Scoop: EU wants development staff in regional hubs, not delegations

The European Union wants to consolidate management of its foreign aid into 18 regional hubs and may pull all development experts from some countries in a move staff unions say could diminish Europe’s global role and make its work less effective. An internal EU staff document, “Revamping the Delegation Network,” seen by Devex, argues that the current system of development experts working in “cooperation sections” in 100 EU delegations is “not fit for the purpose” of implementing the bloc’s fledgling “Global Gateway” investment strategy. The plan, which has yet to be rolled out, would have far-ranging consequences for EU development officials around the world and those who deal with them. Vital planning, budgeting, and evaluation work would be centralized, likely leading to fewer jobs in fewer countries, and a reduction in local staff members. Global Gateway, launched in late 2021 as the commission’s public-relations answer to China’s Belt and Road initiative, openly aims to prioritize support for private sector investments that also benefit Europe and European firms. The latest leaked document — which provides more information on the changes to EU delegations first reported by Politico — states that current staffing arrangements cannot deliver on “developing portfolios linked to the growing importance of the external dimension of EU policies and its impact on partner countries (Green Deal, migration, security).” Plus, in the wake of a €2 billion cut to the bloc’s common development budget for 2025-2027, ordered by EU national leaders last year, the document states that “budgetary constraints require us to make savings by increasing efficiencies.” One of the advantages of the hub model, the document states, is the savings generated by the “reduction of local agents” — i.e., locals employed by the delegation — and “relocating expat staff to less challenging places.” Yet an EU official in a delegation in Africa told Devex that “local agents serve as the institutional memory, while expatriates rotate frequently, limit the understanding of local context.” “Local staff are key to understanding cultural and contextual nuances and facilitating critical contacts,” the official added, warning that firing them could lead to an anti-EU backlash. What’s in a name? Under the plan, so-called INTPA Budget Implementation Hubs — referring to the commission’s development department, DG INTPA — will be responsible for “all steps of budget implementation, from identification to evaluation.” That includes budget implementation oversight; project identification, “in full co-creation with Delegations and with HQ”; program formulation; contracting and procurement, including “the preparation of tender documents, the evaluation of proposals, and the awarding of contracts”; financial management — “budgeting, disbursement of funds, financial reporting and auditing”; monitoring and reporting; evaluation; and policy dialogue support. A small number of development-focused INTPA staffers would remain in most delegations to pursue “policy-focussed activities.” The composition of this team would be decided on a case-by-case basis but typically include a head of partnerships, one or two partnerships officers and two to three local agents. However, “in some countries where the portfolio and the perspectives do not require a full section, no INTPA Staff would be deployed and operations would be piloted from the relevant INTPA Budget Implementation Hub,” the document states. The plan also foresees the abolition of the “20% rule” for development staff in delegations, which previously capped the amount of time they could spend working for the European External Action Service, the EU’s general diplomatic corps. The 18 proposed hubs — chosen according to strategic importance; connectivity and accessibility; political and economic stability; cost-effectiveness; safety and quality of life; time zones (for real-time communication); infrastructure and network synergies (such as international financial institutions; national development agencies of EU states;“and other INTPA Budget Implementation Hubs” — are: • Dakar, Senegal, for Mauritania, Cape Verde, Gambia, Guinea, and Guinea Bissau. • Abidjan, Côte d'Ivoire, for Burkina Faso, Niger, Mali, Liberia, and Sierra Leone. • Accra, Ghana, for Niger, Togo, and Benin. • Yaoundé, Cameroon, for the Central African Republic, São Tomé and Príncipe, Gabon, and Chad. • Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of Congo, for Congo-Brazzaville, Burundi, and Angola. • Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, for Eritrea, Djibouti, and the African Union. • Kigali, Rwanda, for Uganda and Tanzania. • Nairobi, Kenya, for Somalia, Sudan, and South Sudan. • Lusaka, Zambia, for Mozambique, Zimbabwe, and Malawi. • Pretoria, South Africa, for