Accra, Sept. 7, GNA - The European Union (EU) on Friday rejected claims that it was steamrolling West Africa into completing negotiations for the Economic Partnership Agreements (EPA) this year. "We are not," the Delegation of the European Commission EU said in a statement in Accra aimed at answering criticism of the EPAs. It said the EPAs would stimulate local and regional markets and open new opportunities for local entrepreneurs.
It said legal protection at the World Trade Organisation (WTO) for our existing trade agreements expires at the end of the year. "Because our current arrangements heavily favour Ghana in EU markets over other developing countries they will be challenged if we do nothing - by other developing countries. So we need a trade agreement compatible with WTO rules. An EPA can do this," it said. The EU said it could not extend the existing system, adding that the only legal alternative to EPA, which was called the Generalised System of Preferences or "GSP", offered much less generous market access, unless a country was classed as "Least Developed" by the United Nations - which Ghana is not.
The statement said in decades of studying economic development the EU had learnt that strong economies needed to build on the genius of local entrepreneurs.
It said they needed to attract new investment and be part of strong regional markets and could not shut themselves off entirely from the global economy.'
"The Economic Partnership Agreements that the European Union is negotiating with West Africa can do all of these things." The EU said one myth currently doing the rounds was that Ghana qualified for a special arrangement called "GSP+" but stressed that this was not true.
It said this was because access to GSP+ depended on conditions linked to ratifying key international conventions on human rights and development.
"Not only has Ghana yet to complete these ratifications but there is a waiting list of countries that already have and the process is a lengthy one, with disruptive effects on existing shipping and contract arrangements.
"This means that with no EPA, key Ghanaian exports like aluminium, pineapples, cocoa and tuna will be more expensive in EU markets from next January.
"Nobody wants this, least of all the EU consumers that buy these products. This is why we are striving for an agreement by the end of the year."
The EU also noted criticisms that EPAs would not be fair, that they would open ACP markets to EU trade at the expense of local businesses, and local growth and that EPAs would not mean "free trade" with Ghana from January 1 next year, or any time soon.
"In fact the Economic Partnership Agreements are not free trade agreements (FTA) in the usual sense. Usually an FTA means both sides open their markets to the same degree. That won't happen with EPAs." The statement said on the EU side there would be no more customs duties, no more quotas, adding that Ghana would not be asked to match this offer and West Africa would be able to protect sensitive markets and use long transition times to phase in change. It said during this transition time the EU would provide technical and financial support to help with implementation of the new arrangements.
On claims that the EU was looking out only for its own commercial interests with EPAs, the statement said the EU traded less with all of sub-Saharan Africa (excluding South Africa) than it did with South Korea alone.
It said even in the highly contentious area of investment, the EU's chief concern was putting in place the rules that would help Ghana attract the new capital it urgently needed. "The real benefits of EPAs are not in market access for Europe. We all need African economies that are strong internally, strong in the region and capable of attracting investment. A weak Ghana is hardly in Europe's interests.
"Certainly, the EPA negotiations force us to face up to difficult issues. We are rebuilding an economic relationship that has been in place for many years.
"But that relationship, based on preferences and commodity trade has largely failed to deliver development and it is time to take the bold step to something new."
The EU said a strong debate over the EPAs was essential, "but to suggest that Economic Partnership Agreements are a danger to African development is misleading and wrong".
The EPAs are not a threat to development, the EU said, adding they were an opportunity not to miss and a valuable tool to achieve development.
