Funchal, 24/09/2007 (Agence Europe) - A real laboratory of ideas - the informal development ministers' Council concluded its work on 22 September in the Madeira archipelago (autonomous region of Portugal) with a success story. Joao Gomes Cravinho, the Portuguese secretary of state for foreign affairs and cooperation, and debate facilitator, relayed this success to the press and highlighted the progress on rethinking concrete ways of increasing aid efficiency responses adapted to specific “fragile situations” in which some developing countries find themselves (governance, and deficient institutional capacity, lack of territorial control or monopoly in the use of force, weak or declining economic performances, uneven development, high levels of corruption, lack of transparency, high risk of political instability and violent conflicts, lack of democratic traditions).
Other results, however, were satisfactory too: consensus on the need to better articulate European security and development policies, progress towards the adoption of “European consensus on humanitarian aid” proposed by the European Commission, the message of support to the Commission to conclude, in the given time frame, the laborious negotiations for the Economic Partnership Agreements (EPA) between the EU and six ACP sub regions (Africa/Caribbean/Pacific).
The European Parliament's participation, represented by Josep Borrel, the president of the development committee at the Parliament, and several of his colleagues involved in development, also benefited this ministerial meeting. Glenys Kinnock, British Labour Party, and Co-president of the ACP/EU Joint Parliamentary Assembly, welcomed this overture which can be translated “in terms of the Council giving credibility to the European Parliament” and allows for another perspective to be developed when emphasis is put on building civil society in fragile countries while forgetting that “many fragile states have non-existent or non-effectual Parliaments”.
Dividing up the work: a tool to put into practice in fragile situations
Mr Cravinho declared: “We all agree on saying that we need to improve our intervention capacities in a situation where a state is unable to meet the needs of the population in terms of health access, education, justice and also when the partnership is in difficulty and there is no way of making the necessary political commitment”.
During the debate, member states (especially countries from the North) recognised the opportunity for putting into practice the code of conduct for dividing up the work as proposed by the Commission for obtaining best added value for each of them (Commission and member states) and preventing countries in fragile situations becoming “aid orphans” as opposed to “aid darlings” such as Tanzania and Mozambique.
Glenys Kinnock highlighted the injustice of turning their backs on countries like Sierra Leone and Liberia, which at the end of the elections are doing all they can to see the light at the end of the tunnel, as the Austrian minister pointed out, but are cruelly short on funding. Ms Kinnock said that Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf in Liberia is “wonderful and so courageous and yet she still has no infrastructure, no electricity, no water. How can she build governance, how can she build a strong country? She can't do it”.
The Dutch, supported by the Germans, proposed that donors were brought together to help find funding for a country in a fragile situation. They also proposed putting into practice a better division of labour, and payment rules that were more flexible and which provided a more rapid response to fragile situations. This could help provide an example for other countries. Commissioner Louis Michel was keen to see this implemented and was convinced that “an effective division of labour and rule flexibility can make the difference in a country like Burundi, for example”.
The idea of creating “funding pools” to help direct aid was also proposed but did not achieve unanimity. The reflection will help the Council adopt formal conclusions in November, which in turn will “provide orientations”, explained Mr Cravinho.
Security and development: two sides of the same coin
Alluding to the exchange of views for improving coherence between development and security policies, the president of the Council explained that the “beginning of the process on security and defence, and security and development will be long”- two issues which are often “two sides of the same coin”.
Mr Cravinho explained that this was the case because they could not speak about security without development and that there would be no security or development without respect for human rights. The president conceded that they needed to start singing from the same hymn sheet. He also recognised that there were “cultural” difficulties when it came to merging defence and development issues but “we have begun a reflection process in which each party recognises the need to make more progress and work hand in hand”.
On the field, certain military operations are part of peace keeping operations and play more of a development role, as in situations when the mandate for security actors includes the setting up of minimum conditions for resuming humanitarian aid or improving its access. Cravinho, however, underlines the fact that “we should not leave things to chance dictating how to operate in conflict situations. We have explored the different possibilities” (Ed: to avoid this stumbling block). The idea of drawing up an inventory of lessons learned from experience in view of planning future action is one of these possibilities.
The president highlighted the need to reconcile the “different aspects of the respective security and development objectives” in ESDP missions, no matter how efficient they are or whether they are short term because “development is not short term”. This explains the need to ensure follow up ESDP missions with more sustainable efforts, planned in the long term within a global strategic framework.
As part of the session, Nuno Severian Teixeira, the Portuguese minister for national defence, participated in the exchange of views and explained to the press the overriding difficulty of finding common ground between security and development. He said that the ongoing debate aimed to “develop techniques and tools” for working out where this common ground really exists. During the debate, the United Kingdom, Denmark and the Netherlands, the most advanced countries in terms of consultation between the foreign affairs, development and defence ministries, said that they were making more progress. The president of the Council said: “We all agree on pursuing existing synergies””. He also announced that a work programme would be worked on for 2008 in an effort to improve EU post-conflict intervention capacity.
In respect of the exchange of views on EU humanitarian aid efficiency, the president spoke of “significant progress” likely to lead to the adoption, by the end of the year, of humanitarian consensus, “that will act as an orientation for the Commission, member states and European Parliament”. Participation by French MEP, Thierry Cornillet, Parliamentary rapporteur on the subject, is testimony to Parliament's involvement in the reflection process.
Louis Michel, the European commissioner for development and humanitarian aid welcomed the “very high level discussions on extremely delicate subjects”, discussions he believed would clearly help to establish lines of convergence and possible consensus. The commissioner affirmed that “this informal Council will mark a turning point in the evolution of certain concepts” regarding, for example, governance and the division of labour, which the commissioner said was moving forwards.
The commissioner was delighted with the progress towards adoption of humanitarian consensus for increased aid efficiency. He also underlined the need for the EU27 to define “a strategy, a common minimum vision, in relation to the United Nations, for example”.
In a reference to the debate on the links between security and development policy, the commissioner highlighted the need for precise rules of engagement for military forces. He explained that without these rules, there would be no way of assuming political responsibility. The commissioner also asserted that development had its own goal, as did security. In this connection he explained that the Commission was preparing a specific document (see separate interview with the commissioner).
The speech by Antonio Guterres, United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, was praised. He presented ministers with the three main challenges facing the EU in development: security problems, climate change issues, people on the move. His humanist vision on global migration and his appeal to the EU to play a role in the response to these questions, a leading and more homogenous role on the international scene, was also welcomed.
In response to the speech by Jorge Sampaio, Special UN Envoy on fighting tuberculosis as part of the aim of reaching the Millennium development objectives (MDO), the president of the Council provided assurances that: “The EU/Africa summit (on 8-9 December in Lisbon) will be used as a platform for dialogue with Africa for attaining the MDO objectives, particularly in the area of health”.
EPAs must be concluded in time, failing which, the most complete agreements
as possible should be concluded
Commenting on the discussion on consensus on negotiations for the economic partnership agreements, Mr Cravinho underlined the importance of these agreements and explained that they “will convert the thirty year preferential EU/ACP relations” into a trade system that is more compatible with the WTO. He said that ministers wanted to “strengthen our commitment to supporting development in ACP countries”. This involves “complex” negotiations on which Commissioner for Trade Peter Mandelson explained the Commission approach: gradual liberalisation and asymmetric trade, with very long transition periods.
Just at he had done so at the Parliament on 11 September, the commissioner again registered his alarm at the delays in the negotiations by almost all the regions (none of them, not even the Caribbean, which is reputed to be the most advanced, has yet been able to present an offer of market access to the Europeans). Negotiations with western and eastern Africa are the most problematic. He also pointed out the imperative of respecting the deadline of 31 December 2007, failing which, when the derogation granted by the WTO for the unilateral preference system under the Cotonou Agreement expires, ACP countries will only be able to count on the GSP (General System of Preferences), which is clearly of less benefit than the offer of access to the European market, free of quotas for almost all ACP products, with transition periods for sugar and rice.
