Second revision of the ACP-EC Partnership Agreement (Cotonou Agreement) European Parliament resolution of 20 January 2010 on the second revision of the ACP-EC Partnership Agreement (the ‘Cotonou Agreement’ ) (2009/2165(INI))
Date: 2010-01-20
Institutions: Committee on Development, Committee on International Trade, European Parliament
Subjects: ACP countries, Cotonou Agreement, development aid, revision of an agreement








CE2010305EN.01000101.xml










11.11.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


CE 305/1





Wednesday 20 January 2010Second revision of the ACP-EC Partnership Agreement (Cotonou Agreement)
P7_TA(2010)0004
European Parliament resolution of 20 January 2010 on the second revision of the ACP-EC Partnership Agreement (the ‘Cotonou Agreement’) (2009/2165(INI))
2010/C 305 E/01

The European Parliament,
having regard to Articles 208 to 211 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,
having regard to the Partnership Agreement between the members of the African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) Group of States of the one part, and the European Community and its Member States, of the other part, signed in Cotonou on 23 June 2000 (1) and revised in Luxembourg on 25 June 2005, as last amended by the Decision No 1/2006 of the ACP-EC Council of Ministers (2) (hereinafter ‘the Cotonou Agreement’),
having regard to Article 95 of the Cotonou Agreement, which provides for a revision clause allowing the Agreement to be adapted every five years,
having regard to the Council notification letter to the President of the ACP Council of Ministers, adopted at the General Affairs and External Relations Council meeting of 23 February 2009,
having regard to the Paris Declaration of 2 March 2005 on Aid Effectiveness, the aim of which is to promote a model to improve transparency and monitoring of resources for development,
having regard to Rules 90(5) and 48 of its Rules of Procedure,
having regard to the report of the Committee on Development and the opinion of the Committee on International Trade (A7-0086/2009),






A.


whereas the primary objectives of the Cotonou Agreement are the eradication of poverty, sustainable development and the progressive integration of ACP countries into the world economy,










B.


whereas since the last revision of the Cotonou Agreement in 2005 numerous changes have occurred on the international scene – such as soaring food and energy prices, unprecedented financial crisis, climate change consequences – which have their most serious repercussions on developing countries,










C.


whereas all these new developments in the global environment, if not addressed properly, risk to undermine the Cotonou Agreement’s objectives and dampen prospects for achieving the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) by 2015,










D.


whereas the conclusion and implementation of the regional Economic Partnership Agreements (EPAs) has undermined the cohesion of the ACP Group and the ongoing regional integration process; whereas there is a need to maintain the unity and coherence of the ACP group and the stability of the ACP-EU institutions,










E.


whereas the second review of the Cotonou Agreement is an extremely timely occasion to adjust its provisions in light of the above realities; whereas, however, most of these issues are only marginally touched upon in the Cotonou revision mandate,










F.


whereas the areas notified for revision on the part of the EU or the ACP group include, inter alia:






—


a regional dimension;










—


a political dimension, including migration and good governance in the fiscal area;










—


an institutional dimension;










—


promoting the MDGs and policy coherence for development;










—


humanitarian and emergency assistance, including clarification on procedures applied in situations of crisis;










—


programming and implementation of aid, including programming of the intra-ACP envelope;










—


climate change and food security as cross-cutting issues (notified by the ACP group),














G.


whereas the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty is changing the institutional architecture of the EU and its balance in terms of decision making,










1.


Considers that the second review of the Cotonou Agreement should be an occasion to adjust it in the light of recent and current crises including climate change, soaring food and oil prices, financial crisis and abject poverty in Africa; believes that the need to address the root causes of these crises is not an option, but a necessity;










2.


Deplores the fact that the European Parliament, the ACP-EU Joint Parliamentary Assembly (JPA) and the national parliaments of the ACP States as well as civil society organisations and non-state actors were - once again - not involved in the decision-making process that led to the identification of areas and articles of the Cotonou Agreement for revision and to the establishment of the negotiating mandates adopted by the Council of the EU and the ACP Council of Ministers;










3.


Encourages the enhancement of the role of national parliaments in the ongoing process of revision and further reviews in order to improve democratic legitimacy and ownership;










4.


Emphasises that this omission affects the transparency and credibility of the revision process and further alienates the EU and ACP populations from their governments and institutions;










5.


Emphasises the importance of the ACP countries being regarded as equal negotiating partners of the EU, in order to establish a true Partnership Agreement;










6.


Stresses the need to consolidate the political dimension of the Cotonou Agreement, particularly in respect of the commitment of the parties to implement the obligations stemming from the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court;










7.


Calls on the Commission, the EU and the ACP Council to take into account the principles and results of the International Aid Transparency Initiative;










8.


Regrets that the Commission, the EU and the ACP Council did not effectively consult non-state actors in the months preceding the signature of the Revised Cotonou Agreement and ensure their views would be taken into account; calls on the EU and ACP authorities to launch a debate on the future of ACP-EU relations post-2020 and to involve non-state actors in that process;










9.


Considers that policy coherence for development, particularly between policies on trade, development, agriculture and fisheries, should be a guiding principle of EU development cooperation and must be explicitly addressed in the revised Agreement; encourages the Joint Parliamentary Assembly to make greater use of Article 12 of the Cotonou Agreement to maintain consistency between the policies of the EU and of the ACP countries;










10.


As regards Article 12 of the Cotonou Agreement, calls on the Commission to notify systematically the Secretariat of the ACP States and the ACP-EU Joint Parliamentary Assembly of any European measures which might affect the interests of the ACP States; in this perspective, calls on the Commission to better use inter-service consultations between its Directorates-General, as well as policy impact assessments that might enhance Policy Coherence for Development;










11.


Considers it necessary, firstly in view of the entry into force of the EPAs for certain ACP countries only and secondly because various provisions of Article 37 of the Cotonou Agreement are out of date, to revise the part of the ACP-EU agreement concerning trade agreements in order to incorporate provisions concerning all the existing ACP-EU trade arrangements (Generalised System of Preferences (GSP), GSP plus, interim EPAs, EPAs with the Caribbean Forum of ACP States (Cariforum) countries) and to uphold a number of principles and commitments which should not be lost from the Agreement, namely:






—


consistency between, on the one hand, all the trade frameworks governing relations between the ACP and EU countries and, on the other hand, the development objectives which are at the heart of ACP-EU cooperation,










—


the guarantee that all the ACP countries will have the benefit of a trade framework which is at least equivalent to their previous situation, particularly for countries which are not Least Developed Countries (LDCs) and are not signatories to an EPA,










—


the guarantee that, for all the ACP countries, the new trade framework will take account of sensitive sectors, particularly agricultural food production, when determining transition periods and the final product coverage, and that it will make it possible to improve the market access which ACP countries enjoy, particularly by means of a review of the origin rules;














12.


Notes that, in their notification letters, the parties to the Cotonou Agreement explicitly ask for the revision of trade provisions; points out that new provisions need to be added in new areas, such as Aid for Trade in order to guarantee the development dimension in the trade areas of that Agreement;










13.


Welcomes the request by the ACP countries for new provisions regarding cooperation in the following areas: trade and development, trade and finance, fair trade, and notes their request on trade in arms;










14.


Calls on the European Investment Bank (EIB) to review its policy on offshore financial centres on the basis of more stringent criteria than the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) listing for the definition of prohibited and monitored jurisdictions, and to ensure its implementation and provide annual reports on progress;










15.


Considers that structural changes in the EIB’s organisational and governance structure is necessary in order to ensure fulfilment of its development obligations in the context of the current review of the Cotonou Agreement and the ongoing mid-term review and renewal of the EIB’s external lending mandate;










16.


Calls on the Commission and ACP governments to include the fight against abuses of tax havens, tax evasion and illicit capital flight as a matter of priority in the Cotonou Agreement; calls therefore for an international binding mechanism, which forces all transnational corporations to disclose automatically the profits made and the taxes paid in every country where they operate;










17.


Calls on the negotiators to address the tax-related aspect of development and to put in place effective and viable tax systems in the ACP countries in order to ensure sustainable source of development financing with the long-term objective of replacing foreign aid dependency; calls on the negotiators in this context to include in Article 9.3 of the ACP-EU agreement, concerning the proper management of public affairs, the principle of good fiscal governance;










18.


Given that the European Development Fund (EDF) is the main financial resource for funding development cooperation policy under the Cotonou Agreement, calls for its inclusion in the budgetary powers of the European Parliament to allow tighter democratic control;










19.


Calls for a new global financial architecture to be worked out and agreed upon, which would allow developing countries to be represented through their respective regional organisations and to address their legitimate sustainable development concerns based on their specific situation;










20.


Stresses the importance of promoting microcredit to facilitate investment and the development of small businesses;










21.


Calls on the Commission and ACP governments to address the structural causes of climate change by putting in place an automatic climate change risk assessment in national development strategy and plans and in country and regional strategy papers;










22.


Believes that renewable energy is vital for the economic and social development of ACP countries, as they are endowed with considerable renewable energy resources (solar energy, wind power, geothermal energy and biomass); urges the negotiators to pay particular attention to reducing ACP countries’ dependency on fossil fuels and decreasing their vulnerability to price rises, by giving priority to renewable energy in the Cotonou Agreement;










23.


Calls on the Commission and the ACP countries to promote equitable and sustainable development which incorporates the social dimension, by support for new forms of enterprise, including non-profit enterprises and/or businesses established with the aid of microcredit programmes in accordance with ethical and economic principles, as in social market economy models;










24.


Deplores the fact that despite the majority of ACP countries’ population living in rural areas and the fight against poverty being a primary objective of the Cotonou Agreement, agriculture remains a neglected sector in ACP-EU cooperation;










25.


Calls on the Commission, when implementing EU development policy, to address food security concerns consistently and coherently, to raise the profile of food security in dialogue on national and regional development policies, and to foster regional agricultural market development in developing countries;










26.


