18 Equatorial Guinea and the Cotonou
Agreement
| (32159)
15954/10
COM(10) 619
| Draft Council Decision on the position to be adopted by the European Union within the ACP-EC Council of Ministers concerning the status of Equatorial Guinea in relation to the revised ACP-EC Partnership Agreement
|
| Legal base | Article 217 and 218(9) TFEU; unanimity
|
| Document originated | 5 November 2010
|
| Deposited in Parliament | 10 November 2010
|
| Department | Foreign and Commonwealth Office
|
| Basis of consideration | EM of 3 June 2009
|
| Previous Committee Report | None; but see (31447) —: HC 428-i (2010-11), chapter 1 (8 September 2010)
|
| To be discussed in Council | January 2011
|
| Committee's assessment | Politically important
|
| Committee's decision | Cleared; but relevant to the proposed debate on the latest revision of the Cotonou Agreement (decision reported on 8 September 2010)
|
Background
18.1 Equatorial Guinea is the fourth largest Sub-Saharan African
oil producer but the vast majority of its people remain impoverished.
The 2009 United Nations Human Development Report showed that,
of all the countries listed, Equatorial Guinea had the largest
gap between its per capita GDP ranking and its Human Development
Index ranking, in which it stood in 118th place out
of 182 countries.
18.2 In his Explanatory Memorandum of 24 November
2010, the Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington) says that Equatorial
Guinea remains a country of concern for human rights abuses for
not only the UK but also the UN and NGOs such as Human Rights
Watch and Amnesty International. He notes that in December 2009
the Equatorial Guinea government accepted a visit from the UN
Rapporteur and agreed to undertake a Universal Periodic Review
for the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights; and
that, in the report, the government acknowledged that despite
some progress it is aware that much still remains to be done and
expressed its firm political will to continue developing the process
of improving human rights, with the assistance of international
co-operation. He then says:
"However, in August this year, the government
executed 5 citizens who were allegedly kidnapped from Burkino
Faso. There are doubts about the trial. The 5 were executed within
hours of the sentence being handed down. There are also serious
allegations of torture and arbitrary arrest.
18.3 On the Economy, the Minister goes on to say
that oil and gas continue to dominate and gas resources will continue
well after oil depletion (which peaked in 2008 at 475,000 barrels
per day equivalent and is now about 400,000 bpd), which is likely
to decline but where exploration opportunities will remain.
18.4 In general, the Minister says:
"there are constraints over lack of human
capacity, weakness of institutions and the way decisions are taken
— i.e. only by the President. Where there are problems for
foreign companies, this is often traced back to members of the
President's family who head those institutions. But there is evidence
of development taking place, e.g. ports, roads, hospitals, and
there are capacity building initiatives with a range of donors."
The draft Council Decision
18.5 The document calls for a decision by Member
States in response to Equatorial Guinea's application for accession
to the Cotonou Agreement and its request for observer status until
such time as its accession documentation has been received and
approved by the Council.
18.6 The Cotonou Agreement is the main instrument
for development co-operation between the African, Caribbean and
Pacific Group of States and the EU and its Member States, through
the European Development Fund (EDF). It is revised every five
years to keep pace with changing global priorities and ACP-EU
relations.
18.7 The Minister explains that Equatorial Guinea
was a signatory to the Agreement at its inception in 2000. However,
due to concerns that acceding to the 2005 revised Agreement would
imply commitment to join the International Criminal Court, Equatorial
Guinea was reluctant to ratify fully the revised Agreement that
came into force in 2005 — the Equatorial Guinea Parliament
stating that there were legal reasons preventing the government
from ratifying without a reservation on this article. The EU was
unwilling to accept a ratification with reservations, and so Equatorial
Guinea missed the deadline of 30 June 2009 for ratifying the 2005
revised Cotonou Agreement.
18.8 Now, however, the Minister says, it seems that
this issue may now be resolved as the Equatorial Guinea Foreign
Minister has again, in May this year, submitted an application
for accession to the revised Agreement.
The Government's view
18.9 The Minister notes that there is no direct UK
representation in the country: the British High Commission in
Yaoundé, Cameroon, has responsibility for diplomatic relations,
with the consequence that direct dialogue with the Equatorial
Guinean government is infrequent. Thus, the Minister says, he
has not yet had sight of the documentation to review their case
for accession, which they have until 30 April 2011 to submit.
However, he feels that binding Equatorial Guinea into a relationship
with EU could help advance governance objectives. He says that
he has a number of concerns about Equatorial Guinea: poor human
rights; no planning for political succession; poor distribution
of mineral wealth: but:
"the Government appear to have made some
efforts to move forward in areas of human rights and governance,
although its record remains questionable. Constructive engagement
with Equatorial Guinea might therefore be appropriate to ensure
that these efforts are increased and, indeed, expanded. We would
of course expect that if Equatorial Guinea were successful then
there should be careful monitoring of any EDF funding it receives,
to ensure funds are used for the benefit of its citizens. For
example, strict monitoring of funds given directly to the government
for development, with full accountability of disbursement and
activities. On balance, we would agree to let Equatorial Guinea
submit its application for accession and be granted observer status."
18.10 With regard to the Financial Implications,
the Minister says:
"Development funding to all ACP countries
is provided through the European Development Fund. The 10th EDF
(2008-13) is a total of €22.82 billion with a UK contribution
of 14.82%. Countries that are signatories to the Cotonou agreement
are able to make use of these funds. The European Commission is
currently looking at how Equatorial Guinea will enter the current
programming cycle should it become party to the agreement, from
these existing funds. The Commission uses a complex formula of
needs and performance measures to determine indicative amounts
for each ACP state at the start of the EDF cycle. Should Equatorial
Guinea have signed the first revision of the Cotonou accord, the
Commission had estimated that the indicative budget available
for development programming would have been 17.2 million Euros
over six years under the 10th EDF. Equatorial Guinea has not received
any funding from the Community budget since 2004. Negotiations
on the size of the next EDF and the UK contribution will take
place alongside the current EU Budget and will not be affected
by the accession of Equatorial Guinea."
18.11 The Minister expects the Decision to be agreed
at Council in January 2011, and that Equatorial Guinea will deposit
their accession documents in March/April 2011.
Conclusion
18.12 From what the Minister says, Equatorial
Guinea is not fundamentally different from some present ACP members,
and it may well be that it would be better for the EU to have
at least notionally greater influence over its development via
its accession to the Cotonou Agreement than to leave matters as
they are. But that is to get ahead of the present situation: it
is now for the Equatorial Government to submit its application
for accession, presumably without any further reservations. In
the meantime, we agree that there is nothing to be lost by granting
the request for observer status, and we clear the document.
18.13 However, it raises the sort of issues that
are central to the political component of the Cotonou Agreement,
the latest revision of which we recommended should be debated
in the European Committee.[85]
We accordingly consider that this Council Decision is relevant
to that debate.
85 See headnote: (31447) -: HC 428-i (2010-11), chapter
1 (8 September 2010). Back
|
