EASTERN AFRICA FARMERS FEDERATION

13747-00800 Rhapta road, Westlands, Nairobi

Tel/Fax 254 20 4451691

; www.eaffu.org

POSITION OF FARMERS OF EASTERN AFRICA ON EPAs

“As farmers’ organizations, we have consistently advocated for market access for our produce. We have prioritized regional markets as our immediate destination for our produce. It is for this reason that we farmers’ organizations have involved themselves in trade negotiations. They got involved in WTO and especially Agreement on Agriculture and thereafter EPAs that were being negotiated between ACP-EU governments. Our concern is to ensure that all these trade negotiations remain development oriented to enable us develop our agriculture to a point where we can be competitive in the markets. On EPAs, Farmer organizations got involved in awareness creation of our farmers and assisted them contribute to the mid-term reviews that were being conducted by government.

Our involvement in the review of EPAs was meant to give us an opportunity to;

· Make an analysis of the structure and the process of negotiation.

· Re-examine the preparatory phase, capacity and commitment of ACP government to negotiate EPA that is development oriented.

· Examine the content and states of the negotiations.

As regions we produced our own output on the mid-term review, where the following issues were raised

i) AWARENESS / SENSITIZATION

Most farmers are not aware of the current EPAs negotiations that are taking place .Yet the agreement are likely going to have a profound negative impact on their main source of livelihoods .As a starting point ,there is urgent need for an extensive information campaign aimed at sensitizing them on EPAs ,including their rationale ,opportunities and threats, their likely impact ,what is at stake and the negotiations processes .Indeed the limited availability of information on EPAs in the public domains is a major source of concern, a situation which has made the negotiations the preserve of governments and regional economic blocks .it is recommended that Farmer Organizations approach cooperating partners to assist in mounting sensitization campaigns of farmers about EPAs .

ii) INVOLVEMENT / PARTICIPATION

As already indicated above most farmers are not even aware of the economic partnership agreements and have therefore largely not been involved in the negotiation processes .Farmers are a major stakeholder in the negotiations and should therefore be adequately represented in the consultations that provide inputs into the negotiations .Farmers need not to wait to be consulted but rather should be proactive in seeking their involvement in the relevant structures. Furthermore, farmers’ representations should be mandatory at all the appropriate levels in the negotiation structures.

There is therefore urgent need to sensitize stakeholders and facilitate wider consultations and participation of non state actors in the process .It is time that farmers voice become more visible in the negotiation processes. Up to now their voices have largely been sub consumed within the voices of civil society in general. This in a way is indicative of the limited capacity of farmers to grasp the issues and to be proactive in the process .The interests of farmers are more specific and often differ from those of civil society in general .

iii) IMPACT STUDIES

There is urgent need for farmers to understand what the likely impact of EPAs on farming would be. It is absolutely important that farmers inputs into the negotiation processes are based on sound information .To this end it is strongly recommended that impact studies be undertaken in order for informed decisions to be made .This impact studies must pay particular attention to the development of sustainable agriculture and rural development so as to ensure food security ,eradication of hunger as well as elimination of poverty .The mid term review of EPAs is therefore an opportunity to refocus on the developmental role of small scale farming .

iv) CAPACITY BUILDING

Most farmers organization lack the financial and technical capacity to mobilize farmers and prepare them to effectively participate in the negotiation processes. It is strongly recommended that adequate resources aimed at supporting their involvement in the process be made available to them as matter of urgency.

EAFF is appealing to cooperating partners as well as national governments in the region to assist in the capacity building of farmers organizations so that they can effectively take part in negotiations and make meaningful contributions .It is widely recognized that trade is complex and requires technical knowledge which the farmers organization do not posses at this stage .In addition there is an urgent requirement to address capacity building as well as increased allocation of resources in the SPS area where small scale farmers feel threatened due limited awareness and also lack capacity to respond to the huge compliance challenges .

v) SUPPLY SIDE CONSTRAINTS

Trade liberalisation with Europe should not take place until key production and trade –related supply side constraints are addressed .This include the provision of adequate roads ,transport ,water ,sustainable land ,telecommunications and market information services ,energy ,technical training and extension support ,without which small scale farmers would not be able to take advantage of the opportunities that may come with the new agreements .Significantly large investments will be required for this over a relatively long period of time and as such this would affect the timing of implementations of the EPAS should be bench marked to the successful implementation of investment programmed aimed at upgrading the production capacity of the provision of technical assistance support .

vi) A HARMONISED APPROACH

Farmers in Eastern and Southern Africa essentially face similar issues and challenges and have common interests .Thus, farmers in the two regions should have a harmonized approach towards the EPAs .Mechanisms should be put in place aimed at facilitating and supporting consultation between farmers in the two regions on EPAs issue.

vii) MAINTAINANCE OF CURRENT ARRANGEMENTS

Until such a time that new trading arrangements are concluded without undue influence ,the current arrangements with respect to respective country exports to the EU should be maintained .It is also within this context that WTO provisions ,special and differential treatment for development compared to industrialized countries must not only be maintained but must be strengthened realizing the different levels of development compared to industrialized countries .Implementation of any reforms must be such that small scale farmers are not marginalized further and are given an opportunity to increase production .Farmers must not be exposed to external competition until the playing field is levelled through technical assistance targeted at building their capacity .The trend on reduction of overseas aid must be reversed and development partners adhering to 0.7%of GNP allocation.

viii) RECIPROCITY

Trade between the highly developed EU and the poor developing countries is essentially trade between unequal partners. The starting points are vastly different .Thus the principle of reciprocity would seem quiet inappropriate under these circumstances Developing countries require time to adjust to put in place the necessary production and support infrastructure and before this the principle of reciprocity should not be applicable.

ix) SENSITIVE PRODUCTS

It is critical that the list of sensitive products excluded from liberisation should adequately cover production that is essential for maintaining and developing subsistence agricultures. Farmers should be adequately consulted leading to the determination of such lists .In this regard, food self sufficiency by the region should be a fundamental right that should be protected ,not least because these farmers play a critical role in this area .

x) UNREALISTIC TIME FRAME

Clearly there is much that needs be done, and the remaining period within which the negotiations were expected to be completed was unrealistic .It did not allow for farmers to mobilize resources and for the sector to address the structural impediments to production and other necessary preparations that would ensure the farmers derived maximum benefit from the intended trading arrangements .There was thus need to open up debate on this with a view to developing realistic time tables and appropriate framework for support as well as securing the necessary and adequate support as a precondition for moving forward otherwise the whole purpose of the exercise would becomes self defeating in terms of its objectives. This not withstanding, a “light EPA” between EAC and EU was signed and an extension of one year to discuss the offer on services and the development component was granted

xi) EU COMMON AGRICULTURAL POLICY

There is need for EAC states to harmonize its agricultural policy first by developing its own common agricultural policy before proceeding to sign an economic partnership agreement .After all ,the EU itself has first prepared itself in this way before pressing ahead with EPAs .Clearly the merit for signing economic partnership agreements before the above issue are addressed is questionable .If at all the EPAs have to be signed for whatever reasons ,this would need to be conditional to the above being addressed as part and parcel of the implementation framework .In this respect therefore ,a joint monitoring and review framework should be developed and implemented regularly to ensure compliance with the agreed benchmarks .

The synthesis of our different outcomes resulted to a compromise positions on EPAs that resulted into the following joint recommendations. The recommendations nick named the “EPA we want.” Were as follows:

· One that give priority to regional integration – integration leading to opening and developing regional markets.

· One that defines a trade regime based on asymmetry and equity – gap between EU and ACP – revisit principle of SPECIAL AND DIFFERENTIAL TREATMENTS.

· Improve participation by farmer organizations and other actors.

· Ensure capacity for thorough preparation and participation in the negotiations to ensure that ACP states define and defend a negotiating position in conformity with challenges and the interests of each ACP region.

· Overall farmers would like to see an EPA that ensure sustainable food security through improved production and improved incomes.

Signing of a “light EPA”

On November 27th 2007, EAC and EU initialled a Framework for EPA that has an agreement on the Trade in goods offer only. This meant that further discussions on services and development component were to go on as they had not been agreed upon.

As an organization we laud the step as it ensured that there was no trade disruption No trade disruption; as there was continued exports of agriculture and fisheries commodities; hence safeguarding of investments in these sectors as well as jobs and macroeconomic stability due to management of the Balance of Payments. However looking at the road map towards attainment of a comprehensive EPA, the outstanding discussions provide opportunities for inclusion of views of Farmers and other stakeholders among other demands by them, to be captured within the remaining stipulated period

Stephen Muchiri

CEO EAFF

1