Ethiopia and EPA Negotiation 2008 - FES Ethiopia

More documents

Recommendations

Info

ecame apparent that there would be no ESA region market access offer and therefore different groups determined to make their own market access offers to the EC. The EC obliged with this and agreed that individual market access offers could be made. In time this has lead to the EAC group leaving the ESA configuration and almost all the countries of the ESA group making individual market access offers to the EC. The Horn states did not make a market access offer to the EC. The EC offered an interim agreement (IA) to those countries willing to sign, to avoid market access disruption. This was due to the fact that it was clear that the full EPA would not be completed by the end of 2007. The IA was open to all ESA countries and they were invited to initial the agreement. For the full remit of the IA to come into effect the ESA states would have to make individual market access offers that the EC agrees to. The offering of the IA and the acceptance of the individual market access offers from ESA states and groups of ESA states threatens to have a major impact on the negotiations that are due to continue in 2008. The EAC group along with Tanzania from SADC configuration initialled the IA, including Tanzania, and is now expected to complete the full EPA by the end of 2008. This has large consequences for the region, as the group has arguably acted outside of the negotiating mandate as agreed at the COMESA Heads of State meeting in 2003 at Khartoum. Therefore, the first major issue to determine is what the ESA configuration means at the moment. The EAC states, excluding Tanzania, had agreed to negotiate the EPA within the ESA configuration, as they have now gone alone it appears that the ESA configuration may no longer be a “legal entity”. It may be necessary to agree a new configuration. The fact remains for Ethiopia that the loss of the EAC means that the countries that remain in the configuration, excluding the Horn countries, are geographically distant and in reality little trade occurs between these countries and Ethiopia. For 2008 the main task should include to review the configuration and determine its viability. Further the signing of the IA by some countries and not others within the region demonstrates that the region is not unified. The establishment of some form of unity between the remaining parties is necessary otherwise the region will not be able to negotiate an EPA beyond individual agreements. The long term implications of the split in ESA could have negative impacts on the COMESA configuration, due to the individual nature of the EAC group’s offer to the EC. Section 5 will examine this issue a little deeper. 10 | P a g e
4. Content of the Interim EPAs As of December, 2008, the European Union has concluded an Interim EPA with countries in Central Africa, East African Community, East and South Africa, West Africa, South Africa Development Community, the Caribbean Region and the Pacific Region. All the Interim EPAs outline the scope of the agreement, issues to be negotiated under rendezvous clauses, development cooperation provisions, the period and scope of liberalization. One exception to this general rule is the Caribbean region. All the 15 CARIFORUM countries with the Caribbean Region have concluded a full regional EPA covering all subjects, including services, rules, trade in goods and development support. A common factor in all the Interim EPAs is the extension of full duty and quota free market access on the EU side except rice (which will be liberalized in 2010) and sugar( which will not be liberalized until 2015) and an asymmetric liberalization schedule on the ACP side. The East African Community was able to negotiate a transition period of 25 years within which about 82% of the trade volume will be liberalized. On the other hand, the ESA countries come up with a separate country- specific liberalization schedule for more than 80% of trade volume with a transition period of 15 years. The Interim EPAs have liberal rules of origin for a number of important ACP exports such as for agriculture, fisheries and textiles. For textiles in particular while EBA and Cotonou required multiple transformations, the EPAs however only require a single transformation to be eligible. The EU hopes to deepen and expand the interim EPA into full ones by the end of 2008 13 . The rendezvous clauses outline the issues to be negotiated in the comprehensive EPAs. They will include rules governing services, investment, government procurement, trade rules and development. The Caribbean Region is considered as an example for what can possibly be achieved although, as the EU admits, what goes into the final agreement with others will depend on the different regional capacities and circumstances. The EU feels that the socalled “Singapore” issues-the questions of investment, competition and government procurement- as well as services are Cotonou issues too and as such should be addressed to attract investment. The EU Trade Commissioner, Peter Mandelson, promised that he would not use the final stage of negotiations 13 It should be noted here that the exact deadline of the negotiation is not the same for all regions. In the case of EAC, July 2008 is the deadline while in the case of ESA the deadline is December 31, 2008. 11 | P a g e
Page 1 and 2: 2008 Ethiopia and EPA Negotiation R
Page 3 and 4: References ........................
Page 5 and 6: Unilateral preference programs not
Page 7 and 8: Cotonou Agreement. The Cotonou Agre
Page 9: egional trade arrangements envisage
Page 13 and 14: country inputs in such key areas as
Page 15 and 16: African LDCs signed the Interim EPA
Page 17 and 18: the policy space of developing coun
Page 19 and 20: have the audacity to claim otherwis
Page 21 and 22: sale for export between the parties
Page 23 and 24: goods involved in the fraud and imp
Page 25 and 26: instruments remain to be negotiated
Page 27 and 28: 6.1 Initialling/ acceding to Develo
Page 29 and 30: The EBA regime provides duty free a
Page 31 and 32: etween the EU and Ethiopia as these
Page 33 and 34: cost. It should also be noted that
Page 35 and 36: different documentation requirement
Page 37 and 38: negotiation on the Full EPA with EC
Page 39 and 40: The final outcome of the EAC-EC EPA
Page 41 and 42: and eastern African countries. Harm
Page 43 and 44: 7. Conclusion: Key Issues Ahead The
Page 45 and 46: importance of technical cooperation
Page 47 and 48: the framework rules on procurement
Page 49 and 50: addressed since most of the CARIFOR
Page 51 and 52: References 1. Agritrade, EPA Negoti
Page 53 and 54: 19. Roberta Piermartini, The Role o
Page 55 and 56: Scope of Application Article 6 Clas
Page 57 and 58: Relations between this Agreement an

Ethiopia and EPA Negotiation 2008 - FES Ethiopia

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

Delete template?

Save as template?