ACP Technical Meeting – Development of Mineral ResourcesACP House, Brussels, 13-16 December 2010

Mineral resources:State of play in EPA Negotiations and

Implications of RMI for ACP countries

Isabelle Ramdoo – ECDPM

Structure of Presentation

Part 1: EPA negotiations: What’s in it for the mining sector?

Part 2: The EU Raw Materials Initiative: Should Africa worry?

Part 1:

EPA Negotiations and the mining sector: State of play

Characteristics:• non-reciprocal preferential trade regime for all ACP• Commodity protocols (sugar, banana, beef, rum)

Objective:Promotion of growth and development

Disappointing results:• Reduced market share of ACP in EU market• Erosion of preference• Little diversification

Subject to challenges under GATT/WTO rules

Brief overview prior to EPA: Cotonou Regime:

Reduced market share of ACP products in EU market

Share of imports from ACP into EU

0%

1%

2%

3%

4%

5%

6%

7%

8%

1976 1978 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000

© C. Maerten, DG Trade, 2005.

Low Level of Export-Diversification Only 5 Products account for 60% of total ACP exports to the EU

Main Products imported from the ACP

Petroleum30%

Diamonds10%

Cocoa10%Fish

6%

Wood4%

Sugar3%

Other33%

Gold2%

Aluminium2%

© C. Maerten, DG Trade, 2005.

• Negotiations started in 2002- All ACP level

• 2004 – 07: initially in 6 regions (4 in Africa (+1) + 1 in Caribbean + 1 Pacific)

• For the first time, ACP had to provide duty free market access to the EU (on at least 80% of its trade)

• In return EU gave duty free quota free for all products, with a transition for rice and sugar

EPA: a major shift in ACP-EU trade relations

What has been achieved?• 37 ACP countries have initialled/signed agreements:

– Full EPA: 15 Caribbean countries

– Interim EPAs: 20 African countries + 2 Pacific

• Africa and Pacific :

– Interim EPAs covering trade in goods only.

– Regarding imports of mining pdts: DFQF on both sides

– Regarding exports of mining pdts: elimination of export taxes (with some exceptions in Zambia and Guyana)

– Final EPA still under negotiations – currently deadlock because of contentious issues, incl the review of export tax clause.

Cariforum: Trade on goods, trade in services, investment, other trade related

issues

Measures that could affect mining:– Trade in goods : Removal of export taxes (excp: Guyana -

precious stones and bauxite)

– Investment : commitments to allow EU investment on certain conditions: e.g right of State to grant approval for operations; licencing reqmt, reservations based on citizenship/nationality small and medium scale mining only to citizens/ in partnership with citizens.

What’s next?

• Negotiations towards final EPA

• Non signatories – conditional upon resolving contentious issues and more development?

• All countries – level of readiness on services vary, no rules on investment and other TRI (Investment, competition, IPR, govt procurement etc)

Contentious issues

• Market access: – EU : ≥ 80% lib of their trade over 15 years– A and P: ≤ 70% over at least 25 years

• export taxes: issue of policy space to foster development of industries

• infant industries: want less stringent rules to trigger safeguards

• MFN clause: highly political – reduces negotiating power to sign ambitious FTAs with other emerging powers

Part II: EU Raw Materials Initiative – Should ACP Worry?

Main concerns leading to the RMI

• EU’s RMI is part of a broader strategy to improve competitiveness of industries

• A Strategic document of EU to guide its own domestic and external policies to secure access to RM to ensure jobs and growth

• Why? Race for RM due to increasing DD from emerging countries

Minerals are key to ACP…

• Africa: 30% of world reserves of RM and produces > 60 minerals and metals

• Some are major producers of key raw materials :– DR Congo 41% of world production of cobalt– SA 79% of PGMs

• Heavy reliance on exports of RM and minerals: – Botswana – 93.5% exports to EU in diamond and nickel; – Guinea: 75.7% exports to EU in aluminium and diamond; – Zambia – 61.5% exports to EU in copper

BUT on average, not the major export…

HOWEVER importance is likely to accrue...

• Mining - at the forefront of merchandise trade for the decades to come

• Will put many ACP countries (in particular in Africa) at the centre of attention

• EU still main trading partner BUT new emerging powers are increasing share of trade with Africa

• Currently ACP represent 3% of trade to EU – share of mineral resources likely to increase significantly, in partic as EU diversifies away from China

Should ACP worry?

RMI – INITIALLY designed to target major EU suppliers based on economic and strategic considerations

• BUT – increasing demand from new emerging economies led to race to Africa

• NOW – political consideration – need to secure access to Africa for all resources

• THEREFORE - yes Africa should worry, but not only about EU but about all those who have a “strategy” to access its RM

• HOWEVER: RMI represents challenges as well as opportunities for ACP mineral rich countries

Challenges…

• RMI – 3 pillars: First pillar is about EU external actions, including:

• Trade: EU will use all trade instruments to ensure undistorted access to RM through– bilateral negotiations – EPA– multilateral diplomacy and negotiations (EITI, WTO)

• Improving coherence between EU devt policy and need for undistorted access to RM

Regarding the EPAs…

• Elimination of Export Taxes – way for the EU to ensure removal of a barrier to trade - makes RM expensive

• Elimination of QRs – ensure no quantitative limitation in supply of RM

• Major challenges - may limit policy space in the future for industrialisation purposes

• Word of caution: for ET not a magic bullet – needs to be accompanied by reforms to trigger industrialisation and transparent contracts that do not “jump” the measure

CARIFORUM

• Commitments taken in goods and investment

• Implications? Unless clearly specified in their schedules of commitments, any measure regarding investment will have to be extended to the EU (new measures such as numerical limitations on no of investors, licences, quota)

At the WTO

• EU (+US and Mexico) has lodged a case against China regarding the use of export taxes

• Has made proposals to strengthen disciplines on export taxes

• Will push hard to tighten disciples; will lodge cases to create precedence

Opportunities…

• RMI does not only represent a threat to ACP countries.

• ACP should use the precepts of the RMI to seek support from EU in areas such as capacity building, institutional building, setting up regulatory framework

• RMI itself says it needs to improve coherence between development policies and access to RM

• For instance, Pillar I is also about strengthening states and good governance. Key element: RM are ownership of the state and exploitation rights are delivered by the state

• In many cases: obscure and non transparent mining deals signed by governments + contracts are kept secret

• Also important to ensure that governance is not just a matter for the state but also for the foreign company involved in mining!!

• Pillar II is about knowledge base and geological survey in Europe. ACP countries could engage discussions with EU to conduct such surveys to enable them to have a better information about the soil content (do not tie it with investment!!)

What perspectives for ACP?

• The increasing interest for mineral resources could become a formidable opportunity for ACP countries to lift many out of poverty

• Should not miss the opportunity

• ACP is in a position of strength – they are not demandeur, but suppliers of minerals.

However– Weak negotiating capacity

– weak institutions and regulatory framework

– weak governance – both at state level and firm level

Result?– Hold up of raw materials

– Poor deals

– Little benefit for the economy and the people

Possible policy responses• Ensure it has full knowledge of soil content – partner with

interested countries to conduct geological surveys

• Strengthen negotiating skills to get better deals – auction bids for exploration as far as possible to create competition among interested parties.

• Ensure benefits from raw materials trickles down to the economy to avoid resource curse:

- increase revenue from resources thro’ taxation: case of Norway

- FDI - conditional upon use of local content, transfer of technology and know how

- Improve governance at firm and state level

- Link infrastructure devt to invt (but not a barter as is currently the case!!)

- Improve management of resources (incl through licencing)

Regarding EPAs

• ET is one of the many revenue instruments that can be used. Important to keep policy space for development, but should be coupled with accompanied reforms and policies to trigger industrialisation

• Investment – Not necessary to engage in rules-based investment agreement at this stage. First need to consolidate regulatory framework and institutions.

• Those that have taken commitments: work with EU to define well structured accompanying measures as part of the development component of EPAs to ensure that investment in mining is not at the detriment of local industries

Thank you

for your attention

For more information, please refer to:

www.acp-eu-trade.orgwww.ecdpm.org

Isabelle Ramdoo, ir@ecdpm.org

San BILAL, sb@ecdpm.org

Tel. +32-2-237 43 89

Fax +31-43-237 43 19

ECDPM

O.L. Vrouweplein, 21

NL – 6211 HE Maastricht

The Netherlands

Rue Archimède, 5

B- 1000 Brussels

Belgium