Why EU-Africa summit was missed opportunity for meaningful joint action
The recently ended 7th AU-EU summit, held in Luanda under the banner of Promoting Peace and Prosperity through Effective Multilateralism, was expected to mark a new phase in a 25-year partnership. Instead, it exposed how far the relationship still is from meaningful joint action.
This summit was historical because it marked the 25th anniversary of the AU-EU partnership since the inaugural Summit held in 2000, in Cairo. The joint declaration statement [find below] raises more questions on whether the summit really marked a departure from previous ones.
The AU-EU relationship
The summit was hosted at a time of tense global discussions and regional dynamics that strain multilateral cooperation. This is reflected in the tensions that dominated the COP30 summit in Brazil and the G20 summit in South Africa. In some ways, these tensions reflect the AU-EU relationship. The reality, however, is that the relationship is important with shared interests.
The EU is Africa’s largest trading partner (32% of total exports) and investor, with trade expanding and diversifying. The EU has committed billions of euros in investments through initiatives like Global Gateway and is a major source of foreign direct investment in Africa. Cooperation has also been in full display through partnership and cooperation of the AU and the EU on peace and security.
The outcome document of the summit appears to be a significant compromise, especially from the AU. The initial negotiations could have featured elements that reflect the interests and policy positions of Africa on the various agenda items agreed between the two sides. However, the final text reads more as a diplomatic statement that avoided confronting substantive disagreements, trying hard not to spoil the 25th anniversary of their “cooperation”.
Africa and multilateralism
Ahead of the summit, one critical area of interest across Africa was the need for a stronger commitment to multilateralism. As countries in the Global North increasingly revert to national interests at the expense of global gains, Africa remains inundated with many challenges including lack of access to finance and weakened industrial and trade capacities.
Regarding access to finance, the perceived risks of investing on the continent not only results in a higher cost of borrowing from international markets (which can be up to five times more than other regions) but contributes to high debt burdens. Making more concessional capital available is fundamental and this puts development banks at the center of scaling affordable climate finance (unfortunately development banks are also increasingly lending at market rates). The outcome document is scant on the practical, collaborative measures to address the finance challenges that plague the African continent.
The situation is quite similar on trade issues. Africa remains a conveyor of raw materials with little value addition. This is exacerbated by the growing use of unilateral trade measures in the Global North. Notably, the EU is at the center of these measures with the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM), EU Deforestation Regulation and Methane Regulations, all projected to have disproportionate effects on Africa.
The outcome document refers to the challenges relating to finance and trade for Africa but there is an absence of practical measures to collaboratively address these challenges. It is a concern that there is no mention of the Unilateral Trade Measures being implemented by the EU. This is one of the most contentious issues in the relationship between the two blocs.
Of more concern is the discrepancy in the narrative presented by the EU at more binding fora such as COP30. The position of the EU on CBAM and other such measures emphasised that CBAM was not a unilateral trade measure but part of the EU’s climate toolbox.
While they indicated willingness to discuss CBAM, the EU remains unyielding to the concerns of African countries such as the proposals for waivers. This is contrary to the approach that the EU took in their negotiations of a trade deal with the USA where such flexibilities were offered.
What next?
One of the practical proposals that Africa has been making relates to the need to recycle CBAM revenues to Africa as a coping mechanism. It was hoped that such issues would be reflected in the outcome document as opposed to a general commitment to multilateralism.
The outcome document refers to the Africa Climate Summit but stops short of practical measures to address the key concerns raised from the summit regarding climate finance and unilateral trade measures.
The EU had an opportunity not to perpetuate the business-as-usual-model of engaging the AU. For the AU, there can be no exercise of agency without being able to set and negotiate the agenda of the AU-EU partnership meetings. Thus, the outcome document should have reflected more topical issues with practical solutions. ESI
Cover photo: Leaders of the European Union (EU) and the African Union (AU) member states met in Luanda, Angola for the seventh EU-AU summit. Source: The European Council.
