15 EU Special Representative to the
African Union
| (35051)
—
—
| Council Decision extending the mandate of the European Union Special Representative to the African Union
|
| Legal base | Articles 28, 31(2) and 33 TEU; QMV
|
| Department | Foreign and Commonwealth Office
|
| Basis of consideration | Minister's letter of 3 July 2013
|
| Previous Committee Reports | HC 83-vii (2013-14), chapter 5 (26 June 2013); also see (34062) —: HC 86-viii (2012-13), chapter 17 (11 July 2012); also see (33212) —: HC 428-xxxviii (2010-12), chapter 18 (19 October 2011); (33069) —: HC 428-xxxv (2010-12), chapter 15 (7 September 2011); and (31844) —, (31856-66) HC 428-i (2010-11), chapter 66 (8 September 2010)
|
| Discussion in Council | To be determined
|
| Committee's assessment | Politically important
|
| Committee's decision | Cleared
|
Background
15.1 EU Special Representatives (EUSRs) are appointed where
the Council agrees that an additional EU presence on the ground
is needed to deliver the political objectives of the Union in
troubled regions and countries.
15.2 An EUSR is appointed by Council through
the legal act of a Council Decision (formerly a Joint Action).
The substance of his or her mandate depends on the political context
of the deployment. Some provide, inter alia, a political
backing to a Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP) operation;
others focus on carrying out or contributing to developing an
EU policy. Some EUSRs are resident in their country or region
of activity; others work on a travelling basis from Brussels.
15.3 All EUSRs carry out their duties under the
authority and operational direction of the High Representative
of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy (HR; Baroness
Catherine Ashton) and the Political and Security Committee (PSC).[41]
Each is financed out of the Common Foreign and Security Policy
(CFSP) budget. Member States contribute regularly e.g. through
seconding some of the EUSR's staff members.
EUSR to the African Union (EUSR/AU)
15.4 The draft Council Decision proposes that
the EUSR mandate be extended for a further 12 months until 30
June 2014. The EUSR mandate will not be renewed after June 2014.
15.5 The full background to the development of
this mandate, and the Committee's consideration thereof, including
this final extension, is set out in our previous Report and the
earlier Reports under reference.
15.6 The African Union (AU) is — as the
Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington) put it in 2011 —
a key partner in Europe-Africa cooperation on human rights and
governance, which chimes with the Government's objectives on reducing
conflict, promoting sustainable global growth and supporting Africa's
participation globally where the AU is becoming a global "voice
for Africa". The EU, the AU's biggest and most sustainable
source of finance, provides €350 million for peace and security
and human rights alone. The Minister envisaged the EUSR as a means
of achieving a more able AU through ensuring that EU funds were
deployed effectively and co-ordinated with wider donors to achieve
common objectives.
15.7 The EUSR is "double-hatted": both
EUSR and Head of Delegation to the AU in Addis Ababa (there is
a separate Head of EU Delegation to Ethiopia). The role
was created before the European External Action Service (EEAS).
The EEAS' long-standing objective has been to merge the two roles.
15.8 The Minister has always supported this.
But, as he pointed out, the AU is a very "protocolaire"
entity. Member States' are only allowed to be observers. The
EUSR/AU was regarded more highly. There was thus the danger that,
by virtue of not being seen by his hosts as having the same standing,
the Head of the "merged" EU delegation would not be
as effective as hitherto. The Committee therefore agreed with
the Minister, both then and a year ago when the last mandate extension
was cleared, that a properly planned merger would be essential,
in order to provide sufficient time to ensure that his hosts become
accustomed to the change, and that any diminution in access and
influence did not happen.
The draft Council Decision
15.9 The draft Council Decision proposes that
the EUSR mandate be extended for a further period of 12 months
until 30 June 2014.
The Government's view
15.10 In his Explanatory Memorandum of 18 June
2013, the Minister for Europe noted, inter alia, that there
is no additional policy role or function that the EUSR carries
out in addition to his EEAS role.
15.11 The Minister recalled his expectation,
at the time of the last renewal in June 2012, that the EEAS would
work to draw-down the role and staff over 24 months and end the
double-hatting arrangement — i.e., the EUSR to be simply
the Head of Delegation to the AU, with the EUSR title and mandate
ended by June 2014; and continued as as follows:
"The current EEAS mandate renewal proposal,
in the form of this draft Council Decision, makes some concession
to draw down (e.g. by phasing out two posts during the course
of the year). Up until now the EEAS has claimed that a)
it cannot accommodate the extra staff on its budget, and b) the
reputation of the EU at the AU would be damaged by terminating
the EUSR mandate. Our judgement is that the EEAS could go further
in streamlining the number of staff on the EUSR's budget with
little or no impact on the Delegation's effectiveness. We will
continue to make this case in negotiations. Current staffing
under the EUSR mandate includes:
- Political/Press and Information:
3 staff EUSR;
- Peace and Security: 2 staff EUSR;
- Administration: 5 staff EUSR;
- CFSP Budget Management: 2 staff EUSR.
"The UK will continue to press for draw-down
of the EUSR role in 2014, and provide regular updates to the Committees
on progress."
15.12 With regard the proposed budget, the Minister
said:
"The proposed budget is €95,000 less than
for last year (€655,000), and includes a termination phase.
This is a budget reduction, which we have welcomed, although
we are continuing to push for further reductions. We have argued
that activities and staff should reduce further over the course
of the year, to prepare for the end of mandate.
"Specifically:
- "Personnel costs
have increased by €8,000. This is due to unavoidable per
diem rises and severance payments, but we have argued that the
full staff should not be needed for the whole year and so have
encouraged a further reduction (which as noted in para 7 has already
led to some success);
- "Missions: we have successfully argued
for a cut in missions; the EUSR should travel less as his mandate
nears its end."
15.13 The Minister noted that further budget
discussions were due on 18 June in RELEX (the relevant Council
working group), and said that he will update the Committee following
those discussions.
Our assessment
15.14 It was not at all clear what would
happen to the work that the EUSR has been doing hitherto, or what
was meant by the sentence: "there is no additional policy
role or function that the EUSR carries out in addition to his
EEAS role." Presumably the "plain" Head of Delegation
was effectively to have the EUSR role subsumed within his job
description. In that case, it was also not clear how the issue
of not losing "access" to protocolaire hosts would have
been overcome by then. If Member State representatives are allowed
only observer status by the AU, would the EU Head of Delegation
enjoy a greater status, and thus greater access and influence,
than Member States local ambassadors? Or would he effectively
be "down-graded" in local eyes?
15.15 In these circumstances, we decided to retain
the draft Council Decision under scrutiny. Yet again, this and
a large number of mandate renewals had been produced inordinately
late in the day: this meant that there was insufficient time for
questions to be asked and answered before mandates expire. We
took this issue up with the Minister elsewhere in our previous
Report.[42]
15.16 We asked the Minister to clarify the issues
raised above when he provided the additional budgetary information
to which he referred.
15.17 We also noted that we intended to question
the Minister further about Parliamentary scrutiny of EUSR mandates
when he gave evidence on Thursday 4 July.[43]
The Minister's letter of 3 July 2013
15.18 The Minister begins his letter by expressing
regret that the Committee was not provided with the necessary
information in a timely manner, and saying that:
"I take Parliament's entitlement and responsibility
to properly scrutinise EUSR mandate renewals extremely seriously,
and I share your disappointment that the EEAS has again failed
to properly factor in the time needed for this to take place."
15.19 The Minister then notes that:
— in
this letter he is restricting himself to the mandate under question;
but
— is also responding separately, in parallel,
to the serious broader issues raised in a number of the Committee's
Reports on several of the EUSRs under consideration, in which
separate letter he will also set out the steps he will take with
the EEAS to try to secure improvements to the current system.
15.20 The Minister then says:
"On the EUSR for the African Union your Committee
asked what would now happen to the work that the EUSR had been
doing hitherto; whether the loss of title would result in greater
or lesser access to the African Union; and the impact this would
have on EU Member States' access."
15.21 He then continues as follows:
"In my original Explanatory Memorandum, I explained
that "there is no additional policy role or function that
the EUSR carries out in addition to his EEAS role". What
this means is that the individual who has served as EUSR for the
African Union has been assigned no responsibilities or functions
in that that capacity from those which he has in any case held
as Head of Delegation. So the change now proposed will cause
the office holder to lose the title of EUSR but to keep all his
current responsibilities since these derive from his office as
Head of Delegation.
"I do not believe that the EU Head of Delegation
will be down-graded in local eyes. The level of support —
both financial and technical — that the EU Delegation provides
to the African Union is unparalleled, as is the access they enjoy,
and this will continue as before. The British Embassy in Addis
Ababa works closely with the EU Head of Delegation and his staff,
and find their expertise useful when putting forward UK interests
to the AU.
"There will naturally be some handling required
with the African Union to ensure that they understand the rationale
behind the cosmetic title change. But I do not expect any major
impact to flow from this, either reputationally or in terms of
substance, for the work that the EU is able to do with the AU
through its delegation. My assessment remains that the proposed
loss of the EUSR title is the right course, not least because
it represents value for money for the UK Government as the EUSR
will, in future, receive his salary in his capacity as Head of
Delegation."
BUDGET
15.22 The Minister then turns to the EUSR budget
as follows:
"I would also like to provide you the full financial
detail on the final proposed budget for the EUSR to the AU. Since
the submission of the Explanatory Memorandum to the Committees,
the final budget has now been discussed in Brussels. Throughout
these negotiations we pushed for a reduction in the budget to
ensure value for money, and indicated that we expected the budget
to reflect the fact that that the EUSR mandate will be wound-down
between now and June 2014. I attach the final budget for your
information.
"In summary, a budget of €585,000
for twelve months has been proposed, a decrease of €95,000
on last year's budget of €680,000. This reduction has been
made despite redundancy and closure costs, and represents a success
for us. Savings have been achieved primarily through personnel
reductions on IT, administration and drivers, thereby ensuring
that the valuable work undertaken by the EU Delegation on the
policy side remains in place.
"Detail of Proposed Budget:
"1. Personnel expenditure = €380,115
(previous budget of €372,389). The budget covers the
salaries of 1 locally-employed EU national staff, 8 local staff,
and 3 seconded staff, but not the EUSR — who will receive
his salary in his capacity as Head of Delegation, i.e. from an
entirely separate pot of EU funding. Daily allowances (per
diem) for seconded personnel are covered by the budget of
the mandate. As the EUSR was considered a good employer par
excellence, the "local-EU national" staff salaries
were estimated in the same way as salaries of EUSR international
contracted staff (i.e. no daily allowances are paid).
"2. Missions = €34,200 (previous
budget of €67,200). The mission expenditure includes
transportation, per diems and accommodation for the EUSR
and his staff on missions to other parts of the Continent undertaken
exclusively on EUSR business. The rates are based on the Guide
to Missions for Officials and Other servants of the European Commission.
"3. Running expenditure = €150,434
(previous budget of €192,986). Common running costs are
shared between the EUSR and EEAS administrative budgets in accordance
with the 23.17% (EUSR) — 76,83% (EU Delegation). The splitting
of costs is determined by the Financial Memorandum concluded between
the EUSR and the EU Delegation. This covers rent, vehicles, office
supplies and security.
"4. Capital expenditure = €3,000
(previous budget of €6,500). A provision has
been earmarked as capital costs necessary for securitization of
premises.
"5. Representation = €10,800
(previous budget of €10,800). Additional representation
costs of up to € 900/month are covered by the budget.
"6. Contingencies = €6,451 (previous
budget of €30,117). The contingency reserve shall be
used only with prior written approval of the Commission."
15.23 The Minister concludes by expressing his
gratitude for the Committee's "engagement and understanding
in this matter", and saying:
"Thorough and timely Parliamentary scrutiny
of the EUSRs and their mandates is vital. I am deeply disappointed
that the EEAS did not provide the documentation with sufficient
time to allow this take place — despite the UK consistently
urged (sic) them to do so, from very early on in this process."
Conclusion
15.24 With regard to the statement immediately
above, we agree entirely with the Minister's views and share his
deep disappointment. We deal with these matters elsewhere.
15.25 In this instance, we thank the Minister
for having finally provided the budgetary information, which again
demonstrates a commendable determination on his and his officials'
part to drive down costs.
15.26 Time will tell on the "access"
issue, but — he having now outlined the situation more clearly
than hitherto — we have no reason to doubt the Minister's
judgement.
15.27 We now clear the Council Decision.
41 The PSC is the committee of ambassador-level officials
from national delegations who, by virtue of article 38 TEU, under
the authority of the HR and the Council, monitor the international
situation in areas covered by the CFSP and exercise political
control and strategic direction of crisis management operations,
as set out in article 43 TEU. Back
42
(35050)-: HC 83-vii (2013-14), chapter 4 (26 June 2013). Back
43
See headnote: HC 83-vii (2013-14), chapter 5 (26 June 2013). Back
| 
