Suchergebnisse

AbstractThe African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) Group of States and the European Union (EU) have engaged in what is known as a 'special privileged', legally binding contractual agreement on trade cooperation, development assistance and political dialogue since 1975. Currently expressed in the Cotonou Partnership Agreement for a 20‐year period from 2000, the agreement faces its final 5‐year review in 2015, which is proving conducive for an extensive debate between development practitioners on what future can be envisaged for ACP–EU relations in a world drastically different from the neocolonial era of the 1970s and offering new opportunities as well as challenges to trade, commerce and development assistance. From the perspective of a diplomatic representative of an ACP member state, a critique is offered of issues and instances in which the contested interests of the asymmetrical relationship can be interpreted in relation to the overarching objective of 'reducing and eventually eradicating poverty' as stated in the Cotonou Partnership Agreement. The author argues that the ACP Group, as the unique, transcontinental coalition of developing countries can be a significant partner with the EU and 'new actors', through south‐south and triangular cooperations to challenge traditional thinking and practice on development assistance by a thoroughly refashioned paradigm, in which equality, sustainability, inclusive growth and structural transformation of ACP economies must be pre‐eminent. Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

AbstractThis Policy Arena has two main objectives. First, it seeks to unravel how the partnership between the European Union (EU) and the African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) Group has evolved since the adoption of the Cotonou Agreement in 2000, including its 2005 and 2010 reviews and the implementation of its three key pillars (development cooperation, trade and political dialogue). Second, it explores the prospects of EU‐ACP relations in the medium to long term. In particular, it discusses whether the ACP‐EU cooperation framework is still relevant in the light of a number of global changes and, more specifically, whether the ACP configuration is still useful to its members. To address these issues, both the EU and the ACP Group have established two working groups. Within the ACP, voices are critical of the EU‐ACP partnership, but there appears to be more willingness to reform and renew it. Within the EU, the record of the Cotonou Agreement is seen more positively, but there seems to be less willingness to preserve it. The third review of the Cotonou Agreement to be finalised by 2015, and more generally its expiration in 2020, provides an opportunity – to which this Policy Arena seeks to contribute – to rethink the EU‐ACP cooperation model. Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

The Cotonou Partnership Agreement (CPA), which governs relations between the African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) group and the European Union (EU), will expire in the year 2020. While the three pillars of this framework addressing political dialogue, development cooperation and trade are generally considered to have served their purpose well, there are clear signs that significant changes within the ACP group, the EU and the wider international landscape demand a different articulation of the relationship. A tacit understanding among Europeans is that the ball is in the ACP's corner in terms of defining and determining their own future as a group and its relationship vis-à-vis the EU as such. However, a momentum needs to be built for the coming 2015 revision of the Cotonou Agreement with a view to a plausible post-2020 scenario, in which the EU also needs to set out its own desires and priorities in giving shape to the cooperation. In previous years the EU Member States increasingly "outsourced" the management of the partnership to the European Commission, but there is a gradually growing recognition that the CPA is presently the principal functioning vehicle guiding EUAfrica relations. European perceptions on the future of the Cotonou Agreement point to two sets of arguments, namely: Reasons to do away with the ACP-EU partnership: Weak rationale to keep a common framework with these very different regions, combined with weak evidence of the development of an ACP identity or intra-ACP trade; Decreasing relevance of ex-colonial ties, particularly in the context of an enlarged EU, but also more generally of the agreement's strong focus on official development assistance; Poor track record in shaping joint positions and interventions at international fora. Elements in the partnership deemed worth preserving: Legally binding nature that favours political dialogue as well as predictability and strategy ownership in development cooperation; A relatively strong performance of the European Development Fund (EDF) compared to other EU development cooperation instruments, combined with its multi-stakeholder approach to the design and management of development strategies; Potential alliance for global public goods provision. Despite the fact that there is not yet an official position from the EU nor its Member States on what should happen after the CPA expires, European actors (European Commission, European Parliament, Member States) seem to be inclined to move towards a more regional approach of the Union's external relations while maintaining the valuable aspects of the present setup. While the EU's declining strategic interest in the Caribbean – and especially the Pacific – is no secret, too rejectionist a stance towards the cooperation framework by EU Member States could seriously harm the promotion of their values and interests in Africa. The EU would currently seem most inclined to preserve key elements of the CPA in a "light version" of the current ACP-EU agreement, by transferring those elements into separate EU regional strategies towards Africa, the Caribbean and the Pacific, or a combination of both. European policy discussions on this matter are also long overdue, given that the preparations for the third revision of the CPA in 2015 will be a key "warming-up session" for the negotiations for post-2020. The EPA negotiations have seriously and negatively affected ACPEU relations in the recent past and could also harm the EU's own position and trade with Africa in the medium- to long term if continued in the same manner.

AbstractGlobal economic, demographic and geopolitical as well as internal developments since the signature of the Cotonou Partnership Agreement in 2000 have had a profound impact on relations between the European Union (EU) and the African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) Group. The paper analyses the process of adaptation in the areas of development cooperation and in the political and security context, reflected in two revisions in 2005 and 2010. It discusses the influence of the Lisbon Treaty on the objective of poverty reduction, and the role of EU values and security concerns. The negotiation of new trading arrangements compatible with the World Trade Organisation triggered a veritable storm in ACP–EU relations. The paper discusses factors, which proved to be major hurdles to the successful and timely conclusion of the Economic Partnership Agreements, as real trade between the two groups saw a reversal of the downward trend and the ACP recovered part of the previously lost market share of ACP goods in total EU imports. The exclusivity of the flagship partnership has started to crumble as the importance of new partners increased both on ACP and EU side. The author maintains that with the Cotonou Partnership Agreement's purpose defined as solely supporting the development of the ACP countries, it is not surprising that it does not count among the strategic partnerships from the EU perspective. Yet, it is too early to predict the future of the ACP–EU relationship beyond 2020, but both the EU and the ACP have an interest in starting off their discussions and negotiations on their future relationship on the right footing. Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

The essay describes the negotiation of the various economic partnership agreements of the European Union and the six subgroups who divided the Africa, the Caribbean and the Pacific (ACP) group. This paper is divided in two parts. The first part deals with the Cotonou Agreement, which agreement is the basis of the relationship between the European Union and ACP countries. The second part addresses the Economic Association Agreements, which are covered by the Cotonou Agreement, afterwards it describes the negotiation of Economic Partnership Agreements between the EU and the regions in which the Group has been divided ACP ; El ensayo describe la negociación de los diferentes acuerdos de asociación económica de la Unión Europea con los seis subgrupos en los que se ha dividido al Grupo de Estados de África, el Caribe y el Pacífico (ACP). Para ello, se ha dividido el trabajo en dos partes. En la primera se aborda el Acuerdo de Cotonú, que constituye la base de la relación de la Unión Europea con los países ACP. En la segunda, se abordan los acuerdos de asociación económica inclui- dos en el Acuerdo de Cotonú; y, acto seguido, se describe la negociación de los acuerdos de asociación económica entre la Unión Europea y las diferentes regiones en las que ha quedado dividido el grupo de países ACP

Following the adoption of the Rome Treaty, the European Union (EU) developed a formal and privileged cooperation framework for its relationship with countries in Africa, the Caribbean and Pacific (ACP). Since 2000 cooperation between the EU and the ACP is governed through the Cotonou Partnership Agreement (CPA), which encompasses three complementary dimensions: political dialogue, economic and trade cooperation, and development cooperation. The changing global context, along with institutional, political and socioeconomic developments in the EU and the ACP, raise questions about whether this approach to cooperation has sufficiently delivered on its objectives, and which evolutions – or revolutions – may be necessary for these regions' future cooperation. This paper seeks to complement existing evidence with the findings of a detailed review of the literature and the perceptions of past, present and future ACP–EU cooperation gathered from a wide range of stakeholders in ten ACP countries.

The main purpose of te economic partnership agreement (EPA) is to make the commercial settlements between states or groupe of states cumply with the clauses of the World Trade Organization (WTO) namely the introduction of the principle of the reciprocity in the commercial relations between the European Union (EU)and the African, Caribbean and Pacifique states (ACP).The signing of the economic partnership agreement by some ACP countries,still currently sparks of critisims upon the consequences deriving from the revocation of trade preferences, of wich numerous countries are dependent on. ; L'objectif principal de l'Accord de partenariat économique (APE) est la mise en conformité des arrangements commerciaux entre les États ou groupes d'États avec les dispositions de l'Organisation Mondiale de Commerce (OMC)notamment l'introduction de la réciprocité dans les relations commerciales entre l'Union européenne (UE) et les pays d'Afrique, des Caraïbes et du Pacifique (ACP).La signature de l'Accord de partenariat économique par certains pays ACP, suscite encore à l'heure actuelle des critiques sur les effets de la suppression des préférences commerciales dont dépendent de nombreux pays ACP.

The main purpose of te economic partnership agreement (EPA) is to make the commercial settlements between states or groupe of states cumply with the clauses of the World Trade Organization (WTO) namely the introduction of the principle of the reciprocity in the commercial relations between the European Union (EU)and the African, Caribbean and Pacifique states (ACP).The signing of the economic partnership agreement by some ACP countries,still currently sparks of critisims upon the consequences deriving from the revocation of trade preferences, of wich numerous countries are dependent on. ; L'objectif principal de l'Accord de partenariat économique (APE) est la mise en conformité des arrangements commerciaux entre les États ou groupes d'États avec les dispositions de l'Organisation Mondiale de Commerce (OMC)notamment l'introduction de la réciprocité dans les relations commerciales entre l'Union européenne (UE) et les pays d'Afrique, des Caraïbes et du Pacifique (ACP).La signature de l'Accord de partenariat économique par certains pays ACP, suscite encore à l'heure actuelle des critiques sur les effets de la suppression des préférences commerciales dont dépendent de nombreux pays ACP.

This article examines, from a legal perspective, the Lisbon Treaty changes over the European Union's (EU) common agricultural policy (CAP) and their impact on developing countries. The study focuses particularly on the Caribbean region of the African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP group), which signed an Economic Partnership Agreement with the EU in 2008, and will use bananas as the exemplar commodity. The Lisbon Treaty which entered into force in December 2009 has brought important institutional changes within the EU and altered the distribution of responsibility over European policies. The European Parliament (EP) now exercises legislative functions 'jointly' with the Council over fields falling outside EU trade policy but which often have trade-related impacts. This is the case of the CAP which is now a shared rather than an exclusive competence policy area. The EU is an important market for developing countries' export of agricultural food products. However, there is a risk that the EP positions, pressured by consumer opinion, could influence the negotiating process leading to the reinforcement of the EU's protectionist agriculture policy. This subject is of high importance given the end of the so-called 'banana war' in 2009 against the EU banana import regime, allowing better access for Latin American countries' bananas to the EU market. This article argues that ACP countries will not be affected by the EU internal changes post-Lisbon. They have managed to legally maintain special trade arrangements with the EU under the Economic Partnership Agreements, which provide them with favourable trading conditions, particularly for agricultural food products.