Parliamentary Assembly (ACP-EU JPA) met in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia

from 16 to 19 February 2004. As usual, the joint plenary was preceded by

meetings of the ACP and Joint Bureaus (of which South Africa is now a

member), of the ACP plenary and also of the three Standing Committees

—on Political Affairs, on Economic Development, Finance and Trade

and on Social Affairs and the Environment.

The delegation consisted of Dr. Rob Davies and Ms Ntshadi Tsheole. We

were accompanied by Mr Saul Pelle of the South African Embassy to the

EU in Brussels and Mr Mtutu Masiza of Parliament’s International

Relations Unit. Ahead of the JPA there was also a workshop on Economic

Partnership Agreements and their implications for the Eastern and Southern

African region (of which Ethiopia, the host country, is part). This was an

informal activity of the Economic Development Committee, sponsored by

the Friedrich Ebert Stiftung, at which Rob Davies made an input.

ANNOUNCEMENTS, TABLINGS AND COMMITTEE REPORTS NO 19—2004

The 7th Session operated according to the new rules of procedure adopted

ahead of the 6th session. These provide for resolutions to be tabled via the

Standing Committees with the possibility of only two ‘‘urgent resolutions’’

per session being tabled independently on topics agreed by the Joint

Bureau. The motivation for this new procedure is to encourage the JPA to

focus its attention on the common issues of ACP-EU relations, rather than

the bilateral issues that have in the past, in practice, dominated JPA

proceedings. It was agreed at the Joint Bureau meeting held in Brussels in

January that the ‘‘urgent resolutions’’ would be on ‘‘Cotton and other basic

commodities: Problems encountered by ACP countries’’ and ‘‘Damage

caused by Cyclones in the Pacific, Indian Ocean and Caribbean and the

need for a rapid response to natural disasters’’. This meant that the JPA

proceedings were largely focused on generic rather than bilateral issues.

Although the crisis in Haiti was also included on the agenda, the Joint

Bureau agreed to an exchange of views, but no resolution. However, the

discussion was led by Caricom delegations, who argued in support of the

Caricom plan calling for dialogue, but rejecting any violent overthrow of

the Aristide government.

The resolutions emerging from the Committees were on ‘‘Conflict

Resolution and Lasting Peace’’ (Political Affairs Committee); ‘‘Economic

Partnership Agreements’’ (Economic Affairs Committee) and ‘‘Poverty,

diseases and Reproductive health in ACP countries in the context of the

ninth European Development Fund’’ (Social Affairs Committee). There

was a fair degree of consensus on the first and the third reports and

resolutions, as well as on the two urgent resolutions. There was, however,

a degree of disagreement on the EPA resolution. The resolution was

adopted by the Committee with a majority made up by the ACP voting

together with the European PSE (socialist), Green and GUE (left) groups

against the PPE (conservative) group. The PPE indicated in the Committee

that they would call for a vote in plenary by separate houses and would vote

against the resolution emanating from the Committee if it were put

unamended to the plenary.As the PPE has a majority in the EU house, there

was a possibility that this resolution would be defeated as was a resolution

on the WTO post-Cancun at the 6th session in Rome. This led to a process

of negotiation, in which our delegation participated at the request of the

ACP Secretary General. A compromise was eventually reached, which

resulted in fudging clauses on additional funding to address restructuring

and revenue losses arising from the introduction of reciprocity, the

introduction of ‘‘Singapore issues’’ into EPA negotiations and trade in

service negotiations in the EPA context allowing for the retention of the

right of ACP countries to maintain public services in key areas. Although

the original clauses on these issues were significantly ‘‘watered down’’ in

the compromise, the aim was to leave space for further debates. The debate

on this topic, during which we took the floor, was attended by EU trade

commissioner, Pascal Lamy. In his input, the Commissioner spoke of

‘‘reinforcement of regional integration’’ being ‘‘a heart of EPAs’’. Since the

regions that will be negotiating EPAs, particularly in Eastern and Southern

Africa, do not correspond either with any existing Regional Economic

Community or the AU defined region, a major challenge of aligning the

EPA process with regional and continental initiatives clearly exists.

Commissioner Lamy also spoke of reciprocity in trade being introduced

through the EPA process in a ‘‘progressively and harnessed manner’’.

Clearly there are many issues here; including the extent of reciprocal duty

free opening up of ACP countries’ markets to EU imports, the length of a

transition to reciprocity, preserving the rights of Least Developed Countries

to non-reciprocal duty free access to the EU, and the funding of adjustment

Wednesday, 25 February 2004] 423

ANNOUNCEMENTS, TABLINGS AND COMMITTEE REPORTS NO 19—2004

costs by ACP countries. All of these issues have been taken up by the ACP

side, as the input from Mauritian Minister Cuttaree for the ACP Council

made clear. Differences, however, exist on these and other issues. A view

beginning to emerge from discussions among parliamentarians in the

Southern Africa group (which in the EPA context will be the five SACU

countries plus Mozambique, Angola and Tanzania) is that the issue of

reciprocity has already been settled in our region by the fact that the

bilateral Trade, Development and Co-operation Agreement with South

Africa de facto extends reciprocity to other SACU countries. With the EU

having half promised to allow duty free access for all products from ACP

countries involved in the EPA process, and LDCs having this right on a

non-reciprocal basis, the Southern Africa EPA should focus largely on

developmental issues and non-tariff barriers in the EU market (subsidies

and technical barriers to trade).

The Economic Development Committee (on which we serve) will prepare

its next report on the controversial issue of ‘‘budgetising’’ the European

Development Fund, which currently operates on the basis of voluntary

contributions by EU member states. In the debate on this issue, the

development commissioner, Paul Nielson, spoke in favour of budgetisation

(i.e. including EDF funding in the European budget), arguing this was the

best way to ensure funding for development inACPcountries—particularly

with EU enlargement on the horizon. He declined, however, to offer an

assurance that no ACP country would be worse off after budgetisation,

saying that the focus of funding was now on performance, and that funds

would not be disbursed to countries that could not perform.

The JPA also received a short input on AU processes from the Deputy

Chairperson of the AU Commission, Mr Patrick Mazimhaka. While there

was general support forAU programmes from the floor, it became apparent

during this debate that there is an urgent need to promote greater alignment

between the Cotonou and the AU processes.

As usual Workshops were held on issues of importance to the host

country—Food Security in Ethiopia, Health and Education and Private

Sector Development.We participated in the first two, which involved visits

to water security projects and programmes for sufferers from HIV/AIDS.

These gave a vivid impression of the enormous challenges facing Ethiopia,

but also of the efforts being made to address them. For example, Ethiopia is

about to introduce an anti-Retroviral programme.

A feature of the JPA session was that Ethiopian Prime Minister, Mr Meles

Zenawi, made himself available for an hour’s Q and A session with

participants, and later for a similar ninety-minute engagement with

members of the Joint Bureau. These covered a wide range of themes,

including the border dispute with Eritrea. The Eritrean delegation did not

participate in the 7th JPA, after objecting to the venue. The Co-Presidents,

however, visited Eritrea ahead of the JPA. On this issue, the Prime Minister

essentially argued that some of the UN Boundary Commission’s recommendations

were ‘‘irrational’’ as they divided houses, churches, villages

and roads. He said that under normal circumstances, his country could

probably have lived with them, but that there was serious tension in the

relationship with Eritrea and that, in this context, acceptance could fuel

such tensions. He said, however, that Ethiopia had renounced war as an

option in resolving this issue, and was looking for a process of dialogue

similar to that between Nigeria and Cameroon on their border issues.

424 [Wednesday, 25 February 2004

ANNOUNCEMENTS, TABLINGS AND COMMITTEE REPORTS NO 19—2004

The ACP Bureau, of which we are now members, recommended that we

take the vacant position of Co-Vice President for Human Rights. We

accepted, after pointing to the uncertainties arising from our election. The

position is essentially awarded to our delegation and not to any individual

and will be held by whoever leads our delegation to the JPA after our

elections. This appointment came too late for us to engage in ACP

structures on a report drafted only by the EU Co-Vice President. In the Joint

Bureau meeting, Rob Davies offered a number of comments on this,

suggesting that there was a need for greater balance through, inter alia,

addressing more substantially issues in the EU such as immigration policy,

racism and the rise of far right populism and their impact on ACP relations.

The Joint Bureau, unfortunately, did not have time for any substantial

discussion of the workings of the new Committee-based system. In

numerous discussions, we indicated our view that it was necessary to

strengthen the Committees’ work in the direction of creating opportunities

for ongoing oversight of the EPA processes, public hearings and the

receiving of reports on e.g. impact studies. The Joint Bureau did, however,

decide that reports from the Commission on implementation of resolutions

(dealt with up to now in a perfunctory manner in plenary) should be

referred to relevant Committees for more substantial processing. All of this

may well require making more time available for Committee meetings.

The 7th JPA is the last that will be held before EU enlargement (May 1st)

and the European Parliamentary elections in June. A number of regular

participants in JPA sessions will not be returning, and there is much

uncertainty about the political complexion of the new European parliament.

Generally, however, it is expected that enlargement will bring in a number

of countries with little experience of, and perhaps limited interest in,

matters ofACP co-operation and that there will be major challenges to raise

the profile of these issues.

The next Bureau and Committee meetings have been tentatively scheduled

to begin on the 5th October in Brussels, and the 8th Joint Parliamentary

Assembly to take place in The Hague, Netherlands from 22 to 25

November 2004.

Rob Davies Ntshadi Tsheole