Trade partners who could ruffle EAC nest

A study commissioned by the EU predicted that once concluded, the EPA negotiations with West Africa would result in import surges above 15 per cent on key commodities such as onions, potatoes, beef and poultry which stands to adversely affect farmers’ livelihoods.

The critical concern, though, is that all the regions engaged in the negotiations with the EU have been severely disrupted by overlapping membership to different negotiating configurations.

As a result, there is a risk of countries undertaking trade commitments with the EU such as reduction of tariffs to the detriment of their traditional trading partners with whom they may have different regional tariffs.

A good example is South Africa’s trade agreement with the EU which has effectively bound all the Southern African Customs Union countries — Botswana, Lesotho, Namibia and Swaziland — to the external tariff agreed on EU-South Africa trade.

Also, 16 of the member states of the Southern Africa Development Community and the Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa are negotiating with the EU under the Eastern and Southern Africa (ESA) configuration; the Democratic Republic of Congo falls under the Central African Group while the other SADC countries are negotiating under the SADC grouping.

On the other hand, Tanzania negotiated separately from both Kenya and Tanzania with whom it shares EAC membership.

These concerns, though, do not necessarily mean trade blocs like the EAC cannot benefit from a more ambitious regime with Europe and others.

But, limitations faced by such blocs must be addressed especially, the need to harness capacity to trade in value-added exports.

In today’s new global economic dispensation, there are few alternatives to economic integration.

By closing ranks within the framework of regional initiatives like EAC countries can stem economic marginalisation and benefit from trade.

Gichinga Ndirangu is a policy analyst