Revised Cotonou Agreement 2010

(2) Better reflect trends towards increased regionalization and pan-African development. The emergence of regional groups following the EPAs and the African Union has raised concerns about the emergence of institutional duplication and overlap. The revision should update Cotonou`s text to explicitly repeat the latest developments in EPAs, including the creation of new EPA institutions (for example. B joint EPA councils, trade and development committees and parliamentary committees). It should ensure that the roles assigned to these new bodies are adapted to the roles of existing ACP-EU institutions. Therefore, relations between the CEPOL and Cotonou institutions should be clarified and properly articulated to ensure consistency. With regard to the AU and the EU-Africa Joint Strategy, the EU is currently considering whether the 2010 revision could create a specific financial framework for the AU and Pan-African activities, which will be mobilised from the EDF`s ACP financial framework. While the Joint Parliamentary Assembly (APJ) already has a legal basis in the Cotonou agreement, Article PPY (Article 17) contains in the original text only a very weak reference to national parliaments and an additional reference to the eligibility of funding (Article 58) was added during the 2005 revision. At the same time, some national PARLAMENTe of ACP countries have begun to pay attention to the use of EDF resources by their governments, and interest in the controversial EPA negotiations at the CPA has increased considerably in various national parliaments.

The 2010 revision could therefore be a time to recognize this growing interest and the role that national parliaments can play in promoting the national debate on development plans and monitoring cooperation, incorporating language to strengthen their role in the programming, revision and control of the AAP. The same trend is observed in the EU, as in addition to the European Parliament`s long-standing work on the CPA, some EU national parliaments are increasingly interested in the CPA and the use of the EDF. If the Lisbon Treaty had been ratified, its provisions would have given them a formal basis for further engagement. In summary, for the next revision of the CPA in 2010, the main current issues do not seem to suggest the need to improve the text, whereas in other parts of the Political Dimensions chapter (part I, Title II), the text changes might be more useful. Thus, in Article 9, the definition of good governance could be revisited in the light of experience. Similarly, Article 11 could examine how the article could place greater emphasis on conflict prevention and peace-building, given that an activity based on this article focused much more on crisis management and changes to the 2005 review placed a strong emphasis on security issues. Similarly, a revision of Article 13 could be considered to better reflect the current consensus and current migration practice within the framework of ACP-EU cooperation and perhaps to redesign it as `migration and development`, in order to underline the importance of this perspective. promote a more sustainable and reciprocal dialogue between the EU and ACP countries, in line with Article 8 of the revised Cotonou Agreement. The spirit of the partnership should be better respected in order to prevent a part of the partnership from setting its priorities, for example in terms of programming, or unilaterally creating new “thematic packages” (. B for example, governance, water, energy facilities). In the case of the Governance Initiative, it would appear that support mechanisms for “home” governance such as the African Peer Review Mechanism (APRM) should be better taken into account.

Comment are closed.