top of page

Regionalization, what to expect on the ground

Writer's picture: Michael SteffensMichael Steffens

Michael Steffens, Helen Conefrey




USHU EXISTS TO REPRESENT YOU BETTER

 

USHU is concerned that regionalization will result in an overall reduced EU presence on the ground and potentially have a negative impact on the quality and results of our work. Countries may be geographically close however politically, culturally and economically, they are often worlds apart. How will this new model mitigate inequalities and asymmetries across countries and ensure greater effectiveness?

 

Whatever the outcome, regionalization will be disruptive and challenging in the short term. This bold model will require new and different skills sets for future job profiles in EU Delegations.

 

 

USHU aims to be realistic and honest with staff. Trade Unions are not co-decision makers. USHU will argue to limit the negative impacts and ensure that staff are fully accompanied in this change management process. As with the WLAD (Workload assessment in EU DEL) over a decade ago, there will be opportunities for some as new posts are created but this will come at a price for others, as existing posts are cut/redeployed to other places of work.

 

Nothing has been CONFIRMED or DENIED by HQ Managers yet and NO decision has been taken however the rumours and leaks abound. Staff have good reason to be concerned about their professional futures and livelihoods. USHU has addressed the HRVP and new HR Commission with a public request for a Social Dialogue meeting with EEAS and Commission counterparts.

 

Our last newsletter on regionalization received a strong reaction from staff as we shared with you, our Managers’ plans to revamp the EU Delegation Network. Quite rightly, many now want to know about any restructuring plans/consequences for DG NEAR/DG MENA. Staff need to know the scale of changes and the timeline!

 

Staff must be fully informed on the timeline and accompanied in this process.

 

In short, DG INTPA aims to introduce eighteen regional implementation hubs, to pool together operations and finance staff to cover all stages of the development cooperation from inception to evaluation. In the future, a large proportion of current EU Delegations will have “Partnership Sections” (previously fully-fledged cooperation sections) with a significantly reduced number of staff as progressively businesses processes are transferred to regional INTPA Budget Implementation Hubs. Some EU DEL may have no INTPA presence whatsoever….

 

The creation of regional hubs will generate savings but this will come at a cost.In many locations, posts of local agents and expatriates will disappear. Staff are demanding to know the timeline for implementation and what their options are.

 

The rationale behind introducing INTPA Budget Implementation Hubs

INTPA hubs will be established to optimize resource allocation across multiple countries within the backdrop of budgetary constraints and geopolitical goals. Currently, most core business is decentralized with each staff member bearing responsibility for most/all steps of the key processes ranging from policy dialogue to communication activities, from the identification of actions through to formulation, procurement, contracting, monitoring, auditing and evaluation. INTPA now believes this structure which has lasted for more than two decades, “no longer meets the needs for increased strategic focus and operational agility”. Hubs will be centres of excellence by standardising practices, ensuring greater consistency and coherence and leveraging shared knowledge. The new model also purports to strengthen ‘Team Europe’ as hubs will be in locations where the EU member states and EDFIs are more present.  

 

The role of INTPA Budget Implementation Hubs

The role of the INTPA Budget Implementation Hubs will be budgetary oversight, project identification, project formulation, contracting and procurement, financial management, monitoring and reporting, evaluation as well as policy dialogue support.

 

The location of the hubs will be decided upon the strategic importance, connectivity and accessibility, cost effectiveness, safety and quality of life, time zones, infrastructure and network synergies present in the host countries. The hubs will have a standard structure comprising: 1) Global Gateway, 2) Resilience, 3) Governance, Migration and Forced Displacement (incl. actions on human rights and civil society), and 4) Strategic communication.

 

Operational and finance colleagues will be merged. Experts within hubs will include Officials, Contract Agents and Local Agents. There will be a strong focus on key priorities such as digital technology, energy, public finance management (PFM), governance, infrastructure, communication and various instruments. Dynamic, smart teams will tap into different skillsets. Dedicated legal advisors will be introduced to provide guidance on all critical steps, particularly related to contract negotiations for guarantees and blending.

 

Potential locations for regional Implementation Hubs : to be confirmed…..

Dakar (Senegal)

Senegal, Mauritania, Cabo Verde, Gambia, Guinée, Guinea Bissau

Abidjan (Côte d’Ivoire)

Côte d’ivoire, Burkina Faso, Niger, Mali, Liberia, Sierra Leone

Accra (Ghana)

Nigeria, Ghana, Togo, Benin

Yaoundé (Cameroun)

Cameroun, Central African Rep., Sao Tome and Principe, Gabon, Chad

Kinshasa (RDC)

RDC, Congo Brazzaville, Burundi, Angola

Addis Ababa (Ethiopia)

Ethiopia, Eritrea, Djibouti, AU

Kigali (Rwanda)

Rwanda, Uganda, Tanzania

Nairobi (Kenya)

Kenya, Somalia, Soudan, South Soudan

Lusaka (Zambia)

Mozambique, Zimbabwe, Zambia, Malawi

Pretoria (South Africa)

South Africa, Namibia, Botswana, Eswatini, Lesotho, Madagascar, Mauritius, Seychelles

Panama City

Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, Panamá, México

Bridgetown Barbados

Barbados, Belize, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Haiti, Jamaica, Trinidad and Tobago

Bogota (Colombia)

Colombia, Bolivia, Ecuador, Guyana, Perú, Surinam, Venezuela

Buenos Aires (Argentinia)

Argentina, Brasil, Chile, Paraguay, Uruguay

Tashkent (Uzbekistan)

Kazakhstan, Kirghizstan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Mongolia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen

Bangkok (Thailand)

Vietnam, Indonesia, Philippines, Thailand, Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar, ASEAN, China, Malaysia

New Delhi (India)

Bangladesh, Nepal, Bhutan, India, Sri Lanka, Pakistan

Suva (Fidji)

Pacific countries, PNG, Fiji, Timor Leste, Pacific OCTs

USHU’s take on the new model:


We are concerned that a reduced presence on the ground will have a negative impact on the quality and results of our work. Countries may be geographically close however politically, culturally and economically, they are often worlds apart.

 

Communication, coordination and lines of authority between INTPA Regional hubs and local INTPA Partnership Sections will need to be further defined to avoid overlap and tensions between regional and local responsibilities. Non-hub EU DEL will have a limited number of INTPA staff and will be expected to be flexible and agile to cover any local needs and to reinforce the “one Delegation” approach. Hub Heads of Section will have an increased responsibility and workload as they cover both operational and financial verification processes. Some EU DEL may end up with NO INTPA staff whatsoever.

 

Removing project management and budget implementation from the majority of EU DEL will undermine the local expertise INTPA has gathered around the world. The work of Partnership Sections in the EU DEL will not be able to fully compensate for the fact that colleagues involved in critical stages of programming such as identification, formulation and oversight will be based elsewhere, in regional hubs.

 

Large amounts of expatriate staff will be redeployed to the regional hubs where additional posts will be created. Local Agent and expatriate posts in non-hub countries will be suppressed and staff will move if they have the option or lose their jobs. 

 

Development challenges, (climate change, digitalization, water resource management, cross-border trade, infrastructure interventions) can transcend national borders. On one level regionalization may allow for a more strategic, coordinated and consistent approach, on another level it may serve to weaken the EU globally. It is unclear whether the overriding purpose of regionalisation is to ensure that development cooperation becomes more effective or to urgently find savings!

 

Join the conversation on EU DEL restructuring and share your thoughts with us at: REP-PERS-USHU@eeas.europa.eu

791 views0 comments

Comments


  • Twisties Extra Cheese 100g (17)
  • Twisties Extra Cheese 100g (19)
  • Twisties Extra Cheese 100g (18)
  • Twisties Extra Cheese 100g (16)
© Copyright

© 2021 USHU. Website by Cc Website Design.

bottom of page