How Officials Perceive the Possible Restructuring of EU Delegations?

Monica Liberati, Oriana Gargiulo, Karel Lizerot, Milena Boteva, Arnaud Cunin, Niccolo Maracchi

 The European Union is considering a critical restructuring of EU Delegations claiming this is needed to enhance efficiency, effectiveness, and responsiveness in delivering EU policies worldwide.

Complete the USHU Survey on the revamping of the EU Delegation Network now at this Link

YOUR CONTRIBUTIONS WILL REMAIN ANONYMOUS

Regionalization:

To truly optimise effectiveness through Regionalisation, it would be necessary to merge into a single hierarchical structure, with one Head of Delegation (HoD), one Head of Cooperation (HoC), one Head of Finance (HoF), and so on. However, this is not considered feasible in the short term, as the EU operates within a complex political landscape where both the EU and each Member State have distinct priorities and agendas. To effectively achieve its objectives, the EU must engage with each partner country individually, building relationships and maintaining policy dialogue tailored to the specific political and economic context of each country. A one-size-fits-all regionalized approach would undermine this necessary flexibility and responsiveness.

Potential Pitfalls of Regionalisation:

• Focusing too much on regional hubs can lead to over-centralisation, which may neglect the unique needs and contexts of individual countries.

• Establishing regional hubs can introduce additional layers of bureaucracy, slowing down decision-making processes and responses to urgent issues.

• Regional hubs may struggle to allocate resources effectively and can cost more than the current system.

• Regional hubs may lead to competition among hub Delegations and non-hub Delegations, leading to fragmentation.

• Regional hubs might lead to less anthropological diplomacy – essential to understanding the cultures, political systems and behavioural patterns necessary for development and cooperation to succeed. Without this integral approach, the EU could deal with partner countries directly from HQ, not even needing Delegations!

• Significantly reducing EU presence will diminish our standing and credibility in countries where sound relationships have been built over decades, in a geopolitical context of unpredictable shifting influence and powers.

• Member States that do not have an embassy in every countries would lose their linkage to countries with an EU delegation as well as their consular representation there.

Confused hierarchy and reporting lines:

Given to the dual nature of staff in Delegations (EEAS/COM), COM staff are accountable to geographical units in HQ, to the HoD and – in the case of TLs – to the HoC. Depending on the nature of the relations between these different actors, this can at times be trying. Indeed, priorities and tasks are allocated by the Team Leader in agreement with the HoC; however the HoD can bypass these two layers and request (urgent) assistance directly to task managers. This is not only frustrating but also detrimental to efficiency. In particular, under the “one delegation” principle, the staff will be “fully made available to the Head of Delegation”.

Unrealistic workload:

The average workload for officials in EUDs is already very high; in certain months, you can be working up to 50% more, which can amount to 33 days, including weekends, instead of the standard 22. There are fears that for Officials, the workload will become unrealistically heavy after the proposed regionalisation and any consequent reduction in posts. The non-hub delegations risk being structurally understaffed.

Chronic understaffing: 

Already, many EUDEL complain of how they are impacted by delays in recruitment and the eventual removal of posts. In some places of work, the average monthly staffing rate is around 66%; it is then up to Team Leaders to pick up the slack and work overtime to catch-up!

Changing Dynamics in F&C

AD Heads of Finance and contracts are concerned about the disappearance of AD positions in F&C o over time, mainly to be replaced by AST. Having a structure where ADs are progressively replaced by ASTs and Team leaders will increasingly be CAs, may lead to a loss in terms of assurance for the Authorising Officer, of knowledge and expertise in Delegations, of leadership and vision, an potentially an increase in the risk of error in financial transactions.

Social Dumping:

There are concerns the Commission is moving social dumping, where AD jobs in Delegations will be destined in the future for CAs, who will be taking on the same role and responsibilities but have  worse working conditions with lower salaries and virtually no career development prospects. This could create a hierarchical discrepancy among TLs, and raises questions about their recognition as leaders capable of providing the guidance to the team in order to achieve objectives. Social dumping through the consistent downgrading of posts in order to make savings, would deepen workplace inequalities, reduce overall staff morale and potentially have legal and ethical risks.