Although the Lomé Convention was intended at its inception to function primarily as an economic cooperation agreement, the political aspects took on more and more importance over the years. This gradual shift in emphasis reflected changing perceptions of the role of the state in development, as well as worldwide trends towards democratisation, institutional pluralism and public accountability. The new Cotonou Partnership Agreement reinforces these trends by placing political cooperation at the heart of the partnership.

The new Agreement contains a wide range of provisions that have a bearing - either directly or indirectly - on politics. Among its innovative features are a search for a stronger and wider political dialogue; an acceptance of good governance as a 'fundamental element'; the fight against corruption and the introduction of 'rolling programming' as a means of ensuring performance-based aid allocations.

The politicisation of EU cooperation is also becoming increasingly visible at an operational level. Important resources are now spent on the promotion of political reforms in ACP countries. The Country Support Strategies are generally based on a more solid political analysis than was the case in the past. The EU seems determined to effectively apply the consultation procedures where 'essential elements' of the partnership may have been violated or in 'serious cases of corruption'. As regards conflict-affected countries, there is a trend towards constructive engagement, based on an inclusive political dialogue. Some progress has been made in promoting a more coherent Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP). The overall reform of EU aid underlines the growing weight that is now attached to the political dimension, as is reflected by the key role that has been allocated to DG RELEX (external relations) as opposed to DG DEV (development).

Yet is the EU really prepared to put politics first? Is the Commission ready to transform itself from a cooperation agency into a 'political animal'? What are the policy and institutional implications of such a move? Clearly, there is no shortage of implementation challenges that will need to be addressed for political cooperation to be properly institutionalised.

The first hurdle is the lack of political cohesion within the EU itself. Moves to promote a political partnership may encounter resistance in some ACP countries. The EU has generally found it difficult to arrive at a common approach for dealing with crisis-affected countries. Double standards, reflecting divergent national interests, often prevail. The danger also persists of imposing Western models of democracy and governance.

The second challenge will be to reconcile the primacy of politics with the need to address poverty. There is a real danger that poor populations will be penalised as the EU adopts a more political approach to cooperation. This dilemma is particularly acute for EU Delegations in 'difficult' countries'. Both lip-service to political values and top-down conditionalities need to be avoided. The challenge will be to engage in a constructive political dialogue and to design appropriate cooperation strategies with a strong political focus (including 'smart sanctions' if needed).

The third task is for the European Commission to adapt its instruments, working methods, skills and capacities so as to be able to properly integrate the political dimensions into its cooperation activities. This, too, is no easy change for a traditional aid agency. Dialogue between the different DGs, as well as a creative pooling of resources with other donors, would appear to be the way forward. It also calls for strengthening the institutional links between development cooperation and CFSP as well as an enhanced capacity for politial analysis at different levels (including in EC delegations).

Major Trends in programming the 9th EDF

The programming exercise is the national (or regional) process of consultation between the EU and the ACP governments (or regional bodies) in which the initial allocation of resources to a country (or region) is planned. In the past, programming often meant little more than drafting a general strategy document, organising a limited dialogue with government, and identifying a loosely connected set of priority areas and projects to be included in a NIP.

The Cotonou Agreement and the ongoing reform of the EU's external aid have lent a new urgency to the need for undertaking a radical overhaul of the approach to programming. The idea now is to use programming as a strategic tool for conducting a thorough analysis of a country's situation and priorities, as well as for identifying a truly coherent package of EU support, to be concentrated in a few sectors. The starting point is to be the development strategy formulated by the country itself. Programming will seek to combine aid, trade and political cooperation. It will be designed to achieve coherence both between the various instruments and with the efforts of other donors (e.g. individual EU member states, the World Bank, etc.). For the first time, non-state actors will play a role in the process. Programming will be 'rolling', thus making it possible to systematically review and adjust programmes as a function of needs and performance.

This ambitious new approach was first adopted in the ACP countries in the middle of 2000. The timetable initially set for the completion of the whole process proved unrealistic, however. To date, Country Support Strategies (CSS, which are the first step in the national programming process) have been formulated for 50 ACP countries, representing nearly 80% of programmable resources. Of this total, 37 CSS have been processed by the Commission's Quality Support Group. Most of these will be approved by early 2002 and will be ready for signing immediately afterwards. The process is taking longer in countries facing major internal difficulties, as well as in some of the smaller ACP States (including the six new members), who need more time to find their way through the labyrinth of ACP-EU cooperation.

Obviously, whilst it is too early to make any assessment of the benefits of thenew system of programming, we can nevertheless identify a number of general trends and issues on the basis of thelimited amount of data already available.

Firstly, resources are being concentrated on a limited number of sectors. It is clear from the CSS reviewed that transport accounts for 35% of the resources programmed, with macro-economic support working out at about 28%. Food security and rural development are both lagging far behind at 7.5%. This concentration is consistent with the European Commission's desire to improve overall management and to specialise in areas where it can offer added value. At the same time, doubts have been raised about the poverty focus of the priority focal areas, as well as about the limited scope there seems to be for investing in other critical processes (e.g. good governance, institutional development, support for decentralised poverty programmes, etc.).

Secondly, promising attempts seem to have been made to bring in non-state actors. A process of consultation has taken place in nearly 80% of the CSS reviewed. In two-thirds of the cases, this dialogue led to changes in the draft CSS. In over 60% of the cases, arrangements have beenput in place for ongoing consultation and monitoring. Several CSS envisage non-state actors playing an active role in both focal and non-focal sectors. Slightly more than half of the CSS have set aside funds for capacity-building among non-state actors. These first steps suggest that the official parties are serious about gradually turning the Cotonou Agreement into a pluralist partnership. At the same time, Commissioner Nielson admitted in his speech before the Joint Parliamentary Assembly that the role of civil society 'still needs to be defined' in many cases. He also insisted on the need to 'send the right political signal' by guaranteeing 'a transparent allocation of direct access resources for non-state actors in all strategy papers being presented for approval'.

Thirdly, some modest progress has been made in the search for greater complementarity with other donors. The CSS normally contain a matrix aimed at articulating the specific EC contribution to the programmes supported by the international community in a given country. At best, this may lead to operational coordination and task division (e.g. at sectoral level). It may also help to avoid duplication, as well as the proliferation of dialogue processes and competing approaches (in areas such as support for decentralisation).

Fourthly, Commissioner Nielson announced that the European Commission is working towards a more result-oriented approach to programming, that is designed to measure the results achieved in terms of reducing poverty. There is little material by which to judge how this will be done. Yet in many ways it constitutes the linchpin of the whole system of rolling programming. In the absence of a realistic set of result indicators (as a baseline), it will be difficult to assess performance during the mid-term and end-term reviews. The European Union needs to demonstrate, not only to the ACP countries but also to its own political constituencies, that aid can indeed achieve results in the fight against poverty.

ACP Parliamentarians and the Cotonou Agreement

Dialogue and joint administration, for example through the Joint Parliamentary Assembly, constitute one of the unique features of ACP-UE cooperation. By adopting resolutions and making recommendations to the Council of Ministers, the Joint Parliamentary Assembly can directly influence policy formulation, even though it remains a consultative body.

The role played by ACP parliamentarians is set to increase under the Cotonou Agreement, as the political dimension becomes more important in the partnership with the EU. However, members of ACP parliaments can also contribute to a more informed and nationally owned policy formulation process in other key areas of ACP-EU cooperation (e.g. the new trade arrangements). They can offer a platform for an ongoing dialogue with non-state actors on how best to attain the development objectives set out in the Cotonou Agreement. This, in turn, may help parliamentarians to monitor and evaluate the implementation of the partnership, both at a national level and in the joint institutions.

However, two factors often combine to prevent parliamentarians from playing an effective role in this process: a lack of clarity about their role and limited capacities. In order to meet the need for institutional support, the Belgian EU Presidency has announced its intention of organising seminars on the Cotonou Agreement with parliamentarians from various African partner countries in 2002.

WTO Waiver obtained in Doha

The fourth ACP Ministerial Trade Meeting was held a few days before the WTO Ministerial Meeting in Doha. The ensuing ACP Ministerial Declaration called for a waiver to be granted for the ACP-EU trade arrangements at the Doha Ministerial Conference. This waiver is of crucial importance so as to ensure that the ACP-EU non-reciprocal trade arrangement can continue until January 2008, without being challenged by other WTO members. The declaration also called for the multilateral rules on regional trade arrangements to be made sufficiently flexible to allow ACP countries to conclude WTO-compatible trading arrangements with the EU that will advance their own interests.

At the meeting in Doha, the ACP group made its support for a new round conditional on the waiver being granted. In the end, this was the positive outcome that was indeed achieved. The WTO members agreed on a new round with a work programme that is not as strictly defined as in past rounds. However, the new round will involve more participants and cover a broader range of issues. The WTO declaration states that the negotiating agenda is to be finalised by January 2005. It will be essential for the ACP group to closely follow and participate in these WTO talks, as the progress made in the new round will have a significant impact on ACP-EU trade negotiations, which are due to be concluded by 2008.

European Development Cooperation Ministers discuss 'Financing for Development' and the European Commission's First Annual Report on EU External Assistance

EU ministers attending the bi-annual Development Cooperation Council on 8 November discussed the effectiveness of EU external assistance on the basis of the European Commission's first Annual Report of EU external assistance to developing countries in 2000 (http://europa.eu.int/comm/europeaid/reports/status_report_2001_en.pdf). The report confirms poverty reduction as being the strategic objective of European development cooperation and reports on the progress that has been made in implementing the European Commission's aid management reforms. Ministers also discussed the question of financing for development, and in particular the goal of earmarking 0.7% of national GDP for official development cooperation. Other topics included the Millenium Development Goals (http://www.un.org/millennium/index.html) and the upcoming World Summit on Sustainable Development (the Rio+10 meeting) (http://www.johannesburgsummit.org). The Commission intends to hold bilateral meetings with EU member states to explore possible timetables for reaching the targets in preparation for the upcoming UN Conference on Financing for Development to be held in Mexico in March 2002 (http://www.un.org/esa/ffd/index.html).

Ministers reflected on their informal meeting in October in which they discussed the challenges for development cooperation in addressing the new global situation following the 11 September terrorist attacks in the United States. They stressed the importance of development cooperation as an instrument of stability and in support of democratic governance, and called for guarantees to be given that development cooperation would receive adequate funding despite foreign policy pressures. The Belgian Presidency also reported on the findings of seminars on involving civil society in the ACP countries in development cooperation and on improving cooperation with ACP countries ravaged by crises and conflicts. The conclusions of the conference will be posted on the EU's website at: http://ue.eu.int/newsroom/main.cfm?LANG=1

On the Agenda

Events

ACP-EU Joint Parliamentary Assembly
The third meeting of the ACP EU Joint Parliamentary Assembly was held in Brussels from 29 October to 1 November. The Assembly discussed, among other issues, the implementation of the ACP-EU Partnership Agreement and access to global communication as a tool for sustainable development. Resolutions were adopted on the situation in the ACP regions, food security and WTO negotiations.
See: http://www.europarl.eu.int/intcoop/acp/bru2001/resolutions_en.htm

EU-Africa Foreign Ministers Meeting
EU and African Foreign Ministers met in Brussels on 11 October as a follow-up to the Europe-Africa summit held in Cairo in April 2000. More than 70 African and European delegations attended. The meeting was intended to pave the way for the next EU-Africa Summit, that is due to be held in Lisbon in 2003. The delegates discussed conflict prevention and settlement, regional cooperation, trade, the environment, HIV/AIDS and other pandemics, food security, human rights, democracy, the return of cultural property, external debt and international terrorism. Discussions also focussed on the New African Initiative which the meeting agreed to take further forward. The summit's conclusions can be viewed at:
http://ue.eu.int/newsroom/main.cfm?LANG=1

Ratification of the Cotonou Agreement
In the 18 months since the new ACP-EU partnership agreement was signed in Cotonou, (Benin), only 27 ACP and one EU member states have ratified the Agreement. Without the ratification of two thirds of the ACP countries and all EU member states and the European Communities, financial resources from the 9th European Development Fund (EDF) cannot be released and spent. The EU has indicated that it expects that all member states to have ratified the Agreement by the middle of 2002.

EDF Programming Process
ACP National and Regional Authorising Officers (NAOs, i.e. ministers responsible for implementing the European Development Fund) will meet in Brussels on 3-4 December to discuss the progress made in programming the 9th EDF.

Upcoming ACP Regional Organisations and Council meetings
Aid programming and trade issues will be feature prominently on the agendas of meetings of ACP Regional Organisations and the ACP Council, to be held in Brussels on 5 and 6 December.

Readings

Improving the European Development Response towards Crisis-Affected Countries: How to Implement the New ACP-EU Partnership Agreement
This website includes all the relevant background and final conference documents from the international conference on this issue organised by the Belgian EU Presidency on 1 and 2 October.
See: http://www.oneworld.org/ecdpm/en/events/01001/index.htm

Agritrade
The CTA's (Technical Centre for ACP-EU Agricultural and Rural Cooperation) new web portal on agricultural trade issues in current and future EU-ACP relations.
See: http://www.agricta.org/agritrade/index.htm

Building Capacity for Trade: A Road Map for Development Partners
By Henri Bernard Solignac Lecomte, ECDPM Discussion Paper 33.

Issues in Future EU-ACP Trade Relations: The Problems Which Need to be Addressed Under any Moves Towards Free Trade with the EU.
Prepared by the European Research Office, October 2001.Contact Paul Goodison at: 2pg@pandora.be

The European Community External Cooperation Programmes.
Policies, Management and Distribution
http://europa.eu.int/comm/europeaid/reports/index_en.htm

The ‘Cotonou Newsletter’ is a key component of the information programme on ACP-EU cooperation, developed by the European Centre for Development Policy Management (ECDPM), an independent foundation with links to both the ACP (African, Caribbean and Pacific countries) and the EU (European Union). ACP-EU actors are encouraged to contribute their opinions, reports and other views on the issues raised. This newsletter as well as other information related to ACP-EU cooperation can be found on the Internet at: http://www.euforic.org/ The Cotonou Newsletter is sponsored by the Finnish and Swedish Ministry of Foreign Affairs, DGIS of Belgium and l’Instituto da Cooperação Portuguesa. Further Information: European Centre for Development Policy Management, Onze Lieve Vrouweplein 21, 6211 HE Maastricht, The Netherlands Fax: (31)-43-3502902, E-Mail: info@ecdpm.org, http://www.ecdpm.org