Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2007-05-22-Speech-2-086"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20070522.8.2-086"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
".
Mr President, it is a pleasure for me to respond to this debate on behalf of the Commission because of the importance of this subject: nothing less than future development, alleviation of poverty and opportunities to use the advantages of the international trade system are at stake for the ACP, some of the most poverty-struck countries in the world to whom we owe an absolute obligation.
The Economic Partnership Agreements are about using trade as a lever for development. We have no intention of forcing ACP countries to make commitments against their will. We are operating with one constraint, however: EPAs need to be WTO-compliant, thus including trade-opening on both sides for trade in goods and trade in services. This of course, and I say this emphatically, does
mean symmetrical trade-opening between the EU and the ACP. Obviously, in market-opening towards its partners, the EU will go much beyond what ACP partners will do for the EU.
In addition, in many areas, we are ready to give serious consideration to transition periods and in some cases very long transition periods – up to 25 years – together with substantial financial aid to help these countries implement their commitments so that EPAs genuinely act as a catalyst for policy reforms in ACP countries.
Concerning market access, recently the General Affairs Council of our Member States reaffirmed the principle of duty-free, quota-free, access to the ACP but with transition periods for a few sensitive products, notably rice and sugar. The same principle applies on bananas but we agreed on additional evaluation, notably to take into account the EU’s outermost regions, and that will happen.
Specifically, in response to what Mr van den Berg said, we are jointly building with ACP regions asymmetric market access schedules which allow continued protection for ACP-sensitive sectors. Our duty-free, quota-free offer gives great scope to protect the ACP and to open their markets in a deeply asymmetric manner. In addition, flexible safeguards will be in place so that we can take action quickly if problems arise. However, a conditional market access schedule would once again put our trading arrangements in a vulnerable position in the WTO, creating further uncertainty for ACP traders and investors. Introducing such a conditional approach would therefore not be wise from the point of view of the interests of the ACP countries themselves.
Some Members have talked about alternatives to EPAs. I can say without any hesitation or qualification whatsoever: there are no better development-friendly or superior development instruments available to us that would exceed the ambition and the potential that Economic Partnership Agreements offer. To offer GSP as some have suggested, when instead we could negotiate good Economic Partnership Agreements, would indeed be nonsense. ACP countries that are not LDCs would end up with worse market access to the European Union than almost any other developing countries in the world.
Yes, some then go on to propose GSP+ as an alternative, by relaxing entry criteria to GSP+ and expanding its coverage. This again is completely unacceptable. GSP+ continues the divisions in trade regime between LDCs and non-LDCs that EPAs are seeking to remove and does not promote the use of market access in the way that EPAs do. The GSP is open to all countries and many would simply take advantage of relaxed GSP+ criteria, exposing the ACP to direct competition while fundamentally undermining the purpose of GSP+, which is using trade preferences to promote signature of accords on human rights and good working practices. So I hope that people will not pursue or entertain the idea of GSP or GSP+ being an acceptable and/or superior alternative to EPAs.
The best development option by far is to sign EPAs on time. Any alternative falls short of this. We cannot simply flout WTO rules on the goods trade section of EPAs. If it becomes clear that for any region we are really not going to make it, LDCs get Everything but Arms; for non-LDCs that export bananas in particular, the waiver route is probably not politically viable at all. For others, things depend on progress in negotiations.
I would like to conclude by saying that, in contrast to some of those who have spoken here in Parliament this morning, I find the approach of the ACP countries shows considerable realism and understanding of what it is in the ACP’s interests to do. The ACP countries have voluntarily agreed the route map that we are following in negotiating these agreements. It is certainly not in the interests of the ACP for those who present themselves as friends of the ACP to peddle a doomsday scenario, to generate fears and insecurity which can only hold the ACP back from engaging in the negotiations which it is so much in their interest to conclude by the end of the year."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples