Stenograma dezbaterilor

Miercuri, 28 noiembrie 2007 - Bruxelles

17. Acorduri de parteneriat economic (dezbatere)

  Przewodniczący. Kolejnym punktem porządku dziennego jest oświadczenie Komisji w sprawie porozumień o partnerstwie gospodarczym.

  Ján Figeľ, Member of the Commission. Mr President, I welcome this opportunity to explain where we are in the economic partnership agreement (EPA) negotiations. I am glad to note that the strategy proposed by the Commission in its communication of 23 October was endorsed by the Council last week. As Commissioner Mandelson said to Parliament’s Committee on International Trade last week, we have turned a corner in these negotiations.

These negotiations are moving very quickly. Let me give you a sense of where we stand at this moment. In East Africa, a stepping-stone agreement has been initialled with the East African Community: Kenya, Uganda, Rwanda, Burundi and Tanzania. We are very close to an interim deal with the Indian Ocean countries in the context of the Eastern and Southern Africa grouping.

In the Southern African Development Community, we have initialled a stepping-stone agreement with Botswana, Lesotho, Swaziland and Mozambique. Angola will join as soon as it is able. South Africa and Namibia will decide on their participation in the next day.

Regarding the Pacific region, we are working in parallel on an umbrella agreement for the region as a whole and specific agreements on market access to safeguard the immediate interests of those countries which account for the region’s trade with the European Union. I expect agreement on those to be announced very shortly.

In the remaining regions, the picture is less clear. For West Africa and Central Africa, meetings are taking place with so-called ‘subgroups’. It is possible that we will be able to conclude interim agreements on goods with the countries most affected, which could then be enlarged to full EPAs with the whole region in 2008. That will, of course, depend on the wish of those concerned to take this route and to present WTO-compatible market access agreements.

In the Caribbean region, we have an agreement on nearly everything but, crucially, not on trade in goods, where the region’s proposal falls well short of what can be defended in the WTO. Negotiations are continuing, but we now need a clear political decision from the region to unlock the negotiations by producing a WTO-compatible market access schedule.

In all regions, we are taking a pragmatic and flexible approach to achieving what remains our objective for these agreements: full EPAs with four regions. This will modernise our trade relationship and put it at the service of development, so full agreement with four regions is our objective.

We have made significant progress in recent days, but we cannot today guarantee that there will be an agreement including new WTO-compatible trade arrangements with all ACP countries.

WTO compatibility is the essential component of all agreements, whether they are full EPAs, stepping-stone agreements, or even goods-only deals. Without this, we can only offer the generalised system of preferences.

Next week, the General Affairs and External Relations Council will decide on the EC regulation to implement the market access which has been offered to the ACP. It is the best ever offer in a bilateral agreement: full duty/quota-free access, with transition periods for only two products – sugar and rice.

We will continue to do everything possible to reach agreements. Our offer is on the table and the moment any ACP state provides a WTO-compatible offer to complete a deal, we can move quickly to propose to the Council that it should benefit from the EPA market access regulation.

We have indicated our willingness to work with subregions, if that is what the ACP states wish. We have agreed to continue negotiating beyond 1 January 2008 on other issues, like services, investment and other trade-related areas, which are such an important part of the development component of these agreements. We have delivered on our commitment to provide trade arrangements equivalent to or better than Cotonou to any country reaching an agreement with us. We have offered to open our markets fully and match the goods trade offer with generous services offers.

What we cannot do is extend the Cotonou trade regime while we continue negotiations. In the absence of an EPA, we have made clear that we cannot and will not propose solutions which are illegal or insecure.

Our ACP partners will need support to implement the agreements and make the necessary adjustments and reforms. This is why the Commission is working to ensure that the European Development Fund will make ‘aid for trade’ in the context of EPAs a priority. It is why we are working closely with Member States so that they bring additional money in the context of the newly-adopted EU aid-for-trade strategy.

We know that concluding these negotiations means taking difficult political decisions, but we welcome the leadership shown by those ACP regions and countries which have decided to join us in initialling EPA agreements. We will continue to support them as they implement the commitments they have made and as we work together to ensure that this is a trade relationship that genuinely contributes to their development.

  Robert Sturdy, on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. – Mr President, after seven years of negotiations, to say that we are not where we should be is perhaps an understatement. I am not sure that is correct to say that we have turned the corner.

Over the last few weeks some ACP members have grown increasingly uneasy at the prospects of the limited – as the Commissioner himself described it – GSP tariff regime that awaits them on 1 January should they not sign up to an EPA agreement. The European Commission claims to have been successful in its pursuit of an interim agreement with both individual states and subregional groups. As the Commissioner said, it signed with the East African group yesterday, while the SADC signed last week – but without South Africa and without Namibia! What sort of economic agreement is it that misses countries out? It is reported that the Commission is pushing West Africa into an agreement without Nigeria, which is one of the biggest countries in Africa and has huge trade negotiations on the table with the European Union. What is the long-term effect of these so-called framework agreements being signed? What about regional integration? As far as I can see these are breaking up the very regions described in my report that are what EPAs are all about.

Parliament’s resolution, prepared by a political group, sets out clearly the need to look forward to these now fast-moving negotiations. We may not like these arrangements, but the deadline is almost upon us and at the moment there are no alternatives. The Kigali Declaration was extremely heavy and critical. Our resolution today in Parliament is forward-looking, and I hope that we can look forward.

As their name suggests, EPAs are a stepping stone to full and comprehensive trade relations between the EU and the ACP. I am disappointed that the PSE Group has decided not to vote on them.

I leave the Commissioner with one final thought. In the United Kingdom there is a saying which goes there are three great lies in the world: ‘the cheque is in the post’; ‘it was not my fault’; and ‘I am from the European Union and I am here to help’.

  Harlem Désir, au nom du groupe PSE. – Monsieur le Président, Monsieur le Commissaire, force est de constater que la façon dont les négociations ont été menées par la Commission n'a pas permis de déboucher sur la signature de véritables accords de partenariat économique avant la date prévue. Je suis sur ce point d'accord avec M. Sturdy: les accords intérimaires mettent en cause les regroupements régionaux qui avaient été constitués et qui étaient la base de la discussion pour signer ces accords de partenariat économique.

Ces négociations, au lieu de renforcer le lien et la confiance entre l'Europe et les ACP, ont, au contraire, suscité une très grande inquiétude. Inquiétude quant aux pertes de ressources publiques: le président du Sénégal a récemment fait remarquer dans la presse que c'était 35 à 70 % des budgets africains qui étaient constitués par les tarifs douaniers – 800 millions d'euros, par exemple, de pertes prévues pour le Nigeria.

Inquiétude quant aux conséquences de la libéralisation pour les secteurs fragiles des économies ACP qui seront soumis à la concurrence d'entreprises européennes. Inquiétude quant aux demandes d'inclure un certain nombre de sujets dans la deuxième phase qui ne correspondent pas aux obligations de l'OMC. Je pense aux services, aux investissements, aux marchés publics, aux règles de concurrence. Inquiétude quant à la menace d'établir, dès 2008, pour les ACP non PMA qui ne signeraient pas d'accord intérimaire, des tarifs douaniers plus élevés, comme une sorte de chantage pour obliger à accepter n'importe quel genre d'accord.

Je crois qu'il faut donner un nouvel élan à la relation entre les ACP et l'Union européenne, reprendre cette négociation sur des bases qui correspondent aux principes essentiels de l'accord de Cotonou. Les APE sont des instruments de développement. La libéralisation n'est pas une fin en soi. L'objectif des APE est le renforcement des économies ACP pour favoriser leur intégration dans l'économie mondiale.

Aucun pays ACP ne doit se trouver, à l'issue d'un APE, dans une situation plus défavorable qu'avant la signature d'un APE. Ceux qui ne signent pas doivent bénéficier d'un système de préférence au moins aussi favorable qu'avant la signature supposée d'un APE. Ces accords doivent donc être fondés sur l'intérêt des ACP, leur diversification économique.

Il faut clarifier les règles d'origine pour savoir dans quelle mesure ils vont bénéficier des nouvelles mesures d'accès au marché que nous allons leur proposer, prévoir de véritables mécanismes de compensation financière. Il faut entendre le message de la déclaration de Kigali des parlementaires ACP et des parlementaires européens. La date du 31 décembre n'est pas un couperet aussi fatal que ce que vous avez présenté.

  Gianluca Susta, a nome del gruppo ALDE. – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, noi dell'ALDE abbiamo condiviso la richiesta del capogruppo socialista di rinvio del voto per tentare un accordo più ampio sul testo della risoluzione.

Condividiamo anche noi la preoccupazione e gli auspici che l'incontro di Kigali ha sintetizzato nel documento conclusivo. Gli EPA sono un importante strumento di sviluppo, di integrazione regionale, di riduzione della povertà. Questi obiettivi devono essere il fine dell'azione dell'Unione europea nel mondo globalizzato. Il libero scambio, le regole del WTO e gli stessi EPA sono strumenti, non il fine, a cui deve tendere il commercio mondiale.

Tuttavia, dobbiamo anche ribadire che il vuoto giuridico che deriva dalla scadenza degli accordi di Cotonou è un rischio grave per gli stessi paesi ACP, e questo ben al di là della legittimità o meno di quegli accordi rispetto alle regole e alle decisioni dell'OMC stessa.

Auspichiamo anche noi che i negoziati in corso in tutte le sei regioni si possano concludere in fretta, e che la ripresa e la felice conclusione del più complesso negoziato a Doha per la riforma del commercio mondiale possano offrire un quadro definitivo in cui le ragioni dello sviluppo dei paesi più poveri trovino una soddisfazione più compiuta anche per i rapporti tra UE e ACP.

Noi sappiamo però che i negoziati ACP procedono a rilento e che la riforma del commercio mondiale, che avrebbe anche il pregio di rilanciare il multilateralismo nel commercio mondiale, langue.

È allora necessario pragmaticamente perseguire soluzioni praticabili. In questo quadro riteniamo che la strategia promossa dalla Commissione di procedere in due tempi, e cioè prima con degli accordi ad interim che riguardino solo il commercio dei beni e dopo uno più generale, serva ad evitare l'interruzione del flusso dei beni a tariffe vantaggiose, come previsto a Cotonou, con grave danno per i paesi ACP.

  Frithjof Schmidt, im Namen der Verts/ALE-Fraktion. – Herr Präsident! Herr Kommissar, es hat mich überrascht, dass Sie hier so getan haben, als sei bei den Verhandlungen eigentlich gar nichts schief gelaufen, als sei das für die Kommission wunderbar gelaufen.

Wir haben hier im Parlament in den letzten Monaten mehrfach darauf hingewiesen, dass die Kommission die Verhandlungen mit den AKP-Staaten überfrachtet hat. Wir haben darauf hingewiesen, dass ein Abkommen über Güter ausreicht, um die WTO-Anforderungen zu erfüllen, und dass ein Abkommen zu den Singapur-Themen nicht zwingend erforderlich ist. Die Kommission hat auf diese Kritik nicht hören wollen, sie hat unsere Kritik weggewischt. Der Kurswechsel zu Interimsabkommen nur über Güter, den Sie jetzt plötzlich, aber viel zu spät, vorgenommen haben, ist ein Eingeständnis des Scheiterns an eigener Uneinsichtigkeit. Es hätte Ihnen gut angestanden, hier einmal selbstkritisch einzuräumen, dass Sie eine falsche Verhandlungsstrategie verfolgt haben.

Der zweite große Fehler war die Art und Weise der Verhandlungen. Es wurde offenkundig verhandelt wie über ein x-beliebiges Freihandelsabkommen, und nicht wie über ein entwicklungspolitisches Rahmenabkommen. Die einmütige Klage der AKP-Länder, dass sie unter Druck gesetzt wurden, zeugt von einem miserablen Verhandlungsklima. Das haben wir in Kigali sehr deutlich gehört. Auch da muss man der Kommission sagen: Bei Verhandlungen macht auch der Ton die Musik.

Jetzt darf nicht der nächste große Fehler gemacht werden. Wir brauchen eine Lösung für jene Nicht-LDC, die sich nicht in der Lage sehen, jetzt zu unterschreiben. Hier darf kein Einbruch der Handelsbeziehungen erfolgen. Wir brauchen ein Angebot für eine Übergangslösung für 2008!

  Helmuth Markov, im Namen der GUE/NGL-Fraktion. – Herr Präsident, Herr Kommissar! Die Verhandlungsstrategie der Kommission war eine Katastrophe und vollkommen falsch. Sie war in der „Global Europe“-Strategie niedergelegt, wo festgeschrieben war, dass es ausschließlich um den Marktzugang für die großen, weltweit agierenden europäischen Unternehmen geht.

Ich habe mich immer gefragt, was denn so eine Herangehensweise mit Partnerschaftsabkommen zu tun hat. Partnerschaft bedeutet etwas anderes, Partnerschaft bedeutet Respekt vor dem Land, welches eine wirtschaftliche und sozialpolitische Entwicklung vornehmen muss. Partnerschaftsabkommen fordern Respekt davor, dass die Auszahlung von Entwicklungshilfe eben nicht an den Abschluss von WPA geknüpft werden darf. Wirtschaftspartnerschaftsabkommen müssen die Entwicklung der schwächsten und schwachen Länder berücksichtigen. Kein Land darf, wenn es denn bis zum Abschluss nicht unterschreibt, schlechter dastehen als es jetzt dasteht. Das ist faire Partnerschaft, das ist solidarischer Umgang miteinander. Davon war die Kommission so etwas von meilenweit entfernt! Ich finde es gut, dass sie auf den Druck vieler jetzt anfängt, eine andere Strategie zu verfolgen. Wobei ich allerdings skeptisch bin, wenn ich mir ansehe, wie sie mit MERCOSUR, den ASEAN-Staaten und mit den Andenstaaten umgeht. Das ist immer noch die alte Denkweise.

Wir Europäer, wir sagen euch, wo es langgeht und entweder take it or leave it. Das hat, ich wiederhole es, nichts mit Partnerschaft zu tun. Ich war ziemlich sauer und entsetzt über das, was heute hier passiert ist, dass wir nicht die Beschlussfassung von Kigali, der alle Abgeordneten, die in Kigali waren, zugestimmt hatten, als Basis nehmen konnten. Das Parlament hätte dieser Delegation durch Zustimmung die Unterstützung geben müssen.

(Der Präsident entzieht dem Redner das Wort)

  Maria Martens (PPE-DE). – Voorzitter, de EPA's zijn in Afrika en in toenemende mate ook in Europa uitgegroeid tot een zeer controversieel thema. Het raakt fundamentele verschillen van inzicht over de mogelijkheid om via duurzame economische groei in ACS-landen armoede te bestrijden. Duidelijk is dat louter financiële hulp niet echt heeft bijgedragen aan de armoedebestrijding. Wij geloven dat deze handelsovereenkomsten een venster kunnen bieden waar wij voorbijgaan aan jaren lang van weinig effectieve hulp. Het wereldwijde handelsaandeel van de ACS-landen is kleiner geworden. Het is nu minder dan 1% en de millennium-ontwikkelingsdoelstellingen worden in Afrika niet gehaald. Het moet anders. Europa heeft de morele plicht ACS-landen te helpen om economisch te groeien en het handelsaandeel van de landen te vergroten. De EPA's moeten juist daaraan een bijdrage leveren.

Voorzitter, de voordelen van handel en economische integratie zijn duidelijk, zeker in een globaliserende wereld. Competiviteit, een goed investeringsklimaat, markttoegang, verwerkende industrieën zijn essentieel voor economische groei in de ACS-landen. We moeten flexibel en pragmatisch zijn, maar wel binnen het kader van de WTO blijven. De ondertekening van de volledige handelsakkoorden wordt niet meer verwacht voor de deadline van 1 januari 2008. Wel hebben enkele Afrikaanse landen in Oost- en Zuid-Afrika interimakkoorden bereikt. Het zijn goods only akkoorden. Ze mogen echter niet een stap terug betekenen voor de regionale ontwikkeling. We moeten snel starten met de technische ondersteuning voor de versterking van die landen en dan uiteindelijk komen tot volledig akkoorden, inclusief bijvoorbeeld diensten.

  Glenys Kinnock (PSE). – Mr President, my Group recommends, as others have said, that, in the interests of credibility and authenticity, Parliament establish a position which reflects what was unanimously agreed at our Joint Parliamentary Assembly and was reflected by the Kigali Declaration. I believe that it is both a moderate and balanced document, which represents lengthy and successful negotiations between all our political groups – including, of course, Mr Sturdy’s political group, as he made reference to it – and with the ACP.

I have never encountered the kind of pressure that the ACP has faced during these negotiations, especially as they are threatened with being severely disadvantaged by Europe’s GSP tariff regime. It is that threat that has caused the emergence of new regional groupings, and we will possibly see bilateral agreements, for example with Côte d’Ivoire. These subgroupings which the Commissioner has talked about are not something that we should see as a great achievement, but rather as something that threatens regional integration and is causing massive regional tensions amongst the ACP.

Mauritius, Seychelles, Madagascar and Comoros have agreed a subregional EPA; West and Central Africa have put forward no market access offers and so face GSP. South Africa and Namibia, in the SADC, seem to have reached a red line they cannot cross and are being asked to include most-favoured-nation clauses which would oblige them to give the EU any market access they may concede in the future to other countries. The Pacific, of course, is also not experiencing the best of negotiations and it is unlikely that any countries other than Fiji and Papua New Guinea will sign or initial.

Intransigence and a lack of flexibility have clearly alienated the ACP, especially when they realise that the Commission is pushing for agreements from the ACP that it has not sought from others, and colleagues from the Committee on International Trade will confirm this. Both technically and politically, the ‘goods-only’ agreement has proved impossible, even for the Caribbean. The capacity of the Caribbean is greater than of any other region. Only last week, they said that what was on offer was simply not tenable for them.

Surely, the Commission must now step back, take the pressure off and reassess how it can ensure that we do not do the unthinkable and throw the non-LDCs to the wolves. The willingness of both sides to continue negotiation in good faith should be communicated to the WTO in order to avoid the trade disruption which failure to sign an EPA by the deadline would cause.

The EU must make the required internal legislative changes to permit the continuation of the current trading arrangements. Subsequently, the EU and the ACP could work together to ensure that there is no opposition or challenge in the WTO.

We, as Members of the European Parliament, simply cannot return to our constituencies, wherever they are in Europe, and say that vulnerable ACP states are going to be treated in this way when they are already agreeing amongst themselves that they are being asked to agree economic partnerships that they see as being harmful to their economic interests.

  Margie Sudre (PPE-DE). – Monsieur le Président, Monsieur le Commissaire, je voudrais relayer, auprès de vous, la très vive inquiétude qui a été exprimée depuis plusieurs mois par les collectivités d'outre-mer à propos de ces accords de partenariat économique.

Les APE ne doivent pas se résumer à de simples accords de libre-échange au sein de l'OMC, ni conduire à mettre en difficulté les économies déjà fragiles de nos collectivités ultramarines, mais bien plutôt représenter un véritable partenariat permettant d'aménager un nouveau cadre économique et commercial qui serait favorable au développement de l'ensemble des territoires concernés. En raison de leur position géographique à proximité de nombreux pays ACP, les collectivités d'outre-mer sont au cœur de ces accords préférentiels et réciproques avec les pays ACP.

Je suis bien consciente que l'outre-mer européen, à travers les régions ultrapériphériques et les PTOM, ne concerne que six États membres de l'Union et que les enjeux de ces territoires sont naturellement méconnus. Néanmoins, la situation particulière des régions ultrapériphériques, qui est reconnue, doit impérativement être prise en compte de façon plus claire dans le cadre de cette négociation sur la base de l'article 299, paragraphe 2, du traité. En outre, les PTOM qui avoisinent les pays ACP doivent également faire l'objet d'une attention spéciale dans le respect des accords d'association qui les lient déjà à l'Union européenne au titre de ce même article.

Je vous remercie de soutenir l'amendement que je proposerai, qui sera destiné à trouver un équilibre intelligent entre l'intégration régionale de ces territoires ultramarins et les liens qui les unissent à l'Europe. Même si les discussions sont difficiles, notamment pour ce qui concerne la protection des marchés locaux et la liste des produits sensibles, je garde bon espoir que la Commission trouvera un compromis respectueux à la fois des intérêts spécifiques des RUP et des PTOM concernés et des pays ACP.

  Erika Mann (PSE). – Herr Präsident, Herr Kommissar, verehrte Kollegen! Ich glaube, dass es wichtig sein wird, die kommenden Wochen zu nutzen, um das Abkommen doch noch so auf den Weg zu bringen, dass alle Seiten damit zufrieden sein können. Es ist ein Abkommen von einem ungeheuren Ausmaß und mit einer enorm hohen symbolischen Ausstrahlkraft. Es geht hier nicht nur darum, ein Freihandelsabkommen für die Regionen und die Staaten Afrikas zu verhandeln und sie näher an den europäischen Raum zu binden, sondern es geht auch darum, dieses Abkommen so hinzubekommen, dass es eine Entwicklungsrunde bedeutet, dass es die Armut bekämpft und dass es auch tatsächlich zeigt, dass die Europäische Union in der Lage ist, ein Abkommen so zu verhandeln, dass die afrikanischen Staaten sich wohl fühlen und sich an die Europäische Union angebunden fühlen.

Dazu gibt es mehrere Punkte, die wichtig sind. Sie haben selber davon gesprochen und Sie haben einige erwähnt. Es muss so sein, dass die Regionalabkommen tatsächlich den Ländern helfen. Es muss so sein, dass die Nicht-LCD auch tatsächlich ein Abkommen bekommen und nicht ausgelassen werden. Und es muss sein, dass alle Staaten sich in die richtige Richtung entwickeln können. Das Abkommen in Form eines two-step-approach, das Sie vorgeschlagen haben, muss auch garantieren, dass niemand ausgelassen wird und dass es im Endeffekt tatsächlich ein Weg in die richtige Richtung ist, was heute noch nicht garantiert ist.

Lieber Kollege Markov, die Möglichkeit, die wir dadurch haben, dass wir die Entschließung morgen nicht verabschieden, sollten wir nutzen, um in diesem Haus zusammenzufinden. Wir haben genug Gemeinsamkeiten, damit das auch gelingt.

  Ján Figeľ, Member of the Commission. Mr President, I should like to thank all who contributed to this interesting debate. I am sure that we see it as an ongoing process. I am not part of it directly or personally but, for an agreement, you need goodwill on both sides and for many partners to agree.

As I said in my introductory statement, we are working in a pragmatic and flexible way. Those who are ready or willing to follow the same approach follow not to the detriment of the others, but for the gradual achievement which is important for all regions and for international trade as a whole.

There were some questions or criticisms about the tone of the negotiations. I want to assure you that it is in a spirit of partnership. We take into account, in this spirit of partnership, the development objectives and the constraints on our partners.

Some questions were about goods-only deals. The stepping-stone agreements lead towards comprehensive EPAs and these are supportive of ACP development and regional integration. So we are not losing sight of the overall picture and overall needs of our partner countries and regions.

I do not want to repeat many of the points I made at the beginning, but the process continues. Sometimes a deadline brings pressure to find a solution during the last few days or weeks, and we are making real progress. I quoted many names and countries where we have recently initialled stepping-stone agreements, and we will continue doing so, but our interest is really in finding solutions.

Processes will continue, because there is more than one stage in this situation. As I said, after 1 January, we will continue working on issues like services, investment and other trade-related areas.

I believe that the General Affairs and External Relations Council next week will support the proposal for a regulation of the Community to implement the market access which has been offered to the ACP. As I said, it is the best ever offer in a bilateral agreement. We are being not only open but also very constructive. The strategy the Commission proposed, and I tried to describe, was fully confirmed by the Council – all 27 countries – and, in this spirit of partnership and this constructive manner, we will continue.

The objective is really a fully-fledged economic partnership agreement. This will be a catalyst for regional integration. Once the first-step agreements are concluded, we will continue towards this objective. Nobody is left out or forgotten in this process. We not only have in mind, but support very actively, the least developed countries.

I think that is all I can say for now, either in response to questions or by way of confirmation, but I am sure that this House will come back to this point in the coming weeks and months, because this is also about the timing of our agreements.

  Przewodniczący. Otrzymałem 4 projektów rezolucji1 złożonych zgodnie z art. 103(2) Regulaminu. Zamykam debatę.

Głosowanie odbędzie się w środę, 12 grudnia 2007 r.

Oświadczenia pisemne (art. 142)

  Gay Mitchell (PPE-DE), in writing. – We have reached a critical period for the economic partnership agreements (EPAs). A WTO-compliant agreement is crucial for the non-least developed ACP countries.

It is unfortunate that a relationship of trust between the two sides has not always been evident. No country should feel pressurised into entering an agreement. The Commission should have done more to make the negotiations more inclusive.

The EU is the most important trading partner for most ACP countries.

The EU imported goods worth a total of EUR 28 billion from the ACP countries in 2004. This amounts to double the amount of development assistance that was made available through the ninth EDF to the ACP region, from 2000 to 2007.

Trade, and not aid, is the key for sustainable economic growth and development. While no one can deny that many ACP countries face considerable challenges, if the EPAs are framed correctly they should be seen as an opportunity for the ACP.

The European Union should be fully supportive of the development agenda that shall accompany any EPA agreement.

Interim deals should be put in place to ensure that there will be no disruption to trade and that the livelihood of millions will not be put at risk.