CTA
Small fontsize
Medium fontsize
Big fontsize
English |
Switch to English
Français
Switch to French
Filter by Agriculture topics
Commodities
Regions
Publication Type
Filter by date

Draft West Africa–EU EPA agreement now to go before Ministers

23 February 2014

According to ECDPM, “after 10 years of tough negotiations”, on 24 January 2014, negotiators achieved a “major breakthrough” at the technical level in the West Africa–EU EPA negotiations. Compromises were reportedly reached between EC and ECOWAS negotiators on a range of issues that had held up the negotiations. These included agreement on:

  • a more limited product coverage of trade in goods tariff liberalisation commitments (75% of all trade over 25 years rather than the EU’s preferred option of 80% over 15 years);
  • an acceptance of the MFN clause, but with some exceptions;
  • the absence of a “non-execution clause”, but the inclusion of a reference to the provisions in the Cotonou Agreement that deal with non-execution of commitments on human rights, democracy and the rule of law;
  • financing of the EPA Development Programme (also known by its francophone acronym PAPED). Although it falls short of the amount requested by the West African region for EPA-related adjustments, it includes a “best endeavour” commitment from the EU to find a solution to the financing gap between commitments made and West African funding requirements.

On agricultural subsidies, ICTSD reported that “each party will ensure the transparency of its policies and domestic support measures”, and that the EU has made a commitment to report to West Africa the nature, extent and legal basis of measures being implemented. The agreement also formalises the EU’s commitment not to provide export refunds on agro-food exports to Africa.

ECDPM maintained that the agreement allows all parties to “claim victory”. However, they noted that “the agreement reached by the senior officials will have to be officially sealed… by the Chief negotiators” and then “endorsed at the ECOWAS Head of States Summit” at the end of February. An EC spokesperson expressed satisfaction at “the progress at expert level achieved in January”, but echoed the point that “the results of the negotiations in Dakar are still subject to political endorsement”.

Following the conclusion of this round of West Africa–EU negotiations, ECDPM posed the question: Will the EU exhibit additional flexibility towards other regions as well, and if so, in which areas?

ICTSD noted that, for some experts, the conclusion of the EU–West Africa EPA negotiations “was unexpected”, since the majority of LDCs in the region have little incentive to conclude the EPA process. 

Editorial comment

While the latest round of technical negotiations appears to have resolved a number of the headline issues, it does not appear to have addressed the issue of reconciling EPA-level policy commitments with national policy practices. This is particularly significant in the agro-food sector, where a number of West African governments, as part of national efforts to develop production in specific agricultural sectors, have been increasingly using import licences, seasonal import restrictions, import bans and a range of supplementary levies to regulate imports. This policy “disconnect” between regionally agreed commitments and national policy practice is common to both inter-regional and intra-regional trade policy commitments.

The EC, as part of all its EPA negotiations, has been seeking to limit the use of non-tariff measures by including legal articles prohibiting their use. For example, the Ghana–EU Interim EPA contains Article 18, which deals with “prohibition of quantitative restrictions”. The article states that “all prohibitions or restrictions on import or export between the Parties, other than customs duties, taxes, fees and other charges provided for under Article 11, whether made effective through quotas, import or export licenses or other measures, shall be eliminated upon the entry into force of this Agreement. No new such measures shall be introduced.” Article 11 allows an exemption for “a maximum period” of 10 years for “fees and other charges related to legal obligations existing at the signature of this Agreement”.

This prohibition would appear to sit uneasily with the growing use of such policy tools by some West African governments as part of their efforts to stimulate domestic production on products as diverse as rice, wheat, poultry meat and onions (see Agritrade articles ‘ Debate intensifies on viability of Nigerian rice import ban’, 22 December 2013, ‘ Senegal to maintain poultry import ban’, 24 November 2013, ‘ USDA argues for revision of Nigerian wheat sector policy’, 26 August 2013, and ‘ Senegalese government moves ahead with onion sector support measures’, 24 February 2014).

As a West Africa–EU EPA enters the implementation phase, the continued use of these types of policy tools may increasingly be brought into question. However, informal agreement may be reached to let the provisions remain unenforced until regional policies have been effectively harmonised and a genuine single regional West African market has been created.

Comment

Terms and conditions