The European Union keeps repeating that there can be no extension of the Cotonou Agreement (a trade agreement providing unilateral preferences for African countries), because they would not comply with WTO rules on trade in commodities. This is one of the reasons that brings the EU to press the countries of Africa, the Caribbean and the Pacific (ACP) to sign EPAs which, unfortunately, at the outset included much more than commodities only.
However, the only complaints ever raised about ACP commodity imports (in the EU) have come from Latin American countries and the United States concerning the so called “dollar bananas” (grown under appalling, inhuman conditions by US multinationals and often under the supervision of private militia). And in fact, the EU has lost this case and a real problem is therefore at hand. At present Ivory Coast might be tempted to go against the African ranks which refuse to sign, precisely because of its banana trade. The majority of its plantations are in the hands of the French, who do not care much about the interests of the West African regional community, the ECOWAS, and its integration . . . This could tip the region into a serious crisis, breaking the unity sought by the EU (which, however, is very apt a pulling the right strings as it sees fit for its own interests). Such a situation could force other African countries, in particular those not classified as LDCs (Least Developed Countries) to sign EPAs that they do not in actual fact want (See the recent declaration by the President of Senegal, ). The French economist, Jacques Berthelot, therefore suggests, in a recent technical note of November 18th 2007, that the banana issue be dealt with first. Following that, countries will be under no obligation to sign the EPAs, because at present there are no other “commodities” which cause a real problem with regard to WTO rules (at least not according to the European Commission, in its wish to press the ACPs to sign up). Such a solution would probably cost Africa a good deal in subsidies to growers or producer states – obviously not as direct production subsidies, which would again cause the WTO to raise its head – but it would still be less costly to the economy and the banana growers within ECOWAS than the signing of an EPA. In fact, subsidies not directly linked to production – a rule that the EU has so successfully introduced, in order to protect its Common Agricultural Policy at the WTO – could “save African bananas” and could remove the need to sign EPAs which would be particularly destructive to African economies. Koudougou, 3rd December 2007
Father Jacques Lacour
This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it
Abbreviations in this note: EPA – Economic Partnership Agreement
(allegedly to replace the Cotonou Agreement from Jan.1st 2008) ACP – the countries of Africa, the Caribbean and the Pacific ECOWAS (CEDEAO in French) – the Economic Community of West African States, at present 16 ( of which 13 are in the category of Least Developed Countries), targeted by the new agreement. |
View from the South