biblioteca.hegoa.ehu.eusbiblioteca.hegoa.ehu.eus/downloads/16817//system/pdf/2178... · who...

WIDE GLOBALISING GENDER EQUALIT Y AND SOCIAL JUSTICE

Gender mapping the European Union’s policy

and decision-making in the areas of development,

external relations and trade

Maria Karadenizli

Who decides? Gender mapping the European Union’s policy and decision-making in the areas of development, ex-ternal relations and trade.

Author: Maria Karadenizli

Proofreader: Katariina Lensu Produced by: WIDE

Rue de la science 10 1000 Brussels Belgium www.wide-network.org

Copyrights©2007 WIDE

The author wants to thank all those who contributed to producing this report with their comments and support, espe-cially Bénédicte Allaert, Nerea Craviotto, Valerié Echard, Katrin Jansen, Gea Meyers, Brita Neuhold and Karin Ulmer.In particular, the author also wishes to thank the coordinator of the study, Barbara Specht, for her precious supportand input throughout the entire process.

Any parts of this publication may be reproduced without permission for educational and non-profit purposes if the source is acknowledged. WIDEwould appreciate a copy of the text in which the document is used or cited.

1

List of acronyms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4

1. Gender and EU policies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .61.1. EU commitments to gender equality: Strategies, implementation, monitoring, . . . . . .6

evaluation1.2. Actors and institutional mechanisms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .91.3. European Institute for Gender Equality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10

2. Gender and EU development co-operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .122.1. General introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .122.2. Policy-making: Analysis of key actors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14

2.2.1. European Commission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .142.2.1.1. DG Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .142.2.1.2. EuropeAid Co-operation Office . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .152.2.1.3. DG Trade . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .162.2.1.4. EC Delegations: Relations with national authorities . . . . . . . . . . . . . .162.2.1.5. Mechanisms for inter-institutional dialogue among . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Commission services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .172.2.2. Council of Ministers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .182.2.3. European Parliament . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .202.2.4. Joint EU-ACP institutions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .21

2.3. Legal instruments, policy documents and programming tools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .222.3.1. Legal instruments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .222.3.2. Policy documents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .242.3.3. Programming tools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .29

2.4. Financing instruments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .302.5. Gender initiatives in EU development co-operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .31

2.5.1. Institutional mechanisms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .322.5.2. UNIFEM-EC-ILO project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .33

2.6. Civil society dialogue mechanisms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .34

3. EU external relations and gender (India and ASEAN countries) . . . . . . . .363.1. General introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .363.2. Policy-making: Analysis of key actors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .37

3.2.1. European Commission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .383.2.1.1. DG RELEX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .383.2.1.2. DG Trade . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .383.2.1.3. EC Delegations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .39

Contents

W I D E - R u e d e l a S c i e n c e 1 0 - 1 0 0 0 B r u s s e l s - B e l g i u mTe l . : + 3 2 2 5 4 5 9 0 7 0 - F a x : + 3 2 2 5 1 2 7 3 4 2

i n f o @ w i d e - n e t w o r k . o r g - w w w. w i d e - n e t w o r k . o r g

W H O D E C I D E S ?

3.2.2. Council of Ministers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .403.2.3. European Parliament . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .413.2.4. Joint EU-ASEAN/EU-India institutions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .42

3.3. Legal instruments, policy documents and programming tools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .433.3.1. Legal instruments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .433.3.2. Policy documents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .443.3.3. Programming tools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .45

3.4. Financing instruments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .453.5. Gender initiatives in EU external relations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .463.6. Civil society dialogue mechanisms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .47

4. EU trade policy and gender . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .484.1. General introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .484.2. Policy-making: Analysis of key actors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .49

4.2.1. European Commission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .494.2.2. Council of Ministers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .504.2.3. European Parliament . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .50

4.3. Legal instruments, policy documents and international agreements . . . . . . . . . . . .514.3.1. EU legal instruments and policy documents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .514.3.2. International (WTO) agreements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .54

4.4. Gender initiatives in EU trade policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .554.5. Civil society dialogue mechanisms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .56

5. Concluding remarks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .58

Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .61

Annexes: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .65Annex 1: Glossary of EU institutions and legislation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .65Annex 2: Schematic presentation of EU development policy and gender . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .70Annex 3: Schematic presentation of EU external relations and gender . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .72Annex 4: Schematic presentation of EU trade policy and gender . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .74Annex 5: Organigrammes: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .75

a) DG Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .76b) DG RELEX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .77c) EuropeAid Co-operation Office . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .78d) DG Trade . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .79

Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .80

Contents


2

ACP African, Caribbean and Pacific group ofstates

AfT aid for trade ASEAN South-East Asian NationsBD Berne Declaration BPFA Beijing Platform for Action CAP Common Agricultural Policy CEDAW (UN) Convention on the Elimination of All

Forms of Discrimination Against Women COASI Council Working Party on Co-operation

with Asia CODEV Council Working Party on Development COREPER Committee of Permanent Representatives CSO civil society organisation CSP country strategy paperDAC Development Assistance Committee DCI Development Co-operation InstrumentDDA Doha Development AgendaDG Directorate-General DG DEV Directorate-General for Development DG EMPL Directorate-General for Employment,

Social Affairs and Equal Opportunities DG RELEX Directorate-General for External Relations EBA Everything But Arms (initiative) EC European CommissionECB European Central Bank ECHO European Commission Humanitarian

Office ECJ European Court of Justice EDF European Development Fund EESC European Economic and Social Committee EIB European Investment Bank EIDHR European Instrument for Democracy and

Human Rights ENPI European Neighbourhood Policy

Instrument EP European Parliament

EPAs Economic Partnership AgreementsEU European Union FTAs Free Trade Agreements GAERC General Affairs External Relations Council GATS General Agreement on Trade in Services GATT General Agreement on Tariffs and TradeGSP Generalised System of PreferencesHRI Human Rights InstrumentILO International Labour Organization INTA EP Committee on International TradeIQSG Inter-service Quality Support Group LDCs Least Developed CountriesMDGs Millennium Development Goals MEP Member of the European ParliamentNAO National Authorising Officer NGO non-governmental organisation NIP National Indicative Programme NSA non-state actor ODA Official Development Assistance OECD Organisation for Economic Co-operation

and Development OECD-DAC Development Co-operation Directorate of

OECDRSP Regional Strategy Paper SIA Sustainability Impact Assessment TNC transnational corporation TRA trade-related assistance TREATI Trans-Regional EU-ASEAN Trade Initiative

TRIPs Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual

Property Rights

UN United Nations

UNCTAD United Nations Conference on Trade and

Development

UNIFEM United Nations Development Fund for

Women

WP Working Party (of the Council of Ministers)

WTO World Trade Organization

Abbreviations and acronyms


3

“Who decides - Gender mapping the European Union’spolicy and decision-making in the area of development,external relations and trade” has been drafted with theaim to provide an analysis of the role that keyEuropean Union institutions – the Council of Ministers,the European Commission (EC), the EC Delegations, andthe European Parliament (EP) – play in the definition ofpolicy priorities in the areas of development, externalrelations and trade. Moreover, the study criticallyanalyses the role of these actors in the formulation,implementation and monitoring of development pro-grammes in the countries of the South, as well as innegotiations on trade agreements at international,regional and bilateral levels.

Monitoring and analysing the EU external relationsagenda from a feminist perspective and influencing theEU trade and development policies to ensure theyrespond to the needs and realities of women’s andmen’s livelihoods in the South and contribute towomen’s empowerment have been central in WIDE´sadvocacy. WIDE uses different strategies to achievethese objectives, based on inside and outside agency.These strategies include pressing the EU to complywith internationally agreed women’s rights commit-ments such as the Convention on the Elimination of AllForms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) andthe Beijing Platform for Action (BPFA) and highlightingthe lack of policy coherence for gender and develop-ment objectives. Too often economic considerationsbased on profit maximisation and safeguarding the EU’sown interests threaten and undermine gender equalityand social justice.

This study develops a two-level analysis of EU’s gen-der equality strategy by looking critically into the gen-eral policy framework for the integration of genderissues in EU internal and external policies (2006-2010Roadmap for Equality between women and men) and byexamining specific policy commitments, institutionaltools and mechanisms for integrating gender equalityconcerns in EU development, external relations andtrade policies. It also analyses existing spaces for poli-cy dialogue between EU institutions, European andSouthern civil society organisations (CSOs) on develop-ment and trade issues.

In terms of geographic scope, this publication focuseson EU development co-operation with African,

Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) countries under theCotonou Agreement and relations with the South-EastAsian Nations (ASEAN) and India under the newDevelopment Co-operation Instrument (DCI). Morespecifically, the analysis of the EU’s relations withASEAN and India illustrates the EU’s increased focuson economic issues with the conclusion of free tradeagreements (FTAs) and co-operation with third coun-tries on migration and security issues at the expense ofpoverty eradication and social development objectives,including gender equality.

This institutional mapping is complemented by a criti-cal overview of recent policy initiatives and emergingtrends in EU development, external relations and tradepolicy. During the last years, a new political landscapehas been created with the following policy issues gain-ing prominence in the EU external relations agenda:relations with Africa; coherence and complementaritybetween the EC and EU Member State developmentpolicies and programmes; increased use of new aidmodalities (budget support); mainstreaming of tradeissues in EU development co-operation (Aid for Trade,AfT); and assessment of good governance in partnercountries.

An important political development with regards to theEU budget was the conclusion of an agreementbetween the EP and the Council of Ministers on the2007-2013 EU financial perspectives in 2006.Furthermore, following several months of negotiationsbetween the two institutions the external co-operationinstruments, which form the basis of EU’s co-operationwith developing, neighbouring and industrialised coun-tries, were finally adopted in the same year. WIDE’sstudy focuses on the Development Co-operationInstrument (DCI) and the Human Rights Instrument(HRI) due to the central role of these instruments in EUdevelopment co-operation with ACP and Asian coun-tries.

With regard to trade policy, especially in view of theunlikely conclusions of the World Trade Organization(WTO) negotiations before the next U.S presidentialelections (November 2008)1, the EU’s attention hasincreasingly shifted towards the conclusion of a newgeneration of competitiveness-driven regional andbilateral free trade agreements. The EC’s 2006Communication “Global Europe: Competing in the

Introduction


4

World” sets out the reference framework for thesecomprehensive and ambitious free trade agreementswith key partners.

In April 2007, the EC received a mandate from theCouncil of Ministers to open negotiations with ASEAN,India and South Korea on FTAs, which will are aimedtowards far reaching liberalisation of trade in goods,services and investment and will give special attentionto the elimination of non-tariff barriers. At the sametime, the ongoing EU negotiations with ACP countrieson the Economic Partnership Agreements (EPAs) haveattracted fierce criticism and resulted in increasedmobilisation by civil society organisations, which high-light the threats these reciprocal free trade agree-ments pose on the ACP’s development prospects. Dueto their importance, both processes are analysed inWIDE’s study.

This study is by no means exhaustive. Some of theinternal policies (for example the Common AgriculturalPolicy, CAP) and external co-operation instruments (forexample the European Neighbourhood PolicyInstrument, ENPI), which occupy an important place inthe EU’s political agenda and have significant implica-tions for its development and trade policies areaddressed only briefly and can be analysed in detail inseparate policy papers.

This publication is divided in five main chapters. Thefirst chapter is dedicated to the analysis of general EUcommitments on gender equality with a special focuson the 2006-2010 Roadmap for Equality betweenWomen and Men. The following three chapters analyserespectively EU development, external relations andtrade policy. Each chapter covers the followingaspects: policy-making and analysis of key actors; pol-icy documents, programming tools and financinginstruments; institutional mechanisms and instrumentsfor the integration of gender concerns in the respectivepolicy areas and mechanisms for civil society partici-pation. The last chapter summarises the main conclu-sions and formulates important entry points for advo-cacy and research identified by the study2.

This study is based on a review of key EU policy docu-ments, non-governmental organisation (NGO) positionpapers and statements as well as on interviews withthirty-two representatives of EU institutions and civilsociety organisations based in Brussels. By providing acritical overview of the key actors, policies and policy-making mechanisms, this research is aimed at consti-tuting a reference work for people interested in the EUgender-trade-development nexus. It intends to moti-vate civil society organisations outside the Brussels toactively participate in the dialogue with the EU institu-tions and to empower these organisations to use theknowledge of the policy and decision-making in the EUin their daily work and the work with their partners inthe South. It answers the following questions: How dowe influence the European political agenda? Wherecan our voices be heard? How will our opinion be takeninto account? As such, the study is conceptualised as asupporting document that guides the formulation ofideas and entry points for conceptualising successfullobby and advocacy strategies with the long-termobjective of ensuring transparency in EU policy-mak-ing and influence EU development and trade policyfrom a feminist perspective in order to transform it intoa truly sustainable, gender and social-just develop-ment agenda.

Maria Karadenizli, July 2007

1 From the beginning of September 2007 intensive negotiations on the WTO Doha Round have started again in Geneva. However, few con-crete results have been achieved so far and the prospects of agreeing on a basic deal by the end of the year seem increasingly unlikely.

2 More specific recommendations and entry points for advocacy based on this study are available upon request from the WIDE secretariat.


5

The EU’s commitment to gender equality is reflected in a number of legal and policy documents, includingthe Treaty of Amsterdam which identified gender mainstreaming as a general competence of the EU. Theintegration of gender equality issues in EU policies is based on a two-level strategy: gender mainstreamingand the implementation of specific actions for women’s empowerment. Chapter 1 on “Gender and generalEU policies” focuses mainly on the umbrella policy framework for the integration of gender equality in EUinternal and external policies: the 2006-2010 Roadmap for Equality between Women and Men.

The responsibility for the compilation of the Roadmap and reporting to the European Council on its imple-mentation lies with DG Employment and Social Affairs, Unit G1 on Equal Opportunities for Women and Men(DG EMPL). However, the responsibility for the implementation of the policy initiatives and actions outlinedin the Roadmap remains within the individual Commission services (Directorates-General, DGs) in charge ofthe respective policy areas.

Chapter 1 also analyses the mandate of different institutional groups set up with the objective to provideinput and monitor the implementation of the general policy framework of gender mainstreaming. It also lookscritically at the integration of gender concerns in the Impact Assessments (IAs) and their influence on theCommission’s annual work programme and different policy initiatives.

Last but not least, this chapter includes a reference to the 2006 Regulation, which foresees the establishmentof a European Institute for Gender Equality in 2008.


6

1.1. EU commitments to gender equali-ty: Strategies, implementation, monitor-ing, evaluation

The United Nations (UN)3 defines gender mainstream-ing as: “… the process of assessing the implicationsfor women and men of any planned action, includinglegislation, policies or programmes, in all areas and atall levels. It is a strategy for making women’s as well asmen’s concerns and experiences an integral dimensionof the design, implementation, monitoring and evalua-tion of policies and programmes in all political, eco-nomic and societal spheres so that women and menbenefit equally and inequality is not perpetuated.”

The EU’s commitment to gender equality is reflectedboth in primary and secondary legislation documents.Primary legislation documents (Treaties) lay the foun-dations –principles of the Union and are binding agree-ments between the EU Member States on how theUnion should operate4. Secondary legislation compris-

es the binding legal instruments (Regulations,Directives and Decisions) and the so-called “soft-law”documents (EP Resolutions and Opinions, CouncilConclusions, Commission Communications), which arenot binding, yet they provide important policy guide-lines.

The principle of equal treatment of men and womenhas been enshrined in the EC Treaties since the estab-lishment of the European Economic Community in 1957.The Treaty of Amsterdam (1997) recognises equalitybetween women and men as a fundamental principleand as one of the objectives and explicit tasks of theCommunity (Article 2). Furthermore, Article 3 requiresthat the Community eliminates inequalities and pro-motes equality for women and men in all its activities.This last provision gave for the first time legal status togender mainstreaming within the EU. Gender equality isby now recognised as a human right and as a centralobjective in policies aiming to achieve sustainable and

Gender and EU policies

3 United Nations (1997). Annual Report of the Economic and Social Council, Geneva/New York.4 Treaty of Rome (1957), Maastricht (1991), Amsterdam (1997) and Nice (2001).


7

people-centred development.

In line with its commitment to the Beijing Platform forAction (BPFA), the Millennium Development Goals(MDGs) and other international agreements onwomen’s rights, the EU has developed a two-levelstrategy for integrating gender equality concerns in allits policies: gender mainstreaming and specificactions aiming to promote women’s empowerment andparticipation in political and economic life among otherareas. One of the elements of EU’s gender mainstream-ing strategy of particular interest for this study is theestablishment of gender desks within the differentCommission services in charge of EU external policies.The gender desks do not represent a new institutionalmechanism or initiative as the establishment of the first‘Women in Development’-WID desk (predecessor ofthe gender desk) within DG Development dates back to19825. The mandate and influence of the gender deskson EU policy-making will be examined in more depth inthe following chapters.

The implementation of the EU’s gender mainstreamingstrategy in the areas of development, trade and exter-nal relations is still hindered by a number of factors,mainly inadequate allocation of human and financialresources, evaporation of policy commitments at thelevel of programme implementation, limited gendercompetence among staff members, absence of politicalleadership and political will as well as lack of strongaccountability mechanisms. Most importantly, theobjectives set in a number of documents with regard tothe promotion of gender equality, women’s empower-ment and women’s economic and social rights areundermined by other EU policy initiatives, in particularthose shaped by the EU’s neo-liberal economic policyapproach. These issues will be analysed in more detailin the following chapters.

A Roadmap for Equality between Women and Men2006-2010

The overall policy framework for the integration ofgender equality issues in all EU policies is developed inthe “2006-2010 Roadmap for Equality between Womenand Men”6. The Roadmap focuses mainly on EU internalpolicies and identifies six priority areas for action,including the promotion of gender equality in external

and development policies7.

The Roadmap identifies the following policy prioritiesin the areas of external relations and development: thepromotion of education for women and girls; sexual andreproductive health; fight against HIV-AIDS; fightagainst female genital mutilation; the promotion ofwomen’s participation in economic and political life aswell as in conflict prevention, resolution, peace build-ing and reconstruction.

More specifically, it foresees support for the followingactions: monitoring and promoting gender mainstream-ing in policy dialogue with partner countries, program-ming documents (country strategy papers, CSPs) andthe new aid modalities (budget support and sector pro-grammes); inclusion of the gender dimension in EChumanitarian aid operations; supporting programmes,capacity building and data collection capacity in devel-oping countries; contributing to the implementation ofUN Security Council Resolution 1325 on women, peaceand security – for example – through the developmentof guidelines on gender mainstreaming in crisis man-agement training activities; and promoting women’sorganisations and networks. It also acknowledges thatthe achievement of progress in these key areasrequires better governance and increased commitmenton behalf of all stakeholders: EU institutions, theMember States, parliaments, social partners and civilsociety.

The Roadmap is not a new initiative in the sense that itfollows up and builds on the experience of its prede-cessor, the “Community Framework Strategy forGender Equality”8, which covered the period 2001-2005.The implementation of this strategy was based on theformulation of annual work programmes by allDirectorates-General of the Commission, outlining pri-ority actions and specific policy initiatives in relation togender equality. These annual work programmesrevealed various levels of institutional commitment.Submissions of Commission services differed signifi-cantly with regard to the level of detail of plannedactions, the development of monitoring and evaluationtools as well as the definition of indicators for measur-ing progress towards the objectives set in their annualprogrammes. The annual work programmes are main-

5 For more information and a historical overview, see the report “Gender mapping the European Union” prepared by Mandy Macdonald andpublished by WIDE and Eurostep in 1995. The 2007 WIDE gender mapping draws to a large extent on the methodology of this report, whilealso recognising that some of its findings are valid even today, twelve years later.

6 European Community (2006): A Roadmap for Equality between women and men 2006-2010, COM (2006) 92 final. 7 The other five priority areas are: equal economic independence for women and men; reconciliation of private and professional life; equal

representation in decision-making; eradication of all forms of gender-based violence and human trafficking; and elimination of genderstereotypes in society.

8 European Community (2000): Community Framework Strategy for gender equality, COM (2000) 335 final.

9 See below the description of the Group’s composition and mandate.

tained and adapted for thefollow-up of the Roadmap.

The drafting of theRoadmap was based onan internal participatoryprocess: Directors as wellas Heads of Unit from allDGs were invited by DGEMPL Director-General toparticipate in the firstpreparatory meeting withthe aim to reach an agree-ment on the structure ofthe document. “This ini-tiative aimed at ensuringpolitical commitment andownership of theRoadmap at the highestmanagement levels of theCommission”, stated anofficial from DGEmployment. The actualdrafting of the Roadmapwas prepared by themembers of the Inter-service Group on GenderEquality9. The Roadmap isa “political” sign that theEC has acknowledgedgender equality as a goalin itself. The most criticalelement in relation to thearea of external relationsis, however, evoked by thefact that the Roadmapdoes not include any gen-der equality actions in thearea of EU trade policy.There is no evidence ofhow or whether efforts to

integrate gender concerns in the EU’s trade policy arelinked to the Roadmap and can be potentially strength-ened by its provisions.

Overall, the Roadmap should be seen as a co-ordina-tion mechanism (rather than a binding policy docu-ment) relying on “voluntary” inputs from individualCommission services. As we shall see in the sectionsthat follow, the actions outlined in the Roadmap arebeing implemented by the Commission services incharge of EU external policies with various levels ofsuccess.

Reporting mechanisms and policy monitoring

Achieving institutional gender policy objectivesdepends greatly on the existence of strong accounta-bility mechanisms, political commitment and institu-tional ownership on behalf of those actors involved inits implementation.

Annual reports on equality between women and men

At the 2003 Spring European Council in Brussels, Headsof State and Government invited the Commission toprepare, in collaboration with the Member States, anannual report on policy and legislative developmentsand orientations for gender equality in all EU policyareas. Since 2004 these annual reports on equalitybetween women and men submitted by theCommission (DG Employment and Social Affairs) to theSpring European Council, constitute the main reportingmechanism on the implementation of the EU’s generalgender equality strategy.

The main weakness of these reports lies in the fact thatwhile they offer a profound in-depth analysis of EUinternal policy initiatives, actions linked to gendermainstreaming in EU external relations are addressedin a rather superficial and fragmented way. To be moreprecise, the reports include selective reference tosome of the actions undertaken by the Commissionservices in charge of external relations, while lackingan analysis of their results and impact on women’slivelihoods in the South and a clear indication of whichinstitutions have been responsible for their implemen-tation.

Progress indicators

In terms of policy monitoring, the Roadmap includesindicators that will be used to monitor progresstowards the achievement of objectives outlined undereach priority area. A weakness of the Roadmap is thatit lacks specific indicators for measuring progresstowards the achievement of objectives with regard togender equality in EU external and development poli-cies and includes only a general reference to theMDGs and the BPFA. The lack of specific indicatorscan partly be explained by the fact that the objectivesoutlined in the Roadmap in this area are themselvesquite general. In terms of evaluation, the EC will pres-ent a report on the Roadmap’s implementation status in2008 and will carry out an evaluation of the Roadmap(including recommendations for follow-up) in 2010.

6.2 Promotion of gender equality in theEuropean Neighbourhood Policy, exter-nal and development policies

Gender equality is a goal in itself, ahuman right and contributes to reduc-ing poverty. The EU is a key player ininternational development efforts andadheres to internationally recognisedprinciples such as the MillenniumDevelopment Declaration and theBeijing Platform for Action (BPfA). It hasreaffirmed gender equality as one of thefive key principles of the developmentpolicy in the European Consensus ondevelopment. The new EU Strategy forAfrica includes gender equality as a keyelement in all partnerships and nationaldevelopment strategies. The EU is com-mitted to promoting gender equality inexternal relations, including in the ENP.EU humanitarian interventions take par-ticular account of the specific needs ofwomen.

Across the world, the EU will continueto promote education and a safe envi-ronment for girls and women, sexualand reproductive health and rights, theempowerment of women, which con-tribute to fighting HIV/AIDS, and thefight against female genital mutilation.Women's participation in economic,political life and decision-making, inconflict prevention and resolution,peace building and reconstructionneed to be fostered by the EU and itsMember States.

COM(2006) 92 final

8


One can conclude that there is considerable space forimprovement in relation to the development of a com-prehensive policy framework bringing together specif-ic activities, reporting and monitoring instruments aswell as evaluation plans and initiatives. This has partlybeen recognised within the Commission and accord-ingly improvements could be expected in this respect.For example, according to DG Employment and SocialAffairs officials, future annual reports will follow close-ly the structure of the Roadmap with the aim to promoteaccountability of the Commission services in charge ofthe six priority areas.

1.2. Actors and institutional mechanisms

DG EMPL plays a leading role in the formulation andimplementation of the EU’s general gender equalitystrategy. More specifically, the task of co-ordinationand reporting on the implementation of the Roadmapfalls under the responsibility of Unit G1 on “EqualOpportunities for Women and Men: Strategy andProgramme”. It is important to clarify though that theresponsibility for the implementation of the activitiesincluded in the Roadmap lies within individualCommission services in charge of the different policyareas.

Looking beyond the Roadmap, a number of institution-al mechanisms have been set up in the recent yearswith a mandate to provide input in the implementationprocess of the EU’s gender equality strategy.

Group of Commissioners on Fundamental Rights, Non-Discrimination and Equal Opportunities

At the highest political level, the Group ofCommissioners on Fundamental Rights, Non-Discrimination and Equal Opportunities was createdon the initiative of the President of the Commission,José Manuel Barroso, in 200510. Its mandate is to drivepolicy and ensure the coherence of Commissionactions in the areas of fundamental rights, anti-discrim-ination, equal opportunities and the social integrationof minority groups, and to ensure that gender equalityis taken into account in Community policies andactions, in accordance with Article 3.2 of theMaastricht Treaty. The Roadmap emphasises the needto ensure political follow-up of gender mainstreaminginitiatives through the meetings of this Group. Yet it

does not include specific recommendations in thisdirection and there is an urgent need for theCommission services to initiate policy discussionsaimed at clarifying and strengthening the Group’s rolein this context.

Inter-service Group on Gender Equality

Another institutional mechanism of particular interestfor this study is the Inter-service Group on GenderEquality which was created in 1996. The Group bringstogether officials of all Commission services responsi-ble for gender equality. The composition of the Groupvaries depending on the agenda: the meetings of theGroup are attended either by Heads of Unit and/orother EC officials. It is chaired by DG EMPL, which con-venes regular meetings (circa 4 times a year). It is theappropriate forum for discussing gender as a horizon-tal issue and to set up, monitor and follow up the annu-al work plans for the implementation of the GenderRoadmap. Despite the fact that the Group has no man-date for influencing policy and it is rather a co-ordina-tion mechanism, it can potentially play a role in promot-ing “internal” monitoring and institutional accountabil-ity among Commission services.

Sub-group on External Relations

EC officials have emphasised the need to revive theSub-group on External Relations composed of officersin charge of gender issues within DG DEV, EuropeAid,DG RELEX and DG Trade with the objective to increaseinfluence on EU policies in these areas from a genderperspective. In the past, this group was chaired by DGDEV and there were meetings both at the regular ECofficial and Director level. The reasons behind the dis-ruption of this group’s meetings are not clear.

Impact Assessments

Following the conclusions of the Göteborg EuropeanCouncil in 2001 on the EU’s Sustainable DevelopmentStrategy11, the European Commission assumed theresponsibility for undertaking Impact Assessments(IAs) in relation to all policy and legislative initiatives,i.e. those included in its annual policy strategy andwork programme.

The aim of IAs is to inform and assist the EU’s decision-making process by systematically assessing the likely

10 The Group of Commissioners meets 3-4 times per year and holds an Extraordinary Meeting focussing on gender equality, normally on the8th of March, on the occasion of the International Women’s Day.

11 European Community (2001): Presidency Conclusions. Göteborg European Council, 15-16 June 2001.


9

economic, social (including gender) and environmentalimplications of policy proposals and by highlightingpotential trade-offs. The IAs are intended to helpimprove the quality of policy proposals, to ensure theirconsistency with policy objectives pursued by theCommunity and to increase transparency of the EU’sdecision-making process12.

Gap between policy and practice: limited integrationof gender concerns

Despite the high theoretical objectives concerninggender equality and sustainable development, practicelags behind: An overview of the Commission’s annualwork, legislative programmes and policy strategy doc-uments reveals a limited integration of gender con-cerns. Furthermore, the more specific Commissionwork programmes outlining necessary actions for theformulation of these policy documents are not veryclear with regards to the level of their “gender-sensitiv-ity” or the participation of civil society organisationsand mainly women’s groups in policy discussions andformulation.

These controversies are also reflected on other levels:For example, it remains within the responsibility of indi-vidual DGs to ensure that the IAs they conduct take intoaccount gender impacts as well. In many cases, thelack of political commitment of Commission serviceshas resulted in the marginalisation of gender equalityconcerns in the ongoing assessments. For example, theSustainability Impact Assessments (SIAs) in the area ofEU trade policy, co-ordinated by DG Trade, have failedto serve their original purpose not only due to their“gender blindness”, but also due to their disconnectionfrom actual policy-making.

However, all in all, there are ongoing efforts within dif-ferent Commission services to raise awareness ongender equality issues among staff members throughthe organisation of gender-specific training sessions.The training sessions organised by the EuropeAid Co-operation Office for Commission staff members both atHeadquarters and the Delegations in partner countriesis an example worth mentioning in this area.

1.3. European Institute for Gender Equality

In 2006 the European Parliament and the Council of

Ministers adopted the Commission’s proposal for theestablishment of a European Institute for GenderEquality. The Regulation on the establishment of theInstitute13 foresees that the Institute will start operatingno later than January 2008 and will have its seat inVilnius, Lithuania.

The overall objectives of the Institute will be to con-tribute to and strengthen the promotion of genderequality, including gender mainstreaming in allCommunity policies and the resulting national policies,and to raise EU citizens’ awareness of gender equalityby providing technical assistance to the Communityinstitutions, in particular the Commission and theauthorities of the Member States (Article 2).

The tasks of the Institute (Article 3) will include the col-lection and analysis of reliable information as regardsgender equality including the dissemination of bestpractices and results from research in this area; thedevelopment of methods to improve the reliability ofcollection of gender disaggregated data at Europeanlevel; the development, analysis and evaluation ofmethodological tools in order to support gender main-streaming in national policies of the EU Member Statesand in all Community institutions and bodies; the set-upand co-ordination of a European Network on GenderEquality; and the organisation of conferences, cam-paigns and meetings at the European level.

In fulfilling its mandate, the Institute will co-operatewith and draw on the experiences of different stake-holders including EU Member States, Community insti-tutions, research centres, national equality bodies,NGOs, social partners, relevant third countries andinternational organisations.

All decisions necessary for the operation of theInstitute will be taken by the Management Board thatconsists of eighteen representatives appointed by theCouncil, on the basis of a proposal from each MemberState for a period of three years.14 In addition, theCommission is appointing one member to theManagement Board. At the time of writing this study,the Director of the Institute had not yet been appointed;however, the Commission will propose a shortlist ofcandidates in autumn 2007 to the Management Boardwhich will then appoint the Director. It is foreseen thatthe institute will employ around 30 people by the end ofthe period 2007-2013.

12 European Community (2004): Commission staff working paper. Impact Assessment: Next steps. In support of competitiveness and sus-tainable development, SEC (2004) 1377.

13 European Community (2006): Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 on Establishing a EuropeanInstitute for Gender Equality, (EC) No 1922/2006.

14 Belgium, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Germany, Spain, France, Italy, Cyprus, Ireland, Latvia, Lithuania, Greece, Luxembourg, Hungary,Poland, Portugal, Slovenia and Sweden submitted lists of potential candidates to the Council.


10

The budget for the period 2007-2013 amounts to 52,5million euro. The Budgetary Authority fixes the amountof administrative and operational expenditure everyyear. For instance, for 2007 the budget available foradministrative expenditure was around 2.310.000 euroand around 2.190.000 euro was allocated for opera-tional expenditure.15

The European Gender Equality Institute can potentially

play a major role in strengthening the EU’s gendermainstreaming strategy. Its success will depend –among other factors – on its complementarity withexisting policy initiatives, its contribution to strengthen-ing institutional mechanisms in charge of gender main-streaming and the development of partnerships withcivil society organisations working in this area.

15 Letter from Belinda Pyke, Member of the Management Board and Representative of the Commission, to WIDE on 13 August 2007.


11

2.1. General introduction

Since its inception in 1957, the European Union hasbeen developing relations with the rest of the worldthrough a common policy on trade, development assis-tance and formal trade and co-operation agreementswith individual countries or regional groups.Development assistance and co-operation, originallyconcentrated in Sub-Saharan African, Caribbean andPacific (ACP) countries and the Overseas Countriesand Territories (OCTs), was extended to Asia, LatinAmerica and the southern and eastern Mediterraneancountries in the mid-1970s.16

EU development policy is based on Articles 177-181 ofthe Maastricht Treaty, which emphasise the comple-

mentarity of Community policy with the EU MemberStates’ bilateral development co-operation. TheMaastricht Treaty sets the following objectives for ECdevelopment co-operation: the sustainable economicand social development of the developing countries;the smooth integration of the developing countries inthe world economy; and the campaign against povertyin the developing countries.

The 2005 EU Consensus on Development17 jointlyadopted by the Council, the Parliament and theCommission has further built upon the principles ofcomplementarity and coherence by providing for thefirst time a framework intended to guide the actionsand outline common principles and objectives both forthe Community institutions and the EU Member States

16 DG DEV has direct responsibility for Community relations with the ACP countries and Overseas Countries and Territories; these relationswill be covered under chapter 2. EU co-operation with other regions such as Latin American or Asian countries falls under EU ExternalRelations policies, and will therefore be covered in chapter 3, page 36.

17 European Community (2006): Joint Statement by the Council and the Representatives of the Governments of the Member States meetingwith the Council, the European Parliament and the Commission on European Union Development Policy: “The European Consensus”, 2006/C46/01.

Gender and EU development co-operation

Chapter 2 covers the main elements of EU development co-operation with focus on relations with African,Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) countries under the Cotonou Agreement and the priorities outlined in key EU pol-icy documents, including the Development Co-operation Instrument (DCI) and the EU Consensus onDevelopment.

Chapter 2 provides an analysis of the involvement of key actors, namely the European Commission, the ECDelegations (representing the EC in third countries), the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament inthe areas of development programming; financing; implementation of country-specific programmes; and mon-itoring and evaluation of EU development co-operation. The Council of Ministers and the European Parliamenthave a central role in the approval of EU legislation (Regulations, such as the Development Co-operationInstrument) and the EU budget, while the European Commission (Headquarters and EC Delegations) is the lead-ing force behind the formulation of development co-operation priorities at general, sectoral and country lev-els. The funds for co-operation with ACP countries come from the European Development Fund (EDF) which isa fund separate from the EU budget and is based on voluntary contributions by EU Member States.

This chapter also develops a critical assessment of gender mainstreaming in EU development co-operationby looking into recent policy initiatives including: the publication of the 2007 EC Communication on GenderEquality and Women’s Empowerment in Development Co-operation; the development of a new financinginstrument on gender equality (DCI thematic programme on Investing in People); and the gender review ofcountry strategy papers (CSPs) defining development co-operation with ACP countries under the 10th EuropeanDevelopment Fund. Chapter 2 also reflects critically on the development and gender implications of theEconomic Partnership Agreements currently under negotiation between the EU and ACP countries.


12

in the area of development co-operation. This initiativeis in line with commitments undertaken by the EU in thecontext of the 2005 OECD Paris Declaration on AidEffectiveness and Donor Harmonisation.

In addition, the 2006 Common Framework for CountryStrategy Papers18 aims at improving the coherence andquality of the EU’s external programming and promotingco-ordination and complementarity of the EC develop-ment co-operation with bilateral aid provided by theMember States and other donors. Furthermore, it putsincreased emphasis – among other areas – on the inte-gration of cross-cutting issues (including genderequality) in the CSPs. EC Delegations in ACP countrieshave established dialogue mechanisms with theMember States represented in those countries –through the regular meetings of the Heads of Mission –to comment on strategic development co-operation pri-

orities jointly defined by the EC andnational governments. However, underthe programming for the 10th EuropeanDevelopment Fund, representing 22billion euro of European Community aidto African, Caribbean, and Pacificcountries for the period 2008-13, itseems that the EC’s views and inter-ests dominated the discussions withpartner countries, while the ACP coun-tries’ views and priorities were side-lined in a number of cases undermin-ing the principle of national ownershipof development strategies.

One of the recent initiatives has beenthe adoption of a code of conduct onthe “division of labour” between theCommission and the EU MemberStates by the General Affairs ExternalRelations Council (GAERC) meeting inMay 2007. This code of conduct setsoperational principles and guidelinesfor the co-ordination between the ECand the Member States at partnercountry level and the selection of pri-ority countries and sectors. EUMember State national governmentsand parliaments have allegedlyexpressed full political commitment tothis process. However, the implemen-tation of these guidelines will takeplace on voluntary basis and a numberof considerable challenges lie ahead

as far as the implementation of “good intentions” isconcerned. The MemberStates have their ownfinancial systems andprogramming cycle,while the three largestMember States (Ger -many, the UK, France)have almost a globalpresence similar to theEC.

Continuing to look at thepolitical context, discus-sions between the ECand the EU MemberStates give – next toaiming at achieving the

18 European Community (2006): Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament. Increasing the impact ofEU Aid: A common framework for drafting Country Strategy Papers and joint multi-annual programming, COM (2006) 88 final.

TITLE XXDEVELOPMENT COOPERATION

Article 1771. Community policy in the sphere of development cooperation, which shall be complementa-

ry to the policies pursued by the Member States, shall foster:- the sustainable economic and social development of the developing countries, and

more particularly the most disadvantaged among them,- the smooth and gradual integration of the developing countries into the world econo-

my,- the campaign against poverty in the developing countries.

2. Community policy in this area shall contribute to the general objective of developing andconsolidating democracy and the rule of law, and to that of respecting human rights andfundamental freedoms.

3. The Community and the Member States shall comply with the commitments and takeaccount of the objectives they have approved in the context of the United Nations and othercompetent international organisations.

Article 178The Community shall take account of the objectives referred to in Article 177 in the policies thatit implements which are likely to affect developing countries.

Article 1791. Without prejudice to the other provisions of this Treaty, the Council, acting in accordance

with the procedure referred to in Article 251, shall adopt the measures necessary to furtherthe objectives referred to in Article 177. Such measures may take the form of multiannualprogrammes.

2. The European Investment Bank shall contribute, under the terms laid down in its Statute, tothe implementation of the measures referred to in paragraph 1.

3. The provisions of this Article shall not affect cooperation with the African, Caribbean andPacific countries in the framework of the ACP-EC Convention.

Article 1801. The Community and the Member States shall coordinate their policies on development

cooperation and shall consult each other on their aid programmes, including in internation-al organisations and during international conferences. They may undertake joint action.Member States shall contribute if necessary to the implementation of Community aid pro-grammes.

2. The Commission may take any useful initiative to promote the coordination referred to inparagraph 1.

Consolidated version of the Treaty establishing the European Community

“Political guidelines on the division of labourbetween the EC and EU Member States willremain artificial if they are not linked to thereality of development co-operation.Coherence between the EC and the EUMember States’ development policiesshould start at country level with input fromdevelopment specialists in different areas ofco-operation. Such initiatives can lead toredefinition of priorities and improved policyco-ordination in the field. At the same time,we need committed people at the level of theCouncil and the Commission, who will bringthe debate forward”.

An MEP on the issue of coherence between theEC and the Member State development policies

13


MDGs by 2015 – increasing priority to the use of newaid modalities (budget support, etc.), EU relations withAfrica, Aid for Trade as well as coherence between theEU development agenda and other EU policies.

2006 also witnessed the approvalof the EU’s financial perspectivesfor 2007-2013 by the Council ofMinisters and the EP and theestablishment of new instrumentsfor external co-operation, such asthe DCI (mentioned above), theHuman Rights Instrument (HRI)and the European NeighbourhoodPolicy Instrument (ENPI) amongothers.

EU development policy is basedboth on programming under the

Cotonou Agreement (for ACP countries) and the imple-mentation of thematic programmes, which apply notonly to ACP countries but also to other partner regionsincluding Asia, Latin America and Middle East. The EU’sthematic programmes are funded through theDevelopment Co-operation Instrument and aimed atcomplementing country strategies in different areas,including the promotion of gender equality, women’srights and empowerment in partner countries.

2.2. Policy-making: Analysis of keyactors

The co-decision procedure is central to the Communitydecision-making system. In the area of developmentpolicy, the Council of Ministers enacts legislation inco–decision with the European Parliament after thesubmission of relevant policy proposals by theEuropean Commission.

These policy proposals take the form of ECCommunications, which are prepared either on theCommission’s “own initiative” or following a requestfrom the Council of Ministers for the preparation ofsuch policy documents. EC Communications can formthe basis of EU legislative documents (for exampleRegulations) or are aimed at guiding EU policies with-out necessarily leading to the formulation of legislativedocuments.

Within the European Commission, agreement on thecontent of EC Communications is reached through the

so-called “inter-service consultation” process, withparticipation from different EC services includingEuropeAid, DG Trade, DG RELEX, DG Budget and theEuropean Commission Humanitarian Office (ECHO).However, not all Commission services are equallyengaged in the inter-service consultation process (interms of providing input and comments) mainly due tolack of time availability. The final step in this process isthe approval of the Communications by the College ofCommissioners, which is composed of all 27Commissioners in charge of different policy portfolios.

Apart from EC Communications, a number of other “softlaw” policy documents, namely Council Conclusions,give important political direction to the EU’s develop-ment co-operation both in terms of policy formulationand implementation.19 Although these acts are notlegally binding, they have a strong political weight andtherefore attract the interest of civil society organisa-tions.

2.2.1. European Commission

Three Commission services play a key role in EU devel-opment co-operation: DG DEV, the EuropeAid Co-oper-ation Office and DG Trade. DG RELEX has no formal rolein the implementation of the Cotonou Agreement and inrelations with ACP countries and therefore is not men-tioned among the key actors analysed in this section.Nevertheless, there is a certain degree of overlapbetween DG RELEX and DG DEV’s responsibilities insome areas including the implementation of theDevelopment Co-operation Instrument thematic pro-grammes and the Human Rights Instrument.

2.2.1.1. Directorate-General for Development

DG DEV holds the main responsibility for the formula-tion of EU development policy at global and sectorallevels and the drafting of key policy documents (suchas the 2007 EC Communication on Gender Equality andWomen’s Empowerment in EC development co-opera-tion).

Furthermore, it co-ordinates the Community’s relationswith ACP countries under the Cotonou Agreement.More specifically, DG DEV is in charge of political rela-tions with ACP countries, the programming of theEuropean Development Fund (including setting of prior-ities at national and regional levels) and the allocationof EDF resources as well as monitoring the implemen-

EU’s external co-operation instruments

• Development Co-operationInstrument

• Human Rights Instrument• European Neighbourhood

Policy Instrument • Pre-accession Instrument• Stability Instrument• Instrument for co-operation

with industrialised countries

19 To a minor extent also the European Parliament Resolutions and Reports have an impact on the political direction of the EU developmentco-operation.


14

tation of EC development co-operation in ACP coun-tries through the Mid-Term Review and End-of-TermReview. It is also involved in the negotiations on theEconomic Partnership Agreements (although in a sec-ondary role compared to DG Trade) and plays a key rolein the formulation of policy documents bringing togeth-er trade and development issues. DG DEV is divided ingeographic and thematic units20.

All geographic units of DG DEV have an ACP-EPA desk.Unit B1 on Economic Development, RegionalIntegration and Trade has overall responsibility for co-

ordinating DG DEV’s inputin the ongoing EPA nego-tiations and is involved inan inter-institutional dia-logue with DG Trade ondifferent aspects of thenegotiations. HoweverDG DEV has not beenvery visible in the actualnegotiations on EPAs andits role has mainly beenconfined to participation

in the non-functioning preparatory regional task forceswhose mandate is to ensure the coherence betweenthe trade and development aspects of the future agree-ments. “DG DEV’s role has been limited to echoing –often in minimalistic ways – DG Trade’s positions that isthe equation of trade liberalisation, markets of scaleand business environment that attracts investing indevelopment,” an NGO representative commented.

In relation to the new financing instrument for develop-ment co-operation under the financial perspectives(2007-2013), the Development Co-operation Instrument,DG DEV has drafted a multi-annual strategy and amulti-annual indicative programme, which will directthe implementation of thematic programmes – fundedthrough this instrument – including the one on gender(Thematic Programme “Investing in People”, see alsopage 24).

The gender desk within Unit B3 on Human and SocialDevelopment is in charge of mainstreaming genderequality concerns in all aspects of EU development pol-icy, including programming, policy development andmonitoring (CSPs, Mid-Term and End-of-Term Reviews).Furthermore, it is in charge of maintaining regular con-tacts and dialogue with other Commission services andEU institutions (the Council and the Parliament) on gen-der equality issues, aimed at ensuring coherence of DGDEV policies with the policies of other Directorates-General and the EU Member States in this area.

2.2.1.2. EuropeAid Co-operation Office

The mission of the EuropeAid Co-operation Office is toimplement the external aid instruments of theEuropean Commission which are funded by theEuropean Community budget and the EuropeanDevelopment Fund (the office was established in 2001as part of the EU’s external reform). The Office isresponsible for all phases of the project cycle (projectidentification and appraisal, preparation of financingdecisions, project implementation, monitoring andevaluation) and has the objective of ensuring theachievement of the objectives of programmes estab-lished by DG DEV and DG RELEX.

The role of thematic units under Directorate E onOperations Quality Support is to provide input on theprocess of identification and preparation of country-specific programmes and projects. The gender desk ofEuropeAid based in Unit E4 on Governance, HumanRights, Democracy and Gender Issues plays an impor-tant role in ongoing efforts to mainstream gender in allEU funded projects in ACP countries and other regionsthrough the dissemination of thematic notes and guide-lines to the EC Delegations and through its involvementin the screening of financing proposals and other proj-ect documents received from the EC Delegations. Thegender desk is also in charge of the co-ordination ofthe EuropeAid Co-operation Office Gender focal per-sons network (see page 33, 2.5.1.) and oversees theprocess of appointment of gender focal persons by theDelegations.

20 See Organigramme provided in Annex 5, page 76

“The inter-institutional dialo -gue between DG Develop mentand DG Trade on the linksbetween development andtrade has improved during thelast years. Nevertheless, it isstill far from perfect”.

An official from a PermanentRepresentation on the co-ordination

between DG DEV and DG Trade

Project Cycle Management (cycle of operations formanaging the EC’s external assistance projects)

Programming (based on country strategy papersand national indicative programmes; definition offocal and non-focal sectors of co-operation)

Identification and formulation of country-specificprojects (drafting of project identification fiche;financing proposal to be approved by EuropeAid)

Implementation (on the basis of annual activityplans and budgets prepared by the ProjectManagement Units with input from the ECDelegations and the National Authorising Officer)

Evaluation and audit(undertaken by external consultants)

Based on the EuropeAid Co-operation Office, March 2004: Aiddelivery methods-Project cycle management guidelines

15


The preparation and approval of country-specific pro-grammes and projects involves continuous communi-cation between the EC Delegations and the EuropeAidCo-operation Office and in principle, a project can berejected if it is “weak” in terms of the integration ofgender concerns. This indicates a potential space forengendering projects at country level, but in practicewould require increased commitment on behalf of theEuropeAid Office, EC Delegations and national govern-ments.

Unit 04 on central management of thematic budgetlines21 is in charge of the overall co-ordination of admin-istrative procedures and modalities of the annualaction programmes, which guide the implementation ofthematic programmes under the DCI (for examplethrough the launching of calls for proposals for NGOs).The annual action programmes define fields of inter-vention, respective financial allocations and expectedoutputs and results for each year of implementation onthe basis of the multi-annual strategy and the multi-annual indicative programme prepared by DG DEV. Unit04 is expected to draw on the expertise of the thematicunits under Directorate E (including E4 on Governance,Human Rights, Democracy and Gender Issues) in rela-tion to the definition of strategic priorities, includingmeasures in the area of gender equality. As in the caseof other policy documents, the annual action pro-grammes will be approved following an inter-serviceconsultation with other Commission services.

2.2.1.3. DG Trade

As expected, DG Trade has a very powerful role in EUtrade policy and is gaining an increasing influence inthe area of development as well. The position of theCommissioner for Trade is considered to be one of themost (if not the most) influential in the overall structureof the EC. DG Trade negotiates the EPAs with ACPcountries on behalf of the European Community on thebasis of the negotiating directives (mandate), whichwere agreed upon by the Council in 2002. It is importantto differentiate between the 2002 negotiating directivesand the negotiating priorities, which are reformulatedon the basis of ongoing discussions between theCommission and the Member States.

The Director and Deputy-Director of DG Trade under-take important preparatory work at high political levelin relation to the negotiations on EPAs (and other bilat-eral and regional trade negotiations). The technicalwork and actual negotiations with ACP countries fall

under the responsibility of officials of the DG TradeUnits D2 and D3 in charge of EPAs. DG Trade represen-tatives highlight the importance of co-operation withDG DEV in order to ensure that development aspectsare integrated in all trade agreements. Despite suchstatements, DG Trade continues to hold the leading rolein the negotiations on EPAs, which the EU aims to con-clude by the end of 2007. Some of the major controver-sies, key issues and conflicts in the negotiations,including a brief analysis of EPAs’ gender implicationsare outlined below (page 23).

DG Trade’s increased influence on development co-operation programming can be confirmed by the levelof integration of trade issues in country and regionalstrategy papers, the choice of focal sectors whichreflect the EU’s economic interests, the increased useof development aid in support of trade-related assis-tance measures and DG Trade’s contribution to the 10th

European Development Funding programming exer-cise. DG Trade’s involvement in EDF programming hasresulted in an increased use of development funds forregional integration and EPA related costs, thus awayfrom support for social services. This is a big politicaldebate and should be recorded as such, especiallygiven the negative impact of decreasing financial sup-port for social services on women’s reproductive rolesand care work. The two units within DG Trade mainlyaddressing the links between trade and developmentare Unit C1 on Sustainable Development and Unit D1 onTrade and Development.

2.2.1.4. EC Delegations: Relations with national author-ities

EC Delegations institutionally form a part of theCommission’s structure and represent the EC in thirdcountries around the world. The role of EC Delegationsin ACP countries has been strengthened as a result ofthe deconcentration exercise which started in 2001 asan integral part of the EU’s external reform and gavemore powers to the Delegations in terms of formulationof policy priorities, programme-project and financialmanagement. Tasks such as the definition of develop-ment co-operation priorities in the context of countrystrategy papers and national indicative programmes;identification, formulation and monitoring of EC-fundedprojects and programmes; and the drafting of monitor-ing documents and reports (Joint Annual Report, Mid-Term and End-of-Term Review) fall under the jointresponsibility of EC Delegations and the NationalAuthorising Officers (NAO).

21 See Organigramme of EuropeAid Co-operation Office provided in Annex 5, page 78.


16

Under the Cotonou Agreement, each ACP countryappoints a senior government official as its NationalAuthorising Officer to represent it in discussions on allEC-funded programmes and to ensure that pro-grammes are consistent with Community rules and reg-ulations. Normally, the NAO is based in the Ministry ofFinance and is supported by a team of both local gov-ernment staff and special contractors comprising the“NAO Support Unit” or “EDF cell”. In the context of EDFprogramming, EC Delegations and NAO offices organ-ise regular meetings with Ministry officials in order todefine priorities of development co-operation.

The Delegations also play an increasingly importantrole in ensuring coherence between EC and bilateraldevelopment co-operation of the EU Member States atcountry level. In addition, they have the main responsi-bility for the definition and implementation of projectsfocusing on trade-related assistance; financing anddevelopment of Sustainability Impact Assessments atnational level; providing Headquarters in Brussels withinformation on the negotiating positions of the partnercountry on different trade issues; and identifying keyforces influencing national trade priorities.Nevertheless, the impact of the EC Delegations on theformulation of EC negotiating positions on EPAs andtheir involvement in the actual negotiations is limited,although they are invited to participate in the regionalnegotiating fora.

So far, the majority of EC Delegations have not playedan active role in promoting the integration of genderequality concerns in political dialogue with partnercountries or country programming despite the fact thattheir mandate gives them enough policy space to initi-ate gender-sensitive programmes, actions and strate-gies at country level jointly with the partner govern-ments. The limited proactivity on the part of ECDelegations on gender issues can be attributed to theirlack of expertise, lack of human resources, or both or –in the worst case scenario – to the lack of politicalcommitment. The responsibility and accountability ofthe EC Delegations in the area of gender equality isexpected to increase in the near future with theappointment of gender focal points at Delegationlevel. This is an ongoing exercise co-ordinated by theEuropeAid Co-operation Office (Unit E4). However, anumber of problems have been identified in relation tothis initiative: No additional financial or humanresources have been made available to theDelegations for this exercise and in some cases, gen-der issues are added to the already heavy workload of

Delegation officials, or junior staff are given theresponsibility in this area in the absence of “volun-teers” at higher management levels to take up the roleof gender focal points. In some cases additional profes-sional development staff and operational resourcesmight be needed to strengthen the Delegations’ capac-ities to take greater responsibility in this context.

2.2.1.5. Mechanisms for inter-institutional dialogueamong Commission services

A number of inter-institutional mechanisms have beenset up within the Commission with the objective to pro-vide input in the formulation of country specific strate-gies and projects as well as in the monitoring and eval-uation of the EC’s development co-operation. However,one of the main weaknesses of these mechanisms islinked to the fact that the gender desks of DG DEV andDG RELEX are not required to participate in the discus-sions on a regular basis. In the absence of genderadvocates, these groups rarely prioritise gender equal-ity in their discussions on policy priorities and objec-tives.

Inter-service Quality Support Group (IQSG)

The IQSG is composed of senior representatives of allthe Commission’s DGs and offices involved in the man-agement or financing of the Community’s relations withdeveloping countries22. The Group is chaired by theDeputy Director-General of DG Development. Its tasksinclude the harmonisation of thematic and geographicguidelines as well as provision of support and guid-ance in the preparation of geographic (CSPs) and the-matic programmes. All country and region strategypapers as well as the thematic programmes are subjectto a screening by the IQSG. The Secretariat of theGroup is based in DG DEV.

Operations Quality Support Group

This group – composed of representatives of DG DEVand EuropeAid – provides comments and input in theidentification and formulation of development projectsat country level. The main responsibility for screeningthe programming documents (project identificationfiche and financing proposals) lies with EuropeAid andDG DEV’s geographic co-ordinators responsible for thecountry concerned and EuropeAid’s legal, financial andthematic experts (including the representative atEuropeAid’s gender desk).

22 The Members of the Group are DG DEV, DG External Relations, DG Trade, DG Economic and Financial Affairs, DG Enlargement, ECHO, theEuropeAid Co-operation Office and the Evaluation Unit.


17

23 Concerned services in DG DEV (02, A/1, all policy units in Directorate B, concerned C or D units, as appropriate), the geographic unit inAIDCO C, thematic units in AIDCO E, appropriate Directors in RELEX DGs (RELEX, TRADE and ECHO) and the EIB. In addition, invitationsshould be sent to the appropriate Directors in DG AGRI, DG BUDG, DG EAC, DG ECFIN, DG ELARG, DG ENV, DG FISH, DG JLS, DG SANCO,DG RTD, DG TAXUD, DG TREN and DG ESTAT.

24 OECD (2007): EC DAC Peer Review: Main Findings and Recommendations, Paris.

Country and Region Teams

The Country and Region Team Meetings23 are organisedby the geographic services of DG DEV with the objec-tive to provide input and comments on the draft countrystrategy papers submitted by the EC Delegations inACP countries, the Joint Annual Report and the Mid-Term and End-of-Term reviews. The Country andRegion Team Meetings play a pivotal role in ensuringcoherence of community actions in the partner countryor region concerned and in shaping the Community’sposition in terms of strategy, needs and performanceassessment.

2.2.2. Council of Ministers

Since 2002 development and trade issues have beenhandled by the General Affairsand External Relations Councilof Ministers (GAERC) as part ofthe EU’s External Relations.GAERC holds separate meetingson General Affairs and onExternal Relations respectivelyand meets once a month (moreregularly than other Council con-figurations). GAERC meetingsbring together the ForeignMinisters of the Member Statesand Ministers responsible

Development or Trade depending on the items on theagenda.

The Council in co-operation with the EuropeanParliament adopts the EU’s annual budget and enactsEU legislation under the co-decision procedure.Furthermore, the Council agrees on policy guidelineson important issues in the form of Council Conclusions. Furthermore, the Council through its participation in theDevelopment Co-operation Instrument Committee –composed of representatives of the 27 EU MemberStates and the European Commission – approves thegeographic and thematic strategy papers financedthrough the Development Co-operation Instrument (seepage 23).

Development policy in the new Member States

Looking at the internal Council dynamics following the2004 EU Enlargement process, it is important to note

that development co-operation is a new policy area forsome of the new Member States. This has influencedpolitical debates within the Council, as the newMember States from Central-Eastern Europe putincreased emphasis on the EU’s neighbourhood policyguided by geo-political interests and priorities in theareas of security and migration. In this context, devel-opment co-operation with the Least DevelopedCountries (LDCs) might not be seen as a priority bysome Member States. Another issue concerns thefinancial contributions of the new Member States to EUdevelopment assistance. Some representatives haveargued that their countries cannot afford to increasetheir ODA contributions in the near future as they areconstrained by strict fiscal measures in their efforts tojoin the eurozone. In addition, some of these newemerging bilateral donors find it difficult to conform tothe standard development co-operation guidelines pro-duced in Brussels24. According to a Member of theEuropean Parliament, the EU is perceived by partnersin the South as “becoming increasingly inward-lookingand self-absorbed”. These critical observations areconfirmed by recent trends in EU development andtrade policy, including the EU’s persistence in conclud-ing Free Trade Agreements (FTAs) with differentregions and countries irrespective of their level ofdevelopment, serving the EU´s own economic interests.

Gender equality

With regard to gender equality issues, some EUMember States, including Austria, Denmark, Finland,Germany, Ireland, Sweden, and the Netherlands areperceived as more active than others in keeping gen-der on the EU development agenda. Despite the factthat these countries represent a minority within theCouncil, their political commitment to gender equalityhas resulted in the formulation of gender-sensitiveRegulations and other policy documents. Furthermore,the informal Group of Experts on Gender Equality,which is formed by Member State national genderexperts and chaired by DG DEV, has managed to influ-ence EU debates and the EC’s positions on gender anddevelopment issues despite its non-formal character.

Committee of Permanent Representatives

The general work of the Council is prepared and co-ordinated by the Committee of PermanentRepresentatives (COREPER), made up of Member StateAmbassadors (and deputy Ambassadors) to the EU,

“SIAs’ influence on the formu-lation of negotiating directivesand priorities, is rather limited.Yet a request coming from theCouncil in this area can createdifferent dynamics and differ-ent levels of mobilisation bythe EC”.

An official from a PermanentRepresentation on the role of SIAs in

EU trade policy


18

who meet once per week. The work of the Council ondevelopment and trade issues is prepared by COREPERII (Antichi Group consisting of EU Member StateAmbassadors). COREPER will always receive a man-date from their national administrations and this dimen-sion of policy-making enhances the need for increasedlobbying by civil society organisations at national level.Nevertheless, it is important to note that PermanentRepresentations hold detailed and specific informationwith regard to Member State positions on EU-relatedpolicies and issues.

Working Parties

The work of COREPER is in itself prepared by approxi-mately 250 committees and working parties (WPs) con-sisting of diplomats who work in the PermanentRepresentations of the Member States based inBrussels. These WPs are both geographically and the-matically oriented. Two working parties play an impor-tant role in the formulation of key policy commitmentsand priorities in the area of EU development policy: theACP WP (whose geographical scope is limited to rela-tions with the ACP under the Cotonou Agreement,including trade negotiations25) and the DevelopmentCo-operation WP (CODEV, which looks into horizontalissues and priorities of EU development co-operation,including gender equality). These WPs are the first“entry point” for discussions among the EU MemberStates on policy proposals initiated by the Commission.

Permanent Representations seem to be appreciative ofcivil society organisations’ contributions to policydebates. Some of the representatives interviewed inthe context of this study made specific reference to theinfluence that NGOs have had on policy discussionsand the formulation of EU positions on EPAs. However,the level of openness to dialogue with civil societyvaries significantly from Representation toRepresentation. Structured dialogue between Councilrepresentatives and NGOs on development issues islimited to one meeting per Presidency with CONCORD26

member organisations.

Decision-making

Council decisions in the area of development co-oper-ation are reached on the basis of a qualified majority (aweighted voting system based on the populations of theMember States). Nevertheless, it seems that voting isrelatively infrequent and that consensus remains thepreferred path for decision-making in the Councilalready at the level of the Working Parties (but it isclear that consensus does not equal unanimity). TheEC’s level of representation at Council meetings variesdepending on the agenda: for example a Commissionservice might be represented by its Director, Heads ofUnit or a responsible officer in charge of a specificCommunication.

EU presidencies

The rotating Presidency of the Council on a six-monthbasis plays an essential role in organising the work ofthe institution, particularly in promoting legislative pro-posals, political decisions and strategic priorities.Strategic priorities are jointly set by the EC and thePresidency. The Presidency is responsible for organis-ing and chairing all Council meetings and for broker-ing compromises among the Member States. In 2007,for the first time an eighteen-month programme27 outlin-ing the working priorities of three consecutive EUPresidencies (Germany, Portugal and Slovenia) wasmade available, including a section on gender equality. The EU Member State holding the EU Presidency alsorepresents the Council in its dealings with other EUinstitutions and bodies, such as the EC and the EP. Inaddition, it represents the EU in international organisa-tions’ meetings (for example UN conferences) and rela-tions with third countries. In its role, the Presidency isassisted by the Council Secretariat28.

An example of the role of the Presidency in setting theEU’s political priorities is the German Presidency’sinfluence29 on pushing the EC to resume its work ondrafting the new Communication on gender equality inEU development co-operation. The drafting of the

25 In EPA negotiations also the Committee 133 plays an important role. The mandate and composition of the 133 Committee is analysed inmore detail in chapter 4, page 50.

26 CONCORD is the European confederation of relief and development NGOs. Its national associations and international networks representover 1,600 NGOs.

27 From 1 January 2007 until 30 June 2008.28 The Council Secretariat based in Brussels is considered to be the guardian of Council procedures. With a staff of approximately 2,000, the

Council Secretariat assists the Council by helping to draft the six-month legislative programme, providing legal advice, briefing governmentministers on current EU issues, preparing the agenda for Council meetings, and drafting the meetings’ minutes. Small countries dependheavily for logistical support on the Council Secretariat as well as for the drafting of Council Conclusions and other documents during theirpresidencies. On the other hand, large Member States during their presidencies mobilise additional human resources from their nationaladministrations to follow up on the different political issues and processes. Member States can play a more or less proactive role in set-ting priorities. Due to its neutrality the Council Secretariat is not a lobbying target for civil society.

29 Germany held the EU presidency in the first half of 2007.


19

30 The Committee on Development is responsible for: 1. The promotion, implementation and monitoring of the development and co-operationpolicy of the Union, notably: (a) political dialogue with developing countries, bilaterally and in the relevant international organisations andinterparliamentary fora, (b) aid to, and co-operation agreements with, developing countries, (c) promotion of democratic values, good gov-ernance and human rights in developing countries; 2. Matters relating to the ACP-EU Partnership Agreement and relations with the rele-vant bodies; 3. The Parliament’s involvement in election observation missions. The committee coordinates the work of the interparliamen-tary delegations and ad hoc delegations falling within its remit.

31 The Committee on Women’s Rights and Gender Equality is responsible - among other areas - for: the promotion of women’s rights in thirdcountries; the implementation and further development of gender mainstreaming in all policy sectors; the follow-up and implementation ofinternational agreements and conventions involving the rights of women.

32 The Committee on International Trade is responsible for matters relating to the establishment and implementation of the Union’s commoncommercial policy and its external economic relations, in particular: financial, economic and trade relations with third countries and region-al organisations; relations with the relevant international organisations and with organisations promoting regional economic and commer-cial integration outside the Union; relations with the WTO, including its parliamentary dimension. More information on the Committee onInternational Trade will be provided in the following sections on EU external relations and EU trade policy.

33 European Parliament/Committee on Development (2005): Report on the role of the European Union in the achievement of the MillenniumDevelopment Goals, A6-0075/2005.

Communication had been put on hold for severalmonths following an assessment by DG DEV that gen-der equality issues were adequately addressed by theEU Consensus on Development.

2.2.3. European Parliament

The introduction of the co-decision procedure by theMaastricht Treaty has strengthened the EP’s legislativerole. More specifically, the EP Committee onDevelopment played a central role in formulating theRegulation establishing a new financing instrument fordevelopment co-operation and the definition of finan-cial allocations to its different components. As regardsits budgetary functions, the Parliament has to agreewith any major decision involving expenditure to beborne by the Community budget. The EP Committee onBudgetary Control is responsible –among other areas –for the control of the implementation of the Union’sbudget and the control of the financial activities of theEuropean Investment Bank. On the other hand, theCommittee on Budgets is responsible for the multi-annual financial framework of the Union’s revenue andexpenditure as well as the negotiation and implementa-tion of inter-institutional agreements in this field. Despite the EP’s strengthened role in development pol-icy-making, it should be noted that the EP has no formalrole in EU trade policy-making. This institutional weak-ness is considered as one of the main factors contribut-ing to the undemocratic nature of policy-making in thisarea and will be examined in more detail in chapter 4.

Parliamentary Committees

The EP’s political supervision of Commission policyinitiatives and actions also needs to be highlighted. Intheir political and monitoring function, ParliamentaryCommittees monitor Community policies and invite ECofficials to present and explain their legislative propos-als or to share their views on different policy issues and

initiatives. Through their Reports, Resolutions andOpinions, the Parliamentary Committees exert to a cer-tain extent political influence on the other two main EUinstitutions, the Commission and the Council to developor alter existing EU policies.

Three Parliamentary Committees contribute to policy-making and/or political discussions in the areas of EUdevelopment co-operation and trade: the Committee onDevelopment30; the Committee on Women’s Rights andGender Equality31 and the Committee on InternationalTrade.32

Overall, the Committee on Development, which con-sists of about 30 members and meets once or twice permonth, has demonstrated a strong pro-development,gender-sensitive political orientation in policy discus-sions with the Commission and the Council on EU’s rolein the achievement of the MDGs and the negotiationson EPAs, among other areas. For example, it hasdemanded that gender-specific priorities need to berefocused in the EC Development Policy as basic rightsand part of the governance criteria applied under theCotonou Agreement, and emphasised that EC policiesshould enable women to play a central role in drawingup and monitoring poverty reduction strategies basedon the MDGs.33 In a number of cases, the Committee onWomen’s Rights has contributed – through its Opinions– to the mainstreaming of gender equality concerns inreports produced by the other two Committees.

A member of one of the parliamentary committees ofthe European Parliament (rapporteur) draws up areport on a proposal for a “legislative text” presentedby the EC. The appointment of the rapporteurs follows abidding process by the different political groups. Otherpolitical groups will appoint a “shadow rapporteur” tofollow the development of the report closely. The par-liamentary committee votes on this report and possiblyamends it. Then the rapporteur presents the committeereport in the EP’s plenary session in Strasbourg to the


20

785 MEPs. Only at this level, the final decision is madeon the position of the EP towards a certain issue.

The Commission is represented at all EP plenary sit-tings and must give an account of its policies whencalled upon to do so by an MEP. Furthermore, theCommission is required to answer all MEPs’ writtenand oral questions. In 2006, the Committee onDevelopment of the EP acquired the right to be con-sulted on the content of CSPs for all regions under theDCI through the conclusion of an inter-institutionalagreement with the EC (see also chapter 3). A point ofcontention between the Parliament and theCommission has been the rejection of the EP’sdemands by the Commission (DG Development) toextend this monitoring role to the screening of CSPs forACP countries.

It is important to note that the political strength of theEP’s Reports and their influence on policy-makingvaries significantly depending on which policy areathey address. Some Parliamentary Committees aremore influential than others depending on the powerthat the Parliament exercises in the respective policyarea. For example, the Committee on Development isconsidered to be influential because of its legislativerole, while the Committee on International Trade has alimited role and consequently less influence on EU pol-icy-making.

Furthermore, the level of representation of differentpolitical groups within the EP and the attempts to rec-oncile different political positions undoubtedly has animpact on the quality of the documents produced by thebody. This can lead to a “watering down” of theParliament’s positions, including the lack of strong rec-ommendations, and lead to only limited influence of theEP on EU policy-making.

The integration of gender issues in the EP’s policyanalysis and recommendations is not equally strong inall EP documents. MEPs thus need to strengthen theircommitment to promoting women’s rights and genderequality issues. They also need to systematically followup on their gender-sensitive recommendations made intheir discussions with the Commission.

2.2.4. Joint EU-ACP institutions

ACP-EU Council of Ministers

The ACP-EU Council of Ministers comprises, on the onehand, representatives of the Council and the EC and, onthe other, a government representative from each ACPstate. The functions of the ACP-EU Council are toengage in political dialogue; adopt policy guidelines;

and take legally binding decisions concerning theimplementation of the Cotonou Agreement. The ACP-EU Council meets once a year. It conducts an ongoingdialogue with the representatives of the social andeconomic partners and other actors of civil society inthe ACP and the EU. To that end, consultations with civilsociety organisations may be held alongside its meet-ings.

ACP-EU Committee of Ambassadors

The ACP-EU Committee of Ambassadors is the seconddecision-making body in this process and meets oncea month. The Committee of Ambassadors includes, onthe one hand, a permanent representative of each EUMember State and a representative of the Commissionand, on the other hand, the head of mission of eachACP State to the EU. The role of the Committee ofAmbassadors consists of assisting the ACP-EU Councilof Ministers in its functions and carrying out any man-date assigned, and monitoring the implementation ofthe ACP-EU Partnership Agreement.

The Committee has six technical Subcommittees thatcover the following areas: political, social, humanitari-an and cultural affairs; trade and commodity protocols;investment and the private sector; sustainable develop-ment; financing and development; and establishmentand finance.

ACP-EU Joint Parliamentary Assembly

The ACP-EU Joint Parliamentary Assembly is com-posed of equal numbers of EU and ACP representativesand is a consultative body. The Joint ParliamentaryAssembly meets twice a year in a plenary session. Itsrole is to: promote democratic processes through dia-logue and consultation; facilitate greater understand-ing between the population of the EU and those of theACP states and to raise public awareness of develop-ment issues; adopt resolutions and make recommenda-tions to the ACP-EU Council of Ministers. It also consid-ers topical political questions, adopts positions onhuman rights cases and regularly forms exploratory orfact-finding missions to ACP countries.

Three Standing Committees have been established todraw up substantive proposals, which are then votedon by the Joint Parliamentary Assembly: Committee onPolitical Affairs; Committee on Economic Development,Finance and Trade and Committee on Social Affairs andthe Environment.

The Joint Parliamentary Assembly has formalinstitutional relations with economic and socialpartners who have a speaking right in its plenary

21


sessions. This is however not the case for other non-state actors and civil society. The meetings of the JointParliamentary Assembly represent an opportunity forraising the profile of gender equality in politicaldialogue between EU and ACP countries, but a strongpolitical commitment is required from all parties toensure the strengthening of the ongoing dialogue inthis area.

2.3. Legal instruments, policy docu-ments and programming tools

The majority of EU policy documents, programming andfinancial instruments in the areaof development co-operationinclude as main points of refer-ence the commitment of theEuropean Commission and theEU Member States to the MDGsand to donor harmonisation asreflected in the objectives of the2005 OECD Paris Declaration.

It is important to distinguishbetween four categories of doc-uments which form the basis forthe EU’s development co-opera-

tion: legal instruments such as the Development Co-operation Instrument Regulation and the CotonouAgreement (co-signed by the EU and the ACP Council),which are legally binding; policy documents (ECCommunications), which are drafted behind closeddoors by the Commission with little or no consultationwith civil society organisations and are not legally bind-ing (but provide important policy guidance); program-ming instruments, which form the basis of co-operationwith countries in the South (Country Strategy Papers;National Indicative Programmes); and programmingguidelines (such as the gender guidelines for the coun-try strategy papers) the use of which depends on thecommitment and “good will” of those institutions incharge of the EC’s development co-operation formula-tion and implementation.

2.3.1. Legal instruments

ACP-EU Partnership Agreement (Cotonou Agree -ment)34

The ACP-EU Partnership Agreement was signed in

Cotonou, the capital of Benin, on 23 June 2000 andreplaced the Lomé Convention which had been thebasis for ACP-EU development co-operation since 1975and constituted the most elaborate system in the EU’sdevelopment co-operation policy. As the internationalcontext had changed considerably, in particular follow-ing the creation of the World Trade Organization (WTO),new co-operation agreements had to be negotiatedwith the 79 ACP countries. The Cotonou Agreementintroduces a new approach and represents a newstage in the ACP-EU relations, while preserving themain instruments of co-operation (the institutions, thefinancial instruments, etc.). Major innovations havebeen the enhancement of political dialogue betweenEU and ACP countries; commitment to strengtheningconsultations with civil society on policy issues andprogramme implementation; refocusing developmentco-operation on poverty eradication and of course thenegotiations of a new trade framework, the so-calledEconomic Partnership Agreements (EPAs) with 6 ACPregions, namely the Caribbean, Pacific, East, South,West, and Central Africa. Funds for the implementationof the Cotonou Agreement come from the EuropeanDevelopment Fund35, which is funded by Member Statecontributions, thus separate from the EU budget.

Gender equality has been included under Cotonou asone of the cross-cutting issues combining the integra-tion of a “gender-sensitive approach” at every level ofdevelopment co-operation with the adoption of specif-ic positive measures in favour of women. Such specif-ic positive measures lie in the areas of women’s partic-ipation in national and local politics; support forwomen’s organisations; as well as women’s access tobasic social services and productive resources.

The Cotonou Agreement provides thus the frameworkfor the launching of the negotiations on EconomicPartnership Agreements that the EU wishes to con-clude with the ACP countries by the end of 2007. TheEPA negotiations are aimed at establishing a newWTO-compatible trade regime between the EU and theACP countries which will substitute the current tradepreferences granted to ACP countries. A reciprocalsystem of free trade in goods and services will bephased in from 2008 to 2020 and EPAs will serve to cre-ate a new framework for trade and investment flowsbetween the EU and the ACP countries. A criticalanalysis of EPAs focuses on the asymmetrical power

34 The Cotonou Agreement provides for a revision clause which foresees that the Agreement is adapted every five years. In accordance withthis clause, the latest negotiations between the EU and ACP countries on the revision of the Agreement were concluded on 23 February2005.

35 2008-2013: 10th EDF: 22 billion euro.

“At the dawn of the twenty-first century, the cooperationlinks between the EuropeanUnion and its partners in thedeveloping world must be seenin the context of the globalisa-tion of international economicrelations.”

European Commission,http://europa.eu/scadplus/leg/en/lvb/r

12000.htm


22

relations between the EU and the ACP countries andthe EU’s pressure on the ACP countries to open up theirmarkets in different trade areas (including trade ingoods, services and investment) despite the negativeimpact that such measures will have on these coun-tries’ efforts to develop their national economies anderadicate poverty.

Other points of concern identified are: the potential rev-enue loss for ACP countries resulting from trade liber-alisation36; the influx of subsidised EU goods into ACPmarkets and its negative implications for the productivesectors affected by trade liberalisation; the disturbanceof regional integration processes; and the failure of thenegotiations to address the supply side constraintsfaced by ACP countries. To address these challenges,ACP governments have been demanding additional EUassistance (beyond the 10th EDF resources) in order todeal with supply-side constraints, increase productivecapacity and to deal with the adjustment costs that willarise from the conclusion of the EPAs. Even though theEC has indicated that a “substantial share” ofresources in the framework of the EU Aid for Trade ini-tiative (2 billion euro by 2010, see page 52) should beallocated to ACP countries, these amounts will still notsuffice to cover EPA-related costs. Moreover, the EChas not committed to covering adjustment costs, butAid for Trade resources will only be spent on trade pol-icy and regulation, trade development and trade-relat-ed infrastructure.

In terms of a gender analysis37, the negative impacts ofEPAs especially on poor women’s productive andreproductive roles (for example as smallholder farmers,traders, workers and family carers) need to be high-lighted, including the implications for poor women’saccess to income and social services; for their partici-pation in the labour market and labour market condi-tions in the sectors with high female representation;and for food security and local production systems.“The EPAs represent the latest assault on the sover-eignty of the South. They herald the demise of indige-nous retailers, the decline in inter-regional trade, theoutsourcing of basic social services, the depletion of

local income at household level and the continuedexploitation of women and low income communities.”38

Against this background and the wealth of criticismpointing out the negative effects of the liberalisation oftrade and investment within weaker economies, civilsociety actors from ACP countries and the EU opposeEPAs, and demand ACP governments not to sacrificelong-term development co-operation relationsbetween themselves by making highly questionablecompromises with the EU in the EPA negotiations underpressure. EPA negotiations must be suspended pend-ing independent impact assessments in ACP countriesand other essential international rule changes that theACP governments are demanding39.

Development Co-operation Instrument (DCI)40

With a budget of 16.9 billion euro, the Development Co-operation Instrument is consid-ered to be the main funding toolfor EU development co-opera-tion programmes around theworld and is funded from the EUannual budget. The DCI is man-aged by DG RELEX and imple-mented by EuropeAid. The DCIRegulation was signed by theParliament and the Council inDecember 2006 and sets out asimplified framework for financ-ing various areas of EuropeanCommunity development co-operation for the period 2007-2013.

This Regulation replaces a num-ber of budget lines on specific development co-opera-tion issues that came to an end in December 2006,including the gender budget line. The Regulation sup-ports actions at two mutually reinforcing levels: geo-graphic programmes in five regions (Latin America,Asia, Central Asia, South Africa and the Middle East)and five thematic programmes, which are additional to

36 Revenues constitute more than 60% of public income for many ACP countries.37 One World Action (2006): The likely impact of the EPAs on Women’s Rights and Gender Equality in Mozambique, Namibia and Zambia, by

Zohra Khan, London.APRODEV (2002): “EPAs-What’s in it for women?” A gender based impact assessment study on women in Zimbabwe: Issues in future tradenegotiations with the EU, London.

38 Pheko, Liepollo Lebohang (undated): Friend or Foe – the EPAs unmasked, Gender & Trade Network for Africa.39 Keet, Dot (2007): EPAs: Responses to the EU Offensive against ACP Developmental regions, Amsterdam.40 European Community (2006): Regulation of the European Parliament and the Council of 18 December 2006: establishing a financing instru-

ment for development co-operation, (EC) No 1905/2006.

Development Co-operationInstrument

Five thematic programmes: • Investing in people

(addressing human andsocial development issues,including gender equality);

• Environment and sustain-able management of naturalresources;

• Non-state actors and localauthorities;

• Migration and asylum; • Food security.

23


actions funded under geographic programmes.

The five thematic programmes are: investing in people(addressing human and social development issues,including gender equality); environment and sustain-able management of natural resources; non-stateactors and local authorities; migration and asylum;and food security. All developing countries, includingthe ACP countries, are eligible for additional fundingthrough the thematic programmes. However, it isimportant to clarify that the financial allocations todeveloping countries under the thematic programmeswill be decided on a competitive basis through calls forproposals. Moreover, the foreseen use of EU develop-ment financing in support of international organisa-tions’ activities is worrying, as this can potentiallyundermine and lead to a decrease of support for civilsociety programmes and initiatives in developing coun-tries. Last but not least, a specific amount (1.2 billioneuro) is earmarked for the eighteen ACP countries thatare beneficiaries of the ACP Sugar Protocol and needassistance in adjusting to the effects of the EU’s sugarsector reform.

Given the limited resource allocation to the EU’s the-matic programmes and the direction of a substantialpart of funding in support of global initiatives (globalfunds), country and regional programmes shouldremain the main channels for achieving the objectivesof EU development co-operation and the MDGs.Furthermore, the existence of thematic programmes“should not be used as an excuse for not integratingimportant issues, such as environment, HIV-AIDS, gen-der or support to civil society actors in geographic pro-gramming” 41.

The thematic programme “Investing in People” setsfour key priorities for action on human and socialdevelopment: good health for all; education, knowledgeand skills; gender equality; and other aspects (includ-ing employment and social cohesion; youth and chil-dren and culture). Apart from its inclusion as a separatearea for action, consideration of gender equality issueshas also been included in the priority areas of educa-tion and health.

Under “Investing in People”, financial support is fore-seen for actions in the following areas: providingstrategic support to programmes that contribute toachieving the objectives of the Beijing Platform forAction with a special emphasis on gender equality ingovernance and women’s political and social represen-

tation; promoting civil society organisations, notablywomen’s organisations and networks, in their endeav-ours to promote gender equality and economic andsocial empowerment, including North-South andSouth-South networking and advocacy; supporting thedevelopment and dissemination of data and indicatorsdisaggregated by sex as well as gender equality dataand indicators; reducing the adult illiteracy rate, withparticular emphasis on female literacy; and supportingactions combating violence against women.

The total allocation to gender equality oriented pro-grammes under “Investing in people” amounts toapproximately 57 million euro representing a slightimprovement in comparison to the resources allocatedtowards the promotion of gender equality and the rightsof women and girl children under the gender budgetline (9 million euro for three years covering the period2004-2006). Nevertheless, it is still marginal comparedto the total allocation of over 1 billion euro foreseen forthe implementation of the thematic programme as awhole. The main weakness of the DCI thematic pro-grammes lies in the fact that they include no specificanalysis or reference to the gender dimensions ofemployment and social cohesion, food security, migra-tion and environmental management. Moreover, theydo not foresee any support for gender-sensitive pro-grammes in the above areas.

2.3.2. Policy documents42

EU Consensus on Development

Jointly adopted by the Council, the Parliament and theCommission on 20 December 2005, the EU Consensuson Development is the first document intended to guidethe actions and outline common principles and objec-tives both for the Community institutions and the EUMember States in development co-operation (forexample with regards to increasing financial resourcesfor development; achieving co-ordination between theEC and the EU Member State development pro-grammes and tools). The Consensus is a politicallybinding document, but not a legally binding one in thesense that non-compliance with the Consensus cannotbe brought as a case to the European Court of Justice.However, it is a basic document guiding the definitionof financial instruments as well as co-operation poli-cies and priorities of the Commission and the EUMember States.

41 EuropeAid-CONCORD-FERN-WWF (16 March 2007). Shared NGO concerns and proposals on the programming of thematic programmes. 42 This list of policy documents is by no means exhaustive. Due to space constraints only a very limited number of policy documents can be

introduced.


24

In addition, the Consensus discusses how to deliver aidmore effectively and how to increase coherenceamong EU external policies affecting developing coun-tries. It also identifies areas of comparative advantageof Community programmes vis-à-vis Member Stateinterventions. The EU Consensus on Development ispolitically binding for EU development co-operationinterventions in all developing countries.

The priorities of the Consensus are poverty eradicationand the promotion of good governance, democracy andhuman rights in line with the International Conventionson Human Rights43 on the one hand, and the MDGsadopted by the UN in 2000 on the other.

The Consensus recognises the promotion of genderequality as a fundamentalhuman right and a question ofsocial justice, and foresees astrengthened approach togender equality in all EUdevelopment co-operationpolicies and the promotion ofgender equality through sup-port to women’s equal rights,access to and control overresources, as well as politicaland economic voice.

Representatives of the EUMember States consider thisdocument a major break-through in efforts undertakento ensure complementarityand coherence between ECand bilateral development

policy in the context of the Paris Declaration on DonorHarmonisation and Aid Effectiveness of March 2005.However, concerns have been raised about the capac-ity of EU actors to implement the ambitious objectivesof the Consensus.44 In addition, cross-cutting prioritiessuch as gender, environment, HIV/AIDS and theachievement of the MDGs are not sufficiently translat-ed into specific programmes or initiatives at countrylevel. In this context, a considerable challenge for theCommission and the EU Member States is how todefine their broad vision in more operational terms.

Policy Coherence for Development45

The European Community Treaty (Art.178) requires thatdevelopment objectives be taken into account in allnon-aid policies affecting the developing world andthat these policies support development objectives.Policy coherence is also a key political commitment inthe context of the MDGs. In 2005 the Council launcheda new initiative on policy coherence by underlining thatbetter development co-operation in itself, includingincreased finance and improved aid delivery, will not besufficient for achieving the MDGs by 2015; in addition,the coherence of developed countries’ policies mustalso be improved. In its Communication “PolicyCoherence for development” the Commission identifieda wide-ranging list of 11 policy coherence priorityareas: trade, environment, security, agriculture, fish-eries, social dimension of globalisation (including thepromotion of employment and decent work), migration,research and innovation, information society, transport,and energy46. In all these policy areas, a gender equali-ty perspective will be taken into account. TheCommunication highlights “trade policy as a powerfultool that contributes to poverty reduction and sustain-able development” and confirms the EU’s commitmentto ensuring a development-friendly and sustainableoutcome of the Doha Development Agenda and EPAnegotiations (as well as the negotiations withMercosur, Central America, and the AndeanCommunity). In this context, gender impact assess-ments of trade, financial and investment policies wouldprove useful for pointing out that trade and investmentpolicies do not yield gender-neutral results, but ratherlead to the distribution of benefits and costs directlyand indirectly biased against poor women.47

A work plan for this policy coherence agenda wasadopted by the Council in 200648, including a calendar ofaction and proposals in each priority area. The workplan also defined more specific roles for the Council,the Commission and the Member States. Progress onthe policy coherence agenda will be monitored andresults will be reported every two years. The first reportwill be prepared in 2007. This could be a definingmoment for future European action in this regard,including a prioritisation of the current ambitious list ofactions so as to better allocate limited resources and

43 Including the BPFA, the Cairo Agenda of the International Conference on Population and Development and CEDAW.44 OECD (2007): EC 2007 DAC Peer Review: Main findings and recommendations, Paris.45 European Community (2005): Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament and the European Economic

and Social Committee. Policy Coherence for development, COM (2005) 134.46 Climate change was later added as the 12th priority area. 47 Floro, Maria/Hoppe, Hella (2005): Engendering policy coherence for development, Berlin/New York.48 European Commission (2006): Policy Coherence for Development. Work Programme 2006-2007. Commission Staff Working Paper.

Gender equality

104. Equality between men andwomen and the active involvementof both genders in all aspects ofsocial progress are key perequisitesfor poverty reduction. The genderaspect must be addressed in closeconjunction with poverty reduction,social and political developmentand economic growth, and main-streamed in all aspects of develop-ment cooperation. Gender equalitywill be promoted through support toequal rights, access and control overresources and political and econom-ic voice.

European Consensus onDevelopment

25


identify the most efficient distribution of roles amongthe Commission, the Council and the Member States. Itis also an entry point for addressing “policy space”, asthe current nature and direction of policy coherence isbeing shaped in the context of the globalisation ofinternational economic relations. Policy coherencemust not further limit the sovereignty of governments informulating and implementing domestic policies andstrategies that would put people at the centre of thedevelopment process. It should rather contribute to apeople-centred concept of policy coherence that sup-ports and operates in compliance with agreed UNCommitments, especially as regards gender equalityand women’s empowerment.49

Financing for Development and Aid Effectiveness

In the run up to the UN Conference on Financing forDevelopment in Monterrey in 2002 which aimed atmobilising adequate resources for the achievement ofthe MDGs by 2015 as well as increasing aid effective-ness (Monterrey Consensus), the EU adopted the so-called “Barcelona commitments”.50 They spell out EUcommitments towards increasing development aid andimproving the impact and speed of aid delivery in orderto meet the challenges of the MDGs by 2015.

In 2005, the EC and the Member States endorsed theOECD Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness whichestablished global commitments for donor and partnercountries to support more effective aid in the context ofa significant scaling up of Official DevelopmentAssistance. The “Paris Declaration” outlines five prin-ciples to be monitored in terms of how aid should bedelivered, namely: ownership, alignment, harmonisa-tion, managing for results, and mutual accountability.

Both the Monterrey Consensus as well as the ParisDeclaration on Aid Effectiveness have had significantinfluence on the EC’s development policies. The ECCommunication “Accelerating progress towardsattaining the MDGs – Financing for development andaid effectiveness”,51 together with the ECCommunication “Financing for Development and AidEffectiveness - The challenges of scaling up EU aid2006-2010”,52 outline the way towards reaching a possi-

ble new interim target for increased ODA volumes inthe EU by 2010 (0.56% of its GNI) as well as towardsreaching the 0.7% target set by the United Nations.They suggest new detailed arrangements for aid, mapout options for innovative sources of finance and pro-pose ways to address the debt problems of low-incomecountries that remain after the Heavily Indebted PoorCountries (HIPC) initiative. They also focus on untyingaid to least developed countries and improving thequality and effectiveness of trade-related assistance(TRA).

These initiatives are complemented by the ECCommunication “EU Aid: Delivering more, better andfaster”,53 which sets out an action plan comprising ninetime-bound measures (“deliverables”) to be imple-mented jointly by the Commission and the MemberStates; the EC Communication “Increasing the impactof EU aid: a common framework for drafting country

Source: Williams, M. (2007): Civil Society and the new aid modalities,addressing the challenges for gender equality, democracy and participation.

49 Floro, Maria/Hoppe, Hella (2005): Engendering policy coherence for development, Berlin/New York.50 European Council Meeting, Barcelona, March 2002.51 European Community (2005): Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament. Accelerating progress

towards attaining the MDGs – Financing for Development and Aid Effectiveness, COM(2005) 133.52 European Community (2006): Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament. Financing for Development

and Aid Effectiveness – The challenges of scaling up EU aid 2006-2010, COM(2006) 85 final.53 European Community (2006): Communication from the Commission. EU Aid: Delivering more, better and faster, COM(2006) 87 final.


26

strategy papers and joint multi-annual programming”54;and the EC Communication on the new voluntary “EUCode of Conduct on Division of labour in DevelopmentPolicy”55 that lays down principles for a better divisionof labour among EU donors in developing countries.

According to official figures, most EU Member Statesare living up to their aid promises. But nearly one thirdof the EU’s reported ODA in 2006 was not in fact gen-uine aid. Many Member States are exaggerating theirprogress by charging debt relief or spending withinEurope on refugees and foreign students’ education toODA. If these non-aid items are deducted from officialfigures, the Member States missed their 2006 target, byproviding instead of 0.395 of GNI as aid only 0.31%56.This means that the EC and the Member States serious-ly need to increase their efforts to reach their targetsby 2010 and 2015 respectively.

The main concern with regard to these “new” trends infinancing for development and aid modalities is linkedto the fact that sustainable development, poverty erad-ication and gender equality issues are hardly consid-ered in relevant policy debates. The Paris Declarationfocuses narrowly on technical matters, such as aiddelivery procedures rather than on an assessment ofthe actual impact of development policies on localcommunities in countries of the South. However, aidcannot be effective without taking into account devel-opment and human rights’ concerns. With this in mind,governments of partner countries as well as civil soci-ety and especially women’s organisations should begenuinely involved in the definition of development co-operation priorities and the allocation and managementof financial resources in support of development poli-cies and objectives.

From the EU Strategy for Africa57 to a joint EU-AfricaStrategy58

The EU Strategy for Africa was adopted in December2005 and provides a long-term policy framework for ECdevelopment co-operation with African countries.Being criticised for having adopted a strategy that had

been developed without sufficient consultation andthat retained elements of a traditional unilateral“donor-recipient” approach, the EC re-launched theprocess and is currently developing a Joint EU-Africastrategy – “a partnership with Africa, rather than astrategy for Africa”. This joint strategy, which explainsthe political vision and guides the future EU-Africastrategic partnership, will be adopted by the Africanand EU heads of states and governments at the nextEU-Africa Summit in Lisbon in December 2007.

Europe’s relationship with Africa is deeply rooted inhistory that has gradually evolved from the colonialrelation to the current economic African dependencyon aid and trade. But Africa is of strategic importanceto the EU’s economic interests too, for example in rela-tion to energy supplies, or the access to naturalresources, especially with the emergence of new eco-nomic leaders (i.e. China) that has re-launched interna-tional competition on access to and control overAfrica’s natural and mineral reserves. It also plays astrategic role because of the location of north-eastAfrican countries neighbouring the Middle East (i.e.Saudi Arabia, and the Nile basin). Migration flows fromAfrican countries to the EU are another issue that hasmotivated the interest of EU Member States to invest inthis strategy.

The 2005 EU Strategy for Africa focuses on co-opera-tion with African countries in three main areas: areasconsidered as prerequisites for achieving the MDGs(peace/security and good governance); areas that cre-ate the economic environment necessary for achievingthe MDGs (economic growth, trade, agriculture andinterconnectivity); as well as other areas directly tar-geted by the MDGs, such as access to basic services,social cohesion, decent work, gender equality and theenvironment. The EU Strategy for Africa also foreseesan increase in EU financing for Africa as well as thedevelopment and implementation of a more effectiveapproach. From a gender perspective, the AfricaStrategy lacks concrete initiatives and a coherentapproach to address the achievement of gender equal-

54 European Community (2006): Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament: Increasing the impact ofEU aid, COM (2006) 88 final.

55 European Community (2007): Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament. EU Code of Conduct onDivision of labour in Development Policy, COM (2007) 72 final.

56 Concord (2007): Hold the applause! EU governments risk breaking aid promises.57 European Community (2005): Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament and the European Economic

and Social Committee. Strategy for Africa: Towards a Euro-African Pact to accelerate Africa’s development, COM (2005) 489 final.European Community (2006): Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament and the European Economicand Social Committee. An EU-Caribbean Partnership for growth, stability and development, COM (2006) 86 final.European Community (2006): Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament and the European Economicand Social Committee. EU relations with Pacific Islands – A strategy for strengthened partnership, COM (2006) 248 final.

58 European Community (2007): Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament. – From Cairo to Lisbon –The EU-Africa Strategic Partnership, COM (2007)357 final.


27

ity in the region. Without addressing gender concernsin a holistic way, there is little chance of the strategyresponding to the development needs and priorities ofthe people in the region.

The EU-Africa partnership agreement has four mainpolitical objectives: reinforcing the EU-Africa politicalpartnership; promoting peace and security, gover-nance and human rights; trade and regional and conti-nental integration in Africa; and addressing politicalchallenges and strengthening people-centred partner-ship in Africa and the EU. Moreover, it specifies someflagship initiatives that will take the EU-Africa partner-ship forward in different areas, including energy, cli-mate change, migration, mobility and employment,democratic governance and a joint EU-Africa politicaland institutional architecture. In addition, an actionplan for the joint strategy will be worked out.

Specific policy documents on gender59 EC Communication on Gender Equality and Women’sEmpowerment in Development Co-operation60

This Communication is a key document as it providesthe main policy basis for the integration of genderequality concerns into EC development co-operationprogrammes, it adopts a human rights perspective andcomplements the provisions of the thematic pro-gramme “Investing in People”. The Communicationwas adopted by the May 2007 GAERC meeting.

Its added value lies in the fact that it outlines the ECstrategy and priorities on three levels: First, it provides41 concrete suggestions in the areas of governance,employment, education, health and domestic violenceas examples for how gender equality can best be sup-ported in a specific region or country. Second, it sug-gests increasing the efficiency of gender equality inpolitical dialogue with partner countries (through theestablishment of effective partnerships for a dialogueon gender and development) and in development co-operation itself. The Communication recognises thatthe key role of women for growth and developmentshould be taken into account in the preparation andimplementation of development strategies. The strate-gy also proposes checklists to evaluate each actionagainst its contribution to gender equality in order toensure that gender issues are more effectively inte-grated into each development project supported by the

EC. Third, it explores the added value for gender equal-ity of using general budget support modalities in devel-oping countries or to spe-cific sectors such ashealth or education asopposed to individual proj-ect support61.

Despite the positive ele-ments mentioned above,the Communication lacks adeeper analysis of and ref-erences to the growingfeminisation of poverty.Furthermore, the imple-mentation mechanismsare not well defined; nei-ther are the financial andhuman resources that arenecessary to ensure aneffective implementationof the strategy. Moreover,the Communication doesnot provide sufficientinformation on available mechanisms for monitoringand assessing the strategy’s implementation. In coher-ence with the principles of ownership and accountabil-ity, transparent and systematic mechanisms need to beput in place that will allow women’s organisations toengage meaningfully in the implementation of theCommunication as well as in its monitoring and evalua-tion.

Although the Communication acknowledges the struc-tural obstacles faced by women in developing coun-tries, it still needs improvement in the following areasrelated to the empowerment of women: The strategyremains unclear on how women’s participation at allpolitical and decision-making spheres can beachieved. Moreover, the empowerment of women inemployment and economic activities is not linked to theformal and informal sectors and does not take intoaccount the gender implications of the care economy.In relation to combating gender-based violence, theactions proposed remain still basic.

Another point of critique is linked to using generalbudget support as one of the main aid modalities: Thisis a an extremely controversial issue and its contribu-

59 This Communication is a successor of the Programme of Action for the Mainstreaming of Gender Equality in Community Development Co-operation [COM (2001) 295 final] that came to an end in December 2006.

60 European Community (2007): Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament. Gender Equality andWomen’s Empowerment in Development Co-operation, COM (2007) 100 final.

61 DG DEV/DG RELEX (2007): Joint press release. EC proposes a European strategy to promote gender equality in development co-operation,8 March 2007.

Although trade liberalisationhas had a positive impact onmost economies in the long-term, it may also result inshort-term negative conse-quences for vulnerablegroups with poor womenbeing particularly affected(10). Different sectors of theeconomy can have a crucialimpact on gender equality:e.g. poor infrastructure canundermine girls' schoolingbecause of insecure trans-port or if the lack of nearbywater sources 'forces' theparents to use girls for housework.

COM (2007)100 final


28

tion to poverty eradication, social development andgender equality objectives in developing countries isquestioned, given the lack of public accountability sys-tems and the marginal integration of gender concernsin relevant initiatives. “The importance of developingmechanisms and monitoring tools to ensure thatresources channelled through this aid modality willgenuinely benefit human and social development”62

must therefore be highlighted. Moreover, both sector-wide approach programmes and budget support canlead to a further deprioritisation of gender equality as“the new aid architecture has few, if any, mechanismsfor accountability and even less mechanisms for theimplementation of national obligations to genderequality”63. These weaknesses of the new aid architec-ture are further reinforced by existing challenges in theimplementation of gender mainstreaming in EU devel-opment assistance.

Given the EC’s weak record in turning policy commit-ments in the area of gender equality into practice, themain challenge, but also a major opportunity, lies nowin the operationalisation of the commitments outlinednot only in the above EC Communication, but also inother key documents.

2.3.3. Programming tools

Country strategy papers

Country strategy papers are the main EC programminginstruments at national level setting priorities andfocal/non-focal sectors for EC development co-opera-tion with partner countries. CSPs provide an analysis ofthe partner country’s economic, social and political sit-uation, its basic needs and main elements of its nation-al development agenda. Most importantly, they outlinea country response strategy detailing how the EC cancontribute to the partner country’s development, takinginto consideration ongoing programmes and actionssupported by the EU Member States and other donors.The regional strategy papers (RSPs) outline strategiesand priorities for the different ACP regions as well asproposals for the specific EC contribution to the region-al integration process (both in terms of programmingand financing)64.

The drafting of CSPs is an exercise jointly undertakenby EC Delegations and national governments in ACPcountries. In the context of the 10th EDF programming

exercise, which started in February 2006, a series ofmeetings were organised between the EC Delegationsand representatives of the Ministry of Finance(National Authorising Officer) and other Ministries(Ministry of Agriculture, Ministry of Transport andInfrastructure, etc.) in order to discuss and jointlydecide on policy priorities to be funded by the EC. Asalready mentioned under point 2.1. (page 13) EC inter-ests have dominated these discussions, while ACPcountries’ views have been sidelined. This can lead toa choice of focal sectors and/or the focus within thesesectors having little relevance to the needs of thegreater population in the countries. Often focal sectorsreflect EU interests, including the EC’s own perceived“comparative advantage” vis-à-vis other internationaldonors, political priorities, but also economic inter-ests.65

It is debatable as to how far the EU’s increased supportto the ACP countries in the areas of regional integra-tion, infrastructure and trade-related assistance underthe 10th European Development Fund will have animpact on the achievement of the MDGs and socialdevelopment, including gender equality in the countriesof the South. Another major area of concern is the mar-ginalisation of gender concerns in EC country specificstrategies.

With regard to gender in the EDF programming exer-cise, the EC Headquarters circulated to theDelegations in ACP countries gender information briefsand gender guidelines to guide the formulation ofCSPs. The gender information briefs provide anoverview of the situation of gender equality in selectedpartner countries and cover the main issues that needto be addressed in order to support the promotion ofgender equality, in coherence with the national devel-opment goals. The gender guidelines address threedimensions: they set the scene by reviewing the con-cept and key issues related to gender equality andwomen’s empowerment in the fight against poverty;they carry out an analysis of gender equality in thecountry and focus on relevant policies, actors and indi-cators; and they explain how gender equality can beaddressed in the Community’s response strategy.

Despite the availability of methodological tools, a gen-der review of the draft CSPs under the 10th EDFrevealed a serious lack of gender-disaggregated data

62 CONCORD Cotonou Working Group (2006): Briefing Paper ACP-EU relations: Will the EU deliver on its promises? Challenges of the 10th EDFProgramming process, Brussels.

63 Eurostep/Social Watch (2005): Accountability upside down – Gender equality in a partnership for poverty eradication, Brussels.64 RSPs are negotiated by mandated bodies in six regions: the Caribbean, the Pacific, Southern, Central, East and West Africa. 65 CIDSE (2007): The EU’s footprint in the South. Does European Community development co-operation make a difference for the poor?,

Brussels.


29

and limited integration of gender concerns in thecountry situation analysis and the country responsestrategies. As far as the new EU aid modalities are con-cerned, an internal EU assessment states that, “indica-tors disaggregated by sex will be included in the budg-et support performance monitoring frameworks relat-ed to education and sometimes to health, but there areno other visible results of gender mainstreaming ingeneral budget support”.

This indicates that the tools and resources prepared byHeadquarters have not been used adequately by theDelegations or they were simply ignored given theirnon-binding nature. On a more positive note,Botswana, Cameroon, Malawi and Mozambique pro-vided the highest quality CSPs from a gender perspec-tive by integrating a gender analysis of poverty; includ-ing references to gender equality policies and actors;and outlining specific programmes or specific activitiesunder the focal and non-focal sectors of co-operationwith the objective to contribute to gender equality andwomen’s empowerment. The use of gender-sensitiveprogramming tools by the Delegations should be regu-larly followed-up by EC Headquarters (DG DEV andEuropeAid) in order to ensure coherence between pol-icy and practice.

Country strategy papers are complemented by thenational indicative programmes which define thefocus sectors and areas to be supported in a specificcountry and set out a detailed budget allocation for thedifferent fields for co-operation. They also include aprecise timetable and details for the integration of non-state actors.

2.4. Financing instruments

Financial resources are made available to ACP coun-tries through two sources: the European DevelopmentFund and the thematic programmes funded under theEU budget (see details under 2.3.1. page 23).

European Development Fund

The European Development Fund is the main instru-ment for providing Community aid for development co-operation in the ACP countries and thus forms a cen-tral part of ACP-EU relations. Each EDF is concluded fora period of five years. The 10th EDF (2008-2013) hasbeen set to cover 22.7 billion euro. The main task of theEC is to manage the EDF resources on behalf of the EUMember States; the implementation is incumbent onEuropeAid. The EDF budget, which is funded byMember States’ contributions, is subject to its own

financial rules and is managed by a committee com-posed of representatives of the EU Member States (EDFCommittee). The EDF does therefore not come underthe Community’s general budget even though a headinghas been reserved for the Fund in the Community budg-et since 1993 following a request by the EuropeanParliament. This results in the EP having very limitedpower in terms of the allocation of aid through the EDF,and the EP’s role is limited to granting an annual dis-charge in respect of operations financed under thisinstrument.

Resources under the EDF consist of two main elements:an allocation for long-term development co-operationactivities, including macroeconomic support, pro-grammes and projects (Envelope A) and an allocationto cover unforeseen needs, such as emergency assis-tance (Envelope B). The EDF provides trade related aidas well as funding for a wide range of development pro-grammes including health, education, rural develop-ment, etc. It also contains provisions related to tradeand structural adjustment. In addition, financing ismade available to ACP countries through the intra-ACPfacilities (EU Energy and EU Water Facility), the imple-mentation of which is co-ordinated by the EuropeAidCo-operation Office. The EDF also foresees financialsupport for regional programmes (Regional Envelopes).

Indicative resource allocation under the EDF is basedon both the needs and the performance (includingabsorption capacity) of ACP countries (national indica-tive programmes and country strategy papers)66. DGDEV puts forward initial suggestions in this area, whilethe final decision on specific country allocations lieswith the EDF Committee which in fact increases thedecision-making power of the EU Member States in theprocess. The EU may revise the initial resource alloca-tion to the different sectors on the basis of the resultsof the Mid and End-of-Term Review.

The provision of EDF resources happens through twodifferent instruments: One part is available in the formof grants to sectoral programmes, debt cancellation,integration, etc. The other, much smaller part, is avail-able in the form of loans through the EuropeanInvestment Bank and aims at the promotion of privateinvestments (see page 31).

The 10th EDF also foresees additional financial alloca-tions to ACP countries on the basis of an “incentivetranche” linked to an assessment of good governancein partner countries undertaken by EC Delegations withinput from the EU Member States represented in thosecountries (“good governance profiles”). This unilateralassessment of good governance, which does not or

66 ECPDM argues that the 10th EDF is in fact lower than the 9th EDF if one factors in the amount of resources that were transferred from the6th, 7th and 8th EDF envelopes. See South Center (2007): Analytical note, Fact sheet number 6, May 2007.


30

only to a very limited amount take into account the con-tribution of local actors, undermines the principle ofpartnership as laid down in the Cotonou Agreementand results in a one-sided definition of good gover-nance. In addition, this approach does not take intoaccount the political and social complexities in partnercountries and seems to ignore civil society’s views andexisting initiatives to promote good governance. Themethodology used by the Commission leads to the pri-oritisation of issues that “have more to do withEurope’s own priority interests”, such as migration, thefight against terrorism, the proliferation of weapons ofmass destruction and private-sector friendly policies67.Last but not least, the good governance profiles includevarious indicators from the traditional area of gover-nance (transparency, the fight against corruption,accountability, human rights); only one out of the 23indicators is linked to gender equality.

In the context of discussions on the potential “budgeti-sation” of the EDF, civil society organisations empha-sise that the level of resources available to ACP coun-tries should be safeguarded and funds should not bediverted to other regions or used for other purposesother than poverty eradication. Furthermore, theydemand that resource allocation criteria should becentred on the needs and rights of the populations ofdeveloping countries; the political role of the joint EU-ACP institutions should be reinforced, while the keyprinciples of partnership, ownership and participationof civil society should be respected68.

Also the question how to deal with EPA-related adjust-ment costs caused by economic restructuring andreciprocal liberalisation is not satisfactorily solved.ACP countries consider the EDF not as an appropriatemechanism to compensate for the costs of adjustmentand to address the needs of ACP countries due to awide range of reasons, including stagnating aid-to-GNIration, declining real value of assistance, slow rates ofdisbursement, and inexperience in trade and privatesector development.69

European Investment Bank

The European Investment Bank has a dual role indevelopment co-operation: it manages a part of the EDFresources (loans and risk capital), and contributesfinances from its own resources. The role of the EIB isexpected to be strengthened in the near future in the

context of the implementation of the EU-AfricaPartnership on Infrastructure.

2.5. Gender initiatives in EU development co-

operation

The main elements of the EC gender equality strategyin development co-operation include the formulationof gender sensitive policy documents, the allocation offinancial resources to support gender-sensitive pro-grammes and activities of women’s organisations inpartner countries, the appointment of gender desks inthe Commission services in charge of external rela-tions, as well as building capacity on gender issuesamong staff members through the organisation of train-ing sessions.

Gender desks in DG DEV and the EuropeAid Co-opera-tion Office

The responsibility for gender equality in EC develop-ment co-operation lies mainlywith the policy officers in chargeof gender issues (gender desks)in the thematic Units B3 in DGDEV and E4 of the EuropeAid Co-operation Office. Each genderdesk is composed of one officialemployed full-time. However,gender desks do not cover onlygender issues, but are alsorequired to cover other policyissues and priorities, such as cul-tural aspects in EC developmentco-operation (in the case of theDG DEV gender desk) and civilsociety as well as children’srights (in the case of EuropeAid’sgender desk). The limited alloca-tion of human resources to imple-ment the EC gender equalitystrategy can be perceived as anindication of the low importancethat the EC ascribes to gender equality.

Financing for gender equality

Gender projects in ACP countries will be financedthrough the national indicative programmes under the

67 CIDSE (2006): Governance and Development Cooperation: Civil Society Perspectives on the European Union Approach, Brussels. 68 CONCORD Task force on Financial perspectives (2005): Letter to COREPER – Recommendations on Heading 4 of the financial perspectives

2007-2013, Brussels.69 South Center (2007): Analytical note, Fact sheet number 6, May 2007, Geneva.

”The problem with gendermainstreaming lies mainlywith the implementation of ECdevelopment co-operation. Insome cases, there is politicalcommitment but the questionis how we translate policydocuments into concrete ini-tiatives in partner countries.In other cases, there is politi-cally correct speech but noreal commitment either onbehalf of the EuropeanCommission or on behalf ofnational governments.Furthermore, gender equalityremains a politically sensitiveissue in many partner coun-tries”.

An MEP on gender mainstreaming


31

European Development Fund and/or thematic pro-grammes. Given the fact that gender is supposed to bemainstreamed in EC supported country strategies forACP countries, it is very difficult to calculate the exactlevel of financial resources allocated to gender-sensi-tive programmes under the national indicative pro-grammes.

The policy and financial basis for the implementationof the EC gender equality strategy is mainly outlined intwo key documents: the 2007 Communication onGender Equality and Women’s Empowerment inDevelopment Co-operation and the DCI Regulation –Thematic programme “Investing in People”.70

These documents are considered to follow up on twomajor initiatives that came to an end in December 2006:the 2001-2006 Programme of Action of MainstreamingGender in EC development co-operation and thefinancing of gender-specific projects through the “gen-der budget line”. The implementation of these initia-tives confirmed the need to identify a long-term strate-gy and for clearly defined objectives and activities inthe area of gender mainstreaming that go beyond poli-cy declarations.

Some of the policy initiatives undertaken by theEuropean Commission with the aim to strengthen thelevel of integration of gender equality issues in ECdevelopment co-operation (such as the gender reviewof the country strategy papers for ACP countries in thecontext of the 10th EDF programming exercise, the draft-ing of gender guidelines and gender briefs etc.) havebeen analysed in the previous sections. Although suchinitiatives reveal good intentions and point to the rightdirection, unfortunately they have so far had limitedinfluence on EC policy-making in the area of develop-ment co-operation. Some Member State representa-tives interviewed for this study have commented on DGDEV’s (and DG RELEX’s) lack of “serious commitment”to gender equality issues.

Studies by civil society organisations such asAPRODEV and One World Action71 have emphasised theevaporation of gender policy commitments at imple-mentation level and have been critical of the marginal-isation of gender issues and the limited involvement ofwomen’s organisations in the political dialoguebetween the EC and ACP countries (as well as betweenthe EC and other regional groups). The same studieshave identified adequate human and financialresources as well as a clear allocation of responsibili-ties at the Headquarter and EC Delegation level as cru-

cial for the successful implementation of EC commit-ments in this area. They have also pointed out that gen-der mainstreaming is relevant and should be integratedin all stages of project cycle management, includingprogramming, formulation, implementation, monitoringand evaluation. Furthermore, institutional commitmenton behalf of all Commission services involved in the for-mulation and implementation of EC development co-operation has been identified as a crucial factor for thesuccessful implementation of gender equality initia-tives.

Capacity building

Lack of awareness on gender issues has been recog-nised as a barrier for an effective gender equality strat-egy. The training sessions organised by the EuropeAidCo-operation Office in co-operation with the GenderHelp Desk (see section 2.5.2.) for staff members both atEC Headquarters and the EC Delegations in partnercountries is an important initiative in this context. Sincepromoting gender equality is not an official task includ-ed in job descriptions, staff who decide to dedicatetime to this training do so out of personal commitmentvis-à-vis their workload. As a result, the level of partic-ipation by different Commission services in trainingsessions organised by the Gender Help Desk variedconsiderably with EuropeAid being the most active, DGDEV making the “strategic choice” to shift activitiesoriginally planned for its staff members to theDelegations, and DG RELEX with limited (to non-exis-tent) participation.

Monitoring and evaluation

Last but not least, the EC does not report in a structuredway on the implementation of activities linked to gen-der equality to the EP or the Council on developmentissues. Gender seems to be marginalised in the annualreports on the implementation of EC development co-operation produced by the EC.

2.5.1. Institutional mechanisms

Informal Group of Experts on Gender Equality

The informal Group of Experts on Gender Equality isformed by national gender experts from the MemberStates and is chaired by DG DEV (gender desk-Unit B3).It convenes meetings annually and its aim is to discusspolicy developments in relation to gender and devel-opment in the context of the EU and international major

70 See also sections 2.3.1. and 2.3.271 See among others APRODEV/One World Action (2002): Everywhere and Nowhere: Assessing Gender Mainstreaming in European

Community Development Cooperation, Brussels/London.


32

events, such as UN conferences. The Members of theGroup are also invited to provide comments on policydocuments prepared by DG DEV.

Europe Aid Co-operation Office Gender Focal PersonsNetwork

The network is composed of EC officials dealing withgender issues both in Brussels and in EC Delegations.Following a suspension of its activities for one year dueto the re-organisation process at EuropeAid, the net-work was re-launched in 2006. It provides a discussionand information forum, which monitors and makesproposals for more effective gender mainstreaming inEC development co-operation; contributes to better dis-semination of good practices in this area; identifiesgender training needs; and contributes to the prepara-tion of methodological tools. The co-ordination of thenetwork falls under the responsibility of Europe-Aid Co-operation Office, Unit E4.

2.5.2. UNIFEM-EC-ILO project

In December 2006, the EC, UNIFEM and the ILO signeda contract for the initiation of a project aimed at identi-

fying practical approach-es for incorporating gen-der equality and women’srights into aid pro-grammes funded by theEC. The implementation ofthis project started in April2007 and its total durationwill be three years. The focus of this project isto increase civil societystakeholders’ influenceon national developmentstrategies and EC devel-opment planning at coun-try level in 12 pre-selectedcountries from differentregions through aware-

ness-raising on how the new EU aid architecture worksand through the dissemination of gender tools devel-oped by the ILO Training Centre72. More specifically, theproject will capacitate policy dialogue on gender anddevelopment issues through the organisation of nation-al consultations with the participation of women’s min-istries and ministries of planning, members of national

parliaments, NGOs, the EC Delegations, UN agencies,other international organisations and donors. UNIFEMcountry offices will have the responsibility to co-ordi-nate activities at national level, while the ILO will con-tinue to provide on-line training for EC staff and willdevelop further existing training tools. In the same con-text, a virtual Gender Help Desk will be established pro-viding information to the EC Headquarters and theDelegations upon request and an interactive websitewill act as a forum for sharing information among theEC Delegation gender focal points. Civil society organi-sations specialised in gender and development issuescan play an advisory and monitoring role in the contextof the implementation of this project.

Follow-up project to the former gender help desk

The UNIFEM-EC-ILO project will follow up on the activ-ities implemented by the Gender Help Desk of the ECRELEX family which was run by the ILO InternationalTraining Centre between 1 January 2004 and December2006. During the three years of its operation, the activi-ties of the Gender Help Desk focused on the prepara-tion of an EU package of “gender tools” responding tooperational needs, including the production of a“Toolkit on Mainstreaming Gender Equality in ECDevelopment Co-operation”, the drafting of genderguidelines for CSPs and the organisation of trainingsessions on gender mainstreaming and specificthemes at Headquarter and Delegation levels. The suc-cess of the training sessions varied considerably. Insome cases, training sessions resulted in the presenceof committed and competent gender focal points in ECDelegations (e.g. Nigeria, Mozambique, Ghana, India)and/or the formulation of a gender equality strategy atDelegation level, supported by the Head of Delegation(e.g. Nigeria).

Despite the varying levels of participation and commit-ment shown by the different Commission services, anumber of activities undertaken by the Gender HelpDesk initiated a process of institutional learning andinter-institutional dialogue between Commission serv-ices and between the Commission and the EU MemberStates on the implementation of gender equality in EUdevelopment co-operation. The role of the ILO TrainingCentre as an “external service provider”, althoughextremely important, indicates its little margin of actionto initiate and ensure long-term institutional changeswithin the Commission services.

72 The main objectives of the project are to incorporate gender into the EC development co-operation programming process (including theMid-Term Review of CSPs under the 10th EDF); mainstream UN Security Council Resolution 1325 (women and security) into conflict pre-vention and peace building initiatives in 4 countries; and build capacity on gender issues so that multi-stakeholder groups from minimum8 countries become more committed to gender in the Ghana High Level Forum on Aid Effectiveness planned to take place in 2008. TheSteering Committee of the project is composed of EuropeAid, DG DEV and DG RELEX representatives.

“Ownership is a key word: gen-der mainstreaming is related toendogenous change and can besustainable only with adequateinternal human-financial resour -ces and clear accountabilitylines. Some of these initiatives –if sustained at decision-makinglevels within the Commission –can potentially have a criticalimpact on the actual capacity ofEC cooperation to promote gen-der equality.”

Gender help desk for the EC RELEX fam-ily, ILO, Turin, (2007) Activity report.


33

2.6. Civil society dialogue mechanisms

In the context of EU initiatives on promoting good gov-ernance, all EU institutions have the obligation to pro-vide information and support dialogue with civil soci-ety organisations. This is at the core of institutionalaccountability and transparency. Furthermore, debateson promoting the democratic nature of EU policy-mak-ing have been revived following the rejection of theConstitution for the Future of Europe by the people oftwo EU Member States (France and the Netherlands).

At Headquarter level, DG DEV andthe EuropeAid Co-operation Officeorganise consultations with civilsociety organisations in an ad-hoc,informal manner lacking in trans-parency depending on priorities andissues under discussion by theCommission services and other EUinstitutions. In some cases, informa-tion on possibilities for civil societycontributions and input is publishedon the DG DEV website. In othercases, specific civil society organi-sations are invited by theCommission to provide input. The criteria for selectingcivil society organisations to contribute to the discus-sions are not clear.

Only recently (in March 2007) the EuropeanCommissioner for Development and Relations with ACPcountries initiated contacts with representatives ofcivil society organisations to discuss the possibility ofestablishing a mechanism for structured policy dia-logue between the Commission and civil society ondevelopment issues and priorities. As this is only thefirst step in what is foreseen to be a lengthy process ofdiscussions between the two parties, no predictionscan be made on the structure of the dialogue.

Political dialogue is also an essential element of theCotonou Agreement. The agreement foresees anincrease in discussions not only between the officialparties (EC and ACP national governments), but alsowith civil society organisations. In ACP countries, civilsociety dialogue meetings have been organised by ECDelegations in the context of the Joint Annual Reports,

Mid-Term and End-of-Term Review and in the contextof the programming exercise for the 10th EDF. A specif-ic annex developing an analysis of consultations withcivil society organisations at national level is attachedto the Country Strategy Papers for ACP countries.

However, when looking at issues such as the timing ofthese meetings vis-à-vis the definition of co-operationpriorities (focal and non-focal sectors) and the finalisa-tion of programming documents, the quality of dia-logue, NGOs’ access to information and the selection ofcivil society organisations invited to attend these meet-

ings questions arise on the effec-tiveness and impact of such consul-tation meetings.73 “Consultationshould not just serve as validation,but civil society must be involvedfrom the beginning in agenda set-ting and defining policy, both inEurope and in developing coun-tries”.74 Another weakness in thisprocess is that there is no system-atic analysis available on the extentof participation of Ministries incharge of gender issues andwomen’s organisations in policy

discussions on the 10th EDF programming exercise.

Furthermore, a meaningful dialogue between the EC,the National Authorising Officer and civil society isneeded at country level.

Projects aimed at enhancing the capacity of nationalcivil society organisations in the areas of lobbying,advocacy and networking and strengthening existingspaces for dialogue between EC Delegations and CSOshave been set up in all ACP countries.75 These projectsare funded through the EDF budget and are integratedin the national indicative programmes under the 9th andthe 10th EDF. Support to civil society organisations isalso foreseen through a specific thematic programmeunder the financial perspectives 2007-2013 (see sectionon the DCI). It should be acknowledged though that inmany cases local NGOs and especially grassrootsorganisations do not have the needed knowledge of ECprocedures to apply successfully for funds. This is acase demonstrating how donor requirements and pro-cedures have a negative impact on the participation of

“We – as Europeans – have ourpolitical priorities and positions inrelation to development and trade.Yet, these are issues to be decidedby the people and civil society inpartner countries in the South.This is the core of democracy”.

MEP on the role of civil society in discus-sions on EU development and trade policy

73 See for example: Eurostep (2006): We decide, You “own”! An assessment of the programming of the European Community Aid to ACP coun-tries under the 10th European Development Fund, London.

74 CARITAS/CIDSE (2006): Letter to Director General of DG DEV: Ten recommendations to improve EC cooperation with civil society, London.75 An extensive analysis of the involvement of NSAs in the implementation of the Cotonou Agreement is developed in the joint ECDPM

(European Centre for Development Policy Management) and ACP toolkit “The Cotonou Agreement: A User’s guide for Non-State Actors”.


34

local stakeholders in development co-operation.

It is important that partner organisations in ACP coun-tries are active in monitoring the implementation ofthese programmes given their potential contribution tostrengthening and supporting women’s organisations’activities at country level. Decision-makers both at the

EC and the ACP need to pay specific attention to thelevel of women’s organisations’ representation in poli-cy discussions. Women’s participation in the policy dia-logue on development issues needs to be encouragedand promoted given their role as agents of develop-ment and social change.


35


EU external relations cover foreign policy issues andco-operation with countries and regions throughoutthe world, including the US, Russia, China, Japan,Middle East, Asia and Latin America76. Since 1976, theEU has been implementing a financial and technical aidprogramme for the developing countries in LatinAmerica and Asia (ALA). EU relations with these coun-tries take the form of bilateral economic and trade co-operation agreements. Such agreements have beensigned in particular with India (1981), Brazil (1982) andChina (1985).

In the beginning EU-ALA co-operation was not mainlytrade-based: most of the trade between the EU andthese countries or regions came under the non-prefer-ential trade arrangements. Co-operation activities havelong been concentrated to certain sectors, such asagricultural development, the exploitation of forestryresources or the development of social infrastructure.

More recently, regional co-operation support and eco-nomic criteria have become ever more important, and abroader type of economic co-operation has emerged,

in particular via the promotion of partnerships betweenAsian or Latin American and European companies.

The expansion of EU borders to the East and South withthe accession of ten new Member States in 2004 andthe consideration of geo-political issues includingsecurity concerns has led the EU to develop mecha-nisms for strengthened co-operation with its neigh-bouring countries in the Middle East, North Africa,Balkans and the Caucasus region. EU priorities in thisarea are reflected in the new EuropeanNeighbourhood Policy Instrument, which was includ-ed among the external co-operation instrumentstogether with the Development Co-operationInstrument and the Human Rights Instrument (amongothers). The development of these instruments andrespective financial allocations were finalised in 2006under the 2007-2013 EU financial perspectives. Partnercountries from the South have commented that follow-ing the EU enlargement process, the EU’s “energy” –both in political terms and in terms of dialogue – hasshifted to the East.

Despite these political developments, the EU has main-tained an interest in relations with its Southern part-ners partly because of its Member States’ commitment

3. EU external relations and gender (India and ASEAN)

Chapter 3 examines EU external co-operation with India and ASEAN under the geographic programmes of theDevelopment Co-operation Instrument.

The European Commission (DG RELEX) has the main responsibility for the formulation of the country strategies,while the DCI Committee within the Council of Ministers and the EP Committee on Development are involvedin the screening and approval of country strategy papers. Chapter 3 analyses in detail the involvement of theseinstitutions in the programming exercise, as well as the main policy documents (Development Co-operationInstrument, relevant EC Communications) which guide the definition of priorities for co-operation with thesecountries. At the same time, this chapter focuses on the level of integration of gender equality issues in thecountry strategies and identifies entry points for lobbying by civil society organisations in this area.

An analysis of EU relations with India and ASEAN would be incomplete without reference to the EC (DG Trade)initiative to launch negotiations with these countries on Free-Trade Agreements (FTAs) and the role that theCouncil of Ministers plays in EU trade policy. In this context, chapter 3 provides an overview of the main ele-ments of DG Trade’s negotiating mandates and includes reference to civil society organisations’ analysis of thedevelopment, social and gender implications of these agreements.

76 External relations with these regions include trade and co-operation agreements of various types, financial and technical aid, humanitar-ian aid and funds devoted to the campaign against poverty. A presentation of the different types of international agreements concludedbetween the EU and third countries is included in the Glossary, Annex 1


36

to international processes such as the MDGs and otherdevelopment objectives and partly because of eco-nomic interests and considerations. Due to space limi-tations, this chapter will focus on EC co-operation withIndia and ASEAN,77 providing an illustration of the linksand contradictions between the EU development andtrade agendas.

EU-India and EU-ASEAN co-operation

Co-operation agreements with India and ASEAN com-prise three main components: political dialogue,development co-operation and trade. The selection ofIndia and ASEAN for this study is linked to the growinginterest shown by the EU to strengthen economic rela-tions with these countries through the conclusion offree trade agreements and enhanced co-operation inthe areas of trade, investment, education and the envi-ronment, reflected in the draft strategy papers for thecountries in the region and regional co-operationstrategies. The EU’s interest in the region is partly seenas a reaction to the increased US influence on theregion. It is also linked to the fact that these countriesrepresent rapid growth and large markets for EU exportcompanies. It takes into account the growing impor-tance of these countries in international trade, theprominent role held by India in the representation ofdeveloping country interests in the WTO fora since theMinisterial Meeting in Cancún and its evolution into anemerging regional and international leader in the UNfora.

In April 2007 the European Commission (DG Trade)received negotiating mandates from the Council ofMinisters for a new generation of competitiveness-driven bilateral trade agreements with India, SouthKorea and the regional grouping of ASEAN includingthe areas of investment and services. The mandatesare presented as an integral part of the ECCommunication “Global Europe: Competing in theWorld” launched in October 200678 and should also beanalysed in the context of the preparation of a newframework for co-operation with these countries underthe Development Co-operation Instrument (2007-2013).So far, these ambitious agreements ignore the politicaland social diversity as well as the poverty levels andsocial inequalities in these countries. Some of thecountries of the ASEAN group (Cambodia,Burma/Myanmar and Laos) are classified as LDCs,while others (Vietnam, Indonesia, Philippines, Thailand)

belong to the groups of low income and lower middle-income countries.

Applying a “one-size-fits-all” strategy will result in seri-ous negative implications for the development of thesecountries. The simplistic view that trade liberalisationleads to poverty eradication and social developmentneeds to be challenged as many examples have shownhow increased trade and flows of foreign direct invest-ment have failed to change the basic structures deter-mining employment, livelihoods and poverty for themajority of the population in these countries (includingthe presence of a high degree of underemployment; astrong dualism between the formal and informal sec-tors, especially in manufacturing; and the involvementof by far the larger share of the workforce, mainlywomen, in low-productivity employment)79.

In addition, the marginalisation of gender equality inthe framework of co-operation with these countries,as well as the limited involvement of civil society andnational parliaments in the preparation of countrystrategies and discussions on the launching of tradenegotiations, needs to be highlighted.

3.2. Policy-making: Analysis of key actors

Similar to EU development co-operation, EU externalrelations fall under the Community decision-makingprocess and is a shared competence between the ECand the EU Member States. Binding legal instruments,such as Regulations, are jointly approved by theCouncil of Ministers and the European Parliament(Committee on Development) under the co-decisionprocedure. Furthermore, both the EP and the Council ofMinisters have co-decision powers with regards to theapproval of the EU budget, which finances external co-operation with all regions and countries except for ACPcountries (see chapter 2).

A main difference in relation to co-operation with ACPcountries is the fact that programming for India andASEAN countries is a ‘Brussels-driven’ process withthe European Commission (DG RELEX) playing a majorrole in the formulation of country strategies (drafting ofcountry strategy papers and national indicative pro-grammes). The geographic separation of ACP countrieswith DG DEV and other developing countries with DGRELEX without consideration of their status as develop-

77 The ASEAN Group consists of ten countries: Brunei/Darussalam, Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Burma/Myanmar, Philippines,Singapore, Thailand, Vietnam.

78 More information on this Communication will be provided in Chapter 5.79 See for example: Christian Aid (2005): Policy discussion paper: Is India a success story of economic liberalisation?, by Jayati Ghosh,

London.


37

ing countries represents a major institutional dilemma.It has resulted in different provisions for aid modalitiesand in the definition of trade, increased investmentflows and security as political priorities in the EU’sagenda for co-operation with Asian countries.

The concentration of power by EC Headquarters in thearea of programming is an indication of the importancethat the Commission attributes to relations with thesecountries due to the opportunities that they offer forEuropean companies in terms of market access, supplyof cheap labour force and natural resources. EU’s rela-tions with ASEAN and India are increasingly driven byeconomic interests rather than development objec-tives and considerations. The EC Delegations’ role ismainly focusing on policy dialogue with host countrieson trade issues and economic co-operation as well asmanagement and implementation of economic anddevelopment co-operation programmes at national andregional levels rather than definition of strategic priori-ties. This programming format and process places lim-itations on the influence that civil society organisationsbased in the South have on the definition of develop-ment co-operation priorities and increases the need forintensified lobbying at the Brussels level. Alliancebuilding and joint lobbying by European and Southerncivil society organisations is of utmost importance toincrease pressure towards the EU and national govern-ments to decide jointly on co-operation priorities,which place at their centre specific measures and pro-grammes for poverty eradication, respect for humanrights and women’s empowerment, rather than the pro-motion of corporate interests.

Both the Council (DCI Committee) and the EuropeanParliament (Committee on Development, in a consulta-tive role) contribute to the approval and screening ofcountry strategy papers prepared by the Commission interms of their priorities and in compliance with theOECD-DAC criteria for Official Development Assistance(ODA) spending80. Consultation with the EuropeanParliament in this area is a novelty of the DevelopmentCo-operation Instrument and a move welcomed bymany EU Member States and civil society organisations.


Two Commission services play a major role in EU exter-nal relations: DG RELEX and DG Trade81.

3.2.1.1. DG RELEX

The Directorate-General for External Relations is incharge of the formulation of EU external relations pol-icy and the management of bilateral relations with anumber of countries and regions, including the MiddleEast, Asia, Central Asia and Latin America82.

The European Commission’s extensive powers in thearea of external rela-tions have beenacknowledged by manyEU Member State rep-resentatives. Desk offi-cers from DG RELEXUnits H1 (Horizontalmatters and policy co-ordination), H3 (Geo -graphic Unit for India,Bhutan and Nepal) andH5 (Geographic Unit forSouth-East Asia) havethe main responsibility of co-ordinating and draftingcountry strategy papers, multi-annual indicative pro-grammes and annual action programmes (definition ofspecific activities on an annual basis) both for Indiaand ASEAN countries. DG RELEX is also responsible forthe formulation of regional strategies and regionalindicative programmes.

The gender desk of DG RELEX is based in Unit B1 onHuman Rights and Democratisation. Its role and contri-bution to the integration of gender concerns in EUexternal relations will be analysed in section 3.5.

3.2.1.2. DG Trade

DG Trade, Unit C3 is in charge of bilateral trade nego-tiations with South Asian countries (including India)and South-East Asian Nations (ASEAN). As notedabove, DG Trade had received a mandate from the EUMember States to start negotiations on FTAs with

“The Commission holds a lot ofpower in the area of developmentprogramming. We can change thesubstance of strategy documentsonly if a big number of MemberStates within the Council supportsuch initiative”.

An Official from a PermanentRepresentation on the role of the Council

in the screening of CSPs

80 OECD-DAC Reporting Directives for the Creditor Reporting System (6 July 2005). Addendum 2. Annex 5: Reporting on the purpose of Aid.The CRS “purpose codes” outlined in this Annex are used by international donors to report on the purpose and sectors of their develop-ment assistance to developing and transition countries. These codes provide the main framework for testing the ODA eligibility of donorsupported activities and programmes.

81 Similar to the case of the ACP countries, the EuropeAid Co-operation Office (Directorate D on Asia and Central Asia) has the main respon-sibility for monitoring the implementation of development co-operation programmes/projects with the countries of the two regions (bothin terms of project/programme quality and financing).

82 DG RELEX is also responsible for the Commission’s participation in Common Foreign and Security Policy, the management of ECDelegations, EC relations with the UN and other international organisations, and the implementation of the European NeighbourhoodPolicy. An organigramme of DG RELEX can be found on page ...


38

ASEAN, India and South Korea in April 200783. The keyeconomic criteria for starting negotiations with thesepartners were their market potential (economic size,growth) and the level of protection against EU exportinterests (tariffs, non-tariff barriers), taking intoaccount the partners’ negotiations with EU competi-tors. Despite this general “consensus”, some MemberState officials interviewed for this study are of the opin-ion that clear limits should be placed on the tradedimension of co-operation with these countries inorder to ensure a balance between the trade anddevelopment components. The negotiating mandates inall three cases are very similar and quite detailed. Theywill be comprehensive and ambitious in coverage, aim-ing at the highest possible degree of trade liberalisa-tion, including far-reaching liberalisation of servicesand investment. They can thus be called WTO-plusagreements, including provisions on the so-calledSingapore issues (government procurement, tradefacilitation, investment and competition policy), issuesthat were strongly opposed and rejected by variousASEAN countries and India in the context of WTOnegotiations. They will also explore new ways ofaddressing non-tariff barriers and incorporating provi-sions on trade-related aspects of sustainable develop-ment.

DG Trade representatives describe the EC’s increasedinterest in Free Trade Agreements as a “naturalprogress” of EU economic relations with these coun-tries, which also reflects their level of development asemerging economies. The EC’s political motivation inthis area is “in line” with EU efforts to strengthen theEuropean economy through the expansion of Europeancompanies’ activities in Asian markets84. Researchcommissioned by the EC has illustrated the likely eco-nomic benefits of the new generation of bilateral tradeagreements with the countries under examination: Theagreements will boost EU exports to ASEAN by 24.2%,to India by 56.8% and to Korea by 47.8%. The threedeals combined could increase the total of EU exports(1.3 trillion euro in 2005) by 3.23%. The profits forEuropean transnational corporations (TNCs) arisingfrom the conclusion of these agreements in the futurewill be enormous.

The EC decision to launch these trade negotiations is adecision which represents a significant departure from

the EU’s stated commitments to sustainable develop-ment, social justice, gender equity and decent work.The vast socio-economic disparities in ASEAN are notbeing taken into account as the EU is demanding fullreciprocity without meaningful special and differentialtreatment; the liberalisation of services at a WTO-pluslevel will tend to out compete ASEAN service providersgiven the dominance of EU service companies; theinclusion of the Singapore issues and the accompany-ing limitations on the ability of national governments toregulate investment, competition policy and govern-ment procurement in the public interest will jeopardiseaccess to essential social services, and have far-reaching implications for the poor and rural popula-tions in both regions, especially for women; lowering oftariffs will result in significant losses of revenue fordeveloping countries; the EU’s high priority on accessto raw materials will seriously undermine ASEAN coun-tries’ capacity to maintain sovereignty over their natu-ral resources, including restrictions on exports, invest-ment and intellectual property rights85.

An analysis of policy priorities identified by DG RELEXand DG Trade reveals a low level of institutional com-mitment to the promotion of women’s rights, economicand social empowerment. DG RELEX’s theoretical com-mitment to gender equality is hardly ever translatedinto country-specific programmes and actions support-ed through the Development Co-operation Instrument.At the same time, DG Trade’s policy documents on thelinks between trade, decent work and sustainabledevelopment are silent on the gender implications oftrade liberalisation and agreements.

3.2.1.3. EC Delegations

As noted above, EC Delegations in Asian countrieshave focused their contribution to the definition ofstrategic priorities for co-operation with partner coun-tries. The Delegations are mainly responsible for over-seeing the implementation of co-operation agree-ments with the countries and commitments undertakenin high-level fora such as the EU-India Summit and EU-ASEAN Ministerial Meetings. EC Delegations are alsoinvolved in policy dialogue with the host countries ontrade, economic and general co-operation issues, andpromote EU interests and positions in these areas.Furthermore, they manage the whole range of econom-

83 Council of the European Union (2007): Conclusions on the recommendations to open negotiations with countries of ASEAN, India and SouthKorea 23/24 April 2007.

84 In 2005, the EU was ASEAN’s second largest export market and the third largest trading partner after the United States and Japan. EUexports to ASEAN were estimated at 45 billion euro, while EU imports from ASEAN were valued at 71 billion euro. With regard to trade rela-tions with India, in 2005 the EU imported goods from India to the amount of 18.9 billion euro and EU exports amounted to 21.1 billion euro.

85 NGO statement (2007): Statement of concern regarding the proposed EU-ASEAN free trade negotiations, (February 2007).


39

ic and development co-operation programmes support-ed by the EU in partner countries (for example in theareas of education, health, environment, trade andinvestment facilitation, civil society and NGO-relatedprojects).

In the area of development co-operation programming,EC Delegations in the respective countries provide a“concept paper” to Headquarters in Brussels in view ofthe programming exercise, and co-ordinate policy dis-cussions with local stakeholders at country level. It isunclear to what extent the EC Delegations in thesecountries have fulfilled their obligation with regards tothe co-ordination of policy dialogue with national gov-ernments and national parliaments, local authoritiesand civil society organisations. Many draft countrystrategy papers are silent on this issue and as a result,the national ownership of country strategies can becontested.

The role of the Delegations as diplomatic missions ofthe European Commission in third countries, and theirmandate to facilitate policy dialogue with local stake-holders on programming issues, adds them to the list oflobby targets, although in a secondary position to theEC Headquarters. On the one hand EC Delegationsneed to ensure the transparent, inclusive and demo-cratic nature of policy dialogue with local stakeholders,including women’s organisations, in partner countries.86

On the other hand, they need to increase their commit-ment to gender equality and consequently, the level ofintegration of gender issues in all stages of the projectcycle including programming, project formulation,implementation, monitoring and evaluation.


The Council of Ministers plays an important role in rela-tion to both development co-operation and trade nego-tiations with India and the ASEAN group. UnderComitology87, all country strategy papers determining EUco-operation with Asian countries need to be screenedand get the approval of the DCI Committee which con-sists of representatives of all EU Member States and theCommission. Furthermore, the DCI Committee examinesand approves all thematic programmes and the contentof multi-annual programmes and annual plans guidingtheir implementation (see also chapter 2).

The revision of CSPs by the Council and the EP can the-oretically open the door for the improvement of theseprogramming documents from a gender perspective.Yet, so far no progress has been achieved in this areamainly due to the fact that gender equality does notfeature among the political priorities of the majority ofthe EU Member States. As mentioned in the section ongender and development, the main “gender advocates”within the Council are seven Member States (Austria,Denmark, Finland, Germany, Ireland, Sweden, and theNetherlands) with a strong tradition of promoting ofwomen’s rights and empowerment at internationallevel.

In this respect, building alliances with representativesof the EU Member States leading discussions on gen-der and development issues seems useful. In somecases, representatives of these Member States haveemphasised that their work can potentially be strength-ened through policy dialogue with civil society organi-sations and through sharing policy analysis andresearch on the gender implications of the EU develop-ment and trade policy. At the same time, efforts need tobe increased to raise awareness among representa-tives of other EU Member States on the importance ofgender equality and women’s empowerment. Given thefact that the Permanent Representations are guided intheir actions and positions by the mandate they receivefrom their capitals, lobbying initiatives should combineactions both at European and national levels, in co-operation with partner organisations active in therespective EU Member States.

Working parties of the Council: Article 133 Committeeand COASI

In the area of trade policy, both the Article 133Committee (consisting of trade representatives of the27 EU member states) and the Working Party on Co-operation with Asia (COASI) give input and orientationto the Commission in relation to the trade-relatedaspects of co-operation agreements with Asian coun-tries and the actual trade negotiations.

The commitment is, however, differently oriented. TheCOASI WP consists of representatives of the foreignpolicy departments and Asia desks of the EU MemberStates’ Permanent Representations in Brussels. It looksat horizontal aspects of co-operation and provides

86 For example, Eurostep has initiated a number of lobbying actions towards the EC in this area in the context of the 10th EDF programmingexercise and the preparation of country strategy programmes under the DCI.

87 Comitology” or the “Committee procedure” is the term for a system of committees that assist the Commission in the exercise of its powerswhen implementing adopted legislation (see DCI and EDF Committees). Comitology committees are created by means of a basic legislativeact adopted by the Council, or the Council and the European Parliament that confers implementing powers on the Commission. There aredifferent types of committees. Management committees are typically used to monitor the implementation of policies (programmes) withsubstantial budgets.


40

input in relation to the EU’s political dialogue with Asiancountries on various issues, including the configurationof the EU-ASEAN FTA.

DG Trade shows preference for the input of the like-minded (economically-oriented) Article 133 Committeevis-à-vis the COASI WP presenting the justification thatthe geographically oriented working party lacks theexpertise in highly technical trade issues. This is areflection of DG Trade’s ideological orientation andmandate. The Council also concludes, on behalf of theCommunity and the Union, international agreementsbetween the EU and third countries or internationalorganisations88.


Three EP Parliamentary Committees are active inpolitical discussions and monitoring of EU externalrelations with India and the ASEAN group: Committeeon Development, Committee on Trade and Committeeon Foreign Affairs89 (including its sub-committee onHuman Rights). For example, the Committee on ForeignAffairs had drafted a report on the establishment of anew EU financing instrument for democracy andhuman rights90 and its work is of great interest for thoseorganisations working on human rights (includingwomen’s rights) issues.

Committee on Development: Consultation on program-ming for Asian countries

In 2007 for the first time the EC initiated consultationswith the EP on the formulation of programming priori-ties for Asian countries and other regional groups, par-allel to discussions and consultations with the MemberStates. Following an inter-institutional agreementbetween the EP and the EC, the EC has the obligation toinform the Committee on Development of the proceed-ings of the DCI Committee and to consult the EP on the

content of all geographic and thematic strategy papersunder the Development Co-operation Instrument on aregular basis. In order to respond to its new role, theCommittee on Development has established geograph-ically oriented working groups on the basis of all coun-tries/regions covered by the Development Co-opera-tion Instrument.

MEPs have commented on the consultative and non-legislative character of this process and criticised thelimited 30-day period given to the Parliament to com-municate its official comments and positions to the EC,following a favourable opinion given by the DCICommittee for the first drafts of the strategy papers.“Unless we reach in the future an agreement with theCommission on the extension of this period to take alsointo account the timing of the Strasbourg plenary ses-sions, we can talk about a parody of consultation”, stat-ed one MEP91.

The EP was quite quick in making use of its recentlyacquired right in February 2007. In its Resolution of 15February 200792, it called the EC to withdraw or amendits draft decisions establishing country strategy papersfor Malaysia, Pakistan and Brazil on the basis that cer-tain co-operation areas included in these strategypapers (respectively dialogue facility on trade andinvestment, anti money-laundering measures andstrengthening links between EU-Brazilian institutions,academia and civil society organisations) do not fulfilthe OECD-DAC criteria for Official DevelopmentAssistance93 and do not contribute to the overall pover-ty reduction objective set in the Development Co-oper-ation Instrument. In the Parliament’s view the abovecan be areas of co-operation, yet they should not befinanced by the Development Co-operation Instrument.

Overall, the European Parliament has played an impor-tant role in policy discussions on country programmingunder the development co-operation instrument byhighlighting the marginalisation of poverty eradication

88 These agreements are binding on the Community and the Member States and thus render them liable at international level. 89 The Parliamentary Committee on Foreign Affairs is responsible – among other areas – for issues concerning human rights, the protection

of minorities and the promotion of democratic values in third countries. In this context the committee is assisted by a subcommittee onhuman rights. The committee co-ordinates the work of joint parliamentary committees, parliamentary co-operation committees as well asthat of the interparliamentary delegations and ad hoc delegations and election observation missions falling within its remit.

90 European Parliament/Committee on Foreign Affairs (2006): Report on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of theCouncil on establishing a financing instrument for the promotion of democracy and human rights worldwide (European Instrument forDemocracy and Human Rights), A6-0376/2006.

91 A Memorandum of Understanding is currently negotiated between the EC and the EP to give some flexibility to this deadline so that it ismore realistic.

92 European Parliament (2007): Motion for a resolution on the draft Commission decision to establish country strategy papers and indicativeprogrammes for Malaysia, Brazil and Pakistan, B6-0067/2007.

93 DAC criteria for ODA spending define what areas of expenditure donors can report as development aid as opposed to other forms of for-eign assistance (for example military aid). Non-compliance with DAC criteria on ODA is the only case in which the EP can resort to the useof legal means (i.e. referring the Commission to the European Court of Justice) in relation to the development co-operation instrumentimplementation.


41

objectives and MDGs in some country strategy papersand by demanding clarifications from the EC on a num-ber of other substantive issues. It also called the EC tofulfil its commitment in line with Article 5 of the devel-opment co-operation instrument that a benchmark of20% of its allocated assistance under country pro-grammes will be dedicated to basic and secondaryeducation and basic health by the year of the Mid-TermReview of country strategy papers (2009)94. The EP’scritical views reflect – to a large extent – concerns anddemands raised by civil society organisations on anumber of occasions. The EP’s influence on theprocess can be confirmed by the fact that following anexchange of views between the Commission, the DCICommittee and the EP Committee on Development, DGRELEX made a commitment that references to counter-terrorism measures will be removed from all countrystrategy papers for Asian countries.

With regard to gender equality, the Committee onDevelopment urges the Commission to include in itsannual action programmes clear benchmarks and/orimpact indicators on the participation of vulnerablegroups in planned activities (including women, indige-nous peoples etc.) and to indicate specific plans andprogrammes on gender.

INTA committee

As far as trade negotiations on FTAs with India and theASEAN group are concerned, the co-ordinatorsappointed by the different political groups in the INTACommittee play an important role as they lead discus-sions and guide other MEPs in their political group howto vote during parliamentary committee meetings andplenary sessions. However, the role of the INTA com-mittee is rather limited in terms of having real influenceon policy-making.

The EP will also engage in a dialogue and exchange ofviews with partner countries on trade issues throughthe EU-ASEAN Delegation. The European ParliamentDelegations maintain relations and exchange informa-tion with parliaments in non-EU countries. The role ofthe European Parliament in EU trade policy will beanalysed in detail in Chapter 4.

3.2.4. Joint EU-ASEAN/EU-India fora

ASEAN-EU Ministerial Meetings

The regular ASEAN-EU Ministerial Meetings provide ahigh-level forum for political dialogue between the EUMember States, ASEAN Ministers for Foreign Affairsand the EC on international issues and co-operationbetween the two regions. The meetings take placeevery two years and offer a forum for a review of co-operation between the two regional groups, includingtrade relations and negotiations. As expected, theagenda of these meetings is taken over by discussionson security, trade and investment issues rather thandevelopment co-operation. The Ministerial Meetingsare attended by the Foreign Ministers of the ASEANGroup and of the EU, the European Commissioner forExternal Relations and the Secretary General ofASEAN. The Meetings are co-chaired by the countryacting as the ASEAN coordinator and the EU MemberState holding the EU Presidency.

EU-India Summit

Similarly, the EU-India Summits held on an annual basissince 2000 provide a dialogue forum on political,development and economic co-operation issues aswell as trade and investment. The EU is represented inthe Summits by the Member State holding the EUPresidency, the High Representative for CommonForeign and Security Policy, the President of theEuropean Commission and the EuropeanCommissioners for External Relations and Trade. Indiais represented by the Prime Minister and the Ministersin charge of external affairs, commerce and industriesand national security.

During the 6th EU-India Summit, which took place inDelhi in 2005, the two parties decided on a Joint ActionPlan which sets out a roadmap guiding the implemen-tation of their strategic partnership in all co-operationareas. The 2005 EU-India Summit also launched a HighLevel Trade Group (HLTG) mandated “to study andexplore ways and means to deepen and widen thebilateral trade and investment relationship,” includingthe launching of negotiations on a broad-based tradeand investment agreement. The 7th EU-India Summit inOctober 2006 in Helsinki witnessed the establishmentof the EU-India CEO Round Table under the lead ofbusiness confederations on both sides: the

94 This provision is in line with the 1995 World Summit on Social Development which took place in Copenhagen. The Report of the Summit(Chapter V on Implementation and Follow-up – Mobilisation of financial resources) emphasised the need for a mutual commitmentbetween developed and developing countries to allocate on average 20% of the Official Development Assistance and 20% of the nationalbudget to basic social programmes.


42

Confederation of European Business (CEB-UNICE), theConfederation of Indian Industry and the Federation ofIndian Chambers of Commerce-Industry. The mainobjectives of the CEO Round Table are to establish adirect dialogue channel between business and policy-makers and to develop networks for sectoral industrialco-operation and investment promotion. Furthermore,the annual EU-India Business Summit is attended byhigh-level political figures from both parties.

The infiltration of corporate interests in these high-level political fora over the years increases the need forthe organisation of counter-meetings by civil societyorganisations in support of human and social develop-ment objectives, including women’s empowerment andeconomic and social rights. An initiative worthanalysing in this context is the EU-India Civil SocietyRound Table which was established in 2000 as a forumfor involving “leading representatives of EU and Indiancivil society” to discuss regular and shape perceptionson global issues of mutual interest. The Round Tableprovides opinions and information for subsequent dis-cussions at the EU–India Summit meetings. It is com-posed of representatives of the European Economicand Social Committee and of representatives of Indiancivil society organisations. Discussions in this groupwhich take place on an annual basis address socialand economic aspects of globalisation; trade, invest-ment and intellectual property rights; migration; andother issues.

3.3. Legal instruments, policy docu-ments, programming tools

3.3.1. Legal instruments

Development Co-operation Instrument Regulation(geographic programmes)

While the Cotonou Agreement governs developmentco-operation with ACP countries, the 2006Development Co-operation Instrument Regulation pro-vides the legal framework for co-operation with Asiancountries through the section on geographic pro-grammes, and covers the period 2007-2013. TheDevelopment Co-operation Instrument Regulation sub-stitutes the ALA Regulation (EU co-operation with Asiaand Latin America), which is repealed by the newfinancing instrument. The total allocation to Asiancountries foreseen by the Regulation amounts to over5.1 billion euro. DCI supports the implementation of

policies aimed at poverty eradication and the achieve-ment of the MDGs in the areas of health (includingincreased access to health services for women,improving maternal health and sexual-reproductiverights); in education (including eliminating gender dis-parity in education); in social cohesion and employ-ment (including combating all forms of group-baseddiscrimination and promoting gender equality).Supporting an active civil society, good governanceand institutional reforms is seen as a priority, yet nospecific reference is made to women’s organisationsand their contribution to political, social and economiclife in partner countries.

The DCI also outlines support measures in the areas oftrade and regional integration, environment and sus-tainable management of natural resources, water andenergy, transport and infrastructure as well as in post-crisis situations. No reference to gender equalityissues is included in any of the above sections.Furthermore, the section on co-operation with Asia(Article 7) includes no gender-specific provisions.

Regulation establishing a financing instrument for thepromotion of democracy and human rights worldwide(Human Rights Instrument)95

A separate financing instrument for the promotion ofdemocracy and human rights provides the legal basisfor the successor programme to the European Initiativefor Democracy and Human Rights (EIDHR) and aims tocontribute to the objectives of the European Consensusfor Development and the ACP-EU Cotonou Agreementas well as to reinforce actions under other external co-operation instruments, including the Development Co-operation Instrument. Assistance provided in thisframework will aim at enhancing respect for humanrights and fundamental freedoms; strengthening therole of civil society in promoting human rights and dem-ocratic reform; developing political participation andrepresentation; supporting conflict prevention; sup-porting the international framework for the protectionof human rights; and building confidence in democraticelectoral processes through the development of elec-toral observation and assistance.

The Regulation also foresees support for actions pro-moting the equal participation of men and women insocial, economic and political life and increasingwomen’s political representation. These provisionsreflect the importance of the protection and promotionof women’s rights as proclaimed in the CEDAW and its

95 European Community (2006): Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council of European Community on establishing a financ-ing instrument for the promotion of democracy and human rights worldwide, (EC) No 1889/2006.


43

Optional Protocols. Furthermore, the HRI foreseesfinancial assistance for programmes directed towardscombating female genital mutilation, forced marriages,crimes of honour, trafficking, and any other form of vio-lence against women. Last but not least, it foreseessupport for local, regional, national or international civilsociety organisations active in the promotion of humanrights.

The implementation of this Regulation will be based onstrategy papers and annual action plans. DG RELEXadministers the new HRI, yet it is important to note thatall developing countries (including the ACP) can poten-tially benefit from this instrument. This indicates thecomplexities of the management of the new instrumentand strengthens demands for increased co-operationand inter-institutional dialogue between DG RELEX andDG DEV in this area.

3.3.2. Policy documents

EC Communication: A new partnership with South-East Asia96

This Communication from 2003 endorses six strategicpriorities for the region: Regional stability and the fightagainst terrorism; human rights, democratic principlesand good governance; justice and home affairs issues;regional trade and investment relations; developmentof less prosperous countries and intensifying dialogueand co-operation in specific policy areas (includingscience and technology, higher education, culture,transport, energy; environment, trade issues, justiceand home affairs). Increasingly co-operation is alsodirected towards activities in the areas of migration,combating of organised crime and counter-terrorismmeasures.

Integration of gender issues in the document is limitedto the section on “promoting human rights, and demo-cratic principles” and reference is made to human traf-ficking and sexual exploitation of women and children.Gender is absent in all other sections of theCommunication and it is unclear whether and how gen-der concerns will be addressed in relation to all otherareas of co-operation.

Trade and investment have a central role in EU co-operation with South-East Asian countries. The Trans-Regional EU-ASEAN Trade Initiative (TREATI) is aimed

towards expanding trade and investment flows andestablishing a framework for dialogue and regulatoryco-operation on trade facilitation, market access andinvestment flows between the two regions. Civil socie-ty organisations have warned against the negativeimpact the diversion of financial resources in supportof trade and security-related activities on the quality ofco-operation in the area of provision of basic socialservices, such as health and education.

EC Communication: An EU- India strategic partner-ship97

This 2004 Communication foresees improving co-oper-ation and strengthening political dialogue with Indiaon a number of issues, including conflict preventionand post-conflict reconstruction; non-proliferation ofweapons of mass destruction; fight against terrorismand organised crime; migration; democracy and humanrights. In relation to the last area, the Communicationemphasises the EU’s commitment to extend politicaldialogue with India on important human rights issuessuch as gender discrimination, child labour, labourrights, corporate social responsibility and religiousfreedom. The EC Communication has as its main pointof reference ongoing high-level discussions on theseissues in the context of UN fora, such as the UN HighLevel Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change whichaddresses important political issues linked to the UNReform and Restructuring.

Strengthening economic partnership with India isanother major policy priority and the Communicationemphasises that the Government of India should keeppushing ahead with economic and administrativereforms in relation to trade, including the removal ofnumerous non-tariff barriers and restrictions on foreigndirect investment. More specifically, the EU-India JointInitiative for Enhancing Trade and Investment (JITP)has been focusing on the formulation of business rec-ommendations for action in specific sectors and ongeneral trade and investment matters. Furthermore, theCommunication foresees enhanced co-operation in theareas of environment (land and water management),information and communication technologies, trans-port, energy and biotechnology.

The section of the Communication dedicated to devel-opment co-operation includes no reference to genderequality or actions/programmes aimed at promotingwomen’s empowerment, although it foresees support in

96 European Community (2003): A new partnership with South East Asia, COM (2003) 399 final. 97 European Community (2004): Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament and the European Economic

and Social Committee. An EU-India Strategic Partnership, COM (2004) 430 final.


44

a number of areas directed towards combating formsof social exclusion and discrimination.

3.3.3. Programming tools

Geographic strategy papers and multi-annual indica-tive programmes

The implementation of the Development Co-operationInstrument Regulation (programming and financialallocation) is based on the formulation of a strategypaper and a multi-annual indicative programme foreach partner country and region following discussionswith civil society organisations and regional-localauthorities at country level organised by the ECDelegations (see chapter 2, page 29). At the EC level,the approval of country strategy papers and nationalindicative programmes is expressed by the College ofCommissioners and the Inter-Quality Support Group.

Support for economic and social reforms, includingreforms of health and basic education sectors, repre-sents the main element of EU country strategies for co-operation with the majority of South-East Asian coun-tries and India. Exceptions to this rule are Malaysia andThailand where the EC focus is on economic relations,trade and investment, while lacking a poverty eradica-tion focus and marginalizing partner countries’ needsand priorities.

An overview of the draft Country Strategy Papers andNational Indicative Programmes for India and ASEANcountries reveals the varying, partial and/or limitedlevels of integration of gender concerns and women’srights in the different co-operation areas and the pro-posed sectoral reforms in priority policy areas, such ashealth and education. In many cases, strategy paperslack gender-specific country programmes (inconsis-tency between country strategy papers and nationalindicative programmes) or limit interventions on genderissues only in the context of certain co-operation sec-tors98. Other papers include only a general reference togender mainstreaming as one of the cross-cuttingissues of EC development co-operation with no refer-ence to specific programmes in this area. The “gender-blindness” of the country strategy papers contradictsthe provisions of a number of EU policy documentswhich provide important policy guidance in this area,including the EU Consensus on Development and the

Development Co-operation Instrument Regulation.

While gender equality concerns remain marginalised,trade-related assistance represents a significant partof EU co-operation with these countries. Priorities inthis area vary from country to country: In the case ofnew WTO members (for example Vietnam andCambodia), priority is given to the adaptation of legisla-tion and institutional structures linked to their acces-sion to the WTO, while in the case of existing WTOmembers (for example the Philippines and Indonesia)the focus is on trade facilitation, phytosanitary meas-ures and EU market access. The increased focus ofcountry-specific programmes on trade-related issuesis a strong indication of the convergence of DG RELEXand DG Trade’s policy priorities, ideologies and man-dates.

Actions at country and regional levels will be comple-mented by the implementation of thematic programmesacross countries and regions (see chapter 2.3.1.).

3.4. Financing instruments

EU Budget

The implementation of the Development Co-operationInstrument falls under the EU budget, a main differencecompared to co-operation with ACP countries which isfunded through the European Development Fund. TheCommission, the Parliament and the Council ofMinisters have different roles and powers in the for-mulation and approval of the EU budget. The EP andthe Council of Ministers together constitute the Union’sbudgetary authority which decides each year on itsexpenditure and revenue. The procedure of examiningand then adopting the budget takes place betweenJune and late-December.

As the first step, all EU institutions and bodies draw uptheir estimates for the preliminary draft budget accord-ing to their internal procedures. The Commission con-solidates these estimates in the “preliminary draftbudget”, which takes into account the guidelines andpriorities for the coming budget year. The Commissionsubmits the preliminary draft budget to the Council ofMinisters in April or early May before the BudgetCouncil meets in July. The Council of Ministers and theEP must work on the basis of the Commission’s propos-

98 For example, the CSP for Burma/Myanmar includes a country gender profile outlining the impact of the humanitarian crisis on women andthe gender dimension of human trafficking and migration; the NIP for Cambodia foresees discussions on the integration of gender issuesin the Public Financial Management Reform programme and the integration of gender concerns in the education sector reform; the CSPfor Vietnam foresees the integration of gender concerns in the policy dialogue on two focal sectors: financing for Vietnam’s Socio-Economic Development Programme (SEDP) and support for the Health Sector (including support for specific activities to raise awarenessamong women on their right to health care).


45

99 More information on the different steps linked to the approval of EU’s budget can be found on the European Parliament’s website. 100 WIDE-Eurostep (1995): Gender mapping the European Union, by Mandy Macdonald, Brussels

als and propose amendments to the draft budget. Theapproval of the EU budget entails a number of proce-dural steps (different “readings” by the Parliament) andincreased communication between the Council and theParliament depending on the policy area concerned(compulsory and non-compulsory expenditure). Thebudget cannot be implemented until it has been signedby the President of the European Parliament.

Furthermore, the EP Committee on Budgetary Controlmonitors the Union’s expenditure on a permanent basis.The European Parliament, on a recommendation fromthe Council of Ministers, gives the Commission a dis-charge for the implementation of the budget99.

Probably the greatest influence the EP has on devel-opment co-operation remains in its budgetary pow-ers. The EP can and does influence both the size andthe use of development co-operation funds whichcome from the Union’s annual general budget.100

Lobbying the European Parliament (Committee onBudgets and Committee on Development) on theincrease of financial allocations on gender-specificprogrammes should be prioritised, since the allocationof financial resources determines – to a large extent –the success of the EU gender equality strategy.

3.5. Gender initiatives inEU external relations

DG RELEX Gender desk

The main responsibility for genderin EU external relations lies withthe gender desk of DG ExternalRelations which is based in Unit B1on Human Rights andDemocratisation and consists ofone EC official in a full-time posi-tion. Its main tasks are the integra-tion of women’s rights (especiallycivil and political rights), and main-streaming of gender equality con-cerns in co-operation and politicaldialogue with all partner countriesand regions that fall within DGRELEX’s responsibility. This is quitean overwhelming task considering the diversity ofcountries and regions under DG RELEX’s authority andthe fact that the gender desk also has to follow discus-

sions and issues linked to children’s rights.Furthermore, the gender desk has provided input in thedrafting of the new Human Rights Instrument and theintegration of gender issues in initiatives on disarma-ment and rehabilitation process in partner countries inline with the UN Security Resolution 1325 whichaddresses women’s role in conflict resolution and sus-tainable peace.

DG RELEX’s gender desk has also been involved in theformulation of the new UNIFEM-ILO-EC project andparticipates in the project’s Steering Committee. It hasinitiated a consultation process with RELEX geograph-ic services on the selection of countries to benefit fromthe programme (6 countries to participate in this pro-gramme have been selected from regions underRELEX’s responsibility) (see chapter 2.5.2.).

The gender function in DG RELEX was virtually non-existent for some time until the appointment of thenew gender desk in the beginning of 2006. Some ECDelegations had expressed serious concern at the lackof support from RELEX Headquarters with respect tothe relevance and political importance of genderequality in EU external relations. Member State repre-sentatives have been extremely critical of DG DEV and

DG RELEX’s lack of institutional com-mitment in relation to gender equali-ty and the limited allocation ofhuman and financial resources tosupport actions in this area. The dis-continuity in the gender desk’s func-tion has resulted in weak CountryStrategy Papers for co-operationwith the ASEAN group and Indiafrom a gender perspective. In mostcases, policy commitments and de -clarations do not make it all the wayto programme and project imple-mentation at national level, raisingimportant questions with regards tothe gender desk’s influence on theofficers in charge of geographicprogrammes.

Increased commitment to genderequality….

Overall the commitment to the inte-gration of a comprehensive gender perspective intoRELEX policies has been strengthened since 2006, butcoherence and continuity must still be kept in mind. The

46


“The top management within theCommission is not allocating nec-essary professional resources towork on gender mainstreaming:their priorities are infrastructureand budget support and otherissues attractive to powerful men.They do make policy on gender,mostly pamphlets with all political-ly correct wording, but no realserious mainstreaming into poli-cies. We have got the obligation tomainstreaming gender written inthe European Consensus and theDCI Regulation but the countrystrategies coming to the DCI-com-mittee do not systematically inte-grate this issue”.

An official from a PermanentRepresentation on the Commission’s com-

mitment to gender mainstreaming

preparation of annual programmes (guiding the imple-mentation of co-operation on focal and non-focal sec-tors) and the Mid-Term Review of Country StrategyPapers (planned to take place in 2009) offer an oppor-tunity to challenge and correct the “gender-blind”nature of country specific strategies. Equally importantis the implementation of the thematic programme on“Investing in People” and its gender component.Engendering country specific strategies should beseen as a joint responsibility of the EC Delegations andDG RELEX.

In 2006 EC Delegations were requested to appoint agender focal point. The EuropeAid Co-operation Officeis co-ordinating and following up on this process andso far positive responses have been received from anumber of Delegations. However, a number of problemshave been identified in relation to this initiative: Noadditional financial or human resources have beenmade available to the Delegations for this exercise andin some cases, gender issues are added to the alreadyheavy workload of Delegation officials, or junior staffare given the responsibility in this area in the absenceof “volunteers” at higher management levels to take upthe role of gender focal points (see chapter 2).

…but still a long way to go

Institutional resistance remains at different levels:Some DG RELEX officials view gender equality con-cerns as relevant only in relation to some elements ofco-operation or not relevant at all. The participation ofDG RELEX representatives in training sessions organ-ised by the Gender Help Desk has been limited to non-existent. Some officials feel that they already havequite a detailed knowledge of gender equality issuesand therefore do not need any additional information.Others have no interest in a strictly gender-orientedtraining session doubting its relevance to their work orconsidering it as an additional burden on their busyschedule.

Timing and co-ordination also play an important role: Atraining seminar organised for DG RELEX staff on gen-der issues had limited attendance as the main part ofthe programming exercise had already been complet-ed. Furthermore, the disruption of the drafting of the ECCommunication on Women’s Empowerment andGender Equality in Development Co-operation (seeChapter 2) has resulted in limited participation of DGRELEX in this process. DG RELEX representatives com-mented that the Communication should have beendrafted in a more holistic and participatory manner in

order to ensure its relevance to the work of RELEX geo-graphic officers.

Other representatives of the EC and the EP have ques-tioned the commitment of partner governments to gen-der equality and women’s rights which – in their view –places limitations on the integration of gender con-cerns in political dialogue with these countries.


There is no permanent structure for dialogue betweenDG RELEX and civil society organisations on EU exter-nal relations policy priorities. Civil society dialoguemeetings organised from time to time (at the regionallevel or in Brussels) to discuss co-operation with part-ner countries and regions reveal a fragmentedapproach and a low level of commitment shown by DGRELEX towards policy dialogue with civil society organ-isations. DG RELEX’s low profile and interest in this areamight partly be explained by a lack in demand for sucha dialogue from Brussels-based civil society organisa-tions. There is a significant gap in terms of civil societymobilisation and monitoring of EU external relationswith Asian countries, as most civil society organisa-tions based in Brussels are working on issues linked toEU development co-operation with ACP countriesunder the Cotonou Agreement. However, this is by nomeans a justification of DG RELEX’s lack of commitmentwhich contradicts the EU principles of transparencyand accountability in policy-making. The programmingexercise for co-operation with Asian countries repre-sents a missed opportunity for policy dialogue betweenthe Commission and civil society on strategic prioritiesand areas of concern.

The value of policy dialogue at partner country level isnot to be questioned taking into account the extensiveknowledge that civil society organisations active atnational and local levels have developed over the yearsof local populations’ needs and priorities. Unfortunatelythe preparation of country strategies for the ASEANgroup and India has been characterised by a high levelof uncertainty with regard to the structure of the dia-logue process organised by the EC Delegations in thesecountries and the extent of local stakeholders’ partici-pation. The organisation of civil society dialogue atnational level deserves continuous monitoring by NGOsbased in the South in the context of ongoing efforts topromote transparency and accountability of EU policy-making at all levels.

47


4. EU trade policy and gender

The EU is a major trading power and one of the strongest proponents of trade liberalisation within the WorldTrade Organization (WTO). Chapter 4 analyses the role of the European Commission (DG Trade), the Council ofMinisters (Article 133 Committee) and the European Parliament (Committee on International Trade) in the for-mulation of EU trade policy and trade negotiations at bilateral, regional and international levels.

It examines DG Trade’s extensive powers in this area and European Transnational Corporations’ (TNCs) priv-ileged access to EU trade policy-making. Chapter 4 analyses the EC Communication on Global Europe whichprovides the EC’s new strategy for integrating trade policy into the EU’s competitiveness and economic reformagenda and sets as its main objective the opening of new markets for European companies in third countriesby targeting developing countries’ overall regulatory environment.

Furthermore, the EC’s focus on increasing development financing in support of trade-related assistance pro-grammes in developing countries is reflected in its recent Communication on Aid for Trade strategy, a refer-ence to which is included in this chapter.

Chapter 4 also comments on the lack of a comprehensive EU policy on gender and trade and analyses the lim-itations of Sustainability Impact Assessments (SIAs) as a policy tool to highlight gender concerns in EU tradepolicy.

101 The common commercial policy was founded on uniform principles, notably as regards tariff charges, the conclusion of tariff and com-mercial agreements and the harmonisation of liberalisation measures, export policies and trade defence mechanisms, including those tobe employed in case of dumping and subsidies (Article 133 TEC, ex-Art. 113 EEC).


The EU is one of the world’s trading powers represent-ing a major importer and exporter of agricultural andindustrial goods as well as services. EU demands for arapid and radical market opening by countries in theSouth in a number of sectors (including agriculture,services, investment and public procurement) in thecontext of the WTO (multilateral level), at regional andbilateral levels, and the infiltration of economic inter-ests in EU’s development agenda are at the centre ofWIDE’s critical analysis.

Contrary to EU development and EU external relations,EU trade (commercial) policy101 falls under theCommunity’s exclusive sphere of competence as far asmost negotiating areas are concerned. In trade policy,the European Commission (DG Trade) represents theEU Member States and has the responsibility for nego-tiating trade agreements with third countries involvingtariff amendments, customs, trade provisions and pro-tective measures on the basis of negotiating directives(mandates) agreed upon by the Council. This gives theCommissioner for Trade much more power compared

to other Commissioners in charge of policy areaswhere competence between the EC and the EUMembers States is shared.

One of the main tasks falling within DG Trade’s mandateis identifying opportunities and ensuring Europeancompanies’ access to international markets throughthe conclusion of trade agreements with third coun-tries. DG Trade’s vision in this area has been developedin detail in the EC Communication “Global Europe:Competing in the world” published in October 2006. TheEU’s dual role as the biggest international developmentdonor and as a regional actor promoting its MemberStates’ economic growth and interests is controversialand stirs heated political debates between the EU insti-tutions and between the EU and civil society organisa-tions.

Mainstreaming trade into development policy

When the EC talks about coherence between EU devel-opment and EU trade policy, it normally refers to themainstreaming of trade-related issues in the develop-ment co-operation agenda with different countries andregional groups. The borders between EU development


48

102 An organigramme of DG Trade can be found on page 79. 103 Seattle to Brussels Network (2006): Corporate power over EU trade policy: Good for business, bad for the world, Brussels.

Seattle to Brussels Network (2005). The EU Corporate Trade Agenda. The role and the interests of corporations and their lobby groups inTrade Policy Making in the European Union, Brussels.

104 Ibid.

and EU trade policy have become ever more blurredand increasing “Aid for Trade” has been a political pri-ority supported by both DG Development and DG Trade.

WIDE has been monitoring EU trade policy at all levelsand challenges the assumption that applying a one-size-fits-all liberalisation strategy, increasing trade andopening markets will indiscriminately yield equitabledevelopment in countries of the South. In its work,WIDE in co-operation with its partners worldwide,analyses the impacts of trade liberalisation on womenin their roles as farmers, workers, traders and serviceproviders, and calls for a paradigm shift in EU tradepolicies in line with international agreements onwomen’s rights and the right to development.

4.2. Policy analysis: Analysis of key actors

EU trade policy is based on Article 133 of the EuropeanCommunity Treaty. The EC negotiates trade agreementsand represents EU Member States’ economic interestsat multilateral, regional and bilateral fora. The currentWTO mandate dates back to 1999 and has been revisedin various Council meetings.

The Commission conducts the negotiations in consul-tation with a special committee, the Article 133Committee, which is appointed by the Council ofMinisters and composed of high-level trade officials.This Committee is consulted both on the overall con-duct and direction of trade negotiations as well as onspecific negotiating areas. Furthermore, Committee 133approves negotiating directives to guide theCommission in its negotiations with third countries. DGTrade’s control over the process is manifested by thefact that a first draft of the negotiating directives comesfrom the Commission (DG Trade) itself. Article 133 EC(amended by the Treaty of Nice) also provides the legalbasis for preferential trade regimes applicable todeveloping countries.

The European Parliament (INTA Committee) has only aconsultative role in trade negotiations. Strengtheningthe role of the EP in EU trade policy-making is thus anessential element of ongoing efforts to increase trans-parency and accountability of EU policy in this area.


DG Trade is the key driver of EU trade policy102. Underthe right of initiative, the European Commission pre-pares EU proposals and positions for trade negotia-tions at all levels (multilateral, regional, bilateral). Theproposals are discussed with and agreed upon by theArticle 133 Committee members and form the negotiat-ing directives guiding DG Trade throughout the negoti-ations. They are finally approved by the Council ofMinisters. The EC is the only negotiator representingthe EU in international fora, except in areas of sharedcompetence with the EU Member States (such as tradein basic social and cultural services).

Every year DG Trade drafts an annual work programmesetting out operational objectives and priorities to bediscussed with the members of the Article 133Committee touching upon a number of areas includingbilateral agreements, trade and development.

Furthermore, DG Trade monitors the implementation ofinternational agreements by using the WTO disputesettlement system and the instruments for trade pro-motion or defence adopted by the Community (forexample anti-dumping and anti-subsidy rules). It alsotakes part in formulating and monitoring internal orexternal policies which have an impact on the Union’strade and external investments (including, health, envi-ronment, intellectual property, competition, energy,transport and agriculture). The increased influence ofDG Trade on development programming and externalrelations is analysed in Chapters 2 and 3.

The corporate influence on EU negotiating positions inthe areas of agriculture (processed food industry),services (financial and retail services) and non-agricul-ture goods (chemicals and natural resources) hasdemonstrable detrimental effects on the environment,on women and men’s livelihoods and rights in develop-ing countries103. TNCs’ privileged lobbying access totrade negotiators can be documented by initiativessuch as the “Market Access Symposium” organised byDG Trade on a bi-annual basis or by TNC’s access tonegotiating documents and direct consultations on thedrafting of EU negotiating positions104. In addition, dif-ferent mechanisms have also been set up in the con-text of regional and bilateral trade negotiations to facil-itate corporate access to decision-makers, such as theEU-India CEO Round Table mentioned in chapter 3.2.4.


49

105 Friends of the Earth Europe (undated): Presentation on EU trade policy making – How does it work and what can you do about it?, Brussels.106 On 29 January 2004 the European Parliament adopted a decision on the number, powers and responsibilities of committees (P5_TA (2004)

0050) which e.g. set out the mandate of the new International Trade Committee.107 The EP and the Commission jointly adopted a Framework Agreement on relations between the EP and the Commission on 29 June 2000

and this was amended on 25 May 2005. The objective of the inter-institutional agreement is to update the two codes of conduct, adoptedin 1990 and 1995, that guided relations between the two institutions; to strengthen the responsibility and legitimacy of the Commission; toextend constructive dialogue and political co-operation; to improve the flow of information; and to consult and inform the EP onCommission administrative reforms.


The Article 133 Committee, named after the relevantarticle of the European Community Treaty, is a workingparty of the Council. The 133 Committee meets on aweekly basis, usually on Fridays. The Committee alsomeets in Geneva and in the context of WTO MinisterialMeetings. It discusses the full range of trade policyissues affecting the Community, from strategic issuessurrounding the launch of trade negotiation rounds atthe WTO to specific difficulties with the export of indi-vidual products. It is a consultative rather than legisla-tive committee, but with significant powers.

The members of the 133 Committee have the followingtasks: to authorise the Commission to open trade nego-tiations with third countries; to scrutinise, amend andapprove Commission proposals (including formallyapproving the negotiating directives drafted by DGTrade); and to provide input and feedback to theCommission throughout the negotiations.

The 133 Committee meets in two formations: full mem-bers (high-ranking officials from the Member States) anddeputy members (representatives either of the nationaladministrations or the Permanent Representationsbased in Brussels). Formally there is no difference but inpractice the full members are regarded as being morepolitical and less technical, while the deputy membersare perceived to be more technical and less political.Nevertheless, the roles change and there are caseswhere the deputies have established very political posi-tions, while full members have also looked into the tech-nicalities of negotiations. There is always an effort tohave a “full member” meeting preceding a Councilmeeting where multilateral trade is on the agenda, butthis does not always work in practice. The 133Committee is also composed of three specialised sub-committees covering negotiations on textiles, servicesand steel.

DG Trade sets the agenda for the 133 Committee meet-ings in co-operation with the EU Member State holdingthe Presidency. In the deputy members’ meetings, DGTrade is represented by Heads of Unit (depending onthe items in the agenda), while in the full members’meetings, DG Trade is represented by its Director-General. Most decisions with regards to EU trade poli-cy – including approval of negotiated agreements with

third countries – arereached by the Councilby qualified majority.Competence in someareas (such as trade inbasic and cultural serv-ices) is shared betweenthe Commission and theMember States and theconclusion of agree-ments in some fields of trade in services and commer-cial aspects of intellectual property require a unani-mous vote by the EU Member States. Agreements arebinding both on the institutions of the Community andon the Member States.

The Committee holds substantial decision-makingpower and its technical nature implies that decisionsare made by trade officials not ministers. In addition,there are no provisions for membership, appointmentor rules for procedure mentioned in the EC Treaty. The133 Committee also works by consensus and objec-tions on EC proposals with regard to WTO negotiationsneed support from a significant number of members inorder to go through. Insiders also report that it is awaste of time to push an item within the Committeewithout prior agreement with the Commission.105

Next to the undemocratic nature of the 133 Committee,secrecy and lack of transparency are the other majorcharacteristics of 133 Committee meetings. There is nopublic access to the minutes of the Committee meet-ings and the draft negotiating mandates. Demands forminutes and draft negotiating mandates have beenresisted by both the Member State representatives andthe EC who refuse public access to such documents.


The Committee on International Trade (INTA commit-tee) was established in the beginning of 2004106. TheTreaty establishing the European Community granted avery limited role to the EP in EU trade policy. This is stillthe case today, yet some slow improvements havebeen noticed in this area.

An inter-institutional agreement between the EP andthe Commission in June 2000107 redefined the basis of


50

“We hope that the Article 133Committee will become more opento development concerns by inter-acting with other Working Partiesof the Council’’.

An official from a PermanentRepresentation on the role of the 133

Committee in trade negotiations

108 European Parliament/EP Committee on International Trade (2007): Report on the EU’s Aid for Trade, A6-0088/2007.109 European Community (2006): Global Europe: competing in the world. COM (2006) 567.110 WIDE News (2006): Mandelson trades away gender justice and sustainable development – New EC communication: Global Europe:

Competing in the world, by Barbara Specht, No 9/2006.

relations between the two institutions and clarified theEP’s role in relation to the conclusion of trade agree-ments. It states that “in connection with internationalagreements, including trade agreements, theCommission shall provide early and clear informationto the Parliament both during the phase of preparationof the agreements and during the conduct and conclu-sion of international negotiations in order to be able totake due account of the EP’s views in so far as possi-ble. This information covers the draft negotiating direc-tives, the adopted negotiating directives, the subse-quent conduct and conclusion of the negotiations”.Under this provision, the co-ordinators appointed bythe different political groups in the INTA Committeereceive the draft negotiating mandates and Article 133Committee documents.

According to the same agreement “where theCommission represents the European Community, itshall, at Parliament’s request, facilitate the inclusion ofMembers of Parliament as observers in Communitydelegations negotiating multilateral agreements”. Theterm “observers” makes it clear that MEPs do not takepart directly in trade negotiations.

In the case of association agreements with third coun-tries or trade agreements with considerable financialimplications for the Community, the EP is granted amore important role through compulsory consultationand considerable leverage through the assent proce-dure. According to the assent procedure, the EP mayaccept or reject a proposal but cannot amend it.

Despite its limited powers in this area the EP can,however, exert political influence on EU trade policythrough its resolutions and reports and questions byMEPs addressed to DG Trade officials. In the first halfof 2007 the INTA Committee finalised reports covering anumber of development and trade issues, including Aidfor Trade, the EU’s Generalised System of Preferencesand the Communication on Global Europe. In somecases, INTA’s reports include gender-sensitive recom-mendations: for example the report on Aid for Trade108

calls on the EU to devote specific attention to increas-ing opportunities for women to participate in interna-tional trade, given the fact that women benefit lessfrom the opportunities presented by trade liberalisationand globalisation, while at the same time being harderhit by the adverse effects of those phenomena.

Insiders question the EP’s capacity to follow up on theCommission’s “intensive” trade agenda and work pro-

gramme and comment that in some cases “resolutionsare adopted in the plenary too late to have an impacton the Commission’s positions”. They also point out thatthe EP’s reports need to be “focused” and to includestrong recommendations in order to stir inter-institu-tional dialogue and have an actual impact on DG Tradepositions. Consistent follow-up by MEPs on gender-sensitive recommendations formulated in EP reportsand resolutions is equally important to increase politi-cal pressure on the Commission. This follow-up andmonitoring can take place through the formulation oforal and written questions addressed to theCommission, and through strengthened inter-institu-tional dialogue between the EP and the EC services incharge of trade, external relations and developmentco-operation on gender and trade issues.

A delegation of MEPs (mainly members of the INTA andDevelopment Committee) is present at all WTOMinisterial Meetings and attends the ParliamentaryAssembly on the WTO which takes place on the side ofthe official negotiations, an indication of its informalcharacter. In some cases MEPs have “bilateral” meet-ings with representatives of the 133 Committee and ECtrade negotiators in order to get information on theprogress of negotiations.

4.3. Legal instruments and policy documents

4.3.1. EU policy and legal instruments

EC Communication “Global Europe: Competing in theworld”109

This Communication provides the EC’s new strategy tointegrate trade policy into the EU’s competitivenessand economic reform agenda. It sets as its main objec-tive the opening of new markets for EU companies bytargeting developing countries’ overall regulatoryenvironment despite the acknowledged problems thiswill cause to poorer countries’ own developmentefforts110.

Another major contradiction lies in the fact that whilethe Communication emphasises the EU’s commitmentto the WTO and the multilateral trading system, it pro-poses a new generation of bilateral free trade agree-


51

111 Ibid. 112 European Community (2007): Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the European Economic and

Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. Towards an EU Aid for Trade Strategy – the Commission’s contribution, COM (2007)163 final. The Communication was published in April 2007.

113 European Council (2006): Aid for Trade. Draft Conclusions of the Council and the Representatives of the Governments of the Member Statesmeeting within the Council, GAERC 13882/06.

114 During the period 2001-2004 Community and Member State TRA commitments were on average 840 million euro and 300 million euro peryear respectively.

ments with key partners“tackling issues that arenot ready for multilateraldiscussion”. It is nocoincidence that theCommission (DG Trade)requested a mandatefrom the Council ofMinisters to start negoti-ations on FTAs with anumber of countries and

regional groups following the publication of thisCommunication (see chapter 3, external relations).Other main elements included in the Communicationare: the renewal of the EC Market Access Strategy tofocus on non-tariff barriers; the drafting of a new strat-egy for ensuring better access for EU companies tomajor public procurement markets; development of anEC strategy to protect intellectual property rights; andensuring EU access to natural resources, includingenergy. The Communication also links externalaspects to internal reforms and proposes the “harmon-isation” of European standards which can be interpret-ed as starting a process of convergence with the USregulatory system.

Sustainable development and poverty eradication,which are supposed to be the cornerstones of the EUtrade policy, are hardly mentioned in the document. TheCommunication acknowledges that European citizensneed to be equipped for structural changes due to lib-eralisation and deregulation and refers in this sense tothe new generation of cohesion policy programmesand the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund.However, how women and men in developing countries– not being able to count on any safety nets – willrespond to the structural changes is not elaborated inthe Communication. Moreover it is likely that this initia-tive will contribute to a further lowering of social andenvironmental standards, as well as to increased gen-der inequality and poverty in developing countries.111

EC Communication “Towards an EU Aid for Tradestrategy – The Commission’s contribution”112

This EC Communication is the Commission’s contribu-tion to further increasing EU support for Aid for Trade,

pointing towards the adoption of a joint EU (EC andMember State) strategy by the Council (GAERC) in thesecond half of 2007. This Communication has beenjointly drafted by DG DEV and DG Trade and sets the fol-lowing policy objectives: increasing the volumes of EUAid for Trade by reaching an annual allocation of 2 bil-lion euro (1 billion from the EU Member States and 1 bil-lion from the Commission) by 2010; enhancing the qual-ity of Aid for Trade by applying commitments to makingdevelopment co-operation in this area more effective;supporting effective monitoring and reporting; andensuring that the Commission and the Member Stateshave sufficient capacity to reach these objectives. Thedrafting of this Communication followed the EU’s com-mitment at the Hong Kong WTO Ministerial Meeting inDecember 2005 to increase its collective annual spend-ing on trade-related assistance for developing coun-tries and the relevant Council Conclusions in October2006.113

EU Aid for Trade distinguishes five categories in linewith the classification established by the WTO Aid forTrade task force: trade policy and regulation, tradedevelopment, trade-related infrastructure, buildingproductive capacity and trade-related adjustment.However, only the first three categories will be coveredby EU allocations. With regards to the quality of Aid forTrade, the Communication focuses on the followingmain aspects: links between poverty and Aid for Trade;ownership and participation of partner countries in theformulation of priorities; sustainability; joint analysis,programming and delivery by the EC and the MemberStates; and effectiveness of regional Aid for Trade. Asmentioned in the previous sections, trade-relatedassistance represents an important element of EU co-operation with third countries including ACP and Asiancountries, and the EU (the EC and the Member Statescollectively) is the main international donor in thisarea114.

The Communication emphasises that specific attentionneeds to be directed at the ongoing negotiations onEPAs with ACP countries, and indicates that a “sub-stantial share” of the increase of EU Aid for Traderesources should be allocated to ACP countries, thusproviding additional funding to the resources comingunder the EDF to cover EPA related costs.

“‘What do we mean by externalaspects of competitiveness? We meanensuring that competitive Europeancompanies, supported by the rightinternal policies, must be enabled togain access to, and to operate secure-ly in, world markets. That’s our agen-da”.

Peter Mandelson, 18 September 2006, Berlin


52

115 Trade Negotiations insights (2006): EU commitments on Aid for Trade and EPAs, Vol. 5 No.6.116 Statement of Dr. Evita Schmeig from the German Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development at the round table discus-

sion “What added value to seek from an EU Strategy on Aid for Trade?” in the European Parliament on 5 June 2007.117 WIDE-IGTN (2007): Letter to Commissioners for Trade and Development (April 2007). WIDE/IGTN comments on the EC issue paper on Aid

for Trade.118 European Community (2005): Council Regulation. Applying a scheme of generalised tariff preferences, (EC) No 980/2005. The EU GSP is

implemented by means of Council Regulations following a cycle of ten years. This regulation applies from 1 January 2006 to 31 December2008, but the provisions concerning the special incentive scheme for sustainable development and good governance (the "GSP-plus" or"GSP+" incentive) were applied already from 1 July 2005. In managing the GSP the Commission is assisted by the Council’s Committee onGeneralised Preferences, composed of representatives of the Member States and chaired by the Commission. A new Regulation expect-ed to be drafted in 2007 will guide the implementation of the GSP for the period 2009-2011.

ACP countries have welcomed EU commitmentstowards the increase of Aid for Trade but many con-cerns and important questions remain unansweredregarding their involvement in the identification of pro-grammes that will fall under the future EU Aid for TradeStrategy, or the extent to which they will benefit fromadditional financial allocations in this area115.Furthermore, a critical analysis of the EU strategy onAid for Trade should take into account ACP countries’requests for the creation of “adjustment funds” toaddress EPA-related adjustment costs, such as loss ofcustoms revenue and the establishment of an addition-al EPA financing facility at national and regional levelswhich will ensure ACP country access to predictablesupport for addressing supply-side constraints andtrade-related adjustment.

Aid for Trade resources are indeed provided in additionto existing trade related support by the EU (the EC andthe Member States), but they will be shifted fromalready existing ODA commitments116, and constitutetherefore a re-labelling of existing aid commitmentsand a re-directing of development aid towards tradeand regional integration objectives.

It is highly important that EU funds for Aid for Tradeshould match developing countries’ priorities and notbe shifted from sectors such as education and healthwhich are of primary importance for poor women’sempowerment and livelihoods in developing coun-tries117. Furthermore, Aid for Trade should not become ameans to influence the outcome of the Doha Round orthe ongoing EPA negotiations. The formulation of theEU Aid for Trade strategy should take into account thecomplexity of the impact of gender relations and gen-der inequalities (e.g. in education, access to productiveinputs, such as credits and training and command overproperty) on trade policy outcomes as well as theimpact of trade policies on gender equity. The genderdimensions of economic production and trade shouldalso be reflected in the criteria formulated for the eval-uation of Aid for Trade programmes and their contribu-tion to poverty eradication objectives in developingcountries.

Policy documents for trade relations with developingcountries: Generalised System of Preferences (GSP)and the Everything But Arms Initiative (EBA)

Following the United Nations Conference on Trade AndDevelopment (UNCTAD) in 1968, the EuropeanCommunity was the first to apply, in effect from 1 July1971, the Generalised System of Preferences (GSP) todeveloping countries belonging to the “Group of 77”within UNCTAD, as well as to the overseas countriesand territories of the EU Member States. The EU’s GSPgrants manufactured or semi-manufactured goods,processed agricultural products and textiles importedfrom GSP beneficiary countries either duty-free accessor a tariff reduction, depending on which of the GSParrangements a country enjoys. There is no reciprocityclause for the developing countries which are boundonly to apply the most-favoured nation clause and notto discriminate between Community countries. Theobjective of the GSP was threefold: to increase devel-oping countries’ export income, promote the industrial-isation of these countries and accelerate their eco-nomic growth. Over the years, the system has beenprogressively developed and greater selectivity hasbeen applied with countries that are now industrialisedor oil-producing countries no longer eligible for thismechanism. Finally, the Council now has the option tosuspend the GSP for a particular country if it is estab-lished that the country in question is not respectingcertain fundamental principles, particularly those relat-ing to human rights.

For the period 1 January 2006 to 31 December 2008there are three types of arrangement in force for bene-ficiary countries118:• GSP - general arrangement: All beneficiary countries

enjoy the benefit of the general arrangement; • GSP+: The special incentive arrangement for sus-

tainable development and good governance providesadditional benefits for countries implementing cer-tain international standards in human and labourrights, environmental protection and good gover-nance;


53

119 European Community (2001): Council Regulation. Amending Regulation (EC) No 2820/98 applying a multiannual scheme of generalised tar-iff preferences for the period 1 July 1999 to 31 December 2001 so as to extend duty-free access without any quantitative restrictions to pro-duce originating in the least developed countries, (EC) No 416/2001.

120 WIDE (2003): The gender dimension of SIA: A key to sustainable development (and not just another indicator…). Presentation at theSustainable Trade Day organised by the European Commission, Cancun/Mexico, 9 September 2003.

121 Statement of European civil society organisations (2006): EU Trade Sustainability Impact Assessments: A critical view, October 2006.

• Everything But Arms (EBA) initiative119: This specialarrangement for the LDCs grants duty-free access toimports of all products from the LDCs without anyquantitative restrictions, except to arms and muni-tions. The EBA initiative is compatible with interna-tional (WTO) trade rules and the relevant Regulationforesees that the special arrangements for LDCsshould be maintained for an unlimited period of timeand not be subject to the periodic renewal of theCommunity’s scheme of generalised preferences.

The impact of EBA preferences on LDCs has been mod-est, given the limited supply capacities of LDCs. If moresubstantive gains were to arise, measures to addresssupply side constraints in these countries should beput in place. This observation is linked to the generaldebate on Aid for Trade (see above). In addition, thereis also a danger of possible withdrawal of these prefer-ences, since they are unilaterally established and arenot bound by the WTO. Moreover, the preferences forLDC countries under the EBA initiative have beenundermined by the EU’s strict rules of origin, adminis-trative procedures and rapidly changing sanitary andphytosanitary measures.

Sustainability Impact Assessments and gender equal-ity

Gender issues and women’s voices remain to a largeabsent from EU trade policy-making and mechanisms.The Sustainability Impact Assessments (SIAs) fundedby DG Trade offer an illustration of the opportunities,constraints and challenges of highlighting gender con-cerns into EU trade policies. SIAs are assessments byexternal consultants undertaken during a trade negoti-ation seeking to integrate sustainability into trade poli-cy by informing negotiators of the possible social, envi-ronmental and economic impacts. SIAs have failed sofar to capture the importance of gender equality andwomen’s empowerment as key elements of sustainabledevelopment. Gender equality has been marginallyintegrated in completed studies as an indicator ofminor importance (second-tier indicator)120.Furthermore, the assessment of coherence betweenEU trade and development policies from a gender per-spective remains outside the scope of SIAs.

Correctly conducted and used, SIAs can help delivermore sustainable trade by highlighting the potential

social, gender, environmental and developmentalimpacts of trade agreements121. Yet the reality of SIAimplementation reveals a far from perfect picture. Thepro-liberalisation bias and the SIAs’ emphasis on“flanking measures” used to mitigate the negativeimpacts of trade liberalisation in partner countries areother issues of concern, as there is little evidence ofSIAs actually being translated into policy changes or aserious review of the EU negotiating positions at theWTO and inter-regional levels. Also the disconnectionof SIAs from actual trade policy and decision-makingas well as the insufficient stakeholder consultation inthird countries weaken the SIA process.

4.3.2. International agreements

WTO agreements

WTO agreements provide the legal basis and guidingprinciples for trade relations among the members ofthe organisation. The General Agreement on Tariffsand Trade (GATT) concluded in 1948 set the first rulesfor the international trading system dealing mainly withtrade in goods. Under GATT contracting parties wereengaged in periodic negotiations (rounds) with theview to reducing tariffs and other barriers to trade.During the Uruguay Round (1986-1994), the decisionwas made to create a formal organisation to governglobal trade - the WTO, with its secretariat based inGeneva. The Uruguay agreements extended the remitof GATT to include new agreements on agriculture, tex-tiles and clothing as well as on services, investmentmeasures and intellectual property rights. In addition, amore rigorous set of dispute settlement procedureswas put in place.

Thus, WTO agreements fall into a structure with sixmain parts: the umbrella agreement (the Agreementestablishing the WTO); agreements for each of thethree broad trade areas covered by the WTO: goods,services and intellectual property rights (for exampleGATS and TRIPs); dispute settlement; and the tradepolicy review mechanism.

WTO agreements spell out the principles of trade lib-eralisation and permitted exceptions. They includeindividual country commitments to lower customs tar-iffs and other trade barriers, and to open and keep openservices markets. They set procedures for settling dis-


54

122 Recent World Bank and other studies such as the Carnegie Endowment highlighted the fact that the current trade liberalisation agenda isnot working for the majority of women and men, particularly those living in impoverished developing countries, and that especially women“tend to be among the most vulnerable to adverse impacts” (see also EU SIA on DDA).

123 WIDE/Friends of the Earth Europe (2006): The EU’s responsibility at the WTO: Environment, gender and development conference proceed-ing. Article based on Christa Wichterich’s presentation: “On the road to Hong-Kong: Towards a sustainable, gender-fair, just governance”,Brussels.

124 APRODEV-One World Action (2002): Everywhere and Nowhere: Assessing Gender Mainstreaming in European Community DevelopmentCooperation, Brussels/London.

putes and they require governments to make their tradepolicies transparent by notifying the WTO about laws inforce and measures adopted, and through regularreports by the secretariat on countries’ trade policies.The current round of negotiations, known as the DohaDevelopment Agenda (DDA), was launched at thefourth WTO Ministerial Meeting in Doha, Qatar inNovember 2001.

The Doha Development Agenda

So far, the DDA has produced its fair share of drama:the round’s launch was delayed by the collapse of theSeattle Ministerial; the content, format and conduct ofthe negotiations have been subject of heated debate;negotiation deadlines have constantly been missed;and the negotiations have twice broken down – inCancun in September 2003 and in Geneva in July 2006.This, as well as the fact that developing countries andespecially Sub-Saharan countries will not benefit interms of development from the current negotiationsunder the DDA122, strengthens demands for a radicalreform of the multilateral trading system.

In the context of the DDA negotiations, EU demands formarket opening from developing countries in the areasof investment, services and public procurement – inline with European corporate interests – have metstrong opposition from countries in the South. At thesame time, EU offers in the area of agriculture havebeen fiercely criticised due to the lack of decisive com-mitments towards the reduction of domestic subsidiesand elimination of export subsidies.

The gender and development implications of EU tradepolicy and negotiating positions at the WTO level havebeen analysed in depth by WIDE and its partners. Forexample, export-driven agricultural production andincrease in imports of subsidised agricultural goodsfrom the North in developing countries have a tremen-dous impact on small producers’ livelihoods, includingwomen producers. Trade liberalisation has displacedfood production with cash-crop export-oriented pro-duction, undermining food sovereignty in developingcountries and local production systems. Competitionamong countries to attract foreign direct investment

has reduced the ability of governments to regulate cap-ital and led to the reinforcement of existing genderinequalities and poverty levels due to lowering socialstandards and the increased informalisation ofwomen’s employment. Furthermore, lowering tariffs(resulting from trade liberalisation) has lead to a fall ingovernment revenue in developing countries with sig-nificant implications for government expenditure onsocial services and consequently, for women’s repro-ductive work, poverty and social equality.

WIDE’s advocacy offers an alternative vision of policycoherence by demanding that EU trade policy must beadjusted to a development framework of social justice,the enforcement of human and women’s rights, thereduction of inequality and poverty eradication123.

4.4. Gender initiatives and EU trade policy

The rationale for gender equality in the area of EUtrade policy is much less defined compared to otherpolicy areas, in partbecause DG Tradehas not formulatedits own policy state-ments and refers topolicy developed byDG Development,External Relationsand Employment andSocial Affairs124. Inaddition, the GenderRoadmap (see chap-ter 1, page 7)includes no specificmeasures and initiatives for highlighting gender equal-ity concerns in EU trade policy.

DG Trade gender desk

The responsibility for gender issues in EU trade policylies with the gender desk of DG Trade, which is basedwithin the Unit for Sustainable Development (Unit C1)and is composed of one EC official in a full-time posi-


“An increase of women’s representa-tion in the negotiations can offer a‘holistic’ approach to trade and devel-opment issues and challenge the nar-row, reductionist approach of tradenegotiators. Integration of gender con-cerns can change the way in whichnegotiations are conducted”.

A DG Trade official on the links between genderand trade

55

125 In December 2005 DG TRADE adopted an Equal Opportunities Action Plan covering the period 2006-2008 reflecting the measures proposedin the 4th Action Programme established by the Commission. The overall objective of the Action Plan is to create an environment withinDG TRADE which encourages women to apply for posts at all levels and in which it is clear that gender equality is actively pursued andsupported as an important part of human resources management. It also sets out a number of objectives such as addressing barriers tocareer development for women and facilitating the reconciliation of private and professional life. An Equal Opportunity Group of DG TRADEhas been created with the mandate to be a discussion forum on equal opportunities issues and to monitor the implementation of the ActionPlan.

tion. It provides considerable input in DG Trade’s workat two levels: personnel issues (equal opportunitiesbetween men and women including the representationof female staff members in senior negotiating posi-tions)125 and the integration of gender concerns in alltrade negotiations.

DG Trade has proposed a sustainable developmentchapter covering both the social and environmentaldimensions of trade liberalisation to be integrated inthe Economic Partnership Agreements and in the draftdirectives to guide future negotiations with India andASEAN on FTAs. This chapter includes provisions topromote adherence to and effective implementation ofinternationally agreed standards in the social andenvironmental domain (including the implementation ofILO core labour standards) by all negotiating parties asa necessary condition for sustainable development.

Although these provisions included in the negotiatingdocuments are promoted by DG Trade officials as a pol-icy instrument for integrating gender concerns in EUtrade policy and trade negotiations, they hardly everinclude an explicit reference to gender equality andwomen’s rights. In most (if not all) cases, gender equal-ity is covered by the general term of “sustainabledevelopment”.

The differentiated impact of EU trade policy on womenand men is occasionally considered in trade SIAs andgender is included in the assessments as one of the“second-tier” indicators (see also 4.3.1.). The level ofintegration of an analysis of the gender impacts oftrade liberalisation varies considerably from study tostudy and relies on the “good will” of external consult-ants. DG Trade officials argue that it is often difficult forthe consultants carrying out the SIAs to access reliablecountry-specific, gender-disaggregated data and toproduce detailed gender-specific information.

In order to address these constraints, DG Trade initiat-ed in co-operation with the ILO a pilot project inUganda and the Philippines to assess the feasibility ofdeveloping trade and decent work indicators (includinggender indicators) aiming to analyse the impact oftrade opening on labour market adjustment in countriesof the South. The findings of this project estimate thatalmost all lower middle-income countries and a half of

lower-income countries have sufficient labour data todevelop decent work indicators.

As a follow-up, DG Trade is considering continuing co-operation with the ILO (through the thematic pro-gramme on “Investing in People”) in the area of devel-oping decent work and gender indicators in order toassess the effects of trade on social adjustment indeveloping countries. Also the 2007 EC Communicationon Gender Equality and Women’s Empowerment inDevelopment Co-operation (see chapter 2.3.2.) fore-sees provisions to develop and support the use of gen-der-sensitive indicators and strengthen the underlyingbasic statistics to assess gender equality and empow-erment issues; and to analyse the impacts of trade lib-eralisation on decent work for women, men and chil-dren. The Communication recognises that unless policyendeavours to narrow down the gender inequality gapsbetween women and men, trade liberalisation will con-tribute to the widening of gender gaps in terms ofaccess to and quality of employment.

Despite the value of some of these technical improve-ments, applying a gender perspective to trade policiesshould not be seen as a mechanistic integration of gen-der concerns in negotiating texts or be limited to thedevelopment of gender-disaggregated data. Rather itmust be understood as a “tool” for developing a criticalanalysis of EU trade policy outlining its developmentimplications and its differentiated impact on men andwomen (at macro and micro-levels) and inform thetrade negotiations’ process, while resulting in a changeof the EU negotiating positions and priorities. It shouldalso point out measures to enhance women’s access toproductive resources and their participation in policydiscussions and decision-making process over tradeagreements. Given DG Trade’s mandate, it is doubtfulwhether it can take up such a political view.


Transparency in EU trade policy-making and trade ne go -tiations (including access to negotiating mandates andother documents) is a central demand of civil societyorganisations. Strengthening the EP’s role in this areahas been one of the most prominent issues in this dis-cussion, while some EU Member States (for example


56

126 WIDE (2006): A gender perspective on the 6th WTO Ministerial Conference at Hong Kong. Report by Maeve Taylor and Christa Wichterich,Brussels.

127 See Glossary.

the Netherlands and Finland) emphasised in the pastthe need for increased transparency and institutionalaccountability. Overall, the Member States and theCommission have shown resistance to disclosing doc-uments on the negotiations arguing that these are

linked to highly sensi-tive political prioritiesand economic inter-ests.

DG Trade has beenthe most proactive ofall External RelationsDGs in organisingregular civil societydialogue meetingsand has an officer incharge of relationswith civil society.The schedule of regu-lar and ad-hoc meet-

ings on specific negotiating areas and on the progressof WTO, inter-regional and bilateral trade negotiationsis available on DG Trade’s website. Regular meetingsare also organised with the Commissioner for Tradeand other top officials. From time to time DG Trade hasalso set up consultation mechanisms on its website.Nevertheless, the rather “impersonal nature” of theconsultation process through DG Trade’s website doesnot guarantee that NGO positions will be taken intoaccount and there is no possibility to monitor theresponses received.

Civil society organisations have made a number of crit-ical remarks in relation to the quality of dialogue, theextent to which NGO input influences the EC negotiat-ing positions and priorities, the timing of the meetingsvis-à-vis the schedule of negotiations, the focus of thedialogue on Brussels-based organisations, the over-representation of business lobbying groups at themeetings and most importantly, the fear of the “instru-

mentalisation” of civil society dialogue meetings insupport of DG Trade’s positions and priorities. Also thefact that there is no follow-up monitoring possible tosee what happens with the concerns raised duringthese meetings, as there are no minutes available, isconcerning.

A Contact Group – composed of NGOs and businessrepresentatives – has been established as a mecha-nism to help structure and organise the dialogue. Themembers of the Contact Group propose topics for dis-cussion and give advice on organisational matters.External observers are critical of the Contact Group’srole complaining that its original mandate has been“extended” to cover also issues of substance.

DG Trade also includes representatives of civil societyorganisations in its official delegation to WTOMinisterial Meetings. For the first time, the EC delega-tion to the WTO Hong Kong Ministerial Meeting includ-ed a “gender” slot filled by WIDE. One should be awareof the limitations of participation in such structures:The assessment of WIDE’s representative was thatwhile her participation at the delegation sharpened theprofile of a gender approach vis-à-vis other membersof the Delegation and other NGOs, her position did notactually enable her to influence EC trade policy126.

Participation in official structures and the delegationsof international organisations (such as the EU) is linkedto a broader political debate on “inside-outside” advo-cacy strategies and NGOs’ political identity and profile.

Resorting to legal means to challenge EC trade policyis not a common practice among NGOs, although thepossibility exists of either referring a case to theEuropean Court of Justice (ECJ) or approaching theEuropean Ombudsman.127 Appointed by the EP, theEuropean Ombudsman investigates reported cases ofmaladministration by EU institutions and submits hisfindings to the institution concerned and the EP.


“EU Member States have the rightnot to disclose sensitive informationconcerning their economic interestsor negotiating tactics. At the sametime, they also have the responsibili-ty to inform citizens within their owncountries about their political posi-tions and main elements of EU tradepolicy. This is linked to accountabili-ty and transparency of policy-mak-ing”.

An NGO representative on the issue of thetransparency of EU trade policy

57

5. Concluding remarks

The European Union’s political commitment to genderequality is reflected in a number of legal and policydocuments and initiatives, including the 2006-2010Roadmap for Equality between Women and Men; the2007 EC Communication on Women’s Empowermentand Gender Equality in Development Co-operation; theDevelopment Co-operation Instrument; the genderreview of Country Strategy Papers under the 10th

European Development Fund; the establishment of gen-der desks in the Commission’s services and the nomi-nation of gender focal points in EC Delegations, toname but a few. All these initiatives are welcome andimportant steps towards achieving gender equality andfulfilling women’s rights worldwide.

Yet, a critical analysis of the EU’s external relationsagenda reveals a significant lack of coherencebetween policy declarations and practice with regardto achieving gender equality and women’s empower-ment as well as between the EU’s development andtrade policy objectives and priorities. In many casesgender mainstreaming in EU external relations seemsto be understood as a purely technical issue, limited tothe collection of gender disaggregated data and thedevelopment of gender indicators, or the mechanisticintegration of gender concerns in co-operation agree-ments or trade negotiation texts. However, it shouldrather be understood as a tool for developing a criticalanalysis of EU development and trade policy and fordesigning programmes that place at their centrewomen’s rights and empowerment.

At the same time, the EU’s development agenda isincreasingly being taken over by the EU’s own econom-ic interests. Trade liberalisation and economic growthare promoted as the means to achieve poverty eradica-tion in countries of the South with no serious question-ing of their social and gender implications. WIDE chal-lenges the assumption that applying a one-size-fit-allliberalisation strategy, increasing trade and openingmarkets will indiscriminately yield equitable develop-ment. EU policy does not seem to give enough space tothe priorities and needs identified by developing coun-tries and thus contradicts the concepts of ownershipand partnership as laid down in the Paris Declarationon Aid Effectiveness and promoted by the EC and theMember States in international fora. The convergenceof EU development and trade policy priorities under theneo-liberal paradigm, and the marginalisation of peo-

ple’s needs and social development objectives in ongo-ing policy discussions between the EU and partnercountries contradict WIDE’s alternative, people-cen-tred notion of policy coherence which implies that EUtrade policy must be transformed into a developmentframework of social justice, guaranteeing the enforce-ment of human and women’s rights and eradicating allforms of inequalities, discrimination and poverty.

In this political context, the need for increased mobili-sation by women’s organisations in Europe and theSouth becomes more urgent than ever. The objectivesof this research have been to shed light on the complexdecision-making processes in the EU in the area ofexternal relations. At the same time, the study con-tributes to defining entry points, advocacy prioritiesand strategies for WIDE and its partners at national,European and international levels. Some of the entrypoints for advocacy and research identified by thestudy are the following:

• Address the contradictions between the EU tradenegotiating positions and the development objec-tives set in EU legal and policy documents and inco-operation agreements with partner countries by: - Analysing the gender impacts of trade liberalisa-

tion in the areas of agriculture, services andinvestment through the development of country-specific studies.

- Examining the gender impact of the increaseduse of EU (European Commission as well asMember State) development financing in supportof regional integration and trade-related assis-tance, as well as the level of integration of genderequality concerns in existing trade-related assis-tance programmes (Aid for Trade, mainstreamingtrade into development co-operation).

• Monitor the implementation of EU initiatives/policycommitments to gender equality: - 2007 EC Communication on Gender Equality and

Women’s Empowerment in Development Co-oper-ation.

- 2006-2010 EU’s Roadmap for Equality betweenWomen and Men

- EU’s Annual Action Plans on GenderMainstreaming drafted by the Commission servic-es in charge of EU external relations.

- Setting up/work of the European Gender EqualityInstitute.

58


128 DG DEV is currently looking into setting up a more structured civil society dialogue in Brussels (see 3.6.)

• Monitor the implementation of gender sensitiveprogrammes in the area of external relations: - Monitor the formulation and implementation of

gender-sensitive programmes and actions underthe Development Co-operation Instrument the-matic programmes with main focus on the imple-mentation of “Investing in People” and “Non-State Actors” thematic programmes.

- Undertake a gender review of country-specificprogrammes supported by the EU in view of theMid-Term Review of EU development co-operationwith these countries, scheduled to take placerespectively in 2009 and 2010.

• Facilitate systematic and timely access of partnerorganisations to information on latest policy devel-opments at the EU level, for example, with regard tothe state of play of trade negotiations and/or the for-mulation of policy and programming documents.

• Provide information to partner organisations onfunding opportunities for women’s organisationsand organisations working on gender equalityissues available through the EU thematic and coun-try-specific programmes.

• Advocate for the active participation of women’sorganisations in policy discussions between theEC, national governments and civil society organisa-tions on development and trade issues and con-cerns.

Choosing the appropriate lobbying targets and build-ing alliances

Looking at EU structures, institutions and policy-makingmechanisms, the study prioritises the EuropeanCommission services in charge of EU external relations(DG DEV, DG RELEX, DG Trade and EuropeAid as well asthe EC Delegations) among lobbying targets, giventheir central role in the formulation, implementationand monitoring of EU development, external relationsand trade policy. The different mandates of these insti-tutions as well as the power relations and strugglesbetween them should be taken into account. The infil-tration of trade issues and economic interests in EUdevelopment policy and external relations provides aclear example of these power relations. DG Trade is theleading force behind trade negotiations with thirdcountries and during the last years, it has alsoincreased its influence on development programming.

However, the study notes that the level of openness of

Commission officials towards civil society and morespecifically gender equality concerns varies widely.The lack of institutional commitment to policy dialoguewith civil society organisations is reflected in the factthat out of the four Commission services in charge ofEU external policies examined in this study, only one(DG Trade) has established a structured mechanism ofdialogue with civil society organisations.128

Nevertheless, the flaws of this mechanism described inthe study and analysed eloquently by various civil soci-ety organisations prevents it from being a major entrypoint for lobbying the Commission on trade issues.

The gender desks within the Commission services canbe seen as possible allies in efforts to integrate genderequality issues and women’s rights in the EU externalrelations agenda, despite the fact that their role is con-strained by limited human resources.

Lobbying towards the EC Delegations should be aimedtowards increasing their commitment to gender equal-ity and consequently the level of integration of genderissues in all stages of the project cycle (formulation,implementation and monitoring) and country program-ming. Specific demands should also be raised in rela-tion to the transparency of policy dialogue at nationallevel and the involvement of civil society organisations,including women’s organisations in this process. Theprocess of nomination of gender focal points by ECDelegations is an initiative to be monitored by civil soci-ety organisations.

Moving to the other main EU institutions, the impor-tance of lobbying the Council of Ministers lies in thepowers that this institution has regarding the formula-tion of binding legislative policy documents(Regulations), the approval of trade negotiation man-dates and monitoring of trade negotiations, as well asthe approval of the EU budget, including the financingof development co-operation programmes and priori-ties. Both EU development co-operation and EU exter-nal relations fall under the Community decision-makingprocess and constitute a shared competence betweenthe EC and the EU Member States, contrary to EU tradepolicy which is a European Commission competence asfar as most trade policy areas are concerned. A deep-er look into the power and decision-making compe-tences of the Council of Ministers reveals the impor-tance of lobbying national governments in order toincrease pressure on EU policy-makers.

The power of the European Parliament varies signifi-cantly depending on the policy area. In the area of

59


development and external relations, the EP – throughthe Committee on Development and the Committee onBudget – plays a considerable role in the formulation oflegislative documents and the approval of the EU budg-et. In terms of trade policy-making, the EP (INTACommittee) plays a minor role. Nevertheless, raisingthe profile of certain policy issues (including the genderimplications of trade agreements) among MEPs (INTACommittee and Committee on Development) canstrengthen the political monitoring of EC positions bythe Parliament and the ongoing dialogue between thetwo institutions on the development implications of EUtrade policy.

Lobbying the Member State holding the EU Presidencyis relevant to advocacy initiatives on the EU’s generalpolitical priorities and agenda. The publication of theprogramme outlining the working priorities of threeconsecutive EU Presidencies allows lobbying by civilsociety organisations before a Member State actuallytakes over the Presidency.

Gender equality and women’s rights before profit-making

Participation, transparency and accountability of poli-cy-making and adherence to human and women’srights are principles that should apply to all stakehold-ers involved in external policies, including EU institu-tions, the EU Member States and national governments

in the countries of the South. The promotion of women’sempowerment and their economic, social and politicalrights and entitlements should be seen as a jointresponsibility of those stakeholders. The value andimportance of civil society and especially women’sorganisations’ contributions to policy formulation, mon-itoring and implementation should be recognised andsupported by both the EU and partner country govern-ments through appropriate initiatives and actions(including the creation of political spaces for true poli-cy dialogue and the extension of financial support forwomen’s organisations). Openness of EU institutions todialogue with civil society organisations is an obliga-tion and not a concession, even though in some casesit is presented as such.

Advocacy initiatives undertaken at European andnational levels will aim at complementing and reinforc-ing lobbying actions undertaken by women’s organisa-tions in the South targeting their national governments.The success of civil society organisations’ advocacydepends partly on increased knowledge of EU policy-making structures and mechanisms, but first and fore-most, on the development of strong coalitions betweenwomen’s organisations in Europe and the South. Onlythrough alliance building, can women’s movementsincrease political pressure and influence on decision-makers at all levels and achieve the transformation ofEU external relations policies into a truly sustainableand just development agenda.

60


Bibliography

APRODEV (2002): EPAs-What’s in it for women? A gender based impact assessment study on women inZimbabwe: Issues in future trade negotiations with the EU, Brussels.

APRODEV/One World Action (2002): Everywhere and Nowhere: Assessing Gender Mainstreaming in EuropeanCommunity Development Cooperation, Brussels/London.

CARITAS/CIDSE (2006): Letter to Director General of DG DEV: Ten recommendations to improve EC cooperationwith civil society.

Christian Aid (2005): Policy discussion paper: Is India a success story of economic liberalisation?, by JayatiGhosh, London.

CIDSE (2007): The EU’s footprint in the South. Does European Community development co-operation make a dif-ference for the poor?, Brussels.

CIDSE (2006): Governance and Development Cooperation: Civil Society Perspectives on the European UnionApproach, Brussels.

CONCORD (2007): Hold the applause! EU governments risk breaking aid promises, Brussels.

CONCORD Cotonou Working Group (2006): Briefing Paper ACP-EU relations: Will the EU deliver on its promises?Challenges of the 10th EDF Programming process, Brussels.

CONCORD Gender task force (2006): Letter to Commissioner for Development, Louis Michel on the issue:Financial resources for the promotion of gender equality in development in the European Commission “Investingin People” thematic programme.

CONCORD Task force on Financial perspectives (2005): Letter to COREPER- Recommendations on Heading 4 ofthe financial perspectives 2007-2013.

Council of the European Union (2007): Conclusions on the Recommendations to open Negotiations with Countriesof ASEAN, India and South Korea. 2795th General Affairs Council meeting, Luxembourg, 23 April 2007.

Council of the European Union (2005): Applying a scheme of generalized tariff preferences, (EC) No 980/2005.

Council of the European Union (2001): Amending Regulation (EC) No 2820/98 applying a multi-annual scheme ofgeneralized tariff preferences for the period 1 July 1999 to 31 December 2001 so as to extend duty-free accesswithout any quantitative restrictions to products originating in the least developed countries, Regulation (EC)416/2001.

DG DEV/DG RELEX (2007): Joint press release. EC proposes a European strategy to promote gender equality indevelopment co-operation, 8 March 2007.

EU and EC Treaties: Treaty of Rome (1957), Maastricht (1991), Amsterdam (1997) and Nice (2001).

European Commission (2006): Policy Coherence for Development. Work Programme 2006-2007. Commission StaffWorking Paper.

European Community (2007): Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council. –From Cairo to Lisbon – The EU-Africa Strategic Partnership, COM (2007) 357 final.

61


European Community (2007): Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, theEuropean Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. Towards an EU Aid for TradeStrategy – the Commission’s contribution, COM (2007) 163 final.

European Community (2007): Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament.Gender Equality and Women Empowerment in Development Cooperation, COM (2007) 100 final.

European Community (2007): Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament.EU Code of Conduct on Division of labour in Development Policy, COM (2007) 72 final.

European Community (2006): Global Europe: Competing in the world. COM (2006) 567.

European Community (2006): Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament andthe European Economic and Social Committee. EU relations with the Pacific Islands – A strategy for strength-ened partnership, COM (2006) 248 final.

European Community (2006): A Roadmap for Equality between women and men 2006-2010, COM (2006) 92 final.

European Community (2006): Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament.Increasing the impact of EU Aid: A common framework for drafting Country Strategy Papers and joint multi-annual programming, COM (2006) 88 final.

European Community (2006): Communication from the Commission. EU Aid: Delivering more, better and faster,COM (2006) 87 final.

European Community (2006): Communication to the Council, the European Parliament and the EuropeanEconomic and Social Committee. An EU-Caribbean Partnership for growth, stability and development, COM(2006) 86 final.

European Community (2006): Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament.Financing for Development and Aid Effectiveness – The challenges of scaling up EU aid 2006-2010, COM (2006) 85final.

European Community (2006): Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 onEstablishing a European Institute for Gender Equality, (EC) No 1922/2006.

European Community (2006): Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006establishing a financing instrument for development cooperation, (EC) No 1905/2006.

European Community (2006): Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council of European Communityon establishing a financing instrument for the promotion of democracy and human rights worldwide, (EC) No1889/2006.

European Community (2006): Joint Statement by the Council and the representatives of the governments of theMember States meeting within the Council, the European Parliament and the Commission on European UnionDevelopment Policy: “The European Consensus”, 2006/C 46/01.

European Community (2005): Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament andthe European Economic and Social Committee. Strategy for Africa: Towards a Euro-African Pact to accelerateAfrica’s development, COM (2005) 489 final.

European Community (2005): Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament andthe European Economic and Social Committee. Policy Coherence for development, COM (2005) 134.


62

European Community (2005): Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament.Accelerating progress towards attaining the MDGs – Financing for Development and Aid Effectiveness, COM(2005) 133.

European Community (2005): Framework Agreement on relations between the EP and Commission.

European Community (2005): Council Regulation. Applying a scheme of generalised tariff preferences, (EC) No980/2005.

European Community (2004): Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament andthe European Economic and Social Committee. An EU-India Strategic Partnership, COM (2004) 430 final.

European Community (2004): Commission staff working paper. Impact Assessment: Next steps. In support ofcompetitiveness and sustainable development, SEC (2004) 1377.

European Community (2003): A new partnership with South East Asia, COM (2003) 399 final.

European Community (2001): Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament.Programme of Action for the mainstreaming of Gender Equality in Community Development Cooperation, COM(2001) 295 final.

European Community (2001): Council Regulation. Amending Regulation (EC) No 2820/98 applying a multiannualscheme of generalised tariff preferences for the period 1 July 1999 to 31 December 2001 so as to extend duty-free access without any quantitative restrictions to produce originating in the least developed countries, (EC) No416/2001.

European Community (2001): Presidency Conclusions. Göteborg European Council 15-16 June 2001.

European Community (2000): Community Framework Strategy for gender equality, COM (2000) 335 final.

European Council (2006): Aid for Trade. Draft Conclusions of the Council and the Representatives of theGovernments of the Member States meeting within the Council, GAERC 13882/06.

European Parliament/EP Committee on International Trade (2007): Report on the EU’s Aid for Trade, A6-0088/2007.

European Parliament (2007): Motion for a resolution on the draft Commission decision to establish country strate-gy papers and indicative programmes for Malaysia, Brazil and Pakistan, B6-0067/2007.

European Parliament/Committee on Foreign Affairs (2006): Report on the proposal for a regulation of theEuropean Parliament and of the Council on establishing a financing instrument for the promotion of democracyand human rights worldwide (European Instrument for Democracy and Human Rights), A6-0376/2006.

European Parliament/Committee on Development (2005): Report on the role of the European Union in theachievement of the Millennium Development Goals, A6-0075/2005.

European Parliament (2004): European Parliament Decision on the number, powers and responsibilities of com-mittees, P5_TA (2004) 0050.

Eurostep (2006): We decide, You “own”! An assessment of the programming of the European Community Aid to

ACP countries under the 10th European Development fund, Brussels.

Eurostep/Social Watch (2005): Accountability upside down – Gender equality in a partnership for poverty eradi-cation, Brussels.

Floro, Maria/Hoppe, Hella (2005): Engendering policy coherence for development, Berlin/New York.


63

Friends of the Earth Europe (undated): Presentation on EU trade policy making – How does it work and what canyou do about it?, Brussels.

Gender Help Desk for the EC RELEX Family (2007): Activity report. ILO International Training Centre, Turin.

Keet, Dot (2007): EPAs: Responses to the EU Offensive against ACP Development regions, Amsterdam.

NGO statement (2007): Statement of concern regarding the proposed EU-ASEAN free trade negotiations,February 2007.

OECD (2007): EC DAC Peer Review: Main Findings and Recommendations, Paris.

One World Action (2006): The likely impact of the EPAs on Women’s Rights and Gender Equality in Mozambique,Namibia and Zambia, by Zohra Khan, London.

One World Action (2005): Making Economic Partnership Agreements developmental, by Thomas Deve and TendaiMakwavarara, London.

Pheko, Liepollo Lobohang (undated): Friend or Foe – the EPAs unmasked, Gender & Trade Network for Africa.

Seattle to Brussels Network (2006): Corporate power over EU trade policy: Good for business, bad for the world,Brussels.

Seattle to Brussels Network (2005): The EU Corporate Trade Agenda. The role and the interests of corporationsand their lobby groups in Trade Policy Making in the European Union, Brussels.

South Centre (2007): Analytical Note. Fact Sheet number 6, May 2007, Geneva.

Trade Negotiations insights (2006): EU commitments on Aid for Trade and EPAs, Vol. 5 No.6.

Statement of European civil society organisations (2006): EU Trade Sustainability Impact Assessments: A criticalview, October 2006.

United Nations (1997): Annual Report of the Economic and Social Council, Geneva/New York.

WIDE-IGTN (2007): Letter to Commissioners for Trade and Development (April 2007). WIDE/IGTN comments onthe EC issue paper on Aid for Trade.

WIDE (2006): A gender perspective on the 6th WTO Ministerial Conference at Hong Kong, by Maeve Taylor andChrista Wichterich, Brussels.

WIDE News (2006): Mandelson trades away gender justice and sustainable development – New EC communica-tion: Global Europe: Competing in the world, by Barbara Specht, No 9/2006.

WIDE/Friends of the Earth Europe (2006): The EU’s responsibility at the WTO: Environment, gender and develop-ment conference proceeding. Article based on Christa Wichterich’s presentation: “On the road to Hong-Kong:Towards a sustainable, gender-fair, just governance”, Brussels

WIDE (2003): The gender dimension of SIA: A key to sustainable development (and not just another indicator…).Presentation at the Sustainable Trade Day organised by the European Commission, Cancun/Mexico, 9September 2003.

WIDE/Eurostep (1995): Gender mapping the European Union, by Mandy Macdonald, Brussels.


64

Annex 1Glossary of EU institutions and legislation129

Institutions of the EU

Source: Adapted from Austrian NDGO EU-Platform (2007): EU-Entwicklungszusammenarbeit verstehen, Die EZA der EuropaeischenGemeinschaft, Institutionen-Strukturen-Prozesse, p. 7.

European Council(27 Heads of State and Government)

GENERAL POLITICAL GUIDELINES

Council of Ministers(27 member states)

LegislationBudget

CFSP + PJCCIntern. Agreements

European Parliament(785 member states)

LegislationBudget

EnlargementAssociation

Monitoring the Commission

European Commission(27 Commissioners)

Economic a.Social Commitee

(344 members)Consultation

Court of AuditorsMonitoring finances

Commiteeof regions

(344 members)Consultation

Court of JusticeMonitoring EU-Legislation

DECISION

Implementation

EU Institutions: Main decision-making institutions

European Council

The European Council is a meeting of the Heads ofState and Governments of the EU Member States heldfour times a year and is attended by the EuropeanCommission President. It establishes general politicalguidelines for the EU.

Council of the European Union (Council of

Ministers)

(http://www.consilium.europa.eu) The Council of the European Union (Council ofMinisters) is the main decision-making body of the EU.It is made up of representatives of the governments ofthe 27 EU Member States. It meets in nine differentconfigurations depending on the subjects on the agen-da, as each Member State is represented by the mem-ber of the government with responsibility for the area inquestion (foreign affairs, development co-operation,finance, social affairs, transport, agriculture, etc.).

Since 2002 development and trade issues have been

handled by the General Affairs and External RelationsCouncil of Ministers (GAERC) which meets monthly. It iscustomary for the country holding the EU Presidency toorganise informal meetings of EU Ministers, includingof Ministers for Development Co-operation in order todiscuss topical EU-related issues. These are not formalCouncil sessions and no formal decisions are reachedduring these meetings.

The key responsibilities of the Council are: to adoptCommunity legislation on the basis of proposals put for-ward by the Commission (in many fields jointly with theEuropean Parliament, for example in the field of devel-opment co-operation); to adopt, jointly with theEuropean Parliament, the budget of the EU; to concludeinternational agreements with third countries and inter-national organisations; to co-ordinate the broad eco-nomic policies of the Member States; and to define theEU’s Common Foreign and Security Policy on the basisof guidelines set by the European Council.

65


129 The presentation of the institutions and legislative procedures is based on information from EUROPE Glossary: http://europa.eu; the EU’slaw postal: http://eur-lex.europa.eu and the websites of the respective EU institutions.

European Commission

(http://ec.europa.eu) The European Commission consists of 27Commissioners, one per Member State. The membersof the Commission are appointed by the Council, afterapproval by the European Parliament, for a period offive years. The President of the Commission is desig-nated by the Council meeting at the level of Heads ofState or Government; this designation is then approvedby the European Parliament. The Commission’s depart-ments are divided into Directorates-General, each ofwhich is responsible for a particular area of activity.

The European Commission has four main roles: it has anear monopoly in initiating legislation and is responsi-ble for drawing up proposals for new legislative instru-ments, which it forwards to the Parliament and theCouncil for approval; it is responsible for managing andcarrying out the EU budget and puts into effect the poli-cies and programmes adopted by Parliament and theCouncil; ensures that the legal provisions adopted bythe Community institutions are applied by individuals,by the Member States and by the other institutions; itconducts negotiations on behalf of the Community witha view to concluding international agreements withnon-member countries or international organisations.

European Parliament

(http://www.europarl.europa.eu)The European Parliament is made up of 785 representa-tives of the citizens of the Member States, elected bydirect universal suffrage for a period of five years. Thenumber of representatives elected in each MemberState varies depending on the size of the population.MEPs do not sit in national delegations but form politi-cal groups composed of representatives of differentMember States. MEPs are divided up into a number ofspecialist committees and delegations. The reportsdrawn up by Parliamentary committees are submittedfor adoption by the Parliament as a whole in plenarysessions. Parliamentary sessions take place inBrussels (parliamentary committee meetings) and inStrasbourg (plenary sessions).

The Parliament takes part to varying degrees in theapproval of Community legislative documents (seebelow the different legislative processes). It sharesbudgetary powers with the Council and is in charge ofthe political supervision of the executive (Commission).The appointment of the President and the Members ofthe Commission is subject to the prior approval of theEuropean Parliament.

European Ombudsman

(http://www.ombudsman.europa.eu) The European Ombudsman is appointed by the

European Parliament and investigates complaints con-cerning maladministration in the institutions and bodiesof the EU. Maladministration occurs when an EU insti-tution fails to act in accordance with the law, fails torespect the principles of good administration, or vio-lates human rights (for example abuse of power, refusalof information, administrative irregularities). TheOmbudsman might receive complaints from individualcitizens, businesses, associations or other bodies witha registered office in the Union.

EU Institutions: Advisory bodies

Committee of the Regions

(http://www.cor.europa.eu)The Committee of the Regions comprises representa-tives of regional and local governments. The membersof the Committee, together with the same number ofalternatives, are proposed by the Member States andappointed by the Council of Ministers for a period offour years. The Committee of the Regions is a consulta-tive body. Its role is to raise awareness of local andregional points of view with regard to European legisla-tion. To this end, the Committee submits Opinions onCommission proposals.

Economic and Social Committee(http://www.cese.europa.eu)The European Economic and Social Committee (EESC)comprises representatives of three groups represent-ing various aspects of the society: employers, employ-ees and various economic and social interests. Themembers of the EESC are proposed by the MemberStates and appointed by the Council for a period of fouryears. The EESC has a consultative role in EU policy-making. It puts forward the views of its members anddefends their interests in policy discussions with theCommission, the Council and the EP. It must be consult-ed before any decision involving economic and socialpolicy.

EU Institutions: Judicial institutions

Court of Auditors

(http://www.eca.europa.eu)The Court of Auditors is made up of one national fromeach Member State. The members of the Court ofAuditors are appointed by the Council, acting by quali-fied majority after consulting the European Parliament,for a term of six years. The Court of Auditors is respon-sible for examining all revenue or expenditure accountsof the Community or any Community body, in order toensure the soundness of EU financial management.


66

European Court of Justice and Court of First

Instance of the European Communities

(http://curia.europa.eu)The European Court of Justice is made up of 27 judgesand eight advocates-general, appointed by commonaccord of the governments of the Member States for arenewable term of six years. The European Court ofJustice is the judicial institution of the Community. It ismade up of three courts: the Court of Justice, the Courtof First Instance and the Civil Service Tribunal. Its maintask is to examine the legality of Community measuresand to ensure the uniform interpretation and applica-tion of Community law.

EU Institutions: Financial institutions

European Central Bank

(http://www.ecb.int/home/html/index.en.html)The European Central Bank (ECB) is the central bankfor Europe’s single currency, the euro. The ECB isresponsible for the definition and implementation ofmonetary policy for the euro area. The euro area com-prises the 13 EU countries that have introduced theeuro since 2000. Its basic task is to maintain the euro’spurchasing power and thus price stability in the euroarea. The Governing Council is the main decision-mak-ing body of the ECB. It consists of the governors of thenational central banks from the 13 euro area countriesand an executive board of six members that serve aneight-year (non-renewable) term.

European Investment Bank

(http://www.eib.europa.eu/)The European Investment Bank (EIB) is the financinginstitution of the EU. The members of the EIB are theMember States of the EU, who have all subscribed tothe Bank’s capital. Each Member State’s share in theBank’s capital is calculated in accordance with its eco-nomic weight within the EU (expressed in GDP) at thetime of its accession. The EIB is made up of a Board ofGovernors (consisting of the Member State financeministers), a Board of Directors and a ManagementCommittee. It invests in projects both in and outsideEurope (including in the ACP, Asian and Latin Americancountries).

EU legislation: EU laws

Acquis communautaire

The “acquis communautaire” is the entire body of EUlegislation and Treaties. Applicant countries mustadopt, implement and enforce all EU legislation before

they can officially join the EU.

Primary legislation

The Treaties constitute the EU’s “primary legislation”(for example the Treaty of Rome, Maastricht,Amsterdam and Nice, as well as the Convention on theFuture of Europe). They lay down the fundamental fea-tures of the Union, in particular the responsibilities ofthe various actors in the decision-making process, thelegislative procedures under the Community systemand the powers conferred on them. The Treaties them-selves are the subject of direct negotiations betweenthe governments of the Member States, after whichthey have to be ratified in accordance with the proce-dures applying at national level (in principle by thenational parliaments or by referendum).

International agreements

International agreements are the second source of EUlaw, allowing the EU to develop its economic, socialand political relations with the rest of the world. Theseare always agreements concluded between subjects ofinternational law (the Member States or organisations)for the purpose of establishing co-operation at interna-tional level. International agreements can be conclud-ed either by the Community or by the Community andthe Member States depending on the policy area.Three forms of agreement can be distinguished:

- Association agreements: Association agreementsinvolve close economic co-operation, combined withextensive financial support from the Community forthe partner in the agreement. This category of agree-ments includes those with the overseas countriesand territories, agreements preparing the way foraccession and creating a customs union, and theagreement on the European Economic Area (EEA).

- Partnership and Co-operation agreements: Co-oper-ation agreements do not have the same scope asassociation agreements, in that they are concernedonly with intensive economic co-operation.Agreements of this kind link the Community in partic-ular with the countries of the Maghreb (Algeria,Morocco and Tunisia) and Masher (Egypt, Jordan,Lebanon and Syria) and with Israel.

- Trade agreements: These are agreements on cus-toms and trade policy concluded with non-membercountries or groups of non-member countries orwithin the framework of international trade organisa-tions. The agreement establishing the World TradeOrganization comes into this category.

Secondary legislation

“Secondary legislation” is the third major source ofCommunity law after the Treaties (primary legislation)and international agreements. It can be defined as the


67

Co-decision procedure according to article 251 of EC-Treaty: Possibilities of the process

Adapted from Austrian NDGO EU-Platform (2007): EU-Entwicklungszusammenarbeit verstehen, Die EZA der Europaeischen Gemeinschaft,Institutionen-Strukturen-Prozesse, p. 17.

totality of the legislative instruments adopted by theEuropean institutions pursuant to the provisions of thetreaties. Secondary legislation comprises the bindinglegal instruments (Regulations, Directives andDecisions) and non-binding (soft law) instruments(Resolutions and Opinions) provided for in the ECTreaty, together with a whole series of other instru-ments such as the institutions’ internal regulations andCommunity action programmes.

Regulation

Adopted by the Council of Ministers in conjunction withthe European Parliament or by the Commission alone, aRegulation is a general measure that is binding in all itsparts. A Regulation is directly applicable, which meansthat it creates law which takes immediate effect in allthe Member States in the same way as a nationalinstrument, without any further action on the part of thenational authorities.

Decision

A Decision is the instrument by which the Communityinstitutions give a ruling on a particular matter. Bymeans of a Decision, the institutions can require aMember State or a citizen of the EU to take or refrainfrom taking a particular action, or confer rights orimpose obligations on a Member State or a citizen. ADecision is an individual measure, and the persons towhom it is addressed must be specified individually.

Directive

A Directive is a form of legislative act addressed to theMember States and its main purpose is to align nation-al legislation. A directive is binding on the MemberStates as to the result to be achieved but leaves themthe choice of the form and method they adopt to realisethe Community objectives.

Communication

A Communication is a policy proposal prepared by theEuropean Commission services. EC Communicationscan form the basis of EU legislative documents (forexample Regulations) or are aimed at guiding EU poli-cies without necessarily leading to the formulation oflegislative documents.

Opinion

An Opinion is an instrument that allows the institutionsto make a statement in a non-binding fashion, in otherwords without imposing any legal obligation on those towhom it is addressed. The aim is to set out an institu-tion’s point of view on a question.

EU legislation: Legislative process

Assent procedure

The assent procedure requires the Council of Ministersto obtain the European Parliament’s assent before cer-tain important decisions are taken. The assent principleis based on a single reading. Parliament may accept orreject a proposal but cannot amend it. If Parliamentdoes not give its assent, the act in question cannot beadopted. The assent procedure applies mainly to theaccession of new Member States, association agree-ments and other fundamental agreements with thirdcountries.

Co-decision procedure

The co-decision procedure gives the EuropeanParliament the power to adopt instruments jointly withthe Council of the European Union and puts the twoinstitutions on an equal footing in the legislativeprocess. The procedure comprises one, two or threereadings. It has the effect of increasing contacts


68

Commission

ParliamentParliament

Council Council Council

Proposal is adopted

Proposal is adopted

ConciliationCommittee

Proposal is not adopted

Proposal is adopted

Proposal is adopted

Proposal is not adopted

Proposal forlegislation

approvesproposal of the EC

adopts a deviatecommon position

proposesamendments

does notapprove

approves

approvesproposal

approves proposalwith all amendments

approves amendments

Council and EPapprove proposal no agreement

opposes

proposesamendments

between the Parliament and the Council, the co-legis-lators, and with the European Commission. In the eventof disagreement, a conciliation committee made up ofrepresentatives of the Council and of Parliament has toarrive at a text that is acceptable to the two institutions.

Consultation procedure

The consultation procedure enables the EuropeanParliament to give its opinion on a proposal from theEuropean Commission (one stage consultation). In thecases laid down by the Treaty, the Council must consultthe European Parliament before voting on theCommission proposal and take its views into account.However, it is not bound by the Parliament’s positionbut only by the obligation to consult it. The powers ofthe Parliament are fairly limited under this procedure.

Co-operation procedure

The co-operation procedure (exclusively applied to thefield of economic and monetary union) gives theEuropean Parliament greater influence in the legisla-tive process by allowing it two “readings”. TheParliament can make amendments to a Council com-mon position but, unlike the co-decision procedure, thefinal decision lies with the Council alone. A commonposition is an instrument adopted by qualified majorityby the Member States meeting within the Council aspart of a legislative procedure in which the Councilshares its decision-making power with the EuropeanParliament.

EU Principles

Proportionality

The principle of proportionality regulates the exerciseof powers by the EU, seeking to set within specifiedbounds the action taken by the institutions of the Union.Under this rule, the institutions’ involvement must belimited to what is necessary to achieve the objectivesof the Treaties. This means that when various forms ofintervention are available to the Union, it must, wherethe effect is the same, opt for the approach which

leaves the greatest freedom to the Member States andindividuals.

Subsidiarity

The principle whereby the Union does not take action(except in the areas which fall within its exclusive com-petence) unless it is more effective than action taken atthe national, regional or local level. It is closely boundup with the principles of proportionality and necessity,which require that any action by the Union should notgo beyond what is necessary to achieve the objectivesof the Treaty.

Other terms

College of Commissioners

The College of Commissioners is composed of all 27Commissioners in charge of different policy portfolios.All Commission policy proposals are adopted by theCollege of Commissioners with simple majority on thebasis of either a written procedure (no discussionamong the Commissioners) or an oral procedure (thedossier is discussed by the College of Commissioners),and are published in the Official Journal of the EU. TheCollege meets once per week under the direction of thePresident of the Commission for such “interserviceconsultations”.

Comitology

Comitology or the “Committee procedure” is the termfor a system of committees that assist the Commissionin the exercise of its powers when implementing adopt-ed legislation (see DCI and EDF Committees).Comitology committees are created by means of abasic legislative act adopted by the Council, or theCouncil and the European Parliament that confersimplementing powers on the Commission. There aredifferent types of committees. Management commit-tees are typically used to monitor the implementation ofpolicies (programmes) with substantial budgets.


69


70

Annex 2Schematic presentation of EU Development policy and gender: Main Actors

European CommissionDG Development

Initiates and drafts policy documentsUnder Cotonou: coordinates relations with ACP and OCT; in charge of programming of EDF; allocation of EDFresources; monitoring of the implementation of EDF programme Under the Development Co-operation Instrument – Thematic priorities: drafting of multi annual strategy andindicative programme EuropeAid Co-operation Office

Implements external aid instruments; responsible for the preparation and approval of country-specific pro-grammes and projectsDG Trade

Drafts trade negotiating mandates; conducts trade negotiations on EPAs on behalf of the Community

Council of Ministers Approval of EU legislation inco-decision with EP; approval of annual EU budg-et in co-decision with EP; approves trade negotiationmandates; monitors EPA negotiations.

COREPER II: Committee ofpermanent representativeson development and tradeissues ACP Working Party: Relationswith ACP under Cotonou CODEV Working Party:Development co-operation EDF Committee: Approval offinancial allocation to ACPunder EDF DCI Committee: Approval ofgeographic and thematicstrategy papers under DCIArticle 133 Committee: EPAnegotiations

EU presidencyResponsible for organisingand chairing council meet-ings; brokering compromisesbetween the member states;represents the EU inInternational meetings

EC DelegationsDefine jointly strategic devel-opment co-operation priori-ties at country level; respon-sible for the formulation,implementation, monitoringof development programmesat country level; organise dialogue with civilsociety organisations

National AuthorisingOfficer Represents ACP country indiscussions on EU fundedprojects; works with the ECdelegation on issues men-tioned

ACP-EU Council ofMinisters Takes binding decisions con-cerning the implementationof Cotonou;adopts policy guidelines

ACP-EU Committee ofAmbassadors Assists ACP-EU Council ofMinisters, Monitors implementation ofCotonou

European Parliament Co-decision power inapproval of EU legislation;co-decision power inapproval of annual EUBudget; monitors and comments ondeveloment co-operationthrough Opinions, Reports,and Resolutions

Committee on Development, Committee on Trade, Committee on Women’sRightsCommittee on Budgetarycontrol

ACP-EU Joint Parliamentary assem-bly Consultative body


71

Financial instruments

– European Development Fund (basedon national/regional indicative pro-grammes)

– Development Co-operationInstrument (financial allocations forthematic programmes)

– Human Rights Instrument (supportfor human rights projects in alldeveloping countries)

EU Development policy and gender: Main policy documents andfinancing instruments

Legal instruments & importantpolicy documents

- Article 177-181 Maastricht Treaty - EU Consensus on Development - OECD Paris Declaration on Aid

Effectiveness and DonorHarmonisation

- EC Communications on the MDGs,aid effectiveness and financing fordevelopment

- Cotonou Agreement - EU Strategy for Africa - Policy Coherence for Development

Geographic strategies, programming and monitoring tools - Country/ regional strategy papers - Financing proposals/agreements - Country-specific programmes and projects (on gender equality, civil society, trade-relat-

ed assistance, agriculture, infrastructure, water and sanitation, good governance) - Budget/Sectoral Support - Joint Annual Report - Mid-Term Review/End-of-Term Review

Thematic programmes - Thematic Programmes (Investing in People, Environment, non state actors and local

authorities, migration/asylum, food security)

Trade instruments - Economic Partnership Agreements

Gender mainstreaming tools and initiatives - EC Communication on Gender Equality and Women’s Empowerment in EC Development

Co-operation- Thematic programme ‘Investing in People’ - Gender desks at DG DEV and the EuropeAid Co-operation Office- Gender guidelines for Country Strategy Papers and Mid-Term Review of CSPs- Gender country briefs - Gender review of CSPs under the 10th EDF- Infokit on gender mainstreaming - EC-UNIFEM-ILO project - Gender focal points at EC Delegations - EuropeAid Co-operation Office Gender Focal Persons Network - Informal Group of EU Member State Experts on Gender Equality- UN agreements on women’s rights and gender equality, e.g. BPFA, CEDAW


72

Annex 3Schematic presentation of EU external relations and gender: Main Actors

European Commission

Right of initiative, makes policy proposals, has the main responsibility for the definition of strategic develop-ment co-operation priorities

DG RELEX

Formulation of EU external relations policy and the management of bilateral relations with a number of coun-tries and regions, including the Middle East, Asia, Central Asia and Latin America

DG Trade

In charge of bilateral trade negotiations with South Asian countries (including India) and South-East AsianNations (ASEAN)

Council of Ministers

Comments on and approveslegislation and budget;screens Country StrategyPapers; approves all thematic andgeographic programmes

Article 133 Committee: Inputin relation to the trade-relat-ed aspects of co-operation;agreements with Asiancountries and actual tradenegotiationsWorking Party on Co-opera-tion with Asia (COASI):Input in relation to the trade-related aspects of co-opera-tion-agreements with Asiancountries and actual tradenegotiations

EU presidency

Responsible for organisingand chairing council meet-ings; brokering compromisesbetween the Member States;represents the EU inInternational meetings

EC Delegations

Define jointly strategic priori-ties for co-operation withpartner countries; responsi-ble for overseeing the imple-mentation and managementof co-operation agreementsin partner countries; projectsat country level

ASEAN-EU MinisterialMeetings

Forum for Internationalissues and co-operationbetween the two regions.

EU-India Summit

Dialogue Forum on political,development and economicco-operation issues andtrade and development.

European Parliament

Approves legislation andbudget; drafts reports;monitors and comments onEU external relations throughOpinions, Reports, andResolutions

Committee on Development, Committee on Trade, Sub-Committee on HumanRightsCommittee on Foreign Affairs


73

Financial instruments

– Development Co-operationInstrument (financial allocations forthematic programmes)

– Human Rights Instrument (supportfor human rights projects in alldeveloping countries

EU external relations and gender: Main policy documentsand financing instruments

Legal instruments & importantpolicy documents

- Maastricht Treaty - EC Communication “A new partner-

ship with South-East Asia”- EC Communication “An EU-India

strategic partnership”- Trans-Regional EU-ASEAN Trade

Initiative (TREATI) - EU India Joint Action Plan - EC Communication ”Global Europe”

Geographic strategies, programming and monitoring tools - Country Strategy Papers - Regional Strategy Papers - Country Programmes/Projects (on education, health, environment, trade, regional inte-

gration, control of epidemics, human trafficking, good governance)

Thematic programmes - Thematic Programmes (human and social development, environment, non state actors

and local authorities, migration/asylum and food security)- Sectoral support (education, health, decentralisation)

Trade instruments - Free Trade Agreements (FTAs)- Association Agreements - Mid-Term Review/End-of-Term Review

Gender mainstreaming tools and initiatives

- Gender equality in DCI - Gender guidelines for CSPs- Gender country briefs - Gender guidelines for Mid-Term Review- Infokit on gender mainstreaming - Gender review of CSPs- UNIFEM-ILO-EC-EEPA project (Gender Help Desk)- Appointment of gender focal points at EC Delegations - Gender desk at DG RELEX


74

Annex 4Schematic presentation of EU trade policy and gender: Main Actors

European CommissionRepresents the EU in trade negotiations on multilateral, inter-regional and bilateral levelsDG Trade

Right of initiative, prepares EU proposals and positions for trade negotiations at all levels, drafts negotiatingdirectives for trade negotiations, formulating and monitoring internal and external policies, monitors theimplementation of international agreementsDG Development

Ensures that development aspects are integrated in all trade agreements

Council of Ministers Comments on and approves negotiating directives; authorises the Commission to open trade negotia-tions;drafts conclusions on trade policies; monitors the progress of trade negotiations

Article 133 Committee:Advisory role; scrutinises and comments on Commission propos-als; provides input-feedback on trade policies

EU presidencyResponsible for organising and chairing councilmeetings;brokering compromises between the MemberStates;represents EU in International meetings

European Parliament Limited role in EU trade policy-making;monitors and comments on EU Trade Policyincluding links between development andtrade through Opinions, Reports, andResolutions

Committee on International TradeDrafts Reports, Opinions, and Resolutions ontrade negotiations and the links betweendevelopment and trade

EU trade policy and gender: Main policy documents and financinginstruments

Legal instruments & important policy documents • Article 133 EC Treaty • EC Communication “Global Europe: competing in the world”• Generalised System of Preferences (GSP)• Everything But Arms Initiative (EBA)• Bilateral, regional and international trade agreements

Gender mainstreaming tools and initiatives• Gender desk at DG Trade • Gender as indicator in Sustainability Impact Assessments • Integration of gender (social standards) in draft negotiating mandates• ILO projects on decent work indicators (including gender-disaggregated data)


75

Annex 5Organigrammes

External relations in the structures of the European Commission:Responsibilities and instruments of the Directorates General

Source: Adapted from Austrian NDGO EU-Platform (2007): EU-Entwicklungszusammenarbeit verstehen, Die EZA der EuropaeischenGemeinschaft, Institutionen-Strukturen-Prozesse, p. 12.

Commissioner for Developmentand Humanitarian Aid

Commissioner for ExternalRelations and Trade

Commissioner forEnlargement

Commissioner for Trade

DG ECHO

all countries

humanitarian aidEDF

International organisations Delegations in partner countrieswith staff from different DGs

thematic programmes

DCIEDF

DRI and HRIENPI

stabilitynuclear security

DCIIC

ACP+OCT

NGOs

all development countriesoutside DG DEV and

DG ENLARG

potential candidatecountries

all non-EUmember states

DG DEV DG RELEX

DG AIDCO

IPA

DG ENLARG DG TRADE

Policyformulation

Responsibility

Instruments(2007-2013)

Implementation


5.1. DG Development

76


5.2

. D

G R

ELE

X

77


78

5.3. EuropeAid Co-operation Office


5.4. DG Trade

79

Index

2006-2010 Roadmap for Equality between Women and Men............................................................................72007-2013 EU financial perspectives ..................................14, 36African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) group of states .........14- ACP-EU Council of Ministers .................................................21- ACP-EU Joint Parliamentary Assembly................................21Aid Effectiveness .........................................................................26Aid for Trade ...........................................................................23, 52ASEAN-EU Ministerial Meetings...............................................42Annual reports on equality between women and men...........8Assent procedure ..................................................................51, 68Beijing Platform for Action (BPFA) .............................................4Co-decision procedure .............................................14, 18, 20, 68College of Commissioners ..........................................................69Committee of Permanent Representatives (COREPER).........18Comitology...............................................................................40, 69Committee of the Regions ..........................................................66Consultation procedure ..............................................................69Contact group - DG Trade ....................................................................................57- DG Development ......................................................................34Co-operation procedure .............................................................69COREPER II (Antichi Group consisting of EU Member State Ambassadors)..............................................19- ACP Working party...................................................................19- CODEV ........................................................................................19- Article 133 Committee .................................................40, 49, 50- Working Party on Co-operation with Asia (COASI)............40Country strategy papers ............................................................18Country and Region Teams .......................................................66Court of Auditors ..........................................................................66Cotonou Agreement ............................................14, 17, 19, 20, 22Development Co-operation Instrument (DCI) .23, 37, 39, 41, 43- Thematic programme

”Investing in People” ................................15, 24, 28, 32, 47, 56DG Employment and Social Affairs.........................................8, 9Division of labour between the Commission and the EUMember States.......................................................................13, 27Economic and Social Committee ........................................43, 66Economic Partnership Agreements .......................15, 16, 22, 56EC Delegations- Gender focal points ..........................................................33, 47EC’s 2006 Communication ”Global Europe: Competing in the World” ................................................37, 48, 512007 EC Communication on Gender Equality and WomenEmpowerment in Development Co-operation...................14, 28EC Treaties - Treaty of Amsterdam ...........................................................6, 67- Maastricht Treaty, article 177-181.........................9, 12, 20, 67EC legislation documents - primary legislation ...............................................................6, 67- secondary legislation .........................................................6, 67

European Court of Justice ............................................24, 57, 67European Council.....................................................................8, 65EU Consensus on Development ........................12, 20, 24, 43, 45European Central Bank ...............................................................67European Development Fund (EDF) ....13, 14, 16, 22, 29, 30, 45EU general budget .................................................................30, 46European Institute for Gender Equality....................................10European Investment Bank......................................20, 30, 31, 67European Neighbourhood Policy Instrument (ENPI).14, 18, 36European Ombudsman..........................................................57, 66European Parliament (EP)- EP Committee on Budgetary Control ....................................46- EP Committee on Development ...............20, 21, 37, 38, 41, 46- EP Committee on International Trade.................20, 21, 42, 50- EP Committee on Women’s Rights and Gender Equality...20EU-India Summit.....................................................................39, 42- EU-India High Level Trade Group (HLTG) .............................42- EU-India CEO Round table ......................................................42- EU-India Civil Society Round Table .......................................43Everything But Arms (EBA) .................................................53, 54Financing for Development .......................................................26Gender desk in EC commission ................................................31- in DG DEV.............................................................................31, 32- EuropeAid Co-operation Office..............................................31Gender desk in EC commissionin DG RELEX.........................................................................38, 46- in DG Trade................................................................................55General Affairs and External Relations Council of Ministers (GAERC)..................................13, 18, 28, 52Generalised System of Preferences (GSP) .............................53Group of Commissioners on Fundamental Rights, Non-Discrimination and Equal Opportunities ....................................9Human Rights Instrument (HRI)...........................................14, 44Impact Assessments (IAs)............................................................9- Sustainability Impact Assessments (SIAs)..............10, 17, 54Informal Group of Experts on Gender Equality .................18, 32Inter-service Group on Gender Equality, ...................................9Inter-service Quality Support Group (IQSG)............................17Joint EU-Africa Strategy.............................................................27Opinion ...........................................................................................66Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness and DonorHarmonisation, OCED 2005 ......................................13, 22, 25, 26Policy Coherence for Development..........................................25Proportionality ..............................................................................69Millennium Development Goals (MDGs)..8, 14, 20, 22, 24, 25, 42Sub-group on External Relations ................................................9Subsidiarity....................................................................................69WTO .....................................................22, 37, 39, 45, 48, 49, 50, 54- Doha Development Agenda ..................................................55


80

WIDE

Rue de la Science 10 I 1000 Brussels I BelgiumTe l . : + 3 2 2 5 4 5 9 0 7 0 I F a x : + 3 2 2 5 1 2 7 3 4 2 I i n f o @ w i d e - n e t w o r k . o r g I w w w. w i d e - n e t w o r k . o r g

biblioteca.hegoa.ehu.eusbiblioteca.hegoa.ehu.eus/downloads/16817//system/pdf/2178... · who...

Documents