Back to Index

Statement by civil society organizations in Zimbabwe on the Economic Partnership Agreements
MWENGO
April 28, 2005

We, the trade and economic justice activists from various civil society organisations in Zimbabwe, including the media, representatives of academics, farmers and peasant movements, labour, consumer movements met in Harare to review Economic Partnership Agreements (EPAs) negotiations with specific reference to the Eastern and Southern Africa (ESA) dedicated session on Agriculture.

We reviewed the following issues on the agenda of the dedicated session:

• Overview of agricultural trade between ESA-EU countries
• Agricultural subsidies in ESA-EU trade
• Tariff reduction formula in agricultural trade
• Standards and SPS measures in ESA-EU agricultural trade
• Commodity protocols in ESA-EU agricultural
• Rules of origin

We note that EPAs are essentially Free Trade Areas and will have far-reaching implications on national economies and people’s livelihoods.

We note with great concern testimonies given by cotton farmers in ESA countries whose households have been pushed into abject poverty caused by the unfair low prices in the current marketing season.

ESA governments should protect negotiators who are identified by the Empire as standing in the way of "consensus" because of their pro-people policy options.

We further call on ESA governments to open up space for meaningful consultation with citizens before they go for negotiations.

Participants called on COMESA and SADC secretariats to appreciate that for ESA countries and Zimbabwe in particular, the notion that "people first before profits" should be the basis on which EPAs must be negotiated.

Therefore, these institutions should promote regional integration purposefully couched to fight empire-led integration and fragmentation of Africa.

They should not hoodwink ESA governments into believing that negotiations will deliver more aid, growth and development. Instead, the so-called technical assistance and capacity building is designed to meet the offensive interests spearheaded by big business corporations based in the North.

Impact assessment studies of trade liberalization must be carried out and sponsored by ESA governments in order to avoid the EU manipulation of Technical assistance and European Development Fund to dilute the latter’s development concerns.

We note with concern that EPA negotiations are being undertaken at a time when most African states are still reeling under the effects of the IMF-World Bank imposed Structural Adjustment Programmes leaving them with limited policy space and options to resist calls for further liberalization.

Farmers in ESA countries who produce largely for domestic demand will be wiped out by import surges from the relatively cheap and subsidized EU products.

The role of ESA countries envisaged under EPAs is largely influenced by historically determined lopsided power relations with the EU whose quest for cheap raw materials developed commodity protocols catering for the interests of big business and its need to protect European agriculture.

The market access ESA countries are being promised is a myth.

Barriers still exist in the form of SPS, TBTs, Tariff peaks and escalation.

Standards and SPS measures that are demanded by the EU further limit trading opportunities for ESA countries.

While the existing standards favour developed nations, ESA countries should explore alternatives involving, among other things, commodity-based risk assessment.

The meeting called on African governments to fully explore domestic-demand driven production strategies, intra regional trade and the much-talked about South-South cooperation, but cautioned that some of the identified new markets are located in countries that are flooding ESA countries with cheap products and knocking on the doors of the West.

On reciprocity, participants noted that this will lead to serious revenue losses for ESA countries and also facilitate greater market access for EU products causing a decline in local food production. ESA countries will find themselves dependent on EU products and this threatens their quest for food security and sovereignty in Agriculture.

We are calling on ESA Governments to pay attention to special and sensitive products when negotiating commitments on tariff reductions, especially those critical to food security.

ESA governments, COMESA and SADC should harmonize their recommendations on rules of origin taking into account bilateral agreements and arrangements like AGOA, SACU and the Everything But Arms initiative.

We recommend that:

1. Negotiations between EU and ESA countries on agriculture must be based on the interests of ESA farmers and allow for the protection of their livelihoods and local food production

2. Trade negotiations between the EU and ESA countries must not go beyond what has been agreed at the WTO. The agreed position on the Doha issues particularly with respect to the elimination of subsidies must be implemented.

3. We urge the ESA countries to start looking into alternatives to the EPAs, as is provided for in the Cotonou Agreement. We demand that trade and development cooperation between the EU and ESA be founded on an approach that:

• is based on a principle of non-reciprocity
• allows protection of ESA producers’ domestic and regional markets
• reverses the pressure for trade and investment liberalisation,
• allows the necessary policy space for ESA and supports countries to pursue their own development strategies
  

Visit the MWENGO fact sheet

Please credit www.kubatana.net if you make use of material from this website. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License unless stated otherwise.

TOP