Go back to the Europarl portal

Choisissez la langue de votre document :

 Index 
 Previous 
 Next 
 Full text 
Verbatim report of proceedings
Thursday, 4 October 2001 - Strasbourg OJ edition

11. Association of overseas countries and territories with the EC
MPphoto
 
 

  President. The next item is the report (A5-0276/2001) by Mr Fruteau, on behalf of the Committee on Development and Cooperation, on the proposal for a Council decision on the association of the overseas countries and territories with the European Community (‘Overseas’) ( [COM(2000) 732 – C5-0070/2001 – 2001/2033(COS)].

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Fruteau (PSE), rapporteur. – (FR) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, when I was elected to the European Parliament, it was with a clear mandate, not only to represent Réunion, the island where I come from, or even the outermost regions, but also to try to make the voice of all of the French overseas territories heard.

This is why I am glad that Parliament charged me with being its spokesperson on the statute of association between the overseas countries and territories, the OCTs, and the European Union. I would also like to commend the spirit of openness that prevailed when this report was being drawn up.

Allow me first to venture a historical and political look at the relations that some Member States have had with their former colonies, relations that have been marked, in my opinion, by the bond of exclusivity and by supervision, which are pillars of the colonial pact.

We should now break with the past and with the feeling of guilt that goes with it, in order to define a true responsible and equal partnership between the overseas countries and territories, the attached Member States and the European Union. This is the path that we should resolutely take, in order for this new decision of association to be the real qualitative leap expected by all of the overseas countries and territories.

This challenge is, however, made difficult by the lack of homogeneity among the OCTs and by the structural handicaps that are physically curbing their development: about twenty countries linked with four Member States – The United Kingdom, the Netherlands, Denmark and France –, mostly small and island countries, with the notable exception of Greenland, very remote from the European continent, characterised by an extreme economic and social diversity (the richest are within the Community average, while the poorest are really under-developed), and also by diversity of status in terms of the relations that the overseas countries and territories have forged during their history with their mainland, relations characterised by considerable independence for some and major State supervision for others.

It has to be said that the Commission’s proposal, as it has been put forward, only partly responds to this challenge and to the legitimate aspirations of these territories found in all four corners of the globe. There are still acute questions in terms of the institutional, economic, financial and commercial problems.

First of all from an institutional point of view, I would like to welcome the establishment of a forum to facilitate partnership between the OCTs, the Member States and the Commission, although it is regrettable that decision making is not more in the hands of the leaders of the overseas countries and territories.

Next, from an economic and financial point of view, the Commission has indeed retained a differentiated strategy, taking into account the extreme diversity among the overseas countries and territories, but I deplore the fact that the amount of aid is essentially fixed based on GNP per inhabitant. I think it would have been more appropriate to add demographic and social criteria to this, which are a fairer reflection of the vulnerability of these territories. I will take this opportunity to call again for the creation of a specific development fund for the overseas countries and territories, separate from the European development fund, which I am convinced would be more in keeping with the spirit and the letter of the association.

Finally, from a commercial point of view, I must stress here that the share of overseas countries and territories in trade with the Community is very low, which makes it difficult to understand the Commission’s defensive position. It is true that it is essential that in certain cases, such as that of sugar, it should be extremely vigilant in order to prevent the original rules, which are necessary for the development of all of the overseas countries and territories, from being abused, with the effect of destabilising some European markets, particularly in outermost regions. However, not only out of a concern for coherence, at a time when the Union is completely opening up its markets to the least advanced countries, but also in view of the common history of the OCTs and the European Union, we do not understand why it is refusing them what it is granting to the least advanced countries. Community solidarity cannot be two-speed.

It is thus high time that we showed effectively that the overseas countries and territories are not the poor relations of our development policy. In other words, it is high time that we proved tangibly to these people that they are right in believing in the European Union.

This is why, to finish, I wish to reiterate the desire that I state several times in my report, that the tenth anniversary of the statute of association should be an opportunity for reaffirming the strong political will towards these territories, that have for too long been left to be blown by the wind, across all the oceans of the world, in order to firmly and resolutely undertake the path of partnership and responsibility, in other words the path of development for all.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Ojeda Sanz (PPE-DE).(ES) Mr President, I would firstly like to state that I am speaking on behalf of my Mr Fernández Martín, who is not able to attend.

I would like to make clear that among the wide range of regional associations or groups of countries with which the European Union maintains relations, the group of overseas countries and territories, the PTOMs to use the French term, is certainly the most heterogeneous of all. In actual fact, they are grouped together more for what they are not than for what they are. Hence the special merit offered, in my opinion, by the proposed Council Decision and the report which Mr Fruteau has produced in relation to it.

Generally speaking, I agree with the rapporteur’s proposals, although I would certainly express some of them somewhat differently. However, I would like to announce that my group will vote in favour of them.

The rapporteur proposes a series of measures which attempt to strengthen the association system which has linked the PTOMs to the Union since 1991, by stating that on this tenth anniversary of the said agreement, the Union should be more ambitious with regard to the most distant territories of the continent. I must point out that the PTOMs as a whole, and each one of them in particular, do not form part of the territory of the Union. Their inhabitants have European citizenship (French, British, Dutch or Danish, as the case may be) but the territories in which they live do not form part of the European Union itself – in the case of Greenland, for example, its citizens voted in a referendum to leave what we then called the European Communities; in the case of New Caledonia, in accordance with a plan drawn up with the French authorities, they have also begun a procedure which will lead them, in a few years’ time, to join the group of ACP countries. And I could cite in this way further examples of specific cases, almost as many as there are PTOM countries and territories.

This heterogeneity is evident in many other respects and the most noteworthy of these is their sparse and irregularly distributed population. As the rapporteur rightly stresses, the population of the twenty overseas territories hardly exceeds one million inhabitants and three of them, the Dutch Antilles, French Polynesia and New Caledonia, have more than 150 000 inhabitants each, so these three territories alone account for almost half of the total population.

Therefore, when almost three years ago we discussed the report produced at the time by our colleague Blaise Aldo, we wanted to place special emphasis on the development of the PTOMs’ trade relations with the ACP countries close to them and in some cases, such as that of the Caribbean, with equally close outermost regions. However, INTERREG did not meet the expectations raised as a basis for developing these trading relations. Perhaps this could be attempted again now with INTERREG III, and I agree with the rapporteur that the development of the PTOMs should be promoted through a specific fund to simplify the procedures for linking it to the EDF or to Cotonou – although I know that the Commission has its own opinion in this respect.

In conclusion, I request an oral amendment which I hope can be accepted. In the first paragraph of the explanatory statement the rapporteur expressly mentions the seven outermost regions of the European Union, stating that they opted for full integration into the respective Member States, former colonial powers. That is not correct. The Azores, Madeira and the Canary Islands did not have any colonial status at any time in their history, which is why they should be expressly excluded from this statement by the rapporteur, and I hope that the House and the rapporteur himself can accept this request.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Sudre (PPE-DE).(FR) Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would first like to express my great satisfaction at being able to speak for the first time in this House on the issue of the Overseas Countries and Territories. These twenty territories benefit from a particular association arrangement with the European Union, which, when described in simple terms, is less favourable than the status reserved for the outermost regions, which are integral parts of the Union, but more advantageous than the agreements made with third countries in Africa, the Caribbean and the Pacific.

As a French overseas member of this Parliament my attention is naturally drawn to the fate of the French territories and administrative authorities concerned, which are, and I am pleased to list them here, New Caledonia, French Polynesia, the French Southern and Antarctic Territories, Wallis and Futuna, Mayotte and Saint-Pierre and Miquelon. In his excellent report, Mr Fruteau welcomes the progress in relations between the European Union and the OCTs from an institutional, economic and financial point of view, even though there remain many questions on the Commission’s proposals having to respond to the objectives included in declaration 36 with regard to the OCTs annexed to the Treaty of Amsterdam.

With regard to trade relations, the rapporteur emphasises the low level of trade with the Union. In 1998, imports from OCTs amounted to 0.21 % of Community imports, with exports to OCTs amounting to 0.43 % of Community exports as a whole. A liberalisation of trade with OCTs could fulfil the objectives we have set ourselves. We should be particularly careful, however, that this liberalisation does not result in some kind of diversion from our current objectives. For several years, imports have been increasing from a particular OCT (which happens to be Aruba but this is not the time to hold it up as an example), which runs counter to the spirit of this association agreement with the European Union. These products exported to the Union do not come from the OCT, but are imported there from ACP countries for minor processing such as the whitening of rice, sifting, packaging or mixing. These simple operations only require very low levels of investment, and are therefore in no way a development factor as the Court of Justice in Luxembourg highlighted in its ruling on the "Emesa sugar" case in 1998, as the only interest is providing easy added value for international operators.

The increase in this type of inefficiency is all the more intolerable given that it goes against the interests of the other OCTs, the outermost regions and the ACP countries. In this context, without questioning the objectives proposed by the rapporteur, which I willingly support, it is essential that we establish strict original rules to prevent these breaches , which are detrimental to the economies of all overseas territories. In this respect, the measures for prohibiting cumulation of origin for certain products, increasing the list of inadequate processes or the systematic implementation of safeguard clauses in no way provide a suitable response to this problem.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Nielson, Commission. – I wish to begin by saying that I totally support Mrs Sudre's remarks. The Commission is always asked to ensure that there is coherence in what we do and we have a strong case of lack of coherence when we look at the trade practices that are at the heart of this debate. We have had good reason to do what we have done and I definitely hope that some constructive conclusion that ends this traffic will be part of the final solution for the whole matter.

Let me also congratulate the Committee on Development and Cooperation and the rapporteur for a clear and generally balanced analysis of this whole matter, although I need to make some remarks.

The Commission proposal is based on the widest consultation of the parties concerned ever made in this field. Thus, it is not surprising that some of the indications we have received as part of this wide consultation process point in different, even conflicting, directions. Inevitably, some delicate compromises have had to be struck, for example in the trade sector. However, we have kept to the objective of giving an adequate and ambitious response to the expectations of the OCTs and to the challenges facing them.

The motion before you today gives a positive assessment of several innovations we have proposed, such as the reinforced partnership procedure, the simplified financial regulations and the new role of civil society. In my view, other points also deserve to be mentioned, for example the extension of many budget lines, Community programmes and provisions on trade in services to the OCTs. There is a tendency to neglect the importance, the scope and the opportunities for the OCTs to be able to access as users Community programmes in general. This is new and should be highlighted.

I have remarks to make concerning two chapters of the proposal – financial aid and trade.

As to the European Development Fund, it is correct that, in respect of the past, financial aid will no longer be given to three OCTs – Aruba, the Cayman Islands and the British Virgin Islands – because their GNP is now near or even higher than in the Community. It is important that all Members of Parliament are made aware of this. We have to get out of the habit of having OCT issues being discussed only in the few Member States that have a direct part in the discussion. In the past, it has looked a little too much like a self-service shop. We are talking about Community matters and they should be discussed at that level.

For all the other OCTs, in the future funds will be granted following more objective, transparent and coherent criteria.

Income, GNP, has to be one of them, along with population, as we want to ensure that the taxpayers' money is spent where it is most needed, and this means in the fight against poverty. This is the cornerstone of the EU development policy, and I want to stick to this – also in respect of the clear support for this development policy in this House. Transitional provisions have been proposed. Substantial funds are reserved for social and environmental projects in medium income OCTs.

Secondly, money has to go where it is best used. This is why we have proposed to keep a reserve not only to cover emergency aid and the kinds of activities that cannot be programmed in advance, but also to grant additional transfers to those territories which use their initial amounts more efficiently. A real part of the story is that quite an impressive amount of money has not been well utilised. So this performance criterion is a necessary component and the reason we want to keep a reserve to solve this problem.

The Commission is looking into absorption problems but I have the impression that more efforts should be made by the OCTs themselves to use funds efficiently. I regret – but I have to tell you – that certain Member States do not seem to share these priorities. Again this is a matter for the Community. We have to get out of the self-service syndrome. The reduction in Regional Funds is justified by the limited use made of them in the past. Should this situation change, I would be very pleased to reconsider this point.

The Commission also wants to send a strong message to those OCTs defined as tax havens in the OECD analysis. Unless and until they redress their practices, their allocations will and should be cut back. Again let me remind Parliament of the strong emphasis placed on the need for coherence. Parliament's views on this matter have been made very clear to us. We happen to agree with them but we cannot say one thing in one document and then not apply it in an area like this.

I share the view that different ways of financing OCT aid than the EDF could be considered. However, in practice this would only be possible when new budget guidelines are agreed in a few years' time. For the same reason, given the existing budgetary rules, the EDF is currently the only real possibility for financing partnership meetings and evaluation studies. But let me repeat that opening access to active involvement in Community programmes is an interesting additional way for the OCTs to benefit from our relationship.

Let me turn to trade. For too many years now this has been a bone of contention between some OCTs and the Community. Unfortunately, excessive expectations in this field have been generated despite our advice. When the Community has been forced to take corrective measures those expectations have inevitably been disappointed. But part of the problem and the cases that have dominated this discussion were also the product of deliberate engineering of ways in which to use or misuse the existing system. We should not fool ourselves on this issue.

So let me be very clear here. The Commission has always supported a liberal trade attitude toward our preferential partners, in particular developing countries. The recent initiative on “Everything But Arms” is just one latest example. The OCTs will continue to enjoy the most favourable trade arrangement granted by the Community. This is the current position and so it will remain. However, a line has to be drawn between supporting economic activities and tolerating purely speculative operations which have no development effects and, in addition, cost huge sums to the Community, be it the Community budget, consumers or productive sectors.

In other cases, real abuses have been identified and stopped by our anti-fraud departments. It is only reasonable that when preparing new legislation we seek to eliminate the risk of this happening again. Once more, such misuse has not served in any way the best interests of OCT citizens and governments.

Let me stress that the OCT association certainly includes the principle of preferential access to our market, but not an unconditional one. This is not only the view of the Commission, as the Council and the Court of Justice have consistently endorsed it. Coherence with the other Treaty policies and with the rule of the law must also be maintained. It is in the urgent interest of the OCTs that a favourable business climate is re-established as soon as possible. This has to be our main objective when formulating our proposals on trade.

Finally, let me express the hope that very soon we can reach the end of this long phase of transition and uncertainty concerning the future regime. The Commission will, to this end, be available as a catalyst where needed to achieve a rapid conclusion in the Council to end the long saga of this renewal of the OCT regime. I definitely hope that Parliament is giving a helping hand by this work of the rapporteur.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  President. Thank you very much, Commissioner Nielson.

The debate is closed.

The vote will take place today, at 6.30 p.m.

(The sitting was suspended at 6.05 p.m. and resumed at 6.30 p.m.)

 
  
  

IN THE CHAIR: MR ONESTA
Vice-president

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Swoboda (PSE).(DE) Mr President, we have heard on the news that a Russian commercial airliner has crashed into the Black Sea. It is not clear whether it was an explosion or whether the aeroplane was accidentally shot down by the Ukrainian army. I think that before the start of this vote – regardless of what caused this tragic accident – we should briefly remember those who have lost their lives in this tragedy.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  President. If you would be so kind, ladies and gentlemen, we will now observe a minute’s silence for the victims.

(Parliament observed a minute’s silence while remaining standing)

 
Legal notice - Privacy policy