Namibia, Botswana, Eswatini, Lesotho, Madagascar, Mauritius, and Seychelles. • Panama City, Panama, for Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, and Mexico. • Bridgetown, Barbados, for Belize, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Haiti, Jamaica, Trinidad and Tobago. • Bogota, Colombia, for Bolivia, Ecuador, Guyana, Peru, Suriname and Venezuela. • Buenos Aires, Argentina, for Brazil, Chile, Paraguay, and Uruguay. • Tashkent, Uzbekistan, for Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Mongolia, Afghanistan, Iraq, and Yemen, with the document noting “Iran=HQ”. • Bangkok, Thailand, for Vietnam, Indonesia, Philippines, Cambodia, Laos, Malaysia, Myanmar, Association of Southeast Asian Nations, and China. • New Delhi, India, for Bangladesh, Nepal, Bhutan, Sri Lanka, and Pakistan. • Suva, Fiji, for Pacific countries and Papua New Guinea, and Timor Leste and Pacific overseas countries and territories. It is envisaged that each hub will contain four sections, reflecting the political priorities of the new commission which recently took office for the next five years. Namely: • A Global Gateway section. • A resilience section (for fragile or transitioning countries). • A governance, migration, and forced displacement section (including human rights and civil society organizations). • A strategic communication section. ‘No need to sugar-coat’ Representatives from USHU, a union representing staff in EU delegations, recently wrote online that the proposal would “profoundly change the way we work,” and that they had requested a meeting with Brussels. “In any change management process, there will be casualties,” USHU’s Michael Steffens and Helen Conefrey wrote. “Posts will be frozen and eventually suppressed. Expatriate Staff will be redeployed from one EU DEL to another or repatriated to HQ. Local Agents will be dismissed. No need to sugar-coat the impact.” “Non-hub EU DEL will face considerable job cuts,” they added. “Hubs will have additional posts. Overall costs will be lowered and there will be considerable disruption for both Local Agents and Expatriates. There will be fewer opportunities for officials in EU Delegations as [administrative and secretarial] posts are reduced worldwide.” And they warned that such regionalization could weaken the EU’s role in the world, and undermine effective development cooperation “If members of staff working from a third country (the regional hub) are getting involved in identification and formulation processes as well as project management and oversight remotely, without having regular access to a local network, it is questionable whether the same quality of work can be achieved,” Steffens and Conefrey wrote. A commission spokesperson told reporters on Jan. 17 that no decision has been taken and that the leaked document does not reflect “the current discussions that we are having.” In a letter this week to the EU high representative for foreign affairs and the EU budget commissioner in Brussels, seen by Devex, USHU and U4U, which is another staff union, wrote that the current plan “shows little insight into how EU Delegations truly operate and fail to recognise the added value of EU staff on the ground.” Calling for staff representatives to be fully consulted on the changes, the unions wrote that “in an increasingly volatile environment, EU Delegations are best placed to support the EU in its efforts to consolidate itself as a geo-political leader.” The restructure comes after the midterm review of the commission’s 2021-2027 development budget last year, which saw heavy cuts fall on countries such as the Central African Republic, Togo, and Malawi. Challenged internally by its own humanitarian aid department on the severity of the cuts to least-developed countries — which EU states have called on the commission to support more — INTPA replied that the recent order from EU national leaders to cut €2 billion from the bloc’s common development budget for 2025-2027 meant a “stringent prioritisation” was necessary. In correspondence obtained by Devex through an access-to-information request, INTPA told ECHO, the humanitarian department, that now more than ever, it would “focus on areas where the EU can achieve greater impact in order to strengthen our partnerships, contributing to the EU’s strategic interests, whether related to economic, migration, security, or more broadly political priorities.” NGOs and some members of the European Parliament have criticized the commission’s shift to a more self-interested approach, arguing that it may fall foul of its EU treaty obligation to make poverty eradication the prime objective of its development work. The commission is the third-largest donor of official development assistance in the Western world, behind the United States and Germany. Update, Jan. 20, 2025: This story has been updated with comments from the European Commission.