Commissioner, you described the ‘Everything but Arms’ initiative as a world first. If this initiative begins to have a real effect in the near future, bringing about a qualitative and effective improvement in the quality of the living conditions of the people concerned, then, yes, it will be a world first. Even so, if I may, I would firstly like to ask about the timing of this initiative, which is scheduled a few months prior to the re-launch of the WTO negotiations. It would be regrettable if this proposal were used primarily to attempt to bring round all the developing countries to the European position at the WTO. I would, however, like to look at the content of this initiative. Europe imports six times the amount of agricultural products from LDCs than the United States, yet this only represents 1% of all the European Union’s exports. This shows the magnitude of the effort that rich countries must make in order to attempt to restore some balance within the world trade system, which more than works in their favour. Several aspects of this initiative give me cause for concern, however. First of all, the lack of consultation with either Parliament or the ACP countries, which are stressing, as they did at the Joint Assembly, that the preferential system for sugar, for example, as well as all the Community protocols, could be compromised. Also, the need to reclassify impact studies in order to improve understanding and take into account the legitimate concerns expressed with regard to the potential negative effects. Then, products destined for industrialised countries should benefit from access to minimum guaranteed prices and should be protected from fluctuations in exchange rates, whereas the economies of the LDCs are all too often dependent on the international environment and on the exports of one or two basic products. Lastly, diversifying production must be actively encouraged, all the more so because, as confirmed by experts at the United Nations, production capabilities were weakened in the last decade and some industries died out due to competition from imports. The French High Council for International Cooperation stresses, for example, that the right of the LDCs to protect and to support their fragile industry, particularly in terms of their food safety, must be recognised. Now, in order to guarantee this sovereignty of food, to make considerable progress in meeting the people’s most pressing needs and to have access to technology, the LDCs are in dangerous and vital need of substantial external funding, and for this to be provided in a spirit of cooperation which will help develop their production capacity. If we can give them help by opening up our markets to their products, the liberalisation of trade cannot be seen as a development policy. How, indeed, can essential needs be met when the growing burden of debt continues to condemn every attempt made by these countries to invest in a future? In 1970, this debt was equal to 10% of the developing countries’ GNP, and now it represents more than 40% of their GNP, whereas the total amount of public money given is less than that paid in interest on the debt. France had, in fact, made a commitment at the second Conference on LDCs to give 0.20% of its GNP, but in 1999, only 0.08% was actually given. I cannot stress enough the gravity of the situation behind these figures half of the population lives on less than EUR 2 per day, one in three does not have access to electricity, one child in three suffers from malnutrition. The time has come, therefore, to listen... (President cut the speaker off)

Political group: GUE-NGL