THE ACP-EU PARTNERSHIP ACTIVITIES
Lessons Learned on Trade, Aid, Political Dialogue, Business, Culture and Higher
Education
Presentation by Mr. Percival Marie
TRADE:
Evolution
ACP-EU trade has been a major feature of ACP-EU Cooperation since the formal inception
of the partnership arrangements. These arrangements were a carry over from the colonial
era and became embedded in early formalised trade arrangements between the ACP and
the European Union.
Preferences
Early EU-ACP Trade arrangements, forming part of ACP-EU Partnership Arrangements,
were essentially one way preferential trade arrangements with the EU reserving for itself
certain parts of its domestic market through instruments including the Common
Agricultural Policy.
Patterns of Trade
ACP Exports to the EU comprised primarily raw materials and commodities. On the other
hand, EU exports to the ACP comprised primarily finished manufactured goods and
processed foods. In later times, petroleum and petroleum products became a significant
feature of ACP exports to the EU. In the area of services ACP exports to the EU were
primarily in the area of tourism and international business while the EU exported a wide
variety of other services to the ACP.
1
Global Trade Developments and Preference Erosion
As the multi-lateral trading systems moved towards more uniform rules based global trade
regimes and with the establishment of the Single European Market, ACP trade with the EU
came under severe pressure.
Preference erosion and the unilateral withdrawal of
traditional preferences became a feature of ACP-EU trading relationships. Exports of
traditional commodities from traditional ACP partners declined and were replaced by more
competitive lower priced goods from alternative sources including ACP sources.
Economic Partnership Agreement
Caribbean countries had attempted to negotiate the core elements of Economic Partnership
Agreement e.g. Rules of Origin, as an ACP Group with the EU. That was not acceptable to
the ACP or the EU. ACP-EU Trade Relations are now the subject of Regional Economic
Partnership Agreements. Trade Arrangements between the ACP and the EU are no longer
part of the formal ACP/EU construct but are managed through arrangements between
individual ACP regions and the EU. The collective ACP negotiating power on trade with the
EU is a thing of the past. Reciprocity in trade is now a feature of such trade agreements.
Lessons Learned
1. Preferential trade arrangements do not last for ever since preferences are given at
the pleasure of one of the partners at any one time. Whatever preferences remain
do so if they if they benefit the importing partner and will disappear any time.
2. Market Access is not market presence. ACP States have failed to take advantage of
market access under preferential trade agreements. ACP States will be even more
hard pressed to increase market shares in the EU market under EPAs if they are
unable to take advantage of previous preferential market arrangements. The five
year Review of the CARIFORUM/EU EPA will indicate modest CARIFORUM export
performance under the Agreement. Rum reports to the EU may be the exception as
2
a result of a €70 million support project, including a marketing component, financed
by the EU.
3. Unless ACP states, including CARIFORUM, address issues of supply side constraints
to production and export, they will not be competitive on EU or any other market.
Such supply side constraints, include inter alia:

Production financing and affordable credit.

Research technology and innovation in production.

Transport particularly maritime transport in the case of CARIFORUM.

Standards and Sanitary and Phyto-Sanitary Measures.

Trade Financing and Trade Logistics.

High energy costs.
4. Dependence on Third Parties, including the EU, to the neglect of a large potential
ACP market seems illogical.
Conditions of Intra-ACP Trade, within global
regulations, may be determined by the ACP itself and there seems to be no reason
why such a huge potential market has not become a feature of intra- ACP
cooperation. This applies to trade in goods as well as to trade in services.
AID:
Development Cooperation
Development cooperation has been a permanent feature of ACP-EU Partnership
arrangements since EDF I under the Treaty of Rome. The aid provided under this and
succeeding arrangements has been focused on grant aid at national and regional levels
through national, regional and Intra-ACP programmes. Over time, the scope and delivery
mechanism for aid expanded.
Specialised institutions including the Centre for
Transformation of Agriculture (CTA) and the Centre for the Development of Enterprise
(CDE) were created. At the same time the nature and quality of aid evolved. Facilities such
3
as the Investment Facility within the European Investment Bank (EIB) were created to
provide support for ACP development, including private sector development, on a loan
basis. This has now evolved into the blending of grants with loans through facilities such as
the Infrastructure Fund for Africa and the Caribbean Investment Facility (CIF). Financial
intermediaries now have access to ACP, including CARIFORUM, grant resources without
significant policy or management input from the ACP or its various regions.
Value and Focus of EU Aid to the ACP
The nature and value of EDF Aid to the ACP has evolved from Yaounde to Cotonou. An
approximate estimate of over €113 billion (in current prices) has been available to the ACP
through EDF I to EDF II to fund assistance to the ACP.
The EDF has been one of the few predictable sources of grant aid for the ACP. It has always
been a voluntary contribution of EU Member States to the ACP.
EU Aid has poverty eradication as its focus and current programmes are influenced by the
Millennium Development Goals (MDGs).
Aid Effectiveness
The EU subscribes to the Global Aid Effectiveness Agenda as expressed through the Paris
Declaration, the Accra Agenda for Action and the Busan Declaration.
Managing for
development results have become a major theme for EU aid flows to the region. The
delivery of Aid has however reached a point where the ownership of the Development
Strategy which determines the focus of aid is under question.
Management of
implementation is now an issue as ACP States question whether permanent capacities
remain available in the post project period and as the EU seeks to have more of the aid
Euro return to the EU.
4
Aid for Trade
The EU has made a commitment that it would annually provide €2.0 billion additional
resources in the form of Aid for Trade support to the ACP - €1 billion through the EDF and
€1 billion through its member states. Most aid is now classified as Aid for Trade and it is
difficult to discern whether these targets are in fact being met.
Whether resources
currently being provided and branded as Aid for Trade are in fact additional to traditional
aid flows is in fact under question.
Differentiation and Graduation
Differentiation and graduation, on the basis of per capita income, have now become
features of EU Development Cooperation policy. Regions such as CARIFORUM will be
impacted negatively as emphasis shifts to countries with lower per capita income. That
will continue unless new tools to measure a country’s level and status of development are
developed within the context of the Post 2015 Development Agenda.
Lessons Learnt
1. Aid is given at the discretion of the donor. The enlarged EU no longer feels a moral
obligation to provide aid to the ACP on moral or historical grounds.
2. Justification for aid has shifted to MDGs and poverty eradication which are reflected
in EU Aid Policies. Differentiation and Graduation are the natural outcomes of focus
on MDGs as justification for Aid to developing countries.
3. Aid effectiveness is selectively applied by donors, including the EU, to areas of the
Aid Effectiveness agenda where recipient countries have obligations and
commitments.
5
4. Ownership of the development process, in aid relations is under attack through
approaches which stress partnership in decision making or priorities which are to
be financed by aid.
5. The outcomes of the discussions on the Post 2015 Development Agenda will
determine how CARIFORUM will be treated in respect of grant aid in the future.
POLITICAL DIALOGUE, BUSINESS, CULTURE and HIGHER EDUCATION:
Political Dialogue
From a CARIFORUM perspective Political Dialogue with the EU occurs at three (3) levels:
-
The CARIFORUM/EU Level
-
The CELAC/EU Level
-
The ACP/EU Level
The CARIFORUM/EU Level
CARIFORUM/EU Political Dialogue on a continuous basis, was formalised in the
CARIFORUM/EU Summit of 2008 and currently occurs every two (2) years at
officials level. It also occurs in the margins of CELAC CARIFORUM Summits at the
level of Heads of Government. In the latter case, the time available is limited.
The CELAC/EU Level
CARIFORUM participates in CELAC/EU Summits at the level of officials in
preparatory meetings, at Ministerial Meetings and at the Heads of Government level.
Participation at preparatory officials and ministerial meetings, particularly when
they are held outside of Brussels, is limited. The space provided to CARIFORUM
Heads at CELAC/EU Summits is limited even if the Caribbean now has a place along
side the Troika which heads the CELAC process.
6
The ACP/EU Level
CARIFORUM participates at officials, ministerial and Heads of Government levels in
the ACP/EU Summits.
The preparatory process sees high participation at the
Ambassador level with Ambassadors sometimes acting on behalf of Ministers.
Participation in specialised ministerial meetings is also high and there is no
limitation on CARIFORUM participation in the process. The Joint Parliamentary
Assembly is another forum for CARIFORUM Dialogue with the EU within the
ACP/EU context.
Business
CARIFORUM has always been an attractive location for European investments given the
traditional ties particularly with the UK, Ireland, France, Spain and the Netherlands.
Investment in productive enterprise, tourism and commercial level activities form the
dominant part of these business relations. Outside of Trade and Tourism, the Caribbean
Association of Investment Promotion Agencies (CAIPA) is currently designing plans and
strategies to seek higher levels of European Investments in the region. It is yet to be
determined whether the existence of the EPA has had any significant impact on
CARIFORUM/EU business relations.
Culture
The ACP Group of States has a rich cultural heritage (cultural heritage in CARIFORUM is
rich, varied and much valued). The region’s cultural values, its approaches to dealing with
issues, how it sees life and reacts to challenges are all essential elements of the region’s
culture. Notwithstanding its numerous challenges Caribbean culture enhances the life of
its people.
7
The question is, has the Caribbean used culture to enrich its Intra-ACP Relationship, the
CARIFORUM/EU relationship and in its own economic development. Clearly, CARIFORUM
has not used the instrument of the ACP to promote, to any significant extent, cooperation in
culture notwithstanding plans for the upcoming Intra- ACP cultural event. CARIFORUM has
not used the ACP/EU Agreement to promote culture sufficiently, and it has not used culture
as an instrument of its own economic development. In order to do so, CARIFORUM must
pay attention to Intellectual Property Rights, development of cultural industries and
marketing of cultural products. If that approach is not taken, culture will be important to
CARIFORUM and the ACP solely for its aesthestic value and will remain at the cottage
industry level.
Higher Education
CARIFORUM/EU Cooperation in higher education exists primarily at the level of
cooperation between universities in the Caribbean and Universities in EU.
Such
cooperation tends to be along linguistic lines. In addition, efforts are now being made to
link the Caribbean Knowledge and Learning Network (CKLN) to networks in Europe and
Africa. Very little collaboration exists between institutions of higher education in the
Caribbean and those Africa and the Caribbean except the exchange of some lecturers and
students.
The EU has financed activities in the area of higher education in the Caribbean. A 7th EDF
Caribbean University level programme financed training of more than 500 CARIFORUM
nationals, at Caribbean universities, at the masters degree level. The available information
suggests that a significant proportion of those trained have remained in the Caribbean
compared to those who received scholarships to study in Europe. In addition, some of the
programmes initiated under this programme have been incorporated into the regular
offerings of Caribbean universities.
8
Lessons Learnt
1. In respect of Political Dialogue it is clear that the ACP/EU forum has provided
CARIFORUM with more space for political dialogue at the highest level with the EU.
In that context, the ACP has and continues to beneficially serve the Caribbean.
2. Business relations between CARIFORUM and the EU has been along traditional lines.
However, there are current developments which seem to suggest that investment
flows from non-traditional EU sources are coming into the Caribbean particularly
from Germany. There seems to be tremendous opportunity for increased flows as
well as for strengthening the business relations between CARIFORUM and the rest
of the ACP. This will not happen by accident. It must be planned and vigorously
pursued.
3. Culture is important to all ACP regions including the Caribbean. The development
and marketing of cultural industries has not, however, been vigorously pursued.
The environment must be created for such development to take place. Emphasis,
particularly in the Caribbean must be placed on a facilitating environment including
updated Intellectual Property Rights.
4. Cooperation in Higher Education exists but has not reached its full potential. The
impact of CARIFORUM/EU Cooperation in higher education is more significant
where existing Caribbean Higher Education Institutions receive assistance to
develop and deliver programmes and where the training takes place in the
Caribbean.
The impact is sustained over time.
The potential for increased
cooperation collaboration between CARIFORUM and Africa and the Pacific is
tremendous.
9