A/HRC/8/WG.2/TF/2 page 12 adjustment costs would be met by initiatives such as Aid for Trade, which amounts to about 2 billion euros for ACP countries and about 1 billion euros by 2010 in bilateral assistance. A number of points in the consultant’s study were misleading and led to wrong conclusions, including the strong criticism of the European Common Agricultural Policy, indicating that EPAs completely opened the European markets to ACP products. It was also pointed out that a number of provisions in EPAs contribute to increased transparency and better governance and that, overall, the agreements will have a positive economic impact, while recognizing that the process could have benefited from broader consultations and civil society participation. The representatives of the EC also provided further clarifications on technical questions which had been raised, including those related to rules of origin reforms, and outlined the measures taken by the EC to address the disparities between negotiating partners. 44. The representative of UNDP noted the importance of support for trade capacity development and especially support targeted at productive sectors and referred to bottlenecks in areas like technology and technology transfer, and market access. He also referred to monitoring and evaluation as one area of weakness of aid for trade arrangements, which is mainly based on self-assessment. In UNDP’s view, trade and trade liberalization are not ends in themselves but can lead to poverty reduction and development. 45. During the ensuing discussion, the absence of ACP secretariat representatives to present their perspective was regretted. Reference was made to the economic vulnerabilities of many ACP countries. Comments and discussion focused on whether the agreement promotes a human rights-based approach to development, the place of intellectual property protection in negotiations, and the impact of the work of transnational corporations involved in extractive industries on natural resources and the environment in Africa. Particular attention was paid to the usefulness of development benchmarks and the need for a consistent review and assessment of the implications and the impact of the EPAs as well as the need to have measures in place to confront any possible developmental shortfalls. It was noted that it is too early to judge the impact of EPAs, but that the task force should undertake an analysis of their developmental aspects. E. Preliminary discussion of phase II of the Work Plan: additional partnerships in the context of MDG 8 46. As mandated by the Working Group, the task force discussed additional partnerships in the context of MDG 8 to be considered in phase II. The Chairperson-Rapporteur suggested the task force consider Target 17 of MDG 8, as one of the thematic areas of global partnership which would also allow a right-to-development review of the trade dimension of intellectual property rights and health. A right to development focus on Target 17 could also incorporate the work of WHO, UNDP, the Special Rapporteur on the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health, the World Bank, and public-private partnerships involving the pharmaceutical industry. The representative of the WHO welcomed the proposal and possible future collaboration with the task force and elaborated on the linkage between access to medicines and the right to health as well as human rights-based approach to health in the work of WHO.