African, Caribbean And Pacific Countries Research Articles

Home Field Advantage? EU–ACP Economic Partnership Agreement Meeting Locations and Textual Tone

AbstractThe European Union's Economic Partnership Agreements (EPAs) with countries in the African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) group are touted as a new form of equitable engagement. However, many argue that the EPAs simply substitute a different form of political and economic domination. In this paper, we consider if the siting of meetings has a substantive impact on EPA outcomes or media reporting thereof. Using a difference‐in‐difference like approach we evaluate if the tone and polarity of media reports about the EPAs during periods of ‘home’ meetings in the ACP countries differs from media reports during ‘away’ meetings in the EU. Using two different datasets we arrive at differing results, leading to inconclusive overall findings. While we suspect that the alternating meeting site norm has implications for EPA process and outcomes, further research will be needed to uncover the precise nature of these effects.

Home Field Advantage? EU-ACP Economic Partnership Agreement Meeting Locations and Textual Tone

The European Union’s Economic Partnership Agreements (EPAs) with countries in the African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) group are touted as a new age of equitable partnership between European countries and former colonies. However, many critics argue that the EPAs simply substitute a different form of political and economic domination. In this paper, we consider if the siting of meetings has a substantive impact on the language of media describing the EPAs and/or communiques and statements that arise from those discussions. Using data culled from the Global Database of Events, Language and Tone (GDELT) via Google’s BigQuery, we use a difference-in-difference like approach to evaluate if the tone and polarity of media reports about the EPAs during periods of ‘home’ meetings in the ACP countries differs from media reports during ‘away’ meetings in the EU. We supplement these findings with analysis of joint statements released from a subset of EPA meetings. In general, we find that ACP countries’ tone and interests are better represented in media reports during ‘home’ meetings, but this may not translate to any meaningful difference in actual meeting outcomes. As such, meeting siting may be only a limited tool for reducing political domination.

Brexit and its Consequences: The Termination and Renegotiation of EU-ACP Economic Partnership Agreements Due to (Fundamental) Change of Circumstances

The United Kingdom officially left the European Union (EU) in January 2020. While the nature of its future relations with the rest of the EU Members is unclear, it is by now certain that the UK will cease to be part of several agreements concluded by the EU in the areas common commercial policy. This is the case for Economic Partnership Agreements (EPAs) concluded between the EU and its Members with African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) countries. This paper studies the consequences of Brexit on these EPAs. It explores whether, and to what extent, ACP countries may invoke fundamental change of circumstances to seek termination of their respective EPAs because Brexit was an event that they could not have contemplated when negotiating these agreements. Likewise, could the threat of termination provide any leverage to ACP countries to induce renegotiation of the terms of EPAs considering frustration of their legitimate expectations?

West Africa’s cocoa sector and development within Africa-EU relations: engaging business perspectives

The EU is vigorously pursuing Economic Partnership Agreements (EPAs) in its trade and aid relations with African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) countries. Justifying the EPAs as being ‘development friendly’, EU officials promise that aid support to private sector development (PSD) in ACP countries will make free trade systems ‘win–win’. This article, based on the authors’ semi-structured interviews conducted in Ghana and Nigeria, examines the perspectives of cocoa stakeholders vis-à-vis EPAs and PSD. Applying critical discourse analysis to interview transcripts, it underscores areas of overlap and, crucially, divergence among cocoa stakeholders’ own narratives on PSD support in the context of EPAs and the official legitimating discourse of EU institutions. In the process, the article draws critical attention to cocoa business interviewees’ concerns regarding the impact of premature trade liberalisation. It also underscores cocoa stakeholders’ concerns that EU PSD promises are not being fulfilled in terms of actual tangible benefits for business people in this vital ACP export sector. Accordingly, the article contributes to, and corroborates, an existing critical scholarly literature which problematises the strategic functions of donor PSD discourse in presenting free trade reforms as being ‘pro-poor’ in the post-Washington Consensus.

A gravity approach of agricultural trade: The nexus of the EU and African, Caribbean and Pacific countries

The European Union (EU) is one of the biggest traders of agricultural products. In 2017, extra-EU agricultural trade accounted for 7.4% of the total EU international trade. Furthermore, Europe is the main destination for agricultural goods arriving from African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) trading partners. The paper analyses the effect of geographical proximity, cultural similarity, free trade agreements on bilateral agricultural trade as well as intra-industry trade between EU member states and its trading partners (intra and extra EU trade), employing gravity model for a period of 1996–2017. Regression results suggest that EU countries export more agricultural products to their common markets. In addition, the export costs of agricultural products are lower if the EU and its external trading partners are culturally similar; have the same religion or both have regional trade agreements. We found a moderate intra-industry trade between the EU and ACP countries at 18%. The results indicate rather inter-industry trade between EU and non-EU members, with a lower index level for ACP countries. A higher positive impact is revealed on the agricultural import between ACP-EU countries than export.

Delivering on Promises? The Expected Impacts and Implementation Challenges of the Economic Partnership Agreements between the European Union and Africa

AbstractEconomic partnership agreements (EPAs) mark a new era in economic relations between the European Union and African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) countries that will lead to reciprocal tariff liberalization. Model‐based impact assessments have become a powerful tool in trade negotiations and mixed results are reported for ACP countries. Given their set‐up within a neoclassical framework, these models neglect important issues such as impacts on employment, macroeconomic balances and adjustment costs. The structuralist computable general equilibrium model applied in this article for three African EPA regions addresses these shortcomings and shows negative macroeconomic and distributional effects and important adjustment costs associated with employment and public revenue losses. These results highlight the importance of policy responses to deliver on promises associated with EPAs, namely sustainable economic development. More generally, they show the importance of alternative models to understand implementation challenges and facilitate broader debates about bilateral trade agreements.

Examining the Role of BATNA in Explaining EPA Negotiation Outcomes

The European Union has been negotiating regional Economic Partnership Agreements (EPAs) with 79 African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) Group of States since 2002 with different outcomes. For instance, while the negotiation with the Caribbean Forum concluded as envisaged in 2007, those with the Economic Community of West African States and other ACP countries have extended for nearly a decade after the initial deadline. This study discusses the rationale behind these different outcomes. The study concludes that for the European Union to have effective trade negotiations with the ACP countries, it needs to look beyond its market size attraction and policy to promote the idea of free trade. Moreover, it should analyse alternative trade options available to those regions and develop appropriate negotiation positions and strategies.

EU Trade Preferences and Export Diversification

AbstractSince at least the 1960s, the European Union (EU) has offered various kinds of non‐reciprocal trade preferences for developing countries. Originally, these trade preferences had at least two policy goals: (i) to increase export volumes for developing countries and thereby boost their export earnings and (ii) to facilitate export diversification. While extensive research has confirmed that the first of these goals is typically met, the second goal seems to have been largely forgotten by researchers as well as in policy circles. The aim of this paper was therefore to analyse the impact of the EU's non‐reciprocal trade preferences for developing countries on export diversification. Our estimation results suggest that some trade preference programmes, such as the Generalised Scheme of Preferences (GSP), lead to increasing ranges of export products. By contrast, preferences offered to Mediterranean countries typically have no significant effects, and African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) preferences actually have negative effects towards the end of our time period, suggesting that ACP countries may respond to preferences by specialising into fewer goods.

Outsourcing a partnership? Assessing ACP–EU cooperation under the Cotonou Partnership Agreement

Since 2000 the cooperation between the European Union (EU) and the African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) states has been governed through the Cotonou Partnership Agreement. This article complements existing research that focuses on Brussels-based stakeholders with an analysis drawing on the existing literature and on stakeholders' perceptions of ACP–EU cooperation and ACP institutions gathered via interviews in nine ACP countries. The findings presented observe a social disconnect between, on the one hand, the Cotonou Partnership Agreement's institutions and Brussels-based representatives, and, on the other hand, the broad-based and multistakeholder partnership they are tasked to promote. The article points to low levels of support in ACP countries, particularly in Africa, to continued ACP–EU cooperation in its present form, and stresses the need for an open and participatory process of reviewing and reshaping ACP–EU relations.

AN OLD PARTNERSHIP IN A NEW SETTING: ACP–EU RELATIONS FROM A EUROPEAN PERSPECTIVE

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.

EU Trade Preferences and Export Diversification

Since at least the 1960s, the European Union (EU) has offered various kinds of non-reciprocal trade preferences for developing countries. Originally, these trade preferences had at least two policy goals: (i) to increase export volumes for developing countries and thereby boost their export earnings, and (ii) to facilitate export diversification. While extensive research has confirmed that the first of these goals is typically met, the second goal seems to have been largely forgotten by researchers as well as in policy circles. The aim of this paper is therefore to analyse the impact of the EU’s non-reciprocal trade preferences for developing countries on export diversification. Our estimation results suggest that some trade preference programs, such as the Generalised Scheme of Preferences (GSP), are associated with increasing ranges of export products. By contrast, preferences offered to Mediterranean countries typically have no significant effects, and African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) preferences actually have negative effects toward the end of our time period, suggesting that ACP countries may respond to preferences by specializing into fewer goods.

A critical review of fishing agreements with tropical developing countries

Many African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) countries sell fishing licenses to distant water fleets. Fishing agreements have the potential to improve the performance of local fishing sectors. They create income that can be reinvested into domestic industries and often go along with partnerships in management and enforcement. However, many fishing agreements run a serious risk of undermining sustainable resource management. The present study critically reviews trends in distant water fishing as well as identifies those tropical host countries most dependent on fishing agreements. It is shown that traditional, more responsible distant water fleets (DWFs) are being displaced by less responsible, low-cost DWFs and that the most vulnerable host countries are small coastal states with large exclusive economic zones that lack the ability to benefit from value adding processes associated with fishing. The results suggest that the once-promising concept of fishing agreements is gradually posing a threat to both economic development and environmental sustainability of ACP countries.

ACP-EU Development Cooperation at a Crossroads? One Year after the Second Revision of the Cotonou Agreement

The article presents the second Revision of the African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP)-European Union (EU) Partnership Agreement (Cotonou Agreement (CA)) and contains an outlook on the future of the relations between the EU and the ACP Group of States, taking also into account the restructuring of the EU's external relations under the Lisbon Treaty and the establishment of the new European External Action Service (EEAS). The second Revision of the CA was signed in June 2010.Ten years after the conclusion of the CA, its second revision sought to find a balance between the increasing trend towards differentiation within the ACP Group and the unity of the ACP Group of States. The EU side felt that developments in the regional dimension had to be addressed, such as the relations with the African Union as a key interlocutor for peace and security in the pan-African dimension and the conclusion of (interim) Economic Partnership Agreements (EPAs). Moreover, the 2010 Revision coincided with the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty on 1 December 2009. The restructuring of the EU's external relations under the Lisbon Treaty and its impact on the relations between the EU and ACP also influenced the 2010 Revision, as the ACP were concerned about the loss of their special status under the new treaty regime. In addition, at the administrative level, the bilateral relations with the ACP countries will be dealt with by the EEAS and not by the former Commission's Directorate-General for development, which means a potential loss of exclusivity for the ACP Group.

Asymmetric bargaining and development trade-offs in the CARIFORUM-European Union Economic Partnership Agreement

ABSTRACT On 15 October 2008, CARIFORUM became the first region among the African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) group of countries to sign a ‘full’ Economic Partnership Agreement (EPA) with the European Union (EU). Although the EPA process has generated widespread critical commentary, few analysts have stopped to consider the motives of individual ACP countries and regions in their approach to the talks. In this article we consider the question of motives in relation to the CARIFORUM-EU EPA. Specifically, it asks why did CARIFORUM feel it necessary or desirable to sign a ‘full’ EPA, containing numerous provisions not actually mandated by the WTO, when the rest of the ACP was content to sign far less ambitious ‘goods only’ interim agreements? In order to address this question, the article goes beyond the extant EU-ACP trade literature to build on wider international political economy (IPE) scholarship, which has analysed the actions of developing countries in relation to a whole range of ‘WTO-plus’ North–South regional and bilateral FTAs. On this basis, the article stands back from the complex details of the agreement to analyse its wider significance, especially in terms of the presumed trade-off between the immediate economic benefits of improved and more secure market access, against the longer term costs of sacrificing the regulatory autonomy, or policy space, deemed necessary to pursue the type of trade and industrial policies deployed successfully in the past by both developed and (some) developing countries. Put simply, the article seeks to ascertain why ultimately CARIFORUM signed an agreement, what it gained from the negotiations and at what cost.

The European Union Economic Partnership Agreements with Sub-Saharan Africa

This paper analyses the impacts of Economic Partnership Agreements (EPAs) between the ACP (African, Caribbean and Pacific) countries and those of the EU (European Union) in the specific case of Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA). In order to comply with WTO (World Trade Organisation) requirements, the EPAs shift the trade preferences previously enjoyed by the ACP countries to a free trade regime between the EU and regional groupings of ACP countries. EPAs were supposed to fully enter into force at the end of 2007, but many ACP SSA countries have not been ready or have been reluctant to implement them at that date. EPAs are examined in their different contexts, in particular the theoretical underpinnings of trade liberalisation and regionalism respectively, as well as the increasing number of regional arrangements aiming at ‘deep’ regional integration in all parts of the world, which ensued from the disappointment with multilateralism of many developed and developing countries. EPAs are then investigated in the specific context of SSA, i.e. that of a distorted trade structure, an excessive dependence on commodity exports, fragile industrial bases, as well as by a disputed effectiveness of its many intra-SSA regional agreements. EPAs co-exist with other North-South preferential trade agreements, in particular the EU GSP (Generalised System of Preferences), including the EBA (Everything But Arms) initiative, and the US AGOA (African Growth and Opportunity Act).It is shown that EPAs will have very different outcomes depending on countries and their particular initial conditions, economic structures and regional context. It is also revealed that these outcomes depend on many variables: global factors, international prices, domestic market structures, trade policies conducted by the EU, the governments and various trade agreements to which they belong. EPA outcomes are therefore uncertain and can be assessed only on a case by case basis, at the level of countries, sectors and products. In addition, many impact assessments rely on simulations, which cannot be considered as ‘hard facts’.EPAs may have beneficial effects on SSA countries and enhance their exports and competiveness. They may constitute a mode of integration that is more efficient than multilateral liberalisation, and in fine may be a more manageable step towards multilateralisation, especially in poor countries. However, EPAs exhibit several risks, e.g. diverting trade, augmenting the complexity of the already complex ‘spaghetti bowl’ of trade arrangements, creating fiscal losses in countries that suffer from narrow fiscal bases and rely on trade taxes, eroding the existing industrial bases - which are fragile, threatened by more competitive developing countries, especially China, and often depend on the previous EU unilateral preferences - and benefiting EU firms more than those of SSA.EPAs have the ambition to foster trade, improve regional relationships, deepen north-south integration and enhance development. These are numerous objectives, and moreover countries may strongly differ: they can be reached if EPAs help countries to reinforce their capacity to conduct their policies - the ‘policy space’ - control the effects of trade diversion and displacements of industrial activities that often accompany free trade agreements, and strengthen their industrial sectors, as high-growth Asian countries.

An Update on the Consequences of EU Sugar Reform

Since its formation the European Union (EU) has employed a rather complicated policy to ensure high prices to domestic sugar growers and trade preferences to certain sugar exporting countries, e.g. the African Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) group. One result of this policy is that the EU has been both the second largest importer and second largest exporter in the world market. Under pressure from the World Trade Organization (WTO), the EU agreed to reform its policies toward sugar in 2001, with the full effect of the reforms being fully implemented in 2006. In this paper, the impact of the sugar reform on EU production, consumption, imports, and exports is examined especially with regard to how it all affects the ACP countries who receive preferential treatment regarding access to EU sugar markets. Preliminary analysis indicates that lowering domestic EU prices, while quotas requirements for ACP countries remain intact might have negative revenue implications for poor sugar producers.

THE IMPACT ON THE BANANA MARKET OF THE ECONOMIC PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENTS AND OF THE POSSIBLE CONCLUSION OF BILATERAL AND MULTILATERAL WTO TRADE NEGOTIATIONS

ISHS IV International Symposium on Banana: International Conference on Banana and Plantain in Africa: Harnessing International Partnerships to Increase Research Impact THE IMPACT ON THE BANANA MARKET OF THE ECONOMIC PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENTS AND OF THE POSSIBLE CONCLUSION OF BILATERAL AND MULTILATERAL WTO TRADE NEGOTIATIONS

INNOVATION SYSTEMS, FOOD SECURITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT: LESSONS FROM THE ACP REGION

In 2003/4, the Technical Centre for Agricultural and Rural Cooperation (CTA) began a process of competence building targeting the 79 member countries of the African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) Group of States to enhance the participation of researchers in agricultural science, technology and innovation (ASTI) policy processes. The assumptions were that (a) little innovation was occurring in the agricultural sector; (b) a disconnect existed between the S and T community and policy makers and; (c) limited information was available for making informed S, T and I policy decisions to support agricultural and rural development. There were two aspects to the program: (a) formal training to increase understanding of innovation and the innovation systems concept; and (b) reinforcement of knowledge and skills through the conduct of national case studies, applying a standardized methodological framework for analyzing the agricultural S, T and I system. This paper reviews the evolution of the training program and presents a synthesis of the key findings from 15 case studies conducted in 13 ACP countries on 12 horticultural commodities, including bananas (Musa spp.). It was shown that the policy framework, the knowledge infrastructure and the intensity of the linkages among system actors (mainly between national research organizations, universities and farmers) determine the strengths and weaknesses in the ASTI system. It is concluded that there is a need to: (a) enhance understanding of the relevance of the innovation systems concept; (b) create an enabling environment for learning and networking to improve information and knowledge flows; and (c) influence ST and I policy processes for enhancing agricultural performance for food security and economic performance in the ACP region. Capacity building is crucial.

Economic partnership agreements: Machiavellian instruments of EU trade policy or Samaritan development tools?

The European Union (EU) has recently been confronted with harsh critique as to the strategic motives and methods employed in its trade relations with African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) countries. This has especially been the case after negotiations of economic partnership agreements (EPAs) have proven to be far from a smooth process. There is increasing concern about the developmental value of EPAs and their support for sustainable regional economic integration of ACP countries. This paper seeks to examine whether EPAs truly are development tools or rather strategic instruments used by the EU as catalysts in achievement of a global player status – at all cost. The theoretical framework employed for this analysis is based on Machiavelli's virtues proposed to a successful leader in his work Il Principe. These will be critically compared with EU's aims and objectives as expressed in the legal framework underlying EU-ACP relations in the 21st century. The intention is to make possible a preliminary judgment of EU's success in integrating development and trade policy while explaining underlying reasons of EU behaviour as economic power and ACP partner.

The EU and ASEAN: Learning from the Failed EU-Mercosur FTA Negotiations

I. Introduction On 4 May 2007, at a meeting held in Brunei Darussalam, ASEAN and the EU agreed to launch negotiations for a Free Trade Area (FTA) (ASEAN Economic Ministers and the European Union Trade Commissioner 2007). If the negotiations are successful, the FTA agreement will replace the 1980 ASEAN-EC Cooperation Agreement, revision of which had foundered in the 1990s on issues pertaining to human rights. The negotiations themselves will require a change in attitude on the part of ASEAN. For the first time, ASEAN will find itself in a situation where it will have to offer tangible concessions, such as tariff reductions, to the EU in return for access to the EU market. ASEAN is not the first group of developing countries to engage in FTA negotiations with the EU. Regional sub-groups of the African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) countries negotiated Economic Partnership Agreements with the EU between 2002 and 2007. However, the ACP states' negotiating experience may not be all that instructive for ASEAN, as most ACP countries are least developed countries. For most of them, the EU and its members are the most important sources of official development assistance (ODA) and their main trade partners. They are thus vulnerable to economic and political pressure from the EU. In contrast, only four of ASEAN's ten members are least developed countries. For the other six, the EU is not the most important source of ODA (if at all), although the EU is one of the main trading partners for most of them. This paper argues that ASEAN would do well to learn from the experience of the failed EU-Mercosur negotiations for an Interregional Association Agreement. These were formally launched in November 1999, although gradual and reciprocal liberalization of trade between the two regions had been declared as an objective of the two organizations as early as the 1995 EU-Mercosur Interregional Framework Cooperation Agreement (Klom 2003, p. 361). The negotiations were suspended in October 2004 as a result of disagreements over the free trade provisions of the proposed Association Agreement. Mercosur, comprising Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay, Uruguay and Venezuela, is another group of developing countries that is a priority for EU FTA negotiations. It might be objected that Mercosur's experience of dealing with the EU is not necessarily useful for ASEAN. As former colonies of Iberian countries and as more or less functioning democracies, they share a heritage with the EU that could conceivably facilitate negotiations with the latter. Moreover, most Mercosur members export agricultural commodities to the EU, whereas the ASEAN countries have been successful in diversifying their exports to the EU away from agricultural products to manufactured goods. That said, several circumstances justify the effort to understand Mercosur's experience with the EU. First of all, the reason for the EU's interest in Mercosur and ASEAN is identical: both constitute sizeable markets for the EU (European Commission SEC (2006) 1230). The ASEAN region has a population of about 560 million, a combined GDP of almost US$1,100 billion, and a total trade of about US$1,400 billion (ASEAN Secretariat, n.d.). The total population of the five Mercosur countries is approximately 234.5 million, with a combined GDP of over US$900 billion, and total trade of about US$260 billion (Inter-American Development Bank, n.d.). Second, in both cases, one of the EU's motivations for pursuing FTA negotiations is defensive. In Mercosur, the EU feared that the U.S.-sponsored project for a Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA) might adversely affect its market share in Mercosur and in Latin America (Chaire Mercosur de Sciences Po 2005, p. 18). In Southeast Asia, the threat to EU interests has materialized in the form of bilateral FTAs of individual ASEAN members with Japan and/or the United States. Negotiations with the EU will undoubtedly pose a challenge of a different nature to ASEAN. …