The role of the European External Action Service (EEAS) in coordinating EU’s foreign and security policy is mostly effective despite shortcomings in staffing, management planning, information managing and political reporting, according to a new audit report by the European Court of Auditors (ECA) last week.
The reason for this audit was to assess the EEAS functioning after some ten years since it was set up. While launched independently by the auditors, there has been a strong interest by the European Parliament in the topic, which proposed an audit of EEAS’s administrative expenditure but also the functioning of the action service.
Its total funding in 2022 was €1,028 million. Its staff amounts to ca 8,100 – thereof ca 1,800 at its headquarters in Brussels and ca 6 300 in the 145 EU delegations across the world (incl. ca 3,300 local staff).
The EEAS was established in 2011 and works together with the Commission and the Council to form and implement EU’s common foreign and security policy. In its coordinating role it supports the EU’s High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, who has a dual role, serving also as Vice-President of the European Commission (HR/VP).
The current HV/VP since December 2019 is Josep Borrell, a Spanish national who also has served as foreign minister of his country and president of the European Parliament. According to the EU Treaty, the HR/VP “shall ensure the consistency of the Union’s external action.” He also acts as a facilitator in EU’s diplomatic relations with candidate countries and other non-EU countries.
Borrell has lately described his role as HR/VP as limited to proposing policy options to the member states and putting together different approaches into a common EU position that can be agreed by unanimity by all countries despite their different opinions and interests.
EU has also a number of special representatives dealing with specific issues and conflict areas in the world. They answer directly to the HR/VP but their role was hardly covered by the audit.
This coordination aspect and other issues, such as the HR’s travel program, consular protection of EU citizens abroad, intelligence activities and sanctions policy against third countries, were outside the scope of the audit. It focused on whether EEAS’s coordination, both internally and with the Commission and Council, was effective. The audit covered the period from September 2021 until 2023.
Complex organisation with cumbersome procedures
“Foreign policy, and the way it is implemented and coordinated, are vital for the EU, especially given recent events, in particular Russia’s invasion of Ukraine,” said Marek Opiola, the Polish ECA member who led the audit. “Although the EEAS mostly performs its coordinating role well, we are sounding a warning about information management, reporting and staffing challenges.”
EEAS has a complex organisation, with staff of different categories who are subject to frequent rotation. Some of its delegations are located in countries with bad internet connections. The staff includes officials from the EEAS as well as the Commission, in addition to member state diplomats and local staff.
This explains some of the findings in the report but not all. The Foreign Affairs Council meetings, which are chaired by the HR/VP, are well-prepared but lack a common briefing tool, according to the auditors.
There is a Group for External Coordination (EXCO) meetings which meets regularly and functions. But the Commissioners’ Group on a Stronger Europe in the World (CGSE), created in 2019, should meet at least every three months and contribute to coherent policy-making. The auditors write that it has been effectively inactive since 2020.
The EEAS carried out a self-review in 2021, and subsequently took measures to update its structure and become more effective in its geopolitical role. The auditors say this review was valuable, and that the EEAS’s working methods improved as a result. But the review is at odds with ECA’s own survey.
The auditors found that less than 30 % of the EU ambassadors thought that EEAS new working management had a positive impact on EEAS performance. The survey also showed that 65 % of respondents never, or only sometimes, received feedback on their political reporting The response rate in ECA’s survey was 82 % (119 of 145 delegations).
"Our audit was largely technical and we did not audit EEAS’ policies," the audit team told The Brussels Time. Indirectly the audit was also political and can be seen as an inquiry into how the action service is managed by the HR/VP.
The team highlighted the lack of feedback to the delegations from EEAS Headquarters, the disconnect between them in their annual planning, and the cumbersome procedures in the handling of information, including confidential and classified documents.
Accepts all recommendations, some reservations
In its reply, the EEAS accepted all audit recommendations. “The EEAS considers the report’s findings and recommendations a valuable contribution to the improvement of its performance and its general functioning. In fact, the EEAS has already echoed some of the recommendations in ongoing initiatives.”
Asked about its response to the audit on specific points, the spokesperson of the EEAS told The Brussels Times that it does not share the views of the auditors on those points. On the interaction between HQ and Delegations, the action service considers that ECA’s survey presents an incomplete picture of the cooperation between them.
On the feedback on annual planning, EEAS is of the opinion that the overall reception of the annual management plans is rather positive from the delegations but it recognized the need to improve the feedback mechanisms.
As regards the exchange of information, the EEAS replied that the perceived cumbersome usage of the system is partially related to its infrequent use in a number of delegations because of internet infrastructure challenges. However, the system is currently being revamped and its capacity upgraded.
The mixed assessment of EEAS’ performance does not come as a total surprise. In its first audit in 2014 on the establishment of the EEAS, the EU watchdog listed several severe shortcomings in the preparation, planning, organization and staffing of the action service. Some of these shortcomings still exist, for example staffing challenges at the delegations.
Like then, the EU auditors did not examine the decision-making process in any specific crisis situation or EEAS capability to foresee what happens in EU’s neighborhood.
Also, the audit took place after an internal self-review by EEAS. The added value of such an audit lies in its credibility because it has been carried out by an independent institution. This is something which the EEAS itself calls for when alleged irregularities or links with terrorist organisations are discovered in other countries or UN organisations.
M. Apelblat
The Brussels Times
