EPA Review Annex Documents - DFID

eally erodes the preferential treatment offered to LDCs. The recent EU South Korea Agreement
exemplifies this point. While the EU market is progressively opening up its market for
developing countries like South Korea, unless LDCs like Ethiopia are supported technically and
financially to improve their supply side problems and competitiveness it is certain that the
market access through agreements such as EBA or GSP will remain meaningless.
By concluding an EPA as it is, the EU will surely benefit by securing at least 80% preferential
market. However, for many LDCs unless the EPA take due consideration for development the
EPA would be considered failure. Of course, the need for development support has been a
contentious issue from the start of the EPA negotiations. Ethiopia emphasised its “no
development no EPA” position by stressing on the need for further resources and
compensation for possible loss of revenue as a result of opening up markets and entering into
additional commitment. However, the EC has repeatedly maintained its inflexible position that
development component is provided under the EDF, and has reiterated that additional financing
that would be available from individual EU member states as Aid for Trade. The EC also argue
that development is about more than just the money available as countries signing EPAs would
benefit from the lock-in effect that would signify a more stable investment climate and result in
higher levels of inward investment.
The challenge faced now upon the conclusion of the full ESA EPA is on how to introduce the
development component, through improved market access and development support to make
the EPAs a true development tool. If this does not occur then it is certain that countries like
Ethiopia will not be able to take advantages promised in the full benefits of EPAs.
From the perspective of Ethiopia the EPA was considered pro-development from the outset.
The belief was that it would enhance its development endeavours and was not a mere market
access arrangement. This goes some way in explaining why Ethiopia tried to make its position
clear by saying “No development no EPA” from the initial stages. Ethiopia maintains its
position on the need to explore further how to elevate the development dimension component in
the negotiations. The EPA should take care of this.
Box-3:- Trade Related Issues
Negotiations on the trade related issues in general are still young; both sides (ESA and EC)
are still in the process of articulating the scope and level of ambition of their proposals. For
example, with regard to intellectual property, ESA has provided preliminary comments on
the EC proposal indicating the primary concerns that the proposal is TRIPS-plus and lacks
asymmetry. On competition policy, the EC side has presented its main objectives with
respect to the content of the EPA. Both sides have agreed that further discussions are
needed on issues such as nascent industries, monopolies and anti-competitive practices.
ESA continually underlines and is insisting on the need to have technical assistance in this
area. Regarding transparency in public procurement, both sides have presented their
respective positions. ESA has highlighted the challenges faced by its member states on
this area. Ethiopia’s position in most trade related issues has been in line with the regional
position, basically cooperation in capacity building, simplifying rules and procedures in
these areas.
107