Further to the overview on some of the principal results the ACP-EU Ministerial Negotiations reported in last week's PAF (120), the PAF can this week add to these reports on the negotiations and also report on other related events and decisions from the ACP-EU Negotiations Meeting, on 8-9 February and the ACP Council of 6-7, 10 February.
Concerning the results of the negotiations on political and institutional issues, the ministerial meeting was unable to make much progress on the main points of divergence it was asked to address by ACP and EU ambassadors Brussels. Apart from the main sticking points, good governance and the non-execution clause, the two parties failed to agree on:
1) The establishment of two new institutions - a Council of Foreign Ministers and a Summit of Heads of
State. The ACP are proposing these two institutions in order to raise the political level of dialogue. 2) The procedures for dialogue with economic and social partners and with civil society. (Agreement was however reached, that the text of the future agreement should reflect the significant contribution of an active and organised civil society) 3) Whether the Committee of Ambassadors should be referred to separately in the new agreement. (The EU is of the view that the Committee is simply an offshoot of the Council of Ministers and should just be referred to in the Council's rules of procedure).
On the non-execution clause, which is also subject to further discussion, the delegate from Benin had proposed that the region/sub-regions to which a country, that is accused of violating the agreement belongs, should be involved in consultations with the accusing party. The argument behind this is that the possible suspension of aid to the accused country has implications for a region/sub-region as a whole.
In discussion on the private sector, investment, other development strategies and other actors, the two parties agreed on involvement of actors in implementing co-operation projects and programmes in areas where the actors have a comparative advantage and with accordance to objectives and priorities set by the state. Further work is needed on the role of modalities of consultation and dialogue with these actors, specially in the relation to programming.
Discussions on economic and trade also did not resolve many questions EU and ACP ambassadors put to their ministers. Both parties did however reaffirm their attachment to maintaining special treatment for ACP LDCs and duly take account the vulnerability of small, landlocked and island ACP countries. Agreement was also reached on defining the objectives and principles of future alternative trade arrangements in the new agreement (The ACP had been against this, arguing that a definition could not be made without first awaiting the outcome of changes in the international trade sphere such as the WTO Millennium Round of talks). Both parties however agreed that there is need for more technical work at expert level to enable the parties to determine the objectives of alternative trade arrangements including Regional Economic Partnership Agreements and a review of the GSP. To this end, the ACP decided to convene a seminar involving its technical experts (suggestions were made for February) in Brussels to examine the establishment of alternative trade arrangements.
Apart from the length of the preparatory period for alternative trade arrangements, the two parties failed to agree on the following points: 1) The ACP's request to safeguard and improve trade preferences during the preparatory period. 2) The nature and extent of the review of commodity protocols.
On financial co-operation, fundamental differences remain on programming and rationalisation of instruments. 1) The ACP propose that each ACP State be informed of the total amount of programmable resources it can expect to receive in a five year period in a firm commitment, while the EU is proposing informing ACP states on the initial amount it can expect to receive (this would only be indicative). 2) While the ACP call for joint reviews of the indicative programme midway through the Convention, the EU want joint reviews of indicative amounts every two years. Following these reviews indicative allocations to the ACP country could be adjusted. 3) The ACP proposes that reviews be based on criteria that are not only transparent (EU position) but also quantifiable. The EU also proposes that the review take account of both needs and performance.
During the ACP Council of Ministers, the President of the Council, Kenyan Minister, Mr. Saitoti informed the meeting of the first Informal ACP-EU Political Encounter in Brussels, on December 3 1998, involving the troikas of both parties. Among the issues discussed in the encounter was the publicity and visibility of the ACP partnership, including the integration of civil society. The Ministers observed that ACP-EU public opinion is no longer sensitised to the rationale, evolution and achievements of co-operation, and as a result is unsympathetic to legitimate goals of the ACP-EU negotiations. To address this the Ministers decided to set up a select group of experts to draft a media programme of action. This was supposed to have been first implemented at the ACP-EU Negotiations Ministerial Meeting in Dakar. It will be subsequently implemented in the process of the on-going negotiations and finally as a part of the future partnership.
On the final day of the ACP Council of Ministers it was decided that the next ACP-EU Ministerial meeting be held on 14-15 July in Brussels preceded by another ACP Extraordinary Ministerial Conference in Brussels on 12-13 July.
The ACP and the EU also jointly organised a public discussion on civil society in Dakar on 10 February. The purpose of the meeting was to disclose the outcome of the negotiations to the press and civil society and to discuss the issues with a panel consisting of both civil society representatives and delegates from the ACP and the EU. ACP civil society was represented, on the panel, by Ms. Muthoni Muriu (ENDA TM) and Mr. Babacar Toure (Press Group SVD). EU civil society was represented by Mr. Robert Savio (IPS) and Ms. O'Neill (University College Dublin). Following the meeting most civil society representatives felt that the discussion had failed to effectively disclose information and that no real discussions took place.
2. EP DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE HOLDS DISCUSSIONS WITH NGO AND COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVES
The European Parliament (EP) Development Committee this week organised a debate with NGO and European Commission representatives on the relationship between NGOs and the Commission. The debate involved presentations from a NGO representatives to which Commission representatives responded.
Leading the presentations from the NGOs, was Mr. James Mackie, the Secretary General of the Liaison Committee of EU NGOs (CLONG), who outlined NGOs concerns in their relation with the Commission. Mr Mackie informed the meeting that CLONG had, earlier this month, sent a letter to the President of the Commission outlinig the increasingly difficult relations between EU NGOs and the Commission over the past 12 months. He listed a series of events that had led to this: the argument between CLONG and the Commission over the continuation of CLONG's Co-financing Support Programme; the decision to replace the Programme with a Technical Assistance Office (NGOs have negative experiences in the use of such Offices in other sectors), the debacle over the blockage of EU budget lines affecting NGOs, the confusion surrounding the reorganisation of the Commission's External Relations (RELEX) Directorates and the Common Service for External Relations. An increasing misunderstanding of NGOs work by the Commission had manifested itself in the commonly held view that NGOs are simply cheap service providers.
The Commission's response came from Philip Lowe, the Director General of the Commission's Directorate for Development, who spoke on behalf of all the external relations' directorates. Mr. Lowe said the Commission viewed its partnership with NGOs as extremely important, since as much as 15% of the EU development budget goes to NGOs. While he saw the value of this relationship there were still some problems. He revealed that the director-generals of the external relations directorates were now meeting once a week to improve co-ordination. Mr. Lowe promised to respond to the detailed issues put by NGOs in a letter to the EP from all external relations directors. The PAF will attempt to follow up on this.
3. IN BRIEF
The EP External Economic Relations Committee held a Round Table, this week, with the WTO on the New Multilateral Trade Negotiations, the EU and its Developing Country Partners. The PAF will provide a fuller report on the Round Table next week. The official final report of the Round Table should be available in May.
South Africa are refusing to alter anything in the so called, 'Davos Compromise' on the EU-South Africa Trade Agreement. Certain EU Member States have asked for changes regarding the use of the names port and sherry.