Department of International Relations and Cooperation on accession to Revised Cotonou Partnership Agreement
International Relations
03 November 2009
Chairperson: Mr T Nxesi (ANC)
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,
Members asked if
Meeting report
Department of International Relations & Cooperation on Revised
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.
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,
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
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
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
Mr Van Vollenhoven answered that accession was when a country approached from the outside of the process, which, in
The Chairperson asked what would happen to the EPAs if
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
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
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
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.