EU Institutional Reform and International Development How Do We Achieve the Best Outcome?

EU institutional reform and international development – how do we achieve the best outcome?

Monday 7 July 2008, 2.30-5 pm

UK Representation of the European Commission

8 Storey’s Gate, London SW1P 3AT

NOTES

Introductions

Sarah Lambert – Deputy Head of the European Commission’s UK Representation
Helen O’Connell – Chair of the BOND European Policy Group

Sarah Lambert gave a warm welcome to all delegates and stressed the fact that the UK office of the European Commission opens its doors to civil society and that events like these are a great way to make sure that civil society gets heard and that our views are taken to Brussels.

Helen O’Connell, Chair of the BOND European Policy Group and Chair of this event, gave a quick overview of the Lisbon Treaty and the current situation after the Irish NO vote to the ratification of the Treaty. She also stressed that despite the unexpected twist of events and the Treaty most likely not to be ratified by December, most of the points made in the BOND position paper on the Treaty (Nov ’07) are still valid. The paper is available at

Richard Howitt MEP

Richard Howitt is the vice-chair of the Human Rights Committee and sits on the Foreign Affairs Committee of the European Parliament. He has a background in development and campaigning and he joined the European Parliament in 1994. He described his position in the Foreign Affairs Committee as “the Trojan horse” for development. Within the Human Rights committee he particularly does a lot of work at the United Nations level.

Richard Howitt expressed his happiness with the fact that the event was not cancelled after the Irish rejection of the Lisbon Treaty. It is very one dimensional to solely focus discussions on whether the Treaty is ratified or not and other issues are far more important to explore. Despite of what happened in Ireland, discussions are still needed on the post of the Commissioner for Development, the External Action Service and creating a legal basis and definition for development and poverty eradication in the legal framework of the EU.

After the Irish voters’ rejection, there are three possible scenarios:

Scenario 1All Member States ratify the Treaty and then a renegotiation takes place and Ireland holds a second referendum. It is very important thatIreland is not bullied into voting again.

Scenario 2Abandon the Lisbon Treaty, which would lead to unsolved inefficiencies while some aspects of the Treaty might be implemented anyway.

Scenario 3The “Irish move out of the way” option, which would mean that Ireland gets left behind. It is more likely that it won’t be Ireland alone but a group of MS, which would meant that we would have a two divisions Europe (and we know where the UK would be if we had that).

Nobody really knows what is going to happen and, most importantly, we need to ensure that there is the political will to ensure a good outcome for development.

Although there is still a lot to be done and development should be a higher priority, less tied, and with more resources attached to it, it is important to remember that past battles have successfully been won and that development does not always loose out (e.g. the Development Cooperation Instrument, Development Consensus, Monterey, Gleneagles, EU-Africa Summit). However, there are some areas where actually there have been steps back in development, such as the end of Development Councils which are now just part of General Affairs and External Relations Councils.

Richard Howitt conclusions were that it is just going to take a little longer but that the general direction will not be changed. He ended his presentation with three tips to the delegates in the room:

Do not assume that there will be a single Development Commissioner and even less that this person will bebacked up by a Directorate General. Decisions will be taken in the first 4 months of next year.
Bear in mind that it may well be that some bits of the Treaty will be implemented without the Treaty being ratified by all member states. Need to check what parts of the Treaty could go ahead, from a legal point of view. Need to lobby ‘like mad’ on the EEAS.
European politicians are desperate for legitimacy and NGOs should use the fact that they have got grassroots credibility to their advantage to press the issues they stand for.

Mikaela Gavas – DFID EU Department

Mikaela Gavas, DFID EU Policy Advisor,focused on the evolution of EU development assistance during the first part of her presentation. She laid out how EC aid has gone through a very similar evolution as UK aid, with a very unclear distinctive added value and incoherent organisational setup in the ‘80s and major reforms in the ‘90s. These reforms (i.e. the Kinnock reforms) massively improved the added value and management of EC aid. Improvements are clearly visible now as the credibility and legitimacy of EC aid has grown; management performance has improved; financial and administration reform mechanisms have been put in place; decentralisation has improved the impact on the ground and there are clear monitoring systems (e.g. OECD Peer Review).

Today, the EU is more important for development than ever. And still, its performance is hampered by unclear strategic directions and the institutional architecture of the Union. There are six institutions in the External Relations family (DG Relex, DG Development, DG Enlargement, DG Trade and ECHO and EuropeAid). This architecture causes a lack of consistency across regions and the missing reporting line between DG Development and EuropeAid is of great concern.

DFID’s objectives for reform (note: these were set in the context of Treaty ratification) are:

Build on what has already been achieved
A strong voice for Development and Humanitarian Aid in the Commission, manifested by a single Commissioner for Development and Humanitarian Aid who also controls development spending.
Reorganisation of the current management of External Relations, specially the regional divisions between different DGs.
EC aid should take a country based approach and as part of that the EU should have strong delegations.

The threats of this approach are increasing, architectural reorganisation could mean a strong foreign policy influence undermining development and a loss of space for development. The opportunities are a more integrated agenda, and greater coherency in the EU and in the field.

To conclude Mikaela stressed the fact that the Treaty is now on hold, but not dead. Also, she flagged up great opportunities ahead such as the next European Parliament elections and the EU budget review in 2009.

Joyce Haarbrink – Eurostep

Joyce focussed her presentation on what we can still do in the area of advocacy now that the Lisbon Treaty has been rejected. Her main point was that, although the Treaty has been rejected, the current treaty – the Nice Treaty – has already got a lot of good things that we could focus attention on. For example, the Nice Treaty has a strong poverty focus already, it talks about coherence and co-decision and development is already a policy area in its own right.

Development policy has already got a good basis in the European Union under various agreements and Treaties such as the Paris Declarations, the MDGs, and Monterey and various policy areas and regional agreements.

What is most important for EC aid to improve at the moment is not the legal framework, but the institutional architecture with the main priority having a single Commissioner and DG for Development. Also, administrative reforms are necessary and there is a need to ensure that there will not be any steps back.

Ian Barber – European Commission DG Development

Ian Barber drew attention to the fact that DG Development is the largest RelEx Department. He also said that he always remembers that when he first started at the European Commission someone told him that “without NGOs there would not have been a European Consensus on Development”. He has always remembered this and has a firm believe in the strength and importance of civil society.

The last OECD Peer Review of the European Commission sets out the changing role of the Commission under the ever enlarging European Union and the need for reforms under these circumstances. The question is “who holds the key?” – with so many DGs and such a complicated structure it is increasingly important to be clear on this. However, although it is recognised that the current structures are not ideal, outputs are produced and progress is achieved.

Even though the Treaty has been rejected in Ireland, there are still a number of issues that are high up the agenda in the coming 18 months that are of major importance to EC aid and the way it is organised. These are:

Scaling up commitments (under threat by current crisis)
Accra, important developments on ownership, division of labour and alignment
Coherence for Development

Upcoming areas of work, valid arguments, tips and opportunities to make your voice heard despite the recent happenings are:

Europe does not happen in Europe – a lot of work is done in the capitals
Policy-by-policy and online consultations are a good opportunity to influence
Development Days, 16-17 November 2008
In-country influencing opportunities through the Delegations

Q&A and discussion

QAoife Black, Trocaire

Still unclear on how the Lisbon Treaty negotiations are going forward and where discussions are at.

ARichard Howitt responded that the reason there is so much vagueness and nothing much has been said is that too much public discussion could be problematic and that deliberately, the EC is keeping quiet and public debate is limited.Mikaela Gavas said that the Prime Minister had announced that all work will be suspended, so everything is on hold at the moment.

QJenny Brown, Christian Aid

The ideas set out in your presentations and in the Lisbon Treaty about reorganisation of the EC’s institutional architecture are great, but how will they be implemented? How do you see a strengthened Commission implement coherence for development?

ARichard Howitt said that it is highly unlikely that Mandelson, or any future trade commissioner, will be more development friendly. It is therefore important to focus on the Heads of State for implementation of coherence for development. Mikaela Gavas stressed the fact that this is very much about political will. A big first step would be getting the Commissioners in the External Relations family talking to each other. If there is to be a High Representative it would be that role’s responsibility to make sure this happens and that one DG does not undermine the other. Joyce Haarbrink said that External Relations Commissioners do regularly come together, under the coordination of Barroso but this doesn’t seem to be very effective.

QRichard Jolly, IDS

World Bank and IMF often disrupt development cooperation. How does the EU get its act together vis-à-vis the Bretton Woods Institutions and the UN, especially given that the EU strategy to support regions and its views on partnership are very different.

AAccording to Richard, the UN and the EU have got more in common than differences. Also he noted that the European Investment Bank has now become a ‘development bank’ and that this was an important development to watch out for in terms of EU relations with the Bretton Woods Institutions. Also Ian Barber made this point and said that there is a lot of coordination and communication between EU leaders, EU Institutions and UN.Mikaela remarked that the OECD Peer Review recommended that a EU Strategy for its relationship with Multilaterals should be developed, and that DFID is pushing this. This is also reflected in DFID’s recent Institutional Strategy Paper for Europe. Joyce explained that what hampers EU relations with multilaterals is the fact that the EU does not have a legal personality and that in this aspect it is dependant on the Member States, a problem which would be solved if the Lisbon Treaty was implemented.

QJake Bharier, Skillshare

As ownership is extremely important to decision making, who owns the decisions that are to be made and also, should we concentrate on outputs or outcomes?

AIan said that the focus has been on outcomes, especially on conditionality. Joyce reinforced that outcomes are the most important thing and also stated that recipient countries should own decisions and that the way to deal with this really has to be thought through. In order to influence decision making, engagement with the capitals and the embassies is extremely important, stated Mikaela. Also, the current situation means that there is no “like minded group”, as there has been in the past. At the moment, the UK only seems like minded with the Finnish government, but even that is not clear cut.

QMary Holmes, Action VillageIndia

Could you explain to me, as a UK tax payer, why we should channel our aid money through the EC rather than DFID? And also, how can we make this extremely complicated information available to the wider public?

A Ian answered that the OECD Peer Reviews are a very useful piece of information on the progress of programmes administered by the Commission and EC aid more generally. In terms of why aid should be spend through EU aid, there are a numerous reasons such as the size of EU development policy, supporting the coordination of EU as a coherent project, the benefits for smaller Member States to have a greater stake at international level by being represented in the EU. The main advantage concerns a common voice and influencing power internationally. Joyce reinforced Ian’s points, but stressed that it is not either or, but that EU and UK aid are complementary. An important added value of the EU is that it can make sure that there are no orphan countries because of its size and reach. Mikaela also stressed a few areas of expertise of the Commission such as governance and infrastructure. There is a big piece of work to be done on communication and to get messages across to the wider public. Also she stated that it is not either or and that for the UK, the EU is important in countries where DFID is not present, especially as DFID is scaling down.

QElvira Groll, ActionAid

Could you summarise the demands for reform in your presentation that are covered by the Lisbon Treaty and those that are still missing? And, on EC aid effectiveness and Accra, do you expect any additional commitments on untying aid?

AOn Accra, Joyce responded that there are already a large number of NGOs working on this and that there will be nine round tables at the High Level Forum, each chaired by a different MemberState. In terms of demands that are not being covered if the Lisbon Treaty is not coming in to place, Mikaela mentioned that the status of poverty eradication is at stake if we lose the Lisbon Treaty. The Lisbon Treaty clarifies the definition of poverty eradication and puts it into a legal framework, it would therefore function as an important tool to hold MemberStates and the Commission to account. Also, there is a separate legal basis for Humanitarian Aid in the Lisbon Treaty that does not exist to date. And last, the new structures are a great opportunity to fight issues of (in)coherence.Joyce admitted that the language in the Lisbon Treaty is stronger than to date, but pointed out that there are still a lot of points that are unclear in the Lisbon Treaty and we need to be careful with being too enthusiastic before the details have been worked out.

QKamala Truelove, Help Age

What will happen at EU level on the MDGs and where can we engage?

AIan answered that the week of 20 September will mean a lot for the contribution of the EU to the MDGs, and it is seen as a crucial point. An academic paper is to be launched before September with external reflections on the Commission’s performance and progress, with a consultation period to follow. This is an ongoing process, which we will all need to keep watching out for. Mikaela said that this academic paper will be written over summer, the Commission has send out a request to identify academics for this and DFID is now coordinating the process in the UK.