Eurocommissaris voor Handel de Gucht opent de 20ste ACS-EU conferentie (en/fr)
Mesdames et Messieurs,
Négocier des accords de libre-échange est une tâche ardue. Je m'y attendais en prenant mes fonctions de commissaire européen en charge du commerce. Et je dois dire, qu'après un peu plus d'un an, je ne suis pas déçu.
9 ans après le lancement du cycle de Doha, nous nous approchons finalement, petit à petit de la conclusion.
Presque 10 ans après le début des discussions sur les accords de partenariat économique, nous abordons, là aussi, un tournant majeur.
Au cours des dernières années, les négociations des APE ont été tellement difficiles qu'un certain cynisme et une fatigue se sont emparés d'un grand nombre de protagonistes.
Je souhaiterais analyser en profondeur les difficultés de ce processus, revenir aux principes premiers de logique économique, discuter franchement des questions politiques épineuses et trouver une solution qui conviendrait à tous.
Nous devons le faire car l'échec n'est pas une option.
Je suis convaincu que les enjeux sont trop grands pour l'Afrique, les Caraïbes et le Pacifique.
Je suis également convaincu que nous pouvons surmonter les obstacles qui se dressent devant nous, si la volonté politique existe.
Et j'espère que vous êtes tous, en tant que législateurs, politiciens et d'aucuns parmi vous diplomates, prêts à y mettre la détermination nécessaire tel que je le fais au niveau politique. Pour vous donner un exemple concret, avant de quitter Bruxelles, j'ai appris que l'APE intérimaire avec le Pacifique a franchi l'avant-dernière étape avant l'approbation par le Parlement européen, laquelle j'espère se concrétisera très tôt en 2011.
* * *
Ladies and gentlemen,
History often puts things in perspective.
Richard Cobden, whom we may call the founding father of modern free trade, was already exasperated by the difficulties of trade negotiations 150 years ago. 'We came to the conclusion,' he wrote, 'that the less we attempted to persuade foreigners to adopt our trade principles, the better. For we discovered so much suspicion of our motives, that it was lending an argument to the protectionists abroad to incite the popular feeling against free-traders; by enabling them to say: see what these men are wanting to do, they are the partisans of England and they are seeking to prostitute our industries at the feet of that perfidious nation.'
Today, similar suspicion seems to loom over the EPA negotiations. In going from unilateral preferences for ACP countries to negotiated partnerships, the same criticism can be heard both in developing countries and in Europe, both by those who mean well and by those whose motives are far less clear.
'Why does the EU need to break into African markets?', they ask.
'Why can ACP countries not protect fragile sectors and infant industries?'
'Why do we have to make David compete with Goliath?'
Make no mistake: I understand these fears, I want to explore all possibilities to deal with the root causes of them and I am willing to invest as much time and resources as necessary to explain why balanced, negotiated agreements are the solution to, not the cause of these problems.
But we must agree on the fundamentals: that a strong trade partnership between the EU and ACP countries is the key to developing countries' economic take-off.
* * *
As regards the economic fundamentals, the truth is that the current system has failed; that ACP countries have become increasingly marginalised in world trade, even with the generous tariff preferences since the Cotonou and Lomé agreements.
Our experience with the Lomé and Cotonou trading regimes demonstrates this: unilateral trade preferences are not enough for developing countries' economic take-off: ACP countries' share of the EU market has declined from 6.7% in 1976 to about 3.5% of EU imports nowadays.
Fuel, diamonds, gold and some agricultural products such as cocoa, coffee and bananas still constitute their export base. But extractive industries have seldom been a good basis on which to pursue industrial development. Often, they have even stoked up what economists call the resource curse.
Few ACP countries have managed to attract value-adding processing industries, to climb up the value chain and produce transformed or manufactured goods. According to the UN Industrial Development Organisation's latest report, 87% of exports of Sub-Saharan Africa are either primary commodities or resource-based manufactures, compared to only 39% for all developing countries. Manufacturing value added in Sub-Saharan Africa (excluding South Africa) was around 20 billion dollars in 2005, representing a mere 1% of manufacturing value added in developing countries and less than 0.5% worldwide.
But it is not all bad news.
The latest IMF Regional Economic Outlook, for instance, predicts most countries in the Sub-Saharan African region will have bounced back to the high growth levels in the mid-2000's by next year. Importantly, this would be to a large extent the result of sound economic policy, strong domestic demand on the basis of rising real incomes and sustained private and public investment, and exports towards fast-growing markets in Asia. However, it remains the case that this rise in investment and exports is overwhelmingly driven by commodities and raw materials.
Both these positive and negative developments are important to take into account.
That is why I cannot be, as Cobden put it, 'totally indifferent as to whether other nations became free-traders or not': because ACP countries clearly need to link up with global markets even more to build a sound and sustainable economic base at home.
