EPA Review Annex Documents - DFID

More documents

Recommendations

Info

studies; usually cases where exports have been banned (Henson and Mitullah, 2004) 156 or where new issues are emerging that are perceived to be a threat (Henson and Humphrey, 2009). 157 There is paucity, however, of more systematic evidence, making it difficult to discern where SPS measures are a problem and, in such cases, the magnitude of this problem. Here we consider three more systematic indicators of problems encountered by ACP countries in exporting agricultural and food products to the EU due to SPS measures: • EU detention data from the Rapid Alert System for Food and Feed (RASFF). • Counter notifications of SPS measures through the WTO’s SPS Committee. • Response to the questionnaire of the SPS Committee on technical assistance needs for SPS-related capacity building. It should be recognised that these indicators are far from perfect and, at best, they provide only a partial account of the degree to which SPS measures impede exports from ACP countries. Arguably, however, they are the best available. Data are available on the individual detentions of consignments of food and feed products entering the EU from Third Countries under the RASFF. These data provide a broad indication of problems faced due to non-compliance with regulatory SPS requirements where trade happens; they tell us nothing about the degree to which trade is prevented from taking place due to real or perceived challenges with meeting SPS requirements. Table A1 details the number of detentions among ACP countries over the period 2002-2008. Of the 1,000 total detentions over this period, Ghana, Nigeria and South Africa account for over 50 percent. Most other countries have only sporadic detentions. These ‘major offenders’, however, are also significant exporters to the EU. A better measure of performance, which takes account of the value of trade, is the rate of detention per €million of exports (Table 2). Here, we see a quite different picture, with the Gambia, Eritrea and the Tonga standing out as having high rates of detention. The Gambia is a relatively small exporter that has faced ongoing challenges with border detentions, mainly for fish (Table 3). Eritrea and Tonga are also small exporters but which faced a one-off problem due to a specific SPS issue, namely importation of a banned herb or spice. Tables 1 and 2 suggest that most ACP countries that export agricultural and food products to the EU face relatively low rates of border detentions. Indeed, the observed detention rates are not appreciably different to those observed for all Third Country imports to the EU. Perhaps more revealing are Tables A3 and A4 that detail the numbers of detentions by product and reasons for detention. Thus, we see that nuts, nut products and seeds, fish and fishery products, fats and oils and fruit and vegetables account for almost 76 percent of detentions over the period 2002-2008, although these products accounted for less than 40 percent of agricultural and food product exports to the EU over the period. Evidently, border detentions are concentrated among a relatively narrow sub-set of ‘sensitive products’. The main reasons for detentions over the period 2002-2008 were contamination with mycotoxins (predominantly in nuts from Ghana, South Africa, Nigeria Sudan and Malawi), unauthorised food additives (predominantly Sudan in palm oil from Ghana and Nigeria) and microbiological contamination (predominantly in meat and meat products from Botswana and Namibia and fish and fishery products from various countries). This suggests quite specific problems complying with EU food safety requirements rather a more general pattern of detentions. 156 As with, for example, exports of Nile perch to the EU. 157 As with, for example, the adoption of GlobalGAP and other private food safety standards by major supermarket chains. 229
The SPS committee provides an opportunity for WTO Member States to raise ‘specific trade concerns’ over new or existing SPS measures of trade partners. Over the period 1995 to 2009, ACP countries raised seven specific trade concerns (Table 8). 158 All but one of these concerns related to food safety. Note that two of the seven issues raised related to mycotoxins, which accounted for 34 percent of border detentions of food and feed from ACP countries to the EU over the period 2002 to 2008 (Table A4). A further two concerns related to specific import prohibitions, those by Tanzania and Fiji, which were specific to the country/region concerned. Table 8 Specific trade concerns raised by ACP countries, 1995-2009 Year Issue Country Raising the Concern Broad SPS Area 1998 MRLs for aflatoxins in Gambia Food safety food Senegal 1998 Trade restriction in response to cholera (fruit, vegetables, fish) Tanzania Food safety 2001 MRLs for pesticides in fruit and vegetables Côte d'Ivoire Food safety 2003 Maximum tolerance levels for ochratoxins in coffee 2003 EU directive on foot and mouth disease (FMD) 2005 EurepGAP requirements for bananas 2005 Proposed regulation for piper methysticium (Kava-Kava) in UK 230 Papua New Guinea Food safety South Africa Animal health St Vincent and the Grenadines Food safety Fiji Food safety Since 2002, the SPS Committee has requested member States to identify their technical assistance needs through a standard questionnaire. 159 To date, ten ACP countries have responded to this request, namely Antigua and Barbuda, Dominican Republic, Barbados, South Africa, Mauritius, Senegal, Gambia, Kenya, Trinidad and Tobago and Uganda. Responses to the questionnaire provide a broad indication of weaknesses in SPS capacity in ACP countries (Chemnitz and Gunther, 2006): • Establishment, revision and/or updating of national food control systems. • Establishment and/or upgrading of national food legislation. • Establishment, upgrading and/or accreditation of laboratories. • Upgrading of human capital in pertinent skills, for example laboratory personnel, inspectors/auditors, policy officials, etc. • Establishment of capacity to undertake risk analysis. • Establishment or upgrading of plant and/or animal pest and disease • management/quarantine systems. Establishment and maintenance of pest-free areas. • Establishing or strengthening of emergency programmes for plant and/or animal pests and diseases. 158 <strong>Documents</strong> G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.8; G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.8/Add.1; G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.8/Add.2; G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.8/Add.3. 159 <strong>Documents</strong> G/SPS/W/113 and G/SPS/GEN/295.
Page 1 and 2:
EPA Review Annex Documents by Insti
Page 3 and 4:
Part Three: EPAs as Instruments for
Page 5 and 6:
Part One: Literature Review 4
Page 7 and 8:
countries demanded more precision a
Page 9 and 10:
essential and fundamental of EPA (h
Page 11 and 12:
EPA group. However, after phase II
Page 13 and 14:
Disagreements also existed on other
Page 15 and 16:
ules of origin as a basis for negot
Page 17 and 18:
would not meet WTO provisions. Even
Page 19 and 20:
is only just about to conclude an i
Page 21 and 22:
The EC took almost nine months to a
Page 23 and 24:
Caribbean The CARIFORUM EPA was the
Page 25 and 26:
services, CARIFORUM countries commi
Page 27 and 28:
2006. Moreover, PACP countries cons
Page 29 and 30:
Table 3 Main Problems and Divergenc
Page 31 and 32:
4. Final comments The EPA’s negot
Page 33 and 34:
creation) but can also lead to impo
Page 35 and 36:
preferences and hence are likely to
Page 37 and 38:
3. Impact of the EPAs by Region One
Page 39 and 40:
Cape Verde (loss of 4.1% of GDP) an
Page 41 and 42:
SSA ECOWAS CEMAC COMESA EAC Table 2
Page 43 and 44:
Perez (2005) CGE, 2001 base year 80
Page 45 and 46:
Whilst most studies appear to agree
Page 47 and 48:
7. Annex Literature Countries Metho
Page 49 and 50:
Hinkle and Schiff (2004) "Economic
Page 51 and 52:
Milner, Morressey and McKay (2008)
Page 53 and 54:
Karingi et al (2005) “Assessment
Page 55 and 56:
Greenaway and Milner (2003) "a grim
Page 57 and 58:
Perez, R (2005) “ Are the Economi
Page 59 and 60:
Case Studies Lessons 1. Introductio
Page 61 and 62:
trade relation and negotiation matt
Page 63 and 64:
EPAs negotiation process is paralle
Page 65 and 66:
• EPA team The EPA negotiating te
Page 67 and 68:
- State Secretariat of Environment
Page 69 and 70:
Technical Negotiation Group (TNG) m
Page 71 and 72:
spent for these impact assessment s
Page 73 and 74:
Other opportunity costs Another imp
Page 75 and 76:
Since domestic constituencies tend
Page 77 and 78:
Table 11 Negotiating Meetings and R
Page 79 and 80:
• An estimated $214,000 in travel
Page 81 and 82:
The main expectation of the process
Page 83 and 84:
Commission was forced to take up th
Page 85 and 86:
Therefore, while negotiators could
Page 87 and 88:
System Improvement & Human Resource
Page 89 and 90:
Ethiopia - List of RNF meetings Amo
Page 91 and 92:
Nigeria Cost of EPA negotiation-rel
Page 93 and 94:
Dominican Republic Distribution of
Page 95 and 96:
1. Overview of existing resources f
Page 97 and 98:
The FTRD that was responsible for b
Page 99 and 100:
The support of the NDTPF and the ex
Page 101 and 102:
dedicated sessions during the year
Page 103 and 104:
Mauritius, Seychelles, and Madagasc
Page 105 and 106:
3. Quantification of costs of count
Page 107 and 108:
Ethiopia took a clear stance from t
Page 109 and 110:
4. Perspectives on EPA negotiations
Page 111 and 112:
5. Qns: Had you had more resources,
Page 113 and 114:
) Basic knowledge on Cotonou Agreem
Page 115 and 116:
Council of ESA Ministers Committee
Page 117 and 118:
System Improvement & Human Resource
Page 119 and 120:
List of RNF meetings 118 ANNEX VII
Page 121 and 122:
EPA Review Study Nigeria December,
Page 123 and 124:
contains the quantification of cost
Page 125 and 126:
which appear to have crowded out ac
Page 127 and 128:
Table 3 Resource Detail of Intra-Af
Page 129 and 130:
Table 5 Capacity Building Programme
Page 131 and 132:
Table 7 Cost of EPA Negotiation-Rel
Page 133 and 134:
ADDRESSING THE LABOUR MARKET EFFECT
Page 135 and 136:
Table 9 Annual Cost of Nigeria Trad
Page 137 and 138:
Though the current negotiating stru
Page 139 and 140:
• The simultaneous application of
Page 141 and 142:
understand the changing environment
Page 143 and 144:
7. Summary of Findings and Main Les
Page 145 and 146:
opportunity cost could be quite sub
Page 147 and 148:
• There is adequate technical adv
Page 149 and 150:
5. Appendices Appendix Table 1 Rang
Page 151 and 152:
EPA Review Study Dominican Republic
Page 153 and 154:
c. Technical Level At a regional le
Page 155 and 156:
2) From the ministers of trade of C
Page 157 and 158:
The fact that the DR had previously
Page 159 and 160:
- State Secretariat of Foreign Rela
Page 161 and 162:
Table 1 Distribution of the Main Tr
Page 163 and 164:
Figure 2 CARIFORUM Dimensions Diffe
Page 165 and 166:
with the EU, in order to present a
Page 167 and 168:
Table 4 Average Monthly Salaries EP
Page 169 and 170:
In additional there were eight meet
Page 171 and 172:
Per Diem Rate (US$) 500 A- Total of
Page 173 and 174:
5. Perspectives of EPA negotiations
Page 175 and 176:
usiness and political levels repres
Page 177 and 178:
expectation of increases in exports
Page 179 and 180: 8. Annexes Interviews Name Institut
Page 181 and 182: MAY o 05-06: WTO TWG on NAMA, Barba
Page 183 and 184: o 05-06: Joint Meeting of the Prime
Page 185 and 186: o 10-13: 12 th Meeting of CARIFORUM
Page 187 and 188: Trinidad & Tobago, 11-15 mayo 2007
Page 189 and 190: Reviewing services negotiations in
Page 191 and 192: Table 2 MMain differeences in serrv
Page 193 and 194: 3. Services coverage in the CARIFOR
Page 195 and 196: In this exercise, it is important t
Page 197 and 198: 196 ANNEX Provisions of the agreeme
Page 199 and 200: Tariff and Non-tariff barriers in E
Page 201 and 202: products could be extended until ye
Page 203 and 204: extended to the original partner. F
Page 205 and 206: than the rate applied on the proces
Page 207 and 208: RoO and the EPAs 1. Introduction Ru
Page 209 and 210: Table 1 Similarity of EAC countries
Page 211 and 212: that value added in ACP countries o
Page 213 and 214: The EU has yet to deliver a simple
Page 215 and 216: arrangements, are constrained by pr
Page 217 and 218: and non-oil exporting countries wit
Page 219 and 220: Common Market for Eastern and South
Page 221 and 222: to be seen. The Ethiopia case study
Page 223 and 224: fact that countries either export o
Page 225 and 226: development assistance in the EPA.
Page 227 and 228: References Bilal, S. and Stevens, C
Page 229: SPS Issues in EPA Negotiations 1. B
Page 233 and 234: of equivalence. Clearly, the Econom
Page 235 and 236: In the case of Ghana, where there i
Page 237 and 238: which relevant entities within thei
Page 239 and 240: Specific provisions While the final
Page 241 and 242: ‘.....In addition, the Parties sh
Page 243 and 244: imparted to EPA signatories. In pra
Page 245 and 246: of the EC Party when these products
Page 247 and 248: So what have the EPA negotiations a
Page 249 and 250: Region/Country Year Total 2002 2003
Page 251 and 252: EAC CARIFORUM PACP Region/Country Y
Page 253 and 254: EAC CARIFORUM PACP Region/Country N
Page 255 and 256: EAS SADC EAC Country/Region Mycotox
Page 257 and 258: Country/Region West Africa CEMAC Co
Page 259 and 260: Development Finance and EPAs 1. Int
Page 261 and 262: evenues, one of the main sources of
Page 263: References Braun-Munzinger, C. ( 20
show all

EPA Review Annex Documents - DFID

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?