Zambia is in the East and Southern African configuration (ESA) in which she is currently in the throes of preparing for final negotiations on the Economic Partnership Agreement (EPA) with the European Union. In December 2007 Zambia initialed an Interim EPA Agreement to indicate commitment to continuing the negotiations after the European Union (EU) set deadline of 31st December, 2007.
As of 1st January, 2008 Zambia reverted to the Everything But Arms (EBA) trading arrangement with the EU until an EPA is finally expected to be signed with Zambia and other ESA countries by 3st December, 2008.
In the background it is important to understand that the now revoked Cottonou Agreement was unilaterally withdrawn by the EU on the basis that the provisions in the agreement did not comply with World Trade Organization rules that compels the EU to treat all developing countries of the world with equal trade rules. In order to comply with the WTO rules, the EU decided to revoke the Cottonou Agreement which affected about 77 African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) countries, rather than to absorb the almost 20 developing countries into this already established trade agreement. It may be possible that the EU needed some excuse to ‘pull the carpet’ from under the ACP countries’ feet because they did not like the Cottonou deal which offered non reciprocal market access into the EU by ACP states.
The current environment for negotiation puts a huge burden on Zambia to develop various positions in respect to an EPA with the EU. It also prescribes a time line that compels the negotiations t be completed by the end of the year. Furthermore, several guidelines and best practices are thrown at us to indicate the direction of negotiations that would be acceptable to the EU negotiating team as a means to help Zambia in the process. And finally, the EU offers to assist Zambia to develop her capacity to negotiate through funding for human resource development in the public sector, and providing logistics, equipment and experts to support the process.
The challenge for Zambia now, is to initially step out of the shadow of guidelines, best practices, and terms of references, and come up with a home grown list of specific issues that we would like to see in an EPA with the EU. These issues should take into account our own development needs first, and the regional development needs second. Our minds should not be restricted by what we think other countries will do, or what the EU would want, but what Zambians expect. In addition, Zambia must set the agenda for capacity building with specific requirements such as the type of human resource training required, where it should sourced, and who should be trained. We must clearly state what logistical requirement we need, what equipment is relevant for our programs, and whether we need to use local experts or foreign consultants of our choice, and from countries that will bring out the issues that support our cause.
If Zambia were to take these decidedly bold steps, then our position in negotiations with the EU on the EPA would be one of equity in the dialogue, and on issues that will have a positive impact on Zambia’s development. It is understood that there will be negotiations towards a final agreement that will serve the interests of both parties such that a sincere and mutually accountable agreement is entered into for the benefit of Zambians and our European counterparts.
It is of cardinal importance to note that the current EU ‘red tape’ and rigidity in endeavoring to support Zambia and facilitate a useful EPA negotiation is not succeeding. The EU must be held accountable and should be transparent in their EPA development program in Zambia. Committed support must be delivered as per a set matrix that covers funding, time lines, and other logistics.
Zambia must work towards being able to negotiate an EPA that will help to develop the country, but we must be brave enough to recognize what is possible within the resources and time span provided. We must sign that part of the EPA that we are comfortable with come 31st December this year, and push for further negotiations for next year if necessary.
The demands made of Zambia in any trade agreements with the EU must be must be pitched against the EU’s practiced trade rules and arrangements with stronger economies such as the United States, China and India. Double standards must be eliminated and we must all walk away from the negotiation table with some satisfaction.
Published 11 March 2008
