On Wednesday 14 April, a public hearing was held in the European Parliament on the implications for development policy of the new European External Action Service (EEAS), hosted by the Green Party and attended by various civil society stakeholders.

Eva Joly, a Green MEP and Chair of Parliament’s Development Committee, warned that if the EEAS is allowed to control development funds, these may be used for foreign policy interests, which would compromise the EU’s commitment to an independent development policy. She urged that the responsibility for programming remain the exclusive competence of the Development Commissioner.

Simon Stocker, Director of Eurostep, called attention to the complete lack of transparency with which the process of establishment of the EEAS has been conducted. The involvement of civil society was very limited, he said.

The first priority of the EEAS, as defined by the Lisbon Treaty, is to promote the interests of European Union citizens, explained Mr. Stocker. He added that there can clearly be a conflict of interest between development objectives and Member States’ political objectives, so the mechanisms for implementing these two policies needed to have sufficient clearly defined dedicated capacity and lines of accountability that enabled them to be pursued according to their respective objectives. To ensure that the result is not contradictory the Treaty embodies the principal that in relation to the EU’s cooperation with developing countries its policies should be coherent with development policy objectives, and that the High Representative should ensure that the different policies are consistent with one another. He stressed that there was a real danger that in mixing the management of policies, the resulting lack of transparency would seriously jeopardise accountability and further undermine support from European citizens for the EU.

Mr. Stocker echoed Ms. Joly’s view that there should be a single service for development sitting in the Commission, and that this should be responsible for programming. Only the higher level political strategising is the role of the High Representative, he added.

These concerns are shared by many in the development community. The NGO network CONCORD wrote in its March newsletter: "While the proposals do say that the country allocations, strategies and indicative programmes will be prepared by the EEAS under the direct supervision of the relevant commissioner, this will have to be done in agreement with the high representative.”

"There is widespread concern that this effectively brings the use of EU development aid under the effective control of the EU's foreign policy interests, which is against the letter and spirit of the Treaty.”

Mr. Christian Leffler, newly appointed Deputy Director General for Development, and an advisor to Baroness Kathy Ashton, said that while the EEAS would be a service to both the Council and the Commission. All decisions on the use of the EU’s development budget would continue to be taken by the College of Commissioners. Their preparation within the EEAS was to maintain a principle of non duplication in functions, and to ensure consistency between the policies.

Sources:

• Eurostep
• The Greens - EFA
• EUobserver

• Lawyers say Ashton's EEAS proposal is contrary to Lisbon Treaty
• Parliament links budget approval to agreement on EEAS organisation
• EU’s new diplomatic service to control development budget
• Ashton's proposal for the EEAS contradicts the intentions of the Treaty
• Ashton outlines organisational structure of EEAS
• MEPs' anger over EEAS
• Establishing the EEAS in conformity with the Treaty
• EU Commission and Member States battle for control of EEAS
• EU institutions struggle for control of EEAS
• Commission discusses terms of recruitment for EEAS
• Ashton sidelines Parliament in creation of EEAS working group
• Briefing No. 48: Defining the EU's Management and Implementation of its External Actions
• Briefing No. 44: Five Compelling Reasons why to keep Development outside the EEAS