It is puzzling that the EPA bilateral safeguard for African countries are much more restrictive than the SSG the EU has thus far enjoyed through the WTO.

To highlight only some differences:
1) The SSG allows for countries to invoke a safeguard if there are volume increase, but also price declines. The latter is not included in the EPA bilateral safeguard. Yet, safeguards to counter price declines are important. The EU’s own agricultural subsidies have contributed in the past to world price declines and African countries deserve an effective and easily accessible mechanism to deal with this.

2) Neither the WTO’s Agreement on Safeguards nor the SSG prohibited countries from invoking safeguard duties above the Uruguay Round bound rate. Why this is a condition in the EPA bilateral safeguard is puzzling.

3) The EPA bilateral safeguard is not ‘automatic’ in the way the WTO’s SSG has been. For the SSG, there is no requirement on the part of the EU to provide information about the situation that might be causing injury. Yet this is required of African countries in the EPAs and they are more or less subject to a decision by the joint Committee or Council. Clearly, this provides African countries with much less flexibility.