Cotonou Partnership Agreement
ACP-EU Relations in a Changing World
- The Cotonou Partnership Agreement: what role in a ...
- Weekly updates on the EPA negotiations
- ACP face difficulties in placing fishery products ...
- EPAs: much work remains to be done to accommodate ...
- Agriculture and Development in the EPA Negotiations
- Scripting the future ACP-EU partnership
- Three questions to Lingston Cumberbatch and Dieter...
- Cotonou Partnership Agreement: dialogue comes first
- ACP-EU Cooperation - Cautious optimism, ownership ...
- Cotonou Partnership - Premature questions?
- December 2007
- October 2007
- July 2007
- April 2007
- February 2007
- December 2006
related sites
homeacp-eu trade
europafrica.org
caribbean-europe
pacifie-europe
conference home
subscribe to rss feeds
subscribe to email alerts
recent postings
archives
- supported by
with
and
Wednesday, December 20, 2006
Scripting the future ACP-EU partnership
Maastricht, 20 December. Participants in the ECDPM Seminar on the Cotonou Partnership Agreement yesterday concluded their reflections with a panel discussion on the future of the Cotonou Partnership Agreement (CPA). The Panel comprised João Gomes Cravinho, Portugal's Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs and Cooperation, John Shinkaiye, Chief of Staff in the Bureau of the Chairperson of the African Union Commission, Mr. Karl Falkenberg, Deputy Director General of the European Commission's DG Trade, Mr. Andrew Bradley, Assistant Secretary General of the ACP Group, and Mr. Rob de Vos, Deputy Director-General for International Cooperation at the Netherlands Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
The panelists reflected on discussions in the previous session in which participants expressed cautious optimism on progress achieved by the CPA, but also expressed their worries and concerns regarding the ongoing negotiations on EU-ACP Economic Partnership Agreements and a perceptible 'ownership deficit' on the ACP side.
Panelists were positive regarding the overall niche and added value of the Cotonou Partnership: Gomes Cravinho lauded the improving political dialogue between the partners, also with regional entities – and called for it to focus on more ‘politically substantive issues’ rather than the more technical discussions that currently dominate. Shinkaiye argued, from an Africa perspective, that the Agreement provides a valuable overall framework within which Africa and Europe can dialogue and cooperate at a continental level – it has helped make Africa-Europe relations “warm, cordial, and growing.” De Vos, from a Dutch perspective, was really optimistic about recent improvements in EU aid (including via the CPA) and called on the EU and ACP partners to ‘cherish’ the special relationship offered by the CPA.
However, as several panelists mentioned, there is much still to do. The ACP’s Bradley listed some challenges to be overcome – full implementation of the CPA, enhanced ACP ownership, avoiding unilateral actions in the partnership, and increased attention to the effectiveness of the cooperation. He also suggested that both sides need to look more strategically at how the ACP can more globally support the EU’s role as a global player, in other international forums for example. De Vos, while positive on improvements in the EU’s aid – higher disbursement rates, following the Paris aid effectiveness agenda, direct support for civil society in the South – also drew attention to some continuing challenges: the lack of progress in the ACP-EU trade discussion, too much disbursement perhaps at the cost of quality, insufficient on the ground coordination with other donors, a lack of interest by Brussels in the innovations of others, and the precise added value and niche of the CPA.
Several speakers drew attention to the emergence of new issues and new actors posing challenges to the ACP-EU partnership. Bradley emphasized the change process that the ACP will go through in 2007, revisiting its original charter, more clearly defining the ACP niche, and strengthening the partnership. Shinkaiye called for increased consistency and enhanced dialogue between the AU, representing Africa, and ACP-related processes on the continent. Citing the EPA negotiations with different African regions, he cautioned that these need to mesh with the AU’s intention to enhance integration across the continent. De Vos suggested that the CPA avoid competing with the many other special initiatives in development and, for instance, avoid overburdening its agenda by concentrating on some critical issues, like governance, where it offers a unique added value.
Following the earlier sessions, the future of the ongoing EPA negotiations was a major discussion point among the panelists and in the subsequent open discussion where one participant felt the EPA’s were a potential source of “serious divisiveness.” Responding to calls for both sides to retreat from fixed ideas, the Commission’s Falkenberg called for more ‘out of the box’ thinking to find ways forward. He argued that the EPAs are part of the wider-ACP-EU discussions and respond to the need to create opportunities for economic activity, by helping to build ‘regional’ markets in the ACP and by opening markets among the regions and the EU. It could be concluded that the EPA’s are initially designed to support sub-regional cooperation in the ACP countries, and then free trade between the regions and Europe.
The unanswered question to the conference was whether this developmental focus of the EPAs - on building markets and economic activities in ACP regions - is an implicit recognition that the development pillars of the CPA have failed.
Agreeing the script?
Throughout the second day, participants called on a Hollywood metaphor to help explain some of the differences of opinion.
Reflecting to participant comments on the EPA process, Karl Falkenberg wondered if he and the others were watching the same ACP-EU movie as he did not recognize all the scenes. Later, John Shinkaiye also asked what ACP-EU movie we were watching – he thought perhaps we were watching the same movie, but that each of the participants had a different script. He called for everyone to use the same script. De Vos commented that even when the same script is used by all the actors, different viewers often ‘see’ different films.
Deciding just what kind of movie the ACP, EU, and other actors want to produce is clearly a continuing challenge.
The sponsors are not sure just what they and the audiences actually want; we can call on more, and more diverse, actors - we have to deal with more crowd-scenes; script-writing is much more complicated and less centralized than in the past; and even film distribution is complicated by changing technologies, evolving viewing habits, and audiences with more choice than ever before.
Perhaps one of the most valuable parts of the conference was the recognition that film-making itself is changing. Yes, we still have Hollywood blockbusters with big budgets, a renowned director, an all-star cast, numerous support actors, brilliant special effects, and a single script. We also have emerging film industries in many developing countries where local directors and producers are challenging the movie majors and attracting their own script-writers and actors. And on the Internet, sites like YouTube allow viewers to share their own film clips, inviting other viewers to write their own scripts.
Deciding the best approach for the ACP and EU will clearly benefit from events, like the one organized by ECDPM, where directors, producers, actors, bit players, distributors, and script writers get together to assess progress and explore options.
The panelists reflected on discussions in the previous session in which participants expressed cautious optimism on progress achieved by the CPA, but also expressed their worries and concerns regarding the ongoing negotiations on EU-ACP Economic Partnership Agreements and a perceptible 'ownership deficit' on the ACP side.
Panelists were positive regarding the overall niche and added value of the Cotonou Partnership: Gomes Cravinho lauded the improving political dialogue between the partners, also with regional entities – and called for it to focus on more ‘politically substantive issues’ rather than the more technical discussions that currently dominate. Shinkaiye argued, from an Africa perspective, that the Agreement provides a valuable overall framework within which Africa and Europe can dialogue and cooperate at a continental level – it has helped make Africa-Europe relations “warm, cordial, and growing.” De Vos, from a Dutch perspective, was really optimistic about recent improvements in EU aid (including via the CPA) and called on the EU and ACP partners to ‘cherish’ the special relationship offered by the CPA.
However, as several panelists mentioned, there is much still to do. The ACP’s Bradley listed some challenges to be overcome – full implementation of the CPA, enhanced ACP ownership, avoiding unilateral actions in the partnership, and increased attention to the effectiveness of the cooperation. He also suggested that both sides need to look more strategically at how the ACP can more globally support the EU’s role as a global player, in other international forums for example. De Vos, while positive on improvements in the EU’s aid – higher disbursement rates, following the Paris aid effectiveness agenda, direct support for civil society in the South – also drew attention to some continuing challenges: the lack of progress in the ACP-EU trade discussion, too much disbursement perhaps at the cost of quality, insufficient on the ground coordination with other donors, a lack of interest by Brussels in the innovations of others, and the precise added value and niche of the CPA.
Several speakers drew attention to the emergence of new issues and new actors posing challenges to the ACP-EU partnership. Bradley emphasized the change process that the ACP will go through in 2007, revisiting its original charter, more clearly defining the ACP niche, and strengthening the partnership. Shinkaiye called for increased consistency and enhanced dialogue between the AU, representing Africa, and ACP-related processes on the continent. Citing the EPA negotiations with different African regions, he cautioned that these need to mesh with the AU’s intention to enhance integration across the continent. De Vos suggested that the CPA avoid competing with the many other special initiatives in development and, for instance, avoid overburdening its agenda by concentrating on some critical issues, like governance, where it offers a unique added value.
Following the earlier sessions, the future of the ongoing EPA negotiations was a major discussion point among the panelists and in the subsequent open discussion where one participant felt the EPA’s were a potential source of “serious divisiveness.” Responding to calls for both sides to retreat from fixed ideas, the Commission’s Falkenberg called for more ‘out of the box’ thinking to find ways forward. He argued that the EPAs are part of the wider-ACP-EU discussions and respond to the need to create opportunities for economic activity, by helping to build ‘regional’ markets in the ACP and by opening markets among the regions and the EU. It could be concluded that the EPA’s are initially designed to support sub-regional cooperation in the ACP countries, and then free trade between the regions and Europe.
The unanswered question to the conference was whether this developmental focus of the EPAs - on building markets and economic activities in ACP regions - is an implicit recognition that the development pillars of the CPA have failed.
Agreeing the script?
Throughout the second day, participants called on a Hollywood metaphor to help explain some of the differences of opinion.
Reflecting to participant comments on the EPA process, Karl Falkenberg wondered if he and the others were watching the same ACP-EU movie as he did not recognize all the scenes. Later, John Shinkaiye also asked what ACP-EU movie we were watching – he thought perhaps we were watching the same movie, but that each of the participants had a different script. He called for everyone to use the same script. De Vos commented that even when the same script is used by all the actors, different viewers often ‘see’ different films.
Deciding just what kind of movie the ACP, EU, and other actors want to produce is clearly a continuing challenge.
The sponsors are not sure just what they and the audiences actually want; we can call on more, and more diverse, actors - we have to deal with more crowd-scenes; script-writing is much more complicated and less centralized than in the past; and even film distribution is complicated by changing technologies, evolving viewing habits, and audiences with more choice than ever before.
Perhaps one of the most valuable parts of the conference was the recognition that film-making itself is changing. Yes, we still have Hollywood blockbusters with big budgets, a renowned director, an all-star cast, numerous support actors, brilliant special effects, and a single script. We also have emerging film industries in many developing countries where local directors and producers are challenging the movie majors and attracting their own script-writers and actors. And on the Internet, sites like YouTube allow viewers to share their own film clips, inviting other viewers to write their own scripts.
Deciding the best approach for the ACP and EU will clearly benefit from events, like the one organized by ECDPM, where directors, producers, actors, bit players, distributors, and script writers get together to assess progress and explore options.
Three questions to Lingston Cumberbatch and Dieter Frisch
ECDPM Trade specialists caught up with Lingston Cumberbatch and Dieter Frisch at the recent ECDPM Seminar on The Cotonou Partnership Agreement: What role in a changing world?
Lingston Cumberbatch, Project Director of the ACP EPA Programme ManagementUnit and Dieter Frisch, Former Director General for Development at the European Commission, answered three questions:
1. What in your view have been the major positive developments in the ACP-EU relations over the last 20 years?
2. What are the key challenges for this ACP-EU partnership in the coming 20 years?
3. Given the intense EPA negotiations between the six ACP regions and the EU, and the European strategies towards Africa, the Caribbean and the Pacific, how do you see the future of the ACP as a group?
Read their comments in the December 2006 issue of the acp-eu-trade.org newsletter
Lingston Cumberbatch, Project Director of the ACP EPA Programme ManagementUnit and Dieter Frisch, Former Director General for Development at the European Commission, answered three questions:
1. What in your view have been the major positive developments in the ACP-EU relations over the last 20 years?
2. What are the key challenges for this ACP-EU partnership in the coming 20 years?
3. Given the intense EPA negotiations between the six ACP regions and the EU, and the European strategies towards Africa, the Caribbean and the Pacific, how do you see the future of the ACP as a group?
Read their comments in the December 2006 issue of the acp-eu-trade.org newsletter
Tuesday, December 19, 2006
Cotonou Partnership Agreement: dialogue comes first
Maastricht, 19 December. At the ECDPM Seminar on The Cotonou Partnership Agreement: What role in a changing world?, Carl Greenidge, former ACP Secretary General and former Director of CTA pointed out that "the Cotonou Agreement is unique in its very nature: first, it provides the 'South' with a permanent platform for dialogue, to discuss the principles of cooperation; second, its implementation mechanisms are joint; third, and this is the most important element, it adds the dimension of non-state actors participation."
According to Greenidge, their role is "crucial, especially because in most ACP states, the capacities of Governments are limited . . . Only if you bring other actors into the process will you achieve better results, using the same amount of resources."
However, he added: "the ACP Group as a whole has still to learn how to effectively manage a multi-stakeholders platform of this kind."
Reflecting on the ECDPM Seminar, Greenidge valued it as a "success, both in terms of quality of the debates and final results. A lively discussion was in fact needed, to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the Cotonou Partnership Agreement, as well as the challenges lying ahead. This leaves room for optimism, based on the recognised importance of the Agreement and the fact that problems can be tackled."
"Once again, ECDPM demonstrated its effectiveness as a platform for discussion, not only by launching the debate and providing a space for it, but also, and that's the most important thing, by identifying the key people that can contribute to a thorough and forward-looking discussion".
Post your comments
According to Greenidge, their role is "crucial, especially because in most ACP states, the capacities of Governments are limited . . . Only if you bring other actors into the process will you achieve better results, using the same amount of resources."
However, he added: "the ACP Group as a whole has still to learn how to effectively manage a multi-stakeholders platform of this kind."
Reflecting on the ECDPM Seminar, Greenidge valued it as a "success, both in terms of quality of the debates and final results. A lively discussion was in fact needed, to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the Cotonou Partnership Agreement, as well as the challenges lying ahead. This leaves room for optimism, based on the recognised importance of the Agreement and the fact that problems can be tackled."
"Once again, ECDPM demonstrated its effectiveness as a platform for discussion, not only by launching the debate and providing a space for it, but also, and that's the most important thing, by identifying the key people that can contribute to a thorough and forward-looking discussion".
Post your comments
ACP-EU Cooperation - Cautious optimism, ownership deficit?
Maastricht, 19 December. Participants in the ECDPM Seminar on "The Cotonou Partnership Agreement: What role in a changing world?" today debated the outputs of their discussions on whether the Cotonou Partnership Agreement (CPA) has delivered on the innovations and improvements it promised.
Four main topics were discussed: Has the increased political focus contributed to development? Has it effectively included non-state actors and local governments? Are the EPAs instruments for development? How effective has Cotonou been in delivering more, faster and better aid?
The group is generally optimistic on progress so far, except regarding the ongoing EPA negotiations which pose many challenges. This optimism is qualified however by a lack of concrete evidence and a sense that not enough is being learned to guide future policies and actions.
Group discussions indicate that non-state actors are slowly becoming more involved in different aspects of the Agreement – dialogue, negotiations, implementation. What is visible however is the 'tip of an iceberg' that still needs to be fully understood. Calling for actions leading to 'more and better' participation, it was argued that "we know what we need to do, but we have not yet made the fundamental shift to involve these actors."
While the EPA negotiations are all about creating an enabling environment and 'policy spaces' for economic and social development, participants notice a significant lack of ownership of EPAs inside ACP countries, and that the EPAs seem to be disconnected from national policy processes. At the same time, it is important that discussions on EPAs are effectively re-connected with other development issues in the ACP-EU partnership – such as effectiveness, participation of non-state actors, and governance. At the wider level, the move to sub-regional negotiations has led to less 'all-ACP cohesiveness' and capacity to negotiate – at a time when the European Commission itself is taking an increasingly strong and unifying role from the EU side.
EC aid is getting better managed and more effective. Despite "rather shallow" evidence, it is moving in a good direction - with signs of more ACP ownership and certainly much higher levels of disbursement. However, the principle of 'co-management' is getting lost in special 'vertical funds' that are managed (more efficiently) by the EC, but with less ACP ownership and involvement that raises questions on their ultimate effectiveness. These tensions between increasing quantities of disbursement (desirable) and enhanced effectiveness (also desirable) seem to put pressure on co-management processes designed to guarantee ACP ownership.
A question mark was also put against the amount of learning taking place through the CPA. For the partnership to stay innovative and relevant, it needs to have continuous learning processes and mechanisms in place. It seems that current review mechanisms are used more to account, report on, and punish instead of to properly learn.
Despite this cautious optimism, there are many doubts in the group about ownership and recognition that there is something of an 'ownership deficit'.
Starting with political dialogue, it was argued that it is critical to be clear who shapes and forms agendas and thus decides (and owns) what is discussed. This gets complicated when there are more and more potential 'owners' – still the CPA probably offers a lot more possibilities if the partners can get themselves to 'think enough out of the box.' From a non-state actor point of view, ownership needs to be increased by encouraging participation from the beginning. Otherwise, the result is consultation on someone else's agenda.
It was suggested that ownership is a function of power relations – ownership follows where the power is. The fundamental issue is that whoever sets the agenda has the ownership. Thus, it was argued, the currently emerging ACP-EU trade framework will never be strongly owned by the ACP as it is an EU 'product.' This, and other provocative questions generated much frank dialogue that revealed how important it
is to provide spaces where multiple perspective can come together.
Post your comments on the issue.
Four main topics were discussed: Has the increased political focus contributed to development? Has it effectively included non-state actors and local governments? Are the EPAs instruments for development? How effective has Cotonou been in delivering more, faster and better aid?
The group is generally optimistic on progress so far, except regarding the ongoing EPA negotiations which pose many challenges. This optimism is qualified however by a lack of concrete evidence and a sense that not enough is being learned to guide future policies and actions.
Group discussions indicate that non-state actors are slowly becoming more involved in different aspects of the Agreement – dialogue, negotiations, implementation. What is visible however is the 'tip of an iceberg' that still needs to be fully understood. Calling for actions leading to 'more and better' participation, it was argued that "we know what we need to do, but we have not yet made the fundamental shift to involve these actors."
While the EPA negotiations are all about creating an enabling environment and 'policy spaces' for economic and social development, participants notice a significant lack of ownership of EPAs inside ACP countries, and that the EPAs seem to be disconnected from national policy processes. At the same time, it is important that discussions on EPAs are effectively re-connected with other development issues in the ACP-EU partnership – such as effectiveness, participation of non-state actors, and governance. At the wider level, the move to sub-regional negotiations has led to less 'all-ACP cohesiveness' and capacity to negotiate – at a time when the European Commission itself is taking an increasingly strong and unifying role from the EU side.
EC aid is getting better managed and more effective. Despite "rather shallow" evidence, it is moving in a good direction - with signs of more ACP ownership and certainly much higher levels of disbursement. However, the principle of 'co-management' is getting lost in special 'vertical funds' that are managed (more efficiently) by the EC, but with less ACP ownership and involvement that raises questions on their ultimate effectiveness. These tensions between increasing quantities of disbursement (desirable) and enhanced effectiveness (also desirable) seem to put pressure on co-management processes designed to guarantee ACP ownership.
A question mark was also put against the amount of learning taking place through the CPA. For the partnership to stay innovative and relevant, it needs to have continuous learning processes and mechanisms in place. It seems that current review mechanisms are used more to account, report on, and punish instead of to properly learn.
Despite this cautious optimism, there are many doubts in the group about ownership and recognition that there is something of an 'ownership deficit'.
Starting with political dialogue, it was argued that it is critical to be clear who shapes and forms agendas and thus decides (and owns) what is discussed. This gets complicated when there are more and more potential 'owners' – still the CPA probably offers a lot more possibilities if the partners can get themselves to 'think enough out of the box.' From a non-state actor point of view, ownership needs to be increased by encouraging participation from the beginning. Otherwise, the result is consultation on someone else's agenda.
It was suggested that ownership is a function of power relations – ownership follows where the power is. The fundamental issue is that whoever sets the agenda has the ownership. Thus, it was argued, the currently emerging ACP-EU trade framework will never be strongly owned by the ACP as it is an EU 'product.' This, and other provocative questions generated much frank dialogue that revealed how important it
is to provide spaces where multiple perspective can come together.
Post your comments on the issue.
Cotonou Partnership - Premature questions?
Maastricht, 18 December. Asked to reflect on what's working and what's not working in the Cotonou Partnership Agreement (CPA), Laurent Toulouse from the French Ministry of Foreign Affairs felt this question to be rather premature - though he could draw up a quick balance sheet:
The ECDPM Seminar on "The Cotonou Partnership Agreement: What role in a changing world?" is assessing progress and prospects for the ACP-EU partnership.
Post your comments on the issue.
- The best impact has been with the political dialogue and consultation at the country level;
- Budgets have increased;
- There is a stronger political control focusing on the impact of aid and investments in development;
- It has integrated more players, but this is difficult to measure;
- On the technical and trade dimensions, the picture is blurred. "We are more efficient today";
- At the EU level, the CPA has created opportunities and food for thought on ways to be more consistent, more coherent, and more harmonized.
The ECDPM Seminar on "The Cotonou Partnership Agreement: What role in a changing world?" is assessing progress and prospects for the ACP-EU partnership.
Post your comments on the issue.
Monday, December 18, 2006
Cotonou Agreement – Now for the main course
Maastricht, 18 December. EuropeAid's Gary Quince today informed participants at the ECDPM Seminar on "The Cotonou Partnership Agreement: What role in a changing world?", that the Cotonou Partnership Agreement (CPA) will soon acquire its 104th and 105th partners (when Bulgaria and Romania join the EU). This makes it one of the longest-lasting international development partnerships as well as one of the largest. For many of its partners, it is "centre stage."
Looking at progress with the CPA, he argued that we have, so far, only had the first course of our Cotonou dinner – the main course is still to come.
Still he could draw some conclusions.
Regarding political dialogue, both sides have been learning how to take this forward. In the beginning, this tended to focus on problem situations, now this dialogue is "very much part of the partnership" and is quite normal. It gives the EU a more coherent voice at the country level and it has helped to blow away some 'no go' areas. The problem is not with the dialogue; the problem is when there is 'no dialogue'. As a work in progress, this dialogue still needs to be broadened to include parliaments and onn-state actors.
The negotiating phase on new trade relations will soon come to an end with EPAs due to start in January 2008. Naturally, there is some reluctance to move away from an established regime. However, as Quince remarked, in historic terms, the trade preferences "have not worked" and need to be replaced.
There have also been many improvements in the management and disbursement of EU aid - the single biggest change is the devolution of powers to delegations leading to more decisions taken in the field, improved quality of decisions, and speeded up decision making. Other indicators of progress identified by Quince include:
Looking at progress with the CPA, he argued that we have, so far, only had the first course of our Cotonou dinner – the main course is still to come.
Still he could draw some conclusions.
Regarding political dialogue, both sides have been learning how to take this forward. In the beginning, this tended to focus on problem situations, now this dialogue is "very much part of the partnership" and is quite normal. It gives the EU a more coherent voice at the country level and it has helped to blow away some 'no go' areas. The problem is not with the dialogue; the problem is when there is 'no dialogue'. As a work in progress, this dialogue still needs to be broadened to include parliaments and onn-state actors.
The negotiating phase on new trade relations will soon come to an end with EPAs due to start in January 2008. Naturally, there is some reluctance to move away from an established regime. However, as Quince remarked, in historic terms, the trade preferences "have not worked" and need to be replaced.
There have also been many improvements in the management and disbursement of EU aid - the single biggest change is the devolution of powers to delegations leading to more decisions taken in the field, improved quality of decisions, and speeded up decision making. Other indicators of progress identified by Quince include:
- More money passing through EuropeAid, more quickly;
- Increasing attention also to "disbursing with quality";
- Less conditionality, more budget support;
- Four approved EU regional strategies – Africa, Caribbean, Pacific, South Africa. The idea is not to split up the ACP. Instead, these are important because they represent a single EU-wide strategy for the EC and its member states (rather than approaches by the Commission and each member state);
- Simplification and harmonization of instruments and procedures started, but still a work in progress;
- "Still a long way to go" to involve non-state actors and local governments in our work;
- NAOs still have many challenges and difficulties fulfilling their responsibilities. Need to really strengthen their capacities for them to really be "co-pilots on the plane" so to speak.
An effective partnership
Maastricht, 18 December. According to Sinikka Antila, Head of the Development Policy and Planning at the Ministry for Foreign Affairs of Finland, the Cotonou Partnership Agreement between the ACP and EU countries is a unique instrument. Speaking at the ECDPM Seminar on "The Cotonou Partnership Agreement: What role in a changing world?", she suggested that its uniqueness is embedded in the CPA's broad scope - from political dialogue to trade as well as aid, holistic approach, and multi-actor involvement. Bringing together different perspectives, it is also a very good example and tool for policy coherence for development. The value of the CPA lies in its broad agenda and jointly agreed values and principles within which all kinds of region and
country specific activities can take place.
With increasing aid volumes, the most important development challenge for the EU and ACP is to "make aid effective." Through the CPA, the EU has an opportunity to act as a "role model" for other donors by providing its aid effectively while also bearing in mind issues of local ownership. It's not just an issue for the EU, it is a joint
responsibility of the ACP and the EU.
Ranging over some other current issues on the agenda, she argued that "making EPAs development friendly" is not just about providing more support – the development agenda needs to be incorporated in the EPAs.
On a more bureaucratic note, she noted that much has been done to improve the management of EU aid, but that we need to address the issues that make "disbursement slow and cumbersome, without sacrificing fiscal control."
Post your comments on the issue.
country specific activities can take place.
With increasing aid volumes, the most important development challenge for the EU and ACP is to "make aid effective." Through the CPA, the EU has an opportunity to act as a "role model" for other donors by providing its aid effectively while also bearing in mind issues of local ownership. It's not just an issue for the EU, it is a joint
responsibility of the ACP and the EU.
Ranging over some other current issues on the agenda, she argued that "making EPAs development friendly" is not just about providing more support – the development agenda needs to be incorporated in the EPAs.
On a more bureaucratic note, she noted that much has been done to improve the management of EU aid, but that we need to address the issues that make "disbursement slow and cumbersome, without sacrificing fiscal control."
Post your comments on the issue.
An innovative partnership
Maastricht, 18 November. Speaking on behalf of the ACP Group at the opening of the ECDPM Seminar on "The Cotonou Partnership Agreement: What role in a changing world?", Veniece Pottinger–Scott, Assistant Secretary-General of the ACP Group in Brussels suggested that the Cotonou Partnership Agreement between the ACP and EU countries is both highly innovative and very relevant in a changing development environment.
Arguing that the CPA is one of the "largest north-south partnership" in existence, she particularly emphasized the value of its long term nature and commitments, its focus on achieving the Millennium Development Goals, its multi-stakeholder involvement that promotes greater ownership, and the provisions for political dialogue that are unique in most development relationships.
Commenting on the delivery of EU development aid, in the past three years, she has observed a "tremendous improvement...after a long period of poor performance."
Nevertheless, Pottinger-Smith said that the ACP Group has been concerned at the coherence and re-definition of the EU's development cooperation, especially the development of separate strategies for Africa, the Caribbean, the Pacific, and South Africa. There seems to be a lack of coherence across the strategies, and a need to cross-reference them with existing ACP-EU relations and especially the CPA's three pillars (political dialogue, aid, trade). It's important that these regional approaches strengthen and not undermine ACP regional integration efforts; any regional agreements should not be at expense of the larger and so far effective North-South Cotonou Partnership.
Post your comments on the issue.
Arguing that the CPA is one of the "largest north-south partnership" in existence, she particularly emphasized the value of its long term nature and commitments, its focus on achieving the Millennium Development Goals, its multi-stakeholder involvement that promotes greater ownership, and the provisions for political dialogue that are unique in most development relationships.
Commenting on the delivery of EU development aid, in the past three years, she has observed a "tremendous improvement...after a long period of poor performance."
Nevertheless, Pottinger-Smith said that the ACP Group has been concerned at the coherence and re-definition of the EU's development cooperation, especially the development of separate strategies for Africa, the Caribbean, the Pacific, and South Africa. There seems to be a lack of coherence across the strategies, and a need to cross-reference them with existing ACP-EU relations and especially the CPA's three pillars (political dialogue, aid, trade). It's important that these regional approaches strengthen and not undermine ACP regional integration efforts; any regional agreements should not be at expense of the larger and so far effective North-South Cotonou Partnership.
Post your comments on the issue.
A valuable ACP-EU dialogue
Maastricht, 18 December. Lingston Cumberbatch, ECDPM Board Chair and former Trinidad and Tobago Ambassador to the EU opened the ECDPM Seminar on "The Cotonou Partnership Agreement: What role in a changing world?" by reflecting – as a self-proclaimed 'dinosaur' with a long ACP history – on the current Cotonou Partnership Agreement (CPA) between ACP and EU countries.
In his opinion, the CPA "epitomizes the relationship between the ACP and the EU". It is valued by both sides and he personally sees this "long-standing partnership in a positive light".
He emphasized how EU programming has, since 1975, placed "the recipient at the centre stage." This has been a "significant benefit" to the ACP countries, leading to a system in which ACP countries have a significant role in deciding how their EU development cooperation is used.
According to Cumberbatch, political dialogue in the CPA is "being used as a tool to manage the partnership" – also including civil society. He noted however that there seems to be less personal dialogue between EU and ACP leaders – fewer presidents coming to Brussels and fewer EC ministers or leaders attending ACP-EU meetings.
However, he is concerned that "more and more discretionary powers are being assumed by the Commission" – with less than 50% of EDF funding provided through national and regional indicative programmes (that ACP countries formulate). This, he argued, raises fundamental questions of the partnership. Is it to strengthen the abilities of ACP countries to decide on local needs, or is it to support the EU policy agenda?
Post your comment on the issue.
In his opinion, the CPA "epitomizes the relationship between the ACP and the EU". It is valued by both sides and he personally sees this "long-standing partnership in a positive light".
He emphasized how EU programming has, since 1975, placed "the recipient at the centre stage." This has been a "significant benefit" to the ACP countries, leading to a system in which ACP countries have a significant role in deciding how their EU development cooperation is used.
According to Cumberbatch, political dialogue in the CPA is "being used as a tool to manage the partnership" – also including civil society. He noted however that there seems to be less personal dialogue between EU and ACP leaders – fewer presidents coming to Brussels and fewer EC ministers or leaders attending ACP-EU meetings.
However, he is concerned that "more and more discretionary powers are being assumed by the Commission" – with less than 50% of EDF funding provided through national and regional indicative programmes (that ACP countries formulate). This, he argued, raises fundamental questions of the partnership. Is it to strengthen the abilities of ACP countries to decide on local needs, or is it to support the EU policy agenda?
Post your comment on the issue.
Wednesday, December 13, 2006
Cotonou questions
On 18 and 19 December, ECDPM hosts a seminar on the ACP-EU Cotonou Partnership Agreement. We are looking at 5 key questions:
- Putting the political dimension into practice. Is the increased political focus of ACP-EU cooperation contributing to development? The Cotonou Agreement has a strong focus on the political dimensions of partnership, attaching importance to political dialogue, governance, and peace and security issues. Has this focus contributed to achieving development objectives?
- Broadening the partnership to non-state actors and local governments. Has Cotonou broadened the partnership? Signatories to the Cotonou Agreement agreed to involve non-state actors and local governments in all aspects of ACP-EU cooperation. Did they succeed in promoting dialogue and collaboration between state and non-state actors? What has worked well? What bottlenecks have been encountered?
- Redefining ACP-EU trade relations. Are EPAs an instrument for development and poverty reduction? To what extent do EPAs contribute to the central poverty reduction objectives of the Cotonou Agreement?
- EDF management and performance. Is the emphasis on performance and the rationalisation of instruments and management of aid contributing to more effective and efficient development programmes? The Cotonou Agreement introduced the performance based review process as well as multi-annual ‘rolling’ programming. Efforts have also been made to decentralise decision making, rationalise complex administrative and financial procedures and to introduce new aid modalities such as budget support. Have these changes been positive from a development perspective? Do they match the realities on the ground?
- What is the future role of the Cotonou Agreement in a changing development environment? Does the EU and ACP special relationship have a future? What will be the impact of increasing regional differentiation within the EPA negotiations and specific EU support strategies for Africa, the Caribbean and the Pacific? How will the emergence of strong new actors such as the African Union impact on the political dialogue? What trends and scenarios for the future can we expect?
Broadening the partnership to non-state actors and local governments
A background paper by Jean Bossuyt for the ECDPM seminar on the ACP-EU Partnership Agreement looks at the participation of non-state actors in the Partnership Agreement over the past five years. A companion piece by Zakaria Ould Amar shares some 'real-life' experiences from the Program in Support of Civil Society and Good Governance (PASOC)in Mauritania.
The Cotonou Agreement makes it clear that participation [of non-state actors] is not simply a question of 'sharing out the aid pie'. It is about overcoming a harmful 'public-private divide' by building a new partnership between state (central/local) and non-state actors for the delivery of development goods and services.
"We are in a state respecting the rule of law, so I forbid you to meet illegal organizations", Senior government official at the launching of the identification mission of PASOC.
"We, local governments, are elected by the people and NGOs don't have any legitimacy; so tell me, in whose name are they talking: members of the association of mayors in Adrar (North of Mauritania)?"
"For the first time ever in Mauritania, the operational management of a program financed under the EDF has not passed through the administration."
"The exposure of the administration to the PASOC process has somehow reduced fears that the civil society programme would work ‘against’ the state."
Lessons
According to Bossuyt:
"The broadening of partnership has helped to reinforce democratic and participatory trends (where they existed) or to reduce barriers against the involvement of non-state actors (in rather closed political systems)."
"For the non-state actors and local governments, the whole process has often been pretty much a 'pedagogic exercise'. They discovered the potential and complexity of ACP-EC cooperation and also came to realise the "homework" that awaits them if they want to be credible players in the cooperation process."
"Preliminary assessments made by the EC suggest that in a majority of ACP countries things are moving in the right direction in terms of consulting non-state actors; mainstreaming of participation across sectors; access to funding; capacity support, etc. Similar surveys, produced by non-state actors, tend to be more critical on issues such as the overall quality of NSA participation, the institutional set-up (including for follow-up consultations) the access to funding or the procedural complexities."
"The political and institutional conditions for effective participation of non-state actors are not always in place at country and regional level. Non-state actors are often part of the problem, as in many ACP countries they tend to suffer severe weaknesses, including fragmentation, competition, the lack of solid representative structures, and governance problems."
"There is also no shortage of confusion. The end of the 'single-actor' approach means that the development stage is now occupied by a large number of actors...not surprisingly, there is some confusion among these actors about 'who should do what', compounded by territorial fights, jockeying for position and competition for funding."
"Engaging with civil society should not be done in a rushed way, as 'quick fixes' generally mean moving away from participatory to instrumental approaches to civil society engagement.
"It makes no sense to deliver civil society support programmes in a vacuum, as a self-standing action, isolated from mainstream development processes."
"The rapid increase in donor funding (from all sides) has often had perverse effects, such as an artificial explosion of civil society, including 'fake' organisations interested in tapping aid resources for private interests."
"Some ACP countries still display strong control-oriented attitudes towards civil society, using restrictive registration procedures as a selection mechanism."
"The new aid paradigm calls for a redefinition of the specific role played by European development actors (particularly NGOs and local government associations) in an increasingly complex, politicised, multi-actor and decentralised cooperation system."
Read the background papers by Jean Bossuyt and Zakaria Ould Amar; see the Euforic civil society dossier.
Post your comments on the issue
View other issues being discussed.
The Cotonou Agreement makes it clear that participation [of non-state actors] is not simply a question of 'sharing out the aid pie'. It is about overcoming a harmful 'public-private divide' by building a new partnership between state (central/local) and non-state actors for the delivery of development goods and services.
"We are in a state respecting the rule of law, so I forbid you to meet illegal organizations", Senior government official at the launching of the identification mission of PASOC.
"We, local governments, are elected by the people and NGOs don't have any legitimacy; so tell me, in whose name are they talking: members of the association of mayors in Adrar (North of Mauritania)?"
