Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-05-15-Speech-2-314"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010515.12.2-314"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Commissioner, I wish to begin by expressing my satisfaction at the inclusion of this report in today’s sitting, at the very time that in the buildings of the European Parliament in Brussels, the Third United Nations Conference on the Least Developed Countries is taking place. This is a good opportunity to discuss this measure, which is designed specifically for these countries, but also to reflect, once again, on the problems affecting them and how these can be overcome, even though we have already considered and adopted a general proposal on this issue.
Nevertheless, I must say straightaway that I profoundly deplore the Council’s decision not to involve the European Parliament in defining and considering this measure. I also deplore the fact that no representative of the Council is here with us today. I think that this is unacceptable behaviour and we hope that it does not set a precedent. Incidentally, since this is a measure designed to cover 49 countries, the vast majority of which are ACP countries, it would be desirable, when defining the measure, to sound out the views of these partners of ours. We should do this even if, or perhaps because the countries for which these measures are mainly intended, measures to exempt them from paying customs duties on products from the least-developed countries, are basically those who are not members of the ACP group.
With regard to the measure itself and in general terms, we feel it is a positive step, although its scope is limited. I say limited because, as we all know, exports from these countries represent no more than 0.4% of world trade and 1% of the European Union’s imports. It is also limited because more than 99% of Community trade with these countries already benefits from complete exemption from customs duties. The measure is a positive step, which we would like to be seen as merely the first step in a deeper and more global approach, which we think is crucial, feasible and designed to respond to the countless problems facing the poorest countries in the world. I am not talking only in terms of trade. As a matter of fact, I think that it would be a huge mistake to be so presumptuous as to think that these countries’ problems will all be resolved through measures that are primarily geared towards what is known, sometimes rather simplistically, as “integration into the process of globalisation”. We must take account of the fact that, rather than solving these countries’ problems, this process of liberalisation has ultimately become a genuine problem for them, given that their economies are so weak and that the gap separating them from the industrialised countries is so wide. At the same time, we must not forget that just as important, if not more important than access to the market for these countries is their ability to feed communities that often have no access to the most basic means of subsistence, and this should make our main concern their self-sufficiency, food security and also the survival of their family-based farming structure.
Furthermore, still in the field of trade, there are various other aspects we must consider in addition to facilitating the export of the products laid down in this measure. I am talking about the prices of products normally exported by these countries, which are being gradually but constantly knocked down. This also applies to the non-diversification of production and, consequently, to the concentration of exports around a limited range of products, moreover not specialised products, not to mention, for example, the sensitive issue of rules of origin. Basically, although we should give the final version of the agreement as adopted by the Council the broad approval it deserves, for the reasons I have mentioned, it still raises some particular concerns. The first of these specifically concerns the transitional periods that have at last been adopted for sugar, rice and bananas, although we are fully aware of the problems that the issue raises and I do not, therefore, think that this matter should be a source of further controversy. Secondly, I feel that we need to ensure that there is proper supervision of the agreement’s implementation in order to guarantee that the LDCs and their communities really are its final and definitive beneficiaries. We must also ensure that the agreement is not implemented in a way that puts the ACP countries at a disadvantage. In my opinion, an appropriate and broad allocation of quotas for the types of exports covered could improve the effectiveness and discipline of the agreement’s implementation. I shall finish by saying that, in any event, it appears essential to monitor the real impact of implementing this agreement."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples