Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-03-22-Speech-3-203"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20060322.16.3-203"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
".
Mr President, I should to like to thank the Commissioner. I wish to begin by referring to his remark that talking about alternatives to economic partnership agreements is ‘academic’ – that was the word he used. It is very clearly stated in the Cotonou Agreement that alternatives are part of what the ACP countries have an option on deciding to follow. Therefore, Commissioner, it is not an academic issue, but something that is very definitely an option for the ACP.
The economic partnership agreements are very complex and complicated for the ACP and are the most complex and complicated negotiations they have ever engaged in. I suspect that they also present the Commission with certain difficulties, if not only because of the tensions which naturally exist between DG Development’s concerns and priorities and DG Trade’s concerns and priorities, which are very different. We know from our own experience in this Parliament that there is not always that necessary coherence between our objectives.
My impression is that there are concerns that are common to all the regional negotiations and I am following them very closely. There are examples of the Commission wanting a framework that facilitates trade as a first priority. The ACP regions are far more interested in addressing supply side constraints and the link between EPAs and development support. Market access remains absolutely central as an issue.
The proposed opening of the economies of the ACP countries – most of which are least-developed countries – is a major concern. The benefits of regional integration, market access and integrated trade and development, as my colleague Mrs Martens said, are absolutely clear. However, what we understand in the Committee on Development is that any potential benefits could be outweighed by the potential costs which they might be expected to pay. Therefore, the agreements they might have to make on market access – market opening – may not be exactly what they need and perhaps they could get more from other kinds of arrangements.
To be competitive and to market their goods, there needs to be substantial investment in their ability to do so. ACP countries need training and their workforce needs to be improved; they need improved infrastructure, transport and institutional capacity-building. All these are major priorities for the ACP.
It must be said that it is not for the Commission to tell the ACP what a good EPA is. It is up to the ACP – in consultation with their parliaments, the Joint Parliamentary Assembly and civil society – to make that kind of decision. Any criteria we make on economic partnership agreements must be based on their relationship with the Millennium Development Goals.
I should like to ask the Commissioner one question. The central Africa negotiations are portrayed as a model of these regional negotiations. My sources tell me that DG Development at its highest level – that probably means you, Commissioner – is very worried about the capacity of the secretariat of the Central African Economic and Monetary Community in their negotiations. Is it the case that you, Commissioner, have publicly called for the executive secretary and chief EPA negotiator in CAEMC to be dismissed? If that is the case, then how does this sit with DG Trade’s description of this as being the absolute role model?
Finally, I should like to draw attention to the Cape Town Declaration of the Joint Parliamentary Assembly in 2002. Benchmarks were put in place there to assess the conduct and outcome of the negotiations on the basis of key social and environmental indicators, including decent work, health, education and gender. The potential for this was confirmed last year by the ACP Council. Will the Commissioner act upon these proposals?"@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples