00/1-
Renegotiation of the Lomé Convention –A Postscript
Since
the first Lomé short report was written in May last year
agreement has been reached and the negotiations have finished. The
new Partnership Agreement for Development was signed in Cotonou,
Benin in June 2000. As the negotiations have now officially ended
and there is a new agreement in place, the time seems apt for a
look back over the past few hectic months in the life of EU relations
with the countries of Africa the Caribbean and the Pacific regions.
It has been a difficult process. There have been three ministerials
– meetings between African Caribbean and Pacific country ambassadors
and EU Development Ministers. The first was in July - it seemed
to be a failure, nothing of any really issue was agreed upon. The
next was in December. This was billed as being the last chance for
the two negotiating sides to agree before the deadline of February.
They managed to overcome many sticking points but there was still
some disagreement so a third meeting was scheduled for the beginning
of February. The final agreement was thus made at the eleventh hour.
The
Lomé Convention is a framework for trade and aid between
the EU and 71 African Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) countries. The
first agreement was signed in 1975 and the fourth ran out at the
end of February 2000.
There
are many reasons why there was a necessity for a new agreement.
The world has changed and the convention no longer reflected the
needs of the partners involved. Increasingly more attention is focused
on the non-trade issues of the agreement. It was these as well as
the more traditional trade issues that caused much of the deadlock.
So
after all this talking… what has changed?
At
the December ministerial many of the logjams of the July meeting
were freed.
The
European Union has been pushing to make good governance an essential
element. For a country to comply with good governance it would have
to adhere to democratic principles, uphold human rights and follow
rule of law. If good governance were an essential element it would
mean that aid could be suspended from an offending country. ACP
states challenged this, as it is hard to quantify good governance.
How can one say that one country has worse governance than another
does? Good governance is a vague concept that the ACP was worried
could be used arbitrarily by the EU as another form of conditionality
for a country to comply for aid. Both sides realised that the issue
that they were most concerned about was not good governance but
corruption and that this should be included as an essential element
instead. Good governance is now classed as a fundamental element,
which would not cause expulsion in the same way as if it were an
essential element. There would need to be a series of violations
of the principles of good governance before a country was suspended.
Other
major issues included that of trade. The former trade arrangements
were incompatible with the World Trade Organisation, as they violated
the Most Favoured Nation and Reciprocity guidelines of the WTO [see
short report p10]. New arrangements thus had to be negotiated. The
preferential trade arrangements of the former Lomé Convention
will be maintained for the next eight years as negotiation and bargaining
continues between the EU and regional groupings of the ACP. The
implementation of Regional Economic Partnership Agreements (REPAs)
between the EU and each regional grouping would then take place
between 2008 and 2020. At the end of this period EU Member States
would be able to export duty free to the ACP countries. The ACP
would decide on the composition of the groupings and the process
of the economic integration. These REPAs would be WTO compliant
in a way that a similar agreement between the EU and the ACP states
would not. 39 of the ACP states are classed as Least Developed Countries
(LDCs) and would be granted duty free access to the EU market for
“essentially all” products by 2005. There has been a
mixed response from ACP ambassadors in Brussels after the end of
the negotiations. Some believe that the new agreement will bring
about more rational trading arrangements, which will orgainse the
economies of ACP countries. Others are wary of the effect of the
REPAs, especially if the regional grouping consists of some LDCs
and some non-LDCs. Different trade preferences for these groups
are likely to create inequalities within regions. Non-Least Developed
ACPs are now in direct competition with the LDCs for the share of
the European market.
Changes
in the instruments for export earnings: STABEX and SYSMIN are discarded.
STABEX
and SYSMIN were introduced in the 1970’s to help the ACP countries
that were dependent on only a few export commodities. These countries
are often badly hit by fluctuations world market prices. STABEX
gave aid for agricultural goods and SYSMIN for the mining sector.
The schemes were intended as price support mechanisms reacting to
changes in the world markets. They came to be seen as regular contribution
to national budgets. The new agreement states that support will
be given in cases of short term fluctuations in the export earnings
of a country. It is hoped that the new Convention will safeguard
macro-economic reforms and policy against such fluctuations. The
funds allocated would help specific sectors, and would be reviewed
frequently. It is hoped that the new financial envelope of aid will
give faster and more effective distribution of aid. All countries
will now be eligible and not just those whose main exports fell
under STABEX or SYSMIN. Countries heavily dependent of agriculture
or mining will still be given special treatment, as will LDCs, land-locked
and island states.
This
policy change has also had mixed responses from the ACP. Countries
heavily dependent on STABEX or SYSMIN are sorry to see this automatic,
flexible aid package disappear. The thresholds for qualifying for
aid are now much higher than before and this will hit non-LDC ACP
countries hard.
The
new Agreement will now very much be a partnership agreement in that
it is less government to government and more people to people. “Civil
society is now welcome as an important component in our cooperation”
(Commissioner Nielson). Civil society consists of all non-state
actors – non-governmental organisations – women's movements,
environmental movements religious movements, trade unions…and
industry, consumer groups, etc. These non-state actors will be consulted
frequently. In order to do this a great deal of capacity building
and technological assistance required from the EU, as well as a
lot of education on the part of the ACP countries.
The
EU has placed a strong poverty reduction slant on the new agreement.
This is in line with other international development agreements
and organisations. Each country’s situation is different and
each should be considered independently of each other. In consulting
on the poverty reduction strategies of the EU civil society actors
will be consulted.
On
the agenda for the February meeting was the issue of the readmission
of illegal immigrants. The EU had introduced this issue at the very
last moment at the December meeting and the ACP had objected furiously.
At the summit in Helsinki at the beginning of December, the heads
of State agreed to the introduction of a ‘readmission clause’
into all multilateral agreements. This clause would have obliged
each of the ACP countries “to readmit any of its nationals
illegally present on the territory of a Member State of the European
Union” and to include “an obligation for the readmission
of nationals of other countries and stateless persons”. This
would entail an obligation for each ACP State to accept and cope
with unknown numbers of stateless persons or nationals or nationals
of other countries. The ACP described this as against international
law and so refused to accept the clause. The compromise reached
within the last few hours of the negotiations was that the readmission
clause would be negotiated bilaterally with each ACP country. These
negotiations would comply with international law. The problem with
trying to introduce such clauses into the Partnership Agreement
is that the ACP negotiating group n Brussels has no supranational
responsibility: it was the ambassadors and not government representatives
that took part in the Lomé negotiations. In this regard the
negotiators had no authority to agree on the migration clause.
Is
the new Partnership Agreement a good thing?
At
this stage it is still too early to tell if the agreement will bring
more confusion to the African, Caribbean and Pacific states or if
it will pave the way for a clearer road to development. If the agreement
works the EU should deliver more aid than it did in the past. Some
ACP ambassadors are pleased with the agreement, feeling that it
will give them the opportunity to become more organised. Others
do not like it, feeling that the demands on them are too high for
the benefits they receive. We wait with baited breath to see what
will come of the regional negotiations.
Return
to top of page
Return
to Publications Archive |
