Report of Delegation to 8th Session of African, Caribbean, Pacific-European Union Joint Parliamentary Assembly, The Hague, Netherlands, 22-25 November 2004.
The 8th Session of the African, Caribbean, Pacific-European Union Joint Parliamentary Assembly (ACP-EU JPA) met in The Hague, Netherlands from 22 to 25 November 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 (ANC), Ms Dumisile Nhlengethwa (ANC) and Mr Douglas Gibson (DA). We were accompanied by Mr Saul Pelle of the South African Embassy to the EU in Brussels and Ms Grace Constable of Parliament’s International Relations Unit. Ambassador Jerry Matjila of the South African Mission to the EU was also with us for part of the time.
The 8th Session operated according to the 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 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 September that the "urgent resolutions" would be on "The Situation in Darfur (Sudan)" and "Hurricane damage in the Caribbean". The Joint Bureau also agreed on debates without resolution on the situation in Cote d’Ivoire and in the African Great Lakes Region (the latter following a statement by the EU Special Representative, Aldo Ajello). The plenary agenda also included the customary statements by, and questions to, the EU Commission (represented by the new Development Commissioner, Louis Michel), the ACP Council (represented by Jamaican Minister Keith Knight) and the EU Council (represented by the Netherlands Minister of Development Cooperation, Agnes van Ardenne-van der Hoeven). In addition there were statements followed by exchanges of views with Mr Phillipe Kirsch, President of the International Criminal Court and Ms Carol Bellamy, Executive Director of UNICEF. As usual, there was a formal opening ceremony with speeches from the Co-Presidents, the Mayor of the Hague and the President of the Second Chamber of the Netherlands Parliament. The Prince of Orange formally declared proceedings open in a speech that referred to challenges in promoting better water management in ACP countries.
The ACP plenary, in addition to the usual discussion of the Agenda for the JPA, finalized a long running discussion on the establishment of an ACP Consultative Assembly. This is a substantially more modest proposal than that first put forward at the JPA session held in Cape Town in March 2000. Essentially, the current proposal envisages formalizing the existing ACP plenary through a "Charter" and "Rules of Procedure". The main new developments would provide for the ACP Consultative Assembly to pass resolutions and set up Committees covering the same subjects as the JPA joint Committees. The ACP Co-President and joint Bureau members would also become Consultative Assembly President and Bureau members respectively. A note from the ACP Secretariat indicated that the Georgetown Agreement establishing the ACP envisages the creation of an ACP Parliamentary Assembly and also argued that the current version "will not entail any further financial burdens for the national parliaments". The draft "Charter" and "Rules of Procedure", which were seen by the delegation for the first time at the ACP plenary, had apparently been sent to Missions and National Parliaments with a "Note Verbale" some time ago. They will again be sent with another "Note Verbale" requesting that delegations attending the Bureau and Committee meetings in late January/early February come with a mandate to approve these documents. A copy will be sent separately to the Speaker’s Office, but we indicated in the ACP meeting that due to the recess it was unlikely that we would have a mandate from our Parliament by early February.
The ACP plenary also received reports on the mid-term re-negotiation of the Cotonou Agreement and on the regional Economic Partnership Agreement (EPA) negotiations. The main issues under discussion in the review of the Cotonou Agreement are political in nature and include provisions against mercenary activity, the International Criminal Court, terrorism, an investment facility and humanitarian assistance (all areas where there is a degree of convergence) plus weapons of mass destruction, providing for more joint decision-making on the passage from Article 8 to Article 96 political dialogue, the establishment of a dispute settlement mechanism and alternatives for non-Least Developed countries not able to conclude reciprocal free trade agreements (all areas where there are divergences of views). All 6 EPA negotiating configurations have now agreed road maps for negotiations in 2005. These mostly focus on identifying development issues and addressing non-tariff barriers. It is apparent, however, that while the ACP wants to focus on "real economy" transformations – including identifying measures to overcome supply side constraints and address adjustment costs arising from the introduction of free trade –as well as issues like the implications of the EU’s new food safety regulations for ACP access to the EU market, the EU is eager for the EPA process to move into tariff reduction negotiations. Once again, neither the Committee nor the plenary agendas allowed for a thorough debate on these matters. We continued to press both in the Bureau and in the Committee on Economic Development, Finance and Trade (on which we serve) for more time to made available to enable the Committee to hold public hearings on the EPA negotiations. Although this call is received sympathetically, it runs up against a range of organizational constraints that have prevented it being implemented up to now. In the meantime, more time was devoted to discussing EPAs in fringe meetings (organized by NGOs and a research institution) and a seminar organized by ourselves with delegates from the SADC EPA configuration.
