Gender Justice in Trade Policy: The gender effects of Economic Partnership Agreements (EPAs)
One World Action and the Commonwealth Secretariat recently published the report: Gender Justice in Trade Policy: The gender effects of Economic Partnership Agreements [1]. Based on the goods tariff liberalisation schedules agreed in Jamaica, Tanzania and Mozambique, this research provides the first detailed economy-wide analysis of the likely gender effects of EPAs.
‘Gender inequalities and trade interact. Trade reforms are likely to have gender-differentiated effects because of women’s and men’s different access to, and control over resources and their different roles in the market economy and the household. In turn, gender inequality may limit the gains from trade, for instance through its impact on the process of innovation.’ (Fontana, 2009)
Under EPAs African, Carribean and Pacific countries are expected to offer duty-free access to “substantially all” imports from the European Union. Effects from trade liberalisation under EPAs will be felt differently by women and men in their roles as producers, consumers and users of services. Our findings show that the majority of women, especially poor women are highly unlikely to be able to take advantage of any new economic opportunities resulting from an EPA.
Job losses are likely to be minimal for women as most of the products to be liberalised are not locally produced and the sectors where women are mostly employed, such as dairy and fishery in Tanzania, textiles in Jamaica, and agriculture in Mozambique remain protected. However, women's ability to relocate in more productive sectors or to make use of intermediate imports to increase small scale production (such as irrigation pumps in Mozambique) is compromised by a lack of and/or limited access to information. Systemic discrimination limits women's access to infrastructure and assets (e.g.: land, information, education, credit, etc.). The availability of cheaper consumer goods, such as gas cookers in Tanzania or washing machines in Mozambique will have a regressive effect as the majority of women are unable to afford such goods and/or have limited access to the electricity required to operate them. Revenue loss from tarrifs removal is the most immediate and significant impact. The likely consequent expenditure cuts may hinder governments' ability to pursue sound social development policies, which will affect women disproportionately. Substitution plan's such as indirect taxation (e.g.: VAT on food) is likely to affect women's consumption patterns, theerby threatening household's food security.
A combination of measures is needed to ensure that benefits of trade liberalisation under EPAs do not remain in the hands of the privileged few, nor that power relations and socially-constructed gender roles deter women’s ability to take advantage of arising opportunities, such as new technologies, etc. Such actions should be based on:
- The integration of gender analysis in trade impact assessment (e.g. Diagnostic Trade Integration Studies and in monitoring implementation).
- Commitments to development resources spent on trade-related sectors and improve the effectiveness and the gender focus of Aid For Trade (AFT).
- Broad-based participation in trade consultations and negotiations and monitoring.
The gender-aware framework and analytical approach developed from the research can be used to examine other EPAs as well as other trade agreements in order to ensure that trade liberalisation translates into economic benefits and social inclusion for all members of society, particularly women.
For more detailed information on the research, you can download the EPA Gender and Trade Synthesis Report here. Também disponível em Português.
You can access the country case study here: Tanzania, Mozambique (também disponível em Português) and Jamaica (appendix).
Engaging in EPAs discussions: Advocacy Tool
One World Action has also developped an Advocacy Tool indentifying areas where women's organisations and other civil society organisations should increase their engagement and issues for advocacy.
To view the Advocacy Tool, please click here. For a printer-friendly version of the Advocacy Tool, please click here.
[1] Dr Marzia Fontana developed the analytical framework, coordinated the research and wrote the synthesis report. Country research was carried out by Dr. Maimuna Ibraimo (Mozambique), Dr. Leith Dunn with Anneke Hamilton, Dr. Jessica Byron and Quaine Palmer (Jamaica) and Dr. Holger Seebens (Tanzania).
