Debattartiklar
- Detaljer
- Publicerad fredag, 12 november 2010 07:15
Trade negotiations between the EU and African countries have stranded. EU wants ‘EPA’ agreements that aim at creating free trade areas, where African countries are forced into a fast and far reaching liberalization. Local businesses and small scale farmers in Africa risk being wiped out when they have to compete with the much more advanced European industries and large-scale, often subsidized, agriculture. Moreover, the EPAs threaten regional integration and intra-regional trade in Africa.
Around 40 organizations from civil society in Europe had urged their governments to change the direction in the trade negotiations and instead look at alternatives to EPAs. The EU provides the world’s least developed countries with duty free access to European markets; this could be extended to all African countries. Sweden and the other Nordic EU member countries should insist that negotiations be driven by development objectives in Africa and not by the EU's own agenda.
After eight years of negotiations, which have been marked by conflicts, countless delays and a strong opposition from African countries, negotiations on trade agreements (the so-called Economic Partnership Agreements, EPAs) are now at an impasse. The EU has pursued its own interests, often in conflict with development objectives in African countries.
The EPA agreements aim at creating free trade areas, where African countries are forced into a fast and far reaching liberalization. Local businesses and small scale farmers in Africa risk being wiped out when they have to compete with the much more advanced European industries and large-scale, often subsidized, agriculture.
Moreover, studies show that the EPAs threaten regional integration and intra-regional trade in Africa. For African manufacturing producers the regional markets are important. Kenya, for example, sells 67 per cent of its manufactured export to the COMESA market, compared with 9 per cent to the EU. Kenya could lose 15 per cent of its trade with neighboring countries in the competition with European goods on regional markets, which would undermine the country’s trade in value-added goods.
Many African countries are concerned about losses of tariff revenue under EPAs and the impact this will have for already constrained economies. Since the EU is the largest source of imports for most African countries, some countries fear losing significant tariff revenues from eliminating all tariffs on more than 80 per cent of their imports from the EU.
In its quest for control over Africa's raw materials, the EU is trying to ban the use of export taxes in African countries. Export duties are important as a tool for developing countries to promote local value addition and industrialization. Since many African countries are trapped in a commodity dependence, which makes them extremely vulnerable to the volatility of commodity markets, it is crucial that they are able to promote diversification of their economies.
EU has consistently pushed that the EPA agreements include liberalization of trade in services as well as trade related issues such as liberalization of investment and rules on patents, which has been strongly opposed by African countries. This also goes well beyond the requirements of the WTO, which only requires the liberalization of trade in goods for regional trade agreements. An investment agreement in EPAs would severely limit African countries’ possibilities to regulate foreign investments to ensure that the investments actually benefit the local economy and promote development. African countries could then for example not require that the foreign investors purchase part of the inputs locally, re-invest part of the profit or employ local staff.
When the EU's development ministers met for an informal meeting in Brussels on 22nd October, the future of the EPAs was on their agenda. The EU commissioners for trade and development had asked the ministers for advice, since the negotiations are grinding to a halt. The ministers were to discuss, among other issues, cases where legitimate concerns in African countries on trade and development issues may lead the EU to decide either to discontinue negotiations or to accept agreements with a lower level of ambition.
Ahead of the meeting, around 40 organizations from civil society in Europe had urged their governments to change the direction in the trade negotiations and instead look at alternatives to EPAs. The EU provides the world’s least developed countries with duty free access to European markets. This initiative could be extended to all African countries.
Sweden's position is to go for broad EPAs that reach beyond trade in goods and include services, investment, patents, government procurement and competition. This differs from for instance Finland’s priority, which is to get arrangements for trade in goods clarified and consolidated. No common concrete positions were reached at the development ministers meeting; the ministers only stated that the commission should try to negotiate the final agreements with its ACP (African, Caribbean and Pacific) partners. A summit between the EU and Africa at the end of November is now expected to come up with ideas for how the EPA negotiations can be negotiated or if the level of ambition must be reduced.
In an analysis of the EPA negotiations, the EU commission demonstrates an understanding that the comprehensive agreement that the EU is pushing for might create problems for African countries. The countries are concerned that EPAs will result in less policy space and undermine regional integration. Unfortunately, the analysis did not lead to a change in the Commission’s approach. The conclusion is rather that the EU intends to continue as before. One solution that the Commission is looking at is to "go with the willing". That is, to sign deals with those countries that have no other choice, if they want to continue to have access to the EU market. If the EU follows this approach, regional integration in Africa will be even more difficult.
The Swedish development minister Gunilla Carlsson wrote in an article in the Svenska Dagbladet on 27th October that regional fragmentation of the ACP countries would be a major development problem. At the same time she sees the EPAs as a way to enhance regional integration. How does Sweden view a situation where the EU commission signs separate agreements with individual countries rather than negotiating development friendly agreements with whole regions?
Since the EPAs are now at a crucial crossroads, it's time for Sweden and the other Nordic EU member countries to take responsibility and ensure that trade agreements between the EU and African countries are promoting sustainable development in Africa.
Marja Wolpher, theme officer at Africa Groups of Sweden
Karin Gregow, advocacy officer at Forum Syd