Although we are full voting members of the Committee on Economic Development, Finance and Trade, the delegation divided itself to cover discussions in all three Committees. Ms Dumisile Nhlengethwa also attended a meeting of the Women’s Forum, which seeks to promote dialogue among women participants in the JPA.
The resolutions emerging from Committees were on "Political Dialogue under Article 8 of the Cotonou Agreement" (Political Affairs Committee) and on "Food Aid and Food Security in ACP Countries" (Social Affairs Committee). The first resolution called for a reform of Article 8 political dialogue in the direction of "proactive, concrete and positive" dialogue instead of merely being a step towards Article 96 dialogue, which is the last stage before suspension of the Cotonou agreement in respect of what the EU sees as "delinquent" ACP countries. In an attempt to create a more even handed political dialogue, Rob Davies in his capacity as ACP Co-Vice President for Human Rights submitted a report that dealt also with issues like the impact of the "war on terror" on human rights in the EU as well as issues like racism and xenophobia and their impact on migration policy. This report was tabled in the Bureau meeting in September. As there was then no EU Co-Vice President, it was agreed after then appointing one that the two should use this draft as the basis for a joint report to be tabled at the next Bureau meeting in February. In The Hague, the two exchanged views on this process.
Both the above-mentioned resolutions passed unanimously. The Economic Development, Finance and Trade Committee, however, did not submit a resolution. The Committee has been working on the issue of "budgetising" the European Development Fund (EDF). Most MEPs are strongly in favour of this, as it would enhance the role of the European Parliament. Many ACP delegations are wary fearing it will lead to unpredictability and possible reductions in development aid to some countries. This debate is complicated by the fact that some proposals from the Commission, which would at least partly address some ACP concerns, are being opposed by some member states that are resisting "budgetisation" because they do not want to have to increase their contributions. This has led to a decision to establish a 10th EDF based on the current system of voluntary contributions. During the course of the JPA, the two Co-Rapporteurs managed to produce a draft compromise resolution on this matter, which will be put to the vote at the next Committee meeting.
The draft resolutions tabled on the "urgent topic" of Darfur were very divergent, with a draft sponsored by the Sudanese delegation welcoming the cooperation of the Government of Sudan and blaming the rebels in Darfur for the continuing conflict. European Parliamentary groups, on the other hand, were strongly critical of the Government of Sudan and several threatened sanctions or embargoes. Rob Davies was asked by the ACP Co-President to work with Professor Ephraim Kamuntu, the delegate from Uganda, to seek a compromise. After much negotiation, and greatly assisted by the agreement signed at the UN Security Council meeting in Nairobi, a compromise was agreed. This basically reinforced calls made on all parties by the UN and AU, welcomed the Nairobi agreement and called for a joint mission to visit the area (a suggestion emanating from the Sudanese delegation). This resolution was adopted unanimously without the tabling of any amendment. The other urgent resolution on hurricanes in the Caribbean was much less controversial and also passed unanimously.
In the plenary, we took the floor in the debates on Darfur and the International Criminal Court (lamenting US pressure for bilateral exemption agreements) and on "exchanges of views" with the Commission and ACP council. We had previously tabled questions to the Commission (on progress in addressing the SACU revenue restructuring issue) and the ACP council (on the implications of the new EU food safety regulations). A feature of Commissioner Michel’s answer to our question and several others was that he said he was not happy with the formal written reply and wanted time to review the dossiers on these subjects. We learnt that DG Development wants to appoint a team of economists to review policy on some issues. The SACU group met with an official from the Commissioner’s office and will request a meeting with him during the Committee meetings in Brussels in January/February.
As usual Workshops were held on issues pertinent to the host country – Health, Architecture and town planning and the Port of Rotterdam. The delegation divided itself among the various topics, which really took the form of an excursion to learn about the issues concerned. Members of the delegation also participated in lunches with political groups associated with their respective parties. These lunches, that have now become an established part of the programme, offer an opportunity for an exchange of views across the ACP-EU divide with "like minded" political groupings.
The next Bureau and Committee meetings have been scheduled for 30th January-2nd February in Brussels, and the 9th Joint Parliamentary Assembly will take place in Bamako, Mali from 16 to 21 April 2005.