5. Considers that, in the context of the open method of coordination, the general reflection on the
future role of education and training should take account of the contribution not only of the MemberStates but also of the European Parliament and the Commission, in compliance with the subsidiarityprinciple,
6. Insists that, in a spirit of interinstitutional cooperation, the European Parliament must be closely
involved in drawing up the follow-up report and in the measures to be taken under the long-term pro-gramme of work,
7. Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Commission and the governments of the
Member States.
16. Extension of duty-free access to least-developed country products
A5-0128/2001
European Parliament resolution on the proposal for a Council regulation amending Council Regu-
lation (EC) No 2820/98 applying a multiannual scheme of generalised tariff preferences for theperiod 1 July 1999 to 31 December 2001 so as to extend duty-free access without any quantitativerestrictions to products originating in the least-developed countries (COM(2000) 561  C5-0136/
2001  2000/0239(ACC))
The European Parliament,
 having regard to the Commissions proposal (COM(2000) 561  C5-0136/2001),
 having regard to the Council Regulation (EC) No 416/2001 of 28 February 2001 amending Regu-
lation (EC) No 2820/98 applying a multiannual scheme of generalised tariff preferences for the period1 July 1999 to 31 December 2001 so as to extend duty-free access without any quantitative restric-tions to products originating in the least-developed countries (
1),
 having regard to the Third United Nations Conference on Least Developed Countries (LDCs) held in
Parliaments premises in Brussels from 14 to 20 May 2001,
 having regard to its resolution of 5 April 2001 on the Third UN Conference on LDCs (2),
 having regard to the resolution adopted by the ACP-EU Joint Parliamentary Assembly meeting in
Libreville on the Commissions Everything but arms (EBA) proposal, (ACP-EU 3171/01/fin.),
 having regard to Declaration XXIII of the Cotonou Agreement, which sets out the procedure to be
followed when the EU opens its markets to products from the LDCs,
 having regard to Rule 47(1) of its Rules of Procedure,
 having regard to the report of the Committee on Development and Cooperation and the opinion of
the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development (A5-0128/2001),
A. whereas, according to the Unctad 2000 report on LDCs, the economic and social situation in the
LDCs scarcely improved in the 1990s, whereas the gap between the LDCs and other developing coun-tries grew even wider and whereas LDCs have a particularly low GDP per capita and a particularlyhigh rate of illiteracy,
B. whereas the LDCs have an average per capita GDP of less than USD 300, which is extremely low,
particularly by comparison with the figure of over USD 27 000 for the developed countries,
(1) OJ L 60, 1.3.2001, p. 43.
(2) Texts Adopted, Item 15.7.2.2002 EN C 34 E/243 Official Journal of the European Communities
Wednesday 16 May 2001
C. whereas in many LDCs the trade policy measures adopted hitherto by the EU have not succeeded in
reducing the economic and social gap with other developing countries and the industrialised countries,
D. whereas the European Union must keep a close eye on the qualitative and quantitative impact which
such liberalisation has in the LDCs and in the Community regions concerned,
E. whereas the 48 LDCs account for only 0,4 % of total world trade and only 1 % of EU imports,F. whereas most of the LDCs have been unable to make the structural changes to their economies which
are essential if they are to emerge from the LDC category,
G. whereas 99 % of Community trade with the LDCs already enjoys duty-free access, either under the
LomØ Convention or under the Generalised System of Preferences (GSP),
H. whereas Community protection still exists for the remaining 1 % of imports and often involves pro-
ducts in which LDC trade with the Community is very low or non-existent, and whereas this absenceof trade is partly due to Community protection,
I. whereas duty-free access for products originating in LDCs without quantitative restrictions can con-
tribute to the LDCs development by encouraging the development of trade in these products,
J. whereas the growth in trade which would result from such liberalisation must genuinely be of benefit
to local people and not just to multinational companies which have set themselves up in the LDCs forthe sole purpose of gaining duty-free access to the Community market;
K. whereas the Commissions Everything but arms proposal is a first signal of trade policy, and whereas
it must be accompanied by other measures, both trade-related ones and, more generally, ones relatingto cooperation and development policy,
L. whereas trade has a major impact on the survival of family-based agriculture and on the food auton-
omy and self-sufficiency of the least-developed countries,
M. whereas the Declaration of 12 December 2000 by ACP Ministers of Trade welcomes and supports
the EBA initiative, and expects the EC to honour existing agreements, and further urges that the EBAinitiative take into account the vulnerability of small, landlocked and island ACP States,
N. whereas the EBA initiative will have a positive impact on market access for commodities, such as beef,
rice and sugar, from least developed countries, but this proposal also raises concerns amongst ACPcountries which are not LDCs that increases in LDC exports could be at their expense,
O. whereas the Commissions Everything but arms initiative, which seeks to enable all LDC products
with the exception of weapons to enter the EU market duty-free, misleads the general public by liken-ing the LDCs to arms exporters, whereas it is the industrialised countries which sell weapons to theLDCs,
P. whereas the Oxfam/IDS EBA study of January 2001 shows that the initiative would have a very
positive impact on market access for limited commodities, notably beef, rice and sugar for least devel-oped and industrialised countries in the ACP, Mercosur, South Asia, South-East Asia, Eastern Europeanand Mediterranean regions, but the study also recognises that ACP countries which are not LDCs havelegitimate concerns to fear that any increase in LDC exports will be at their expense (even in the shortterm); whereas such potential losses need to be taken into account in any balanced assessment of theoverall impact of the proposal,C 34 E/244 EN 7.2.2002 Official Journal of the European Communities
Wednesday 16 May 2001
Q. whereas it is regrettable that, despite the spirit in which the Cotonou agreement was signed, ACP
countries were not properly consulted, and concerns have been raised that EBA could undermine theEU sugar protocol and SPS sugar regime, which have delivered considerable benefits, particularly onprice, and could also undermine the ACP rice exporters quota and tariffs system, displacing ACP ricein the EU market,
R. whereas the LDCs must be given unrestricted duty-free access for all their products to industrialised
countries markets, including the EU, as soon as possible, and whereas the Commissions Everythingbut arms initiative is only a first step and needs to be accompanied by further supporting measures, inparticular to expand administrative and logistic capabilities, and must also be brought into line withthe Cotonou agreements and the related trade protocols, maintaining guaranteed prices for the main
sensitive products for the family-type small farming economy in both northern and southern coun-
tries,
1. Welcomes the Commissions initiative aimed at giving unrestricted access for all LDC products except
arms and munitions to EU markets; recognises in addition that the EU has to give appropriate consider-ation to the legitimate expectation of the ACP countries on the basis of the Cotonou agreement, whilst
also recognising that the current Cotonou agreement excludes the non-ACP countries where the majority
of the poorest people live; deplores, however, the fact that the full liberalisation of trade in sugar, rice andbananas, which are very important export products for many LDCs, will not be implemented until 2009;hopes that further trade and development and cooperation measures will be adopted;
2. Calls on the EU Member States to establish clear policies on arms export control to LDCs and urges
the EU Member States to comply with the UN Arms Export Register;
3. Considers that the LDCs local production and marketing capabilities must be encouraged so that the
needs of their people can be met;
4. Calls upon the developed world to be prepared to make further market access concessions to agri-
cultural products from the developing world;
5. Deplores the fact that the Council did not consult Parliament on the Commissions Everything but
arms proposal on a voluntary basis despite an early request from Parliament and the Commissions sup-port for this; considers, regretfully, that this refusal may have a negative effect on confident future coop-eration between the Council and Parliament;
6. Calls on the EU to consult the ACP countries on the EBA proposal, as outlined in Declaration XXIII
of the ACP-EU Partnership Agreement; notes that Articles 36 and 37 of the Cotonou Agreement emphasisethe need to safeguard the benefits of the commodity protocols, and the need for a preparatory perioddesigned to prepare sensitive ACP industries for an end to preference;
7. Calls on the Commission to honour the commitment in Declaration XXIII to examine all necessary
measures to maintain the competitive position of ACP States on the Community market;
8. Calls on the Commission to compile joint impact studies with the ACP on the EBA proposal, in
order to assess the effect of this initiative on the LDCs and on other countries, such as ACP countries
which are not LDCs;
9. Points out that the opening of EU markets to all products from LDCs must take place in accordance
with the spirit and the letter of the Cotonou agreement with the ACP States and of the sugar and bananaprotocols; supports therefore provisions for adequate transition periods for duty-free access of sugar, riceand bananas originating in LDCs;
10. Considers that such a measure should be based on the principles governing the Cotonou Agree-
ment, in particular the establishment of guaranteed-price and duty-free quotas;7.2.2002 EN C 34 E/245 Official Journal of the European Communities
Wednesday 16 May 2001
11. Notes that the proposed phased reduction in import duties for the most sensitive products, namely
bananas, sugar and rice, has been submitted at a time when the relevant COMs are being completelyoverhauled, which has led to friction between Community and ACP producers and serious inconsistenciesbetween agricultural policy and trade policy;
