Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-01-16-Speech-3-248"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20020116.17.3-248"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, even though I adopted a rather critical tone in the report’s explanatory statement, we must nonetheless adopt a constructive approach and, despite the fact that time is getting on, I would recommend that the European Parliament issue an opinion in accordance with the ratification of the ACP-EU agreement.
The signing of the Cotonou Agreement was not initially accepted. Although the ACP countries had always shown they were willing to continue their cooperation with the European Union, Europe was becoming involved in other matters. European interests on the international stage changed and Africa became a marginal continent. There are no ACP countries among the 10 leading beneficiaries of European aid. A genuine political assessment of Lomé was never carried out but the same foundations have been used for Cotonou. However, we have doubts regarding the ability of the Cotonou Agreement to provide a dynamic for sustainable development if we do not have a more balanced international economic order, in which the developing countries will finally have rights. The structural causes which have undermined the success of the Lomé Conventions are still present: the burden of debt which is strangling the budgets of the ACP countries and their potential to invest in sustainable development, the continued deterioration of trade terms to the detriment of the ACP countries, in the absence of an international system for trade regulation of primary products, a structural adjustments policy which imposes budgetary restrictions on ACP countries and, lastly, an inconsistent European policy which, like its development policy, not only subsidises agricultural production and exports its surplus to developing countries, thus destabilising the local markets, but also authorises industrial fishing vessels to fish the territorial waters of the ACP countries, which adversely affects the local people’s means of subsistence and compromises the protection of biodiversity. Furthermore, do not underestimate the internal working problems of the ACP group, the democratic shortcomings in certain countries and the misuse of funds by corrupt regimes.
The Cotonou Agreement is not groundbreaking. It perpetuates and accentuates the transition towards liberalisation initiated by Lomé IV and continued by the international institutions: that is, the liberalisation of trade, coupled with the withdrawal of the non-reciprocal trade system, as well as Stabex and Sysmin, in favour of the future trade regime which is likely to take the form of Regional Economic Partnership Agreements (REPS) that are compatible with WTO rules. But can the ACP countries contend with global competition? By differentiating them from the least developed countries (LDCs), which benefit from the ‘Everything but Arms’ initiative, is there not a danger that this will undermine the cohesion of the ACP group? There is economic liberalisation as well, within the framework of the general agreement on the commercialisation of services. Privatisation of this economic sector is a very dangerous process in the ACP countries where the basic public services such as education, health and justice are already fragile, even non-existent. Equally, the reference to the TRIPS agreements is a danger for the people of the South who are at risk of being denied access to their own natural resources. Biodiversity is under threat. Furthermore, in the Cotonou Agreement, the environment is relegated to the background and the sole aim is to limit the environmental impact of development policies, which runs counter to a sustainable development strategy.
However, the Cotonou Agreement contains some interesting aspects that we must put to good use. Acknowledging civil society as an actor in the partnership is a major step forward. Its representatives must take part in the dialogue on development strategies and policies at an early stage, be involved in the implementation of programmes and directly benefit from the funds. We must define civil society and ensure that it is not exploited by any party. The civil society in each ACP country must therefore be organised at national as well as at regional level, in order to actively participate in its country’s development. This process has been launched with the ACP Civil Society Forum. The European Union must support this process, as it did under the Belgian Presidency.
The role of the Joint Parliamentary Assembly is thus strengthened in that it must monitor the participation of civil society as well as, and in particular, the implementation of democratic processes. But it has no binding instrument to do this. Political dialogue is another essential element. It must also be reciprocal and effectively implemented. The ‘Everything but Arms’ initiative was undertaken without consulting the ACP countries and penalties are still random. Lastly, since the European Commission wishes to make considerable investments in several key sectors, the National Indicative Programmes should give priority to strengthening public services and administrative and institutional capacities. In reality, everything depends on how the Cotonou Agreement is applied. For example, the new Cotonou Agreement provides for flexible aid planning, in other words, according to how each country performs. But who will define the performance criteria? Will we assess the ability of each country to re-gain some balance in macro-economic affairs or the impact of aid on eradicating poverty? It does not seem likely that the new distribution of competences between the Commission services will provide greater consistency in the development policy. To what extent will the Directorate-General for Trade be able to encourage a more favourable trade model in the ACP countries, whilst also protecting European trade interests? Lastly, the fact that the Directorate-General for Development is gradually being stripped of its prerogatives in this area does not bode well.
As far as we, the Members of the European Parliament, are concerned – and this will be my final point, Mr President – after tomorrow’s vote, our task is finished in theory. Since the European Development Fund has no budget, we are no longer responsible for monitoring and achieving the objectives of the ACP-EU cooperation. This is unacceptable and we must work together to implement this agreement so that aid can make a real contribution to the well-being of the people of the ACP countries, as regards their food, health and educational requirements."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"FR"1
"Rod (Verts/ALE ),"1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples