Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-09-26-Speech-4-034"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20020926.2.4-034"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, the main objective of any agreement between the ACP countries and the European Union should consist of promoting sustainable forms of development which help to reduce poverty and constitute a basis for the integration of the ACP countries into the world economy. This excerpt from the Cape Town Declaration sums up fairly well the spirit in which the Committee on Development and Cooperation drew up the report that I shall present to you today.
First of all, I would like to thank all my fellow Members who contributed by tabling numerous amendments or by participating actively in the hearings we organised, one with Commissioner Lamy, another with the Secretariat of the ACP group and two representatives of African and European NGOs. I would also like to thank the many interlocutors, key figures, NGOs and trade unionists with whom I have tried to take account of all the problems raised.
The negotiations for economic partnership agreements will therefore take place tomorrow in Brussels. This is an important event that marks the end of one stage, but also the beginning of another, in which each individual must make themselves heard. With the Cotonou Agreement promising a new participative approach, the time has come to innovate. Broad public debate together with open, transparent negotiations would be a good starting point. The purpose of these negotiations coincides directly with the current debate on the correlation between trade and development. The development dimension is increasingly important in our commercial policy, as stated by Commissioner Lamy and duly noted. We are still concerned, however, that development is thus being progressively reduced to a mere dimension, an accessory to the liberalisation of trade, whereas it is specific policies that are needed here. We should certainly ask ourselves what the merits are of opening up markets in itself. It will not, for example, curb the deterioration of trade terms for poor countries, even though this is one of the main obstacles to their development and, more importantly, to their survival.
Does the world really need an extra dose of free trade or a new approach to development? Can the eradication of poverty in the ACP countries be reduced to trade? Should trade not be, first and foremost, a tool for development, for satisfying the people’s needs? Should we not first address the structural causes of poverty? We believe these lie mainly in the shortcomings of production and marketing structures centring on the immediate export of raw materials instead of processing them locally and promoting South-South trade. Non-tariff barriers also constitute major obstacles to accessing the European Union market. As for guaranteed-price schemes, have they not lacked the necessary means to prevent the efforts of developing countries from being ruined by unfavourable circumstances? Lastly, the introduction of conditional criteria for structural adjustments under the aegis of the IMF and the World Bank, and the weight of reimbursing the debt certainly fall into the category of EU-ACP failures. We should nevertheless listen to the ACP countries when they campaign to retain the best aspects of Lomé, which relies heavily on the principle of non-reciprocity.
The proposal for new trade relations could therefore turn out to be counterproductive were it to consist of proposing benefits which are in themselves obstacles that must be overcome. An African expert gave this example by way of illustration: we can export computers, sports cars and equipment for nuclear power stations without paying customs duties; the only trouble is that we do not make any. It is touching to know that sorghum and manioc can be exported to Europe, but sadly European consumers do not want any. Under these circumstances, do we need to establish new free trade agreements, or rather invest in production tools and make the conditions for granting manufacturing licences more flexible? These are the subjects of parallel negotiations taking place within the WTO. The European Union and the ACP countries together form a considerable proportion of WTO members, in other words a majority, a force which can and must influence negotiations until 2005, ensuring that the rights of developing countries are recognised. These countries suffer from weak economic structures which justify special treatment in order to address the causes of inequality in the world. What is needed is special and differential treatment to tackle new challenges and simultaneously encompass long-term technological, financial and trade measures designed to build sustainable capacity in each area in which there is inequality between countries.
Lastly, allow me to raise a few specific questions. What is the probable impact of free trade areas on the social, economic and environmental situation of the ACP countries? Mr Lamy announced a detailed study over four years to accompany the process. Fine. But how can a relevant opinion be formulated on the proposed guidelines without using this essential information as soon as possible? Furthermore, can the Commission tell us which criteria were used for this study and what means will be available to the ACP countries to carry out their own assessment? What coherence is there between all the free trade agreements that the European Union is currently signing with various partners? What is the point, therefore, of the ACP countries signing these agreements?
Let us now consider the organisation of the negotiations. Are the Commission and the Council prepared to accept the ACP group’s proposal to allow a sufficiently long first stage to clarify, as emphasised by Mr Goulongana, Secretary-General of the group, the objective of the EPAs, the principles, the ground rules, etc.? We are convinced of the need to do all we can to preserve the cohesion of the ACP group. This is also true with regard to the integration and unity process currently underway in Africa.
With regard to services, we shall consider any liberalisation proposals, with the exception of education, health, water, energy and transport. That is why I am prepared to accept Amendment No 2 tabled by the PPE-DE, but as a supplement. Public services are essential factors in the social model …
(
)"@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples