Transcript EU-Trade-development policy

EU-development
policies
From paternalistic preferential
policies to neoliberal
“normalization”?
A colonial past to clean



Europe: the paramount example of
imperialism, colonisation, cultural superiority,
ethnocentrism and depredation
At the same time: expansion of cultural
parameters with the ambition of universalism:
democracy, human rights, human values, etc.
Decolonisation: looking for a balance
between control (own interests) and
assistance
Decolonisation: new ties



After the Second WW: third wave of
independence
Forging new relations with the ex-colonies:
the Commonwealth and the French
Community
1957: Treaty of Rome: provisions for the
association of dependency signatories: the
ACP
Model: example of regulatedfair North-South relations



EU-ACP: non- reciprocal trade preferences
semi-automatic system of financial
compensation for unstable export earnings in
agriculture-mining products: STABEX,
SYSMIN
institutional dialogue
BACKGROUND OF
COOPERATION EC-LOMÉ





Yaundé Conventions: from the 50s to 1973 with the
entrance of GB to EC.
Historical colonial links: pyramid: hierarchical
preferences according to former colonial links
tensions: coordination: bilateral against multilateral
policies
financial arrangements: distinction between
European development Fund (EDF) financed
directly by EU members and Development
cooperation programs from EUs budget.
EDF +Aid budget= 10% of total EUs budget
COOPERATION EC-EU-ACP






Lomé I: 1975-80
Lomé II: 1980-85
Lomé III 1985-90
Lomé IV signed 1989 into force: 1991:
duration 10 years
Lomé IV B: Nov 1995 (revision of Lomé IV)
Cotonou: 2000-2020 (1st period: 2000-2007)
Lomé



General: Privileged relationship between EU and
developing countries: 15 EU +71 ACP. Model for NS relations? EU represented by the European
Commission mainly.
Based on discriminatory trade preferences now
incompatible with WTO.
Dilemma: how to encourage ACP’s integration to
globalisation while maintaining a special
relationship? How to evaluate success? Africa’s real
income p/capita in 1994 below that in 1975. But
without Lomé: better?
Lomé: some traits



Non-programmable aid: horizontal schemes
available to all ACP countries: Stabex and Sysmin,
+ aid for emergencies and disaster relief also
administered by EC
Lomé IV and IVB: structural adjustment aid for
implementation of macro-economic reforms (since
88: close links EU+ IMF and WB)
-Sectoral import programmes to help ACP pay for
imports, paid in local currency into counterpart fund
used for new projects
EC, EU- LOMÉ: Economic
assesment



enormous task: small means: 90s: annual
average contribution: 4 euros for each ACP
citizen. But still: fundamental
typical model N-S relations: manufactures-for
raw materials. ACP wants to change it but
how?
during the cold war: a cheap way to ensure
ACP’s loyalty? But afterwards: ideological
and political motivations decrease?
Other benefits



helping to build common platforms among
Lomé countries: from an artificial entity to a
new international actor within WTO and UN.
other non-state actors gain space: private
sector, NGOs, civil society in general
within CFSP: Lomé helps to enhance peace
and security schemes in Africa and to
coordinate responses to crises/disasters.
Lomé becomes a diplomatic instrument.
Development assistance



EDF: largest source of nonreimboursement aid to ACP states
1996-2000: 14.6 bill euros +soft loans from
EIB
same period: Medit. Countries: 4.7 bill
euros, Central-Eastern Europé: 6.7 bill
euros
Total resource-flows from
donors


Resources from DAC (Development
assistance Committee within OECD)
increases during the 90s but half  private
transfers to investment in China, India,
Indonesia, Thailand.
ODA (official development assistance) in
general: decreases but within EU: constant or
increases
Trade:



preferential access for 95% of ACP export
to EU market, for 100 of tropical
commodities, all industrial and mineral
products, fish products
better terms of trade than with other
development countries although they have
deteriorated since 1975
but: against GATT/WTO rules that forbids
discriminatory preferences
Preferential tradeunsuccessful?





ACP share of world market
from 20.8% in 1975 to 9.7% in 1995
ACP share of EU market:
From 7% in 1975 to 2.8 % in 1995
ACP share of EUs import from LDCs 14%
in 1990 to 9% in 1995 (other LDCs: 9.4 %in
1974 to 17% in 1989)
Other assessments



But individual products as coffee: 38%of EU
market and cocoa: 79% in 1993.
Some countries: success stories
Reflection of stagnant demand and prices
more than a lack of success?
Maastricht





first legal basis for development cooperation (from
1957-92 separate programs) + EU policies coexist
with ineffective coordination.
Goal within EU since 1993: 0.7% of GDP
1998: only 3 countries: Denmark 0.88%, Sweden:
0.87%, Netherlands: 0.98%.
Average for EU: 0.44% (according to Monterrey
information: only 0.2%, except Greece)= more
than ½ of world’s ODA in the 1990s European
Japan: 0.31%, USA: 0.21% (Bush announces US
doll 5,000 million US in Monterrey)
Goals of EUs development
cooperation





sustainable economic-social development
smooth and gradual integration of developing
countries into the world economy
campaign against poverty
promotion of democracy, rule of the law
respect of human rights and fundamental
freedoms
Principles within EU:


complementarity between EUs cooperation
policy and member countries policies.
coordination between EU members states
and the Union’s policies.
Principles governing the
cooperation arrangements



respect for sovereign equality
predictability: access to EU market and funds
contractuality: degree of security for both
governments and private enterprises in the
implementation of measures.
Priorities:



alleviation of poverty’
support for ACP competitiveness
increase employment and regional
cooperation
Goals of EU in relation to ACP






strong political dialogue
help to increase democracy, good
governance
peaceful settlement of conflicts, more
participation of civil society
implementation of SAPs
help in creating private and public institutions
social dimension of cooperation
May 1992: European Council’s
decision on principles

that all cooperation and association
agreements concluded with member
countries of CSCE (Conference on Security
and Cooperation in Europé) should have a
suspension clause in case of violation of
human rights or democratic principles and
principles of market economy. Agreements
with Eastern Europé 1992-3 had two
elements: ’essential element’ and ’non
fulfilment clause’.
Essential element

Stronger legal basis for implementation of
political conditionality. Introduced in
agreements with Eastern European and nonEuropean countries: LA: Andean countries,
Brazil 1992 and CA 1993, Asia: India1993,
Sri Lanka 1994, Africa: South Africa 1994,
Tunisia 1994
Human rights and democracyessential elements



1992: development of hr as “essential
element” of the agreements
1995: EC adopts, in response to a EP’s
initiative, a communiqué on the inclusion of hr
and democracy in EUs agreements with other
countries
essential elements and conditionality are also
included in agreements on technical and
financial assistance.
Goals EU from the 90s on







new strategies for private sector
environmental concerns
development cooperation—transition to integration
into world economy
increase in scientific-technological cooperation
regionalized cooperation
differentiated cooperation according to development
levels
greater efficiency in cooperation: easier access for
new agents
Types of Aid-Trade relationships


1) 1975-2000 Lomé and afterwards: originally 12
EC + 46 ACP countries. Late 90s: 15 EU + 71 ACP
2) Euro-Mediterranean partnership: bilateral aidtrade EU-12 Mediterranean countries (Morocco,
Algeria, Tunisia, Egypt, Jordan. Malta, Cyprus,
Israel, Lebanon, Syria, Turkey, Yugoslavia). 1995 a
new framework replaces individual deals existing
since the 50s. Long term plans: Mediterranean free
trade area: 2010. EIB + EU budget: financial and
technical assistance.
3) Regional Cooperation with
Asia and Latin America

Specific agreements between EU and
regional groupings: ASEAN, ANDEAN PACT,
CACM, MERCOSUR. Financing small scales
projects for the least developed countries in
these regions plus limited special market
access provisions. From the Spring 2000:
negotiation of free trade agreement with
MERCOSUR but problems with EU-CAP
4) Trade and Cooperation agreements with
individual Asian, African and Latin
American countries



Limited benefits beyond GSP (or GSP plus)
access enjoyed by all developing countries
First FTAs in LA: Mexico: since 2001, Chile
since 2003, Central America: 2010.
The rest in LA: most sub-regions:
associational agreements including FTA to
the exception of Mercosur. Andean region
broken, bilat agreem: Colombia, Peru.
Neoliberalism as the new
hegemonic discourse





NICs-Asia-the new paradigm for LDCs
80s: debt crisis
89: collapse of the Berlin wall
Structural adjustment (+ h.r. and democracy)
as the new norm starts to enter into Lomés
(Lomé IV-1990)
1992: -goal of a common development
policy gradual integration of LDC into the
world economy
New Agreement: Cotonou:
2000-2020


keeps framework from Lomé IV:
comprehensive approach. Diversified
instruments, integral concept of aid-trade ,
mechanisms for monitoring, evaluation,
reviews.
more conditionalities: good governance,
respect for human rights
Cotonou: Good governance as
fundamental element:

“The transparent and accountable management of
human, natural, economic and financial resources, for
the purposes of equitable and sustainable development.
It entails clear decision making procedures at the level of
public authorities, transparent and accountable
institutions, the primacy of law in the management and
distribution of resources and capacity building for
elaborating and implementing measures aiming in
particular at preventing and combating corruption.”
ACP’s press release
“found them to be imbalanced as a result of the
overemphasis given to EU objectives, particularly
political objectives, while those of the ACP- such
as development-were often ignored. Some attempt
was made to remedy this criticism but the text is
still unbalanced with EU objectives not only
repeated ad nauseam but often elaborated whilst
those of the ACP, such as the arms trade and the
EU’s role in this, do not merit a mention. (ACP
Secretariat, 2000: 2)
Towards normalization



Extension of GSP favoring stronger
countries among LDCs: Kuwait, China, India,
Brazil
WTO’s demands: the problem of double
identities interest within EU and within
WTO partial solutions: waivers for Lomé
until 2000 and extension2008
LDCs also contradictory identities-stronger
and weaker groups
The beginning of the end of EU as
“a model” in development policies





To make development policy more
consistent-normalization
Linking anti-poverty policies with trade
integration
Previous trade preferences seen as a failure
New regional cooperation the right path
differentiated reciprocities, creation of
REPAS /Regional Economic Partnerships,
compatibilization with WTO
EU-seeking compatibility
among multiple identities





Domestic concerns-CAP
EU Commission-championing the organization of
WTO
EU members-also within WB, IMF-pushing for
globalization and opening markets
Previous Lomé policies-risk free-low cost for EU but
controversial in the WTO era
To combine “realpolitik” interests with development
aims South Mediterranean and North Africapotential migration problems, political instability
new sorts of preferences
After Cotonou: what next?





Reflections from the part of ACP:
Lisbon treaty: not a single mention of ACP
countries
A future with or without Europé?
Newpartnerships with emerging economies
as China, Brazil and India?
Plans for a new common investment ACP
bank
EU-trade-neoliberalism in
search of consistency




Trade preferences as a development policy
no longer consistent with new visions
Globalization-also-raises the need to reach
new markets
Investments and the search for natural
resources- apparently aid?
When EU is no longer the model, what
pattern to follow?