EU, Namibia cross swords

THE European Commission (EC) yesterday said that unless Namibia signs an interim economic partnership agreement (EPA) with the European Union (EU), local beef, fish and table grapes will lose the quota- and tariff-free access to the trade bloc’s markets they have enjoyed up to now.

‘It is obvious that these preferences cannot be maintained for an unlimited time,’ Lutz Güllner, spokesperson for EC Trade Commissioner Catherine Ashton, stressed in an e-mail to The Namibian. He was reacting to an article in yesterday’s newspaper that Namibia will not be punished because the country refused to join Botswana, Lesotho and Swaziland in signing the controversial interim EPA in Brussels last week.CONSEQUENCES’My comments in no way suggested that there will be no consequences at all for Namibia is it does not sign the interim EPA,’ Güllner said.On Thursday, The Namibian contacted Güllner, asking him to clarify a statement in the EU’s release on Botswana, Lesotho and Swaziland signing the interim EPA. According to the release: ‘Three other countries in the region, South Africa, Namibia and Angola, opted not to sign at this juncture. This agreement will now have to be notified to the World Trade Organisation (WTO).’The Namibian asked for clarification on the last sentence.’Does this mean that Namibia, having opted not to sign, is now faced with the possibility that it will no longer have the quota- and tariff-free access to the EU’s markets for its beef, fish and table grapes which Namibia has enjoyed since provisionally initialling the interim EPA in December 2007?’ we wanted to know in an e-mail sent to Güllner at 09h46 that morning.His complete e-mail response at 11h30 read: ‘No, this simply means that any interim (or full) EPA would need to be notified to the WTO, as this is the formal way to do it. There is no reason to speculate what else this would entail. The interim EPA signed today remains open to Namibia and we hope that Namibia will sign in the near future.’’IMPORTANT’The EC spokesperson yesterday said he would like to clarify an important point which he felt was misrepresented in The Namibian’s article.’While our immediate objective is to work with the Government of Namibia towards signature, as you know, we have a legal obligation to replace the former trade arrangements under the Cotonou Agreement with the WTO consistent trade agreements, the economic partnership agreements. Pending the signature of interim EPAs, the EU granted unilateral trade preferences to those countries which would otherwise not benefit from preferential access to the EU anymore,’ Güllner wrote.He continued: ‘These preferences were granted to the countries that have initialled the interim EPAs on a provisional basis and on the clear understanding that both sides would work towards signature of the agreements. It is obvious that these preferences cannot be maintained for an unlimited time.’ Trade and Industry Minister Hage Geingob recently said Namibia is willing to sign the trade pact, provided the EU gives written assurances on concessions they made at negotiations at Swakopmund in March. These include changes to the existing interim EPA text on food security, infant industry protection, free flow of goods and export duties.The EU, according to Geingob, is refusing to do this.He also accused the EU of not treating Namibia as an equal partner, and said the issues of the Most Favoured Nation (MFN) and Definition of Parties (DoP), widely seen as threats to regional integration, the Southern African Customs Union (Sacu) and South-South trade, remain unresolved.jo-mare@namibian.com.na