please do not cite without permission from the authors

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Figure 5. Index of export concentration (UE27 and SADC), 200910,90,80,70,60,50,40,30,20,10ItalyAustriaNetherlandsDenmarkLatviaGreeceFrancePolandPortugalGermanySwedenRomaniaCzech RepublicSpainUnited KingdomBelgiumBulgariaSloveniaEstoniaLuxembourgHungarySouth AfricaFinlandSlovakiaLithuaniaCyprusZimbabweMadagascarSwazilandMauritiusIrelandUnited Republic of TanzaniaNamibiaMozambiqueDem. Rep. of the CongoMaltaBotswanaLesothoMalawiZambiaAngolaSource: UNCTADSTAT databaseHere, at one extreme we find the majority of the SADC countries, with Angolathe most extreme, nearly all of them showing higher levels of concentrationthan the EU27 countries, with the exception of Malta and Ireland. AmongSADC members, countries such as South Africa and Zimbabwe stand out, 22as having a greater variety of exports than their neighbours. More detailedfigures on the three principal export products of SADC countries, their share oftotal exports and changes in these figures during the past decade can be seenin Annexe 1. Except for countries such as South Africa, Zimbabwe,Madagascar, Swaziland and Mauritius, most of the countries of the regionspecialise in the production of primary commodities and have experienced fewrecent changes 23 in their export structure.The EU’s trade policy in agricultural products can be described as incoherent.Despite the Commission’s offer of ‘duty free – quota free’ access to European22 The serious recent economic and political crisis in Zimbabwe, however, has put it amongthe lowest places in the region with regard to competitiveness.23 Among the most significant changes is that in Mozambique due to the strong growth in theimportance of aluminium, due to the construction of and further investment in the Mozalaluminium smelter.18
markets if EPAs were approved, the domestic subsidies to the agriculturalsector are still very significant. 24In addition, the EU’s priorities on hygiene and health regulations for foodproducts has since the 1990s led to the application of a growing number ofminimum requirements which end up becoming another type of trade barrieragainst SADC countries. This above all affects fish and agricultural productsand their manufactures (see Annexe 1), an important part of the exports ofMalawi, Tanzania, Zimbabwe and Swaziland, among others (Goodison andStoneman, 2005).Apart from trade in goods, the European Commission has shown great interestin including services in the negotiations. That has also produced controversygiven that it is seen as a future threat to local firms, present and potential, insectors such as telecommunications or banking where European firms arevery competitive. This view is especially present in South Africa due to itsposition as the main supplier of services in the region, especially to the BLSNcountries (Botswana, Lesotho, Swaziland and Namibia) (Van der Holst, 2009).In order to compensate for these unequal structures, the EU has set up an ‘Aidfor Trade’ programme. 25 But the small amount of resources assigned to thisprogramme up to now, and the lack of participation in the design and planningof the scheme by African producers, reveal once more the incoherence of theEU’s policies: European producers receive generous public aid andprogrammes to improve the competitiveness of agriculture and food industries,while producers’ associations participate in the design of policies to cope withchanges in trade and production (Goodison, 2009).24 In addition to the whole Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) package, reservations were alsoexpressed by Italy, Greece, France, Spain and Portugal as a result of disputes about thedenomination of some South African wines and liquors, about the market for fruit andderivatives and about cut flowers. About 26 percent of the South African agricultural productsexported to European markets were excluded from the free trade conditions offered by thetreaty (Davies, 2000; Goodison, 2000).25 The concept of Aid for Trade is not limited to helping with the design and implementation oftrade policies and stimulating the growth of trade (the so-called ‘Trade related to Aid’), but alsoto wider questions such as the development of infrastructure related to trade or assistance toparticular productive sectors.19
Page 2 and 3: opportunities and improve their com
Page 4 and 5: This kind of pattern has come to be
Page 6 and 7: Figure 1. Shares of various groups
Page 8: several writers as evidence of the
Page 11 and 12: the rest of the world, regardless o
Page 14 and 15: of them except Namibia. Namibia’s
Page 16 and 17: Among the questions which most worr
Page 20 and 21: 5.2 Related issuesInvestment, intel
Page 22 and 23: separate agreement with the EAC cus
Page 24: multilateral negotiating frameworks
Page 28 and 29: Hurt, S. (2009): ‘Economic Partne
Page 31 and 32: Annexe 1. The three main exports of
Page 33: Annexe 2. Global Competitiveness In

please do not cite without permission from the authors

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?