2 The European Commission External Service
| (30340) 5289/09 COM(08) 879
| Commission Communication: The Development and Consolidation of the External Service: Implementation of measures for 2008
|
| Legal base | — |
| Document originated | 23 December 2008
|
| Deposited in Parliament | 15 January 2009
|
| Department | Foreign and Commonwealth Office
|
| Basis of consideration | EM of 26 February 2009
|
| Previous Committee Report | None; but see (28684) —: HC 41-xxvii (2006-07), chapter 9 (27 June 2007)
|
| To be discussed in Council | To be determined
|
| Committee's assessment | Politically important
|
| Committee's decision | Not cleared; for debate in European Committee B
|
Background
2.1 The size and scope of the Commission's external activity is
set out on the DG External Relations website.[5]
2.2 The first fifty years of the Commission's external
service is detailed in "Taking Europe to the World —
50 years of External Service", which was published by the
Commission in 2003.[6]
2.3 The European Commission's External Relations
website[7] notes that:
—
"the European Union today faces global responsibilities and
challenges;
— "The EU is the largest trading block
in the world, the largest donor of humanitarian and development
assistance and a constant point of reference for others on stability,
democracy and human rights;
— "The European Commission plays a
key role in the implementation of the EU's foreign and other policies
and in this it relies heavily on its over 130 Delegations and
Offices around the World, which act not only as the eyes and ears
of the Commission in their host countries but also as its mouthpiece
vis-à-vis the authorities and the general population."
2.4 On 27 June 2007, we considered the predecessor
to this present document, Commission Communication COM (07) 206,
on "The Development and Consolidation of the External Service:
2007-08". At that time, the External Service website anticipated
the signature of the new Constitutional Treaty, and the EU starting
work on the design of the future European External Action Service.
It foresaw "huge potential for the future European Union
delegations to represent EU external policy in bilateral relations
with third countries". There were then 118 Delegations in
third countries and 5 Delegations (in Geneva, New York, Paris,
Rome and Vienna) at centres of international organisations (OECD,
OSCE, UN and WTO):
— presenting,
explaining and implementing EU policy;
— analysing and reporting on the policies
and developments of the countries to which they are accredited;
and
— and conducting negotiations in accordance
with a given mandate.
2.5 The Commission said that this meant that the
Delegations exercised powers conferred by the treaty on the European
Community, in third countries, by promoting the Community's interests
as embodied in the common policies, chiefly the common commercial
policy, but also many others, including agricultural, fisheries,
environmental, transport, and health and safety policies. It also
meant involvement in areas such as Justice and Home Affairs, in
which the European Community does not have exclusive powers.
2.6 In addition, the Commission said the Delegations
played a key role in the implementation of external assistance
— a role greatly expanded as a consequence of the devolution
policy carried out in stages over the period 2001-2004 in order
to provide EU external assistance more rapidly and more efficiently.
Increasingly, not only would Delegations be closely involved in
programming, but would manage projects directly from start to
finish, in close contact with the EuropeAid Co-Operation Office
and host country authorities, within the framework of rules set
in Brussels. They were also tasked, in concert with the EU Presidency,
with taking the lead in on-the-spot coordination of the implementation
of all EU assistance, multi-lateral and bi-lateral, to increase
synergy and EU visibility.
2.7 Delegations also played an increasing role in
the conduct of the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP),
providing regular political analysis, conducting evaluations jointly
with Member State Embassies and contributing to the policy making
process.
2.8 Finally, Delegations provided support and assistance
as necessary to the other institutions and actors of the EU, including:
— the
High Representative for CFSP/Secretary General of the EU Council,
who is able to rely on their logistical support when on mission
and to whom all their policy reports are copied;
— the European Parliament, by helping to
arrange programmes for and accompanying visiting delegations and
Committees where necessary and — in agreement with Commission
headquarters — reporting on recent developments in their
host countries and the development of EU policy and programmes
to the Foreign Affairs Committee and other Committees of the Parliament,
when they are back at headquarters; and
— the EU Presidency, with Heads of Delegation
regularly taking part in Troika démarches, and assisting
the Presidency in other ways.
2.9 In Brussels, the main partners in the Commission
are the Directorates General most involved in foreign affairs;
DG External Relations, DG Development, DG Enlargement, DG Trade,
EuropeAid Co-Operation Office, and the European Community Humanitarian
Office (ECHO). However, the Commission then said, the Delegations
served "the whole institution and not just the so-called
RELEX family".[8]
2.10 Against this background, the Commission proposed
to expand the External Service by opening Delegations in Switzerland,
East Timor, Azerbaijan, Montenegro and the African Union in 2007,
together with the upgrading of "regionalised" Delegations
in Armenia and Cape Verde. In 2008 it envisaged the opening of
a Delegation in Uzbekistan and a permanent representation at the
Council of Europe, as well as the upgrading of "regionalised"
Delegations in Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Yemen, Nepal, Togo, Djibouti
and Liberia. In each case, the Communication cited local operational
reasons for establishing or enhancing the EU's presence.
2.11 The then Minister for Europe noted that the
Communication contained no legislative recommendations, required
no new resources, and was within the scope of existing Treaties;
he therefore welcomed the Communication, saying that the total
cost (until 2013) would be €55.482 million, to be funded
from a variety of existing budget lines.
2.12 Whilst clearing the document, we noted that
it was plain from the DG External Relations website at that time
that the outcome of the referendums in 2005 in the Netherlands
and France did not seem to have given the Commission pause for
thought. What gave these proposals their immediate political importance
was, we said, the outcome of the 21-22 June 2007 European Council,
and the draft mandate for an IGC tasked with drawing up a treaty
amending the existing Treaties with a view, of "enhancing
the coherence of its external action", including the creation
of the new office of "High Representative for the Union for
Foreign Affairs and Security Policy", General Provisions
on the Union's external action and specific Provisions on the
Common Foreign and Security Policy, "as amended in the 2004
IGC (including the European External Action Service and its permanent
structured cooperation in the field of defence)". [9]
Against this background, we judged that these latest proposals
for what would be the backbone of the proposed European External
Action Service warranted reporting to the House.
2.13 We also noted that the Commission said that
"the question of requirements arising from the stepping-up
of consular tasks performed by the delegations, as requested by
the Member States … will be the subject of a more detailed
analysis once the extent of the tasks and their consequences have
become more apparent"; for our part, we recalled the Commission's
Green Paper on "Consular and diplomatic protection of Union
citizens in third countries", which we considered on 28 March
2007[10] and which was
debated in the European Standing Committee on 15 May 2007.[11]
The Commission Communication
2.14 This Communication has been prepared to update
the Council and European Parliament on how the External Service
has been developed and consolidated since the previous Communication
on this issue.
2.15 In her Explanatory Memorandum of 26 February
2009, the Minister for
Europe at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Caroline Flint)
confirms that, as envisaged in the previous
Communication, the Commission will, in 2009, upgrade several of
its existing delegations and open two new delegations:
"There will be a new permanent representation
to the Council of Europe in Strasbourg and a new delegation in
Uzbekistan. The existing regional delegations in Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan,
Nepal, Togo, Liberia, Djibouti and Yemen will be upgraded to become
fully-fledged delegations. In addition, there will be new administrative
arrangements for places where there is a Commission presence distinct
from its delegations (these are in Belize, Comoros, Congo, Mongolia,
Burma, Panama and Samoa)".
2.16 The Minister agrees with the Commission that
there is scope for "closer economic and political relations
with the countries and organisations in question", and therefore
supports the developments to the External Service outlined in
this Communication. These developments will, the Minister says,
"help the Commission to operate more effectively in Africa,
Central America, Central Asia and South East Asia, in carrying
out its activities as mandated by the Council." The Minister
continues as follows:
"In each case, the Communication cites local
operational reasons, and the need for more work on EU initiatives
that have already been agreed by the Council, as reasons for these
readjustments. An enhanced EU presence will extend the UK's reach
in areas where we have important development and security priorities.
For instance, the new arrangements for the Goma delegation will
help maintain the EU's role in observing progress on the Goma
and Nairobi processes for peace in this region. The EU is also
helping member states to carry out important work in Uzbekistan,
Burma and Yemen, where new or upgraded delegations will soon be
opened."
2.17 The Minister notes that the paper contains no
legislative recommendations, is within the scope of existing Treaties,
and that the Commission and its offices are bound by the terms
of existing EU Common Positions, including for Burma and
Uzbekistan. She then says:
"If the Lisbon Treaty were to come into force,
these existing Commission Delegations could become renamed Union
delegations and placed under the responsibility of the High Representative
for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. The Government considers
that this would be a sensible reform of the existing structures,
which would help to ensure that the existing overseas network
of Commission Delegations are more effectively brigaded with the
Union's other external policy resources and made more accountable
to the Member States through the High Representative. British
missions would continue to work closely with the Union delegations
to ensure that, where we have an agreed EU policy, the resources
of the Union are effectively deployed to ensure its implementation
in third countries and at international organisations."
2.18 Returning to the status quo, the Minister
explains that:
—
the Commission will reconfigure its delegations by hiring new
staff and by redeploying its existing staff, and that this will
be funded from existing lines within the current EU Budget, with
34 new jobs being created; and
— the Commission will implement, monitor
and evaluate these changes, with all positions within its delegations
being subject to controls within the framework of visits from
the inspection of the delegations Unit and by the Internal Control
unit of the External Service.
2.19 With regard to funding, the Minister says these
changes will be funded from resources which will be made available
in 2009, from the following existing EU budget lines:
— expenditure
related to staff in active employment of Commission delegations;
— external staff of Commission delegations;
— other management expenditure of Commission
delegations;
— buildings and related expenditure of
Commission delegations;
— Development Cooperation and Economic
Cooperation Instrument:[12]
expenditure on administrative management; and
— European Development Fund — expenditure
on administrative management.
2.20 Looking ahead, the Minister says that the External
Service will cost €87.89 million (£79.10 million) to
run in 2009, and €82.86 million (£74.57 million) to
run for each year from 2010 to 2013.
2.21 Finally, the Minister notes that, although the
Communication has been transmitted to both the Council and the
European Parliament, no date has been set for Council discussion.
Conclusion
2.22 In other circumstances these relatively modest
proposals might not excite great interest. However, it is notable
that, unlike in 2007, the DG External Relations website says nothing
about how it sees its future, if and when the Lisbon Treaty is
finally adopted. That treaty says of the External Action Service,
that the High Representative "shall be assisted" by
it and that its "organisation and functioning … shall
be established by a Decision of the Council".[13]
The Minister essays some tentative and limited views. But large
questions remain open.
2.23 Within the Communication itself, the Commission
rationalises several of the proposed changes, at least in part,
in terms of monitoring political processes and political relations
between the EU and the country concerned, notwithstanding the
existence of a network of EU Special Representatives who are similarly
tasked and, in some cases, even also on the same ground —
and whose future role is unconsidered. Nor is it entirely clear
what the Minister has in mind when she talks of the "brigading"
of existing Commission Delegations with the Union's other external
policy resources leading to greater effectiveness and more accountability
to the Member States through the High Representative — whose
relationship with the Member States is, of course, complicated
by virtue of his being also a Vice-President of the Commission
(to say nothing of the additional uncertainties of how he or she
might relate to other relevant Commissioners, the Commission President
and the "permanent" President of the European Council).
2.24 Neither the Commission nor the Minister says
anything about what the EAS' role might be in relation to the
provision of consular services.
2.25 Moreover, when the Minister talks of British
missions continuing to work closely with Union delegations to
ensure that "where we have an agreed EU policy, the resources
of the Union are effectively deployed to ensure its implementation
in third countries and at international organisations", she
says nothing of who would coordinate whom.[14]
2.26 Though, were the Lisbon Treaty to be finally
adopted, all of this would be covered in the Council Decision
referred to in the Treaty, we think that it would be right for
these issues to be ventilated in European Committee B now, so
that the House may be given an opportunity to question the Minister,
and hear her views, in greater depth. We so recommend.
5 See http://ec.europa.eu/external_relations/index_en.htm.
Back
6
See http://ec.europa.eu/external_relations/delegations/docs/50_years_brochure_en.pdf. Back
7
See http://ec.europa.eu/external_relations/delegations/index_en.htm. Back
8
See (28684) -: HC 41-xxvii (2006-07), chapter 9 (27 June 2007). Back
9
See http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_Data/docs/pressdata/en/ec/94932.pdf,
pages 15-19. Back
10
See (28304) 6192/07: HC 41-xvi (2006-07), chapter 2 (28 March
2007). Back
11
See Gen Co Deb, European Scrutiny Committee, cols. 3-15. Back
12
COM(04) 628: see http://ec.europa.eu/external_relations/reform/document/com04_629_en.pdf
Back
13
See the Treaty on European Union, article 27. Back
14
Article 24 of the Lisbon Treaty says that "Member States
shall support the Union's external and security policy unreservedly
in a spirit of loyalty and mutual solidarity and shall comply
with the Union's actions in this area" Back
| 
