Suchergebnisse

The direct effects of EPAs on ACP countries arise from the requirement to eliminate tariffs on most imports from the EU. While consumers gain from cheaper imports, the government losses tariff revenue and producers face increased completion, implying adjustment costs. This paper estimates the consumer welfare and revenue impact for a sample of 34 ACP countries of eliminating tariffs on imports from the EU under an EPA, and discusses the associated adjustment costs. Although the ACP overall and on average experiences consumer welfare gains, the gains (or any losses) are small and associated with significant revenue losses and potential adjustment costs. As the gains are associated with increased imports from the EU, larger welfare gains tend to be associated with larger revenue losses and adjustment costs. There is scope for tax substitution to address revenue concerns, but addressing adjustment costs (especially employment) will be much more difficult. ACP countries can exclude up to 20% of imports from the EU from tariff elimination (sensitive products). The paper argues that regionally traded goods should be classified as sensitive and excluded from liberalization. Although this reduces consumer welfare gains (or increases welfare losses), these are likely to be more than offset by the benefits from lower revenue losses and trade effects that reduce adjustment costs. This also serves to encourage increased intra-regional trade: regional exporters gain from the preservation of their regional market share and in all countries domestic producers are likely to produce some regionally traded goods.

AbstractThe African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) Group of States and the European Union (EU) have engaged in what is known as a 'special privileged', legally binding contractual agreement on trade cooperation, development assistance and political dialogue since 1975. Currently expressed in the Cotonou Partnership Agreement for a 20‐year period from 2000, the agreement faces its final 5‐year review in 2015, which is proving conducive for an extensive debate between development practitioners on what future can be envisaged for ACP–EU relations in a world drastically different from the neocolonial era of the 1970s and offering new opportunities as well as challenges to trade, commerce and development assistance. From the perspective of a diplomatic representative of an ACP member state, a critique is offered of issues and instances in which the contested interests of the asymmetrical relationship can be interpreted in relation to the overarching objective of 'reducing and eventually eradicating poverty' as stated in the Cotonou Partnership Agreement. The author argues that the ACP Group, as the unique, transcontinental coalition of developing countries can be a significant partner with the EU and 'new actors', through south‐south and triangular cooperations to challenge traditional thinking and practice on development assistance by a thoroughly refashioned paradigm, in which equality, sustainability, inclusive growth and structural transformation of ACP economies must be pre‐eminent. Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

AbstractThis article reviews and assesses the recent Cotonou Partnership Agreement between the ACP group of developing countries and the EU. It places the Agreement in the context of the EU's commitment to refocusing its development policy and reforming its aid administration. It emphasises the innovative elements of the Agreement that set it apart from its Lome predecessors—the intention to move to reciprocal regional free trade agreements; the emphasis upon good governance; the rule of law and human rights; the enhanced role for non‐State actors and the private sector and the adoption of a rolling programme of aid provision. Copyright © 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Contents -- List of Figures -- List of Tables -- Acknowledgements -- List of Abbreviations -- Part I: Historical Foundations of the ACP-EU Relationship -- Chapter 1: Introduction -- Historical Context: Evolution of the ACP-EU Relationship -- Main Issues in the ACP-EU Relationship -- Shifting Strategies and Interests -- The Nature and Role of Development in the ACP-EU Relationship -- The Impact of the ACP-EU Partnership on ACP Regional Integration -- The Challenge of Asymmetries Between the ACP and the EU -- Political Issues in the ACP-EU Relationship -- Outline of the Book -- Notes -- Chapter 2: A History of the ACP-EU Relationship: The Origins and Spirit of Lomé -- From Yaoundé to Lomé -- Lomé and the Birth of the ACP -- The Life of Lomé -- From Lomé to Cotonou -- Concluding Reflections -- Notes -- Part II: An Anatomy of the ACP-EU Relationship -- Chapter 3: The EU and Africa: The Political Economy of an Asymmetrical Partnership -- Africa-EU Trade: From Lomé to Cotonou -- Africa-EU Economic Partnership Agreements -- African Opposition to the Economic Partnership Agreements -- The Role of Development Assistance in Africa-EU Relations -- Political Aspects of the Africa-EU Relationship -- Concluding Reflections -- Notes -- Chapter 4: The EU and the Caribbean: The Necessity of Unity -- From CARICOM to CARIFORUM -- From Lomé to Cotonou -- Trends in the EU-Caribbean Relationship -- The EU-CARIFORUM Economic Partnership Agreement -- Flawed Negotiations -- Absence of an Effective Development Dimension -- Surrender of Policy Space -- Impact on Regional Integration -- Onerous Implementation -- The Future of Caribbean-EU Relations -- Caribbean-ACP Relations -- A Caribbean Perspective on the Future of ACP-EU Relations -- Concluding Reflections -- Notes -- Chapter 5: The EU and the Pacific: A Tale of Unfulfilled Expectations

The Economic Partnership Agreements (EPAs) between the group of African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) countries and the European Union could serve as an opportunity to accelerate global and regional trade integration of ACP countries. Moreover, the European Commission intends to use EPAs as a tool for development and the eradication of poverty in ACP countries. To achieve their potential development, however, there are a number of preconditions in ACP countries to be fulfilled. This paper argues that institutional quality plays a key role in a successful trade liberalisation. In fact, only countries with high-quality institutions, partly in the form of good government regulations, are likely to benefit from trade. nfortunately, the vast majority of African ACP countries have excessive regulations that hinder them from taking advantage of trade. For the necessary institutional reforms to resolve this problem, we will discuss a number of important issues that have to be addressed to enable ACP countries to take full advantage of EPAs.

AbstractGlobal economic, demographic and geopolitical as well as internal developments since the signature of the Cotonou Partnership Agreement in 2000 have had a profound impact on relations between the European Union (EU) and the African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) Group. The paper analyses the process of adaptation in the areas of development cooperation and in the political and security context, reflected in two revisions in 2005 and 2010. It discusses the influence of the Lisbon Treaty on the objective of poverty reduction, and the role of EU values and security concerns. The negotiation of new trading arrangements compatible with the World Trade Organisation triggered a veritable storm in ACP–EU relations. The paper discusses factors, which proved to be major hurdles to the successful and timely conclusion of the Economic Partnership Agreements, as real trade between the two groups saw a reversal of the downward trend and the ACP recovered part of the previously lost market share of ACP goods in total EU imports. The exclusivity of the flagship partnership has started to crumble as the importance of new partners increased both on ACP and EU side. The author maintains that with the Cotonou Partnership Agreement's purpose defined as solely supporting the development of the ACP countries, it is not surprising that it does not count among the strategic partnerships from the EU perspective. Yet, it is too early to predict the future of the ACP–EU relationship beyond 2020, but both the EU and the ACP have an interest in starting off their discussions and negotiations on their future relationship on the right footing. Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

The European Union (EU) has provided trade preferences to the African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) countries since 1975. To maintain these preferences, a series of economic partnership agreements (EPAs) between the EU and regional groupings of ACP countries are being agreed, (negotiations started around 2003 and many framework agreements have been signed). As multilateral negotiations within the World Trade Organisation have stalled, EPAs are currently the single most important policy issue for ACP trade. This volume assesses EPAs and the potential impact on ACP countries, provides guidance.

The European Union (EU) has provided trade preferences to the former colonies of the African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) regions since 1975 but these preferences have been of limited value and found to be incompatible with WTO rules. To continue preferences, economic partnership agreements (EPAs) were established, under which the EU and regional groupings of ACP countries offer reciprocal trade preferences to each other. This volume not only assesses EPAs and the impact on ACP countries, but also provides guidance for ACP negotiators in future negotiations and provides an evaluation of method

The controversial Economic Partnership Agreements (EPAs) are currently back on the agenda, as several African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) states are again faced with a loss of market access if they do not ratify their EPAs by 1 October 2016. To complicate matters, Brexit has introduced an element of uncertainty and is causing some ACP states to reconsider their decision to sign EPAs. EPAs were introduced under the trade pillar of the Cotonou Partnership Agreement (CPA), which governs relations between the European Union (EU) and the ACP. EPAs represent a sea change in trade relations between the EU and the ACP: not only do they introduce reciprocity into trade preferences, they are organized on a regional basis, with the aim of promoting regional integration within the ACP. This Briefing Paper presents an update of the various EPA processes, and investigates the extent to which they have actually met the EU's stated aim of promoting regionalism in the ACP, as well as the EPAs alignment with the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), and the debate on the future of EU-ACP cooperation. EPAs have been only partially effective in facilitating regional integration in the ACP. EPA negotiations have resulted in the conclusion of region-wide deals that align with existing integration initiatives in only three regions: the Caribbean, the East African Community (EAC), and West Africa. EPAs have acted as a 'mid-wife' to deeper integration in these regions, however it is a possibility that the EAC and West African EPAs will not be signed by the October deadline. In the remaining regions – the Pacific, Central Africa, Eastern and Southern Africa (ESA), and the Southern African Development Community (SADC) – EPAs have made future prospects for regional integration more difficult, and in some cases may have contributed to a 'lock-in' of fragmented regionalism. Part of the reason for this mixed record is tension between the CPA's principles of 'regionalization', which recognizes the importance of regional integration for development; and 'differentiation', which advocates treating states differently based on their level of development. EPAs aimed to encourage groups of states to sign the agreements as regional blocs, but the EU's Everything But Arms (EBA) regime undermines regional EPAs by offering Least Developed Countries (LDCs) non-reciprocal trade preferences. This splits ACP regions into LDCs versus non-LDCs, making it difficult to conclude regional EPAs. Given the ongoing struggle to conclude regional EPAs, and the uncertainty of Brexit, the EU should consider extending the 1 October deadline, to allow ACP states more time to consider their positions and work on further harmonising regional relations. As regional integration is key for the economic development of ACP states, future cooperation should be aware of the need for alignment of EPAs, the SDGs, and the goal of regional integration.

The Economic Partnership Agreements (EPAs) between the European Union and the African, Caribbean, and Pacific (ACP) nation-states are the most recent construct in a long history of developing countries' dependency and reliance on developed European countries. Even though Preferential Trade Agreements(PTAs) are widely used by countries party to the World Trade Organization (WTO), the European Union is hiding behind illusions of non-economic trade benefits, such as increased stability and health benefits, in their EPAs with ACP countries. The European Union has the economic bargaining power, creating an upper hand in the trade negotiations with the former colonial countries and other developing countries. The EPAs, like other PTAs, consistently have provisions that should be found to violate the most-favored nation (MFN) clause. Even though GATT Article XXIV allows for PTAs, in order for the WTO to achieve one of its initiatives to liberalize world trade, the MFN clause should penetrate throughout the EU-ACP agreements.