Department of International Relations and Cooperation on accession to Revised Cotonou Partnership Agreement

This premium content has been made freely available

International Relations

03 November 2009
Chairperson: Mr T Nxesi (ANC)
Share this page:

Meeting Summary

As South Africa had not met the deadline for ratifying the 2005 Revised Cotonou Partnership Agreement, it had to content itself with the next best option which was accession, so that it at least had observer status. The Deputy Minister explained that a delay would be unfortunate as this would mean South African companies could not tender. He encouraged the Committee to approve this within the short timeframe it now had to work.

The Cotonou Partnership Agreement had been signed in order to promote and expedite the economic, social and cultural development of the African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) group of states as well as to promote a stable democratic political environment and was reviewed every five years. During the review, South Africa had raised objections to the EU’s proposed text on certain issues, especially regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction. As South Africa had not met the set deadline for ratification, accession was the only means by which it could maintain observer status. Parliament had to provide the go-ahead for this accession. The Department was therefore requesting the Committee’s approval.

Members asked if South Africa could accede with reservation, if the Department had consulted with all relevant departments and whether Economic Partnership Agreements would be affected by this. The Committee was satisfied with the Revised Cotonou Partnership Agreement and would ensure the accession process was successful. It did, however, request that, in future, the Department brought these issues to the Committee’s attention sooner.

Meeting report

Department of International Relations & Cooperation on Revised Cotonou Partnership Agreement
The Deputy Minister, Mr Mr Ebrahim Ebrahim, was present to ensure the speedy accession to the Revised Cotonou Partnership Agreement by Parliament. In his presentation, Mr J Van Vollenhoven (Chief Director: European Organisations – DICO) said that the Cotonou Partnership Agreement was provisionally applied as of 1 March 2000 and fully entered into force on 1 April 2003. Article 95(3) allowed for parties to the Agreement to enter into negotiations to discuss any amendments to the Agreement ten months prior to the expiry of each five-year period.

South Africa had conditionally signed the amended Agreement on 25 June 2005. The Chief State Law Advisor had found the revised Agreement to be in line with South African domestic law as well as its international law obligations. As a member of the African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) group of states, South Africa had first signed the Agreement in June 2000. The Cotonou Partnership Agreement served as the framework for cooperation between the European Union (EU) and ACP countries. As a qualified member of the ACP, South Africa was excluded from the Trade Chapter as well as the Development Assistance provisions as these were governed by the Trade, Development and Cooperation Agreement (TDCA) which governed the bi-lateral relationship between South Africa and the EU.

The aim of the Cotonou Partnership Agreement was to promote and expedite the economic, social and cultural development of ACP States and promote a stable democratic political environment. It was reviewed every five years as a means of assessing whether it had achieved its objectives as well as to establish whether new areas of cooperation needed to be introduced.  The next review was scheduled to conclude in March 2010. As the duration of negotiations for a review was 12 months, parties had two months within which to notify each other and 10 months to negotiate. The revision focused on three main areas: Politics, Trade and Development.

The revised 2005 agreement aimed at entrusting ACP states with greater responsibilities. It also included provisions for enhanced political dialogue as well as the fight against terrorism, cooperation in countering proliferation of arms and weapons of mass destruction (WMDs), and the International Criminal Court. The most notable changes were that non-reciprocal preferences would gradually be removed for separate regional arrangements in the form of Economic Partnership Agreements (EPAs). In the SADC EPA region, the EPA negotiations were ongoing and trade preferences were no longer implemented by the EU under the Cotonou Partnership Agreement.

During the revision negotiations, South Africa had raised objections to the EU’s proposed text on certain issues - especially regarding WMDs – as its disarmament experts were of the opinion that it did not fully link non-proliferation, disarmament and WMDs as well as a new oversight body. South Africa therefore conditionally signed the first revised agreement in 2005 with the possibility of entering a reservation at the time of ratification. Ratification of the revised Cotonou Partnership Agreement (CPA) was suspended pending the resolution of South Africa’s concerns in the review of the TDCA so as to ensure alignment of policy positions. South Africa and the EU then negotiated compromise texts for the revised TDCA which addressed the International Criminal Court and WMD issues.

The first revised CPA entered into force on 1 July 2008 though the deadline for ratification (30 June 2009) was not met due to technical issues. Section 231(2) of the South African Constitution required the revised CPA to be ratified by Parliament. As Parliament could not ratify the Agreement by the set deadline, the ACP had been notified that South Africa would be acceding to the Agreement in order to retain current preferences. Accession was to be completed in November 2009. The EU had made a commitment that South Africa would be allowed to retain observer status in all joint structures until it acceded to the Agreement. To this end, letters formally stating South Africa’s intention to accede had been forwarded by the Minister to both the EU Council and the ACP Council of Ministers. As an observer, South Africa would be allowed to continue lobbying and engaging with the ACP states and the EU on matters of importance to South Africa as well as the region. The Department was requesting Parliament to accede to the revised CPA and report on this to the National Assembly and was aware that, considering the looming deadline, Parliament had only been left with two weeks in which to consider ratification of the Agreement. 

Discussion
Mr T Magama (ANC) asked what the chances were that in CPA negotiations, another agreement on the issue of WMDs would be reached.

Mr Van Vollenhoven answered that the European Development Fund was linked to the issue of WMD, which added pressure to have it dealt with speedily as there was aid money tied into this issue. It might have been that other ACP countries were not as concerned with this issue as South Africa was.

Mr G Koornhof (ANC) asked what the difference was between accession and ratification. Would the Department have to approach the Standing Committee as well. Could South Africa accede with reservation. Has the Department consulted with all other relevant departments?

Mr Van Vollenhoven answered that accession was when a country approached from the outside of the process, which, in South Africa’s case, had been due to it missing the ratification deadline. The only element that would allow South Africa in on the process (as an observer) was through accession. It was possible to add a declaration. All relevant departments had been consulted. 

The Chairperson asked what would happen to the EPAs if South Africa signed.

Mr Van Vollenhoven answered that trade chapters were taken out of CPA review. These chapters stood separately.

Mr K Mubu (DA) asked whether, provided Parliament gave it the go-ahead, this would lead to accession or ratification.

Mr Van Vollenhoven answered that the deadline for ratification had lapsed and South Africa could only become a member through accession. If South Africa applied, it would allow the Council the prerogative to decide on whether SA would be allocated observer status.

The Chairperson said that a major concern was whether signing off on this entailed signing off EPAs. How did the Committee suggest the process be defined, especially in light of the fact that Parliament was to rise by 20 November.

Ms B Gxowa (ANC) said that the letter for accession should be sent off soonest so as to secure South Africa’s position. The parliamentary processes could be dealt with afterward.

The Chairperson said that the Committee was satisfied with the revised agreement. The issue was to move onto the next stage. The issue had to be treated as a matter of urgency.

Mr Magama asked whether the Department of Trade and industry was relevant in this process.

Mr Van Vollenhoven answered that although trade-related issues were negotiated under the EPA it was ultimately parliamentary processes which would determine this.

Mr S Mokgalapa (DA) asked whether there was need for all the suggested parliamentary processes.

Mr Ebrahim Ebrahim (Deputy Minister – DICO) responded by saying that once South Africa applied it could become an observer. A delay would be unfortunate as this would mean South African companies could not tender. The Committee should approve this and see whether it could be successful within the short timeframe in which the Department now had to work.

The meeting was adjourned.




Audio

No related

Present

  • We don't have attendance info for this committee meeting

Download as PDF

You can download this page as a PDF using your browser's print functionality. Click on the "Print" button below and select the "PDF" option under destinations/printers.

See detailed instructions for your browser here.

Share this page: