Source document: https://docs-lawep.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/1698073715810.pdf (Guyana)
SEVENTH PARLIAMENT OF GUYANA FIRST SESSION (1998-1999) NATIONAL ASSEMBLY RESOLUTION NO.
29 WHEREAS the Government of Guyana became a State Party to the Georgetown Agreement, which on June 6, l 975 established the Group of African, Caribbean and Pacific States that is reforred to as the ACP Group; and WHEREAS Guyana, as a member state of the ACP Group, has been a signatory to and beneficiary of the various Trade and Aid Cooperation Agreements knov,m as tht LOME Conventions negotiated beh-veen the ACP Group and European Community (EC) since 1975; and \VHEREAS the Fourth LOME Convention (LO:t\.ffi IV), concluded for a period ot ten yf''!.!
'S from 1\15.

;·('i l. 199;} to Fcbruaiy :.,,•;, 2000, provides in A;1ick :H)h urn, "Eighteen months bcf ore the end of the total period of the Convention, tht Contracting parties shall enter into negotiation� in order to examine \\ h�it pi u'.1s1, ,;,· shall subsequently rclatiu1s between the Community and \k!1, '.,: gn\ c·rn WHEREAS th(' ( ,,i, I lum.J,iu11it) considering nc, d it,r tile region the cxprc:oeo to de.vclop c-:-,hcsi,· .. : 1t'F,1,,wd i'"' 111, '" ((''\Rl('()fvi) Hcc11.b ,ii (",,,;.
regarciing t\ie variot:;; lcnui u:got1atmns such as 1h0 po:;!

!
!

('111(' I\ ;.,;.._·.c', �,,, ,1 ,, :, ,; and for the IZegic,;1 l( 1 aiJpr·)ac:h .these negotiations as ,� group, cstal)li"L,·d Ii' l 997 the Caribbean l{e;ional 1'1egotiating Machinery and (R.NM); WHEREAS the Caribbean Community (CARICOM) Heads of Government has delegated responsibility for management of the Regional Negotiatin g Machinery to the Prime-Ministerial Sub-Committee on External Negotiations of which Guyana is a core member with Jamaica (Chairman), Barbados.
Trinidad and Tobago and St. and Lucia (OECS); WHEREAS following the establishment of the Regional Negotiating Machinery (RNM) and at the initiative ofthc Heads of Government, CARJCOM member state'.
; establishe d ''National Advisory Conunitees" to complement the work of the RNM at level, the national that is to facilitate effective (national) coordination and preparation at member-state level of the region's external trade and economic negotiations; the operations of the national committees being integral to lhe RNM and function within the framework of the evolving regional and strategy; \VHEREAS on September L 1997 Guyana's national comP1ittec, the Nationai Advisory Committee on External Negotiations (NACEN), Chairmanship of the Minister of Foreign Affairs and comprises ,vas established rom representatiou f under the the public and private sectors, labour and academia; and \\'HEREAS tl1c NACEN, which is served by a small secretariat in the Ministry ol Foreign Affairs, functions within lhe structured policy framework or that tvt inistry ;:ic; a principal vch;cle in the sta1ed economic diplomacy thrust of the Gm crnn ,-::m , , : Guy,ma, given existing trends r: hemispheric and global trade and L:corhi1n1, p, ,i IL\ and matters:, I WHEREAS the Caribbean Regional Negotiating Machinery, in collaboration with the Caribbean Group of Ambassadors in Brussels, has been spearheading the Caribbean's preparat ions for the ACP-EU Post-Lome IV Negotiations as well as the Caribbean's contributions to the ACP-wide preparations; and WHEREAS the Prime-Ministerial Sub-Committee on External Negotiations, in July 1998, agreed on the allocation of Ministerial responsibilities for the post-Lome IV Negotiations with the
 CARIFORUM grouping as follows: Sector ofNegotiations Lead Country Alternate (a)Political Political Dialogue and Institutional Trinidad and Tobago Jamaica/Guyana Institutional Suriname Belize (b) Trade Structure and Services The Bahamas Barbadps The Trade Regime Jamaica OECS/I'rinidad & Commodities Guyana (c) Development Finance OECS Tobago OECS Haiti (d) Private Sector Issues Dominican Republic Trinidad & Tobago Investment 3 Other Related Issues Capacity Building Barbados OECS Human Resource Development Technology
 Entrepreneurship WHEREAS the Government of Guyana, as a member of the Caribbean Group, CARIFORUM, of the ACP Group, has fully participat ed in and endorsed the ACP's preparations and Negotiating Strategy for the negotiations between the ACP Group and the European Union (EU) for a post LOME-IV Convention; and WHEREAS in 1997 the European Commission issued a "Green Paper on relations between the European Union and the ACP countries on the eve ofthe 21st Century - ChaJlenges and options for a new partnership" which sets out the European Commission's proposals for a new EU Cooperation Policy with the ACP Group of States; and WHEREAS the European Union Council of Ministers, on June 29, 1998, in considering the European Conunission's "Green Paper" issued "Negotiating Directives for the negotiation of a developme nt partnership agreement with the ACP countries" and authorised the Commission to open negotiations with the ACP Group of States on.
the basis of the following key proposals of the European Union: 4 • Principles and Objectives The future partnership will be based on four fundamental principles: Ownership: The ACP Govenunen ts will determine their own strategies and models in accordanc e with essential elements to be laid down in the Con Vt:ntion.
anc, Shared Participation Responsibility: a 'The partnership will include wide (r) range of actors -government, private sector, NGOs labour, etc; Dialogue, contract rather than conditionality and the fulfilment of mutual obligations 1wproach: A differentiated and priorities Cooperation procedures will be tailored to a partner's level of development, its needs and long­ te1m development strategy; and WHEREAS the Heads of State and Govenunent of the ACP Group, at their first Summit in Libreville, Gabon on November 7, 1997 issued the Libreville Declaration setting out broad guidelines for the negotia for the ACP's preparations tion of a post­ LOME IV Agreement and instmcting the ACP Council of Ministers to establis h, by January 1998, 1.
A work progra1r..mc on a negotiating mand:.1te and strategy and 11.

Mechanism for monitoring and and reviewing the negotiations; 5 t WHEREAS pursuant to the Libreville Declaration the ACP Group issued on September 30, 1998 the 'ACP Group Negotiating Mandate' which states inter alia: "These directives, which take account of the of the Spirit and letter Libreville Declaration are intended to provide a basis for the negotiations.
During the negotiations, it will be necessary for the two parties to define the modalities for the negotiation and conclusion of the new Agreement.
the discuss "Accordingly, ions which are to commence in September 1998 should be an initial political encounter for reaching an Agreement on the nature and scope of the negotiations for a successor Agreement to LOME IV and will respect the principle that nothing is agreed until everything is agreed"; and WHEREAS the ACP and the European Union commenced at discussions Ministerial and officials' levels from September 30, 1998, based on an agreed organizational structure for the negotiations, with the first Ministerial Negotiations convened in Dakar, Senegal on February 8-9; and WHEREAS the ACP Group, in September 1998, agreed on an ACP Negotiating structure for the Post-Lome IV Negotiations which assured the CARIFORUM Group five positions -four (4) at Ministerial levels and one at Ambassadorial level as follows: 6 A.
The ACP Troika Barbados (Ministerial) in the capacity of immediate past-President B.

The ACP Bureau In the normal rotation, St. Kitts & Nevis replaced Barbados as providing the Caribbean Minister on the ACP Ministerial Bureau.

C. The Negotiating Groups: 1.

Central Negotiating Group A combination of the Troika and the Bureau with, therefore, the Caribbean members of each.

ii.Trade Lead position: (ACP Jamaica Ministerial spokesperson) Ill. Development Finance No.
2 position: & The St. Vincent Grenadines (Ministerial) lV.

Private Sector & Investment No.
2 position: D ominican Republic (Ambassadorial) WHEREAS Negotiations for a Post-Lome IV Agreement cover four broad areas: Political and Institutional matters; Economic Private and Trade Cooperation; Sector and other Development Strategies; and Development Finance Cooperation; and 7 WHEREAS in all these areas there are many points of convergence the between ACP and the EU based on the respectiv e Negotiating Mandates and the initial encounters in 1998; and WHEREAS there remains major differences between the two sides after the First Ministerial Negotiating Meeting in Dakar, Senegal on February 8-9, 1999 as follows: • First, the Political and Institutional matters.
The issue of the 'essential elements' and the principle of good governance.

The EU sees 'good governance' as an essential element in the new Agreement and which will be related to the continuation or suspension of benefits in the monitoring of the perfonnance of ACP States.

The ACP supports the principle of good governance but not as an essential element in any new arrangement.
In other words the 'good governance' principle should or requirement not be used as a pretext by the EU to trigger sanctions ( suspensions of benefits).
The ACP supports the principle of good governance to any but objects inclusion of issues such as gay rights, capital punishment etc; On the matter of sunreillance or monitoring- that is, who determines conditionalities and such conditionalities are met or not - whether mutual agreement a'1d participatio n of both parties (and not the FU only) will be ne,:::,�ssary; The issue of development should be underscored in the partnership arrangement.

On this question the issue of debt should be properly addressed.
For cxmnple, clear distinction must be made between indebtedness to ess the European Union (EU) and (bilateral) indebtedn by the ACP States to EU States.

Indebtedness to the EU is small, largely as a result of the mostly grant aid assistance being extended to the ACP States.

The Financial contagion issue should be considered as part of the reality and the need to address safety the issue of (financial) nets.

• Second, the Trade issue.


