Ratification of the Second Revision of the EU-ACP Cotonou Partnership Agreement

Meeting report

The Chairperson noted the apologies of Ms C Dudley (ACDP) and Mr B Holomisa (UDM).  The Committee would draft a statement expressing condolences on the recent deaths of the Palestinian Ambassador and the US Ambassador.  A minute’s silence was observed for the eight South Africans who died in a suicide bomb attack in Kabul.

Ratification of the Second Revision of the ACP-EU Cotonou Partnership Agreement (CPA): Briefing by the Department of International Relations and Cooperation (DIRCO)
The Chairperson said that the CPA had to be ratified by the National Assembly and the National Council of Provinces before the end of October 2012.  This left little time for Members to engage thoroughly on the matter.  The Cabinet had approved the agreement in 2010.  He asked the Department to explain why the matter had not been referred to the Committee earlier.  He asked if the Department was operating on the basis that the CPA would be ratified by Parliament.  The Committee had requested a briefing by a senior official of DIRCO on the agreement.  He expressed extreme dissatisfaction over the delay and over the manner in which the Department interacted with Parliament.  He noted the potential for conflict between the Committee and DIRCO.

Mr Asogan Moodley, Acting Director-General, DIRCO introduced Mr Jan van Vollenhoven, Chief Director: European Organisations, DIRCO.  Mr Van Vollenhoven was the content expert on the CPA.  He tabled the apologies of the Director-General, who was unable to attend the meeting.  He assured the Committee that the Department had no intention to create conflict with the Committee and apologised for any misunderstanding.

Mr Moodley advised that the ratification of the CPA was included in the Department’s strategic plans for 2011/12.  He agreed that the ratification of the agreement should have been finalised the previous year.  The Department understood that the Committee’s recommendation to Parliament to ratify the CPA might not be unreserved.

Mr Van Vollenhoven explained that the broad scope of the agreement required consultation with several Government departments.  The process of ratification of the CPA by Parliament had commenced early in 2011.  There had been disagreement within the Department on whether or not Parliamentary approval of a revision of an agreement that was previously ratified was necessary.  However, the CPA was a multilateral agreement and any change had to be approved by Parliament.

Mr Moodley added that the agreement was between the European Union (EU) and the African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) countries.  Access to EU development funding was dependent on ratification of the CPA by 75% of the countries concerned.  The CPA was established in 2000 and required review at five-yearly intervals.  The first review was conducted in 2005.  The second review was conducted in 2010.  The Minister of International Relations and Cooperation had signed the second review on 27 September 2010.

Mr Van Vollenhoven advised that the amendments made to the CPA were not contentious.  South Africa had noted its concern regarding Article 11 (b) of the agreement relating to weapons of mass destruction and non-proliferation.  South Africa considered that the issues of non-proliferation and disarmament were not sufficiently linked.  Although the CPA did not make provision for a country to enter a reservation, the international Law of Treaties allowed South Africa to enter a reservation when the CPA was ratified.

The CPA included provision for rulings by the International Criminal Court (ICC).  Sudan had objected to the inclusion of the Rome Statute in the agreement. 

As a qualified member of the CPA, South Africa was not party to the trade chapters of the agreement.  South Africa and the EU had entered into a Trade, Development and Cooperation Agreement (TDCA).  South African companies were allowed to tender for EU and ACP contracts under the CPA.  The impact of the global economic crisis had to be considered.  The ACP countries were concerned that the flow of development assistance from the EU would be adversely affected by the economic slow-down.

The achievement of the millennium development goals was another area of concern.  The CPA made provision for consultation with the African Union (AU), which was recognised as an institution in the agreement.  A summit of the heads of state of the EU and ACP countries was agreed to.  The first summit was scheduled for October 2012.  The provisions concerning the role of national Parliaments were enhanced.  The Lisbon Treaty would come into effect, which allowed for the EU Parliament to play a greater role.

Provision was made for the revision of Economic Partnership Agreements (EPA) with the ACP countries.  Several SADC and East African countries were negotiating agreements with the EU.  There was a link between poverty and a lack of peace and security and the provisions aimed at reducing poverty would help to improve peace and security on the African continent.  The CPA emphasised capacity building, sustainable development and developing agricultural activity.  The mandate of the European Investment Bank was amended to allow the extension of inter-state loans (i.e. where a project crossed borders).

The human resource section of the revised agreement included a clause prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual preference.  The clause was worded in accordance with the United Nations (UN) declaration.  However, several African countries had objected to the clause as being contrary to cultural beliefs in those countries.  Negotiation with the EU on migration issues continued.

Discussion
Ms L Jacobus (ANC) asked if Members of the Committee could be provided with a copy of the CPA.

The Chairperson advised that a copy of the agreement had been provided to the Committee.

Ms C September (ANC) observed that several agreements needed to be ratified by Parliament.  There was not enough time for the Committee to confer with the other Parliamentary Committees on the CPA.  She asked if the revised agreement conformed to the national interest.  She wanted to know what the consequences of the delay in the ratification of the CPA by South Africa were.  She asked what the status of the relationship between South Africa and the SADC countries was on the issue of the EPA’s.

Mr I Davidson (DA) was aware that the trade relationship between South Africa and the EU was governed by the TDCA.  He asked what other benefits were derived from membership of the CPA.  He asked why the CPA trade agreements were not included in the TDCA.  He asked why 75% of member countries had to ratify the CPA before the agreement took effect and if all the member countries would be bound by the agreement.  For example, if enough countries ratified the CPA, Sudan’s objection to the inclusion of the Rome Statute would be moot.  The South African Constitution made provision for non-discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.  He asked to what extent South Africa had taken a stand on the issue.  He asked for clarity on South Africa being allowed to enter a reservation in terms of international law even though the CPA did not make provision for the entering of reservations.

The Chairperson asked for more information on South Africa’s position on the link between disarmament and non-proliferation of weapons.

Mr S Ngonyama (COPE) asked for confirmation that the CPA did not deviate from South African policies.  He asked if South Africa derived any benefits from the EU development funding provisions.

Ms W Newhoudt-Druchen (ANC) noted that the briefing document provided by DIRCO was incomplete.  She asked when Members would receive the complete version.  She asked how many countries had to ratify the CPA before the agreement took effect.  She noted that the revised CPA had been approved by the Cabinet and asked what processes had to be followed for the agreement to be ratified by Parliament.  She asked what the impact was if a country did not agree to a clause.

Mr E Sulliman (ANC) asked which departments and Parliamentary oversight committees were affected by the CPA.

The Chairperson asked for clarity on South Africa’s national interest in terms of the CPA.  He asked for more information on the TDCA.  The Committee had raised the issue of disarmament when the first review of the CPA was considered.  The Committee had concluded that there was no point in dealing with disarmament when non-proliferation measures were excluded.  He asked if South Africa had entered a reservation on this issue when ratifying the first revision and what progress had been made in negotiating an appropriate amendment to the agreement.

Mr Moodley explained that 79 ACP countries were signatories to the CPA.  63 countries had to ratify the revised CPA before EU funding would be made available.  South Africa’s domestic priorities were taken into consideration before the Minister signed the agreement.  South Africa was a qualified signatory and could not engage on the trade provisions.  However, South African countries were allowed to tender for CPA projects.

Mr Van Vollenhoven explained that the EU had insisted that non-proliferation of weapons was an essential element of the agreement.  The entire agreement was moot if a country transgressed the non-proliferation provision.  The issue was that the EU was enforcing non-proliferation of weapons on African countries but failed to do so where its own member states were concerned.  South Africa insisted that the disarmament and non-proliferation provisions were linked.  The South African position had been accepted in the TDCA.  He conceded that other countries had pressurised South Africa to ratify the CPA so that the EU development funding would be released.

Mr Davidson pointed out that the TDCA was an agreement between South Africa and the EU.  South Africa had already complied with the disarmament agreements and the acceptance of the position in the TDCA was a moot point.

