the future of pacific-eu relations: with or without the acp?

The future of Pacific-EU relations: with or

without the ACP? Pacific Conference on the future of the ACP Group, Samoa, 17-19 October 2013

Geert Laporte, Deputy Director, European Centre for Development Policy Management

Independent foundation working on ACP-EU for more than 25 years:

1. Non-partisan facilitation of dialogue among ACP and EU

2. Practical and policy relevant analysis3. Systematic linking with key players in the EU

and the ACP/ Pacific through networks and partnerships

4. Capacity building in the ACP to bring more balance in the partnership

ECDPM

1. Milestones in the ACP and EU reflection process

2. Emerging general views in the ACP and in the EU on the future of ACP and ACP-EU relations beyond 2020

3. Emerging views in the Pacific and the EU on the future of ACP and Pacific-EU relations beyond 2020

4. Possible scenarios for the future of Pacific-EU relations beyond 2020

5. Future steps in the reflection process

Structure of presentation

• ACP Ambassadorial WG on future perspectives in Brussels, Sipopo HoS declaration, Eminent Persons Group

• DEVCO-EEAS WG and EU-Inter-service Group

• Initial reflections in individual EU and ACP countries

• Civil society initiatives• Joint Parliamentary Assembly & European

Parliament

The debate has started…

•“Post-colonial configuration with lack of internal coherence”•“Overly dependent on EU aid” •“No political weight at global level” • ACP-EU “relationship fatigue” (PM)

ACP: between critical perceptions….

•Strong growth in many ACP countries•ACP (sub) regions and countries with growing influence•Numbers count in global world•Willingness to tackle longstanding issues affecting credibility (e.g financing of the Group)

…and positive perceptions

•Almost 40 years of unique contractual partnership: common values, joint institutions and dialogue,… •Shared concern over need for “humanisation’’ of globalisation•Common concern for “blue economy” and Cotonou can be “cornerstone” (Pres Marshall islands)

What do ACP and EU have in common?

1.Status quo is NOT an option to ensure continued relevance of ACP Group

2.Stronger political partnership beyond aid3.Broaden Partnership beyond Europe (BRICS,

South-South) 4.More prominent role ACP in global fora5.Financial sustainability = credibility and

relevance

Emerging views in the ACP

1.Recognition of economic progress in many individual ACP countries

2. Growing focus on regional and subregional relations (EPAs, joint strategies,…)

3.ACP Group only marginally contributes to EU aspirations for stronger global role

4. ACP Group has no formal place in EU treaties and institutions

5.ACP Group needs to determine its own future with EU and beyond

Emerging views in the EU

• Australia & New Zealand: key donors• Growing presence China (natural resources,

fisheries, immigration,…)• India, Indonesia, South Korea (more diplomatic

representations, military cooperation, aid in kind,..)• Increasing interest Russia (visits MFA Lavrov, aid,

investments, recognition Abkhazia, South Ossetia)• USA: increasing presence since 2011 (aid,

economic, military and security support, energy, natural resources, education, health,..)

• Japan: regaining interest and alliance building with USA and EU

Pacific: increasingly attractive for global players

• 2012: EU Strategy for the Pacific “Pacific is emerging foreign policy priority for EU”)

• EU: second aid partner in the region: Total 10th EDF 750 million EURO

• EU key priorities: development cooperation, trade, climate change, fisheries, regional integration, governance,…)

• Perceived “contradictions” in EU messages: differentiation in the allocation of aid, no increase of aid in EDF 11, closing down EU representation,..)

Where does the European Union (EU) fit in this picture?

•Bargaining power: ACP has helped to get increased recognition of Pacific in EU and at international level•Enhanced South-South and intra-ACP cooperation = more global awareness of challenges Pacific (climate change, “vulnerability” small islands states alliances in UN and WTO, g7+ grouping of post conflict countries•Substantial aid through ACP

Some Pacific perceptions on benefits of ACP Group membership

•EU: major donor of development aid•Sector and budget support = strengthening government systems + incentive for other donors•Model for regional cooperation and integration•Climate change (key for Pacific)•Renewable energy, (eco)-tourism, etc

Some Pacific perceptions on the EU and the Cotonou Partnership (value added)

•Unequal partnership in spite of declared principles of “reciprocity” and “equal partnership” :•Strongly aid driven partnership = dependency •marginalisation Pacific vis-à-vis Africa•“Splitting up” the region in EPA negotiations (IEPA with PNG)•EU has put burden on capacities of the region (negotiation of EPA, rigid procedures, heavy conditions, absorption capacities, NAO system is heavy burden on small administrations of small islands,…) •

Pacific perceptions on the EU and the Cotonou Partnership (critical perspectives)

•Fisheries (tuna = 50% of total European consumption)•Natural resources: large unexplored potential of resources (including unknown seabed resources)•Alliances on climate change •Political and diplomatic capital (Pacific = 15 sovereign votes= numbers count)

What are the perceived EU’s interests in the Pacific?

1. Status quo? “Group must adapt and reshape itself” (Samoa PM)

2. EU Agreement with an Asia-Pacific Group of countries?

3. Separate EU-Pacific Agreement?4. EU regional agreements under one ACP

umbrella with specific role and value added? “ACP Group should not do everything” (Samoa PM)

5. Other scenarios?

POSSIBLE SCENARIOS FOR POST 2020

1.ACP and Pacific region/ countries should be in the driving seat2.Realistic political economy assessments are needed: address difficult key strategic questions upfront and interest articulation3.From intentions to implementation: show results4.Move debate out of Brussels to ACP countries and regions5.Drop taboos: assess what has (not) worked and why + critical introspection on both sides beyond vested interests and political correctness

How to promote an effective reflection process?

Thank [email protected]

the future of pacific-eu relations: with or without the acp?

Technology