Executive summary

Article 3

The decision-making bodies of the ACP Group shall be:

1. 
   The Summit of the Heads of State and Government, hereinafter referred to as the Summit; which shall be the supreme organ.
   
2. 
   The Council of Ministers; and
   
3. 
   The Committee of Ambassadors.
   

The Summit

The Summit shall lay down the general policy of the ACP Group and issue the Council of Ministers with directives relative to its implementation ( Art 9).

The Council of Ministers

The Council of Ministers shall determine the modalities for the implementation of the general policy referred to in Article 9 of this agreement and shall periodically evaluate its state of execution.

The members of the Council of Ministers may be represented at any time by their Ambassadors.

Art 12 sets out that there shall be a Bureau of the Council of Ministers which will co-ordinate the work of the Council. It shall comprise of 9 members as follows:

• 
  There shall be a President of the Council designated on the basis of rotation between the 6 regions;
  
• 
  There will be 1 member from each of the 4 African regions, 1 each from the Caribbean and Pacific regions, with the region that holds the presidency being represented by another country from the same region;
  
• 
  The out-going President and the in-coming President in an ex-officio capacity.
  

The President of the Council, together with the in-coming and the out-going Presidents shall comprise the ‘TROIKA’ of the Bureau.

The Committee of Ambassadors

The Committee of Ambassadors shall assist the Council, carry out its mandates and monitor the implementation of the ACP-EC Partnership Agreement with a view to achieving its directives

Adapted from the Georgetown Agreement as revised (2003)

CHAPTER 6 (a): PRESIDENT IN OFFICE
In all of what has been described above in this Study, one thing makes itself apparent: Decisions, Directives, Motions, Mandates are issued, generally to the Council of Ministers, but no precise instructions emanate as to who is to take the initiative, do the follow-up, adjust the aims and bring matters to a conclusion. The policy-making instrument of the ACP Group, the Summit of Heads of State and Government is the supreme body. The Summit meets every two years or so at the discretion of its Bureau consisting of outgoing, present and future President. It makes the pronouncements on the direction the ACP is to take. These are summarised in the Declarations named after the place in which the Summit took place. Between Summits no particular role is assigned to the President in Office. Greater use of the prestige of the President in Office is advisable. As the ACP Group moves into an independent role of representing the poor and deprived of the world, it is recommended the President in Office bring his prestige to the initiatives the Group takes. He should be the leader to make policy interpretations at international bodies and the UN and at the MDGs Summit. The following proposal is made concerning additions to Article 9 of the Georgetown Agreement:
TABLE 17: REVISION OF THE ROLE OF THE PRESIDENT IN OFFICE

“Article 9 (bis): In the inter-sessional period, the President-in-Office on suitable occasions addresses the UN, International Conferences and Parliaments in the name of and on behalf of the ACP Group.

“Article 9 (ter): In the event of the unavailability of the President-in-Office, he may nominate another member of the Bureau to speak in his place.”



CHAPTER 6 (b): CHANGE IN NAME OF THE ACP GROUP
The identity of the Group suffers in the first place from not having a defined place in the concert of nations. The first step would be to include in the name of the ACP Group an identifier. The recommendation below proposes three potential names maintaining the historical memory of the ACP Group with an indicator of the new challenges the Group is taking up. The requirements of Article 2 (k) of the Georgetown Agreement make the identity of the Group a key issue. Fears that a change in name will open the body to membership by other states is groundless: firstly the principle of expansion is built into the Georgetown Agreement; secondly admissions from outside the traditional group (Cuba, Dominican Republic, Timor Leste) have caused no disruption and have not watered down the access to EU funding. The extension of the ACP Group will provide a welcome niche for the developing world in the tropical zone. The historical memory of the ACP Group, it was found, has shown a firm attachment to the use of the initials “ACP” and it is recommended that they be retained. It is left to the Committee of Ambassadors to make further proposals but on the lines of the OAU becoming the AU at the same time as enhancing its role in the continent, a name change with a geographic indicator and a role description would help with visibility, solidarity and dynamism.

