|
Résumé :
|
The EU's trading relations with the 77 members of the African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) countries have historically been framed by a series of conventions, most recently Lomé, which granted unilateral preferences to the ACP countries on the E[...]
The EU's trading relations with the 77 members of the African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) countries have historically been framed by a series of conventions, most recently Lomé, which granted unilateral preferences to the ACP countries on the EU market. Although the ACP countries are amongst the most vulnerable countries in the global trading system, the conventions nevertheless violated WTO rules as they established unfair discrimination between developing countries. A change was therefore required. The Cotonou Agreement in 2000 paved the way for a new trading regime based on reciprocal preferences. On this basis, in 2001 the WTO agreed to give a waiver to the EU to continue providing unilateral preferences until January 2008. Under the Cotonou Agreement, Economic Partnership Agreements (EPAs) will be established between the EU and the ACP countries. EPAs define a new stage in the policy of the EU towards the ACP developing countries, establishing a framework which is fully compatible with the WTO trading rules, in the sense of GATT Article XXIV. However, the EPAs, which should replace the Cotonou agreement by the beginning of next year, will pose important challenges for many ACP countries. The negotiations with the EU to establish EPAs began in September 2002. For the purposes of negotiations, the 77 ACP countries have been grouped into six negotiation regions (West Africa, Central Africa, Eastern and Southern Africa, the Southern African Development Community, the Caribbean and the Pacific) based on existing regional integration institutions. The EPAs raise several concerns amongst ACP countries. Firstly, ACP countries fear that giving preferential access to EU products, under a reciprocal arrangement, would put their producers in numerous sectors at risk of increased competition. Secondly, they also fear that cutting tariffs for EU products would result in a sizeable loss of tariff revenue that would hurt their public budgets. Thirdly, they claim that the timetable for the negotiations and their implementation is extremely tight given the numerous modalities still to be precisely determined. For example, what will be the scope and pace of liberalisation? Which products will be considered to be sensitive for ACP regions and thus excluded from liberalisation? How will integration inside each region be linked with ACP-EU liberalisation? In order to better address these concerns, our study intends to present a very detailed analysis of the trade-related aspects of EPAs negotiations. We use a dynamic partial equilibrium model at the HS6 level (covering 5,113 HS6 products). The main source of trade data are Comext and BACI, while ad-valorem tariffs and Tariffs-Rate-Quotas are provided by MacMapHS6v2. The use of these data sources means that we can accurately deal with the crucial aspect of sensitive products. Two alternative lists of sensitive products are constructed, one giving priority to the agricultural sectors (H1 option), the other focusing on tariff revenue preservation (H2 option). The dynamic aspect of the model allows us to measure the impact of the agreement over different time periods. It is important to remember the strong asymmetry existing between the two trading partners. ACP countries are highly dependent on the EU market, largely due to their historical links. For the EU, on the other hand, despite this longstanding partnership, the ACP region remains of more modest economic importance, accounting for very little in terms of trade. The ECOWAS group alone accounts for half of total EU imports from the whole region. On the export side, ACP countries tend to be highly specialised in a few key products. This strong concentration mainly derives either from the abundance of minerals and natural resources in many African countries (petroleum, gold, diamonds and uranium and radioactive elements) or a heavy reliance on a few unprocessed agricultural commodities such as coffee or cotton. In order to better address these concerns, our study intends to present a very detailed analysis of the trade-related aspects of EPAs negotiations. We use a dynamic partial equilibrium model at the HS6 level (covering 5,113 HS6 products). Two alternative lists of sensitive products are constructed, one giving priority to the agricultural sectors (H1 option), the other focusing on tariff revenue preservation (H2 option). The dynamic aspect of the model allows us to measure the impact of the agreement over different time periods. The selection of sensitive products for the ACP remains a key issue. Two approaches have been chosen, following the advice of DG Trade experts. Under the H1 scenario, priority is given to agricultural products, to reflect the political sensitivity of the sector. Under the H2 Scenario, sensitive products are selected such that tariff revenue losses are minimised at the regional level. The framework for the analysis is a partial equilibrium model focusing on the demand side. Different simulations are performed in order to assess the impact of both potential outcomes from the EPA negotiations and alternative scenarios in the event that EPAs are not signed. In the latter context, firstly, we consider the end of Cotonou, no EPA and GSP tariffs applied to non-LDC ACP countries (Everything But Arms-EBA-will still provide market access for LDCs). Secondly, we model the end of Cotonou, no EPA and the GSP+ tariffs applied to non-LDC ACP countries (EBA for LDCs). Lastly, we consider the end of Cotonou following successful EPA negotiations, using the H1 and H2 scenarios. As a sensitivity analysis, we also examine the H1 case in circumstances where the Doha round of multilateral negotiations is also completed, in order to measure the magnitude of potential preference erosion. The consequences of EPAs are assessed through different indicators: changes in exports and imports, changes in tariff income and the countries. current accounts.
|
