EPA Review Annex Documents - DFID

Despite the progress, the signing of a full EPA will depend on the EAC’s own integration
process and the solution of the differences within them.
Southern Africa
When negotiations were launched in December 2004, South Africa was not part of the
SADC EPA negotiation group since its commercial relations with the EU were covered
by the South African-EU Trade and Development Cooperation Agreement (TDCA). The
SADC, since the beginning, took the stance that the TDCA would have implications on
the SADC-EU EPA negotiations. The EC felt that individual countries could only be a
member of a single trading arrangement with the EC. This would imply that some
countries would have to make difficult choices given the complexity of overlapping
regional bodies in the South African region. As a consequence, it was considered that
the reciprocal tariff elimination of the TDCA would constitute the basis for any SADC-EU
EPA and that was not designed with its neighbours needs in mind. This problem
(partially solved with the inclusion of South Africa as a negotiation party in the SADC-EU
EPA) would have important implications in the negotiation process. 42
The negotiation process started with the preparation of several studies to serve as a
basis for negotiations. It was agreed that the SADC EPA should include development
dimensions and regional integration; SPS and TBTs; market access (agriculture,
fisheries and non-agricultural goods); rules of origin; trade facilitation and customs
cooperation; safeguards, antidumping and countervailing measures; TRIPs; services;
and other aspects such as national security and dispute settlement.
By the end of 2005, the EU asked South Africa to be more involved in the negotiation
process, but still it was only an observer. The EC also asked to have a CET by 2008;
however the SADC agenda scheduled one for 2010. SADC wanted, on the contrary, to
conclude EPA’s before the establishment of the CET. 43
SADC indicated the difficulty of negotiating on issues where common policies did not
exist in SADC and for which there were no modalities at the WTO. The EC proposed to
cover topics such as competition policy, investment, government procurement,
environment and labour standards in the negotiations while SADC considered that those
trade related issues should not be negotiated. 44
The configuration of the negotiating group remained problematic during 2006. However,
SADC presented its proposal for the negotiation framework in February 2006. It asked
that all member states of the South African Customs Union (SACU) should be involved
in both the EPA negotiations and the TDCA review. This meant that South Africa would
be a negotiating party in the EPA. Also, that the EU should grant full EBA market access
to all SADC members states and for LDCs to be exempt from providing market access to
the EU. Rules of origin should be simplified and allow for full cumulation in SADC, other
ACP countries and all other regions that had trade agreements with the EU. Finally, it
demanded specific commitments in terms of financial support and capacity building to
address supply constraints, compensation of fiscal losses and increase competitiveness.
42 Trade Negotiations Insights, Vol. 3, No. 5, September 2004.
43 Trade Negotiations Insights, Vol. 5, No. 2, April 2006.
44 Trade Negotiations Insights, Vol. 5, No. 2, April 2006.
19