TABLE 18: CHANGE IN NAME OF THE ACP GROUP

In the choice of a new name for the ACP Group, the following which formed the basis for discussions during this Study, might be kept in mind:

• 
  the historical importance of the initials “ACP”;
  
• 
  the geographic area spanned which is almost exclusively tropical;
  
• 
  the development element and the unique representativity the Group has of the developing world – the word “development” would be a powerful indicator;
  
• 
  the word “organisation” might better define the inter-governmental nature of the ACP Group and the fact of its organised form; the term “association” was less acceptable to the interviewees;
  
• 
  an alternative acronym such as PACAFCAR or variations seemed less acceptable to those interviewed, even though more pertinent to the geography of the Group;
  

“Article 1: The ACP Group” would need to be amended for the new name (mutatis mutandis elsewhere)

THE WORD “ORGANISATION”

CHAPTER 6 (c): INTERNATIONAL ORGANISATION
The EC Green Paper of 1996 proposed that the ACP Group be recognised as a formal International Organisation with the powers and capacities in the international arena, with the power to enter treaties, own property command diplomatic immunity. At present, the Georgetown Agreement vests the ACP Group with “legal personality”. There is an unnecessary coyness amongst Members to admit that the ACP Group is already an International Organisation⁸⁶.

• 
  The ACP Group has a Headquarters Agreement with the Belgian Kingdom (signed by a single person on behalf of the ACP Group)⁸⁷ which gives diplomatic immunity to senior personnel, documentary and communications immunity;
  

• 
  It has since 1981 held Observer Status at the UN and is recognised as an international organisation⁸⁸.
  

The Georgetown Agreement vests the ACP Group with “legal personality”, but in legal terms it is an inter-governmental body and therefore an international organisation. Some representatives of Member States believe that recognising this state of affairs would make the ACP Group a supranational body – it does not. The binding power of the ACP Group depends on the sovereign state Members. The fear that the ACP Group in some way would legislate for Members because it has the status of international organisation is groundless. In fact, the use of the title of international organisation would give the ACP Group a wider range of freedom and independence, and would earn it recognition in the concert of nations – it so acted in sending an observer mission to Togo and Guinea.

CHAPTER 6 (d): THE SECRETARY GENERAL
In organisations where there are 79 “shareholders”, the world at large and the Members expect there to be a leader to whom the Members can delegate the affairs of the organisation act on their behalf. Strong leadership is absolutely essential to assure the continued relevance and even existence of the ACP Group as the global environment changes away from the original raison d’être of the Group. Without a leadership which can, on a day-to-day basis, take up the baton in this relay, the visibility, efficiency, innovation, solidarity and expansion to new relations will come to nought. He is, after all, elected by the Group. Symbolically it is the Secretary General who signed the Headquarters Agreement with the Kingdom of Belgium, it was the Secretary General who addressed the UN in requesting Observer status in 1981, and it is the Secretary General who signs the “All ACP” financial package on behalf of the Member States. This is evidence of how his role can be played.
Although the Georgetown Agreement grants to the Secretary General “executive powers”, in practice he is hamstrung and restricted to management, budgetary and personnel matters. It is notable that on the Cotonou Partnership Agreement appears one signature from the side of the EC and 78 on the part of the Group. In most international organisations, it is the Secretary General who acts as Chief Executive Officer of the organisation. The role and function of Secretary General of the ACP Group and of the Secretariat are defined in Articles 24-27 of the Georgetown Agreement. Many of those interviewed declared that the Secretary General can already act as Executive Officer and that his powers which were given in the last revision were ample. It was said that this depended on the personality of the Secretary General: he could take the instructions implicit in the Summit Declarations and the objectives of the Georgetown Agreement and could act in his discretion within those parameters. Constraints have, in practice, however, been placed on the Secretary General. This Study recommends that the powers and obligations of the Secretary General be set out to make his role above doubt Chief Executive to face the huge challenges of the ACP Group: the present extent of his powers are contained in Table 19:

TABLE 19 : SECRETARY GENERAL’S POWERS PRESCRIBED BY THE GEORGETOWN AGREEMENT


The powers of the Secretary General of the ACP Group are set out in Articles 24 and subsequent articles: