GREEN PAPER
on relations between the European Union and the ACP countries
on the eve of the 21st century
Challenges and options for a new partnership
CHAPTER IV.
TOWARDS A NEW PARTNERSHIP
This report should be cited as: European Commission. 1996. Green Paper on relations
between the European Union and the ACP countries on the eve of the 21st century -
Challenges and options for a new partnership. Brussels: European Commission
DG VIII page
On the threshold of the 21st century, the European Union and the ACP States must lay
the foundations of a new partnership with a view to:
- the need to meet Europeans' concerns by making long-term political choices;
- the absolute necessity to strengthen the political dimension of ACP-EU relations in
order to give them new impetus;
- the need to open up the cooperation framework in order to offer a European response
better geared to the current needs of the ACP States, their private sectors and civil
societies;
- a possible reorganization of the geographical framework of the cooperation agreement;
- a greater emphasis on consistency at European level.
A. The place of the ACP-EU partnership in the European Union's external policy
The European Union plays a leading role on the international scene. It is the biggest
trading partner (the EU accounts for 20% of world trade and a third of its imports come
from the developing countries) and it is called on to play a significant part in
international forums, particularly the WTO, and, at Member State level, in the IMF and the
World Bank. In the political arena, the European Union is endeavouring to step up its
capacity for action. For a long time the European Union has also been the main source of
development aid and its contribution to international aid has increased in recent years,
particularly in the light of the United States' major scaling-down in this area;
The European Union has the means to help close the development gap: it is up to it to
implement an active and consistent development policy to this end. ACPEU relations are
part of the international community's overall strategy to reduce poverty in the
world.
In addition to the basic motivations for a European development policy, which are an
integral part of the European Union's identity, Europe has objective interests. These
are of particular importance when it comes to the ACP States and among these, the
countries of sub-Saharan Africa.
The relative failure of Africa's development clearly generates a certain amount of
scepticism about the effectiveness of international and, above all, European cooperation,
and indeed about the real possibilities of developing the continent.
But the long-term nature of the choices to be made raises issues concerning the grounds
and stakes of new cooperation links between the EU and the ACP States which are of vital
importance to Europe and its people. The European Union, in the current and foreseeable
international context, has an interest in promoting:
- peace and stability, by preventing the development or persistence of areas of
instability in the world. The tendency for the marginalization of entire communities and
its corollary, the political destabilization and disintegration of entire countries, must
be stopped. Cooperation can and must contribute to the preservation and development of the
rule of law in all countries, and work to maintain a satisfactory degree of social
cohesion;
- more effective international cooperation to manage global threats. Europeans are
increasingly concerned about the growth in migratory pressure, which is basically the
result of development gaps and requires a thought-out political response. The spread of
terrorism, the problem of preventing illicit trafficking, the limitation of pandemics are
also important areas which cannot be tackled and controlled by the EU on a unilateral
basis. The European Union must endeavour to get as many countries as possible to shoulder
their responsibilities and participate in the management of global interdependencies and
problems;
- solidarity. The fight against absolute poverty and for respect for democracy,
civil and political rights as well as economic, social and cultural rights, calls for a
cooperative approach which oversteps national frontiers;
- economic development and mutual interest. The European Union can help countries
which are currently outside the international economic system to develop internal
capacities and secure the basic conditions for sustainable development; it can monitor the
development process in the more advanced countries, step up the pace of economic
and social development and encourage their smooth integration in the world economy.
Tomorrow the ACP States might enjoy significant economic growth so it would very
short-sighted to reduce the weight of Europe's influence there;
- the social and environmental aspects of development. It is very much in the
European Union's interest to encourage a form of development (i) guaranteeing social
progress, respect for human rights and above all fundamental social rights; and (ii)
focusing on the problems of destruction of the environment and natural resources. In the
absence of a policy deliberately targeted at social development and environmental
protection objectives, the constraints and also the opportunities of the new international
economic environment may give rise to a form of development which is incompatible with
European political and social values. It comes down to ensuring consistency between the
objectives pursued within the European Union and the influence that it can bring to bear
on the form of development in certain regions of the world.
B. Revitalizing the ACP-EU partnership by strengthening its political dimension
ACP-EU relations are so long-standing and pioneering that they have created an entire
"culture" which must be safeguarded. This culture is largely based on the
existence of a special partnership between each ACP country and the European Union. In
view of the new international backdrop, this partnership should be strengthened rather
than weakened by increasing its value as a mutual political commitment.
