The Secretariat of the African, Caribbean and Pacific Group of States

ACP House Brussels 26 & 27 June 2008

At the outset, let me express my gratitude to all of you and particularly to my region, the Caribbean region, for appointing me to the Chairmanship of our Ministerial Trade Committee. With your cooperation and support, I am confident that we are going to have a successful meeting.

The MTC was set up to address important issues in the multilateral and bilateral trade arenas of WTO and ACP-EU Cooperation. Its terms of reference provide that we should meet at least twice per year on the ACP side and at least once a year at the joint ACP-EU level. Therefore, it is disappointing to note that it has not been possible to convene a meeting of the Committee during the last 20 months, particularly when there are burning trade issues that require our attention. I hope that all efforts will be made by everyone concerned to facilitate the holding of meetings on a more regular basis.

This ACP Ministerial Trade Committee meeting and the 6th Joint ACP-EC MTC meeting, which will follow on Wednesday afternoon, come at a critical time for the ACP. As we get together in Brussels to assess the progress, which has or has not been made post Hong Kong in the WTO discussions on modalities etc. and to address crucial issues associated with the EPA negotiations, there is a feeling that the international trade agenda is not delivering for the ACP countries.

We are meeting this morning, faced with the realization that the EPA negotiations have achieved very little to date. Therefore, the burden is on this MTC meeting to agree a way forward which will energise the negotiations. In addition, lack of progress at the WTO is threatening to derail the Doha “Development” Round and force countries to re-think their approach to the multilateral trade agenda.

Only 18 months remain before the projected conclusion of the EPA negotiations. Many issues have not yet been adequately examined and those that have been addressed have not produced satisfactory outcomes. Indeed, there are major differences between the positions of the ACP regions and those of the EC on a number of key issues, such as: (a) the regional integration process; (b) giving tangible expression to the concept of development in an EPA; (c) approaches to tariff liberalisation; (d)) creating an effective funding mechanism for EPA support; and (e) what is meant by “substantially all trade”. This level of divergence on major issues is a cause for concern.

When the WTO waiver expires on 31 December 2007, we need to have a working trade arrangement between the ACP regions and the European Union. It is necessary, therefore, that we either hasten the pace of the negotiations or conclude an alternative WTO-compatible arrangement which will facilitate the continuation of trade and development cooperation with our European Partners.

We have the responsibility today, as representatives of our regions, to examine all aspects of the negotiations and make recommendations that will guide the work of our negotiators and enable them to make further progress towards a satisfactory outcome.

Colleagues, let us share information and experiences. Faced with common problems, let us work together to find the best solutions to those problems. Let us agree on common approaches where this will benefit all of our regions. Let us seize the opportunity to develop common positions on many of the issues that are being negotiated. Let us use our diversity and numbers as our strength.

We note with interest that while the ACP has been divided into six negotiating regions for the EPA negotiations, the European Union continues to expand its membership. When we concluded the Cotonou Agreement, the European Union had fifteen members. Today it has twenty-five (25) with two more countries (Bulgaria, Romania) expected to join next year.

The current accession discussions within the European Union might in future result in countries such as Turkey as well as Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Serbia and Montenegro and Kosovo) becoming members and therefore our partners under the Cotonou Agreement and EPAs frameworks.

Therefore, as we discuss our trade, EPA and other cooperation issues with the European Union, we should be thinking of a possible future Europe with more than thirty (30) members. It is incumbent upon us therefore to remain united as a Group and not to allow the separation created by the EPA negotiations to divide us.

On the WTO front, it has become clear that unless the ACP as a Group pushes hard for the interests of its members, our countries shall remain marginalized in the global trade arena. Indeed we should continue to work in concert with the Africa Union and the Least Developed Countries under the umbrella of the G90.

We have seen how the developed countries continue to haggle over their issues in capitals such as London, Tokyo and Paris and indeed at summit meetings such as that which was held last week in Vienna between the EU and USA. Most of these discussions do not seem to take account of our concerns and interests.

The recently released draft modalities for Agriculture and NAMA for preparing negotiating schedules in these two areas demonstrate a lack of concern for weaker countries, such as those in the ACP Group. The two texts are extremely long, the issues are complex and it is difficult for our resource strained countries to cope. In the case of NAMA, for example, we have seen an attempt to take away the flexibilities which had been offered in the earlier decisions. The attempt to use a Simple Swiss tariff reduction formula will result in very severe tariff cuts and this could harm the economies of many developing countries.

Colleagues, we must strategize and agree on how to respond to these evolving developments. Our meeting today and tomorrow should help us to address some of these crucial issues. I look forward to your valuable inputs and to a fruitful meeting.

I thank you for your attention.