Urges ACP countries and the Commission to focus on agricultural development to ensure food security and requests that agriculture and rural development become matters of priority in the Agreement and in the country and regional strategy papers; emphasises that ACP farmers need support and decent wages to produce for local markets and that they need infrastructures which can sustain trade and the movement of goods;










27.


Asks the Commission to regularly consult and effectively involve women and consumers’ organisations in agricultural policy; considers that women’s associations should be actively involved in the decision-making processes, in view of their pivotal role in society;










28.


Expresses its deep concern about the current farmland acquisition (particularly in Africa) by government-backed foreign investors, which, if not handled properly, threatens to undermine local food security and lead to serious and far-reaching consequences in the ACP states;










29.


Urges the negotiators to avoid the adverse impacts of farm land acquisition (such as expropriation of small farmers and unsustainable use of land and water) by recognising the right of the people to ownership of farmland and other vital natural resources and by adopting guiding principles in this line;










30.


Urges ACP countries to establish policies, based on respect for human rights, democratic principles, rule of law, sound economic development and decent work, in order to combat brain drain and allow ACP countries to use their trained work force for their own development;










31.


Calls on the Commission and the ACP countries to include in Article 13 of the ACP-EU agreement on migration the principle of circular migration and its facilitation by granting circular visas; stresses that the article in question emphasises respect for human rights and equitable treatment of nationals of ACP countries, but that the scope of these principles is seriously compromised by bilateral readmission agreements with transit countries in a context of externalisation by Europe of the management of migration, which do not guarantee respect for the rights of migrants and which may result in ‘cascade’ readmissions which jeopardise their safety and their lives;










32.


Calls for negotiations to reinforce the principle of non-negotiable human rights clauses and sanctions for failure to respect such clauses, inter alia with regard to discrimination based on sex, racial or ethnic origin, religion or belief, disability, age, sexual orientation and towards people living with HIV/AIDS;










33.


Expresses its deep concern at the limited number of existing facilities which may offer specialised medical care, despite the increasing numbers of both emergencies and chronic disease affected people; emphasises that medical infrastructure and public health systems need a boost through development strategies;










34.


Recalls that the ACP public health systems’ capacity to provide health assistance to the population and also for victims recovering following humanitarian crisis, conflict or post conflict, or natural disasters, is one of their main duties and of permanent immediate concern and should be accordingly promoted by ACP-EU cooperation;










35.


Expresses concern that increased regionalisation of ACP-EU relations may represent a threat to the coherence and strength of the ACP Group and may hinder the functioning of the joint ACP-EU institutions under the Cotonou Agreement;










36.


Considers that the second revision should also update the text of the Agreement to reﬂect explicitly the establishment of new EPA institutions (e.g. Joint EPA Councils, Trade and Development Committees and Parliamentary Committees) and to ensure synergies and complementarity with the Cotonou institutions;










37.


Underlines the importance of the parliamentary dimension of the Cotonou Agreement, embodied in the ACP-EU JPA; expresses its firm commitment to the JPA playing its full role in ensuring parliamentary participation in actions and processes under the Cotonou Agreement; emphasises its implacable opposition to any attempt to reduce the role of the JPA in particular by proposals that impact on its working methods and frequency of its meetings, which should be left to the JPA to determine for itself;










38.


Calls, with the aim of enhancing the parliamentary, representative and democratic character of the JPA, for all ACP countries to be genuinely represented by parliamentarians in the JPA in future and not by representatives of governments, as sometimes happens, and consequently for Article 17 of the ACP-EU agreement to be revised to this effect;










39.


Believes firmly in the key role that ACP national parliaments may play in all aspects of development cooperation actions, including programming, implementation, monitoring and evaluation; calls for the revision of the Cotonou Agreement to give those parliaments formal recognition as participants in EDF-financed cooperation;










40.


Calls for the strengthening and upgrading of the ACP-EU JPA and insists that provisions be made in the Cotonou Agreement to allow the JPA and ACP parliaments to scrutinise the country and regional strategy papers, the ACP-EC EPAs and the EDF; calls for genuine synergy to be established between, on the one hand, the new parliamentary committees created by the EPAs and, on the other hand, the JPA;










41.


Welcomes future synergies between the Parliamentary Committees created by the EPAs and the ACP-EU JPA, by means of presentations by the Chair and the Rapporteurs as well as participation by members of the EPA Parliamentary Committees in the JPA and the organisation of parallel meetings when possible, etc., which will add specialised expertise to the JPA and allow for enriching exchanges and cooperation;










42.


Recalls that the Parliamentary Committees established by the EPAs have been created at the initiative of the European Parliament to ensure an adequate involvement of Members of Parliament specialised in trade and development issues in the monitoring of the implementation of complex technical trade agreements;










43.


Calls on the Commission and ACP States to stick with the OECD Development Assistance Committee definition of Official Development Assistance while preparing country and regional strategy papers to be financed under the 10th EDF;










44.


Instructs its president to forward this resolution to the Council, the Commission, and to the governments and parliaments of the EU Member States and ACP countries.






(1)  OJ L 317, 15.12.2000, p. 3.

(2)  OJ L 247, 9.9.2006, p. 22.