Introduction
The end of the Cold war saw developed countries focusing on setting up trade agreements between themselves and the developing world. These trade agreements were aimed at integrating the developing world into the world economy. Agreements like the US Africa Growth and Opportunity Act as well as the European Union (EU) Cotonou Agreement were formulated. The Cotonou agreement was signed between the members of the EU and the African Caribbean and Pacific countries. This would guarantee the ACP access to the European market. The market access was reciprocal in nature, moving away from the non- reciprocity of the Lome Convention. This was in a bid to comply with the trade rules of the World Trade Organisation (WTO). The reciprocity was operated on the basis of free trade areas (FTAs) dubbed Economic Partnership Agreements (EPAs).

The two trade options
The loss of preferences opened up two options for the ACP, either trading though the EU's General System of Preferences (GSPs) or trade through the EPAs. Though trade through the GSP would be non- reciprocal in nature as under Lome, the goods traded under this agreement would be much less than before leading to a loss of the EU market share as well as the loss of foreign currency earnings.

Option two would involve the setting up of free trade areas under a ten-year transition period , dubbed EPAs. Under this trade regime, market access would be reciprocal. This method was seen as the most effective way of integrating the ACP into the world economy, globalisation. However, the major criticism of this is that the ACP countries are being forced to open up their economies through liberalisation, and yet their local producers, manufacturers and service providers capacity to compete on the same level with the EU is far below that of the EU. This smacks of unfair trade practices and competition.

Between a rock and hard place
The ACP countries are therefore caught between a rock and a hard place, as either option is not favourable to their economies. The ACP countries are forced to sign onto EPAs as they risk losing their share of the EU market and hence loss of revenue. On the other hand, if they open up their markets they could expose their economies to a more economically powerful group of countries, which would prove damaging to their fragile economies. The EU states that there will be technology transfer as well as increased foreign direct investment under the EPAs. This is not true, as the EU's major focus is the expansion of its share of the world market in spite of the consequences of their actions. Even if one were to take their argument that they are being forced to change their way of doing things, as they have to be WTO compliant, their sincerity is questioned. They could have used the combined number of the ACP and the EU to push for concessions favourable to the ACP.

EPAs- some facts
Under the EPAs, there will be a significant reduction in ACP government revenue, as products previously levied duty would get in duty free. This would affect government budgets and hence affect spending on social services. Factories and services faced with the competition from the more advanced economies of the EU would be forced to close down leading to job losses. The liberalisation of the economies whereby the EU can also be involved in the social services of the country will lead to the privatisation of social services. This will make them unaffordable to the majority of the population. EPAs will also interfere with the regional trade linkages, which have existed for a long time within the ACP. This is because the ACP countries will be focusing on complying with the tenets of the EPAs. The agricultural sector of the EU enjoys the benefit of subsidies, which makes their products cheap and hence very competitive on the world market. Hence, the ACP countries agricultural products will be competing with the cheaper EU products a fact, which would kill the local agriculture.

What are the chances of getting a good deal?
The ACP would like to see a movement from this focus on profit to the detriment of their economies. They would like to see a shift to a focus on sustainable development and poverty eradication. They would like to see trade deals, which are development oriented, and also one, which will lead to the development of all sectors of the economy. The ACP countries are also demanding increased funding and debt cancellation to offset the losses they will incur from the EPAs.

The fact that the EU is a donor to the ACP and that it is more economically powerful puts the ACP in a weaker negotiating position. Another fact is that the EU has got more numerous and more skilled negotiators when it comes to the negotiations phase of the agreement. One of the major weaknesses of the ACP is that the individual countries have divergent interests and thus when it comes to negotiations they do not present a united front. These factors work to the disadvantage of the ACP when they engage the EU in trade negotiations.

Is there a way out?
The Africa Union (AU) has developed some policy documents which state that the economic development and economic transformation sought by the ACP is only possible if trade links between African countries and regions is strengthened. The ACP negotiating guidelines also state that "EPAs have to establish legitimacy in ACP states particularly as regards their contribution to sustainable development of those countries". However, these sentiments are not being fulfilled as the agenda for the trade agreements is not African driven but it is being set by external agencies. Civil society should take the role of educating the general populace as well as the respective government negotiators so that they realise that if the ACP countries are united they do not have to sign onto the EPAs. They can push for a more favourable trade agreement. Furthermore, there needs to be an education of the masses that the adjustment costs to the loss of trade preferences if the ACP does not sign into the EPAs are much lower than those associated with opening up their economies to the more powerful EU.

Author: N. Kachingwe
For the full text of the paper, please contact Thomas Deve on thomas@mwengo.org.zw