only 10 percent, while the ESA countries are aiming for 30 percent.
According to Nalunga, `In Kenya, with all its tribal sensitivities � different regions and tribes wanting to protect different crops � it will be politically sensitive limiting the protection to only 10 percent.`
The previous assessment by the United Nations Economic Commission for Africa showed that unless the ESA countries protect up to 40 percent of their trade with the EU, it is likely that their industries will be negatively impacted.
In addition, there is also no agreement on the very important issue of the timeframe for tariff elimination.
All agricultural and industrial products which are not in the sensitive list will have their tariffs eliminated over time.
The EU is insisting on a maximum of 12 years, whilst the ESA countries have asked for 25 years.
Domestic support and export subsidies in agriculture are another area of contention.
ESA countries have expressed the fear that their agricultural producers will be displaced by unfair imports of subsidised EU agricultural goods.
IPS has learnt that the Europeans have flatly refused to even discuss this. These issues, they say, are an internal affair.
The two sides have also struggled over the issues of review and benchmarking.
Both sides agree that there should be an in-built mechanism for review in the EPA text.
The ESA countries have identified certain development benchmarks.
They want their liberalisation commitments to be pegged to these benchmarks.
If the development benchmarks have not yet been attained by the time of the review, they want to be able to go back on the liberalisation timetable.
The EU has been dismissive of this position, insisting that a mechanism for review should be aimed at expanding the scope of liberalisation and not allow backtracking on those commitments.
With such wide divergences on major issues, it is uncertain if the ESA and the EU will be able to sign on the dotted line by the end of the year.
EPAs are a scheme to create a free trade area (FTA) between the European Union and the ACP countries They are a response to continuing criticism that the non-reciprocal and discriminating preferential trade agreements offered by the EU are incompatible with WTO rules.
The EPAs are a key element of the Cotonou Agreement, the latest agreement in the history of ACP-EU Development Cooperation and are to take effect as of 2008.
No comments:
Post a Comment