EPA Review Annex Documents - DFID

In January 2008 the SADC free trade area came into effect. It was highlighted the
problems for SACU that the fact that South Africa did not sign the interim EPA (but the
rest of the members did); they believed that the regional integration possibilities of SACU
were jeopardised. In fact, there were rumours that South Africa could ask the rest of the
members of SACU to step back from EPAs in order to save the regional integration
process. 48
Later on in 2008, it was revealed that South Africa would sign a regional SADC EPA.
South Africa would not need to make commitments to negotiate TRIPs or services.
However, some divergences appeared within the regional block on the issue of
establishing a common EPA negotiating mechanism. Concerns continued about the
MFN clause and the standstill clause.
The subject of agriculture remained problematic since the SADC considered that the EU
was not offering enough. However, both parties closed the gap in fisheries, but more
negotiation was required on some clothing items. The EC wanted to extend the
concessions that South Africa gave it under the TDCA on some agricultural products. By
the end of 2008, there were no interim EPA’s signed.
The differences within SADC put the regional integration process in danger. If Botswana,
Lesotho and Swaziland signed an interim EPA but South Africa and Namibia maintained
their positions, it would create two trade regimes in SACU. 49 Negotiations on this took
place around March 2009.
The already noted differences within SADC plus other contentions issues (MFN clause)
persisted. However, the EC agreed on several topics (infant industry protection, export
tariffs (and the possibility of including new ones)), quantitative restrictions in favour of
SADC subject to WTO provisions. They also agreed that goods that entered into SADC
from the EU (and vice versa) that would be re-exported to other signatories of the
agreement would be subject only once to the external customs tariffs. 50
The differences between South Africa and some members of SADC lead to the
possibility of signing an interim EPA without South Africa. The idea was trying to realign
commitments in order to not undermine the SACU CET. Eventually, an interim EPA
SADC was signed by Botswana, Lesotho, Mozambique and Swaziland on June 2009.
Negotiations for a full EPA continued with the seven members. However, South African
authorities highlighted the danger that this put on the regional integration process. 51
As it could be seen, the negotiations of the SADC EPA were complicated. Since the
beginning, given the complexity and overlapping of trade agreements in the region, how
these issues would be dealt. Moreover, South Africa, after joining the negotiations, tried
to impose their own views and positions. These problems with the definitions of the
SADC partners did not leave enough space for other issues that were related to the
negotiations. That shortfall eventually demanded time and effort to overcome in the full
EPA negotiation. The SADC EPA was slowed down primarily by the improper definition
of the region, as well as, previous agreements.
48 Trade Negotiations Insights, Vol. 7, No. 2, March 2008.
49 Trade Negotiations Insights, Vol. 8, No. 1, January 2009.
50 Trade Negotiations Insights, Vol. 8, No. 4, April 2009.
51 Trade Negotiations Insights, Vol. 8, No. 6, August 2009.
21