General Secretariat of the African, Caribbean and Pacific Group of States.

Press release
Brussels, 1 October 2003.

Position taken by the ACP Council of Ministers before the 2nd October meeting of the ACP-EU Ministers on the EPA negotiations.

The ACP Council of Ministers gathered in Brussels on 30th September 2003 under the Chairmanship of Hon. Lt Gén. MompatiMERAFHE, Minister of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation of the Republic of Botswana has adopted the following positions.

The Council of Ministers noted :

Divergence of view on the purpose and outcome of phase 1 negotiations

The ACP Ministers have observed that there are still deep divergence between the two parties about phase I negotiations (All ACP-EU).

For the ACP side, phase 1 is a negotiation phase, which should result in an all ACP-EU legally binding agreement. For the EC, this is a phase of clarification. The ACP Ministers noted that the divergence could be narrowed by the two sides agreeing to issue a joint document in form of either a Memorandum of Understanding or a Joint Declaration that will reflect the commitments of both sides arising out of Phase 1negotiations. The document would provide the guidelines for regional negotiations.

Regional integration,

The Council emphasized and reiterated that EPAs should not undermine regional integration arrangements existing within the ACP Group. It decided in view of preserving ACP solidarity and unity to put on place an all ACP follow-up mechanism for phase 2 whose highest political oversight body for the negotiations will be the ACP Council of Ministers assisted by the ACP Ministerial Trade Committee. ACP Council of Ministers will be the ACP body to work with the European Commission in an ACP-EU follow up mechanism.

Links between phase 1 and phase 2:

The Council noted that the EU party has agreed on the setting up of an ACP-EU mechanism for phase 2.

The Council further recommends the creation of an all-ACP-EC Technical Monitoring Committee. Representation on the ACP side would be comprised of members of the ACP follow-up mechanism for Phase II negotiations.

The Council noted that the EU party has accepted the request by the ACP to continue discussion at the all ACP-EU level. it recommends that phase 1 negotiations on continue all along the year 2004.

It listed the outstanding issues to be addressed at the all ACP EU levels:

WTO-compatibility; Dispute settlement; Non-execution clause; Definition of parties to EPAs; Modalities for entry into force of EPAs; Trade-related areas; Rules of origin; Safeguards; Commodity Protocols; All ACP-EU Framework Agreement on fisheries; Fiscal, economic, balance of payments and social implications of EPAs; Additional resources; Treatment of non-LDCs not in a position to enter into EPAs; Treatment of LDCs not in a position to enter into EPAs; SPS issues; Regular, formal and comprehensive reviews of preparations and negotiation of EPAs; Implementation mechanism for EPAs.

Preservation of the acquis,

The Council emphasized that

-the benefits of commodity protocols have to be safeguarded in the EPA negotiations in accordance with the Cotonou Agreement;

-the acquis should be safeguarded with respect to non-LDC ACP States which do not conclude EPAs, by providing them with a new framework for trade equivalent t “their existing situation”.

Market Access,

The Council noted that at the end of the EPA process, no ACPState, whether or not participating in an EPA, should be worse off than it is currently. This is in accordance with the Cotonou Agreement.

Agriculture and Fisheries Agreements,

On Agriculture, the Council underlines the divergence of view on the sequencing of EPA negotiations vis-à-vis the provision of support for the development of agricultural sector to the ACP countries and regions. The ACP side considers that more assistance is needed for the ACP countries and regions before EPA negotiations could start in this area. The EC has argued that these two processes were complementary and needed to go hand in hand so as to foster their mutual supportiveness.

Trade-related issues

The Council noted that both sides differed with regard to the scope and coverage of the issues; and on sequencing of EPA negotiations with both WTO negotiations and the building of requisite capacity in ACP States to deal with trade related subjects. For the ACP side, the rules aspects of the trade-related areas should not be these issues at a multilateral level, particularly in the WTO. Furthermore, the ACP side maintained that there is a need to build adequate legal and institutional capacities in ACP countries and regions, before any disciplines in these areas can be negotiated.

The Council also noted that the divergence of views in this area is of a fundamental nature.

contact : Hegel Goutier
+32 2 743 06 04