Suchergebnisse

AbstractThis article reviews and assesses the recent Cotonou Partnership Agreement between the ACP group of developing countries and the EU. It places the Agreement in the context of the EU's commitment to refocusing its development policy and reforming its aid administration. It emphasises the innovative elements of the Agreement that set it apart from its Lome predecessors—the intention to move to reciprocal regional free trade agreements; the emphasis upon good governance; the rule of law and human rights; the enhanced role for non‐State actors and the private sector and the adoption of a rolling programme of aid provision. Copyright © 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

On a cultural level, Cuba is all the rage these days. On an economic level, trade and investment links between the European Union and Cuba are also stronger than they have been at any time. This dynamism in cultural and economic ties contrasts sharply with the frosty political relationship between Cuba and the EU. (Courier/DÜI)

Relations between European Union (EU) states and associated underdeveloped economies (the ACP states) have been largely governed by the Lomé Conventions. Likely difficulties in gaining World Trade Organisation (WTO) approval for a renewal of Lomé IV in its current form, and recognition that Lomé has been an insufficient support to the ACP group, has led the European Commission to search for an alternative framework. Its proposed new guidelines bring the debate forward on what a politically and legally feasible, and economically mutually beneficial framework might involve. They include a proposal that aid be focused on countries with a proven commitment to poverty eradication and conflict prevention, and offer Lomé‐style access to non‐ACP Least Developed Countries (LLDCs).
Yet they fail to respond to ACP trade interests, and sit uneasily with the stated development aims of previous Lomé conventions. ACP non‐LLDC's will have to chose between negotiating ill‐defined Free Trade Agreements (FTA), or acceeding to the Generalised System of Preferences (GSP), markedly reducing access to EU markets. The costs ‐ in foreign exchange foregone and livelihoods destroyed ‐ could be considerable, as is shown by case studies of Zimbabwe, Ghana, and the Windward Islands.
Summary recommendations are made, finally, as to how EU trade preferences for ACP countries might best meet the needs of the majority, including a ten year waiver, allowing scope to adjust to new competitive pressures and to begin diversification of export bases; and simplified access to EU markets for the LLDC's.