A/HRC/8/WG.2/TF/2 page 11 D. Cotonou Partnership Agreement between European Union (EU) and African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) countries 41. Nico Schrijver, member of the task force, presented a report of the technical mission of the task force for the preliminary assessment of the Cotonou Agreement undertaken from 19 to 21 September 2007 in Brussels, to interact and promote dialogue with relevant actors, including the European Commission (EC), the ACP secretariat and civil society organizations and experts. The Cotonou Agreement has unique, far-reaching and multilateral features, covering a wide range of regions and topics, including development, political dialogue, trade, migration, investment, and participation of civil society. Although the Agreement contains provisions on human rights, the right to development is not mentioned expressly. Nevertheless, both the Agreement and the practice based thereon contain various relevant elements. Mr. Schrijver reviewed examples of both positive measures (“incentives”, additional assistance) and negative measures (sanctions, suspending aid) of EU-ACP human rights policies. He also gave an overview of the Economic Partnership Agreements (EPAs), which are being negotiated between the EU and regional groupings of ACP countries, referring to concerns raised regarding the extent to which the agreements respect the ownership of ACP countries, as well as the extent of stakeholders’ participation and information sharing in the process of conclusion of EPAs. Mr. Schrijver presented the preliminary observations and conclusions of the mission. 42. On behalf of James Thuo Gathii, consultant to the task force who had been unable to travel to Geneva, the Chairperson-Rapporteur of the task force read out the summary and conclusions of the consultant’s study. EPAs are being negotiated under conditions that undermine the full participation of ACP countries in determining their development objectives and may result, at least in the short run, in revenue losses and restricted access to the EU market, making it highly likely that the social and economic human rights of millions will be adversely affected. Other human rights concerns include expanding negotiations into new areas such as competition and government procurement, imposing a heavy cost burden on ACP countries that far outweighs the potential dynamic benefits that the new commitments will require. EPA negotiations on trade need to take into account the special needs of developing and least developed countries, particularly the need for preferential treatment in trade relations which are increasingly becoming the dominant pillar of EU-ACP relations. Human rights, in particular the right to development, ought to take centre stage in EPA negotiations as well as in EU development cooperation. The right-to-development criteria could play a crucial role in the measurement of the partnership in general and the EPAs in particular. 43. The representatives of the EC provided background information on the Cotonou Agreement and the EPAs and clarified a number of issues raised in the consultant’s study. The EC representative stressed that at the conclusion of the Agreement in 2000 all parties had accepted the expiration of the waiver of WTO-compatibility at the end of 2007 and that EPAs were needed to replace that waiver, which has not had the desired effect, especially on investment in sub-Saharan Africa. He also explained why it was not feasible to request new exemptions from WTO obligations and why a region-by-region approach had been taken in concluding EPAs. The EC representative responded to the criticism of the EPAs based on the lost tariff income and lost policy space of the ACP countries by referring to the actions that States can take to address these issues. The EC maintained that any additional resources to cover