"For the first time ever in Mauritania, the operational management of a program financed under the EDF has not passed through the administration."
"The exposure of the administration to the PASOC process has somehow reduced fears that the civil society programme would work ‘against’ the state."
Lessons
According to Bossuyt:
"The broadening of partnership has helped to reinforce democratic and participatory trends (where they existed) or to reduce barriers against the involvement of non-state actors (in rather closed political systems)."
"For the non-state actors and local governments, the whole process has often been pretty much a 'pedagogic exercise'. They discovered the potential and complexity of ACP-EC cooperation and also came to realise the "homework" that awaits them if they want to be credible players in the cooperation process."
"Preliminary assessments made by the EC suggest that in a majority of ACP countries things are moving in the right direction in terms of consulting non-state actors; mainstreaming of participation across sectors; access to funding; capacity support, etc. Similar surveys, produced by non-state actors, tend to be more critical on issues such as the overall quality of NSA participation, the institutional set-up (including for follow-up consultations) the access to funding or the procedural complexities."
"The political and institutional conditions for effective participation of non-state actors are not always in place at country and regional level. Non-state actors are often part of the problem, as in many ACP countries they tend to suffer severe weaknesses, including fragmentation, competition, the lack of solid representative structures, and governance problems."
"There is also no shortage of confusion. The end of the 'single-actor' approach means that the development stage is now occupied by a large number of actors...not surprisingly, there is some confusion among these actors about 'who should do what', compounded by territorial fights, jockeying for position and competition for funding."
"Engaging with civil society should not be done in a rushed way, as 'quick fixes' generally mean moving away from participatory to instrumental approaches to civil society engagement.
"It makes no sense to deliver civil society support programmes in a vacuum, as a self-standing action, isolated from mainstream development processes."
"The rapid increase in donor funding (from all sides) has often had perverse effects, such as an artificial explosion of civil society, including 'fake' organisations interested in tapping aid resources for private interests."
"Some ACP countries still display strong control-oriented attitudes towards civil society, using restrictive registration procedures as a selection mechanism."
"The new aid paradigm calls for a redefinition of the specific role played by European development actors (particularly NGOs and local government associations) in an increasingly complex, politicised, multi-actor and decentralised cooperation system."
Read the background papers by Jean Bossuyt and Zakaria Ould Amar; see the Euforic civil society dossier.
Post your comments on the issue
View other issues being discussed.
Putting the political dimension into practice
Background papers by Jan Vanheukelom et al. and by Wolfram Vetter for the ECDPM seminar on the ACP-EU Partnership Agreement look into political issues, including peace and security, governance, political dialogue and the opening to non-state actors.
The introduction of the political dimensions was heralded as one of the most important innovations of the Cotonou Agreement. The new Partnership was to have a strong political foundation that was to be sustained by an on-going political dialogue.
The 'Political Dimension', to which a whole section (Part 1 Title II) was devoted early on in the text of the Agreement, sought to ensure that the relationship between the partners would evolve into a mature political relationship which was to be in effect the third pillar of the partnership: aid, trade and the political dimension.
It is difficult to get a full picture of how much Article 8 (which provides the foundation stone for the whole section of the agreement) has in fact been used over the past 6 years, the form it has generally taken or indeed the scope it has had because there is no systematic public reporting on its use.
The form and content of policy dialogue has also grown in other ways that were less expected. For instance political dialogue has progressed rapidly at the continental level and become a core element of the growing relationship between the AU and the EU.
Initially, the Cotonou Agreement defined governance in a rather narrow, technocratic way, regarding it primarily as referring to the efficient and transparent management of resources by public institutions. Over time, however, the EC perspective on governance has evolved into a holistic, overarching concept, embracing broader state-civil society relations, human rights and democratization, the rule of law as well as public sector reform and decentralisation. In a few years, it has moved to the top of the ACP-EU agenda.
Taking up peace and security elements in policies and programmes has enabled the EU to give more comprehensive responses to complex demands, especially in Africa where it works closely with the African Union. The recent elections in DR Congo demonstrate what can be achieved when the EU makes a comprehensive use of its instruments: the Commission financed infrastructure, organised election observation, supported the police and military forces, and provided troops in support of the UN peace keepers.
Since 2000 migration has certainly become the object of ‘in-depth dialogue’, as the CPA envisaged, but this dialogue has not always been easy.
Political dialogue has been complemented by the introduction of non-state actors (NSAs) as actors in the partnership. The Cotonou Agreement raised high expectations in the NGO world in both Europe and in the ACP countries.
Conclusions
According to Jan Vanheukelom et al:
"The Political Dimension of Cotonou has certainly proven to be a valuable and timely innovation that has provided a framework for a number of very important debates in the six years that have elapsed since the Agreement was signed.
"Five years of political dialogue within the CPA have demonstrated that this dimension of the partnership has widened and deepened. A broader range of partners has been involved, including non-signatories to the Agreement such as the African Union, and also, as envisaged, non-state actors."
"The growth of the African Union has provided the EU with a viable interlocutor with whom the EU can engage in region-to-region political dialogue in a way that the ACP Group could not do."
"The initial concerns that Article 8 would be used in a purely restrictive way
have proved to be unfounded."
According to Vetter:
"The political dialogue and the opening to non-state actors produce a strong and effective link between the EU's CFSP and its development policies."
From the EU perspective, the provisions of Cotonou's political dimension have complemented and reinforced the common foreign and security policy.
"The implementation of the political dimension of the Cotonou Agreement has not necessarily strengthened the ACP structures."
"The question therefore is if the ACP framework can continue to provide a strong structure for a relationship that integrates and further develops the aspirations of the Cotonou Agreement."
Read the background papers by Jan Vanheukelom et al., and by Wolfram Vetter
Post your comments on the issue
View other issues being discussed.
The introduction of the political dimensions was heralded as one of the most important innovations of the Cotonou Agreement. The new Partnership was to have a strong political foundation that was to be sustained by an on-going political dialogue.
The 'Political Dimension', to which a whole section (Part 1 Title II) was devoted early on in the text of the Agreement, sought to ensure that the relationship between the partners would evolve into a mature political relationship which was to be in effect the third pillar of the partnership: aid, trade and the political dimension.
It is difficult to get a full picture of how much Article 8 (which provides the foundation stone for the whole section of the agreement) has in fact been used over the past 6 years, the form it has generally taken or indeed the scope it has had because there is no systematic public reporting on its use.
The form and content of policy dialogue has also grown in other ways that were less expected. For instance political dialogue has progressed rapidly at the continental level and become a core element of the growing relationship between the AU and the EU.
Initially, the Cotonou Agreement defined governance in a rather narrow, technocratic way, regarding it primarily as referring to the efficient and transparent management of resources by public institutions. Over time, however, the EC perspective on governance has evolved into a holistic, overarching concept, embracing broader state-civil society relations, human rights and democratization, the rule of law as well as public sector reform and decentralisation. In a few years, it has moved to the top of the ACP-EU agenda.
Taking up peace and security elements in policies and programmes has enabled the EU to give more comprehensive responses to complex demands, especially in Africa where it works closely with the African Union. The recent elections in DR Congo demonstrate what can be achieved when the EU makes a comprehensive use of its instruments: the Commission financed infrastructure, organised election observation, supported the police and military forces, and provided troops in support of the UN peace keepers.
Since 2000 migration has certainly become the object of ‘in-depth dialogue’, as the CPA envisaged, but this dialogue has not always been easy.
Political dialogue has been complemented by the introduction of non-state actors (NSAs) as actors in the partnership. The Cotonou Agreement raised high expectations in the NGO world in both Europe and in the ACP countries.
Conclusions
According to Jan Vanheukelom et al:
"The Political Dimension of Cotonou has certainly proven to be a valuable and timely innovation that has provided a framework for a number of very important debates in the six years that have elapsed since the Agreement was signed.
"Five years of political dialogue within the CPA have demonstrated that this dimension of the partnership has widened and deepened. A broader range of partners has been involved, including non-signatories to the Agreement such as the African Union, and also, as envisaged, non-state actors."
"The growth of the African Union has provided the EU with a viable interlocutor with whom the EU can engage in region-to-region political dialogue in a way that the ACP Group could not do."
"The initial concerns that Article 8 would be used in a purely restrictive way
have proved to be unfounded."
According to Vetter:
"The political dialogue and the opening to non-state actors produce a strong and effective link between the EU's CFSP and its development policies."
From the EU perspective, the provisions of Cotonou's political dimension have complemented and reinforced the common foreign and security policy.
"The implementation of the political dimension of the Cotonou Agreement has not necessarily strengthened the ACP structures."
"The question therefore is if the ACP framework can continue to provide a strong structure for a relationship that integrates and further develops the aspirations of the Cotonou Agreement."
Read the background papers by Jan Vanheukelom et al., and by Wolfram Vetter
Post your comments on the issue
View other issues being discussed.
Redefining ACP-EU trade relations: Economic Partnership Agreements
A background paper by San Bilal for the ECDPM seminar on the ACP-EU Cotonou Partnership Agreement analyses the main issues at stake in the current processes to negotiate Economic Partnership Agreements. Some aspects discussed by Bilal are:
Differing expectations
"Since the start of the negotiations, EPAs have created a great amount of tension among the two negotiating parties."
"The prospect of EPAs has raised serious concerns and led to further divergences between the EU and the ACP on a wide range of issues, most importantly the approach to development."
"For the EU, EPAs will foster development mainly through trade liberalisation and the creation of the right policy framework to attract investment."
"From an ACP perspective, however, EPAs only make sense if they foster development."
"Despite wide divergences on the approach, both the EC and the ACP agree that EPAs are above all about development."
The 2006 EPA Review
"The 2006 Review of EPAs may provide the right momentum to put in place a continuous monitoring mechanism of EPAs, during their negotiations and most importantly during their implementation phase."
"Designing such a monitoring is no easy task since there are so many areas to be monitored and the EU and the ACP have diverging opinions on the specific goals to be met by the EPAs."
"The 'development benchmarks' approach may offer a possible way to address these difficulties. Development benchmarks would ensure clarity on the assumptions and values underlying the monitoring exercise and on the specific methodology adopted."
"It is arguably unfortunate that the Review in some regions is taking place only among the negotiators themselves. It is important for the Review not to be confined to a joint assessment by ACP and EU EPA negotiators, but that more stakeholders from the private sector, civil society and other ACP and EU institutions are involved."
Impact of EPAs on the ACP-EU partnership
"When (or if) concluded, EPAs will have a profound impact on the ACP countries and regions."
"However, to be meaningful, EPAs cannot be an end in themselves."
"In the longer term, the pertinence of the ACP-EU partnership and of the ACP Group itself will also have to be reassessed."
"EPAs have been initially presented by the EU as agreements focusing on trade-related issues only ... However, recent events suggest a slight shift of approach, with the explicit recognition that discussions on development support are intrinsically linked to the EPA negotiations."
"Looking at the approach of the EU with other (non-ACP) partners, its recent free trade agreements have generally been embodied in broader agreement, covering not only trade, but also development cooperation and political dialogue."
"In this context, one could expect pressures over time to regionalise the ACP-EU partnership along EPA configurations. The recent Africa Strategy and Caribbean Strategy of the EU might be perceived as first parallel first initial steps in that direction."
"The question at stake is not so much what will happen to the ACP-EU partnership after 2020, when the CPA will expire, but rather what will be the value added and role of the ACP Group and the relevance of an overarching ACP-EU framework of partnership? Should EPAs be then extended to include political and development cooperation dimension besides trade, or should the ACP remain the prevailing umbrella, and to which end?"
Read the background paper by San Bilal
Post your comments on the issue
View other issues being discussed.
More information about ACP-EU trade is at www.acp-eu-trade.org; see also the Euforic trade dossier.
Differing expectations
"Since the start of the negotiations, EPAs have created a great amount of tension among the two negotiating parties."
"The prospect of EPAs has raised serious concerns and led to further divergences between the EU and the ACP on a wide range of issues, most importantly the approach to development."
"For the EU, EPAs will foster development mainly through trade liberalisation and the creation of the right policy framework to attract investment."
"From an ACP perspective, however, EPAs only make sense if they foster development."
"Despite wide divergences on the approach, both the EC and the ACP agree that EPAs are above all about development."
The 2006 EPA Review
"The 2006 Review of EPAs may provide the right momentum to put in place a continuous monitoring mechanism of EPAs, during their negotiations and most importantly during their implementation phase."
"Designing such a monitoring is no easy task since there are so many areas to be monitored and the EU and the ACP have diverging opinions on the specific goals to be met by the EPAs."
"The 'development benchmarks' approach may offer a possible way to address these difficulties. Development benchmarks would ensure clarity on the assumptions and values underlying the monitoring exercise and on the specific methodology adopted."
"It is arguably unfortunate that the Review in some regions is taking place only among the negotiators themselves. It is important for the Review not to be confined to a joint assessment by ACP and EU EPA negotiators, but that more stakeholders from the private sector, civil society and other ACP and EU institutions are involved."
Impact of EPAs on the ACP-EU partnership
"When (or if) concluded, EPAs will have a profound impact on the ACP countries and regions."
"However, to be meaningful, EPAs cannot be an end in themselves."
"In the longer term, the pertinence of the ACP-EU partnership and of the ACP Group itself will also have to be reassessed."
"EPAs have been initially presented by the EU as agreements focusing on trade-related issues only ... However, recent events suggest a slight shift of approach, with the explicit recognition that discussions on development support are intrinsically linked to the EPA negotiations."
"Looking at the approach of the EU with other (non-ACP) partners, its recent free trade agreements have generally been embodied in broader agreement, covering not only trade, but also development cooperation and political dialogue."
"In this context, one could expect pressures over time to regionalise the ACP-EU partnership along EPA configurations. The recent Africa Strategy and Caribbean Strategy of the EU might be perceived as first parallel first initial steps in that direction."
"The question at stake is not so much what will happen to the ACP-EU partnership after 2020, when the CPA will expire, but rather what will be the value added and role of the ACP Group and the relevance of an overarching ACP-EU framework of partnership? Should EPAs be then extended to include political and development cooperation dimension besides trade, or should the ACP remain the prevailing umbrella, and to which end?"
Read the background paper by San Bilal
Post your comments on the issue
View other issues being discussed.
More information about ACP-EU trade is at www.acp-eu-trade.org; see also the Euforic trade dossier.
EDF management and performance
Background papers by James Mackie and Vibeke Rasmussen and Jason Scott for the ECDPM seminar on the ACP-EU Cotonou Partnership Agreement ask:
How much did the new emphasis on performance and the rationalisation of instruments and management of aid contribute to more effective and efficient development programmes?
Management changes
The Cotonou Agreement signed in June 2000 streamlined the EDF and introduced a system of rolling programming allowing for greater flexibility and giving the ACP countries greater responsibility.
The key change was of course the end of the aid entitlement system of Lomé and its replacement by allocations linked to performance.
There was also a drastic simplification of instruments so that ACP governments now had to deal with just one instrument the National Indicative Programme.
Linked to these changes in EDF management the CPA also proposed to enhance the role played by National Authorising Officers (NAOs), the senior government minister or official in each ACP country who held responsibility for the use of EDF funds, and the NAO offices that supported them away from an essentially technical and financial managerial role towards a more strategic one.
Conclusions
According to Mackie:
"Clearly the combined effect of these changes has been first to largely restore the credibility and legitimacy of EC aid."
"Moreover, a few ACP countries have been able to move ahead faster than perhaps expected, their good performance in financial management and programme implementation being rewarded with increased allocations."
"On the other hand we do not seem to have progressed as well on the question of ACP ownership of the cooperation nor indeed on the question of mutual accountability. The programming and review processes have not been as ‘joint’ or ‘mutual’ as many would like."
"Reducing the number of instruments in the EDF has simplified things, but EDF procedures are still proving too cumbersome and the new trend of creating EDF funded facilities both introduces new complexities and tends to place more management control in European hands."
"The degree to which it has really been possible to build a more strategic approach to ACP-EU cooperation on the rolling programming and performance based system is also questionable."
"The shift towards a more strategic role for NAOs has been slower than hoped and procedures that remain cumbersome militate against such a change."
"ACP ownership of the development cooperation process is probably the greatest victim and in this respect there is still much work to be done to adjust ACP-EU practice to the precepts of the Paris Declaration."
According to Rasmussen and Scott:
"it appears that the change both in the programming style and in the management has overall been beneficial."
"The many changes in the Cotonou are the prime evidence that, from an academic point of view at least, all the principles such as rolling programming, consultation, ownership, sector analysis, cross cutting themes etc are justified and needed, but they are also very resource thirsty for the partners and that is often a problem."
"As the tools of partnership and cooperation have become more participatory and sophisticated they have become much more resource thirsty in human resource terms, requiring greater levels of competencies which creates challenges for all partners."
"Ideally the financial procedures should also be made more user friendly. This could be done while still ensuring the required levels of control."
Read the background papers by James Mackie and Vibeke Rasmussen and Jason Scott
Post your comments on the issue
View other issues being discussed.
How much did the new emphasis on performance and the rationalisation of instruments and management of aid contribute to more effective and efficient development programmes?
Management changes
The Cotonou Agreement signed in June 2000 streamlined the EDF and introduced a system of rolling programming allowing for greater flexibility and giving the ACP countries greater responsibility.
The key change was of course the end of the aid entitlement system of Lomé and its replacement by allocations linked to performance.
There was also a drastic simplification of instruments so that ACP governments now had to deal with just one instrument the National Indicative Programme.
Linked to these changes in EDF management the CPA also proposed to enhance the role played by National Authorising Officers (NAOs), the senior government minister or official in each ACP country who held responsibility for the use of EDF funds, and the NAO offices that supported them away from an essentially technical and financial managerial role towards a more strategic one.
Conclusions
According to Mackie:
"Clearly the combined effect of these changes has been first to largely restore the credibility and legitimacy of EC aid."
"Moreover, a few ACP countries have been able to move ahead faster than perhaps expected, their good performance in financial management and programme implementation being rewarded with increased allocations."
"On the other hand we do not seem to have progressed as well on the question of ACP ownership of the cooperation nor indeed on the question of mutual accountability. The programming and review processes have not been as ‘joint’ or ‘mutual’ as many would like."
"Reducing the number of instruments in the EDF has simplified things, but EDF procedures are still proving too cumbersome and the new trend of creating EDF funded facilities both introduces new complexities and tends to place more management control in European hands."
"The degree to which it has really been possible to build a more strategic approach to ACP-EU cooperation on the rolling programming and performance based system is also questionable."
"The shift towards a more strategic role for NAOs has been slower than hoped and procedures that remain cumbersome militate against such a change."
"ACP ownership of the development cooperation process is probably the greatest victim and in this respect there is still much work to be done to adjust ACP-EU practice to the precepts of the Paris Declaration."
According to Rasmussen and Scott:
"it appears that the change both in the programming style and in the management has overall been beneficial."
"The many changes in the Cotonou are the prime evidence that, from an academic point of view at least, all the principles such as rolling programming, consultation, ownership, sector analysis, cross cutting themes etc are justified and needed, but they are also very resource thirsty for the partners and that is often a problem."
"As the tools of partnership and cooperation have become more participatory and sophisticated they have become much more resource thirsty in human resource terms, requiring greater levels of competencies which creates challenges for all partners."
"Ideally the financial procedures should also be made more user friendly. This could be done while still ensuring the required levels of control."
Read the background papers by James Mackie and Vibeke Rasmussen and Jason Scott
Post your comments on the issue
View other issues being discussed.
Monday, December 11, 2006
Governance challenges in Africa and the role of the African Union
On 19 December, Ambassador Shinkaiye, Chief of Staff of President Konare, will speak at an ECDPM Public Lecture on the institutional achievements of the African Union and Africa's future governance challenges.
By creating the African Union in 2000, African leaders gave a clear signal to the international community that the continent was assuming a strong responsibility for it's own development. Since then, the AU has produced concrete results in the area of peace and security, international relations (EU, China, Latin America...) and the promotion of democratic governance structures in Africa. The African Union Commission (AUC), based in Addis Ababa and led by Alpha Oumar Konare, former President of Mali, is playing a key role in facilitating these complex African change processes.
The lecture is part of the 20 year anniversary events of ECDPM - more information is available on the ECDPM website.
By creating the African Union in 2000, African leaders gave a clear signal to the international community that the continent was assuming a strong responsibility for it's own development. Since then, the AU has produced concrete results in the area of peace and security, international relations (EU, China, Latin America...) and the promotion of democratic governance structures in Africa. The African Union Commission (AUC), based in Addis Ababa and led by Alpha Oumar Konare, former President of Mali, is playing a key role in facilitating these complex African change processes.
The lecture is part of the 20 year anniversary events of ECDPM - more information is available on the ECDPM website.
Wednesday, December 06, 2006
ECDPM convenes conference on Cotonou Partnership Agreement
On 18 and 19 December, the European Centre for Development Policy Management (ECDPM) organises a seminar on ‘The Cotonou Partnership Agreement: What role in a changing world?’
Five years after the CPA was signed, it's time to assess progress achieved and the impact of the key innovations. Key questions for discussion are:
Read the ECDPM ACP-EU timeline; see also the Euforic ACP-EU dossier; get more information about the seminar; check out the public lecture.
Five years after the CPA was signed, it's time to assess progress achieved and the impact of the key innovations. Key questions for discussion are:
- Is the increased political focus of ACP-EU cooperation contributing to development?
- Has Cotonou broadened the partnership?
- Are EPAs an instrument for development and poverty reduction?
- Is the emphasis on performance and the rationalisation of instruments and management of aid contributing to more effective and efficient development programmes?
Read the ECDPM ACP-EU timeline; see also the Euforic ACP-EU dossier; get more information about the seminar; check out the public lecture.
