The ACP countries have been vexed by a “Communication” issued since last October by the European Commission that it said was aimed at increasing the impact of the European Union’s development policy. The Communication to the ACP nations, mostly former European colonies, was presented in the form of “an agenda for change”.
But ACP countries, former colonies of Europe, contend that Brussels is unilaterally shifting the goal post in their relationship. They claim that the new “Commission” goes beyond its bounds and is not in conformity to the Cotonou Agreement, described as the most comprehensive partnership agreement between developing countries and the EU.
Since 2000, Cotonou has been the framework for the EU’s relations with the 79 ACP countries and in March 2010, the two parties successfully concluded the second revision of the accord following a first revision in 2001.
The EU says that in order to increase the impact of cooperation, the new policy proposes to concentrate on promoting human rights, the key elements of good governance and inclusive and sustainable growth for human development.
To do that, it recommends three approaches: “differentiated development partnerships; coordinated EU action and improved coherent among EU policies.”
For example, the new policy defines poverty reduction as being at a crucial stage in relation to the 2015 Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) deadline, as well as new global challenges such as conflict prevention, environmental protection and climate change.
Brussels also says the Communication has also taken into account the changes on the international scene, particularly the emergence of new donors that are full stakeholders in development cooperation.
But the ACP countries contend that the most important aspect of the Communication concerns “differentiation” – they would rather call it an unequal and uneven approach in the Brussels will offer aid and, by extension, treat partners.
“This principle will place the more developed countries in competition with countries that are still heavily dependent on aid,” the ACP said in a paper discussed at the Ministerial Committee here on Monday, adding, “For some countries, this [differentiated] approach could lead to the reduction or even abolition of grants in which case support measures are provided for, including loans, the mobilisation of domestic resources and trilateral cooperation support.”
Grenada’s Ambassador to the European Union, Stephen Fletcher, told the Caribbean Media Corporation that while his island respects the right of the European Union to reconfigure its development agenda, “that change must not undermine the current agreements we have in place with the EU.
“This agenda for change must not be seen as a punitive measure against countries like us in the Caribbean that have been making steady social economic progress to the point where we are now considered to be middle income countries.”
Guyana’s Ambassador Dr. P.I. Gomes said the entire Caribbean and indeed the whole of the ACP must be concerned at the new developments.
He said while he has no problems with Europe trying to enhance efficiencies greater emphasis must also be put on providing countries like the Caribbean with the administrative support to ensure the success required, echoing his Grenadian counterpart that “differentiated development partnerships cannot be used as if it will be a punitive measure.”
Gomes, who is also the chair of the ACP Ambassadorial Working Group for the Future Perspectives of the ACP, said that even though the developing countries maintain there is need for more efficient use of aid, no measures should be introduced to undermine the gains achieved so far under the Cotonou deal.
“We reject that completely…the partnership of Cotonou will take precedence,” he said with reference to the EU’s “agenda for change”.
Dr. Domingo Jimenez, the diplomat from the Dominican Republic, said the “agenda for change” must be examined within the context of the Cotonou Agreement, arguing: “There is no legal basis to change it. We need to over-emphasise on this.
“We also believe that any new measure introduced should not make any ACP country worse off,” he said, urging his colleagues to lobby other European institutions and friendly governments “so that there could be another understanding”.
As he examined the EU’s position regarding poverty, Ambassador Jimenez said with respect to his country, 80 per cent of the wealth exists within 20 per cent of the entire population.
“Unequal distribution of wealth means many of our countries still have extremely high poverty rates and the EU knows that,” he said, adding Europe “now seems to be going against that reality”.
The host Foreign Minister, Alfred Carlot, said the EU’s position would invariably mean that the ACP countries must be united in their response.
“This will mean we will have to be united…and speak with one powerful voice to our partners,” he said, noting that the “agenda for change” has the potential to reverse the gains made in poverty eradication when in 2010, there are still at least 230 million people in the ACP living in poverty.
In addition, Carlot pointed to the ongoing global financial and economic crisis, climate change as contributors to hampering the fight against poverty.
St. Lucia’s Foreign Affairs Minister Alva Baptiste also called for a united approach in defending the ACP’s position during the two-days of talks with the Europeans beginning on Thursday.
He reminded the ACP countries that while many delegations would have arrived here with a duty to defend their national interest and to promote the perspectives of home governments “we shall also bear in mind that, ultimately, politics is the art of the possible.
“”We must keep ever before us a vision of the common good and our sense of collective destiny and purpose. To be able to shift your position, to be flexible, is not a sign of weakness. Rather it is a sign of moral courage and political sagacity,” he said.
So when they sit with the European officials on Thursday and Friday, it is likely that the ACP will maintain its position that “differentiation as outlined in the Communication was not part of the EU’s notification on the amendments it had intended to make to Annex IV” which states, “The indicative resource allocation among ACP countries shall be based on standard, objective and transparent needs and performance criteria.”
The ACP countries will also most likely maintain their position that the only amendment was to include governance as a performance assessment criterion “and if this were the case, the overriding issue would be to enquire as to the legal justification for this differentiation”.
Moreover, they will inform the Europeans that: “Having been negotiated, concluded, signed and ratified by the two sides, the Cotonou Agreement is effectively a joint act that cannot be unilaterally modified by either one of the parties concerned.
“Any modification or amendment must therefore be done in accordance with the procedure stipulated in the Cotonou Agreement,” the ACP will most likely insist.
CMC pr/jg/2012