| A year ago , on January 19 2005, we were able to welcome as good news the signing in Accra of the West African Agricultural Policy, ECOWAP. Indeed it was clearly stated at the time that the ECOWAP resolutely aimed at food sovereignty, which implies a possibility to take protective measures in order to safeguard member countries against the hazards of a world market where prices often have no correlation to production costs. Today we question it. Was it a trap ? One may wonder. In fact a year after the signature the same Heads of State now sign another document, which will make the implementation of the ECOWAP impossible. Why ? Already back in October 2004 we had a doubt : Will the ECOWAS sacrifice its farmers ? We had learnt then that its Trade ministers wanted to extend the CCT (External Common Customs Tariff which sets the import duties) of the WAEMU to all ECOWAS members. Today it transpires that on January 12 2006 the Heads of State of the ECOWAS did what we feared at the time : They extended the CCT (Common External Customs Tariff) of the West African Economic and Monetary Union to all ECOWAS member states. The CCT is very liberal, it does no ensure any protection. None of its import duties go beyond 20% (as compared to Japan which taxes imported rice at 500%, and Nigeria which takes out 100% on the same product). No rich country has been capable of developing its agriculture without protective barriers. Why then leave African farmers alone to fend for themselves on the world market ? The extended CCT will make it impossible to carry out the ECOWAP, which was set to gradually rule out imports of food stuffs in favour of domestic products. We fail to understand how the Heads of State could dismiss a document that they themselves signed less than a year ago and which finally brought a glimmer of hope to ECOWAS farmers and breeders. How could such a decision be taken without any previous parliamentary debate ? To my knowledge no parliament has yet debated this issue. How can African governments pretend to defend their citizens at the WTO only to immediately afterwards leave themselves open to the havoc of the world market. It is an irony of fate that this decision was prepared in secret by the ECOWAS Committee on Agriculture in Abuja while the ministerial conference in Hong Kong was taking place. We fail to understand : How could Nigeria accept such a decision ? The WTO report on Nigerian trade policy of April 13 2005 (WT/TPR/S/147) states on the subject of agriculture : « The protection of the sector is strong, the average customs duty on agricultural products went up from 26.7% in 1998 to 41.4% in 2003 and for many other products (fruit, vegetables and cereals) the rate is 100%. There is also an import ban on other items, i.e. wheat, sorghum, manioc and poultry. » Not only, the report goes on to add that in combination with other policies « these regulations have contributed to the recent robust growth of the agricultural sector ». We fail to understand : How could Nigeria in turn accept to sacrifice its farmers ? In my view such a decision is intolerable for West African producers. Let us hope that they will jump to their feet and demand the organisation of a debate in parliament in all ECOWAS countries and a preparation of counter-proposals, possibly on the basis of Article 9, paragraph 2, which reads : The Council may, in accordance with the same procedure, lay down other specific protective measures. » Strong mobilisation of farmers’ organisations will definitely be necessary to give hope for a reversal of this situation ! Maurice Oudet
Koudougou, February 26 2006 | 
