EU concessions to African farmers suspect
The East African, Kenya
EU concessions to African farmers suspect
By Philip Ngunjiri, Special Correspondent
30 April 2007
The recent trade concessions by the European Union to African, Caribbean and Pacific countries mean little in real terms, says an international non-governmental organisation.
The Agency for Co-operation and Research in Development (ACORD), a Pan-African organisation working for social justice and development has scoffed at the EU’s offer. It says the deal, which comes ahead of the Economic Partnership Agreements is not a new development in the negotiations, and is too little too late, especially for Africa’s smallholder farmers.
The EU proposal - removal of all quotas and tariffs for ACP countries’ access to its markets - covers products such as beef, dairy, cereals, fruits and vegetables. This was to apply immediately following the signing of the agreement, with a phase-in period for rice and sugar. However, South Africa whose number of globally competitive products are not in the loop will continue to be charged import duties.
In its rejoinder to the EU’s proposal, ACORD policy advisor Deborah Scott says as free trade agreements, Economic Partnership Agreements represent a great threat to African agriculture as they require the opening up of Africa’s markets to EU goods.
“Increased competition from the EU’s highly subsidised agricultural products such as maize, milk, tomatoes, and meat could mean the loss of domestic and regional markets for millions of African smallholder farmers. And loss of markets means loss of livelihoods, which in Africa often leads to loss of life altogether,” she said.
EPAs are free trade agreements based on the principle of reciprocity, meaning that Africa will be required to open its markets to duty and tariff-free goods and services from Europe.
They will replace the trade chapters of the 2000 Cotonou Agreement between the EU and the ACP countries. The waiver exempting these from World Trade Organisation (WTO) agreements expire at the end of 2007, requiring both parties to have put in place a WTO-compatible alternative.
Dropping tariffs in the EU market will not result in Africa’s small older farmers accessing the EU market. Without reformed rules of origin and assistance in meeting supply side constraints such as sanitary and phytosanitary standards, they will continue to be kept out of the EU market. The EU promises to help, but has not bound itself to those promises, making them empty, she adds.
“This is hardly a generous offer as the EU is offering to eliminate tariffs on the remaining 3 per cent of ACP imports, and in return they demand that Africa eliminates 80 per cent of its tariffs on EU imports. The risk - and the negative impacts - will be far greater for Africa,” said Ms Scott.
Ultimately, she said, the offer changes nothing. It does not diminish the threats posed by the opening of Africa’s markets to the EU. It does not completely tear down the barriers between African small-holder farmers and the EU’s market. It does not even represent much of a negotiating concession on the part of the EU. EPAs remain free trade agreements, demanding reciprocity and taking away African government’s ability to use trade policy instruments to protect our agriculture, our livelihoods, and our people.
“We urge Africa to stop negotiations, think again about whose interests they are meant to represent, and resist the EU’s encouragement to sign away its future,” she said.
Opponents of EPAs insist that the negotiations will not promote the fulfilment of human rights but will instead violate even more rights. EPAs will push farmers into a deeper agricultural crisis by putting them in competition with highly subsidised EU products locally and regionally.
According to the chairman of the East and Southern African Farmers Forum (ASAFF), Moses Shaha, EPAs only undermine regional integration because they seek market access for the sake of Europe’s corporate interest.
“When you look at EPAs from the periphery, it seems Godsend, but when you read between the lines, you find the trickery of the EU,” he said.
The EPAs negotiations are being conducted between the 25 EU countries, which have a combined gross domestic product of $13.3 billion and six groups of African, Caribbean, and Pacific countries. Among these ACP countries are 39 of the world’s 50 Least Developed Countries.
The smallest group, the Pacific Islands, has a combined GDP of only $9 billion - 1,400 times smaller than the EU’s. Even the largest group, the West African region, is more than 80 times smaller than the EU in terms of GDP. Given these vast inequalities, it is not hard to see where the power lies.
Such extreme disparities in negotiating power could all too easily produce unfair results, and anti-EPAs crusaders fear that the future development of the ACP countries may be jeopardised by the EU’s tactics.
Their cause of agitation emanates from the fact that nearly half (41 per cent) of ACP exports go to Europe, but ACP trade is merely small change for the giant European economy.
