At the start of the Abuja EPA Summit, Africa Today publisher, Kayode Soyinka (first left), led Sir Shridath Ramphal, former Secretary- General of the Commonwealth who was the special guest of honour at the summit (centre), and Sir Ronald Sanders, a senior research fellow at the Institute of Commonwealth Studies, University of London, who was the keynote speaker at the summit (second left), to the Aso Rock Presidential Villa, to pay a courtesy visit on President Muhammadu Buhari (second right). With them (first right) is Ambassador Bulus Lolo, permanent secretary, ministry of foreign affairs, Abuja.

An international conference on EU-ECOWAS Economic Partnership Agreements, organised by Africa Today and two other bodies, reinforces Nigeria's cautious approach to signing them as experts, eggheads and other participants conclude they are not in Africa's interest.

The first ever "economic partnership" between Africa and Europe was lopsided against Africa. That economic contact, the slave trade, wasn't advantageous to the continent as millions of able-bodied men and women, many from west Africa, some captured directly by European slave traders in coastal raids, others exchanged for mirrors, musket and manufactured goods such as cloths and alcohol brought by the Europeans, were made to work in sugarcane, tobacco and cotton plantations in what was dubbed the New World. Centuries later, during the colonial era, Africa's agricultural products and solid minerals were exploited in their raw form with little economic benefits to the continent, transported to Europe and shipped back to Africa as finished goods. The continent, during these periods, gained precious little from these economic associations.

Now Europe is back again albeit legally but the outcome seems to be headed the same way: Africa is drawing the short straw, yet again, according to experts at the recently concluded international conference on the European Union-ECOWAS Economic Partnership Agreements (EPAs) organised by Africa Today, in partnership with the Bank of Industry and the Nigeria Customs Service at the Transcorp Hilton in Abuja, Nigeria, July 26-29.

The two-day event generated impassioned and robust discussion that brought to the fore the merits or otherwise of Africa signing the EPAs. Although the conference was convened primarily to discuss whether Nigeria, Africa's biggest economy and its largest market, should sign the EPAs, it turned out to be an unofficial referendum on whether it should be signed at all by Africa. The EPAs, which are a divisive issue on the continent, are "a scheme to create a free trade area (FTA) between the European Union (EU) and the African, Caribbean and Pacific group of states (ACP)," a response to criticisms that the non-reciprocal and discriminating Preferential Trade Agreements (PTA) offered by the EU are incompatible with World Trade Organisation (WTO) rules. They are a key element on the Cotonou agreement, one of few agreements in the history of ACP-EU development cooperation, and it were supposed to take effect 2008 but bogged down in negotiations.

What held up the signing for over a decade was the lopsidedness of the agreement against Africa. The bare facts alone are staggering: sub-Saharan Africa's GDP, according to the IMF world economic outlook 2014 was $24.74 billion while the EU's stood at $18.526 trillion. Africa will lose an estimated revenue totalling 21 billion in net customs duties over a 15 year period because of non-taxation of 82 percent of imports from the EU. There will be a collapse of public expenditure on education, health and the environment because of dwindling revenue. Highly subsidised European products will flood the African market overwhelming products made by local industries. The result will be the death of local manufacturing industries with the attendant fallout of an explosion of unemployment and other social problems.

Africa Today publisher, Kayode Soyinka (second left), cracks a joke with Nigerian President Muhammadu Buhari holding a copy of the edition of Africa Today which had him on the cover, during a courtesy visit on the president before the EPA summit. With them are: Sir Shridath Ramphal, former Commonwealth Secretary-General (centre), Sir Ronald Sanders, a senior research fellow at the Institute of Commonwealth Studies, University of London (first left), and Ambassador Bulus Lolo, permanent secretary, ministry of foreign affairs, Abuja.

Setting the tone for the conference was Sir Ronald Sanders, an experienced diplomat with considerable experience in international trade negotiations especially with the EU; he was a member of the Caribbean team that negotiated with the EU on their EPA which the region has since signed. Sanders made it obvious that the conference was not only about the EPAs and the prospects for EU-Africa trade but also about Africa's future, her abundant resources and her great people. Describing Africa as a "rising continent" he advised that it must not "underrate itself or its collective bargaining strength". He also corrected the widely assumed but wrong impression that the EPA was between the EU and Africa collectively, emphatically stressing that it was between the EU and individual African countries. "It is important to emphasise that the EPA is not an agreement between the 27 nation EU collectively and Africa as a whole. It is a legally binding bilateral contract between the EU collectively and each country in Africa individually. This is an important point and one that should be borne in mind throughout this conference and in the discussions that each African government will have within its own councils as it seeks to determine what arrangements should be settled with the EU."

While it appears that Sir Ronald, with the benefit of hindsight of the Caribbean experience, is warning Nigeria and indeed other African countries which have not yet signed not to without a review of the agreement, Nigeria itself is continuing its cautionary steps going by remarks made by Abdulkadir Musa, a career diplomat who is permanent secretary at the federal ministry of industry, trade and investment in Abuja. The immediate past Nigerian administration of Goodluck Jonathan had cleverly refused to commit the country saying the agreement, as presently constituted, wasn't advantageous to Nigeria. Then Trade Minister, Olusegun Aganga, had declared, at an Extra-Ordinary Session of the Conference of African Union Ministers of Trade in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, that the EPA wasn't favourable to Africa. "Nigeria's position on EPA is very clear. Africa is on the rise. It is a very big and strategic market for any trading partner. That is what the EU wants from us but Africa must jealously protect what it has. We must not sign an agreement without first of all carrying out a robust economic analysis of the overall impact the agreement will have on the region, our children and future generations."

Ambassador Musa acknowledged that the conference "is of utmost importance not only to our dear country Nigeria but to the sub-region in terms of the type of agreement that would ensure economic advancement and regional integration." He added that "nothing can better guarantee high quality of life for our people than the development of a strong, united, resilient economy that is private sector driven and globally competitive. This is what regional integration holds for us." He re-affirmed Nigeria's belief in the region's economic bloc - the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) - and its commitment to building a strong, united and economically integrated sub-region but warned that it is "also important that we recognise that any Economic Partnership Agreement we endorse as a region, must make our economies better, stronger, more competitive and not weaker. In this respect, we expect the EPA to facilitate high level of investment that the region needs to grow its economies, create jobs for our teeming youths, enhance industrialisation and regional development." The new administration of President Muhammadu Buhari may not have made any statement regarding the EPAs - it is just three-months old - but Musa's remarks, in a way, points to the route it will take when it eventually comes round to it.

That the Nigerian government was interested in the conference was gleaned from Ambassador Musa's remarks when he said "Your views today, will further guide government in fine tuning its position and policy on the EPA." Experts had said the EPA would be President Buhari's first foreign and trade policy decision. Sir Ronald, during a courtesy visit to President Buhari at Aso Rock, the Presidential Villa, a day before the start of the crucial conference had personally given Buhari a copy of his keynote address.

While not doubting the strategic importance of the EPAs to the west African economy, it is the principle of reciprocity that makes them disagreeable to Africa, according to participants. Europe, worried by the rising influence of Brazil, India and China - incidentally leading members of BRICS - is anxious. The BRICS, with nominal GDP of $16.039 trillion, equivalent of approximately 20 percent of the gross world product, and reserves in excess of $4 trillion, have set up their own development bank to challenge the dominance of Bretton Woods institutions of the west. African countries are increasing looking to the BRICS countries particularly China and India. It is against this backdrop that Europe sees Africa as a Beautiful Bride and is pushing for trade agreements with the continent. However, many believe that the agreements should be based on "proportionality" since it is between rich and poor countries. The issue with "reciprocity" is that Africa and Europe are not equals in the economic domain, "a case of giants and dwarves, or sharks and sardines" according to Sanders. "This very region - west Africa - is about eighty times smaller than the EU in terms of GDP. By contrast, Europe holds most of the cards: market power, financial power and negotiating power. In short, the EPAs could see African countries being swamped by European goods for despite the talk about "reciprocity", it simply is not possible for African companies to compete within their own countries (let alone Europe) with much larger and well-resourced European companies."

Sir Shridath Ramphal and Kayode Soyinka in deep conversation during the Africa Today's EPA Summit in Abuja.

According to Sanders "If a burden of equal magnitude is placed on one who is weak and another who is strong, it requires no high intellect to work out that you have enlarged their relative inequality. 'Reciprocity', as a principle, has a ring of fairness about it; but that is as between equals. Between factors of unequal strength and capacity, 'reciprocity' is more than unfair; it is unjust. Is the short-sightedness of this demand for reciprocity, not obvious? You would have thought the Europeans would know better; and of course they do."

Sanders, quoting Aristotle, who said "as between unequals, equity requires not reciprocity but proportionality" said the ACP states have long fought for proportionality which was at the heart of the Lomé and Cotonou agreements between the EU and the ACP and also at the root of the call for 'special and differential' treatment for developing countries, a call that has not been answered. The reciprocity arrangement will lead to massive revenue loss and also impact negatively on the region's industrial development. For instance, it was observed that revenue from the Nigeria Customs is decreasing yearly even before the EPAs implementation. Once signed, it is estimated that Africa's largest economy will lose about $1.3 trillion in revenue. Musa advised that the region must stand together to address these issues in the EPAs or any other agreement by the region "given our demographic challenges and the need for us to create millions of jobs for our populations."

That figure may be overstated according to some studies. According to a December 2014 study done by the World Bank on the EPA, the cumulative loss of customs duties from 2020 to 2035 would be $6.2 billion. The South Center based in Geneva, Switzerland, that incidentally has former Nigerian Central Bank Governor, Chukwuma Soludo, as its chairman, estimates the loss would be $6.9, while a 2015 University of Ibadan study conducted by Adeola Adenikinju and Abiodun Bankole put the figure at $7 billion. These are studies that did not take into consideration the additional losses due to trade diversion in favour of imports from the EU and additional imports due to population increase. The one report that took these into consideration conducted by France's Solidarite put the cumulative loss of revenue at $56.6 billion for the 16 west African countries with Nigeria losing $22.6 billion representing 40 percent of the cumulative loss. Although far from the estimated $1.3 trillion loss, the figure $22.6 billion is still significant, especially for an Africa country.

Certainly the EPA poses a challenge to the Nigeria Customs and it appears it is wary of it. As Banke Adeyemo, a deputy comptroller of customs who represented the comptroller general of the Nigeria Customs Service at the conference said: "Multilateral agreements come with rights and obligations for the parties that accede to the agreements. The signing of the EPA is with the government... When the ambit of the EPA is put in proper perspective we would be able to appraise the impact it would have from our standpoint. But I can share some issues that would emanate and they include the enforcement of intellectual property rights."

Left to Right: Sir Ronald Sanders, Dr. Frank Jacobs, president Manufactures Association of Nigeria, Rasheed Olaoluwa, managing director, Bank of Industry.

The EPAs' impact on development struck a chord with Dr Frank Jacobs, president of the influential Manufacturers Association of Nigeria (MAN), the umbrella body of industrialists in the country and a powerful voice of the organised private sector in Nigeria. On any issue pertaining to industry or the organised private sector in general, the view of MAN cannot be taken for granted. MAN has consistently opposed the EPAs as it is its members that will feel the most the negative impact of Nigeria putting pen to paper. Jacobs told the Africa Today conference that the "process, structure and perceived contents of the EPAs negotiations have raised serious concerns about the impact that EPAs would eventually have on ACP countries and their efforts towards poverty eradication, regional integration and economic growth." He noted that while the EU is the ACP's largest trading partner, the outcome of the agreement will affect 39 of the world's 50 least developed countries and the lives of 720 million people who live in the ACP region. He stated that Nigeria "has very limited capability to produce and export industrial goods (as) most of the industries in the country are undeveloped and are plagued by goods lack of supportive infrastructure," adding that "Nigerian manufacturers are not averse to free trade cooperation but it should be better done in a situation of equal economic development. Any attempt to coerce the country into a free trade arrangement will only succeed in killing the fledging manufacturing sector which has just started to recover from a long period of comatose." Although he acknowledged the EPAs "may appear to be a good course in the document proposal," it "may be catastrophic if implemented as it will stifle the slowly recovering manufacturing sector in the country."

It is not only Nigeria's manufacturing sector that will be stifled, it is all of Africa's. According to Arancha Gonzalez, executive director, international trade centre, the joint World Trade Organization and United Nation body that helps developing countries boost exports, (quoted by borderlex.eu, a website on EU trade policy), there are two key hurdles for the continent: a lack of diversification and limited value addition. African exports are typically commodities and raw materials rather than domestically-processed goods. Gonzalez says this creates issues as it hinders the goal of African countries to add value to their exports. She added that EPAs can bring major benefits provided they are done in a way that takes cognisance of each country's specific needs. "There is no such thing as EPAs being good or bad in the abstract. It all depends on whether the EPAs are crafted to the specificities of the bloc with whom you're doing the EPAs, and whether or not the EPAs are accompanied with a set of measures aimed at assisting the actors in the African continent to build the capacity to diversify and add value in-country. For me, a good policy for Africa is one that accompanies opening trade with building the capacity to do more domestic transformation and greater diversification. This means two very concrete things. One is that industrialisation in Africa has to be necessarily about intelligently blending manufacturing, agro-processing and services." Gonzalez also advised the EU to "listen very carefully to what the African governments are saying."

In a way Gonzalez seems to have Africa's back. She said EPAs must encourage and enable Africa to add more value in-country by "focusing a lot on capacity building of small and medium enterprises." She said trade liberalisation on the continent must be a gradual process with more efforts coming from the EU than from African nations. "You don't do a trade agreement with west Africa like you do a trade agreement between the EU and the US. In east or west Africa or central Africa, it has to be with a phased-in programme, with an asymmetric programme, with the EU doing more than what the African region would do, and assisting a lot with regulating not just tariffs, but non-tariff barriers, which is the big obstacle to trade today." The EU will obviously disagree with Gonzalez.

Rasheed Olaoluwa, the managing director of the Bank of Industry (BOI) which partnered with Africa Today to host the conference also believes Africa should not sign the agreement. He said "Africa today is still an economic colony because the continent has been providing only raw materials. If we sign the EPA as structured, it is a very unbalanced agreement of unequal partners. It is not likely to be reciprocal and it lacks proportionality and would not be in our long term interest as a country. It will keep Africa a colony for a long time. Africa as a source for raw materials and only raw materials is not in our best interest." He adds that Britain and the US are what they are today because of protectionism. "Practically all of today's developed countries including Britain and US have become rich on the basis of policy recipes that go against the new neo liberal economics that are exemplified by the EPA today. Today's rich countries used protection and subsidies while discriminating against foreign investors and grew behind protective bars."

EU representative at the conference, Ibi Ikpoki, an economic adviser at the Delegation of the EU in Nigeria, tried very strenuously to defend the EU and make the mostly uncompromising participants see the positives in Nigeria signing the EPAs. He said the fears raised by Sir Ronald and other speakers that poverty will increase among Nigerian farmers was unfounded as agriculture was excluded from liberalisation under the EPAs, meaning Nigeria's agricultural sector will remain protected under the agreements. Not only is agriculture excluded said the EU official, finished cars and other goods identified by the country as being sensitive will also be excluded. He also said that under the EPAs, equipment and machinery needed by local industries in Nigeria would be liberalised to help develop industrialisation. Part of MAN's objection is that the EPAs would stifle industrialisation in the country. All these, says Ikpoki, is in addition to the support and training the EU is already giving which include 24 million in supporting Nigeria's competitiveness and developing Nigeria's industrial capacity and 150 million for improvement of electricity amongst others. This development assistance is not contingent on Nigeria signing the agreement but the implication is that more would come if the EPA is signed.

Of course some would argue that the EPA is of utmost importance to ACP countries - about 40 percent of all ACP exports go to the EU - especially since some countries have already signed. Even within the ECOWAS sub-region all have signed with the exception of Nigeria and the Gambia. Ghana and Ivory Coast appears to be the first to commit partly because the EU is the principal market of their agricultural products particularly bananas and cocoa. Undoubtedly there was pressure on both countries to sign. The Compagnie Fruitière which owns and exports most bananas and pineapples from Ivory Coast and Ghana lobbied to not pay the GSP duties on exports of 2014 if the EPA is not implemented. The Mimran Group, owner of the Great Mills of Abidjan and Dakar, asked that the five percent duty of the ECOWAS' common external tariff on cereals (excluding rice) be eliminated from 2020. The Bolloré group, which rules most of the port infrastructures in the Gulf of Guinea, is involved in the export of 65 percent of cocoa from Ivory Coast. This is precisely what Sir Ronald meant when he put it succinctly that "in the event of a dispute, the much larger resources of the EU collective would so dwarf the capacity of any African, Caribbean or Pacific country that it would surrender to the EU long before the fight could begin."

Be that as it may, the decision of the Gambia, the region's smallest country, not to sign, buoyed by Nigeria's refusal not to sign the agreement as presently constituted, may prove to be a masterstroke in economic brinkmanship. The EPAs with the ECOWAS region was due to be ratified July 7 by the European Parliament in Brussels but was pushed forward another six months to December 2015 with the EU giving itself some milestones to achieve internally before the December due date. This postponement was forced on the parliament because of Nigeria. The Gambia, piggy-backing on Nigeria's position, has also been vindicated. The small West Africa country - population 1.8 million (2013 figures) with an estimated GDP of $903 million (2013) - is now seen as a leader when compared to Ghana - population 27 million (2014) and GDP of $38.64 billion (2014 estimates). Gambia had consistently warned Africa not to sign or collect aid from Europe and that it must solved its problems internally.

It is this leadership role or lack of, especially by Nigeria, which many discussants harped upon at the Abuja conference. Ademola Oyejide, a respected emeritus professor of economics, University of Ibadan, and chairman, Center for Trade and Development Initiatives (CTDI), in Ibadan, Nigeria, noted that Nigeria must make its stand known on the controversial EPAs issue. "There must be a clear statement from Nigeria regarding whether the country endorses or does not endorse the EPAs. Although the agreement has indefinite duration, it is not without a legal option for any signatory to withdraw. Even before that point is reached, the agreement has provision for five-yearly reviews, which can, presumably, be used to undo some of the perceived damages. Therefore, Nigeria should rise up to the expectations of its leadership position and decide unequivocally, one way or the other." Oyejide added that if Nigeria decides not to sign, there will be plenty of strong evidence in support of that decision." He stressed that should Nigeria fail to sign, it will also "be clear confirmation that Nigeria failed to do what a responsible country should have done in relation to this issue over the last 15 years! This speaks volumes about the country's understanding of and capacity to negotiate trade agreements."

DISTINGUISHED SPEAKERS: L-R: Ken Ukaoha, president of the National Association of Nigerian Traders; Ms Grace Adeyemo, representing the Comptroller-General of the Nigeria Customs Service; Sir Shridath Ramphal; Mr. Kayode Soyinka; Sir Ronald Sanders; Dr. Frank Jacobs, president of the Manufacturers Association of Nigeria; and Mr Rasheed Olaoluwa, MD Bank of Industry.

As expected, the Africa Today's EPAs conference, because of the relevance of the subject matter, most especially now with a new government in Abuja, elicited passion. Leading the opposition against signing the agreement, first from the floor on the first day and during his presentation the next day, was Ken Ukaoha, a lawyer and president of the National Association of Nigerian Traders (NANTS) and member of the Nigerian negotiating team on EPAs. He said the real dangers of the agreement, if implemented in its present form, are numerous and would affect the economic life of Africa. "The main objection with EPAs stems from the fact that it would lead to de-industrialisation, exposure to undue competition, loss of jobs and revenue, capital flight, increase in poverty and in some way, loss of sovereignty and disintegration of the region." The way forward, Ukaoha said, is for African leaders to protect their country's interest. "EPA must be renegotiated and I strongly recommend an Africa-wide EPA as a union. This must also take into cognisance the African trade and economic integration efforts at the continental level."

Notwithstanding the opposition, the EU has offered a 6.5 billion package over the next five years (2015-2019) to ECOWAS under the EPA Development Programme with the ultimate objective that ECOWAS opens up 75 percent of its markets, with its 300 million consumers, to Europe over a 20-year period (2000-2020). Ukaoha's submission was that the figure is most likely 85 percent. The EU had initially wanted the region to open almost 100 percent of its markets but it later relented suggesting that the EU can be flexible. Many wondered why the EU, a super-rich body, should negotiate with each African country that is not at par, economically, with it. This is a classic case of David and Goliath. So far, the EU has signed deals with some African regional blocs including the Southern African Development Community (SADC), the East African Community (EAC) and ECOWAS. Nigeria's objection remains that it cannot sign the EPA in its current form even with the consensus reached within ECOWAS.

Sanders' clarification of the wrong impression that the EPA was between the EU and Africa collectively rather than between the EU and individual countries has put the agreement vividly as a divide and rule tactic reminiscent of the colonial era. The Caribbean countries signed the "full EPA" under the threat that not signing would mean loss of preferential access to EU markets for their exports. According to Sanders "many signed out of fear not faith." The same was also done with ECOWAS, forcing Ghana and Cote D'Ivoire, the region's top cocoa producers to sign an interim EPA in 2007 on the threat of loss of access to EU market. NANTS says "the EU disintegrated the ECOWAS region by forcing and railroading" both countries to sign. The fear that EU's action of signing separate EPAs with individual countries rather than with regional bodies may undermine African economic solidarity was put rather vividly by South Africa's Trade and Industry Minister, Rob Davies, who said "Our overriding concern remains that conclusion of separate EPAs among different groupings of countries in Africa that do not correspond to existing regional arrangements will undermine Africa's wider integration efforts. If left unaddressed, such outcomes will haunt Africa's integration project for years to come."

The reality is that concluding separate EPAs with groupings of countries in Africa which do not conform with existing protocols of the Regional Economic Communities may undermine Africa's integration efforts.

Contributions from the floor were no different from the presenters said. Many warned that Nigeria should not sign the EPAs as doing so will consign the country to long years of servitude to Europe. Some knocked Nigeria for letting other "small" African countries take the initiative at the negotiation table and letting them dictate proceedings. Others wondered why Nigeria was not flexing its economic muscles and demanding a separate trade arrangement like what the EU gave South Africa exclusive from what was signed by other members of its economic bloc, the SADC. EU-South Africa trade is covered by the Trade, Development and Cooperation Agreement (TDCA) signed in 1999 and consisted of three areas of agreement: FTA between the two, development aid and cooperation in several areas including economic and social cooperation. Yet others knocked the EU especially when it came to the fore that its ambassador in Abuja representing the EU in ECOWAS wasn't present at such an important economic conference despite being invited by the organisers - he went on his summer holiday instead. They hinted that his action was a reflection of how the EU views Nigeria, the ECOWAS region and indeed all Africa. The EU Ambassador's representative, Ikpoki, tried his best to pacify the participants but he faced a barrage of questions and criticisms; his attempt to make the audience see the positives in the EPAs with the EU simply didn't fly.

No doubt Africa is on an upward swing. This the EU knows as various studies have repeatedly pointed this out. In recent years, there have been vast improvements in Africa's economic growth; its enormous reserves of raw materials, 60 percent of the world's unused arable agricultural land, a young growing population, a rising middle class with considerable purchasing power together with urbanisation, are among the factors that could see Africa emerging as the next leading driver of global economic growth. In the west African region, Nigeria's position is unique: its population, in economic strength, its market, dwarfs all the region's countries combined; the country remains the continent's leading receipt of foreign direct investment. Experts say Nigeria should leverage on its economic position and carve out a different trade pact for itself, one that will be favourable to all the sectors of its economy.

As Sir Ronald Sanders said, "It is no puzzle to me that Nigeria has expressed reservations about the EPA which it is being cajoled to sign. Nigeria - like the rest of Africa - has an obligation to itself to protect its own destiny. It has the responsibility to determine its path not only for the present, but for the future and for generations yet unborn. Nigerians are right to have this debate because this decision is not one you can make lightly. You have to consider in whose interest the EPA that is being placed before you. Usually when somebody puts a package before you that they have thought through and you have not, that package you dare not trust. This, therefore, is something for you to ponder very carefully".

Signing the EPA is a big issue with Nigeria as it should be. And as the theme of the conference noted, in whose interest should the EPA agreement be signed. In its present form, it definitely would not be in Nigeria's interest!

Comment on this story

Name:

Email:

Message:



Please enter number above: