"It is not in the stars to hold our destiny but in ourselves" - from Julius Caesar, William Shakespeare.

These words will echo in the minds of Heads of State and Government of the African Caribbean Pacific (ACP) group of countries as they congregate in the idyllic city of Malabo, situated in the splendid island of Bioko in Equatorial Guinea to kick-start a discussion which will culminate in a decision on the future of the group in 2014. The ACP group comprises of 79 countries, 39 of which are the world's least developed countries and account for a total population of nearly 800 million people. Over the last three decades, the group has enjoyed a special relationship with the EU, whose architecture is based on the Cotonou Partnership Agreement that is set to expire in 2020.

A successor to the erstwhile Lomé Convention which had been the basis for ACP-EU development cooperation since 1975, the Cotonou agreement introduced a new dimension in the ACP-EC relations. According to the European Centre for Policy Development and Management (ECPDM), a Brussels-based think tank, " the Cotonou Agreement is much broader in scope than any previous arrangement has ever been. It is designed to last for a period of 20 years. Unlike its predecessors, the Cotonou Agreement is not merely a pot of money. The signatories have assumed mutual obligations (e.g. respect for human rights) which will be monitored through continuing dialogue and evaluation". (Laporte, G. 2007. The Cotonou Partnership Agreement: what role in a changing world? Reflections on the future of ACP-EU relations (Policy Management Report 13). Maastricht: ECDPM).

It is not surprising therefore that Cotonou is viewed by some as having fundamentally shifted the paradigm and model of EU-ACP relations from aid dependence to trade. This shift is now mirrored in the much assailed Economic Partnership Agreements (EPA), which will become the framework for future ACP-EU trade relations. From a privileged and some might say highly paternalistic relationship with the former European colonial powers, ACP countries face the grim prospect of loosing non-reciprocal trade preference with the implementation of a reciprocal trade framework in conformity with the injunctions of the WTO. The EPAs will amongst others, see some countries such as Botswana, Namibia, Kenya, to mention but a few, loose duty and quota-free treatment into the EU market.

As a qualified member of the Cotonou Agreement, South Africa is not a party to the trade chapters of the Cotonou Agreement.  This is because South Africa already had an agreement with the EU in the form of the Trade, Development and Co-operation Agreement (TDCA), at the time of signing the Cotonou agreement in June 2000. South Africa nevertheless joined the negotiations with the SADC EPA Group in February 2007 to be part of the collective effort that seeks a mutually beneficial outcome complimenting the regional economic integration process currently underway in the SADC region.

A confluence of factors brought about by the unprecedented tectonic shifts in the global political and economic landscape as well as internal EU dynamics have conspired to bring to sharper focus the relevance of the ACP group.  On the one hand the emerging powers of the South present a new frontier of engagement for the ACP group, while on the other they pose an unprecedented challenge to Europe's economic stranglehold over their former colonies. The ECPDM observes that "With the adoption of the new Lisbon Treaty in 2009, the EU has embarked on fundamental institutional reorganisation to strengthen its position as a global player. This includes a review of all existing EU partnership agreements on a geopolitical basis and along regional lines". (Potential Impact of the Lisbon Treaty on EU-ACP Relations, Brussels, 27 May 2010).

The ACP group is also undergoing spectacular metamorphosis with some states thankfully graduating from LDC status. The near homogeneity of the group is fast fading as some ACP countries, particularly in Africa are breaking out of the LDC mould courtesy of new discoveries of oil and mineral resources. This however should not make these newly-developing countries elope and thus reduce the ACP to a grouping of LDCs. The strength of the group lies in its numbers and its diversity.

One of the key elements in the EU's reappraisal of its relationship with ACP states, is development aid. For years this has been the bind, providing the much needed budget support to most ACP states.  The EU is the single biggest source of development aid, contributing more than half of global official development assistance. However, new global realities, such as the graduation of some countries to upper middle income countries, the global financial crisis and the Eurozone crisis have necessitated major changes in EU development policy. 

The shift in EU development policy  from 'one size fits all' to differentiation was underscored by Andris Piebalgs, European Commissioner for Development when he stated, "We cannot work with India or Brazil in the same way we work with the Democratic Republic of Congo or Mali. Some countries can now afford to fight poverty themselves and, as a result, this will allow us to focus on places that need more of our help". (Meeting of the European Parliament's Development Committee, Brussels, January 2012).

As the EU mulls over its new development policy, many of the Union's member states are already sharply cutting back aid to developing countries. Figures released by the Paris-based grouping of the most industrialised nations, the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) show that Greece - the recipient of two international bailouts - slashed its foreign aid by 39.3 percent in 2011. (OECD Annual Report, Paris, 2012)

Spain, now in the midst of an unpredicted recession and under EU pressure to sharply reduce its budget deficit, made a 32.7 percent cut last year.

Austria (-14.3%) and Belgium (-13.3%) also made significant cuts. Of the 15 richer EU member state that are part of the OECD's development assistance committee, only three - Germany, Sweden and Italy - increased their donations to poorer countries last year.

One can just hope that this aid austerity 'hair cut' does not result in the heads of countries needing development assistance most being shaved off!

Vulnerable states, such as small island nations and poor land-locked states which are heavily dependent on preferential trading arrangements and aid from the EU will continue to constitute the critical mass of the ACP. On their own, the weight of these countries in relation to the EU is insignificant. However, as a group that speaks with one voice they are able to secure vital concessions in their relations with the EU. From a bargaining perspective, the ACP is extremely important for these countries as it provides them with the platform from which to engage the EU on critical matters that concern their survival.

This point was driven home by none other than Pascal Lamy, the current Director-General of the World Trade Organisation and former EU Trade Commissioner. At an ACP Trade Ministers in October 2012, he underscored the importance, and I might add the relevance of the ACP when he stated, "The group of African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) members is one of the more powerful and influential advocacy and negotiating arms in the WTO. With your geographical reach and contributions of your membership, the ACP continues to play an instrumental role in moving forward the debate in Geneva. You have always been characterized by your ability to bridge your differences and coalesce around shared priorities and strategic positions". This is not jut a prosaic statement, but a sincere appraisal of the group, it's relevance and utility to world trade negotiations from someone who has dealt with ACP countries in two different but related platforms.

Inevitably, the post-2020 ACP-EU relations should be configured on a fundamentally different template.  On the eve of the expiry of Cotonou, the ACP should press the 'reset' button - it certainly cannot be business as usual.  ACP countries should diversify their economies and develop their productive capacities in order to take advantage of the opportunities in the global trading system. Whilst aid flows should not be simply curtailed, this should be de-emphasised, with more emphasis being placed on trade.  The group will have to reinvent and reposition itself taking into consideration new global dynamics. Whilst the ACP should continue its relationship with the EU, it should at the same time explore new horizontal partnerships with emerging groupings in the global economy.

Without the group, many of the ACP countries will not only be outside of the periphery but they face the grim prospect of fading into obscurity. Talk of dissolving the group will be like a double-whammy for these countries as they also face an uncertain future from the vagaries of climate change.

While some may dismiss Malabo as a non-event, its proceedings will be closely watched by multitudes in least developed countries whose survival and those of their countries is dependent on the continued existence of the group, its unity and cohesion. The assembly in Malabo will thus not only be an occasion for reflection, but it promises to be a seminal moment for renewal, launching the group into a new epoch. Those who will gather in Malabo in the next few weeks have a duty to charter a new bold vision for the ACP group post 2020 - the destiny of the group is in their hands!

Mxolisi Nkosi is the South African Ambassador to Belgium, Luxembourg and Head of Mission to the European Union. He writes in his personal capacity.

Click here to sign up to receive our free daily headline email newsletter