18 EU relations with the Pacific Islands
| (27566)
10873/06
COM(06) 248
| Commission Communication: EU relations with the Pacific Islands — A strategy for a strengthened partnership
|
| Legal base | — |
| Department | Foreign and Commonwealth Office
|
| Basis of consideration | Minister's letter of 13 July 2006
|
| Previous Committee Report | HC 34-xxxiii (2005-06), para 16 (28 June 2006)
|
| To be discussed in Council | To be determined
|
| Committee's assessment | Politically important
|
| Committee's decision | Cleared (decision reported on 28 June 2006)
|
Background
18.1 In this Communication, the Commission:
- describes the history of the relationship between the EU and
the Pacific Islands (the Lomé and Cotonou Agreements; €1.5
billion development assistance over 30 years plus other reconstruction
aid in e.g., Timor Leste; previous and present colonial involvement);
- sets out the key challenges facing the region
(environmental degradation, climate change, conflict, poor governance);
- explains the reasons for EU engagement in the
region (all of the above plus political considerations revolving
around relations with China, Japan, the USA, Australia and New
Zealand);
- highlights the Pacific Plan adopted by the Leaders
of the Pacific Islands Forum (14 Pacific Islands + Australia and
New Zealand); and
- suggests a strategy for engagement complementary
to the Pacific Plan.
18.2 The Commission recalls that the Cotonou Agreement
is based on five pillars:
i) reinforcement of the political dimension;
ii) involvement of civil society, the private
sector and other non-State players;
iii) poverty reduction;
iv) an innovative economic and trade co-operation
framework; and
v) rationalisation of financial instruments and
a system of rolling programming.
18.3 The strategy proposed consists of three components:
i) a strengthened relationship between
the EU and the Pacific ACP countries and region in order to pursue
a broad political dialogue on matters of common interest ranging
from political and security to economic, trade, social, environmental
and governance issues, thus enhancing the visibility and political
profile of the EU-Pacific partnership on both sides;
ii) more focused development action: greater
emphasis on regional co-operation to build up critical mass, enhance
regional governance and facilitate cross-fertilisation, and with
the main focus on matching the key priorities of the region, notably
as defined in the Pacific Plan; and
iii) more efficient aid delivery: including
greater use of budget support and closer coordination with other
partners, in particular Australia and New Zealand.
18.4 When we considered it on 28 June, we concluded
that the Communication and Annex was a model survey of the region's
nature, the challenges it faces and the endeavours thus far to
confront them; and that the case for the proposed EU Strategy
was well-made and convincing.
18.5 We also noted that the Communication's Conclusions
observed that "since only a few Member States and the Commission
have representations in the Pacific ACP countries, the Pacific
region would appear particularly well-suited for joint EU presence
and action in the field, for instance through seconding officials
from Member States' services to the Commission's regional Delegations
in the Pacific, which could also provide facilities on an ad-hoc
basis ('Europe House')". It was not clear from what the Minister
said whether or not he agreed with this notion, within which we
thought that some might hear echoes of the External Action Service
proposed in the Constitutional Treaty. Although we cleared the
Communication, we asked for his views on this point.[55]
The Minister's letter
18.6 In his 13 July letter, the Minister for Europe
(Mr Geoffrey Hoon) replies as follows:
"Firstly, it might be helpful to reiterate
that the Government supported the idea of a European External
Action Service, only as part of the Constitutional Treaty settlement,
and as a body to support the proposed European Foreign Minister.
Without the provisions of the CT we therefore see no useful role
for an EEAS. In addition, and more generally, we would be opposed
to any proposals for Commission Delegations to take on responsibility
for Pillar II policies.
"However, we would not be opposed to seconding
UK officials to Commission Delegations per se. Provided that those
officials were tasked with the implementation of Pillar I policies,
this would be similar to our current practice of sending officials
to the Commission's headquarters in Brussels — a system
that has proved successful in promoting a better mutual understanding
of policies and working practices."
Conclusion
18.7 We are grateful to the Minister for this
elucidation.
18.8 We also consider this part of our Report
relevant to the debate that we have recommended on the Commission
Communication "A Citizen's Agenda — Delivering Results
for Europe".[56]
55 See headnote. Back
56
(27496) 9390/06; see HC 34-xxxi (2005-06), para 1 (14 June 2006). Back
| 
