ECONOMIC PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENTS NEGOTIATING
OBJECTIVES AND STRATEGIES OF AND OUTCOMES FOR
SUB-SAHARAN AFRICAN COUNTRIES
Ambassador Nathan Irumba
Executive Director
SEATINI
[email protected]
[email protected]
BACKGROUND TO THE NEGOTIATIONS
 Lome

conventions 1975-2000
Essentially offering Non Reciprocal preference market
access to ACP states.
 Cotonou – Replaced Lome Accord Arrangements signed in June 2000
lasting for twenty years up to 2020.
 The Banana protocol of Lome 5 was successfully challenged at WTO and
found to be WTO inconsistent.
 In 2001 at Doha Ministerial Meeting waiver was granted for Cotonou
trade arrangements to continue until 2007
 EU proposed negotiations of WTO compatible EPAs to replace the
existing trading arrangements.
 EU

Global strategy for FTAs
Need to examine EPAs in context of EU global strategy.
BACKGROUND TO THE NEGOTIATIONS
Cont…

EUs underlying rationale for FTAs spelt out as far back in
1995 include the following:




FTAs are economically beneficial, especially where they help EU to bolster its presence
in the faster growing economies of the world, which is our overriding interest.
This direct economic justification has also been supplemented by strategic
considerations regarding the need to reinforce our presence in particular markets and to
attenuate the potential threat of others establishing privileged relations with countries
which are economically important to us.
The level of tariffs in many of our partner countries, particularly the newly
industrialized and developing countries remains high. Tariff average of 30-40% are not
uncommon. It therefore, can seem obviously in our interest to persuade such countries
to enter into FTAs with the Union, enabling us to encourage both tariff elimination and
deregulation.
The unions exports increasing include services as well as industrial goods and are, in
any case often hindered more by non barriers, whether intentional or not than by tariff
rates. Regulatory obstacles, subsidies, customs procedures etc. can be crucial in
determining the ease with which we can trade with our partners. Equally important, the
investment policies of the latter can prevent EU firms from establishing a physical
presence in third country markets through foreign direct investment thereby depriving
the union of trade gains which often accompany FDI (source; communications from
commission, Brussels, SEC(95)322 final)
OBJECTIVES

STATED OBJECTIVES AS PER COTONOU ARE:
To ensure sustainable development of ACP countries
 To endure their smooth and gradual integration into the global economy
 The eradication of poverty


PRINCIPLES OF EPAS





The First and overarching principle is sustainable development and poverty
eradication Article.34
Reciprocity as EPAs are FTAs between the EU and regions of the ACP
countries.
Regionalism – EPAs are being built on the basis of regional integration blocs
and we must support them.
The principle of asymmetry between EU and ACP countries
WTO compatibility

EUs APPROACH TO THE NEGOTIATIONS:

EU as seasoned negotiators have advanced EPAs as instruments for development
of ACP countries to be achieved through development cooperation, regional
integration, access to EU markets and through rules prohibiting discrimination
against EU entities especially in area of services, investment, government
OBJECTIVES Cont…

ACP countries locking in their reforms under SAPs in their market access offers

SSA APPROACH TO THE NEGOTIATIONS

African negotiators have been to focus on developmental aspects
including inter alia:




Increased funding and assistance to address supply side constraints
Increased and assured market access which is on better legal basis and is
more predictable.
Arrangements that will support regional integration efforts.
Measures that safeguard their policy space for development
STRATEGIES



First Phase of the Negotiations was at Pan ACP level intended to
have abroad framework agreement between ACP and EU on issues
of common concern that will inform negotiations in phase two at the
regional level this fizzled out.
The EU was not in favour of Phase one negotiations and preferred to
move to phase two.
The AU attempted to have a common position which the subregional groups should bear in mind to keep Africa’s integration efforts.
Outcomes of the Negotiations

.
CONCLUSION