The Revised ACP-EC Partnership Agreement: Perspectives for the Future
| Author | H.E. Ambassador Evadne Coye |
| Profession | Head of the Mission of Jamaica to the EC Troïka Member Committee of Ambassadors Bureau ACP Group |
| Pages | 7-9 |
Page 7
In its projected lifespan of twenty years, the ACP-EC Partnership Agreement will undergo a review process every five years to ensure it is kept updated and responsive to the global environment that frames ACPEU relations. The first such review, completed at the Special Meeting of the ACP-EC Council of Ministers convened for that purpose on 23 February, 2005, took place within two years of the entry into force of the Partnership Agreement. With the pace of ratification of the revised agreement likely to be at least as slow as that of the original agreement, the second review might well reflect an inadequate experience of the operationalization of the new commitments and procedures adopted by the Council. At the very outset, then, this article advocates the earliest possible ratification by both EC and ACP States, in demonstration of the continuing significance of their exemplary north-south partnership.
A motivating force in the ACP approach to the review process was the need to forge an authentic spirit of partnership with the EC. Realistically, there would be no escaping the fact that the EC is the dominant partner. Still, the Cotonou Partnership Agreement provided a strong basis for the enhanced interaction that the ACP sought with the EC. It was logical, therefore, that their most important amendments to the Agreement were aimed at strengthening their role in the EC's political dialogue and consultations with members of the ACP Group. That strengthened role would also facilitate intra-ACP political dialogue and heighten the relevance of ACP initiatives in the search for durable solutions to the conflicts that bedevil several members of the Group.
Across the thirty years of its existence, the contribution of the ACP Group to conflict resolution within its membership has been minimal. Its first ever fact-finding mission to a country in conflict was in 2003, shortly after the Agreement entered into force. Since then, the move towards conflict resolution and peace-building efforts has taken root, involving not only other missions to ACP countries, but also a morePage 8 meaningful role in the consultations between those countries and the EC. The revised Agreement provides the appropriate framework for ACP-EC collaboration to help the countries concerned. Whereas the consultations under the original Cotonou Agreement were viewed by the ACP in general as punitive, the new framework allows the process to be more about dealing with the root causes of conflicts and the establishment of confidence-building measures, towards a lasting solution.
This is an area of the partnership where ACP peer-group initiatives can usefully underpin the EC's mediatory actions. Greater benefits can be gained from the combination of human and material resources, than through separate action. However, this can only happen on the basis of mutual trust and respect. The ACP will have to demonstrate that our solidarity will neither cause us to deny nor ignore violations within our membership. The EC will have to acknowledge the capacity of the ACP for real partnership in the search for peace and security within the Group's membership.
The issues which caused the greatest difficulty for the ACP during the negotiations were the EC's proposals in the realm of international security. Admittedly, the ACP was able to fairly easily negotiate the proposal for joint commitment to the global fight against terrorism and the EC fairly readily accepted the ACP's proposal for collaboration against mercenaries. However, there was prolonged debate on the EC's proposals in respect of the International Criminal Court and also for cooperation against the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) to become an essential element of the Agreement. Consensus was reached some might say, as a result of the EC's status as dominant partner in the negotiations; others will state that what was at issue was not the final objective (universality of the ICC and the non-proliferation of WMD), but the means and that the amendments negotiated made the means acceptable.
What is clear is that the EC has committed itself to a greater degree of cooperation with the ACP. For example, collaboration in the fight against terrorism commits both sides to information exchange on terrorist groups and their support networks. If this is to have any significance, that collaboration must include technological and other support for ACPPage 9 national and regional security systems. Additionally, for the agreement in respect of WMD to have any value, the EC has to make good its commitment that "Financial and technical assistance in the area of cooperation to counter the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction will be financed by specific instruments other than those intended for the financing of ACP-EC Cooperation". (Article 11b, paragraph 2)
The revision has not changed the centrality of the objective of poverty reduction, sustainable development and progressive integration of ACP states into the global economy. However, it identifies the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) and the targets and principles for development set by United Nations Conferences, as the guiding light for ACP-EC cooperation. It also introduces a new twist: the possi bility for non-ACP developing countries in geographical proximity to or in regional arrangements with -- ACP states to participate with such states in EC funded projects. This is in keeping with the EC's own policy of regionalising development cooperation. Implementation will be a challenge for the ACP Group, whose unity and solidarity must also face the regionalization resulting from the Economic Partnership Agreements (EPAs) to be concluded by the end of 2007.
ACP states expect that the changes in the rules and procedures governing cooperation will permit greater efficiency and effectiveness in delivery and implementation. We are deeply concerned that for many of our Group prospects for achieving the MDGs are bleak. It is therefore essential that EC development support be not only adequate, including for the development-centred EPAs, but also contribute to the accelerated development of ACP states.
