5th Pacific ACP Regional Negotiating Team
SG 5th Pacific ACP Regional Negotiating Team
16 Mar 2006 19:49:18 OPENING REMARKS BY MR GREG URWIN
SECRETARY GENERAL OF THE
PACIFIC ISLANDS FORUM SECRETARIAT
FIFTH MEETING OF THE PACIFIC ACP REGIONAL NEGOTIATING TEAM (RNT)
Holiday Inn, Suva, Fiji
16 - 17 March 2006
Ministers, Delegates, Ladies and Gentlemen.
It is a pleasure to welcome you to Suva for this fifth Meeting of the Regional Negotiating Team (RNT). May I also extend to you my warm greetings and best wishes for what is left of 2006. Since your fourth meeting in October 2005, our region with your support and leadership, has continued to make progress in the key areas of the EPA negotiations. As a result, there are quite a number of important issues on your agenda to discuss over the course of your meeting.
2. As you proceed through your agenda, it is necessary always to keep in the back of our minds the Vision articulated by Pacific Leaders in 2004 for the Pacific region as being a region of peace, harmony and economic prosperity, based on intensified regional cooperation. This cooperation will take a number of forms identified in the Pacific Plan adopted by Forum Leaders in Papua New Guinea last year, including collaborative negotiation of an EPA between the Pacific ACP States and the European Union.
3. And that brings me to a second general point that I would like to emphasise. This Regional Negotiating Team has been mandated by all 14 members of the Pacific ACP Group to negotiate with the EU on behalf of the region as a whole, and that must remain our guiding principle until our Leaders instruct us otherwise. That places a heavy responsibility on your shoulders, to arrive collectively at decisions that will benefit not only your own countries all PACP countries. In deciding to go at this negotiation together, the PACP Leaders placed a premium on regional integration as a key strategy for achieving their development goals, something which they obviously reaffirmed through the Forum Vision and the Pacific Plan. It is therefore correct for your officials in the Negotiation Group to again emphasise this key principle of regional unity as the negotiation enters into a challenging phase.
4. As you all know, the negotiations must finish and all formalities be completed by January 2008, some 21 months from now. As you begin your deliberations this morning, therefore, it is useful to consider briefly the progress made to date and what lies ahead over the coming year and into 2007. In doing so, it is important that both progress to date and tasks remaining be seen in their proper perspective and in the light of the specific circumstances of our region.
5. You have a full agenda of critically important issues before you so I would like to say just a little bit more about the status of the EPA negotiations and the progress made since your last meeting.
RNT Meeting in October 2005
6. In your October 2005 meeting, the following key issues and papers were discussed:
" PACP-EU EPA Architecture;
" An Everything But Arms (EBA) equivalent for a trade in goods agreement;
" A non-paper on Tourism Partnership Agreement (TPA);
" A paper on Fisheries Partnership Agreement;
" A non-paper on Investment Promotion and Protection, Plus (IPPA ); and
" The Outcomes of the Technical Working Group on Legal, Institutional and Capacity Building.
7. A good deal has been progressed in these areas and is being reported to you by the Negotiation Group, so I will restrict my comments to three issues architecture, development and the way forward.
PACP-EU EPA Architecture
8. On the architecture issue, you will recall that our region's position continues to be that endorsed by the PACP Trade Ministers in May 2005, and that is for a Master Agreement and four subsidiary agreements, covering trade in goods, trade in services and tourism, fisheries and investment. These would all have legal standing and allow for flexibility so that individual PACPS can participate in one or more subsidiary agreements in light of their own national interests.
9. In response to our proposal on the architecture, the EU has suggested a single EPA to which all PACPS would be party, while recognising that those PACPS which were not able to become a party in any particular components of the EPA could opt out of such components.
10. While there are significant differences between the PACP proposal and the EU's response, the Negotiation Group is keen to proceed with discussions with the EC on the substantive issues, without prejudice, I might add, on the architectural question. These substantive issues -- on investment, services including tourism, fisheries and trade in goods including agriculture have been reasonably well-developed and are before you for your consideration. Discussions with the EC on these through the Joint Technical Working Group will yield better understanding of the likelihood of their acceptance.
11. In the meantime, and reflecting the concern to remain true to the region's negotiating first principles, there is a proposal that the two architectural options, ours' and the EC's, be assessed against the 4 basic principles of regional economic integration, development, flexibility for PACP participation, and WTO compatibility. These two strands, of substantive discussions on one hand and of further assessment of the architecture options will place you and your other PACP colleagues in a much better position to move ahead during the second half of the year.
Development Dimensions
12. The development dimension of EPA continues to be one of the most vexing issues in the negotiation because of the PACP's concern to ensure that the negotiations result in an EPA that produces genuine development benefits for all PACPs. It is for this reason that the Negotiation Group is recommending to you that a PACP-EU EPA contain binding financial commitments by the EU for additional resources to meet the adjustment and trade development costs that will arise directly out of the PACP trade and trade-related commitments in the EPA. It is for this reason as well that that adjustment and trade development assistance must not result in a reduction of EDF resources for other development activities. To put it simply, the Negotiation Group is concerned to ensure that an EPA does not come at the expense of hospitals and roads. The response from the EC so far is not very encouraging so I think there is a need to proceed with a great deal of caution on this particular matter on all fronts, including our ongoing discussions on the EDF itself.
Way Forward
13. On the way forward and given the progress that has been made thus far, as well as the limited time frame facing the region, it is proposed that our attention now needs to focus more on actual negotiations themselves, with increased involvement by all PACPS in reviewing the progress of negotiations and deciding on regional positions to be adopted during those negotiations. This approach is reflected in the new Road Map which the Negotiation Group has placed before you for your consideration. The proposal is that for the period between March and June, the meetings and other activities proceed as advised in February 2006, with the addition of a formal negotiating session at the officials level in early June, in Papua New Guinea or, failing that, the Secretariat, to increase the negotiating momentum and take advantage of senior EC official's presence in the region at that time. PNG is offering to host this extra meeting in Port Moresby.
14. For the July-December period, the focus of attention would be on actual negotiations themselves, at both the official- and ministerial-levels, as well as meetings to obtain feedback and direction from PACP Trade Officials and Trade Ministers and the Regional Negotiating Team (RNT), piggy-backing meetings of those groups/bodies on other relevant meetings to save time and money wherever possible.
15. The work ahead is by no means easy, and the issues we have to resolve are complex. But they are so crucial to the future of our region and your leadership and commitment and the support of our members are such, that I remain optimistic that we can complete the task. With these remarks I wish you well in your deliberations. Thank you.
16 Mar 2006 19:49:18 OPENING REMARKS BY MR GREG URWIN
SECRETARY GENERAL OF THE
PACIFIC ISLANDS FORUM SECRETARIAT
FIFTH MEETING OF THE PACIFIC ACP REGIONAL NEGOTIATING TEAM (RNT)
Holiday Inn, Suva, Fiji
16 - 17 March 2006
Ministers, Delegates, Ladies and Gentlemen.
It is a pleasure to welcome you to Suva for this fifth Meeting of the Regional Negotiating Team (RNT). May I also extend to you my warm greetings and best wishes for what is left of 2006. Since your fourth meeting in October 2005, our region with your support and leadership, has continued to make progress in the key areas of the EPA negotiations. As a result, there are quite a number of important issues on your agenda to discuss over the course of your meeting.
2. As you proceed through your agenda, it is necessary always to keep in the back of our minds the Vision articulated by Pacific Leaders in 2004 for the Pacific region as being a region of peace, harmony and economic prosperity, based on intensified regional cooperation. This cooperation will take a number of forms identified in the Pacific Plan adopted by Forum Leaders in Papua New Guinea last year, including collaborative negotiation of an EPA between the Pacific ACP States and the European Union.
3. And that brings me to a second general point that I would like to emphasise. This Regional Negotiating Team has been mandated by all 14 members of the Pacific ACP Group to negotiate with the EU on behalf of the region as a whole, and that must remain our guiding principle until our Leaders instruct us otherwise. That places a heavy responsibility on your shoulders, to arrive collectively at decisions that will benefit not only your own countries all PACP countries. In deciding to go at this negotiation together, the PACP Leaders placed a premium on regional integration as a key strategy for achieving their development goals, something which they obviously reaffirmed through the Forum Vision and the Pacific Plan. It is therefore correct for your officials in the Negotiation Group to again emphasise this key principle of regional unity as the negotiation enters into a challenging phase.
4. As you all know, the negotiations must finish and all formalities be completed by January 2008, some 21 months from now. As you begin your deliberations this morning, therefore, it is useful to consider briefly the progress made to date and what lies ahead over the coming year and into 2007. In doing so, it is important that both progress to date and tasks remaining be seen in their proper perspective and in the light of the specific circumstances of our region.
5. You have a full agenda of critically important issues before you so I would like to say just a little bit more about the status of the EPA negotiations and the progress made since your last meeting.
RNT Meeting in October 2005
6. In your October 2005 meeting, the following key issues and papers were discussed:
" PACP-EU EPA Architecture;
" An Everything But Arms (EBA) equivalent for a trade in goods agreement;
" A non-paper on Tourism Partnership Agreement (TPA);
" A paper on Fisheries Partnership Agreement;
" A non-paper on Investment Promotion and Protection, Plus (IPPA ); and
" The Outcomes of the Technical Working Group on Legal, Institutional and Capacity Building.
7. A good deal has been progressed in these areas and is being reported to you by the Negotiation Group, so I will restrict my comments to three issues architecture, development and the way forward.
PACP-EU EPA Architecture
8. On the architecture issue, you will recall that our region's position continues to be that endorsed by the PACP Trade Ministers in May 2005, and that is for a Master Agreement and four subsidiary agreements, covering trade in goods, trade in services and tourism, fisheries and investment. These would all have legal standing and allow for flexibility so that individual PACPS can participate in one or more subsidiary agreements in light of their own national interests.
9. In response to our proposal on the architecture, the EU has suggested a single EPA to which all PACPS would be party, while recognising that those PACPS which were not able to become a party in any particular components of the EPA could opt out of such components.
10. While there are significant differences between the PACP proposal and the EU's response, the Negotiation Group is keen to proceed with discussions with the EC on the substantive issues, without prejudice, I might add, on the architectural question. These substantive issues -- on investment, services including tourism, fisheries and trade in goods including agriculture have been reasonably well-developed and are before you for your consideration. Discussions with the EC on these through the Joint Technical Working Group will yield better understanding of the likelihood of their acceptance.
11. In the meantime, and reflecting the concern to remain true to the region's negotiating first principles, there is a proposal that the two architectural options, ours' and the EC's, be assessed against the 4 basic principles of regional economic integration, development, flexibility for PACP participation, and WTO compatibility. These two strands, of substantive discussions on one hand and of further assessment of the architecture options will place you and your other PACP colleagues in a much better position to move ahead during the second half of the year.
Development Dimensions
12. The development dimension of EPA continues to be one of the most vexing issues in the negotiation because of the PACP's concern to ensure that the negotiations result in an EPA that produces genuine development benefits for all PACPs. It is for this reason that the Negotiation Group is recommending to you that a PACP-EU EPA contain binding financial commitments by the EU for additional resources to meet the adjustment and trade development costs that will arise directly out of the PACP trade and trade-related commitments in the EPA. It is for this reason as well that that adjustment and trade development assistance must not result in a reduction of EDF resources for other development activities. To put it simply, the Negotiation Group is concerned to ensure that an EPA does not come at the expense of hospitals and roads. The response from the EC so far is not very encouraging so I think there is a need to proceed with a great deal of caution on this particular matter on all fronts, including our ongoing discussions on the EDF itself.
Way Forward
13. On the way forward and given the progress that has been made thus far, as well as the limited time frame facing the region, it is proposed that our attention now needs to focus more on actual negotiations themselves, with increased involvement by all PACPS in reviewing the progress of negotiations and deciding on regional positions to be adopted during those negotiations. This approach is reflected in the new Road Map which the Negotiation Group has placed before you for your consideration. The proposal is that for the period between March and June, the meetings and other activities proceed as advised in February 2006, with the addition of a formal negotiating session at the officials level in early June, in Papua New Guinea or, failing that, the Secretariat, to increase the negotiating momentum and take advantage of senior EC official's presence in the region at that time. PNG is offering to host this extra meeting in Port Moresby.
14. For the July-December period, the focus of attention would be on actual negotiations themselves, at both the official- and ministerial-levels, as well as meetings to obtain feedback and direction from PACP Trade Officials and Trade Ministers and the Regional Negotiating Team (RNT), piggy-backing meetings of those groups/bodies on other relevant meetings to save time and money wherever possible.
15. The work ahead is by no means easy, and the issues we have to resolve are complex. But they are so crucial to the future of our region and your leadership and commitment and the support of our members are such, that I remain optimistic that we can complete the task. With these remarks I wish you well in your deliberations. Thank you.