The partnership pursued under the Lomé Convention has come up against a number of
difficulties, which are described in Chapter II.B. Indeed it has proved hard to put
initial intentions, based on the principle of equal partners, into practice since the
institutional weakness of the recipient countries, their dependence on aid, a growing
conditionality and the Community's tendency, like other donors, to take the place of their
faltering partners, a tendency prompted by a growing concern for effectiveness, have
seriously undermined the principle of partnership.
Partnership is undoubtedly still the ideal form for cooperation relations and any
future agreement between the EU and the ACP States must endeavour to restore it. This
implies a fundamental overhaul of cooperation procedures and a careful weighing up of the
options in order to reconcile on the one hand the need to adopt differentiated approaches,
ensure a sufficient degree of flexibility, apply conditionality for incentive purposes and
exercise some selectivity, with on the other hand, something more akin to an objective
which consists of conducting an adult, responsible, effective and predictable partnership.
The enormous challenges which some ACP States face are reason enough for preserving the
specific qualities of the cooperation relationship, in particular its predictability and
its contractual nature. But from now on a more explicit and real mutual political
commitment must be added to this "contract".
The revitalization of the partnership therefore calls for a reinforcement of its
political dimension in two respects:
- the foundations of a political dimension were laid with the introduction in Lomé IV and
in the revised Convention of a clause on respect for human rights, together with a
provision allowing for suspension of the Convention in the event of infringement. This
clause also refers to democratic principles, consolidation of the rule of law and good
governance. The Convention provides for a consultation procedure if one of these
obligations is not met. This approach follows the general framework of Community policy in
the field of human rights and fundamental freedoms, which constitutes an essential element
of the dialogue with the various partners on which the partnership with third countries is
based. From a formal point of view, the current provisions appear quite comprehensive.
However, practical implementation of this political component raises a number of questions
about the criteria to be applied and the consequences that a political judgement would
have on the management of cooperation - apart from extreme cases giving rise to the
suspension of European cooperation;
- in the context of an upsurge of organized violence and an increase in armed conflicts in
sub-Saharan Africa, with all their humanitarian, social, economic and environmental
repercussions and the challenges which they pose to any development policy, the Commission
has drawn up a proposal designed to develop a European conflict prevention and
settlement policy. Issues such as the introduction of preventive diplomacy,
arrangements for broader political cooperation and ongoing political analysis all need to
be tackled. The Commission has proposed a comprehensive strategy, allowing for coordinated
intervention at political and development cooperation level. The final objective is to
ensure "structural stability", an idea which embraces the objectives of
sustainable economic and social development, democracy and human rights, establishment of
viable political structures and a capacity to manage change without resorting to violence.
It should be possible to develop a stronger political relationship between the EU and
the ACP States in these two areas, either globally with all these countries or separately
with sub-regional blocs or other groups of countries.
Strengthening the political dimension has wide-ranging implications. Are the
partners ready for this and all its consequences?
There are three aspects to this:
1. A mutual political commitment at the basis of a new partnership
As far as the EU is concerned, political dialogue with the ACP States will have its
place in the common external policy. The many wars being waged in sub-Saharan Africa are
both a cause and a consequence of the lack of development. They are as much a matter for
political as socioeconomic analysis.
As far as the ACP States are concerned, the necessary changes and reforms will not be
made without a radical transformation of political and social structures. EU support
measures for economic policies and institutional reforms may have major political
repercussions on these countries. Experience of past cooperation has furthermore shown
that this support is appropriate only when certain conditions - primarily political - are
met.
Strengthening the political dialogue is now a condition of increased effectiveness of
ACPEU cooperation: a stronger political relationship which allows essential issues such as
good governance, democratization and human rights to be tackled in a less formalistic,
franker and hence more efficient manner now seems to be absolutely necessary if Europe
wishes to give its cooperation policy a greater chance of success.
2. The arrangements for political dialogue
These arrangements concern the geographical configuration of the political dialogue: it
could be conducted on a multilateral or a bilateral basis or by subregional groups. This
links up with the issues raised in Chapter IV D.
They also concern the priorities of the dialogue: questions of national security, the
problems of migration, the fight against illicit trafficking etc.
They also concern the level of this dialogue (ministerial meetings and technical
working parties) depending on the degree of cooperation sought.
3. The links between the political and the cooperation components
Although in the long term they are complementary, the objectives of the CFSP and those
of development cooperation follow radically different time scales. Any subordination of
cooperation policy to foreign policy measures could jeopardize development objectives,
which are medium and long-term and hence require continuity of action. It is in compliance
with the general principle of consistency of the European Union's external activities that
the link between these two components must be ensured.
More specifically, strengthening the political dimension of relations will mean
considering various possible procedures designed to:
- increase the selectiveness of aid in accordance not only with countries' needs but also
their institutional and political choices;
- adjust the practical details of cooperation so that they facilitate reforms by these
countries.
These two issues will be dealt with in greater detail in Chapter VI.
C. Opening up the framework of ACP-EU cooperation
The cooperation framework must henceforth do more to help the ACP States to open their
markets to develop trade with the EU, of course, but also with other partners.
In the light of past experience and in view of the constraints and prospects in the ACP
States, it seems that the European Union can facilitate this opening-up by altering the
framework of cooperation in four ways:
- differentiation: The situation varies so much from one ACP State to another that
there must be scope for adjustment in the European Union's cooperation. Not all ACP States
are at present capable of embarking on a standard political and economic partnership with
the EU. Effective partnership can result only from mutual interests, common objectives and
priorities and reciprocal rights and duties which are strictly adhered to. For reasons of
effectiveness, differentiated cooperation policies and procedures have become essential.
- stepping up the policy dialogue: The European and ACP partners must examine ways
of reconciling two requirements: the responsibility of the recipient countries and the
requirement to account for the use of cooperation resources to European citizens. Policy
dialogue must be based on a dual acknowledgement: (1) development cooperation can be
effective only if it is based on a process of change decided and actually implemented by
the authorities of the country in question; (2) the EU can commit itself to supporting
only economic and social organization models which contribute to the objectives of its
cooperation policy and which comply with the political and social values which it means to
promote. These priorities and objectives formulated by the EU are not incompatible with
the aspirations of the ACP peoples, nor with the formulation of development strategies
proper to the ACP States. However, an agreement on priority reforms and the acceptance of
the necessary socio-political changes is possible only if the Euro-ACP dialogue on
economic and social policies is stepped up and the local capacity for analysis and
implementation of development policies is improved.
A more effective dialogue would
mean that Community monitoring could be focused on the results of cooperation and
on the progress achieved sector by sector, rather than on the means deployed. Such an
approach would have to be gradual, it would take time and resources. Yet it appears to be
the only alternative to traditional aid operations which would be effective in the long
term.
- Cooperation which could be expanded and stepped up in other fields: The final
objective that the European and ACP partners must set themselves is to reduce dependence
on aid and develop other forms of cooperation. In fields such as science and technology,
education and training, industrial and economic cooperation, it is a question of
identifying mutual interests and encouraging the exchange of experience. The EU is in a
unique position here to propose a wide range of cooperation fields and instruments.
Cooperation will also have to be continued in traditional areas, particularly in the
cultural sphere, where the EU is already very active. Such an extension cannot, however,
hide the fact that the poorest countries will still need foreign aid for a long time to
come and that the lion's share of funding will therefore have to go to them.
- more active participation by non-governmental bodies in cooperation relations,
the private sector and other representatives of civil society (academic circles,
cooperatives, development NGOs and environment NGOs, consumer associations, etc). Such
participation, which is intended to complement rather than supplant official partners,
should be envisaged at two levels:
- (i) developing an effective dialogue with social and economic partners on cooperation
priorities, particularly in the areas which concern them directly;
- (ii) involving the parties concerned in the implementation of certain cooperation
operations, which would mean that there would be fewer intermediaries and programmes could
be better targeted, more effective and more relevant.
These different aspects of the partnership, the need to improve the way it is really
run by partners whose responsibilities are by nature very different, therefore call for a
fundamental review of the way instruments and tools are designed and used.
D. The geographical cover of cooperation agreements: options
The "ACP group" is strictly speaking neither a political nor an economic
entity. It was established in the framework of relations with the European Union for
essentially historical reasons. Today, the members of the ACP group have development
interests and opportunities which diverge widely because of their very different income
levels and living standards, their economic structures and trade strategies and their
relative appeal for foreign investment.
In this context, is the ACP group still an appropriate partner for the European
Union? In other words, should the unique structure currently governing relations with the
seventy ACP States be maintained, broken up or extended?
This question should be examined in the light of four considerations.
- (1) It will be partly up to the ACP States themselves to take a position on this.
Their choice will basically depend on their willingness to step up their own intra-ACP
dialogue structures, define their common objectives and interests in multilateral forums
and vis-ŕ-vis their various partners, and improve their negotiating skills as a political
or economic group on the international scene, outside their relations with the EU.
- (2) An acknowledgement of the diversity of situations within the ACP group and a
willingness to make future cooperation more suited to meet varying needs could mean
changing the form that a cooperation agreement might take. In addition, as far as trade
provisions are concerned, the system of non-reciprocal discriminatory preferences
currently granted to all the ACP countries may have to be changed to ensure its
compatibility with WTO rules. These preferences would then be renewable only for the LLDCs
(UN list of the leastdeveloped countries) whereas new arrangements would be examined for
the other ACP States. These questions are dealt with in greater detail in Chapter V. This
necessary differentiation in cooperation strategies does not, however, necessarily mean
abandoning the ACP concept since it could be applied only to certain aspects of relations
(obviously trade, but also possibly the nature of financial and technical cooperation
instruments or the volume of aid). But this differentiation could also be more radical and
give rise to separate agreements. Differentiation, which is already a feature of
cooperation under the revised Lomé IV to varying degrees, depending on the instrument,
will in any case have to be spelt out more clearly.
- (3) The objectives of the European Union, its view of development and the role of
cooperation, will shape not only the content of the new agreement or agreements but also
their geographic configuration. The creation of political and economic areas which go
beyond national boundaries has been recognized as a necessary step for Europe and is so
for the ACP States as well. The path of regional cooperation and integration seems
advisable not only because of the generally inadequate economic size of many ACP countries
but also because such an option can encourage political leaders to adopt a more strategic
approach to developing their economies. It is also likely to speed up the socioeconomic
transformations which are needed to develop a market economy and do away with clientelist
structures often organized on a national basis.
- (4) Another aspect, which could lead to the principle of graduation, is the idea
that while cooperation relations must be constantly established and strengthened,
dependence on foreign aid must be gradually reduced as progress is made in mobilizing
internal resources and improving a country's credibility in terms of private foreign
investment.
In the light of these considerations, four options are possible:
- (1) The status quo with some changes: a global agreement, differentiated procedures.
A first option would be to maintain the principle of a global ACPEU agreement but with
different procedures depending on how the recipient countries' level of development
evolves. The common basis would determine the essential features (objectives, principles,
institutional provisions, duration of the agreement etc) and would cover certain areas of
relations (political dialogue, security matters, terms of access to financial and
technical cooperation). The trade provisions would, on the other hand, be differentiated,
as would the priorities and arrangements for the management of financial and technical
cooperation.
- (2) Global agreement supplemented by bilateral agreements. A global agreement
containing general undertakings, supplemented by bilateral agreements negotiated on a
country-by-country basis - or possibly by groups of countries in the case of sub-Saharan
Africa - would no doubt make it possible to tailor EU operations more closely to
circumstances.
- (3) Break-up of Lomé IV into regional agreements. A third option would be to
replace the Convention with a set of regional agreements. This approach would be entirely
consistent with the general direction taken by the EU in recent years in its external
relations, based on differentiated strategies by regions or subregions. Within the ACP
area, sub-Saharan Africa is clearly a significant region for Europe. In certain
subregions, the headway made in regional cooperation is such that subregional agreements
could be considered.
The Caribbean countries are already organized at different
regional and sub-regional levels. The long-term aim of the EU could be to incorporate
cooperation with these countries in the framework of the relations it has developed with
Latin America. The European Union could also propose extending cooperation to all the
countries of the Caribbean basin. The Association of Caribbean States, as yet a fledgling
but extensive organization covering 37 countries of the Caribbean basin, could provide a
suitable framework. The very different levels of development within this region, the
vulnerability inherent in island states and the fragmentation of their economies, and
specific problems connected with drugs, the environment, migratory flows and democratic
changes (Haiti and Cuba) are, however, all reasons for a special approach, in terms of
both foreign policy and security - the EU has a physical and strategic presence in the
area - and development cooperation.
The ACP States of the Pacific are all members of regional organizations which are
relatively well-developed at economic and political level, as well as technical level.
Effective cooperation with this region of the world would mean extending the framework of
cooperation to other island states in the Pacific. In this extended framework, the
Community's interests lie in two specific areas: preservation of the environment and of
the region's considerable natural resources and trade promotion, especially with the APEC
countries.
- (4) LLDC Agreement. A last option would be to establish a cooperation agreement
with the least developed countries (LLDC) which could possibly be opened up to nonACP
LLDCs, and to consider other types of agreement with non-LLDCs. In formal terms of
institutional provisions, a willingness to take account of the level of development and
needs of each country in determining the type of cooperation, can work only if a
distinction is drawn between LLDCs and non-LLDCs. A more detailed consideration of the
situation of each country could, as is already partly the case now, take place in the
course of financial and technical cooperation.
While this option might offer some advantages at trade level, it appears entirely
unsuitable as far as political dialogue and other areas of cooperation are concerned
(support for socioeconomic policies, scientific cooperation, environment, etc).
E. The European partners and coordination: options
From the outset EU relations with the ACP States have been driven by a desire for a
global approach, to the extent that the main instruments of Community action - trade
policy and aid - have been incorporated in a single institutional framework. Provisions on
respect for human rights, the rule of law, good governance and the principle of a
political dialogue, have been in the cooperation agreement since 1990.
An integrated approach has the advantage of encouraging consistent use of the various
aid and dialogue instruments involved. None the less the scope of European cooperation has
been hampered by three factors resulting from the EU's own action: (i) the consequences
for the ACP states, which were not systematically anticipated, of Community or Member
State policies other than development cooperation; (ii) the loss of efficiency and the
difficulties encountered by the aid recipient countries as a result of inadequate
coordination between the Member States and between the Member States and the Community;
(iii) the lack, which is increasingly felt in the current international context, of a
common stance and a common stance approach to the ACP States on the part of the countries
of Europe.
To what extent can the EU improve the consistency - in the broad sense - of its
action vis-ŕ-vis the ACP countries?
It is clear that strengthening the political dimension of the partnership, referred to
under point B above, is a key area in the discussion on consistency in the broad sense.
Apart from this fundamental dimension there are two other aspects: (i) the consistency of
other Community - and national - policies with development objectives; (ii) the
complementarity and coordination of the Community's and the Member States' development
policies. These two aspects were underscored in the 1992 Commission communication; none
the less, the effects of measures taken by the EU since then remain limited and there is
still a lack of coordination and consistency.
Consistency in the strict sense, that is the external effects of policies other
than development cooperation, can in any case never become an international commitment on
the part of the Community. Because of the sometimes conflicting interests between internal
and external concerns, or in the context of relations with other countries with possibly
competing interests, consistency remains a matter of political judgement. The Treaty on
the European Union answers these concerns by imposing the principle of consistency,
particularly with regard to its external activities (Article C of the Treaty) and
explicitly with regard to development cooperation (Article 130v). This issue has been
raised on several occasions by the Commission and the Council and a case-by-case approach
has been adopted here.
With regard to coordination of the European partners, however, there are several
options for improving the situation. Besides the coordination efforts referred to in
Chapter I.C, which must be pursued at operational and sectoral policy levels and in
international organizations, the European Union could contemplate:
- either framing a global European strategy in relation to the ACP States which would
commit both the Member States in their national activities and the Community. It would no
longer be a question of taking a more "Community-based" approach to development
cooperation but rather of aligning strategies. The search for greater complementarity
between the various national and European interventions, a principle enshrined in the
Treaty, would be facilitated by a common reference framework;
- or incorporating in the new cooperation agreement(s) an information, monitoring and
coordination system in the Member States' and the Community's key areas of intervention.
It would take the form of a commitment by the EU to improved coordination.
The aim of these two options would not be to standardize European cooperation policies,
whose existence and diversity in terms of experience are a reflection of pluralism. The
aim would be both to improve the impact and effectiveness of European development
operations and achieve critical mass and also to assume the corresponding political
responsibility more explicitly.
Improved European coordination will promote coordination efforts undertaken by all
donors, and also within the multilateral system in the context of the interinstitutional
rapprochement agreed at the recent G-7 Summit, giving particular attention to Africa, on
the basis of the United Nations Initiative for Africa announced this March.
Contents
Chapter 1 Chapter 2 Chapter 3 Chapter 5 Chapter 6
Updated on December 19, 1996
Developer's Note: These pages were developed for use on the Netscape browser. Please
address comments to Peter Ballantyne, ECDPM
|
