Policy recommendations

  • All elements that are not required to make the EPAs WTO compatible should be taken out of the EPAs. This requires a review of the current provisions on export taxes, and the MFN and rules of origin clauses.
  • EPAs must ensure that ACP regional groups have maximum flexibility over their own market opening. The EU should therefore offer all ACP regional groups a period of 20 years or more for market opening, on an unconditional basis. Each regional group should be offered this full period. Moreover, the liberalisation scheme should be linked to development benchmarks instead of a fixed timeframe.
  • The EU should cut subsidies on products competing with local products, especially in agriculture. As long as the EU subsidises its sectors, ACP countries should not be asked to liberalise tariffs on products that have to compete with EU products.
  • There should be an effective safeguard mechanism for ACP countries to use if faced with a surge of subsidised EU imports.
  • The EU should stimulate regional integration in all ACP regions by approaching regions as collective partners but at the same time acknowledging their differences in economic and social terms. Therefore enough policy space should be provided during the negotiations and no differentiation in terms of EPAs and iEPAs which influence the individual negotiation positions should be pushed for.
  • Investment, competition and government procurement should be removed from the negotiations, unless specifically requested by an ACP regional negotiating group. It is for ACP regional groups to judge the development benefits of any agreements on these issues and the EU should not push for them to be discussed. If included, any negotiations on government procurement should be subject to transparency.
  • A review mechanism for EPAs - with full ACP regional group ownership and participation - should be introduced to ensure the EPAs are delivering the intended developmental benefits.
  • The Commission should be ready to provide an alternative to an EPA at the request of any ACP country. Any alternative offered should provide no worse market access to the EU than is currently enjoyed under Cotonou preferences.

Case: Economic Partnership Agreements

12-09-2011 Ghanas national CSO platform shares its concerns about the IEPA

This month (september 2011), Ghana will host the ECOWAS Ministerial Monitoring Committee (MMC) on Economic Partnership Agreements (EPAs) in Accra. The Ghana National CSO Platform on EPA has urged the Ghana government to abandon the separate interim-EPA (IEPA) they made with Europe four years ago, and to do this before the MMC meeting.
 
According to the CSO Platform, the IEPA is threatening the development and position of both the Ghana and the West African region for several reasons. First of all, the IEPA brings forth an overdependence of Ghana and the region on EU market and a predominance of Europe over these countries economies. Furthermore, the IEPA will further fragment and eventually derail harmonisation of West Africas regional position and regional integration.

The CSO Platform stresses the importance of diversification of trade to other markets, to diminish the danger of over-reliance on EU markets. Moreover, to protect the region from external shocks and to recover from global recessions, autonomous regional integration and the upgrading of domestic market linkages within such a framework are the best ways to go. Besides, these developments would promote both long-term sustained growth and economic transformation.

The Ghana National CSO Platform on EPA finally warns against locking Ghana and ECOWAS long-term trade and development prospects into an irreversible agreement that gives EU trade preference over every other trade partner.

Just one and a half year ago, Fair Politics conducted an impact study in Ghana especially on the IEPA, claiming that it disregards regional integration, which was suppose to be one of the main goals of the EPAs in the first place. Furthermore Fair Politics urged for the abolition of clauses like MFN, export taxes, standstill and stricter rules of origin as they have nothing to do with economic development in Ghana but rather protect the European market.

Click here to read the full statement of the Ghana National Platform on EPA.

Please also see our impact study on Ghana here, with a focus on the EPAs in the first chapter.