|
In the lead up to the formal opening of ACP-EU Negotiations on a new
Lomé agreement at the end of this month the ACP Secretariat hosted
the Fourth Meeting of ACP National and Regional Authorising Officers (NAOs,
RAOs) in Brussels this week. The NAOs, usually the finance ministers of
ACP countries, who jointly oversee the implementation of the Lomé
Convention with the European Commission, discussed their concerns about
the present Convention with the ACP Secretariat, with the aim of developing
further ACP recommendations for the negotiations. Also present were representatives
from European and ACP civil society organisations. The principal topics
on the agenda were: an exchange on views on the implementation of financial
and technical co-operation under the Convention; and the consideration
of the ACP Draft Negotiating Mandate (see PAF 99). On the implementation
of financial and technical co-operation, the main concern raised was the
limited use of ACP experts in technical co-operation and the capacity of
EU delegations in implementing the Convention. Concerning the former, the
ACP secretariat pointed out that during the first Lomé ACP Convention,
ACP experts (consultants etc.) consisted 12-13% of all technical expertise
employed in implementing the Convention. After twenty years of technical
co-operation this figures is now down to 6-8 %. Several NAOs criticised
the EU's choice of experts as often lacking experience and knowledge of
the country they are assigned to. Concerning the EU delegations, the main
point was their lack of authority to take key decisions. As a result, most
decisions have to be referred back to Brussels, considerably slowing down
the pace of implementation. Also the NAOs claimed that co-operation between
their offices and the EU delegation often hinged on personal relations,
thus frequent replacement and reshuffling of EU delegation staff often
disrupted ongoing programmes. The NAOs called for more power to be delegated
to the EU delegation to prevent frequent referrals back to Brussels and
for a more systematised (as opposed to personal) approach to co-operation
with the NAOs. A workshop was also held on the role of civil society in
the Lomé process. This involved participation from the from the
civil society organisations present. In an ensuing discussion several ACP
NAOs made it evident that they had serious concerns over the particular
role of civil society organisations in the Lomé process. The major
concern voiced was the apparent difficulty in making NGOs (and other civil
society organisations) accountable. The fear was also raised that, should
the role of civil society organisations be elevated within a new ACP-EU
agreement, the EU would be encouraged to by-pass ACP governments, it did
not favour, and deal directly with NGOs. According to some NAOs this was
already occurring. Other ACP NAOs expressed the view that very often civil
society organisations represent the narrow interests of particular sectors
of the population as opposed to governments who (are supposed to) represent
the interests of the whole country. Several NAOs recommended that the role
of NGOs be restricted to purely that of implementors of the future agreement.
A few NAOs along with the NGO representatives however countered this argument
by pointing out that civil society organisations could contribute more
to the Lomé process than implementation, through mainly promoting
debate on issues that may otherwise not be discussed, promoting dialogue
between the different actors of development and their beneficiaries and
acting as a check and balance on governments and governmental institutions
involved in the process. Among the other issues to be discussed were: the
promotion of regional integration within the ACP; the simplification of
instruments and management systems of the Conventions; and future policies
and strategies. For further details on the above mentioned issues you can
contact the Eurostep secretariat for copies of supporting documents for
the discussions produced by the ACP secretariat. A timetable for principal
ACP/EU meetings in the run up to the negotiations with the Union follows:21-24
September, Brussels ACP-EU Joint Assembly 26 September, Brussels Meeting
of ACP Foreign Ministers 28 September, Brussels Meeting of the Bureau of
the ACP Council28-29 September Brussels 68th Session of the ACP Council30
September, Brussels Official opening of the ACP-EU negotiations1-2 October
, Brussels Resumption of the ACP Council Session2. COMMISSION PRESIDENT
CALLS FOR REVISION OF CO-OPERATION WITH WARRING COUNTRIES IN CENTRAL AFRICA
At a European Commission meeting in Salzburg, the President of the European
Commission, Mr. Jacques Santer, speaking on the so called 'Somalisation'
of the Congo said, “the EU should envisage reviewing its co-operation with
countries at war amongst themselves ... The EU backs neither side, and
no financial assistance that could be misappropriated for fighting purposes
should be granted.” He added that the Commission reserves the right to
make proposals on this subject. According to a European newspaper this
was a reference to the possibility of proposing cuts in budget headings
at a forthcoming Council on beneficiary countries engaged in war. The EU
Special Envoy to the Great Lakes Region, Mr. Ajello, is currently on the
ground to assess the political situation. Following Mr. Santer's statements,
a spokesman for Mr. de Deus Pinheiro, the EU Commissioner for Development,
said no action would be taken before the conclusion of a regional summit
aiming to find a peaceful solution to the conflict in Congo at Victoria
Falls, Zimbabwe. The spokesman said that after considering a report by
Mr. Ajello, the Commission would also meet with each of the parties involved
before considering any further action. The aid that might be subject to
cuts would not be programmable aid from the 8th European Development Fund
but aid funded directly from the Commission's budget.3. COMMISSION REVIEWS
TARIFF PREFERENCE SYSTEM FOR DEVELOPING COUNTRIES The European Commission
was to have come forward on 9 September with a proposal to the EU Council
for a new regulation covering the Generalised System of Preferences (GSP)
for developing countries for the period 1999-2001. The proposal modifies
the list of products indicated in the existing regulation but keeps the
level of customs duty reductions to that set in 1995 for industrial products
and in 1996 for agricultural products. The 'graduation' system, whereby
countries or products, deemed to be competitive, have preferences cut initially
and then removed altogether later, will also not be modified. However the
two regulations on agricultural goods and industrial products would be
merged. Also the proposal calls for the new regulation to integrate recently
adopted texts on: a) enhancing the preferences granted to the nine least
advanced non-Lomé countries; b) excluding Hong Kong, Korea and Singapore
from the GSP; and c) implementing the rules of social and environmental
clauses granting additional preferences to countries respecting certain
trade union and child labour standards and the standards of the Tropical
Wood Association. The proposal also calls for Central American countries
- Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras, Nicaragua, Costa Rica and Panama to
be granted the benefits of the 'drug' GSP for industrial products. This
provision gives the Central American countries plus South American countries
- Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru and Venezuela reductions in custom duties
of exports that favour the development of an economy based on products
other than drugs. The Austrian Presidency expects the Council to take a
decision on this proposal at its meeting on 7-8 December.4. IN BRIEFThe
EU will request a WTO panel on the US state Massachusetts' anti Burma policy
at a meeting in Geneva on 22 September. The EU claims that the policy breaks
WTO rules on government procurement. Under Massachusetts laws all tenders
for state projects with companies with investments in Burma are subject
to a 10% surcharge, thus making their bids uncompetitive.
© Eurostep. Please address comments to [email protected]