Mr Van Vollenhoven agreed that there was no material benefit to the country but it was a matter of principle.  South Africa had managed to make its point in terms of international law.  The EU should not be allowed to impose provisions on other countries that did not apply to its member states.  The international Law of Treaties allowed South Africa to enter a reservation even though the CPA made no provision for such action.

Ms September asked if the other African countries had been adversely affected by the South African stance on disarmament and non-proliferation.

Mr Van Vollenhoven replied that no African country was considered to be a nuclear power although there were issues concerning the disposal of nuclear waste in Africa.  The important point was that South Africa maintained a consistent approach to the issue.

Mr B Skosana (IFP) asked what had motivated the revision of the CPA.

Mr Moodley explained that the treaty included provision for reviews to be undertaken at five-yearly intervals.  The regular review process allowed for changes in the environment to be accommodated in the agreement.

Mr Van Vollenhoven added that the EU wanted the CPA to become more of a political platform.  The CPA was originally a trade agreement between the EU countries and their former African colonies.  Over time, the emphasis had shifted as the EU member countries shifted their approach to the development of the former colonies.  Member countries had entered into other trade agreements.  South Africa had its own line of EU development assistance and its own EU trade agreements.  Other member countries received financial assistance via the EU development fund.  The EU remained the major trading partner for most African countries.  The CPA provided little material benefit to South Africa but it was important for South Africa to retain its membership and continue to play a role in the non-trade aspects of the agreement.  The CPA provided preferential benefits to certain countries but excluded other countries.  Brazil and Argentina did not benefit from preferential agreements afforded to other countries and had complained over unfair treatment.  The World Trade Organisation (WTO) found the preferential benefits in the CPA to be problematic.  The WTO waiver had expired in 2007 and the EU and APC countries had to re-negotiate the agreements in order to conform to the WTO standards.

Mr Ngonyama asked if South African companies were aware that they could tender for CPA projects.

Mr Van Vollenhoven understood that the Department of Trade and Industry had informed the business sector of the provision.  If enough countries ratified the CPA, the agreement would come into effect and would be binding on all member countries.  A country was allowed to enter a reservation in accordance with international law and the particular provision would not be binding.  For example, Sudan could enter a reservation about the inclusion of the Rome Statute.

Mr Davidson observed that all agreements between EU members and other countries had to be ratified by the EU Parliament.  He understood that the EU was adamant that a member country agreed to the clause on non-discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation before EU funding was made available.

Mr Van Vollenhoven explained that DIRCO consulted with all Government entities affected by international treaties and agreements.  A list of the Departments affected by the CPA was included in the briefing document.  It was the Committee’s prerogative to consult with other Parliamentary Committees.  Bilateral agreements were noted by Parliament but the Constitution required all multi-lateral agreements (including revised agreements) to be ratified by Parliament.

Mr Moodley confirmed that the complete briefing document would be forwarded to the Committee.  DIRCO would review which agreements were yet to be ratified and would verify the accuracy of the Committee’s list of outstanding agreements.

Mr Ngonyama asked if the Committee was in a position to recommend to the National Assembly that the revised CPA was ratified.

The Chairperson replied that the Committee would decide if it was necessary to engage with other Committees.  The Committee awaited formal referral of the matter from the Speaker.  Members of the Committee could propose that the recommendation was subject to a reservation.  A report on the Committee’s recommendation would be deliberated and adopted.  The Committee report would be forwarded to the NCOP.  The Select Committee would conduct separate deliberations and issue its own report.  The Committee would engage with DIRCO on the outstanding treaties.  The DIRCO delegation was excused from the remainder of the proceedings.

Ms Newhoudt-Druchen recalled that Members had attended a workshop on all the treaties.  She suggested that the Committee’s Researcher provided Members with a summary of the content of all the outstanding treaties.

Other Committee Business
The Committee discussed and adopted the Committee Schedule for the fourth quarter of 2012, with amendments.

The Committee adopted the minutes of the meeting held on 8 September 2012, without amendments.

The Chairperson advised that the Committee’s study tour to Israel and Palestine had been approved by the Speaker.  However, the dates of the tour would have to be changed to accommodate the availability of the persons the Committee planned to engage with.

The meeting was adjourned.