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

NGO Discussion Document, March 1997

Chapter 3 - Coherence of EU policies towards ACP countries

Introduction

Seen from the NGO point of view, policy coherence is one of the EU's central responsibilities towards developing countries including the ACP. Coherence covers the impact of all Community policies on sustainable development, the campaign against poverty and other recognised development objectives. It is essential that the EU should not cancel out the benefits of its development cooperation with its agricultural, trade, fisheries and other policies. Coherence is closely related to coordination between and within the EU and member states in policy, in international fora and in field operations, and to complementarity between the development policies and policy instruments of the EU and member states, a harmonious division of labour between EC and Member States' programmes ensuring that the programmes complement and reinforce each other.

Formally, coherence is based on Article 130v of the Treaty, which states that "the Community shall take account of the objectives referred to in article 130u in the policies that it implements which are likely to affect developing countries". (Article 130u lays down the objectives of sustainable development, action against poverty, integration into the world market, support for human rights etc.).

In recent years NGDOs have seen little progress towards establishing the appropriate mechanisms for monitoring, implementation and evaluation to achieve coherence of EU and Commission policies. Among the Community and Union policies which have a significant effect on development cooperation are:

• Common Foreign and Security Policy
• Common Agricultural Policy and food security
• Humanitarian assistance and emergency aid
• Common Fisheries Policy
• External trade policy, in particular in the WTO
• Debt policy

Prominent among policies which have been identified as having a negative effect on development are the CAP and the Common Fisheries Policy. There have been some well-known cases of farmers in the south having their livelihood undermined by dumping of subsidised EU agricultural produce, such as beef dumping in West Africa and recently in South Africa. NGO research such as a study of different commodities by Solagral published in 1996, suggests that these are not isolated problems. Market access restrictions for ACP farm products continue to be a block on agricultural development. On the fisheries side, there is growing evidence that EU fishing vessels operating under Fisheries Agreements are increasingly in competition with the artisanal fishing sector, which provides food and a a major source of income to a growing number of the poor in ACP countries, and contributing to overfishing and the depletion of ACP fish stocks.

Trade policy, as a central part of the Lomé relationship, is dealt with in a separate chapter below. Trade is an area which poses the question of whether the Treaty objectives are coherent in themselves. Sustainable development and poverty eradication are not easy to combine with integration of developing countries in the world economy.

NGDOs have made a number of proposals for tackling the issue of coherence. These centre on giving the Commission the capacity for proactive policy analysis rather than simply reacting to problems once they have arisen, ensuring open debate and developing complaints mechanisms for concerned parties to draw attention to problems and have an input into policy.

Some of the major forthcoming issues in the evolution of the EU will also have to be examined in terms of their effects on developing countries. Introduction of the European Monetary Union and the single currency is likely to have major effects on EU-South financial and economic relationships (what will happen to the economies of the African countries whose currencies are linked to the French franc?) Expansion of the EU, bringing in countries with a quite different historical relationship to the South than the existing members, is also an issue to watch.

Coherence and decision-making structures

Policy (in)coherence is also linked to the thematic and regional division of responsibilities between the different Directorates-General of the Commission. A particular case is the representation of the Commission in international fora. For example, the Commissioner responsible for DG II attends on behalf of the Commission the meetings of decision-making fora like the IMF Interim Committee, the World Bank/IMF Development Committee and (together with the Commission's President) the G-7. Financial decisions with a major effect on development (such as the financial envelope for the revised Lomé IV) can be taken by officials or ministers not primarily responsible for development, without adequate involvement of development specialists.

The ACP- EU relationship will continue to be conditioned to a large extent by decisions taken in the World Bank and IMF (where decisions on economic reform have vital implications), the G-7, the Special Programme for Assistance to Africa (SPA), the WTO and other fora. It is vital for the EU to make its input into these bodies consistent with ACP-EU policy.

Coordination and complementarity

The Green Paper does give considerable attention to improving coordination of European policies, and proposes

• either a global European strategy vis-à-vis ACP states, which would commit both Member States national policies and the Community. This would mean aligning strategies, rather than taking a more Community based approach;
• or incorporating in the new cooperation agreement(s) with ACP countries an information, monitoring and coordination system in the Member States' and the Community's key areas of intervention in the form of a commitment by the EU to improved coordination.

Such proposals are welcome: it would be good to see the Commission in a pro-active role implementing them.

ACP countries' own policies and development cooperation: coherence and ownership

Coherence is not just a matter of EU policies being consistent. There is also a need for ACP governments to promote coherence of policies in their own countries.

This implies setting clear priorities, with an overall policy framework and a clear idea of how the different parts of government and other actors contribute. One problem which arises is an accumulation of different conditionalities from different donors and different funding instruments. A second element in such an approach is a minimum of consensus with the people in the country on an overall policy. This again implies the need for an informed people, thus a government which reaches out to civil society, which allows it to participate in policy debate and policy-making, which is transparent and accountable. Though participatory policy making may lead to contradictory proposals, in the long run it may help the government design a coherent policy. In short, ownership and coherence belong together.

Recommendations

• An annual report on policy coherence by the Commission to the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament
• A complaints mechanism through which concrete cases of incoherence can be reported by concerned parties, such as ACP governments, NGOs, etc.
• A Commission Interservice Coherence Working Group including the main Directorates-General whose policies are likely to affect developing countries. This would enable the Commission to proactively anticipate problems rather than simply reacting once a problem has arisen.
• An annual hearing in the European Parliament on the progress or lack of progress towards achieving greater coherence of EU policies towards developing countries. Every year one or more `good practices' or `bad practices' could be highlighted at such
• a hearing.
• Additionally, an active information policy to allow concerned parties including civil society to comment on an informed basis
• NGOs have proposed a Code of Conduct for Responsible EU Fisheries Agreements. This could be extended to other policy areas.
• Research into the consequences of the introduction of EMU for relations with developing countries in general, and the ACP region in particular, with a view to proposing policies to mitigate possible negative effects for the ACP

.

Go to Contents Page /Chapter 1/Chapter 2/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.