Toespaak EU-commissaris Ashton voor handelsbeleid over economische partnerschapsovereenkomsten (en)
Catherine Ashton
EU Trade Commissioner
Economic Partnership Agreements - remarks to European Parliament
Strasbourg, 23 March 2009
It is a pleasure to be addressing the plenary of the Parliament today on an issue of fundamental importance to the EU's relationship with the ACP. Before I go any further I'd like to make one thing very clear:
I have absolutely no interest whatsoever in negotiating agreements with ACP countries that make any country poorer.
You might think that that is an obvious statement. But my experience to date tells me that it is one that the Commission cannot assume has been widely understood. So today I'd like to make it crystal clear. And when you come to vote later on, I hope that you'll do so on the basis of the discussion we have had here today and the arguments that have been set out here rather than on the basis of any preconceptions you may have.
Today's plenary session is an important step forward on EPAs – you will be asked for your assent on the full EPA with the Caribbean and the interim EPA with Côte d'Ivoire. You have tabled no less than eight sets of draft resolutions and Oral Questions reflecting the strength of Parliamentary involvement and opinion on EPAs. I would like to pay tribute to the huge effort that the International Trade Committee and the Development Committee have put in to the debates on this issue. I have listened carefully to the views expressed. My aim is to set out the case for EPAs and to dispel the myths around them so that every member of this institution is able to cast an informed vote when the time comes.
I believe that these are good agreements that support economic development and integration in the ACP and provide stability in these economically turbulent times. They are partnership agreements founded on the shared goal of development that make trade the servant of this objective not the reverse. Most of all, they are agreements that provide the opportunity for ACP states to lift their citizens out of poverty through the dignity of their own labour and the genius of their own ideas.
There is a perception that in EPAs the EU is breaking with the past and unilaterally trying to redefine the EU- ACP partnership. It is true that EPAs are different from the Lomé and Cotonou Conventions that embodied the Union's relations with the ACP for thirty years. But the unilateral preferences that characterised those Conventions became open to challenge in the WTO by other developing countries. The dilemma that we faced was how to safeguard the development requirements of the ACP while respecting international rules.
The answer was twofold: Everything But Arms for the Least Developed Countries and Economic Partnership Agreements for the developing countries in the ACP. The common theme stretching all the way back to the first Lomé Convention was trade. Trade has always been the defining factor of EU-ACP relations. And what was once confined to unilateral trade preferences for commodities and raw materials in the early days of Lomé has now been replaced by more diversified trade in manufactured goods, services and ideas in the 21st Century. EPAs offer the ACP the best ever access to EU markets and continue our commitment to provide opportunities for economic development.
Regional integration within and between ACP markets has also been a key objective of the EPA process and a subject that has attracted a lot of attention in oral questions. Our global economy means that size has become more important – a lesson that we have learned in the EU. By simplifying trade rules and replacing the complex maze of bilateral agreements with a small number of region-to-region trade relationships, the ACP can create bigger regional markets that are more attractive to the investment which developing markets need in order to create jobs and growth. I believe we have made some real progress on this front.
EPAs are, of course, a two stage process – interim Agreements to ensure we do not face a WTO challenge, and to create some breathing space for the second stage: negotiation of full EPAs. The run-up to the December 2007 WTO deadline for interim EPAs has perhaps given rise to an impression of steamrollering of ACP concerns. But I'd like to reassure the Parliament that these interim agreements are only a temporary solution to safeguard and improve ACP access to EU markets.
I inherited the EPAs file at an advanced stage of negotiations. Since then I have met a large number of ACP Ministers and representatives and other stakeholders in the EPA process. I have heard them and listened to them. One thing is clear: all put ACP development at the centre of the EPAs. EPAs are where trade meets development. This means development must be the foundation of our trading relationship, based on frank and open dialogue. And I firmly believe that EPAs will only succeed if they are anchored in an enduring partnership based on trust and mutual respect.
But the key test of this partnership is whether we and our ACP partners have a shared vision of the future. In Southern Africa I see a region that took conflict about EPAs and turned it into dialogue and where we have now settled major issues of concern like export taxes, infant industry protection and food security. In the Caribbean I see a region that set down clearly its own ambitions for an innovation based economy. In West Africa I see an emerging regional market access position many thought impossible and in East Africa I see an emerging Customs Union that didn't exist when negotiations started and is now building an EPA around their own integration plans. That looks to me like the beginnings of a successful partnership.
Going forward, my vision for the negotiation of full EPAs is one where each negotiation reflects and respects the regional specificity of the parties to that Agreement – a flexible process. That means both looking at content – because the EPA has to work for its signatories but also the pace of negotiations. But it also means that EPAs should be dynamic not static – able to react to future events and to account for different regional interests and needs. In this process, the Commission will continue to inform and involve the European Parliament.
And while we should be ambitious there must also be no imposed dialogue, which is why issues like government procurement have already been removed from some negotiations. We will also take the time – and provide support - to build up regional and national regulation as a prerequisite to further negotiation. Aid for trade and technical assistance will be key in that regard.
And I can guarantee that there will be no opening of public services, no pressure for privatisation. The explicit right of the ACP to regulate their own markets will be recognised and there will be no limitation of access to essential medicines or collecting seed – in fact we would rather seek to strengthen than limit ACP rights and capacity in these areas.
All of this is overlaid by our commitment that ACP regions can draw on provisions agreed in other EPAs so that each region can move ahead secure in the knowledge they will not be disadvantaged. This is a key aspect of flexibility and of allowing EPAs to replace an all ACP trade regime with one that matches regional solutions to regional needs without undermining ACP solidarity.
The case for dynamic rather than static EPAs has been highlighted by the current crisis. We began EPA negotiations during a period of unprecedented expansion of investment, goods and services trade and soaring commodity prices. Few predicted that in a few years the global economy would fall into recession, dramatic price falls, exchange rate and market volatility and a credit drought that would strangle the trade finance exporters and importers need.
So we do not need a fixed deal that is redundant by the time the ink dries on the paper. We need an agreement that establishes a relationship where institutions and monitoring can help identify and solve problems as they emerge. This will include safeguards and clauses that allow ACP countries to tackle any import surges, food price pressures and fiscal crises, rendezvous clauses for specific issues, regular review clauses and, as in the Caribbean EPA, a role for parliamentary oversight and monitoring.
To return to where I began, the Parliament has a historic opportunity today to give its assent to the first examples of a new generation of agreements that safeguard the EU's special relationship with the ACP. These agreements are based on a genuine partnership rather than paternalism, and harness trade as the motor of development. They promote and encourage the regional integration that will help ACP countries to prosper in a globalised world. They are flexible in terms of content and respectful of tradition. They are the latest manifestation of the longstanding trade relationship between the EU and the ACP. They are the right agreements at the right time. And I hope that from now on it goes without saying that they are most certainly not designed to make anyone poorer.
In short, they are the future and I hope on that basis that Members will feel able to give their assent.