Ibn Chambas got it wrong on EPA

Read Comments Comments (9)

• Fo Koku - Tanyinbge 11 years ago

  ECOWAS IS THE LAST 20 YEARS HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO PUT ITS HOUSE INTO ORDER.

  ECOWAS IS THE LAST 20 YEARS HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO PUT ITS HOUSE INTO ORDER.

  reply
• KWAKU 11 years ago

  Ohenenana, I think you are completely off base. The EPA will not help ECOWAS. If Ghana could potentially lose US$300 million per year removing tariffs and duties for EU imports, this means Ghana could be giving about US$6 bil ...
  read full comment

  Ohenenana, I think you are completely off base. The EPA will not help ECOWAS. If Ghana could potentially lose US$300 million per year removing tariffs and duties for EU imports, this means Ghana could be giving about US$6 billion free to the EU within the twenty-year period. To Ohenenana, how is that beneficial to Ghana? We are not mentioning the local industries the EU imports will decimate; that's all none cash crop industries.
  
  I think what Ohenenana should be talking about is what alternatives ECOWAS has by not trading with the EU. There is only so much cocoa on the world market; there, definitely, should be alternate markets. Are you suggesting that Ghana will have difficulty selling the gold, timber, diamonds, etc. outside of the EU? China will be very happy to take those exports at the cheap prices we are selling them to the Europeans. We may even be able to sign a pact to have industries set up in Ghana to take advantage of the raw materials.
  
  It will not help West Africa. AGOA gives us more opportunities than the EPA, and AGOA has less restrictions. How come the EU is looking for duty-free and tariff-free access to ECOWAS markets? If you want to know how industrialized West Africa is going to be as a result of the EPA, the simple answer is to look at the new EU countries from Eastern Europe. How much development have they realized as a result of joining the EU? The EU is not going to invest $50 million to establish a clinker plant so that the EU would lose the hundreds of millions of dollars in yearly exports of clinker to West Africa. The EU is only looking for a place to dump their inferior and surplus products and produce. The amount of money needed to raise ECOWAS’ standards to the EU's specifications may exceed what we currently are gaining from our meager exports.
  
  The EPA promises West Africa US$6.5 billion over a five year period to "put things" right and get the member-countries' economy ready for competition. This US$6.5 billion divided among the 16 WA countries over a five-year period equates to about US$82 million a year. For giving West Africa this "tip", the trade pact eliminates almost all tariffs on EU exports. This US$6.5 billion could be the tariffs collected by Nigeria or Ghana from EU imports per year. This makes the amount suggested condescending and insulting. For those with short memory, just the importation of two or three shipments of frozen chicken from China was enough to significantly disturb the poultry industry in Ghana; this agreement will kill all local industries that the president is trying to promote.
  
  The insulting part of the EPA is the suggestion that ECOWAS should discourage source revenue generation and "develop" destination revenue generation. This means Ghana should stop the tariffs and duties on EU exports to Ghana and institute strategies such as the 17.5% VAT on banking transactions as a way to "recover" the lost revenue on import tariffs and duties. Everyone knows the financial institutions will fan out the VAT onto the poor people who can barely make ends get close to meeting. I wonder where the thinking is on this EPA? Why did it even get to this point? Did the ECOWAS have representatives for the drafting of this pact? If they did, why and how did they tolerate some of the language in the agreement? Were they asleep or drugged? It makes no sense why and how any person or group with an ounce of intellect could agree to discuss being insulted and robbed? In this agreement, the EU has nothing to lose but everything to gain. ECOWAS has everything to lose and infinitesimally little to gain.

  reply
• William 11 years ago

  When Dr. Chambas and his UEMOa colleague resisted the EU Commission pressures and latter chose to lobby our leaders directly during the Kufuor administration where we're you? What kind of documents can negate that. When Alan ...
  read full comment

  When Dr. Chambas and his UEMOa colleague resisted the EU Commission pressures and latter chose to lobby our leaders directly during the Kufuor administration where we're you? What kind of documents can negate that. When Alan Kyerematen and his othen colleague ministers of trade also resisted where we're you? Ask the President of ECOWAS C omission today, he was then his country's Ambassador to Brussels!
  Also by your logic since there were no coups d'etats in Senegal, Cape Verde and until recently, Côte d'Ivoire they made better use of the agreement you refer to!!!
  Either you need to do more research or ....

  reply
• Thomas Dorku 11 years ago

  Very well said. I would suggest the economic think-tanks come with a list of the possible challenges and benefits for public awareness. That way ordinary citizens and the business community will brace/prepare for what's comin ...
  read full comment

  Very well said. I would suggest the economic think-tanks come with a list of the possible challenges and benefits for public awareness. That way ordinary citizens and the business community will brace/prepare for what's coming.

  reply
• John 11 years ago

  Can we get some figures? We are talking about exports and imports and revenue. It would have been helpful if you give figures to show who benefited from Lome and Younde conventions, by how much and how would it be different f ...
  read full comment

  Can we get some figures? We are talking about exports and imports and revenue. It would have been helpful if you give figures to show who benefited from Lome and Younde conventions, by how much and how would it be different from EPA. I agree that Chambas and many politicians should speak out when they have power not when they are out of power and are looking for options. this goes for World bank and IMF officials as well as African politicians. But the company you work for blows your cover ....

  reply
• zoro 11 years ago

  Great presentation and brilliant peace of work I salute you for the content without insults....kudos to you once more.

  Great presentation and brilliant peace of work I salute you for the content without insults....kudos to you once more.

  reply
• ohenenana OBONTI Krow 11 years ago

  His overall performance was excellent but his position on the EPA and the 200 fake Asylum seekers in Brazil was a bit problematic

  His overall performance was excellent but his position on the EPA and the 200 fake Asylum seekers in Brazil was a bit problematic

  reply
• kwabena amankwah 11 years ago

  Oheneba, the message is simple. our economy is not ready for such competition.We should industrialise to an appreciable level before thinking of signing an EPA in the form of what it is at present.

  Oheneba, the message is simple. our economy is not ready for such competition.We should industrialise to an appreciable level before thinking of signing an EPA in the form of what it is at present.

  reply
• GoatEater 11 years ago

  The EPA is bad for ECOWAS in so many respects, and Dr Chambas was right in pointing out the pitfalls of the agreement. The IMF, various intl bodies, and Ghanaian institutions have come out against it. Fact is that ECOWAS coun ...
  read full comment

  The EPA is bad for ECOWAS in so many respects, and Dr Chambas was right in pointing out the pitfalls of the agreement. The IMF, various intl bodies, and Ghanaian institutions have come out against it. Fact is that ECOWAS countries are ill equipped to enter into such an agreement. Free trade is what is needed, and this is already embodied in the World Trade Organization (WTO).

  reply