35 ACP countries initialled either a full or an interim agreement by the expiry of the WTO waiver in December 2007. CARIFORUM countries have initialled and signed a full EPA as a region while several interim agreements have been initialled by smaller groups of countries or on individual-country basis. Negotiations are ongoing towards the conclusion of full regional EPAs, where some remaining contentious issues would need to be addressed before agreement can be reached.

On this page you will find: An overview of the agreements concluded by region An overview of trade regimes between ACP and the EU The liberalisation commitments contained in IEPAs Towards the signature of IEPAs: and then? -> rendez-vous clauses ; provisional application; contentious issues Events at the All ACP-EU level Resources for further readings

Overview of the agreements concluded by region

A brief look at each of the six regional negotiation groupings gives an overview of the agreements that have been reached so far (see also our regional web pages for the current state of play):

•  In the Caribbean, a full regional EPA was initialled on 16 December 2007 and signed by all CARIFORUM countries except by Haiti on 15 October 2008 (Guyana signed on 20 October).

In all other regions, negotiations are continuing towards comprehensive regional EPAs after interim deals have been agreed at the level of sub-regions or individual countries:

•  In the Pacific , Papua New Guinea and Fiji have initialled an interim agreement in November 2007. Although other exports from PACP countries to the EU are very low in absolute value, this can be significant relative to their overall country exports and thus they may face serious disruption of trade.

•  In East and Southern Africa ( ESA ), the East African Community (EAC) members (Burundi , Kenya , Rwanda , Tanzania and Uganda ) have decided in November 2007 to form a separate EPA region and initialled an interim agreement on 27 November 2007 . The remaining ESA countries have opted for a framework agreement with a common text but separate market access schedules. The ESA -EC interim agreement has so far been initialled by the Seychelles and Zimbabwe , on 28 November, Mauritius on 4 December, Comoros and Madagascar on 11 December 2007 and by Zambia. While Zambia had initialled the text of the agreement already in 2007, its market access schedule was initialled only on 30 September 2008; hence Zambia has been temporarily exporting to the EU under EBA from 1 January 2008.

•  In the SADC EPA region, an interim agreement has been initialled by Botswana , Lesotho , Swaziland and Mozambique on 23 November 2007 and signed by Botswana, Lesotho and Swaziland on 4 June 2009. Namibia initialled on 11 December 2007 . South Africa despite forming the customs union SACU with Botswana , Namibia , Lesotho and Swaziland is not taking part in the interim agreement so far. Without joining the agreement, South Africa exports to the EU under its TDCA agreement with the EU.

•  In Central Africa , no regional interim agreement exists. The non-LDC Cameroon initialled an interim agreement with the EC on 17 December 2007 (signed on 15 January 2009). The other non-LDCs in the region, Gabon and the Republic of the Congo, have not concluded an interim agreement so far.

•  Similarly in West Africa , no regional interim agreement has been concluded. Côte d'Ivoire and Ghana initialled individual interim agreements with the EC on 7 December and 13 December 2007 respectively. (The interim agreement with Cote d'Ivoire was signed on 26 November 2008.) Nigeria , being the third non-LDC in the region, is unlikely to conclude such an agreement and has asked to be included in the GSP+ scheme instead. Cape Verde , which graduated from LDC status on 1 January 2008 , will be able to export under the EBA regime for a transitional period of three years.

Go to our page with the Texts of the agreements by clicking here!

See also:
- Table giving an overview of the State of Play as of 6 November 2008, European Commission
- Update & Description of Interim Economic Partnership Agreements by the European Commission, 19 December 2007.

Back to the top of the page

Overview of trade regimes

• Countries with full or interim EPAs:

  The willingness to conclude an EPA has been higher among non-LDCs that are large exporters to the EC. Those countries were seeking to maintain access to the European market, while LDC countries were keeping full access to the EC market via the ‘Everything But Arms’ initiative. (Source: CTA Executive Brief on West Africa, December 2007)

In order to establish a new WTO compatible trade regime from 1 January 2008, 35 ACP countries out of 77 ACP countries initialled either a full or an interim agreement by the expiry of the WTO waiver covering the Cotonou trade preferences on 31 december 2007.

The Caribbean is the only region that completed the negotiations on a full EPA with the EU by that date. Most African non-LDCs (18 countries, except Nigeria, Republic of the Congo, Gabon and South Africa ) and two Pacific non-LDCs (Papua New Guinea and Fiji) have concluded interim agreements with the EC.

The market access regulation adopted by the Council of the European Union on 20 December 2007 grants those countries, listed in Annex I, duty free-quota free access (DFQF) for all their exports to the EC, with transition periods for sugar and rice. In return, under EPAs, they gradually have to apply lower import tariffs towards the EC as set out in the negotiated liberalisation schedules.

• ACP countries without EPAs:

The standard Generalised System of Preferences (GSP)- applies to the 42 non-LDC countries that have not initialled an agreement since 1 January 2008. The GSP system implies significantly higher tariffs on a number of products compared to the Cotonou regime.
The countries concerned are: Nigeria, Republic of the Congo, Gabon, as well as the Pacific countries Cook Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, Nauru, Niue, Palau, Marshall Islands and Tonga. Their exports to the EU are now subject to the normal GSP tariffs or to MFN treatment (Most favoured nation treatment), for items that are not covered by the standard GSP. Accordingly, the GSP implies higher tariffs on a number of products compared to the Cotonou regime.

The Everything But Arms scheme (EBA)- applies to 26 out of the 30 African countries without an EPA due to their LDC status. Under the EBA scheme, they are able to export duty free and quota free to the EC market without opening their markets to imports from the EU in return. There is no increase in tariffs compared to the Cotonou preferences for LDCs.

• South Africa is the fourth African non-LDC that has not concluded an EPA, and is already implementing the WTO-compatible Trade Development and Cooperation Agreement (TDCA) with the EU.
  
  
  

  	Nature of the trade Regime	Market access in goods
  Countries with an EPA	WTO-compatible free trade agreement	- Duty and Quota free (DTQF) access to the EU market for all products with transition periods for sugar and rice - Opening up of ACP markets to imports from the EU - Possibility of improved RoO
  Countries without an EPA: - standard GSP (1) - GSP subregimes: EBA (2) and GSP+ (3)	Unilateral trade preferences	- (1), (3): Preferential access with higher tariffs than under EPA and previous Cotonou preferences but lower tariffs than under the standard GSP for (3) - (2): DFQF access to EU market for all products with transition periods for sugar and rice; no additional opening up of ACP markets to imports from the EU - (1), (3) limited coverage: sugar, bananas, rice not covered =>exported under MFN conditions - (1), (2), (3) : currently more restrictive RoO than under EPAs

Source: Table made on the basis of the information contained in The new EPAs, ODI-ECDPM, 31 March 2008.

Further documents:
- ACP Market Access outlook on 1 January 2008 , European Commission, 20 December 2007.
- Council Regulation applying a scheme of generalised tariff preferences for the period from 1 January 2009 to 31 December 2011 and providing for two special arrangements (a) a special incentive arrangement for sustainable development and good governance ; and (b) a special arrangement for the least-developed countries), 22 July 2008.
- See also, the DG Trade note on the ''Generalised System of Preferences", page updated 12 December 2008

Back to the top of the page

Liberalisation schedules

• Different liberalisation schedules for imports of EC goods have been agreed across ACP countries.
  -> Table 1 below gives an idea of the liberalisation commitments contained in initialled interim agreements.
  
  
• Some sensitive products have been excluded from liberalisation.
  -> Table 2 gives the goods included in exclusion lists by each region.
  
  Reasons for these exclusions include infant industry protection, tariff revenues and protection of agricultural products that are subsidised in the EU.

  Table 1a: Liberalisation schedules agreed in initialled interim agreements (cumulative value of imports from the EU, to be liberalised by the specified year )
  

  	2008	2010	2012	2013	2017	2018	2022	2023	2033	total
  Fiji	24%			37%		78%		81.5%		81.5%
  Papua New Guinea	88.1%									88.1%
  EAC		64%						80%	82%	82%
  Comoros				21.5%			80.6%			80.6%
  Madagascar				37%			80.7%			80.7%
  Mauritius	24.5 %				53.6%		95.6%			95.6%
  Seychelles				62%	77%		97.5%			97.5%
  Zimbabwe			45%				80%			80%
  Botswana, Lesotho, Namibia, Swaziland		86%								86% + 47 tariff lines
  Mozambique	78.5%									80.5%
  Cameroon						50%		80%		80%
  Cote d'Ivoire						69.8%		80.8%		80.8%
  Ghana						62.24%		80.48%		80.48%
  Caribbean	52.8%			56%		61.1%		82.7%	86.9%	86.9%

   

  Table 1b: Liberalisation schedules agreed in initialled interim agreements (cumulative percentage of tariff lines, to be liberalised by the specified year )
  

  	2008	2010	2013	2015	2017	2018	2022	2023	2033	total
  Fiji	9% a		22% a			62% a		80% a		80% a
  Papua New Guinea	82.1% a									82.1% a
  EAC										74% a
  Mauritius	26% a				73% a		96.6% a			96.6% a
  Botswana , Lesotho , Namibia , Swaziland		86% a		44 b		3 b				86% a + 47 tariff lines
  Mozambique						100 b
  Cote d'Ivoire						83.9% a		88.7% a		88.7% a
  Ghana						72.81% a		80.01% a		80.01% a
  Caribbean								85.1 % a	90.7 % a	90.7 % a

  a cumulative percentage of tariff lines
  b additional number of tariff lines to be liberalised by the specified year

   

  Table 2: Goods excluded from liberalisation

  Pacific	Certain agricultural and forestry products as well as non agricultural processed goods are excluded from liberalisation by both Papua New Guinea and Fiji . The main criterion of these exclusions is the desire to protect infant industry and maintain fiscal revenues.
  EAC	Exclusions include: agricultural products, wines and spirits, chemicals, plastics, wood based paper, textiles and clothing, footwear, glassware. The main criterion of these exclusions is the desire to protect infant industry.
  ESA	Several products from different sectors have been excluded from liberalisation, mainly due to the need to protect sensitive products or infant industries in the countries. In the case of Seychelles , these include meat, fisheries, beverages, tobacco, leather articles, glass and ceramics and vehicles. In the case of Zimbabwe , excluded products include products of animal origin, cereals, beverages paper, plastics and rubber, textiles and clothing, footwear, glass and ceramics, consumer electronics and vehicles. Mauritius excluded from liberalisation live animals and meat, edible products of animal origin, fats, edible preparations and beverages, chemicals, plastics and rubber articles of leather and fur skins, iron & steel and consumer electronic. In the case of Comoros , the excluded goods are mainly of animal origin, fish, beverages, chemicals and vehicles. For Madagascar, the excluded products comprise meat, fish, products of animal origin, vegetables, cereals, beverages, plastics and rubber, articles of leather and fur-skins, paper and metals among others.
  SADC	Exclusions focus on agricultural goods and some processed agricultural goods and are based chiefly on the need to protect infant industries or sensitive products in these countries.
  Central Africa	Certain agricultural as well as non agricultural processed goods are excluded from liberalisation by Cameroon . The main criterion of these exclusions is the desire to protect certain existing industries or infant industry and maintain fiscal revenues.
  West Africa	Certain agricultural as well as non agricultural processed goods are excluded from liberalisation by Ivory Coast and Ghana . The main criterion of these exclusions is the desire to protect certain existing industries or infant industry and maintain fiscal revenues.
  Caribbean	The main exclusions are agricultural and processed agricultural products; some chemicals, furniture and other industrial products.

  (Table 2 quoted from: Update: Interim Economic Partnership Agreements, European Commission, 13 December 2007, http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2007/november/tradoc_136959.12.07.pdf and EPA Flash News, European Commission, 19 and 20 December 2007)

Back to the top of the page

Towards the signature of interim agreements : and then?

The rendez-vous clauses

Interim agreements contain clauses on areas for continued negotiation, called rendez-vous clauses, by 31 December 2008 as the main deadline. The areas covered differ accross interim agreements. They include trade in services and trade related issues (e.g. investment, competition, government procurement, trade facilitation and intellectual property rights, environment and social aspects).

-> See: Table summarising the areas and deadline of the rendez-vous clauses for EAC, ESA, SADC, CEMAC, Ghana, Cote d'Ivoire and PACP in The new EPAs, ODI-ECDPM , p.62, 31 March 2008.

The contentious issues

In the Addis Ababa Declaration of April 2008 , the Ministers of Trade and Finance of the African Union identified a list of 9 issues considered as critical to development-oriented EPAs (paragraph 5) in the interim agreements initialled by the 18 African countries :

• the definition of "substantially all trade
• transitional periods
• export taxes
• free circulation of goods
• national treatment
• bilateral safeguards
• infant industry
• non-execution clause
• the most favoured nation clause (MFN).

They made a call to review them in the negotiations towards full EPAs to ensure that the trade agreements would safeguard development and regional integration.

