1. ACP-EU MINISTERIAL MEETING IN DAKAR
The first ministerial negotiation conference reveals large measure of convergence of views on objectives of the post-Lomé agreement, but divergence on arrangements, especially for trade and good governance.
Mr. George Saitoti, Minister from Kenya said that the ACP did not wish to exclude any possibility of reaching an agreement favourable to the ACP states, but that some aspects went beyond the framework of ACP/EU relations, for example, the new round of WTO negotiations and the outcome of the GSP. Ms. Heidemarie Wieczoek Zeul, President -in-office of the EU Council, welcomed the results, highlighting the recognition by both sides of the need to promote regional cooperation, not to maintain trade preferences forever and to negotiate a derogation to WTO rules during a vital transitional period. Commissioner Pinheiro paid tribute to the German Presidency's initiative in favour of total annulment of the debt of the most heavily indebted ACP states (under the World Bank/IMF HIPC initiative), a subject that was addressed but that cannot be an autonomous EU initiative, he added.
The items at the heart of the debates were: good governance in the future agreement; development of consultation and political dialogue procedures prior to the application of the non-execution clause of the accord; the nature of future trade regime given the necessity of finding solutions in conformity with WTO rules without disregarding the poorest countries; improving the efficacy of cooperation. Differences of opinion still exist between the two groups on all these points.
The following is an overview of the principal results.
1. Political and institutional issues. Within the central negotiating group (see PAF of last week) , the two parties agree in large measures to make the future agreement simpler and readable and to give it a political dimension and to continue their reflection on the precise definition to the concept of good governance to avoid any differences of interpretation in monitoring its implementation. This must be done before determining whether or not to include it in the essential elements already written into Article 5 of the Current Lomé Convention. For the ACPs, this concept is not an element on which aid is made conditional. They point out that good governance is also the result of institutional development and sustained efforts to build national capability in the different areas (legislative, judicial and executive) in which the ACPs are at very diverse levels and for which they are requesting support from the Europeans. In their view, the conditionality of aid, acting on resource flows, will only accentuate these differences.
Regarding the non-execution clause in case of failure to respect one of these essential elements, the ministers decided to pursue discussions to improve consultation procedures. The ACP countries do not want a unilateral decisions by the Europeans, but a permanent consultation mechanism making real dialogue between the partners. The German Deputy Chancellor Joschka Fischer, said that the importance the EU attaches to good governance had to be seen as �an energetic plea for renunciation of violence� and not as arrogance. This importance responds to the EU's growing concerns over the rising number of armed conflicts an civil wars in Africa.
2. Private sector, investment and other development strategies.
The ACPs and EU agreed on the need to define the general objectives of a common strategy framework integrating the main elements of a sustainable development strategy based on: a) the eradication of poverty and the gradual integration of the ACP states into the global economy; b) support for development of the private sector (which, according to the ACPs, must no be limited to the business sector, but taken in a broader sense to include all actors in the non-state sphere; c) support for trade capabilities; d) economic cooperation on the basis of a differentiated partnership that takes account of the levels of development of the ACP states; e) cooperation founded on regional integration resulting from ACP initiatives.
3. Economic and trade cooperation
The two parties noted their divergence on the duration of and the arrangement for the transitional period prior to negotiating regional economic partnership agreements and alternative solutions for low-income countries not falling into the category of �least developed countries�.
The ACPs are requesting a 10-year period. They point out that earlier tariff dismantling would endanger their economies. During this period the ACP countries would like aid for the private sector and increase in non-reciprocal trade preferences to benefit from privileged access to European market. They argue that they are not solely responsible for the erosion of trade , noting that Europe has not implemented accompanying measures. The ACPs also expressed fears that non-tariff barriers that hinder access to the European market: unilaterally defined phytosanitary, social and environmental standards become barriers to trade for the ACP states. They also regret the lack of tax harmonisation in Europe which works to their detriment (in France, chocolate is subjected to 33% VAT, higher than on caviar, which does not encourage the import of ACP products).
For the LDCs the special regime to be negotiated in the WTO can now be taken for granted, but the ACP states would like countries engaging in structural reform to benefit from a performance premium as well. They also requested study of the case of low-income countries close to the criteria set by the UN for definition of LDCs (such as Zimbabwe or Ghana).
The EU assured its partners that it would negotiate greater flexibility in the WTO, both for the transitional period prior to free trade (15 years instead of 10) and for the level of exclusion of products (20% instead of 15%). Preoccupation's were also expressed about the situation of LDCs located in an integrated regional area and for vulnerable islands. On the latter point, the EU explained that it was studying the differentiation of vulnerability indices, in collaboration with the World Bank, but that agreement did not exist at world level.
4. Financial cooperation
Both sides agreed on long-term goals, namely: fostering local responsibility for the development process, revitalising the partnership with mutual rights and obligations, maintaining the predictability of resource flows by introducing greater flexibility, increasing the efficacy, coordination and consistency of cooperation procedures and instruments by rationalising and simplifying them.
Divergence remains as to the number of such instruments. There is agreement to maintain a mechanism compensating for fluctuations in earnings from basic exports, but the Union and the ACPs disagree on arrangements for such support. The ACP states wish to maintain the Stabex and Sysmin as separate instruments while improving their functioning, but the Europeans favour a long-term development instrument with a global investment facility, the framework of which would include aid for the stabilisation of ACP earnings. The British minister pointed out that the current system, based on separate budgets allocated in advance to the different ACP states, favours some - which are not the poorest - to the detriment of others. The ACP states wish to know the exact content of the EU proposals. It will be for the experts to make headway on this issue.
The next joint ministerial session will take place in Brussels under the Finnish presidency.
EU and ACP civil society organisations present, including Eurostep, were allowed to attend the special ACP Ministerial meeting. A report will be provided in the next week's PAF.
2. ALOP CALL FOR MORE LA-AM CIVIL SOCIETY PARTICIPATION WITH EU
The Latin American Association of Promotion Organisation (ALOP), which brings together NGDOs from 20 Latin-American countries, has just handed the European Commission and Parliament a series of recommendation aimed at ensuring greater participation of the civil society of Latin-American countries in preparing, managing, implementing and monitoring their countries' cooperation with the EU. These proposals take on board the conclusions of the seminar that ALOP organised at the EP last November on �Development NGOs and EU relations with the integration process in Latin America�.
For further information contact : ALOP, 11, rue de la Liniere, 1060 Brussels, tel: +32 2 53 69 11.