* * *
C'est ici que les accords de partenariat économique entrent en jeu.
En 2000, lorsque l'UE et ses partenaires ACP ont conclu l'Accord de Cotonou, leur partenariat était fondé sur trois piliers complémentaires:
-
-la coopération au développement
-
-la coopération économique et commerciale;
-
-et la dimension politique.
L'objectif était de réduire voire éliminer la pauvreté et d'intégrer progressivement les pays ACP dans l'économie mondiale. La réforme de notre politique commerciale faisait partie de ce concept au sens large, et devait s'inscrire dans les accords de partenariat économique, ou APE.
Tout d'abord, comme leur nom l'indique bien, les APE sont basés sur l'économie et le développement. Quelles que soient les difficultés politiques qui ont entravées le processus, nous ne devons en aucun cas oublier la logique économique fondamentale derrière.
Ensuite, les APE sont fondés sur le partenariat, ce qui signifie des droits et des obligations pour les deux parties. Toutefois, le partenariat implique également que le partenaire le plus fort aide le plus faible.
Et enfin, on parle d'accords: ce sont des instruments qui assurent la sécurité juridique et la prévisibilité pour les opérateurs économiques entre les régions ACP, dans les relations entre les pays ACP et l'UE et vers d'autres partenaires de l'OMC. Et en tant que tels, ils contiennent des engagements, qui doivent être respectés et mis en œuvre par les deux parties.
Il y a un équilibre délicat à cette approche qui ne réussira que si nous maintenons notre approche équilibrée.
* * *
Indeed, such a broad economic and institutional approach is more than ever necessary in a world economy that has fundamentally changed over the years.
Today, international trade is no longer a simple matter of import and export of goods, but a story of increasingly global supply chains; where more than half of world trade takes place between subsidiaries of multinational companies; where foreign investment is a channel to increase exports and create jobs; where countries import to export; where areas like financial, telecom and retail services play an ever bigger role in supporting all sectors of the economy; and where regional strongholds can be used as springboards for international success.
Finding your place in these global networks and supply chains is the key to competitiveness. In fact, this understanding is the basis of the European Commission's own new trade policy for the years to come, which we have finalised last month. And though they are in a different stage of development, the same fundamental rules equally apply to ACP countries.
Therefore, attracting investment is one of the key goals of the Economic Partnership Agreements. Investment plays a bigger and bigger role in the global economy and this was a main acknowledgement of this week's Africa-EU Summit. The tables have to turn, not just for Africa but also for the Caribbean and the Pacific.
In the World Bank's 2011 Doing Business report, three of the top ten pro-business reformers are from Sub-Saharan Africa, and the ratings of quite a few countries above the 140th rank are steadily climbing. On the lower end, though, three out of four countries in the bottom 40 places are still from ACP countries.
EPAs will help ACP countries to do business, to become more competitive and more investor-friendly places, by helping to create a transparent and predictable business environment. The extent of these benefits will also depend on how far governments want to go in promoting vibrant and innovative economic policies, in improving economic governance, enhancing transparency, for example, in government procurement, and dealing with behind-the-border issues. I sometimes find the EPA debate too focused on tariff issues. Better customs administration and less restrictive trade and customs regulations go a long way to facilitate trade. According to the OECD, reducing delays at borders by 6.3% or the number of trading documents by 11% could increase trade flows in Africa by 10%.
If Europe is fit to deal with these global challenges, it is primarily because it is the biggest economic bloc in the world and because our internal market is a testing ground for competiveness. The same goes for ACP countries.
As South African Trade and Industry minister Rob Davies recently remarked, boosting regional trade and investment is a must: 'As single countries we don't begin to touch the sizes of the domestic markets in China and India, but as a grouping from Cape-to-Cairo we do start to hit that league'.
But if the principle is straightforward - think global, act regional - the practice is far from easy. Exports from Sub-Saharan African countries to one another accounted for 11% of their total outbound trade by 2006, compared to 46% among the Asian emerging economies and 71% for Europe. The picture is better in the Caribbean and geographical factors do not make life easy in the Pacific, but I take note of the commitment of your governments to the regional integration agenda.
The trade rules in the EPAs are designed to promote regional integration within existing ACP integration schemes.
Once again: the Partnership Agreements are the complement and support to genuine existing regional integration efforts - and there have been very promising developments in recent years - but they cannot create the political will to integrate nor push for the internal coherence on their own. This remains the full responsibility of our ACP partners.
We are sometimes told that through EPAs we are disrupting regional integration ambitions particularly in Africa. In actual fact, we are negotiating these agreements with regional groups chosen by our partners themselves. If you look at the regional picture in particular of sub-Saharan Africa, it is true that there are some overlapping structures, but rest assured that our aim is to accompany and support regional integration in whichever form chosen by our partners and we can do that through EPAs and other means.
For example, take the country we are in today. The Democratic Republic of Congo has been negotiating an EPA with us within CEEAC, the Economic Community of Central African States. At the same time it is a member of COMESA and SADC and is closely linked historically to Eastern Africa especially its neighbours in the Great Lakes region, Burundi and Rwanda, with whom it cooperates through CEPGL. The latter is a particularly interesting example of a cooperation mechanism aimed at anchoring regional peace which the EU supports financially. I am encouraged to note the political input of these three countries to get CEPGL operationally on track. Things are moving. With finance available, large-scale economic infrastructure binding these countries together will come on stream. This process is complementary to other objectives set out by the wider regional groupings the Democratic Republic of Congo, Rwanda and Burundi belong to. Equally important, if in future, they are covered by an EPA, they should expect to be trading more easily within their respective regions, with the EU and also across neighbouring regions. There are visions on the African continent for the creation of a large common market encompassing various regions. EPAs are a help, not a hindrance in this respect.
EPAs go beyond the traditional one-way trade preferences for ACP goods. They still provide the most generous duty-free, quota-free market access to Europe and come with improved rules of origin in crucial sectors, such as clothing, agriculture and fisheries and we are now acting to improve cumulation for EPA signatories. But market access for goods alone is not enough.
Therefore, EPAs will also address services - such as telecommunications, transport, banking and construction - which are the backbone of a modern, growing economy. EPAs will lower the costs of inputs and manufactured goods; increase the competitiveness of the local economy by encouraging the diversification of production and development of manufacturing so as to better integrate into international supply chains and access local, regional and international markets.
* * *
Voici les défis auxquels les pays en développement font face dans l'économie mondiale d'aujourd'hui, et nous pensons qu'un partenariat solide et mature avec l'Union européenne est la meilleure façon de les aider.
L'Accord de Cotonou envisageait des partenariats parfaitement adaptés aux besoins spécifiques des régions, reflétant différents niveaux de développement entre les pays ACP et l'UE. Ces accords ciblent un juste équilibre des droits et obligations des partenaires. Alors que l'UE libéralise pleinement l'accès à son marché, les pays ACP bénéficient de longues périodes de transition, de garanties, de conditions spécifiques pour les industries naissantes et d'exclusions de produits leur permettant ainsi de protéger les secteurs sensibles.
En outre, le partenariat signifie aussi que l'UE aidera les partenaires ACP à renforcer leurs capacités institutionnelles et productives, afin de tirer le meilleur parti de nouvelles opportunités et de relever les défis avec succès. La coopération au développement est donc un complément nécessaire à la libéralisation du commerce et d'autres réformes, par la formation des agents publics, par exemple, en aidant les entreprises à améliorer leur technologie de production pour se conformer aux normes européennes ou par la modernisation des infrastructures.
En tant qu'ancien commissaire au développement, je sais combien le commerce et l'aide doivent aller de pair dans l'économie des pays en développement. Je crois sincèrement en la nécessité d'accords commerciaux favorables au développement et soutenus par l'aide au commerce. Vous ne pouvez pas parler de libre-échange si le terrain de jeu est inégal.
Mais il y a une limite à cette flexibilité, et l'aide ne peut jamais être une alternative au commerce. C'est en tous cas ce que l'histoire des pays ACP nous enseigne.
Il ne faudrait pas que les APE deviennent des accords de non-échange.
* * *
For all these reasons, we need to break the current stalemate in the EPA process, whether you look at it from a legal, economic or political perspective. Three years after the initial 2007 deadline, the EPA negotiations have reached a make-or-break point.
Except for the CARIFORUM agreement, the first and so far the only EPA to be finalised, process in other regions has been uneven. With three regions- notably the East African Community, the Southern Africa Development Community and West Africa - a comprehensive agreement could be near, provided the political will is mustered. In other regions, medium-term prospects are far less clear.
Meanwhile, the Market Access Regulation, which temporarily grants 36 ACP countries duty free-quota free access to European markets while they negotiate EPAs, is stretched to its limits.
In the meantime, traders and investors have to rely on interim agreements, in some cases not even signed and largely not applied by the countries concerned.
So we are confronted now with three main challenges:
-
-to instil fresh momentum into the negotiations by concluding comprehensive EPAs with the regions that are ready and willing to do so;
-
-to continue to implement donors' accompanying measures to support wider regional integration and EPA processes;
-
-and to bring legal certainty to the market access arrangements.
On the political momentum, I dare to be reasonably optimistic. The Africa-EU Summit this week has given just the kind of impetus we need to jump-start progress.
Just as internationally there is a growing consensus that the Doha Development Round needs to be finalised to stabilise world trade, there is also a growing appreciation of the fact that trade agreements can help ACP countries leave the economic crisis well and truly behind.
I believe constructive dialogue - between governments and negotiators, between Members of Parliament of all regions, with businesspeople and civil society - can get the misunderstandings that are still rife in the EPA process out of the way and build the trust necessary for us to conclude.
I understand the complexity for ACP governments and administrations and the difficulties adjusting to a new trade regime implies, not least in dealing with the possible negative impacts of trade liberalisation on custom revenues. There are many studies on these impacts, and some of them confirm ACP concerns over eroding their revenue bases. However, all of these capture only a part of reality, that is the trade liberalization effects on revenue, and neglect positive outcomes such as increased investment, production and trade in the regions. In addition, we stand ready to assist with tax system reforms and managing adjustment during the transition period.
But most of all am I convinced these obstacles can, should and will be overcome.
For its part, the EU and its member states have not waited for the end of the negotiations to address these issues. We recognise that trade liberalisation and reforms need our support to make trade work for developing countries. We are already providing that support to strengthen institutions, build productive capacity and facilitate adjustment.
In 2007, the EU adopted its Aid for Trade strategy, designed to scale up our aid commitments in trade-related sectors and improve quality and effectiveness. OECD figures on 2008 Aid for Trade show that EU and Member States are living up to their engagements. Commitments to the ACP countries increased substantially, from less than 2 billion € in 2007 to more than 3 billion in 2008, an increase of 53 %.
* * *
Ladies and gentlemen,
We can use other instruments beyond trade and aid to help promote sustainable economic development, in particular in the raw materials sector.
All too often, developing economies' reliance on raw materials has proved to be a stumbling block for their development.
Yet today, many more of them are finding ways in which to avert the determinism of the resource curse I mentioned earlier.
Whereas the fight for diamonds and minerals has often fuelled armed conflicts and undermined stable governance, more and more governments are working successfully on ways to turn the logic around; to go from conflict to cooperation; to use transparency and governance to make their economy more sustainable and make revenues benefit the population at large.
That too, should be part of our common effort. International rules and targeted initiatives have proven to be conducive to solutions in tackling these complex issues.
Suffice it to think of the Kimberley Process, the Extractive Industry Transparency Initiative (EITI) and, more recently, the American Dodd Frank Bill. Elements such as transparency in the economic value chain - as advocated in this Bill - and a predictable and stable legal framework should per se help to attract the investments likely to contribute to the upgrading of an economy and the local creation of more and better value added.
The EU, as the world's largest importer of raw materials, should not hesitate to live up to its own responsibilities in this, including those of our own companies.
The European Commission has been considering the issue of transparency in the extractive industries within the wider context of EU-financial regulatory reform, and my Colleague Commissioner Barnier is conducting a public consultation to gather stakeholders' views on financial reporting by multinational companies.
In June of this year, the Commission agreed to expand cooperation with the African Union Commission to improve governance and transparency in mining activities. Also in June, the Council urged the EU and Member States to enhance support for the EITI. And as we speak, the Commission is finalising a communication on raw materials in this context and the issue of transparency in the extractive industry will be addressed as well.
And we will continue to cooperate in exploring how we can realistically support accountability in this key sector.
The European Parliament has always been very supportive of these initiatives. Only last week, for instance, we had a debate on trade and Corporate Social Responsibility. Maybe the Joint Parliamentary Assembly can pick this up too at some later stage.
* * *
Ladies and gentlemen,
10 years after the Cotonou Agreement, ACP countries are at a crossroads.
Coming out of a global crisis which was not of their own making but which has shaken them to the bones.
They are influenced by global developments which offer both tremendous opportunities, but also present massive challenges
They have growing populations that are up to the task, confident and eager to take these challenges head-on, but are relying on their governments to support them in this.
More than ever, they need strong leadership to make strategic choices.
More than ever, their future is decided by how they deal with international developments.
Not coincidentally, David Van Reybrouck ends his monumental history of the Congo with stories of the millions of Congolese, from Kinshasa to Shanghai, who are taking the future into their own hands.
‘The new Congo’, he writes poetically, even sounds different than the old, ‘it sings in the arrivals hall of an echoing airport. It is the sound of tape, big brown rolls of tape around packages and boxes,… meters and meters of tape that screams and screeches when they unroll and tear it. This shriek is not complaining. It is the sound of new life.’
All over Africa, similar sounds of hope and energy can be heard, the sound of new life comes from hundreds of busy airports, thousands of dockyards. From warehouses, workshops and service centers, Africans are working towards the future.
They are counting on us to help them.
They are counting on you especially, as Members of Parliament, as their representatives, to work towards the future a well - their future.
We cannot, and we will not let them down.
Thank you very much.