Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-03-22-Speech-3-201"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20060322.16.3-201"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Mrs Morgantini, ladies and gentlemen, on behalf of the Commission, I should like to congratulate the Committee on Development, and in particular its Chairman, Mrs Morgantini, for this report which makes development central to the negotiations on Economic Partnership Agreements, the EPAs. Development, we all agree, is indeed the starting point, the vital issue and the priority for our action. We shall, of course, continue to insist on that throughout the negotiations and during the implementation of the EPAs, when the time comes.
In conclusion, the report conveys our common position on a wide range of subjects. In order to set so many countries on the road to development and growth, I am ready to continue working with you on the objectives and challenges that we and our partners face in this complex, ambitious and vital project constituted by the EPAs.
Tomorrow, I have a seminar on East Africa. You know that I am doing the rounds of all the regional organisations and that, on each visit, I hear anxieties expressed by all those involved in development. You have conveyed these anxieties perfectly and, believe me, I am acutely aware of them. I am acutely aware of the very real questions that you are raising and I can tell you openly that investigations and discussions are making good progress, and creative thinking too, in order to develop a range of ways to give better support to the partner countries and to respond more directly to their concerns.
In conclusion, then, I thank you. I completely agree with the essential features of this excellent report and I remain more than ever open to the idea of a debate with you, particularly about the best ways to give support to this process.
Firstly, I am delighted that we share the same opinions on very many points, such as the importance of the dialogue with civil society and the national parliaments of the ACP countries, the objective of regional integration and economic governance, the role of investment and the diversification of exports. I find, in this report, opinions that I myself have often put forward to our partners, who have a vital role to play in this respect.
The prime objective is development, and that also involves a flexible approach that makes it possible to take into account the economic weaknesses of the countries concerned, which we are trying to strengthen. This approach manifests itself, for example, in the way in which trade liberalisation is biased in favour of the ACP countries, in flexibility in relation to the opening of their markets, in the extent to which we cover their products and in the necessary safeguard mechanisms. These are all principles that were clearly stated in our negotiating positions from the first day and that the Commissioner, Mr Mandelson, has himself confirmed on several occasions.
Nonetheless, I have also observed that, on certain sensitive issues, the report raises doubts that I feel are not justified. For example, the report questions how coherent our position concerning the EPAs is with the commitments made in the Cotonou Agreement or in the recent declaration on the European Union’s development policy. Perhaps there is a communication problem, which I shall try to resolve this very day. There should be no misunderstandings between us, because Parliament’s support is obviously more necessary to the Commission than ever in the delicate phase of negotiations that we are in and that should come to an end in a little more than a year.
First of all, I think that we need to put the compatibility of EPAs with the rules of the WTO back into the right perspective. Of course, this compatibility is imperative if we wish to ensure the stability of the EPAs, as of all our trade agreements, and the Commission must attend to this. We are also willing to improve on the WTO rules, if possible. Some proposals have been made along these lines, but I think we should have no illusions and that we must be aware of the objective limitations and difficulties of this approach. Above all, however, one must not forget that the real reason for the EPAs’ existence is not the WTO but the urgent need, amply demonstrated and confirmed in the Cotonou Agreement, to make better use of trade as a driving force for economic growth in the ACP countries, as it has been for so many other countries, including developing countries.
In my opinion the success of the Economic Partnership Agreements will depend on three key factors, all of equal importance. Firstly, negotiations genuinely targeting the development of our partners, which is, as I have said, our only strategic objective. Secondly, the commitment of our ACP partners to establishing a statutory framework that favours investment. Thirdly, the support that the European Union, but also its Member States and other sponsors, will be able to offer to the countries concerned in order to prepare for, and bring about, the implementation of the EPAs. I understand the attention that our partners and Parliament are giving to this last point. From my very first day at the Commission, I promised to ensure that the necessary answers would be found.
We have succeeded – in obtaining the commitment of Member States to progressively doubling their aid for development, and I thank Parliament for its support without which this would not have been possible. May I remind you that that will represent an increase of more than EUR 20 billion per year from 2010? We have succeeded in reaching an agreement on strengthening the cooperation between the Commission and the Member States within the framework of the European consensus adopted in December and confirming the priority to be given to the effectiveness of aid. We decided to focus first on Africa and we developed a coherent strategy for Africa. A trust fund for infrastructures, including those that facilitate trade, is already in place. In the context of the programme for the tenth European Development Fund (EDF), we are deciding with our partners on the best means of supporting regional economic integration, for which our partners have themselves drawn up agendas.
The Economic Partnership Agreements are part of this action and represent an important part of it. From this point of view, the timescale is essential. For example, loss of tax revenues resulting from the dismantling of customs tariffs will arise once the EPAs have come into force. This will be offset partly by the expected economic growth and partly by the rationalisation of taxation systems, which has already been initiated in several countries, often with our support. Furthermore, in order to make the transition easier, macroeconomic support measures are already envisaged for certain regions. I can tell you that I am actively working on devising measures to support the Economic Partnership Agreements, particularly in terms of the consequences there could be, initially, in terms of the resources necessary for the operation of the sovereign State.
I know that there are some who would be in favour of a debate on the possible alternatives to the EPAs. Personally, I do not think that an academic debate of this kind would be useful. Firstly, an in-depth debate already took place when it was agreed, at Cotonou, that EPAs would offer the greatest benefits in terms of development, of market access compatible with the WTO and of support for good governance and regional integration. Secondly, all the ACP countries are continuing to negotiate EPAs. Finally, countries benefit from the effects of having access to markets forming part of the system of generalised preferences and of the ‘everything but arms’ initiative. We know, in the meantime, after virtually half a century of unilateral preference under the Lomé Convention and the Cotonou Agreement, that this preferential access to our market is not in itself enough to meet the needs of our partners."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples