EU deals with Africa could violate rights
Thursday, 18 October 2007
David Cronin from Brussels
Opening up trade between the European Union and Africa risks violating basic human rights, according to campaigners.
Under a series of free trade deals, known as Economic Partnership Agreements (EPAs), governments from Africa, the Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) would be required to remove most of the tariffs that they levy on imports from Europe.
The International Federation of Human Rights (FIDH) has warned that these accords -- due to be signed by the end of this year -- may trample on international law and impede Africa's development.
The 1981 African Charter on Human and People's Rights states that each country on the continent is entitled to economic development.
In a new study, FIDH says that depriving ACP countries, many of which already have precarious budgetary structures, of sorely needed revenues from trade taxes could breach that right. Spending on healthcare and education could suffer as a result.
Draft agreements put forward by the EU's executive, the European Commission, also require the liberalisation of services. FIDH is concerned that this would imperil access to water, something that is supposed to be guaranteed to everyone under the 1966 International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.
Previous experiences of water privatisation have been immensely damaging to the poor, FIDH points out. After the management of the water and sewage system in Cochabamba, Bolivia, was sold to foreign water firms in the late 1990s, the price of water, which had until then been negligible, climbed to 20 percent of the monthly family income.
Similarly, campaigners allege that because small-scale farmers will struggle to compete with low-cost imports from Europe, they risk being unable to feed their families and to have a decent livelihood. This would undermine guarantees on freedom to hunger enshrined in the 1948 Universal Declaration on Human Rights.
"The EPAs could crowd out local producers in many circumstances," said FIDH spokesman Olivier De Schutter. "This is extremely dangerous and disquieting."
Anti-poverty activists have complained that EU officials have threatened to reduce aid to ACP countries if they do not sign free trade agreements.
"The European Commission is using strong-arm politics to push African countries to sign up to trade agreements that will undermine the right to food," said Bibiane Mbaye from ActionAid. "The right to food is a human right and is a binding obligation well-established under international law."
The FoodFirst Information and Action Network (FIAN) recently conducted a study on the impact of poultry and tomato imports on farmers from Ghana.
It found that Ghana's fresh tomato farmers have lost a sizeable market share because of imports of tomato paste, which rose from 3,000 tonnes in 1998 to nearly 25,000 tonnes in 2003. Farmers in the Koluedor region have found it increasingly difficult to sell fresh tomatoes at quantities and prices that would allow them feed their families properly.
At the moment, Ghana has a 20 percent tariff on tomato paste imports, yet this could be reduced after an EPA is signed.
Peter Mandelson, the European commissioner for trade, recently wrote to anti-poverty campaigners, seeking to refute their core arguments against the EPAs.
"We often hear people say that EPAs won't be fair, that they will open ACP markets to EU trade at the expense of local business and local growth," he said. "That is simply not true. EPAs won't mean free trade between the EU and African, Caribbean and Pacific countries from Jan. 1 next year or any time soon. We'll make sure there are no export subsidies on any goods where ACP countries remove tariffs, so that they will not be competing against subsidised EU produce."
Alexandra Burmann from the German organisation Bread for the World refused to accept Mandelson's assurances. She noted that while the EU has taken steps to end official export subsidies, it retains large-scale 'domestic' support. Much of this is spent on growing food that is then sold abroad.
She noted, too, that while the EU can invoke safeguard measures to shield farmers or industrial workers from import surges, it is not seeking to confer similar rights on ACP countries. Some of the draft EPAs prepared by Commission officials contain safeguard measures that would be "very complicated" for ACP countries to use, and they would be limited in duration.
"ACP countries are asking that they should have the same rights as the EU," she told IPS. "But even that has been denied to them. It is really a scandal."
Bassiaka Dao, president of Confédération Paysanne du Faso (CPF), a farmers organisation in Burkina Faso, said: "Over the last 15 years, imports from Europe to West Africa have increased by 84 percent and our countries have spent up to 57 percent of their revenues to import food that could be grown locally. A reciprocal free trade agreement will worsen the situation, while limiting the capacity of our governments to protect agriculture."
..................................
Inter Press Service
Opening up trade between the European Union and Africa risks violating basic human rights, according to campaigners.
Under a series of free trade deals, known as Economic Partnership Agreements (EPAs), governments from Africa, the Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) would be required to remove most of the tariffs that they levy on imports from Europe.
The International Federation of Human Rights (FIDH) has warned that these accords -- due to be signed by the end of this year -- may trample on international law and impede Africa's development.
The 1981 African Charter on Human and People's Rights states that each country on the continent is entitled to economic development.
In a new study, FIDH says that depriving ACP countries, many of which already have precarious budgetary structures, of sorely needed revenues from trade taxes could breach that right. Spending on healthcare and education could suffer as a result.
Draft agreements put forward by the EU's executive, the European Commission, also require the liberalisation of services. FIDH is concerned that this would imperil access to water, something that is supposed to be guaranteed to everyone under the 1966 International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.
Previous experiences of water privatisation have been immensely damaging to the poor, FIDH points out. After the management of the water and sewage system in Cochabamba, Bolivia, was sold to foreign water firms in the late 1990s, the price of water, which had until then been negligible, climbed to 20 percent of the monthly family income.
Similarly, campaigners allege that because small-scale farmers will struggle to compete with low-cost imports from Europe, they risk being unable to feed their families and to have a decent livelihood. This would undermine guarantees on freedom to hunger enshrined in the 1948 Universal Declaration on Human Rights.
"The EPAs could crowd out local producers in many circumstances," said FIDH spokesman Olivier De Schutter. "This is extremely dangerous and disquieting."
Anti-poverty activists have complained that EU officials have threatened to reduce aid to ACP countries if they do not sign free trade agreements.
"The European Commission is using strong-arm politics to push African countries to sign up to trade agreements that will undermine the right to food," said Bibiane Mbaye from ActionAid. "The right to food is a human right and is a binding obligation well-established under international law."
The FoodFirst Information and Action Network (FIAN) recently conducted a study on the impact of poultry and tomato imports on farmers from Ghana.
It found that Ghana's fresh tomato farmers have lost a sizeable market share because of imports of tomato paste, which rose from 3,000 tonnes in 1998 to nearly 25,000 tonnes in 2003. Farmers in the Koluedor region have found it increasingly difficult to sell fresh tomatoes at quantities and prices that would allow them feed their families properly.
At the moment, Ghana has a 20 percent tariff on tomato paste imports, yet this could be reduced after an EPA is signed.
Peter Mandelson, the European commissioner for trade, recently wrote to anti-poverty campaigners, seeking to refute their core arguments against the EPAs.
"We often hear people say that EPAs won't be fair, that they will open ACP markets to EU trade at the expense of local business and local growth," he said. "That is simply not true. EPAs won't mean free trade between the EU and African, Caribbean and Pacific countries from Jan. 1 next year or any time soon. We'll make sure there are no export subsidies on any goods where ACP countries remove tariffs, so that they will not be competing against subsidised EU produce."
Alexandra Burmann from the German organisation Bread for the World refused to accept Mandelson's assurances. She noted that while the EU has taken steps to end official export subsidies, it retains large-scale 'domestic' support. Much of this is spent on growing food that is then sold abroad.
She noted, too, that while the EU can invoke safeguard measures to shield farmers or industrial workers from import surges, it is not seeking to confer similar rights on ACP countries. Some of the draft EPAs prepared by Commission officials contain safeguard measures that would be "very complicated" for ACP countries to use, and they would be limited in duration.
"ACP countries are asking that they should have the same rights as the EU," she told IPS. "But even that has been denied to them. It is really a scandal."
Bassiaka Dao, president of Confédération Paysanne du Faso (CPF), a farmers organisation in Burkina Faso, said: "Over the last 15 years, imports from Europe to West Africa have increased by 84 percent and our countries have spent up to 57 percent of their revenues to import food that could be grown locally. A reciprocal free trade agreement will worsen the situation, while limiting the capacity of our governments to protect agriculture."
..................................
Inter Press Service