Beyond Lomé IV
Future Relations between the EU and the ACP Countries

NGO Discussion Document, March 1997

Chapter 1 - The main issues for NGOs and how the Green Paper relates to them

Common objectives for equitable and sustainable development

NGOs will judge the new partnership between the EU and ACP countries according to how clearly and effectively it addresses the fundamental problems facing people in the south and meets their aspirations. They will judge it by whether it leads to effective action against poverty and for social development. They will judge it by whether it addresses gender inequalities and promotes the rights of women. They will judge it by whether it supports human rights and environmental sustainability. Action to achieve this must give a central place to civil society. It must also take full account of the development problems created by international debt, globalisation of the economy and trade liberalisation and Northern macro-economic policies.

These concerns are not those of NGOs alone. In the UN Summits at Rio, Vienna, Cairo, Copenhagen and Beijing, the international community including the EU and its Member States made commitments to support sustainable, human-centred development objectives. The EU itself has since 1992 built up a body of progressive policy texts. The Maastricht Treaty led to development cooperation becoming an official objective of the European Union. Among the objectives adopted are "the sustainable economic and social development of the developing countries", `the smooth and gradual integration of the developing countries into the world economy' and `the campaign against poverty in the developing countries'; as well as "the general objectives of developing and consolidating democracy and the rule of law, (...) respecting human rights and fundamental freedoms'. Since then, the Council Declaration on "Aspects of Development Co-operation Policy in the Run-up to 2000" of November 1992 and subsequent Resolutions on the fight against poverty, gender and development, food security and other issues have developed these objectives further, largely in a positive sense. The challenge now is to put these good resolutions into practice in the Union's development approach in the coming years.

The Green Paper and Poverty Eradication

Unfortunately, while the Green Paper does make some references to the recommendations of UN Summits, it does not base its central argument on them. Its central emphasis on integrating the ACP countries into the world economy, even when coupled with a poverty focus in statements like "the European Union's primary concern must be the integration of the poor into the economic and social life and the integration of the ACP countries into the world economy", points up the potential contradiction between the two Maastricht objectives of fighting poverty and world market integration. NGOs and their partners have often experienced globalisation and economic liberalisation as destructive and poverty-creating. Consequently NGOs would argue that the EU should clearly give an overriding priority to poverty eradication.

Despite being a signatory to the Declaration and Programme of Action of the World Summit for Social Development, which refers to poverty eradication, the Commission continues to refer to poverty reduction in the Green Paper. Although the "campaign against poverty" is regarded as one of the main objectives of EU development cooperation, there is no real analysis in the Green Paper of how poverty can be reduced (let alone eradicated) except as a result of economic growth and the integration of developing countries into the world economy. This is somewhat surprising as the the resolution on Human and Social Development (adopted by the Council in December 1996) gives very clear indications of how poverty can be tackled through an approach which enhances human capital. Such an approach could have been a basis for proposals in the Green Paper, which could also have incorporated the targets set out in the DAC document "Shaping the 21st Century".

Policy Coherence

A key issue that is relevant here, policy coherence, is largely ducked in the Green Paper. Article 130v of the Maastricht Treaty states that the Community 'shall take account of (development cooperation) objectives in the policies that it implements which are likely to affect developing countries'. Particularly important here are trade policy, the Common Agricultural Policy and the Common Fisheries Policy. The Common Foreign and Security Policy, which is not a Community policy, is also of obvious importance for development. Article C states that the Union 'shall ensure the consistency of its external activities as a whole in the context of its external relations, security , economic and development policies'.

The Green Paper only briefly addresses the issue of coherence in the broadest sense. It recognizes the importance of consistency of policies and the complementarity and coordination of the EU's and Member States' policies. Regarding coherence in the strict sense - the external effects of policies other than development coooperation - the Paper states that this "can in any case never become an international commitment on the part of the Community" and "always remains a matter of political judgement". It is disappointing that the Green Paper then simply reaffirms the conclusions of the 1994 and 1995 Development Councils that Council and Commission will continue to raise inconsistencies case-by-case. NGOs have proposed institutional mechanisms to avoid, report and remedy inconsistent policies that go beyond this reactive and ad hoc approach (see recommendations).

Decisive action to reduce the ACP countries' debt burden is another vital issue not addressed in the Green Paper.

Chapter 3 returns to the coherence issue.

Economic reform and structural adjustment

There is also an apparent lack of questioning of the EU's support for structural adjustment, which has not led to sustainable and equitable development. In many countries undergoing economic reform,

* poverty is growing

* unemployment and inequality are increasing

* women are facing growing impoverishment

* and the debt burden is rising in many low- and middle-income countries.

One example of the social effects of structural adjustment: "In January 1994, 14 countries in the CFA zone in Africa devalued their currency overnight by 50%. Other adjustment policies held down wages in these countries, so local purchasing power was hit hard, thereby undermining any pick-up in production. A year after the CFA devaluation, newspapers in Senegal reported inflation rates for that country of more than 60%, with peak levels at 120% for certain daily consumer goods in the food and health sectors. Women in the Kaolack region reported a drastic change in eating habits, with they and their families forced to choose between reducing the proportion of the budget allocated for food and foregoing expenses related to health care, schooling, rent or household repair. They report that prices are so high that women cannot purchase basic goods even if they are available in the market." (The Development GAP, "The Ignored Costs of Adjustment: Women under SAPs in Africa).

Partnership Relations

Another key issue in reading the Green Paper is the type of partnership relation between the EU and the ACP. Here there seems to be a major inconsistency between what the Commission expects on the one hand from its own policy and on the other from the ACP side. Under the heading that a stronger political relationship between the EU and the ACP is needed to breath new life into the partnership, the Green Paper pleads for a more explicit and more effective commitment. The ACP is supposed to be committed "to push through institutional reforms and conduct economic, social and environmental policies" agreed at the UN Summits in the past five years: furthermore, these must be "the foundation of the new partnership" (p. vi). No such obligation is expressed on the EU side. This could have been an opportunity to affirm the EU's own commitments made at the summits from Rio onwards, for example to contribute towards global sustainability by moving towards sustainable consumption patterns at home.

The Commission continues to reinforce this impression of unilateral agenda-setting in the next paragraph. It states that based on such a mutual political commitment issues like domestic security, migration, the fight against drug trafficking, etc. need to be established as the principal subjects of the dialogue with ACP countries. For many analysts and people in ACP countries these problems are rather the symptoms of deeper rooted problems related to poverty, social insecurity, indebtedness, etc. and the related policies of governments, locally and in the North, and their institutions.

It would also have been welcome to have some discussion of the type of institutions which have to be created to facilitate political dialogue and partnership. For example, how can the experience of the Joint Assembly be used to set up a form of dialogue that is both democratic and effective? Creative forms will have to be thought up for a dialogue which is two-way and transparent and involves civil society and the private sector.

Gender and Development

The Green Paper takes a step backwards on gender and development issues. In its overview of global changes affecting ACP/EU relations, past experience of ACP/EU cooperation, there is no attempt to incorporate gender analysis. In its discussion of limiting factors and potential for socio-economic change in ACP states, there is no analysis of gender differences and disparities. In its blueprint for future ACP/EU Relations, for a new partnership, new approaches to EU cooperation and new practice in financial and technical cooperation, similarly, there is no attempt to integrate the general principles for gender sensitive development cooperation. There are some references to women and women's role in poverty reduction and socio-economic change. For the most part, these reflect old-fashioned 'women in development' thinking, and adopt a rather instrumental approach to women's enormous contribution to the development process.

There is no explicit commitment, in the Green Paper, to promoting and protecting women's rights through European development cooperation policies and practice. Neither is a commitment, on the European Union's part, to implement the agreements made at Vienna, Cairo, Copenhagen or Beijing.

In short, the Green Paper does not reflect existing European Union policy on gender and development, as expressed in the 1995 Resolution of the Council of Ministers. It is proof that little real progress has been made towards mainstreaming gender analysis.

Chapter 4 below takes up this central issue.

Go to Contents Page /Chapter 2/Chapter 3/Chapter 4/Chapter 5/Chapter 6 / Chapter 7

Updated on April 3, 1997
Developer's Note: These pages were developed for use on the Netscape browser. Please address comments to Valérie van Belle.