Kigali, 21/11/2007 (Agence Europe) - Time to negotiate fair economic partnership agreements (EPAs), based on the development of the ACP (Africa/Caribbean/Pacific) countries, and the guarantee that no ACP country which is unable to sign an EPA before 31 December will find itself in a less advantage situation than the one it is in today. This was the request put forward by the members of the European and ACP Parliaments, meeting for their joint parliamentary assembly (JPA), to the European Commission and the Council of the EU. After much deliberation, the JPA agreed, in Kigali on 21 November, on a compromise text, nonetheless packing a punch, which the members of the GPA group were able to agree on- once several references to the need for all future EPAs to be compatible with WTO rules had been added, and the reference to the pressure brought to bear by the Commission attenuated. “The Declaration of Kigali on the need to negotiate EPAs which favour development” will be formally adopted by acclamation on 22 November and should, in line with the hopes voiced by the co-presidents Glenys Kinnock (PES, UK) and René Radembino-Coniquet (Gabon), be submitted by the Presidents of the European and Pan African Parliaments to the EU/Africa Summit of Lisbon on 8 and 9 December.
The approved text takes note of the fact that the ACP States declare that they have been put under pressure by the European Commission and that this goes against the spirit of the ACP/EU partnership. It urges the Commission to acknowledge that the ACP States need more time to carry out an exhaustive assessment of the implications of the proposed agreements, given that the negotiations only got started seriously in the last two years. But most of all, the EPA stresses that the “Commission must honour the commitments taken under the Cotonou Agreement, to guarantee that the ACP States- including those which are not LDCs- which are not in a position to sign an EPA are given a new trade framework which will be equivalent to their current situation and conforms to article 37, paragraph 6, of the Cotonou Agreement”. The fact that the Council of the EU had, the day before, approved the idea of the revision clause allowing the EPAs to be adjusted in light of their impact, and the need for a broad participative approach including the European Parliament, were welcomed by the parliamentarians, who are delighted that their two demands have been met.
The debate on the state of play with negotiations was a torrent of virulent criticism aimed at the European Commission, in particular at Commissioner Peter Mandelson and his teams in DG Trade, who are accused of having put trade first, and of several times using a tone which was described as “arrogant”. Bernard Petit, deputy director-general of the key Development, rejected the distinguo made between the two DGs, and stressed that the failure of the unilateral preferences and the obligations of the WTO made the status quo impossible. MEPs from the EPP-ED group were the only ones to defend the potential of the opportunities offered by the EPAs as an alternative to unilateral preferences, which have not borne fruit. Nirj Deva (EPP-ED, UK) emphasised the success of countries such as India and China which have focused on the services sector, and managed to attract investment by dint of legislation on banks, trade, goods, services, etc, when the ACP/EU partnership has focused on ACP agriculture and natural resources alone.
Assarid Ag Imbarcaounane of Mali stated that the region of West Africa was negotiating “in good faith”, but has not completed very important tasks concerning accompaniment measures for the loss of customs revenue and upgrading companies. He also spoke out against the poor restitution of information on meetings, like that on the regional accompaniment fund for EPAs, which has just been held in Ouagadougou. Bernard Lehideux (ALDE, France) voiced his confidence in the words of Commissioner Michel, but pointed out that Commissioner Mandelson “has not convinced us” with his trade-based approach. “To be right but on your own may be satisfactory on an intellectual level, but it will do little to move the dossier forward”. Quoting the speech of the Senegalese President Abdoulaye Wade in Paris on 8 November, the MEP called for “partnership agreements for development” as an alternative to the EPAs, which certain people are “trying to force onto us like straitjackets”, as Mr Wade put it. “As they stand, the EPAs are bad. We must reject them”, said Mr Sebetella, an MP from Botswana, who did not beat about the bush when he accused the European Commission of attempting to “divide and conquer” the ACP countries (“we were told that the CARICOM was about the signed! Hurry to Brussels to sign it!”) and even within a single region such as Southern Africa, by pitting the countries of the SADC against those of South Africa. He went on to urge his colleagues “not to shoot the messenger”, because “the ones who are protecting their agriculture are not present”. In the opinion of Errol Humphrey of Barbados, “the negotiations, which have been difficult from the start, are still a problem. We have fought over the question of development, but we have still not concluded it, because there is still no agreement on how to do so. Imposing the GSP on us from 1 January 2008 is quite simply unfair”. Mr Williams of the Seychelles called for respect for the conditions of the ACP to conclude negotiations in good faith for fair agreements. Vittorio Agnoletto (GUE, Italy) said that it was totally contradictory to state that the EPAs must serve development when “the Commission has negotiated on the basis of the economic interests of European companies”. Miguel Angel Martinez Martinez (PES, Spain) proposed that the Declaration of Kigali be the proposal of “all of the political groups for the debate at the European Parliament next week”. Ms Kinnock has already announced that the declaration will be a basis for the discussions of the PES group. (A.N.)