The Lisbon Treaty: Potential implications for ACP-EU relations

1. The Lisbon Treaty: Potential implications for ACP-EU relations Presentation to ACP Ambassadors Brussels, 27 May 2010 James Mackie & Jeske van Seters

2. About ECDPM • Independent foundation created in 1986 • Mandate: to improve relations and cooperation between the European Union and the countries in Africa, the Caribbean and the Pacific (ACP) • Board of Governors: ACP and EU, ACP majority • Policy framework: the Cotonou Partnership Agreement; Joint EU-Africa Strategy; and other EU-A/C/P agreements • Work on Lisbon: papers, facilitated informal EU reflections, briefings to ACP (ambassadors, AUC, SA)

3. Structure of the Presentation • The Lisbon Treaty & External Action • Focus on the EEAS • Impact of the Lisbon Treaty on ACP • Questions for discussion

4. The Lisbon Treaty and External Action

5. About the Lisbon Treaty • Entered into force on 1 December 2009 • Latest phase of gradual transformation of inward-looking community to one with ambition to be a global player • EU to speak more with one voice • Greater emphasis on coherence of EU external action

6. Provisions for development cooperation • Main focus is poverty “Union development cooperation policy shall have as its primary objective the reduction and, in the long term, the eradication of poverty.” • Commitment to Policy Coherence for Development • Remains shared parallel competence between EU & MS  need for complementarity and coordination • EU & MS to complement and reinforce each other  role for new EU Delegations

7. Institutional Novelties • President of the European Council • High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy (EUHR) and the European External Action Service (EEAS) • Reshuffling of the European Commission Directorates (i.e. integration of majority of DG RELEX and parts of DG Dev within the EEAS)

8. Focus on the European External Action Service

9. Creation of a European External Action Service (EEAS) • Autonomous body • Staff (7000 officials) from Commission, MS & Council Secretariat • Collaborates with diplomatic services MS • Role: bring together and create greater coherence between the different strands of EU external policy (environment, trade, security, migration and development) • HR/EEAS chair FAC & geographical working groups • Negotiations for establishment EEAS progressed but ongoing

10. State of Play • EUHR, Commission and Member States have agreed on a proposal for the EEAS • Ongoing struggle with the European Parliament on organisation of EEAS - power EP lies in approval budget and staff regulation • EUHR wants agreement before European Council on 17 June

11. Key points proposal EUHR on programming • EEAS contributes to programming and management cycle of all geographic financial instruments in external action • EUHR and EEAS work with Commission services during the whole programming cycle • EUHR/EEAS prepares proposals for decision through Commission procedures & submits them to Commission for decision

12. EEAS responsible for preparation Commission decisions on - geographical financial allocations - CSPS/RSP/NIPs/RIPs • EUHR/EEAS and Commissionprepare EDF & DCI documents jointly, under direct supervision and guidance of Development Commissioner, with EUHR joint submission to Commission • Commission services prepare Thematic Programmes (possible exceptions) under guidance of Development Commissioner and present them to the College in agreement with EUHR and other relevant Commissioners

13. New Role for the EU Delegations • EUnow has legal personality, so delegations represent the Union in the full range of Union competencies • Take over role of EU rotating presidency • Increased role for EU Ambassador in political dialogue with partner countries • Increased potential for EU Delegation to coordinate EU member states in-country (e.g. manage joint budget support) • Still need for more debate on how new role of delegations will work

14. External Representation of the Union • Role of rotating presidency phased out in external relations • Who will take the lead in different international fora is still under discussion - partly depends on status EU in UN bodies (member/observer) • Transitional phase arrangements, e.g. - until 30 June, Spain still acting as EU Presidency in a lot of partner countries- from 1 July, Belgium expects to reduce its role - until 30 June EU represented at UN in NY jointly by Spain and the EU Head of Delegation on behalf of EUHR

15. 3. Impact of the Lisbon Treaty on the ACP

16. Opportunities • Potentially more EU unity - better EU coordination and complementarity • Enhanced opportunities for Policy Coherence for Development • Engage with new interlocutors (EUHR, EEAS, EP) • Political dialogue broadened in weight and in scope

17. Challenges • EEAS likely organised around continental blocks - will ACP be marginalised as a group? • Impact of reshuffles within the EU on programming - will development principles be safeguarded in EEAS? • Removal of reference to ACP & EDF from Treaty - will this open up the debate on budgetisation EDF?

18. Impact of Lisbon on EPA negotiations Overall: Lisbon not expected to have major impact on EPAs • QMV instead of unanimity rule in Council when adopting negotiating directives & final agreement • Increased role of the European Parliament - to be informed regularly on EPA negotiations - right to consent to conclusion of agreements on trade in goods only - key player in revision GSP (EPA fall back option) • Expansion EU exclusive competence to services, protection of intellectual property rights & FDI • Avenues for ACP to raise concerns to HR/EEAS tasked with ensuring coherence

19. Questions for discussion(for use in Session 2)

20. How could the post-Lisbon set-up with a bigger emphasis on policy coherence and a more coordinated and consistent EU approach be beneficial to the ACP? • What are the implications of losing the ACP privileged position in the EU’s institutional set-up? • How will the ACP, as a group and as countries individually, engage with key EU actors in the new EU set-up post-Lisbon (e.g. the HR, the EEAS and the EP) in view of ACP-EU cooperation on regional, continental and global issues?

21. How best can the ACP Secretariat be organized to deal with the post-Lisbon set up? • How can the ACP prepare itself for the debate on budgetisation of the EDF? • What are the implications for the ACP of a possible reintegration of DG Dev and AIDCO?

22. Thank you for your attention! James Mackie jm@ecdpm.org Jeske van Seters jvs@ecdpm.org www.ecdpm.org