The Finnish Presidency of the EU has proposed the postponement of the third ACP-EU ministerial negotiating meeting, originally set for 8-9 November till December. The dates of 7-8 December have been put forward, but these are yet to be confirmed. It is thought that this postponement was fuelled by the concern that more time is required to resolve the substantial differences between the two parties following their disappointing meeting in July. Negotiations at civil servant level between the two parties scheduled for last week have also been rescheduled for next week.

During a press conference, the head of the Commission’s negotiating team, Mr Bernard Petit, expressed his optimism that all differences between the two parties would be resolved in time. He said questions relating to the financial allocation for the 9^th European Development Fund (EDF), to be settled by EU Heads of State before the expiry date of the present ACP-EU Agreement on 28 February, would however be particular difficult to tackle.

Meanwhile the Deputy Secretary-General of the ACP Secretariat, Mr Carl Greenidge, has expressed his doubts that the ACP and the EU will be able to reach an agreement by the end of February next year. However, Finnish Development Minister and President of the EU Development Council, Ms. Satu Hassi, has warned of serious difficulties if the negotiations are not completed before the expiry date of the present ACP-EU Agreement. According to Ms Hassi, "We would be in a legal vacuum and there are no guarantees that the World Trade Organisation would give a new waiver if we prolong the existing convention". Several NGDOs have already called upon the EU to agree now to request a waiver from the WTO to preserve trade arrangements under the current convention if both parties fail to reach an agreement by March 1. According to an EU official, rolling over the present Convention in its entirety could pose problems. The EU’s promise to provide duty free access to all least developed countries by 2000 is not compatible with the discriminatory clause in the current ACP-EU Convention that limits duty free access to only ACP countries.

At last week’s Development Committee session at the European Parliament, the Committee’s new chair, MEP Mr Miranda (Portugal), outlined the issues that will serve as focal points for the work of the Committee. These included: the ACP-EU negotiations, the WTO negotiations, the1^st Summit between the EU and Africa next spring (under the Portuguese Presidency), and the rationalisation of resources for development and co-operation policy. The Development Committee plans to organise hearings regularly to inform its members (many of them are new) on relevant issues.

The first hearing, held during last week’s Development Committee’s session was on the EU’s co-financing operations with NGOs. During this hearing NGOs made it clear that they were encountering increasing difficulties in dealing with the European Commission, especially concerning small projects or small NGOs. Mr. Lowe, representing the Commission, outlined a number of points on how the Commission hoped to enhance its co-operation with NGOs.

1. The Commission as a whole has undertaken an effort to revitalise and to systematise its relations with NGOs. An inter-service group headed by Mr. Lowe, director of the Development Directorate, is producing a paper, "Towards enhanced co-operation with NGOs" and would consult NGOs on it on 30 September. "(See article below)
2. The Development Directorate of the Commission will have a special NGO web-site from November.
3. The Directorate has improved the staffing of the co-financing unit.
4. The new General Conditions on Co-Financing will enter into force on 1 January 2000. According to the Commission, there is a backlog of about a thousand NGO co-financing proposals that have not been processed. The Commission is proposing to cancel these proposals and start afresh. The new General Conditions will allow for programme contracts as opposed to single project contracts. These contracts will make it possible for NGOs or consortia of NGOs to apply for funding for their whole programmes. They will no longer be obliged to write applications for each individual project. In addition, the Commission will examine the possibility of handling smaller grants through EU Member States. The Commission will continue to channel parts of its funds through block grants. There will be two calls for proposals, one in December (already this year) and one in May/June 2000. The Commission is optimistic that this will allow it to respond to project applications at the latest after six months. Finally the Commission said that with the new General Conditions, it will gradually move towards the use of more ex post controls and will reduce ex ante controls.

These announced measures still do indicate that the Commission will indeed be in a better position to administer the EU co-financing budget line. Members of the Development Committee rightly asked why the Commission had again proposed to reduce the co-financing budget line. The Commission has also not yet spelled out how it would like programme contracts to work and how it could channel funds through the EU Member States.

The next Development Committee Hearing will be on the WTO. This will take place sometime in November.

On 30 September the Commission and representatives from Social, development, environment, consumer and human rights NGOs met to examine relations between the Commission and NGOs, both with respect to funding and dialogue. This meeting was organised as part of a consultation process that will lead to a Commission Green paper by the end of the year, followed by a further period of reflection and consultation with NGOs. About 60 people were involved in the meeting, including around 20 Commission staff from different services.

These discussions will establish the basis for future Commission relations with NGOs. At present the Commission's handling of NGOs varies from sector to sector, and there is a desire to bring more consistency across all sectors. There has also been a significant increase in NGO involvement in advisory committees as well as ad hoc consultative processes. Eurostep has been involved in discussions around the Fisheries Advisory Committee where NGOs (representing consumers, environment, and development) have three places out of 20, the remainder being filled by different interests directly involved in the European fishing industry. The Social Platform of NGOs, comprising an informal grouping of European networks of social NGOs has put forward three specific proposals: 1) There should be an article inserted in the EU Treaty setting down a legal basis for NGO dialogue with the Commission and other institutions. 2) There should be an accreditation system for NGOs - perhaps drawing on the UN or Council of Europe experiences - which would provide for an automatic right to be consulted in areas of competence. 3) The Commission should provide core funding for European networks of NGOs in recognition of their role as organisations that work for the 'pubic good'. The responses of the Commission demonstrate some resistant to establishing such a formalisation of the relationship.

Discussions on the EU position for the WTO millennium trade round are intensifying, as EU trade ministers met on 30 September in a special informal session to discuss the issue. This meeting followed an EU Agricultural Council earlier this week where the issues were discussed. The European Commission will also be meeting with civil society organisations next week on 7 October in Brussels. For more information you can contact Mr P. Carl at 00 32 2 299 22 10. The EU General Affairs Council is supposed to finalise the EU’s position on the trade round on 11 October. The Commission however insists that civil society organisations will still have the opportunity to influence the EU position well beyond this date.

At a separate meeting US trade officials have targeted the dismantling of EU agricultural trade barriers as one of the US’s objectives for the trade round. According to US trade Representative Charlene Barshefsky, the US also want to give a more humane and transparent face to the WTO by conferring upon it sensitivity towards environmental and social themes.