The EU has proposed a roll-over of current preferential arrangements under Lome IV until 2005 and that the successor agreemenl 111 be concluded should provide for Alternative Trade Arrangements (ATA:,) in the form of Regional Economic Partnership Agreements (REPAs) to be negotiated and enter into effect as from 2005.

These REPAS would be negotiated between the EU and each of the five ACP regiom: { or with individual countries that are not members of any integration grouping).
The REPAs would provide for the progressive introduction of free trade with ru'1d reciprocity to the EU.
Before finalising a position on the EU's proposed alternative trade arrangements ( AT As) the ACP countries need to obtain bdter information and achieve a clearer understa nding of the following issues: the EU's in1cntion with respect to the extent and timing of future revisions Policy of the Common Agriculture (CAP); Jmpact of l) import competition on vulnerable/sensitive sectors; fiscal revenue losses and fiscal adjustment possibilities; scope for further EU tariff reductions within the period of the roll�over of LOME preferences; and key issues relating to the new round ofWTO Trade Negotiations.
The ACP considers embarking it essential, before on alternative trade arrangements (ATAs) with the EU, to consolidate their economic development on the basis of the current market access arrangements.

As such a roll-over period of ten (10) years has been proposed during which ATAs should be considered in 2004, to be implemented in 2010.
This would allow sufficient (transit ion) time to build the competitiveness of CARIFORUM/ ACP exports as well as to assess the possible impact of the progressive introduction of free trade including scope for amending the WTO's definition of free trade areas (so as to exclude a higher percentage of sensitiv e exports).

The proposed date of 2004 for consideration with of AT As wil1 coincide the timing of the EU' s review of its Generalised System of Preferences (GSP).
LOME IV provisions on Services should be activated during the roll� over period.

• Third, development finance.

The EU has proposed the rationa of lisation the several financial instruments (such as Stabex, Sysmin, structural adjustment, and debt relief) into two facilities.

One would be devoted to all forms of long-tenn development and the other to be operated by the European Investment Bank, to provide support to the Private Sector.
IO The major difference In the concept of rationalisation of the instruments is that, in the case of the EU, rationalisation means a reduction of instruments while for the ACP it means maintaining the existing instruments but improving and simplifying the procedures for more efficient disbursements and programme.

This is clearly so in the case of the Stabex and Sysmin instruments.
WHEREAS with respect in commodities the positions of the European Union and vely, are the ACP, respecti to Protocols and special arrangements regarding the trade as follows: • RUM EU Position: Given the fact that the present tariff quota will be abolished in the year 2000, the rum Protocol will not be reviewed.
However, in view of the importance of this product for several ACP countries, the Community will state its readiness to examine any specific request which might be presented by the ACP with regard to this product.

ACP Position: In light of the EU's unilateral decision of 24 March 1997 to eliminate duties on rum between 2000 and 2003 and the declaration by the Council and the Commission to safeguard ACP access to the market, it will be necessary to achieve a new arrangement before 2000.
This should include an integrated package of measures aimed at providing transitional protection, l l including marketing and other forms of assistance to enhance the industry's global competitiveness.

a The ACP has already tabled detailed proposal which was prepared by the West Indies Rum and Spirits Producers Association (WIRSPA) • RICE EU Position: The EU proposes a roll-over of the current arrangements provided for under Annex XL until 2005.
ACP Position: The OCT route for ACP rice exports to the EU should be discontinued and the quota for ACP traditional rice exporters for rice shipped directly to the EU should be substantially increased annually up to 2005 and, thereafter, all quantitative restrictions remove.

There should also be further significant reductions in the levy for exports through the direct a route and programme oflong-term for ACP assistance producers to improve their efficiency in production, milling and transp01tation.
The ACP has already tabled a detailed proposal which was prepared by the Caribbean Rice Association (CRA).

12 " SUGAR EU Position: The Protocol will be rcvicv:ed in lhc context or lhe negotiations of economic partnership with ACP States and in accordanc,:: with \VTO rules.

taking c,ccount of the special s(;•li'.:·.

oft\;� Protocoi.

ACP Position· The sugar Protocol is of indefinite duration willi its O\vn legal persona and speciC1c gm1ranu:·e:-; recognized by all parties conccrncc.J :·1i1d.
therefore, should no!

be subject to revic,v dl!ring th<: negoticitions on ;-i succc.c;sc,1 Agreement 1.0 the Lorne IV Convention: NO\V THEREFORE be it resolved that this Na!ional Assembly oC the Parliarncm of Guyana endorses the preparations of the ACP Group for the currrnt negotiations fvlcmdate: and paniculc1rh !h,.

: ACP's pnsit1011'.> rnitlineci ahovc which remain d1\c1 c'L"lll from thuse of :he l·urupe,ill l lrnc111 (1,1 l-) �· \ � ; { �; ')]} ', '\.

j •• i j : ; !

, .
j •• i j : ; !

, .

Passed by the National 011 911 Assemb(r .

August.

I 999 FA NARAIN Clerk of the National Assembly