Joint Assembly of the Convention concluded between the African, Caribbean and Pacific States and the European Community (ACP-EU) - Resolution on the current state of negotiations on the future of ACP-EU relations
Date: 1999-10-14
Institutions: ACP–EU Joint Assembly
Subjects: ACP countries, ACP-EU Joint Assembly, European Union, association agreement, international negotiations, resolution













EUR-Lex - 22000P0301(03) - EN






Avis juridique important




|



22000P0301(03)

Joint Assembly of the Convention concluded between the African, Caribbean and Pacific States and the European Community (ACP-EU) - Resolution on the current state of negotiations on the future of ACP-EU relations  


Official Journal 059 , 01/03/2000 P. 0032 - 0036 





RESOLUTION(1)on the current state of negotiations on the future of ACP-EU relationsThe ACP-EU Joint Assembly,- meeting in Nassau (Bahamas) from 11 to 14 October 1999,- having regard to its resolution adopted on 1 April 1999 in Strasbourg (France)(2), and reiterating strongly the points therein,- having regard to its resolutions adopted on 1 April 1999 in Strasbourg (France) concerning the participation of civil society in the development process and the WTO millennium round, and again re-iterating strongly the points therein,- having regard to the conclusions reached at the Second Ministerial Negotiating Conference on a successor agreement to the Lome IV Convention (Brussels, 29-30 July 1999) and in view of the next and final Ministerial round of negotiations to be held in mid-December,A. strongly believes that it is important for the credibility and the relevance of the ACP-EU partnership that a new agreement be concluded before the date of expiry of the present Convention, i.e. February 2000,B. notes with satisfaction the progress achieved during the last Ministerial Negotiating Conference and the prospects for success in remaining key areas at the next Ministerial round on various important issues, in particular financial cooperation, participation of the private sector, role of civil society in political dialogue and issues leading to migration,C. deeply concerned, however, over the lack of agreement in a number of critical areas, namely the principles and objectives of trade cooperation to be included in the Framework Agreement; the length and purpose of the preparatory period for transition to alternative trade arrangements; the continuation of Stabex and Sysmin; and the status of good governance within the future Convention,D. welcoming the current post-Lome IV negotiations as an opportunity to define a new and innovative relationship between the EU and the ACP which can also deliver a clear message to the forthcoming WTO millennium round,E. welcomes the EU's commitment in the July Ministerial negotiations to close cooperation with the ACP in the WTO, with a view to defending the arrangements reached in particular with regard to the degree of flexibility available,F. welcomes the EU's recent commitment to devote more than one million Euro over the next five years to financing better co-ordination of the ACP countries within the WTO, particularly in connection with the next round of multilateral trade negotiations,G. welcomes the EU's more flexible position with regard to Regional Economic Partnership Agreements (REPAs) and its acceptance that no instrument or model for ATAs need be identified in the Framework Agreement,H. believes that the EU negotiating mandate should allow for this flexibility and calls on the EU Member States to provide the ACP with genuine options for future trade relations with the EU,I. underlines the political importance of transparency, accountability and the fight against bribery and corruption in public administration for both parties;J. acknowledges the difficulty of determining the scope and dimension of this concept, particularly in relation to the overlap between the concept of good governance and the essential elements of respect for human rights, democratic principles and the rule of law, already included in the Convention;K. notes that the ACP has undertaken to draft a declaration on good governance for consideration at the next Ministerial Negotiating Conference;L. welcomes that both parties acknowledge the importance of involving a wide variety of stakeholders like civil society, economic and social partners, women, environmental and nongovernmental governmental organisations in the partnership and the role they can play in strengthening it,M. calls on both parties to provide for mechanisms and procedures which would facilitate a more structured dialogue between ACP governments and the private sector;N. underlines that the objectives of the future ACP-EU partnership agreement can only be achieved if adequate funding is provided in the ninth EDF;O. firmly believes that a smooth and successful transition towards a new trade regime can only take place if a coherent and global development aid package is also delivered and implemented;P. notes the proposal from certain EU Member States to use unallocated EDF funds to finance the EU's 1 billion EURO contribution to debt relief within the Word Bank's HIPC initiative, particularly considering that the 1993-1999 EDF underspend represented only 25 million EURO.1. Calls on EU and ACP Ministers at their meeting in December to agree on the rollover of the current Lome Convention and to cover the preparatory period to alternative trade arrangements (ATAs);2. Calls on the EU negotiators to reinforce its partnership with the ACP in order to change WTO rules and put an end to the restrictive supranational rules which guarantee respect for a hierarchy of values where trade liberalisation takes precedence over poverty alleviation and sustainable development;3. Calls for economic and trade cooperation arrangements to improve on the ACP's current market access, through, a review of the rules of origin, non tariff measures, trade in services and trade related areas, without pre-empting discussions to be held on these issues in the forthcoming WTO millennium round;4. Calls on the Council to adjust the present common agricultural policy in order to make the European market more accessible to ACP products;5. Calls for the principle that ACP countries should enjoy during the preparatory period to alternate trade arrangements at least as good EU market access as they do presently, a commitment enshrined in a Council statement made during the UK Presidency which states that: "The EU will examine all alternative possibilities to FTAs to provide these countries with a new framework for trade... equivalent to the existing situation";6. Calls for acceptance of the principle that a fundamental objective of the ATAs must be enlarging access to the EU market, particularly for products of low technology industries and sectors where ACP countries are either currently competitive or could become so in the near future;7. Re-iterates its call for at least a 10 year preparatory period for transition to ATAs, during which the EU should maintain and improve present non-reciprocal trade arrangements;8. Calls on the EU-ACP to undertake impact assessment of current trade liberalisation on ACP economies (job creation, health, education, environment, etc.) under the various structural adjustment programmes as well as EU's GSP revision, the CAP reform, the EU enlargement in view of preparing alternative trade arrangement;9. Believes the EU and ACP should state the special circumstances required under Article IX of the WTO Agreement to justify a 10 year waiver, particularly in the light of the fact that the ACP makes up 39 LDCs in respect of which the WTO has already decided to allow the provision of non-reciprocal trade preferences; that the ACP comprises 24 islands and 14 landlocked countries, most of them small economies whose marginalisation has been recognised by the WTO; many ACP states are also vulnerable, a concept which is being increasingly recognised by the major financial and trading institutions, including within the WTO;10. Believes important precedents exist to justify a 10 year WTO waiver (The Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery Act, the Caribcan waiver granted to Canada);11. Calls on the EU to work with the ACP and other developing countries to initiate concerted action to seek modification of the WTO Enabling Clause, Article XXIV and other WTO provisions relevant to the achievement of their agreed objectives and to amend WTO rules to recognise the special circumstances and need for differential treatment of small vulnerable states;12. Considers that the WTO Dispute Settlement Mechanism is unacceptable and anti-democratic as decisions are taken only on commercial criteria as the banana disputes between EU and USA has shown and calls on ACP-EU negotiators to change the WTO status which allows the organization to act as judge and jury;13. Supports the ACP's request for negotiations on ATAs to begin in 2006 with a view to their conclusion in 2010, to give the ACP time to prepare for negotiations and economic liberalisation;14. Calls for the negotiations of ATAs to take account of the level of development and the socio-economic impact of trade measures on ACP countries, and their capacity to adapt and adjust their economies to the liberalisation process;15. Considers that priority should be given to the goal of sustainable development in conformity with Agenda 21, the Basel Convention, UN convention on biological diversity etc;16. Reiterates that these negotiations should be as flexible as possible in establishing the duration of the transitional period and the degree of asymmetry, in conformity with the WTO rules then prevailing;17. Believes that the definition and implementation of any future trade options - either Free Trade Arrangements or other options - should depend not only on an agreed timetable but equally on the achievement of jointly selected thresholds based on financial, economic and human development indicators;18. Stresses that such financial, economic and human development indicators should reflect, for example, finance and government revenue, institutional capacity, human resources, competitiveness and physical and social infrastructures;19. Reiterates that the instability of revenue from basic products and mining continues to be a major threat to the ACP countries and that serious consideration should be given to maintaining Stabex and Sysmin, although these arrangements must be made more transparent and efficient and payments must focus on benefitting producers in the affected sectors;20. Re-iterates its call for an assessment of the banana and beef/veal protocols, an investigation into the precise and unique circumstances of each industry and that these protocols be tailored, on a case by case basis, to the requirements of each industry, and be the rolled over to ensure the survival of these industries;21. Calls for support within the Partnership Agreement for the ACP rum industry, particularly the traditional ACP exporters of commodity rum, in improving efficiency and competitiveness; also for transitional measures for the period of 2000 to 2002 to help the ACP industry maintain their market access in the face of liberisaton on the 1st January 2000;22. Calls on the Commission once again to ensure that market access for bananas from ACP suppliers be maintained and protected;23. Urges the EU to support the ACP rice industries to develop their efficiency and competitiveness, in recognition of the fundamental importance of this staple food to both net importers and net exporters in the ACP;24. Calls on the parties to defend Lomé's protocols in the WTO with a view to maintaining and improving them;25. Calls on both parties to ensure that the new partnership agreement maximises the contribution of tourism to the economic and social development of ACP states; minimises existing or potential negative effects of tourism and respects the environment, local and cultural heritage; creates a new framework for public/private partnership in support of the sustainable development of the ACP tourism industry; ensures the participation of the ACP private sector, civil society, local communities and indigenous peoples in future ACP/EU development cooperation programmes in the tourism sector;26. More generally, calls on the parties to reach an agreement on the role of civil society actors including a clearly stated role for civil society in the conception, preparation, implementation and evaluation of national/regional indicative programmes; observer status in all relevant EU/ACP institutions; and accessing funding for development activities including capacity building;27. Proposes that the concept of good governance be defined as the responsible management of public resources with a view to sustainable and equitable development; this concept would therefore involve;a) clear procedures in the public decision-making process,b) accountable management and efficient monitoring,c) transparent institutions,d) effective measures for preventing and fighting active and passive corruption;28. Accepts that the EU has faced this challenge recently and as a result a new set of procedures have been agreed and recognises that good-governance is a priority issue to be internally addressed by the European Union as an essential instrument to fight against corruption in contemporary societies;29. Acknowledges that good-governance is a far more difficult goal to reach in countries struggling against poverty; therefore urges the ACP countries and the EU to work together for a full joint commitment on this issue;30. Believes that corruption is deeply damaging to society and that therefore efficient measures have to be taken in order to stop and prevent money-laundering as well as drug trafficking;31. Insists in particular that - as regards the fight against corruption - a clear distinction must be drawn between cases of institutionalised corruption and misappropriation of funds on the part of a single individual; stresses that in the latter case the concept of good governance is not applicable and that no sanction - under the application of this concept - should apply;32. Considers that the "good governance" clause should first and foremost be used as a means of favouring those countries that comply with it;33. Deeply conscious of the shortcomings in the definition and implementation process of the non-execution clause of Article 366A of the present Convention; insists that this non-execution clause be revised in order to better avoid any danger of arbitrary measures; believes, in this context, that the assent of the European Parliament, prior to any application of sanctions, would constitute a guarantee of greater objectivity;34. Believes that it is crucial to reduce to a minimum arbitrary elements in the decision making process concerning the implementation of the non-execution clause with reference to good governance;35. Proposes to examine the creation of a joint body made up of representatives of the European Court of Auditors and their counterparts in the ACP countries and that this body be consulted prior to any application of the non-execution clause in this particular domain;36. Notes the divergence of views on the nature and scope of the risks to be covered in the setting up of an ACP-EU Investment Facility in support of private sector development and investment and calls for this facility to maintain the concessionary nature of risk capital;37. Calls for the rationalisation and simplification of the financial cooperation instruments which allow for better focusing and targetting of funds;38. Urges the Finnish Presidency to take the necessary steps to ensure that the budget of the next EDF reflects the will of the Member States to provide firm support for the development efforts being made by the ACP countries at a time when those countries are having take up the challenges of globalisation; reiterates the need for budgetisation of the EDF to bring it under the control of the European Parliament;39. Calls on the EU Member States to significantly increase the volume of the next EDF to adequately support the important structural adjustment costs that the ACP States will have to bear during the preparatory period, taking into account such criteria as population growth, the evolution of commodity prices, the debt burden, the need for capacity building as well as the necessity to reinforce existing instruments and to address new fields and methods of cooperation;40. Reiterates the importance of enlarging the partnership between the ACP countries and the EU to include those involved in development and, in particular, the representatives of organised civil societies who ought to be consulted when development programmes are drawn up and implemented; calls for the ACP-EU Advisory Joint Committee which has been set up within the European Economic and Social Committee to be specifically mentioned in the text of the new Convention as a means of furthering and monitoring the enlargement of the partnership;41. Calls for the creation of an ACP-EU Civil Society Working Group that is constituted of representatives of the ACP and EU civil society, as well as the ACP Secretariat and the European Commission, and that the future ACP-EU cooperation agreement provides for annual meetings and consultations between designated representatives of the relevant ACP-EU institutions and the Working Group;42. Recommends that this Joint Assembly extends the mandate of the Working Group on Future Relations to ensure it continues to monitor all aspects of ACP-EU cooperation;43. Urges the European Union (Council and Commission) to deem the resources allocated to the beneficiary ACP countries under the 7th and 8th EDF (programmable aid, Stabex, Sysmin, etc.) to be rightfully theirs; considers therefore that such resources should not be reutilised as the EU's contribution when the budget for the 9th EDF (2000-2005) is estabished, or used outside the confines of the revised Lomé Convention (Kosovo, aligment of the debt of the poorest countries, etc.);44. Instructs its Co-Presidents to forward this Resolution to the ACP-EU Council and the Commission.(1) Adopted by the ACP-EU Joint Assembly on 14 October 1999 in Nassau (Bahamas).(2) AP/2688/fin.