Strasburg, 23/05/2007 (Agence Europe) - The European Parliament takes the view that the Economic Partnership Agreements (EPAs) negotiated between the EU and six ACP (African/Caribbean/Pacific) geographical groups, are not only an essential tool for setting up a trade regime that is compatible with WTO rules between the EU and its ACP partners - but that it is also an opportunity. Everything should be done, however, to ensure that the EPAs are the development instrument that they are supposed to be. On this basis, the Commission must show proof of greater flexibility when it comes to the conditions for signing the agreements, which are supposed to take effect on 1 January 2008. It must also refrain from exerting undue pressure on ACP countries to compel them to sign, by the end of the year, an EPA that does not meet the requirements of sustainable development and reduction of poverty. And in the assumption that the delay incurred in talks with most ACP regions cannot be made up, it would be appropriate for efforts to be deployed at the WTO to ensure the continuity of export flows from ACP countries to the EU until a satisfactory agreement has been found. Finally, to all ACP non-LDC countries not able to sign an EPA, the Commission should offer an alternative trade regime, that is as advantageous as that which they currently enjoy under the Cotonou Agreement, as well as being in line with WTO rules, like a “GSP Plus”.
With its large majority approval of the report by British Conservative Robert Sturdy (EUROPE 9393), the Parliament's plenary session chose, on 23 May in Strasbourg, to address this message to the ACP and EU negotiators, who are to meet in Brussels on 25 May for a joint ministerial council.
The GUE/NGL group voted against the report, considering the negotiating approach between unequal partners too liberal, and even refusing the idea of EPAs until there is an agreement on the Doha Development Round at the WTO.
The resolution adopted recalls that, after the negotiations, none of the ACP countries should be less advantaged after 2007 than they are at present under the unilateral trade preferences system currently in force. The Parliament calls on negotiators to step up their efforts to conclude talks by end 2007, and invites the Commission “not to exert undue pressure”. The Commission is also invited to do everything it can to reactivate talks on the Doha programme at the WTO and to ensure that liberalisation agreements foster development in poor countries.
In their resolution, MEPs ask for “duty-free, quota-free market access for the ACP as well as simplified, liberalised and more flexible rules of origin in EPAs that is the case under EBA (the Everything but Arms initiative)”. Differences in the level of industrial development in the EU and ACP countries, on one hand, and between ACP countries themselves, on the other, must also be taken into account. The Parliament also calls for a follow-up mechanism at regional and national level to be established in order to assess the impact that EPAs have in ACP countries, and invites the Commission and the Council to specify to what extent the financing of the EPA development dimension should continue over and beyond the 10th EDF. Welcoming the promise made by the EU to increase aid to trade in favour of developing countries (Ed.: €2 billion by 2010) and to attribute a large part to ACP countries, the Parliament urges the Commission and member states to specify their commitments.
During the debate, Margrietus Van den Berg (PES, NL) put forward the Socialist group's request that “sufficient time be given to negotiate correctly and to provide acceptable, well-made offers”. The spokesman for the ALDE group said it is necessary to envisage a rise in aid for trade for the preparation and implementation of EPAs, but not to make this conditional on progress made in EPAs: “It must be a carrot, not a stick”. Leopold Josef Rutowicz (UEN, Poland) considers for his part that EU aid should encourage ACP productions that do not compete with European production. The EPAs must articulate with EU commercial strategy, he said.
Aware that “talks are at a decisive phase and cannot fail”, Frithjof Schmidt (Greens, Germany) warned against the “risk that ACP weaknesses will be exploited”. He went on to call for “greater flexibility after 1 January 2008, in the light of lessons learned from Doha”.
Speaking on behalf of the GUE/NGL, Vittorio Emanuele Agnoletto said that the negotiations endanger the food sovereignty of ACP countries and prevents them from increasing their own production channels, with the risk of de-industrialisation. He takes the view that the impact of market opening on foreign investment will not bring economic advantages except for the large multinationals. Also, the introduction of the Singapore questions into the negotiations, establishing rules that are even stricter than those of the WTO in a WTO+ agreement, will push the ACP populations even more towards poverty. Hence the request by the GUE/NGL group that “current negotiations be stopped” so that they may be started up again on a “new base”.
Glenys Kinnock the British labour politician and co-president of the Joint Parliamentary Assembly said that she was confident that the Commission take good note of their concerns. She added that there were suspicions and significant anxiety in ACP countries. The presidents of Ghana, Senegal and Tanzania whom she met all share the same concern, “when will new funding promised for aid to trade be available?”, she stressed, before describing the, “enormous difficulties regarding Singapore questions, especially in SADC countries”.
At the opening of the debate, in response to much criticism of the Commission for imposing free trade on some of the poorest countries, Peter Mandelson, European Commissioner for trade again provided assurances that there was not aggressive agenda towards the ACP. The commissioner warned that they had no intention of forcing the ACP countries against their will. He said that reciprocal opening up for products and services, under WTO rules did not mean symmetrical opening up. Mandelson examined that any flexibility in WTO rules would be used to reassure the ACP countries of very long transition period s that could last 25 years in some cases. The Commissioner said that their offer would help them protect their markets and that additional safeguards would be implemented to act fast if a problem arose. Mandelson reiterated that EPA were a trade and development instrument that would galvanise investment flows and create jobs while guaranteeing solid budgetary foundations. He said that their were no other satisfactory alternatives to the EPA. He warned that providing a better SPG did not have any sense and that an SPG + would not be acceptable because it would expose ACP countries to direct competition from all countries. He said that he hoped that ACP countries would not continue with this idea and that they would go forward. He affirmed that they had real prospects and that if they failed the consequences would be dramatic for the EU and ACP. (an)