PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files

Europaudvalget 2014-15 (1. samling)
Rådsmøde 3340 - udenrigsanliggender Bilag 3
Offentligt

October 1

2014

Non-paper by Belgium, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Latvia, Luxembourg,

Netherlands, Poland, Spain & United Kingdom

Ensuring an effective joint external action with Member States’ ownership

For the EU to be able to play a strategic role in facing the challenges this world poses upon us, we need

an effective joint external action, being able to react rapidly and flexibly with the appropriate means. The

Treaty of Lisbon created a basis to build on in addressing these challenges. The setting up of the

European External Action Service (‘EEAS’) is an important achievement in this respect. The EEAS has

proven to be a major instrument for safeguarding the strategic interests of the Union, to promote EU

values as well as to ensure coordination with the rest of the world. Now the time has come to take the

European ambition for external action to a higher level complementary to the work of and in close

cooperation with the Member States (‘MS’). The strength and credibility of our EU external policy benefit

from coherent and coordinated messaging and sufficient ‘ownership’ by the MS. We should strengthen

the synergy between MS and EEAS and ensure the ownership by the MS, without hampering the ability to

act, the speed of action and the effectiveness of the EU extern policy and by leaving the High

Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy (‘HR’) the trust and mandate to fully

act where she is competent.

In its Conclusions of December 2013 on the review of the European External Action Service (‘EEAS’) the

General Affairs Council confirmed the importance of timely, effective and efficient preparation of Council

meetings, while engaging MS at an early stage to ensure that all internal procedures, including with

national parliaments, can be completed.

The mission letter of the new High Representative in her capacity of Vice-president of the European

Commission (HR/VP) of September 10

includes important elements enhancing integrated European

external action. The responsibility for steering and coordinating the work of all Commissioners with

regard to external relations while drawing on the Commission’s policy instruments and expertise is

particularly important in this regard.

Adding to the mission letter, this paper aims at putting forward ideas on the preparation of the Foreign

Affairs Council (‘FAC’) and the active involvement of the MS thereby also contributing to the 2015

evaluation of the EEAS Decision.

1. Agenda setting of the FAC



The HR/EEAS is responsible for the agenda setting of the FAC in consultation with the MS. In view of

effective and efficient decision making, timely presentation of the (annotated) agenda is crucial. This

not only enables MS to complete all internal procedures, including where appropriate with national

parliaments, but allow Ministers to prepare for a focused discussion. Speeding up internal procedures

within EEAS, including by reduction of hierarchical lines and increasing flexibility, could be helpful in

this regard. MS for their part should do their utmost speeding up their national procedures.

The formal FAC-agenda could allow for more diversification of ways to handle and prepare agenda-

items. On the agenda of the FAC more time should be reserved for discussions on strategic and

horizontal topics (like climate, energy,

strategic challenges in the wider neighbourhood

, terrorism,

cyber, migration), focused on operational follow-up. This could be done by splitting the agenda in

two, whereby the first part is dedicated to discussions on current issues and the second part can be

devoted to strategic and horizontal topics. These discussions should be well prepared, building on the

cooperation with relevant Commissioners as set out in the Mission letter of the HR/VP, and possibly

be linked to decision making, where appropriate, in conjunction with other compositions of the FAC

(Development, Trade) or other Council formations.

Where possible FAC debates should be decision-oriented. To that effect the EEAS should make use of

option papers with proposals for concrete action elaborated in consultation with MS through the PSC

and Coreper.

While keeping open the possibility to add last minute a topic to the agenda in case of high political

urgency, it is important to limit the number of topics on the agenda to have time to discuss the most

relevant topics in-depth. The grown practice of covering a number of current affairs in the

introductory remarks of the HR, allowing MS to react, is a good example of effective use of time. In

addition to that more use can be made of A-items as well as written procedures.

Gymnich meetings could be given a role in the strategic policy planning e.g. by organizing orientation

debates in the early stages of policy making and by using interactive forms of debate. In order to

ensure the necessary follow-up, the reporting system during Gymnich meetings should be improved.



PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files

October 1

2014



Presiding over the FAC, the HR can play an enhanced orchestrating role enabling MS and EEAS to act

in a complementary and coordinated way and so reinforcing EU’s impact and visibility. This could

range from asking groups of MS to prepare an intervention at the FAC (for example to introduce a

certain topic) to joint visits or other types of outreach. Pro-active sharing of lines to take on the base

of standing EU-policy by EEAS is another good example and should be expanded. Occasionally, an

orchestrated working practice could be elaborated with Member States opening the door to a certain

level of ‘division of labour’ were members of the FAC, at the initiative and under the authority and

oversight of the HR, could represent the HR on a specific thematic or regional policy issue in the

sphere of CFSP.

2. Strategic policy planning and relation with the European Council



In the field of external action the EU could work more on the basis of guidelines of the European

Council (‘EC’) and longer term strategies of the Council. This will help the EU to formulate medium or

long-term visions on specific regions or thematical issues and could be useful as strategic framework

for comprehensive action.

These medium- and long term strategies should be prepared by the EEAS, in cooperation with the

MS, according to a timetable that leaves sufficient time for in-depth discussion in the Council and in

the preparatory bodies. This will allow for MS to consult with national parliaments if needed. Likewise

it could give national parliaments guidelines to refer to when at a later stage Council conclusions are

adopted (under time pressure or when written procedures are used).

This calls for knitting closer together the preparation of the EC and the FAC. In the execution of its

mandate with regard to CFSP and other areas of EU external action, the EC draws directly on EEAS

for CFSP-related issues. Except in cases of extreme urgency, EC-conclusions on CFSP-related issues

should be prepared in PSC before being sent to Coreper with a view to forwarding them to the FAC

and the GAC in charge of EC preparations. This would anchor coherence and complementarity in the

messages of the FAC and the EC.



3. Preparation of the FAC, making optimal use of MS



For a proper preparation of the FAC in the preparatory bodies the timely availability of the necessary

documents is key. The EEAS should be structured and equipped in such way as to be able to circulate

draft documents as early as possible (with a target standard of two weeks prior to the FAC), so that

the MS have sufficient time to define their position and finalise all necessary internal procedures.

Using the possibility to step up discussions to PSC and Coreper will help keeping speed in the

preparatory work. Building on the current practice of preparation of summits, Coreper should be focal

point in the preparation of comprehensive policy issues, building on a political appreciation prepared

by PSC. This requires involvement of Coreper in an early stage in case of cross cutting issues, without

prejudice to the role and responsibilities of the HR and the EEAS.

EU-delegations and embassies of MS represented in third states should work closely together and

prepare joint Head of Mission’s (HoMs) reports as well as joint advice on policy and implementation to

feed into the preparation of the FAC at the level of the preparatory bodies.

The number of working parties can be reduced (for example merging the areas covered by COARM,

COARM-ATT, CONOP, CODUN, CODUN-Space into two groups: COARM and CONOP). More joint

sessions should be planned by EEAS (for example PMG, CivCom or COHOM with regional groups).

This will lead to less pressure on the calendar of meetings and more synergy.

MS should assist the HR/EEAS in building on what MS have to offer in support of a joint policy

approach, making full use of bilateral activities and networks of the MS. Sharing travel plans on a

more structured basis and swift sharing of reports by COREU could be ‘quick wins’ in this regard.

***