-> See also:
- ACP position in the Press statement following the 87th African, Caribbean and the Pacific (ACP) Council of Ministers Meeting, 9 June 2008, Addis Ababa.
- Declaration of the ACP Council of Ministers, 13 December 2007 : ACP ministers welcomed "the assurances given by the President of the European Commission, Mr. Manuel Barroso at the EU-Africa Summit, held in Lisbon, Portugal, on 8 and 9 December 2007 that the discussions on the EPAs would continue beyond the initialling of interim arrangements and that the contentious clauses therein would be opened up for re-negotiation."
(Source: UNECA analysis of IEPAs, April 2008)

Ratification and provisional application

After the CARIFORUM-EU EPA and several interim agreements have been initialled in late 2007, the agreements will need to be signed and ratified to enter into force.

However, after signature the agreements are expected to be applied provisionally by both parties before ratification has been completed, as the texts include provisions in this respect. In addition, before provisional application, parties can unilaterally take steps to apply the agreements. For instance, the EU has been granting duty and quota free market access (with exceptions for sugar and rice) to ACP countries that initialled agreements since 1 January 2008.

On the EU side, Council decisions are needed to authorise the signature of initialled agreements. Ratification will require assent of the European Parliament and the agreements need to be ratified in each EU member state according to its national procedures.

On the ACP side, legal procedures to be followed depend on the political system in each country and region. See: the ratification process required in each ACP state.

Further, the agreements will have to be notified to the WTO to comply with multilateral trade rules.
->See for instance : WTO Notification of the Cariforum-EC EPA, 22 October 2008.

Back to the top of the page

Events at the All ACP-EU level

For more recent events and details on the ongoing negotiations, see: TNI EPA update longer version

* European Parliament plenary meeting 5 February 2009, Strasbourg -> Resolution on the development impact of EPAs	The European Parliament adopted a resolution on the development impact of EPAs, following fundamental differences in approaches between the Parliament's International Trade and Development Committees. (see long EPA update for details)
* ACP Council of Ministers 16-18 December 2008, Brussels -> ACP wants EPAs that contribute to growth and development , ACP Press Statement, 22 December 2008 -> ACP rejects proposals to drastically reduce current applied banana rate , ACP Press Statement, 22 December 2008 -> Update on the CARIFORUM-EC EPA, CRNM	ACP Ministers addressed the state of play of EPA negotiations as well as the EU trade regime for bananas.
* ACP-EU Joint Parliamentary Assembly 25-28 November 2008, Port Moresby -> European Commission replies to oral questions from the ACP-EU Joint Parliamentary Assembly	On this occasion, the European Commission notably replied to the parliamentarians' oral questions on the effects of the financial crisis on the MDG & EPAS, on EPAs and civil society and on full EPAs with Fiji & PNG.
* EU General Affairs and External Relations Council (GAERC) 10 November 2008 -> Council Conclusions on regional integration and the Economic Partnership Agreements for development in the ACP countries	The GAERC Council stressed that to meet the objectives of development, regional integration and integration into the world economy, negotiations towards the conclusion of full regional EPAs should be done in accordance with ACP countries' political choices, development priorities, administrative capacities. Confirming its conclusions of 27 May 2008, the Council called for the flexibility offered by WTO law to be fully exploited in the negotiations (in terms of asymmetry, timetabling and the adjustments of safeguard measures).

* African Workshop "Reaping the benefits of the EPAs", Africa Trade Policy Centre (UNECA) 8-10 October 2008 -> The African EPA Template

Recommendations that a final template should consider in the various areas under negotiations. Indications are given which among the interim-EPAs approximate the Common African positions as earlier agreed during AU Ministers of Trade Conferences.

* 6th Summit of ACP Heads of State and Government 3 October 2008 -> Decision made in Accra

ACP Heads of States and Government have decided to engage in high level consultations on the EPAs, with a number of EU Member States. This meeting is aimed at ensuring that ACP conclude development friendly interim agreements that adequately address their concerns.

* African Union Conference of Ministers of Trade and Finance 1-3 April 2008, Addis-Ababa -> Addis Ababa Declaration on EPA negotiations

On this occasion, the Ministers called upon the African Union Commission, in collaboration with UNECA and RECs, to develop a model/template for a full EPA to serve as a guide for EPA negotiating groups, and ensure coherence with Africa's regional integration agendas.

Back to the top of the page

Resources