Undercutting Africa: EPA’s

 

by Deborah Miarkowska

Undercutting Africa: Economic Partnership Agreements, forests and the European Union’s quest for Africa’s raw materials

Authors: Hall,R.
Produced by: Friends of the Earth (2008)

The Economic Partnership Agreements (EPAs) being negotiated by the European Union and African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) countries are causing concern. EPAs threaten to undermine economic development in some of the world’s poorest and most vulnerable countries. As a result, many ACP countries are refusing to sign up. This paper clarifies these threats, and shows in details the expected sequences of EPAs.

The paper claims that EPAs look set to force ACP countries to open up their struggling markets to European industrial exports, and to foreign investment targeted especially at the agricultural sector. Liberalising investment in sectors such as forests and agriculture could have a dramatic impact on deforestation rates, subsistence farming and food security. Likewise, there is already considerable evidence to suggest that such rapid and extensive market opening can trigger deindustrialisation. On the other hand, the European Commission (EC) has been reluctant to consider addressing ACP countries’ productive and trading capacities, which would clearly need substantial development.

Another sequence of EPAs may be banning the use of export restrictions in some sensitive sectors. However, there is some debate about what the consequences of removing export restrictions would be, especially in terms of the development of value-added processing within the countries concerned. Nevertheless, the paper finds that trade liberalisation tends to exacerbate problems that lead to increased deforestation and loss of biodiversity. Thus, a prohibition on the use of export restrictions is likely to be counterproductive.

The paper deems that the EC is wrong to argue that the dependence of EU industries on imports from developing countries means they need better access to raw materials to compete on a fair basis. It adds that the EC is also being incorrect when it associates trade liberalisation with development. Consequently, the paper believes that ACP countries may have a great deal to lose if they sign up to and implement EPAs. However, the paper finds that passing the 2007 waiver deadline of the World Trade Organisation (WTO) is a significant advantage for many ACP countries; there is now no real, political deadline for concluding EPAs negotiations.

All things considered, the paper argues that the entire thrust of EPAs is in direct conflict with both the EU’s commitment to sustainable development and the Millennium Development Goals. Therefore, the EU must find alternative routes to assist ACP countries to develop fair and sustainable societies. The paper concludes that the EPA negotiations should be stopped. And those agreements that have already been initialled should be repealed.

Available online at:
http://www.eldis.org/cf/rdr/?doc=41445&em=210209&sub=enviro

To campaign & join target poverty:  http://www.actionaid.org.uk/index.asp?page_id=100484

« back to previous page

Comments are closed.