ABSTRACT
Smart Simulation Partial Equilibrium Methodology was
employed in this study to determine Effects of Economic Partnership Agreements
on Agricultural trade between small and large ECOWAS economies and the EU.
Specifically, the study looked at the patterns of imports of sample of two
ECOWAS countries the Gambia and Nigeria; the potential trade effects on the
selected countries embarking on free trade under economic partnership agreement
scenario; the potential revenue effects on the selected countries under the
same platform; the potential welfare effects on the selected countries under
the same platform; the sensitive products based on source and volume of import
criteria. WITS provided access to international trade and protection related
data and offered built-in-analytical tools for the study. Results of the
analysis on patterns of import of the selected ECOWAS countries showed that the
Gambia’s highest ($62158.328 million) proportion of imports came from ROW,
followed by imports from the EU ($ 13071.561 million) and least ($1372.053
million) imports from ECOWAS region. However, it was observed that the highest
($28493.34 million) product group imported by the Gambia was product group 10
(cereals) at 45.840% from ROW. The results on patterns of agricultural imports
of Nigeria showed that Nigeria’s highest ($1817981.912 million) imports on
agricultural products came from ROW; followed by imports from EU ($982718.781
million) and least ($45635.089 million) imports from ECOWAS region. It was
further observed that product group 10(cereals) was the highest
($699,878.321million) product group Nigeria imports which came from ROW at
38.50%. Result on Potential Trade Effect of EPAs between economies of ECOWAS
countries studied and the EU, showed that the EU beneficiary countries (ECOWAS)
were seen to gain $35926.855 million in “Trade Creation” and $15081.5191
million in “Trade Diversion”, while Total Trade Effect amounts to $20845.0309
million in Product groups studied as obtained from SMART Simulation Partial
Equilibrium 2014. Result on Potential Revenue Effect of the two sample ECOWAS
countries going into EPAs, showed total likely revenue losses (-$17223.665
million) for the two sampled countries on the product groups studied, with
Nigeria recording higher ( -$16666.638 million) loss and Gambia recording least
( -$557.027). Result on Potential welfare effect of EPAs between the economies
of ECOWAS countries studied and EU showed likely welfare gain ($2326.905
million) for the consumers in all the agricultural products studied. With
Nigeria recording higher welfare gain ($2238.793million) than the Gambia
($88.112 million) in all the product groups studied. Result on sensitive
products based on source and volume import criteria, showed that product group
3, 4 and 15 were identified to contain the potential sensitive products for the
ECOWAS countries studied and should be exempted from EPAs as identified by the
study. Base on the findings of this study, the following recommendations were
made: The trade effect showed that ECOWAS countries are likely to record
greater trade creation effect than trade diversion effect in favour ECOWAS
countries. The on-going Economic partnership Agreements (EPAs) negotiations
between ECOWAS and the EU need to be concluded and implemented based on this
ground but measures should be taken to guide the infant industries to protect
them from fazing off from production due to cheaper goods flooding ECOWAS
markets from EU market.There is need for fiscal reforms to replace EPAs induced
tariff revenue losses. The fiscal reforms should entail shifting revenue from
trade to non-trade tax sources and improving the efficiency of fiscal revenue
collecting policies. Examples of non-tariff instruments that may assume greater
importance in revenue generation include value-added tax (VAT) and excise taxes
charged on imports from the EU. If ECOWAS countries can adapt this measure,
EPAs should be signed since the lost revenue can be reclaimed via these means.
Agricultural product groups 3, 4 and 15 should be the likely sensitive products
for the ECOWAS countries and should be exempted from EPAs as identified in this
study.
CHAPTER
ONE
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background of the Study
The Economic Partnership
Agreements (EPAs) between Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS)
and the European Union (EU) are aimed at promoting trade between the two
groupings. The expectations are that through trade deepened integration,
development in addition to sustainable growth and poverty reduction would evolve
in ECOWAS sub region. The EPAs are set out to help West African countries
integrate and as well into the world economy and share in the opportunities
offered within and outside the sub-region by globalization. Also, it hopes to
provide scope for wide-ranging trade co-operation on areas such that services,
and standards acting as drivers of change to kick-start reform and help to
strengthen rule of law in the economic field, thereby attracting foreign direct
investment (FDI), to help create a "virtuous circle" of growth
(ECOWAS Statistical Bulletin,2013).
However, with the exception of
about 15 Caribbean states that signed a regional economic partnership agreement
(EPA), negotiations with all the other countries have continued. To preserve
their access to the EU market after 2007, about 20 countries concluded interim
trade agreements. This light version of the original EPAs has not put an end to
the negotiations as some of these countries would like to see the terms of the
trade agreement revised, or their scope extended, and concluded at regional
levels, to preserve their regional integration process (ECDPM, 2012). In this
regards, one wonders how Ivory Coast and Ghana each could have a bilateral free
trade agreement with the EU. This is because opening their domestic market to
European products, while their West African partners, with whom they form a
customs union, keep protecting their market from the EU would, very logical
lead to EU goods flooding the whole regional markets via these two countries,
rendering the West African customs union and further integration process
totally ineffective. This scenario which seems to be unique to West Africa is
the same in several other African regions (Stevens, 2006).
Recently, Europe threatened to
withdraw the special trade preferences by 2014 to countries not showing
commitment to proceed with their interim EPA. Europe's objective hopefully is
to press for the conclusion of broader trade deals at regional level that would
replace these awkward and controversial interim EPAs. In an apparently generous
move, the European parliament's trade committee called on decision-makers to
extend this deadline to 2016. The identification of regionally traded products
in a bid to sustaining them through joint and diversified action plan by the
region is very necessary in aiding the
EPAs date
back to the signing of Cotonou Agreements in 2000 and are
"tailor-made" to suit specific regional circumstances. In 2002 when
the EU opened free trade negotiation with 78 African, Caribbean and Pacific
countries, it promised to go beyond conventional free-trade agreements,
focusing on ECOWAS among other ACP countries' development and taking into
account their socio-economic circumstances included co-operation and assistance
to aid ECOWAS implement the Agreements. The opening up of the EU markets fully and immediately (unilaterally by the EU
since 1st January 2008), and allowing ECOWAS 15
to 25 years to open up to EU imports while providing protection for the
sensitive 20% of imports are also major aspects of EPAs ( Busse & Grossman
,2007).
However, Chris, Morrissey and
Evious (2008) stated that the introduction of reciprocity under an EPA will tend to threaten intra-regional trade in ECOWAS region for a number of reasons. There is
a direct displacement threat to the traded products existing among regional
suppliers by the elimination of the external tariff protection vis-a-vis
European exporters. There is also an indirect threat associated with the
displacement of domestic production by European exporters in domestic markets, which may thereby reduce
regional production capacity and future prospects for intra-regional exporting.
These threats to ECOWAS regional trade development can be offset in a number of
ways. Most obviously, as negotiations allow for the exclusion of sensitive
products and for phased introduction of the tariff reductions, ECOWAS regions in general may benefit by treating products traded
within the region as sensitive for EPAs, hence avoiding or postponing any
reductions on tariffs on imports from the EU. If
EPAs promote increased ECOWAS exports to the EU there is potential to benefit from spill-over (Onogwu, & Arene, 2013).
The results reported and discussed in many studies are
based on a number of ex ante studies of the trade effects of EPAs on
various ACP groupings or countries undertaken by the authors thus: - McKay,
Milner and Morrissey (2005) analyzed the welfare impacts on the East African
Community (EAC);Greenaway and Milner (2006) covered CARICOM and Milner,
Morrissey and Zgovu (2008) considered aspects of impact and adjustment costs
for the EAC and. Morrissey and Zgovu (2011) focused on agriculture and total
respective imports for a large sample of ECOWAS countries to compare the welfare effects of a full liberalization
with a scenario that excluded products traded intra-regionally. These studies
measured the regional trade displacement effects of the liberalization of
tariffs on imports from the EU given their areas of study......
================================================================
Item Type: Postgraduate Material | Attribute: 77 pages | Chapters: 1-5
Format: MS Word | Price: N3,000 | Delivery: Within 30Mins.
================================================================
No comments:
Post a Comment