ESA African Experts Group review Economic Partnership Agreements (EPAs)
During a meeting of the African Experts Group on the Review of the Economic Partnership Agreements (EPAs) in Nairobi on February 12th - 13th, 2007, it emerged that negotiations on Economic Partnership Agreements are in their final phase which is covering the specific structure and scope of the EPAs in each region.
In Africa, countries have configured themselves into the four groups for the purpose of negotiating Economic Partnership Agreements with European Community namely; Eastern and Southern Africa (ESA) involving all members of COMESA except Egypt and Libya, Southern African Development Community (SADC),Central Africa Economic and Monetary Union (CEMAC) jointly with Economic Community of West African States (ECCAS), Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) jointly with West African Economic and Monetary Union (UEMOA).
The overall assessment of the negotiations at Continental level was that there was Slow progress in all regions and a strong indication that the negotiations will not be completed before 31st December, 2007.Delay by the EU to respond on issues and proposals by groups on issues raised under fisheries, rules of origin, development and agriculture.
All groups are facing issues of capacity and shortage of financial resources. For the ESA group where Kenya is a member, there has been limited progress due to protracted negotiations in market access and trade related areas on rules of origin,(ROO), sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS), effect of EU Common Agricultural Policy(CAP) reform, technical barriers to trade(TBT) and conclusion of the regional sensitive list.
EC needs to be clear on how the development assistance and trade aspects of EPAs will be integrated. A survey of organizations UNECA showed that EPAs prefer more than 20 yrs as the transitional period with EU for trade liberalization. Many prefer additional 2 more years to conclude the EPA negotiations.
The forum also raised unresolved issues at continental level. There is lack of agreement on the criteria of conferring origin and having asymmetrical rules of origin (ROO). Many regions are wary of European Community (EC) liberalization agenda and EU insistence on reciprocity taking into account EC officials have been quoted saying that EU has no interest market Access in Africa.
There is a conceptual disconnect between the EC and ACP interpretation of the development dimension of the EPAs. There is disagreement on the levels of product coverage and time frame for tariff liberalization appropriate for the separate ACP regions.
There is need for clarification of EC financing commitments, and mechanisms for Aid for Trade. Funding for the EPA process should not prejudice the existing development priorities, such as health and education. Related development cooperation framework and funding mechanisms need to be resolved.
Singapore issues i.e. investment, Competition, Government procurement and Trade Facilitation and EU insistence on rules vs. the Cotounou Agreement focus on cooperation.
The forum developed Measures for timely completion of the negotiations. The EU and sub-regions need to commit themselves to completing the outstanding work, Political will to resolve outstanding issues, Correct and timely information acquisition and dissemination and joint drafting sessions with EC on contentious issues to avoid delays.
The participants felt that Every-Thing-But-Arms (EBA) and General System of Preference(GSP+) are not suitable alternatives in the context of Cotounou because GSP-plus will be available for all developing countries and can be changed (not binding), while EBA even currently has not delivered market access to EU because of the EU complicated rules of origin.
The forum also discussed the Extension needs to be linked/mapped with the outstanding issues in each of the sub-regions based on the review reports of the negotiating groups and the outcome at all ACP level and political statements by the European Commission.
All groups are facing issues of capacity and shortage of financial resources. For the ESA group where Kenya is a member, there has been limited progress due to protracted negotiations in market access and trade related areas on rules of origin,(ROO), sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS), effect of EU Common Agricultural Policy(CAP) reform, technical barriers to trade(TBT) and conclusion of the regional sensitive list.
EC needs to be clear on how the development assistance and trade aspects of EPAs will be integrated. A survey of organizations UNECA showed that EPAs prefer more than 20 yrs as the transitional period with EU for trade liberalization. Many prefer additional 2 more years to conclude the EPA negotiations.
The forum also raised unresolved issues at continental level. There is lack of agreement on the criteria of conferring origin and having asymmetrical rules of origin (ROO). Many regions are wary of European Community (EC) liberalization agenda and EU insistence on reciprocity taking into account EC officials have been quoted saying that EU has no interest market Access in Africa.
There is a conceptual disconnect between the EC and ACP interpretation of the development dimension of the EPAs. There is disagreement on the levels of product coverage and time frame for tariff liberalization appropriate for the separate ACP regions.
There is need for clarification of EC financing commitments, and mechanisms for Aid for Trade. Funding for the EPA process should not prejudice the existing development priorities, such as health and education. Related development cooperation framework and funding mechanisms need to be resolved.
Singapore issues i.e. investment, Competition, Government procurement and Trade Facilitation and EU insistence on rules vs. the Cotounou Agreement focus on cooperation.
The forum developed Measures for timely completion of the negotiations. The EU and sub-regions need to commit themselves to completing the outstanding work, Political will to resolve outstanding issues, Correct and timely information acquisition and dissemination and joint drafting sessions with EC on contentious issues to avoid delays.
The participants felt that Every-Thing-But-Arms (EBA) and General System of Preference(GSP+) are not suitable alternatives in the context of Cotounou because GSP-plus will be available for all developing countries and can be changed (not binding), while EBA even currently has not delivered market access to EU because of the EU complicated rules of origin.
The forum also discussed the Extension needs to be linked/mapped with the outstanding issues in each of the sub-regions based on the review reports of the negotiating groups and the outcome at all ACP level and political statements by the European Commission.
Expert Opinion: The region ESA region seems to be ahead of other regions since it has an EPA draft text for negotiations with EU with draft Protocols on rules of origin and SPS ready for discussion at the forthcoming meetings in Burundi and Brussels. It is unlikely to conclude the negotiations for all groups before the end of this year. The focus on Singapore issues should lie on cooperation with EU rather than on rules while waiting for the negotiations to progress at the WTO level. It is possible for the ESA region to sign an EPA Agreement (light EPA) based on agreed areas with EU and ask for more time, say one to two years to continue and conclude the negotiations.
Source
Source