Barely a week ago, the Office of the European Commission (EC) in
Windhoek was still positive that Namibia would put pen to paper in the
Belgium capital.
Yesterday, though, EC spokesperson Emma Mbekele confirmed that the
historic event had to be postponed to find a date to suit all parties.
No other details were available at the time of going to press.
Namibia, South Africa, Angola, Botswana, Lesotho, Swaziland and
Mozambique are negotiating as the SADC-EPA block with the EU. However,
Namibia, South Africa and Angola have also formed the ANSA group
because they share particular economic concerns regarding the EPA.
In addition, South Africa and Angola each have separate issues with the
EPA. South Africa has an existing trade deal with the EU, namely the
Trade, Development and Co-operation Agreement (TDCA), which runs until
2012. Angola has unresolved issues regarding its status as a Least
Developed Country (LDC).
Observers therefore expected South Africa and Angola not to be part of today's signing.
However, without Namibia on board, it is unlikely that the EU would
conclude interim EPAs with Botswana, Lesotho, Swaziland and Mozambique,
the Trade Law Centre for Southern Africa (Tralac) told The Namibian
yesterday.
In his State of the Nation Address three weeks ago, President
Hifikepunye Pohamba said although some progress has been made in the
EPA negotiations with the EU, more work remains to be done.
Namibia provisionally initialled the interim EPA in 2007 to ensure
quota- and tariff-free access to the EU's markets, but is still
wrestling with major concerns regarding job and revenue losses,
regional integration and capacity.
Also still unresolved is the Most Favoured Nation (MFN) clause, which
requires a World Trade Organisation (WTO) member country to treat all
its fellow WTO trading partners the same. Namibia could therefore not
offer one of its major trading parties any benefits without
automatically also offering it to the EU.
Meanwhile, Prof Gerhard Erasmus of Tralac has warned that only South
Africa currently has the administrative machinery to implement trade
remedies and safeguards stemming from the SADC EPA.
According to the EPA text, these will be governed by relevant
agreements of the World Trade Organisation (WTO) and disputes must be
settled through WTO procedures.
The implication is that the private sector in the SADC states (and the
governments) will not be able to invoke protective measures against
dumped or subsidised EU imports unless the necessary domestic
arrangements for implementing the applicable WTO measures are in place.
The same considerations will apply with regard to safeguard measures,
Erasmus says in an EPA piece on the Tralac website.
If South Africa does not join this EPA, Namibia and the other SADC
states will have to develop their own mechanisms. Furthermore, the new
infant industry safeguard will require its own set of new legislative
and administrative measures in each of the SADC EPA states, Erasmus
says.
It is still uncertain if South Africa will join this EPA, he points out.
Although this isn't necessarily a bad thing, as it will establish
rules-based arrangements, it will require urgent action from countries
like Namibia to get their house in order.
Our states and the private parties within our region (the real
traders) will not be able to reap the benefits of legal remedies,
certainty and predictability unless the governments in the SADC EPA
states establish the necessary domestic frameworks and develop the
technical capacity to deal with the associated challenges, Erasmus
says.
They will have to do so in time – to be available when this EPA becomes operational, he stresses.
Post published in: Zimbabwe News