Brussels, 30/03/2016 (Agence Europe) - The partnership between the EU and the ACP countries (Africa/Caribbean/Pacific) has a future after 2020, but its terms will need to be adapted to increase its effectiveness, which differs greatly between the various planks it covers, according to the participants in the public consultation launched by the European Commission and the European External Action Service in October 2015 (see EUROPE 11465, 11463).
The results of this consultation, which are currently being evaluated, were published by the Commission on 21 March. They contain a wealth of information about the perceived benefits and shortcomings of the Cotonou Agreement, the partnership agreement for development concluded in the capital of Benin in 2000 for 20 years, and on the outlines of the new ACP-EU partnership post-2020.
In view of the 103 participants from the EU and the ACP countries - public authorities mainly, but also civil society organisations, associations, think tanks and just a handful of representatives of the private sector - there is no question that it is useful. However, the responses do not make it clear whether the noted progress or lack of progress can be attributed to the Cotonou Agreement specifically or to EU policy as a whole, according to the European Commission. Generally speaking, the participants take the view that the partnership has contributed to human and social development and the reduction of poverty, but they are divided as to its contribution to sustainable development.
Its contribution to peace and security is generally underlined, but the participants have their doubts as to the effectiveness of the Cotonou Agreement in stimulating the private sector and foreign direct investment, having a positive effect on migration, on democratic governance and in generating alliances between the EU and the ACP countries in order to tackle global challenges. As regards this last point, if the Cotonou Agreement has fallen below expectations, in the view of the majority of participants, there are two reasons for this: firstly, this is not what the ACP-EU partnership was designed for and, secondly, the ACP countries made the choice, at various times, also to cooperate with other groups of countries than just the EU, such as the G77, which they may feel put the ACP interests forward better.
Peace and security. Most of the participants called for the successor to the Cotonou Agreement to carry out more joint actions for the prevention of conflicts, the construction of peace and the fight against terrorism and organised crime, by bringing together the national, regional or continental approaches more, whilst others feel that the future partnership should not deal with these issues.
Sustainable development. Some participants feel that the Cotonou Agreement has made a considerable contribution to reducing poverty and increasing economic growth, whilst others take a far more critical view, arguing that the EU has pursued a model of economic development which is based on multilateral trade and the mining industries, the profits of which have evaded large swathes of the population. The participants unanimously take the view that the future ACP-EU partnership should adapt to the universal objectives of sustainable development adopted in New York in August of last year.
Economic Partnership Agreements (EPA). Some respondents feel that the EPAs have boosted investors' confidence in the ACP economies, but others continue to take the view that the EU's policy at the WTO has seriously harmed agricultural production and food security in the ACP countries.
Political dialogue. Acknowledged to be one of the vital elements of the Cotonou Agreement, this dialogue is seen as useful in permitting a regular exchange between the EU and the ACP countries on subjects of common interest, but there is no consensus as to its effectiveness. Many respondents take the view that not enough use is made of this tool, that it is overly rigid and formal, that it does not make enough room for civil society, that the member states of the EU are not sufficiently involved in it (with the exception of those with a privileged relationship with certain ACP countries) and that in future, this tool should be more used in order to forge common ACP-EU positions on the international scene, as was the case at COP 21 regarding the climate.
Migration. The respondents feel that the interests of the EU and of the ACP countries diverge and that Article 13 of the Cotonou Agreement on this subject is too limited to allow these interests to be reconciled, as the EU is particularly interested in returns, control measures and security, whereas the ACP countries lay emphasis on the 'development' dimension of migration (income of migrants, brain drain). The majority of participants call for the future partnership to focus on respect for human rights, the promotion of safe and responsible migration, fighting the trafficking in human beings, abuses and discrimination and tackling the underlying causes of migration and forced migration.
Geographical coverage. Some of the respondents stress that the key values and principles of the ACP-EU partnership should be central to the post-Cotonou agreement. Most of the respondents feel that the future partnership should be aligned on the sub-regional approach adopted by the EU on foreign policy, security, trade and development in the various regions of the ACP group. Certain respondents are in favour of a post-2020 agreement with all of the ACP countries. The future of ACP-EU relations will be discussed at the forthcoming joint ACP-EU Council of Ministers, which will be held in Dakar from 25 to 27 April. (Original version in French by Aminata Niang)