The confident certainty of some of the
interviewees and interventions on the advantages and opportunities that will
accrue to Mauritius following the economic partnership agreement between
eastern and southern Africa and EU surprised many. We just have to jump on this
frenetic trade treadmill – the EPA-EU partnership -that they cannot shut off,
it will lead us to the goldmine heralding a new business ebullience. But there
are quite some skeptics; they are not all convinced ; free of the intellectual straitjackets that hobble so
many of our bureaucrats and elite, they do more than just skim the surface and
distribute their comments all around as if these are the conclusive evidence
of some meaningful research.
They point to the a) Technification which refers to the conduct of the negotiations in
technical terms inaccessible to the general public, hence serving as instrument
of political exclusion; b) Sweetification
that describes the process by which agreement is presented to decision-makers
and the general public as one likely to generate substantial economic benefits;
and c) Treatyfication which refers to
incorporation of the agreement into a legally binding international treaty with
muscular enforcement machinery, hence circumscribing the actions of present and
future governments. “Rezistans ek
Alternativ”, is one of those skeptics that want Government to stop the
interim Economic Partnership Agreement (EPA) with the European Union. “We are asking the Mauritian government to
call back parliament so that they can discuss this document,” say Roody Muneean
and Ashok Subron, two leaders of the movement. According to them, some
technocrats and ministers are forcing the country to sign the “almost
irreversible” agreements without allowing the people and their representatives
in parliament to know their contents and consequences on the Mauritian economy
and future generations.”
The
international critics are mostly from academia and opinions differ on the EPAs
and their potential impact in the ACP countries or sub-regions. Hinkle and Schiff observe that the
liberalization of trade in services which can be part of an EPA agreement will
benefit Sub-Saharan African (SSA) countries in sectors such as transportation,
telecommunication and finance. ( Hinkle,
L.E. and M. Schiff :"Economic Partnership Agreements Between Sub-Saharan
Africa and the EU: A Development Perspective). Another study finds that
there will be a decrease in the production of natural resources, energy and
cotton and production increases in fishing, animal products, livestock, crops,
sugar oilseeds, vegetables and cereals for SSA if a Free Trade Agreement (FTA)
with the EU was signed. However, in case of full reciprocity production losses
in fishing, livestock and vegetables are to be expected. With respect to
manufacturing in the SSA countries, a decline is expected in heavy industry,
medium tech and low tech industry, clothing and textiles under full
reciprocity.( Karingi, S., R. Lang, N.
Oulmane, R. Perez, M.S. Jallab and H.B. Hammouda: Economic and Welfare Impacts
of the EU-Africa Economic Partnership Agreements, Economic Commission for Africa ATCP Working Paper No. 10.)
Busse and
Grossmann (2007) analyzing the impact of EPAs on West African countries find
that in most cases trade creation effects (more trade with the EU and some
African countries) do not outweigh the trade diversion effects (less trade with
African countries that are not part of the agreement). ( Busse, M. and H. Grosmann (2007):The trade and fiscal impact of EU/ACP
economic partnership agreements on West African countries, Journal of Development Studies ).
Another study investigating the impact of EPAs for
all six ACP regions show increased exports of vegetal production, livestock,
agrifood and textiles to the EU and big increases in imports from the EU (in
the range of 20 to 40 percent) in textiles, metallurgy, primary products and
other industries. ( Fontagne, L., D.
Laborde and C. Mitonitonne (2008) :An Impact Study of the EU-ACP EPAs in the
Six ACP Regions, CEPII Working Paper) .
A
more recent study concludes that a tariff reduction for imports from the EU has
no or a slightly positive effect for the African countries and that other
aspects besides tariffs are also important for the potential development
success of the EPAs. The interim agreements have to be extended with
development components comparable to the Caribbean agreement. ( EU-ACP Economic Partnership
Agreements,Empirical Evidence for Sub-Saharan Africa:Sebastian
Vollmer,Inmaculada Martinez-Zarzosoy,Felicitas Nowak-Lehmann and Nils-Hendrik
Klann). As you can see, the confident certainty is missing from most of
these studies.
There
are also other pertinent issues that have been raised namely: “EPAs are being negotiated under conditions
that undermine the full participation of ACP States from determining their
development objectives.”(Human Rights
Council, The Cotonou Partnership Agreement between European Union (EU) and
Africa, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) Countries, by Prof. James Thuo Gathii, December 2007.); Expanding negotiations
into new areas like competition and government procurement will impose a heavy
cost burden on ACP countries that far outweighs the potential dynamic benefits
that the new commitments will impose.The sustainability impact assessments
undertaken by the European Commission concluded that it was unlikely that the
reciprocal trade liberalization negotiations would deliver “development and
biodiversity conversation in ACP countries.( Friends of the Earth, (2008), Undercutting Africa, Economic Partnership
Agreements, forests and the European Union’s quest for Africa’s Raw materials).
The deals currently on the table will strip ACP
countries of important policy tools they need in order to develop. EPAs
severely constrained effective regulation and threaten universal access to
vital services ….the deals would only slightly improve market access for the
ACP to the EU, but the ACP countries would “dramatically” open their markets to
the EU, giving concern to the increased competition of EU exports.( Oxfam International, Partnership or Power
Play. How Europe should bring development into its trade deals with African,
Caribbean and Pacific countries, Oxfam Briefing Paper, April 2008.). The lack of resources for offsetting
EPA-related costs and other negative impacts could seriously undermine the
positive impact on development that was hoped for or aimed at.
These bilateral EPAs lead to more of trade
diversion than creation….US and EU use their superior negotiating leverage to
load up bilateral deals with developing countries with unhelpful issues such as investment and government
procurement.( Termites in the trading
system : Jagdish Bhagwati) and there should be a clear human rights
framework underpinning all of the EPAs as well as a new analysis of the impact
of EPAs in the context of the global crises and an assessment of the impact of
the interim agreements in order to improve any subsequent agreement to ensure
it takes full account of the Right to Development. And given the likely claims for similar preferential access to ACP
markets by other countries, actually all BRICs, it will be all a question of
competitiveness- significantly improving our production processes and technical
know-how in order to fully take advantage of the greater access to EU markets.
We are back to square one.