12. Notes that ACP exports, including those from 39 LDCs to the EU market, have declined despite
their preferential access;
13. Calls on the LDCs to shift from a market-access, trade export-led approach to an intra-regional
sustainable development strategy which takes into account the real need of the populations, which is toreduce dependency on industrialised countries and build domestic and regional markets;
14. Is concerned in particular at the effects which such a measure may have on levels of food security
and self-sufficiency in the beneficiary countries;
15. Stresses the extent of the differences of opinion at the Commission between the Directorates-Gen-
eral responsible for agriculture and trade regarding the impact which liberalisation will have on suchsensitive products as rice, bananas and sugar;
16. Is of the view that any trade policy should aim to promote sustainable development and equitable
trade rules;
17. Emphasises that the rapid entry into force and implementation of the Everything but arms initi-
ative and appropriate accompanying provisions, such as technology transfers and debt cancellation, couldimprove the situation of the LDCs;
18. Regrets greatly that in its abovementioned regulation of 28 February 2001, under pressure from a
number of Member States, the Council extended the periods for opening up the European market to sugar,
banana and rice imports from the LDCs as compared with the original Commission proposal;
19. Welcomes the adoption of this initiative, and calls for action to encourage other industrialised
countries to adopt similar initiatives for the LDCs;
20. Considers that ACP countries should protect their economy and proceed to selective market open-
ing, as was the case in Europe, in order to develop their own industries and to ensure their food indepen-dence and the survival and development of their small farming;
21. Calls on the Commission to support the LDCs to increase their technological, production, adminis-
trative and logistical capacity so that they can take full advantage of their free access to EU markets anddevelop their technological capability so as to be able to export finished products as well;
22. Considers to this end that it is essential to encourage the development of small businesses, coop-
eratives and craft trades, microcredit and access to credit for the local population, by implementing decen-tralised forms of economic cooperation between the European entities and their counterparts in the LDCs,by supporting training courses, scientific and technological research and the creation of joint ventures;
23. Calls on the Commission to help the LDCs to diversify their production and their exports;24. Calls on the Commission to ensure that, in finalising the arrangements on access for bananas from
LDCs, no measures are introduced which would be likely to destabilise the market or cause a furtherdecline in prices;
25. Emphasises that market opening can mean an increase in transhipment of goods and hence
defrauding of the rules of origin; calls therefore on the Commission and the Member States to activatetechnical assistance mechanisms to prevent fraud;C 34 E/246 EN 7.2.2002 Official Journal of the European Communities
Wednesday 16 May 2001
26. Points out that all food products traded, in either direction, must meet strict food safety criteria,
with special reference to veterinary and plant health aspects and maximum pesticide residue levels;
27. Considers that technical knowledge and technology regarding the quality standards which European
consumers require their food to meet must be funded and transferred to the least developed countries;
28. Calls for full consideration to be given to how to respond to any loss of income which occurs in
the agriculture sector as a consequence of this initiative;
29. Deplores the fact that the Commission did not carry out in due time adequate impact studies on the
possible effects of its proposal, in particular as regards the rapid opening of EU markets for sugar, rice andbananas;
30. Calls on the Council and the Commission to submit, within a reasonable period of time, an assess-
ment of the implementation of this measure and, if necessary, a revision thereof after consulting theEuropean Parliament, the ACP countries and the LDCs, and to establish a dialogue with the social organi-sations involved;
31. Calls on the Commission to submit a review every five years in order to enable the consequences of
liberalisation both in the LDCs and in the outermost regions to be assessed;
32. Considers that, in the event that evidence of fraud by the countries benefiting from the measures is
detected, a joint EU-LDC committee should be empowered to investigate and temporarily suspend tariff
concessions accordingly;
33. Calls on the Commission to keep a close eye on local markets in the least-developed countries as
regards possible shortages, which may arise if excessive amounts are exported; considers that, if it isproven that shortages on local markets are caused by excessive exports, the Commission should be ableto suspend exports from those countries in line with Article 22 of the Regulation.
34. Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council and the Commission.7.2.2002 EN C 34 E/247 Official Journal of the European Communities
Wednesday 16 May 2001