Ex-DG Dev chief Stefano Manservisi discusses EU aid reform

For Stefano Manservisi, the work has just begun.

His task is not an easy one. The challenge: strengthen the coherence between Europe’s migration and development policies, between the European Union’s internal and external actions.

After six years directing the European Union’s Directorate General for Development, Manservisi was appointed head of the new DG Home Affairs at the end of June.

DG Home Affairs, created after Brussels split the DG for Justice, Freedom and Security in two, will be responsible for immigration, asylum policy, border security and migration.

A longtime associate of Romano Prodi’s, who led the European Commission from 2001 to 2004, Manservisi joined the European government in 1983 and served as administrator of DG Agriculture before switching to DG Development in 2004.

Manservisi sees Europe’s international cooperation as a pillar of its controversial new external action service. In an interview with Devex, he talks about the importance of policy coherence and the involvement of civil society, as well as the crucial link between the EU’s international development and migration agendas.

How does your experience at DG Development influence your current role? Do you foresee synergies between home affairs and development?

Of course I take with me the experience at DG Development, in particular the experience with Africa.

Africa is one of the big realities, not only because it is close to us, but also because it is the continent from which the main migration flows originate, migrations to achieve better life conditions, to escape from wars, insecurity, diseases.

I bring this experience in a context [the DG Home Affairs] where the European Union must not only manage its borders, but it has also to address the problem of its own labor market’s management.

The EU strategies for growth – the Europe 2020 program to overcome the crisis and spur growth – explicitly say, in the analysis as well as in the proposals, that to ride out the crisis and to re-launch the growth cycle, Europe will need more and more workforce from abroad, from Africa, Middle East, the Balkans.

Europe will need the contribution of migrants. So, it is necessary not simply to control the borders but also to develop a migration policy that is an integration policy, too.

This means to interact with the countries and the continents of origin [of migrants] not only to help their citizens to have more hopes in their own countries – that of course remains an objective – but also to let them rely on an open Europe that in turn can rely, in a responsible but fair way, on migrant flows.

This is a first example [of how my previous experiences influence my current role]. I will try to bring this experience into my new responsibility, in particular with regard to migration policy.

The coherence of international cooperation strategies is a big issue for the EU, as is the creation of synergies between different DGs. Can you outline practical solutions to strengthen the cooperation between DG Home Affairs and DG Development?

There are already some experiences of synergy.

[For instance], what we should do is to make a more systematic use of the Global Approach to Migration, adopted a couple of years ago.

This approach implies a better, and more coherent, utilization of the internal legislative and financial instruments, and of the external instruments for development. This is necessary to try to make the global approach not only a way to regulate the flows, but also a means to discuss how to address the problems together.

The global Approach to Migration and the Africa-EU Migration, Mobility and Employment Partnership [which is part of a broader joint strategy for development, the EU-Africa Partnership, the editor], are sides of the same coin.

[In the future] we have to use better the instruments we already have, as the [funding] budget line “Migration and Development.” Or, to use better the funds we have at our own disposal for internal actions to create operative interfaces.

But we have some difficulties we can’t address with the instruments we have. We must be prepared to reform these instruments.

The problem is that the EU legislative framework prescribes that internal funds can be used only on the Union territory and vice versa. The financial instruments for cooperation for development can’t be used on the Union territory.

For example, [recently] I attended a meeting focused on how to address the issue of education of young generations of immigrants, for instance coming from countries of Islamic religion and culture. The question was how to make possible to tie the education of Imams and religious elites in our societies to actions implemented in the schools of counties of origin, in accordance with those countries and communities.

These are logical things, cultural exchanges, but they can’t be done because the internal instruments can’t cross the Union borders and the external ones can’t be joined to them to fund actions in the Union’s territory.

[The problem is that] internal financial instruments can’t be used for external projects and vice versa.

With this legislative framework, do you think it is possible to design joint cooperation programs between DG Home Affairs and DG Development, involving NGOs in Europe and in the countries of origin?

In Europe we have a forum on migration and integration with different stakeholders, in particular organizations of civil society, European organizations and organizations of immigrants representing the different cultures in Europe.

In this forum we discuss about immigration and integration policies, but also about other questions, such as the relationships with the communities in the countries of origin.

We do the same in some countries, like Mali or Senegal. Many migrants come to Europe from those counties. In Mali, for example, we institutionalized a dialogue on migration involving a lot of NGOs, European and local.

The dialogue can be improved, but it exists with the European civil society and in the countries of origin. But if we want to design a program bringing together organically all these realities to funds actions that start in Europe and arrive in the countries of origin, or vice versa, there is the problem of the legislative framework [described above].

We can conceive these actions, but then we have to find very complicated financial and technical-administrative solutions to put the projects into practice. This is what we need to revise.

With the ongoing reform of Europe’s foreign operations, will the involvement of NGOs and civil society in the EU’s international cooperation change?

In my opinion, their roles will be broader. Talks with the civil society already began: It is now not regarded anymore only as an implementation [actor], but also as a partner in conceiving the policies, in the coordination of the work.

Civil society must be involved in the elaboration of the policies. If it had been up to me, it would have been already done. Of course, it is a complex process.

There are some obstacles. First of all, the civil society’s fragmentation. Secondly, all this doesn’t happen in a day: There is the custom of dialogue, but each actor must find his place. For example, the European parliament is on the one hand the political mouth of the civil society, but on the other hand it is an institutional actor. So, it is necessary to find a role for the parliament, a role for the civil society, et cetera.

The European parliament has the institutional task of controlling the Commission and it will carry out [this duty] also with regard to the high representative when it operates in field of development and coordination. The question is how to interact better [to choose the right] strategies? There is a debate to give the parliament a political role without involving it in micro-management that is not useful to anybody.

The commission is working on a wiki project for civil society involved in development. What are its initial results, and how do you see this develop?

It is hard to take stock of the project because it is at the beginning. I think that the participation is good as well as the interaction. I think that we have to build a dialogue at every level. Internet is important because it [reaches] civil society.

In the future, we should establish a sort of European Advisory Council for Development, as it exists elsewhere – a permanent advisory council joining civil society, policymakers, experts and representatives so that development policies can be more and more shared.

We have to realize that when we talk about development, we talk also about money. In this moment of economic crisis, unemployment and budget restrains, the development policy’s choices must be shared. It is necessary to share the idea that they are an investment for the future or, inevitably, these policies will become marginal and the funds will be reduced. It is important not to relegate the development policy to an activity of funds allocation and cooperation. This is crucial to give it a more relevant role.

What are the prospects for European development cooperation in light of ongoing reforms and the new European External Action Service?

The reform can bring about two important things. The first one: To anchor the development policy strongly and clearly at the most important factors of the European Union’s international action. Funds programming will be done within the framework of the European External Action Service – even if under the responsibility of the commissioner for trade. This will give to the development policy the possibility of playing fully its role as one of the essential pillars of EU international action.

Secondly, in my opinion, the role of coordination played by the high representative of the European Union for foreign affairs, as vice president of the Commission, will or could lead to a greater coherence of EU policies, to a greater ex-ante coordination.

These are possibilities – it is necessary to make it work.

What will be the role of DG Development? There has been some talk about merging it with EuropeAid.

Once the External Action Service is stabilized, the administrative patterns of the DG Development’s architecture are all to be discussed. There can be different options. One is to create a hub of policymaking and coordination of the implementation. Another one is to keep the DG Development as such, strengthening the policymaking and the policy thinking; the Commission will continue to program and decide the sectoral policies. There are several solutions, but the important thing is not to build barriers to this greater coherence that the Lisbon [Treaty] reforms can bring.

Above all, this would allow to put an end to the artificial separation between ACP countries covered by the [European Development Fund] and the countries of Latin America and Asia covered by [the Development Cooperation Instrument]. In fact, within the Commission, there are two DG External Relations and two DG Development because DG Development is engaged in development, but also in external relations with ACP countries, while DG External Relations is handling relations with the rest of the world of course, but it also manages the DCI. With a reform, development policy would be unified.

Are there new strategies to strengthen aid effectiveness?

To this end, there are two aspects: Upstream effectiveness and downstream effectiveness. With regard to the upstream effectiveness – according to the Paris and Accra declarations on aid effectiveness – a lot has been done. As shown by the recent Haiti experience when we tried to speak with one voice and to work in a coordinated way, upstream coordination, join programming and working together got in the European culture, boosted by the Union that is 60 percent of world aid.

Of course it is necessary to built on this culture.

With regard to the downstream effectiveness, that is implementation, there is a lot to do to make aid more effective.

Is the European Union looking for new funding instruments for development?

We are thinking about innovative instruments. There is an old debate, for instance about taxes on flight tickets. We are also thinking of using more solutions that join grants and loans to increase quantities. In Africa, with the [EU-Africa] Infrastructure Trust Fund, each euro of grant money produces five euros of subsidized loan.

You talked about migration and the EU’s asylum policies, and the bureaucratic hurdles that often complicate coordination and reform. What is behind all of these challenges?

The European Union already has common rules, but they are incomplete. It is necessary to deepen the [legislative] integration [among the member states] with regard to the conditions for asylum access, for stay, circulation and labor market access. We are in an advanced stage, but we have to improve.

The asylum policies and rules are also the business card of those values the European Union wants to be the champion of: Freedom and respect of human rights.

Europe wants to be a land of freedom and welcoming for those people looking for these freedoms because they are deprived of them at home.

Here, [in the asylum policy], there is a direct link between the actions to promote human rights, good governance and democracy in the countries of origin – essentially the development – and the EU’s ability to welcome who asks for help.

It is a work-in-progress, but there is a clear link between the values we promote with our development policy and our external relations, and what we are able to do in welcoming and integrating migrants and refugees.