Final report of the study on Common Foreign and Security Policy/ Development: Use of CPA article 96

ECDPM contributed to this evaluation for The Netherlands Ministry of Foreign Affairs, July 2007

The Treaty on European Union, signed in Maastricht in 1992, identifies three basic concepts as essential elements of EU development policy: coordination, complementarity and coherence. In 2005, the Heads of European Union Member States’ and the European Commission’s evaluation services launched a series of six joint evaluation studies focusing on these concepts, which are also known as the “3Cs”. This series of evaluations aims at assessing the role played by the Maastricht Treaty precepts of coordination, complementarity and coherence in the European Commission’s and the EU Member States’ development cooperation policies. Focusing on a wide variety of topics and issues, the evaluations determine to what extent the 3Cs have been applied in practice and with what impact.

This report presents the main findings, conclusions and recommendations of one of these evaluations, which analysed how coherence and coordination are being followed in the context of the consultation procedure under Article 96 of the Cotonou Partnership Agreement. This agreement, which is widely held to be the most comprehensive North-South partnership within the context of development cooperation, provides a solid basis for political dialogue between the EU and the African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) countries regarding the respect for human rights, democratic principles, rule of law and good governance. If one of the partners considers that these ‘essential elements’ are being abused, it may decide to invoke Article 96 (or 97 in the case of corruption), after first having sought to resolve the issue through the political dialogue called for in Article 8 of the Agreement. The following consultation procedure under Article 96 can either result in an acceptable resolution or in the taking of “appropriate measures”, but the procedure is perhaps most known as potentially leading to the suspension of development cooperation activities, or to the imposition of sanctions. However, as the evaluation notes, the Article is more and more seen as a “window of opportunity” and both EU and ACP actors increasingly learn to use the instrument to their advantage.