On this basis, the president of the Council referred to the “consensus on the need to support the Commission in this process”. The detailed report the Commission will be presenting in October will help identify “the regions it intends providing aid to in a particular way” when concluding an EPA, he added.
Given the obvious difficulties, will there be a need to assess the evidence and think about a possible postponement of the deadline? The president said that there was no question of this, “for the simple reason that there is no legal basis for pursuing preferential agreements. We absolutely need to establish the most complete agreements as possible before the end of the year. And if this is not possible, we need a general agreement of principle with all the regions, with certain details to be settled in January, February, March, in the knowledge that it is easier to complete negotiations on products than on services”.
Louis Michel says he won't be howling with the wolves
In total solidarity with Peter Mandelson, Louis Michel said that he did not understand all those - NGOs and some parliamentarians - who were pushing the ACPs not to resolutely commit to the EPAs. Michel declared, “As commissioner for development, it will be extremely easy for me to howl with the wolves. I won't. EPAs are actually development agreements. There is no sustainable development without integrated regional markets and a prosperous economy coming from the initiative, creativity and consumption by the men and women of Africa. Basically, we are encouraging the ACP to do what we have done in Europe and which has made us the top economic and trade power in the world. This is a gradual dynamic. Peter Mandelson has explained it very well”.
The commissioner hammered home this fact: “This does not mean a sudden liberalisation on 1 January 2008. We are moving gradually - helping the ACP to be in a condition to open up markets for some products more quickly and for others less quickly. For some, this will take 25 years, for others there won't be a limit. There has certainly been a breakdown in communication somewhere. Another argument, much stronger than any other: a point for growth in African trade, we give twice as much as we give in development aid to Africa a year. This means that you will not have sustainable development with development aid alone or with a policy that is exclusively charitable in development terms”.
Returning to the question of states in fragile situations, the commissioner conceded that there would be fewer problems with the opening up of markets if ACP countries were consolidated states capable of ensuring their main state functions were performed. This fervent supporter of free trade said: “liberalism without the state is like letting a fox into the chicken coup. But nothing better has been invented than liberalism for creating prosperity”. In reply to those who say that Europe was able to develop firstly by practising protectionism, Michel explained: “The transition periods we are proposing constitute useful protectionism”.
Glenys Kinnock in favour of plan B
Although Peter Mandelson affirmed that there was no alternative to EPAs, apart from the GSP, Glenys Kinnock has a completely different idea. She believes that it is likely that most ACP regions will not be able to sign an agreement, “as there's such a lot of problems on new generation issues, on rules of origin, on regional integration, on the development component”. Kinnock considers that when the time comes they will look at the evidence. She is appealing for “plan B”, as is Chris Davies from the ALDE group at the Parliament, Communist MEPs, academics and ACP technical negotiators. Their argument is as follows: a framework agreement would agree principles and timescales and then the Commission would have to implement GSP Plus.
The MEP stressed that the GSP alone would be devastating for non-LAC ACP countries such as Kenya and Mauritius. She also observed that current uncertainty regarding tariffs was already creating problems for ACP exporters. In the absence of an agreement by 31 December, negotiators will have no other choice but to continue. Request for a WTO derogation will provide precious months for continued negotiations by using the time to develop WTO litigation procedure, explained Ms Kinnock.
In the absence of European Development Fund (EDF) payments, non-ratification of the Cotonou agreement (ratification is imperative before the end of this year) is also a matter of concern, given the slowness of ratification procedures particularly in Poland, Italy and Malta. Kinnock informed European development ministers of this and stressed that this uncertainty also made fragile countries even more fragile. (an)