Disclaimer: DRAFT How are new EU member state and small state actor included in EU development politics? Introduction
The primary objective of this paper is to map and analyse the inclusion of new European Union Member States, particularly Baltic and Central and Eastern European countries, in European Union’s policy making and implementation. The paper is concerned with the inclusion of a variety of stakeholders from these countries, such as policy-makers, national development agencies, Non-Governmental Organisations, private sector entities. As defined by Schmidt and Wood (2019), including these actors ‘means that policy-makers are open to all such groups, and bring them in in such a way as to ensure balance in their representation.’ (Schmidt, Wood, 2019, p.733). Two types of stakeholders can be included in EU policy making and implementation - Member States and national institutions/agencies, and non-government entities, such as NGOs, CSOs, and private sector entities.
Since the breakout of COVID-19, the European Union has started to emphasize the unity of EU member states in their response to the pandemic. This approach has trickled down to other policy areas, such as development cooperation, and resulted in the narrative and programmes of Team Europe. Team Europe has pledged €40.5 billion and is attempting to combine European expertise and resources to help developing countries address health and economic needs after the pandemic (Pleeck, Gavas, 2021). In this context, it is important to talk about what newer EU MS can offer to EU’s development cooperation, how they are included in it and how inclusiveness can be further fostered.
This paper aims to inform both EU and Baltic policy-makers about the views that different stakeholders have about inclusiveness, the general importance and benefits of being inclusive, and the challenges that small states face when trying to participate in development cooperation. Baltic and EU officials might see the issue of inclusiveness differently, hence this paper tries to converge different stakeholders’ ideas and inform both sides about the possible steps to involve more actors into EU development cooperation and make development policy more effective. Furthermore, one of the interviewees noted that although the topic of inclusiveness is well known to EU policy makers, it is quite new to research (Research Interview, 2021). Hence, this paper also attempts to make a contribution to the better understanding of inclusiveness in the research community and encourage the wider exploration of this issue.
Disclaimer: DRAFT Methodology
This paper is based on desk research and 14 conducted interviews. Desk research was carried out between June and July 2021. Resources, such as academic papers, reports, and articles were collected and analysed to understand the how inclusiveness of new EU member states is perceived.
14 online research interviews were conducted between June and September 2021 with Baltic policy-makers, Baltic representatives in EU institutions policy-makers, Baltic policy and EU policy experts, representatives from Baltic National development cooperation agencies, representatives from European NGOs, and other stakeholders between June and August 2021. The aim of the interviews was to understand the perceptions of Baltic and European stakeholders about the current inclusion of new states in EU processes and the potential methods for increasing it. When conducting interviews with EU stakeholders, we noticed that some of them had a lack of understanding about Baltic political and development cooperation context; for instance, they lacked knowledge about the political discourse about development or particular frameworks that Baltic states use for their development cooperation. Hence, the interviews included guiding questions, which involved giving context about Baltic development politics and projects prior to asking questions. Therefore, our own understanding of Baltic context and issues might have influenced the answers that some interviewees gave.
1. Inclusion of new EU MS in EU policies
Diversifying EU policy with transitional experience
Including new EU member states into EU policy making and implementation benefits EU development cooperation efforts in several ways. It makes the expertise that the EU can offer more diverse. Newer EU MS, specifically Baltics and Central and Eastern Europe have experience that is perceived as relevant for many partner countries of EU, and including them in EU development policy would be a way ‘to capitalise and use the transition experience’ (Jones, 2021, p. 5). A few interviewees said that they see transitional institutional experience as a useful addition to the expertise what EU can offer (Research Interview, 2021). One policy researcher noted that emphasizing the transformation of Baltic and CEE countries can show that progress is possible for partner countries that are currently undergoing similar transformations (Research Interview, 2021).
Disclaimer: DRAFT
Despite the benefits of transitional experience, Baltic and CEE countries have struggled to convince the EU of the importance of their transitional experience. Lightfoot and Szent-Iványi (2015) argue that although rhetorically the EU has included the transitional experience, there is little evidence that this inclusion has happened practically. Transitional experience has been mentioned in a few development cooperation documents, such as the 2006 European Consensus for Development and Support for Sustainable Change in Transition Societies in 2013 (Lightfoot, Szent-Iványi, 2015, pp. 9-10). The authors point to a few bottlenecks that have slowed this practical inclusion. Firstly, development policy is not prioritised by CEE countries. This idea was reinforced by a few of the interviewees. One of them said that although Lithuania was active in some areas of development cooperation, it has no clear agenda or strategy for it (Research Interview, 2021). Another noted that the societies of Baltic and CEE states do not see development cooperation as important (Research Interview, 2021). Secondly, small CEE countries have low administrative and diplomatic capacities, which is a major obstacle to their development efforts and will be expanded on below. Thirdly, they have failed to convince that older MS that inclusion of transitional experience is in the ‘community’s interest’ (Lightfoot, Szent-Iványi, 2015). Older EU MS worry that the transitions experience that CEE countries offer is not fitting of the local partner country context and that countries advocating for transitional experience inclusion focus too much on Eastern Partnership and have not defined what precisely they can offer (Lightfoot, Szent-Iványi, 2015, pp. 13-15).
Another challenge is the actual transferring of transitional or other institutional experience during the project. In order for projects to be successful, practitioners need to be well aware of the local political and institutional context of the partner country (Ørnemark, 2020; Alari, Thomas, 2016). Interviewees working with African counterparts also said that knowledge of political context and institutional/organisational details mattered a lot when sharing institutional expertise (Research Interview, 2021). However, Baltic states often lack knowledge about local politics in some EU’s high priority regions, such as Africa or Latin America.
Baltic states lack colonial baggage but also the capacity to realise the benefits
The second unique perspective of Baltics and CEE that is often emphasized is the lack of colonial baggage. A few interviewees emphasized that new members who do not have a difficult historical past with African countries have an opportunity to bring a fresh perspective to relations with
Disclaimer: DRAFT Africa (Research Interview, 2021). However, this argument was also met with skepticism, with one policy researcher saying that Baltic states do not posses enough knowledge about colonialism to have a say about that (Research Interview, 2021). An African NGO representative also said that when it came to practical project implementation, colonial baggage was not something he though about that much (Research Interview, 2021).
Another issue that ties in with the aforementioned lack of knowledge about colonial past and political context of Africa is the low administrative and political capacity of small EU states. This makes it difficult for these states to participate in all EU-decision making processes (Thorhallson, 2015). State representatives often receive unspecific guidance from their ministries and are mostly told to focus on topics of national interest (Thorhallson, 2015). Since Lightfoot and Szent-Iványi argue that development policy has low salience in Baltic/CEE countries, this means that these states are not able to dedicate time and resources for development related discussions (Lightfoot, Szent-Iványi, 2015). Although this tendency has been changing a bit, with Estonia getting more invested in fostering relations with Africa, one interviewed EU policy-maker said that she is not aware of any major Baltic countries’ contributions to EU development policy (Research Interview, 2021). This is related to EU’s partnership with Africa; one interviewee said that since Baltic states’ priority is the Eastern Partnership, diplomats spent most of their time preparing for and participating in discussions related to that, while Africa is not something they can engage on (Research Interview, 2021).
Furthermore, not only do small states lack administrative capacity to process and gather information but the distribution of information within EU institutions also affects their ability to participate in projects. Di Ciommo and Sergejeff (2021) point to lack of information as one of the reason why smaller countries struggle to get involved in bigger EU projects. One of the interviewees mentioned that poor communication was a problem in development cooperation programmes that involved public sector expertise sharing (Research Interview, 2021). However, other interviewees did not identify major issues with information sharing; one of them noted that information sharing among countries was rather well developed and that contact with EU Delegations in partner countries was considered helpful (Research Interview, 2021). Therefore, it cannot be definitely said how much information distribution impacts newer state involvement.
Interventions needed to foster inclusion
Disclaimer: DRAFT
National level interventions One interviewed policy researcher said that small MS need to do a lot of ‘homework’ themselves in order to be included (Research Interview, 2021). Therefore, there are a few initiatives that MS can take to foster their own inclusion into EU policy. A few interviewees said that the best way for smaller states to become more vocal and involved in EU policy is to develop a niche approach to Africa policy. This approach has to be clear and have a tangible strategy of implementation which would offer practical contributions to EU policy (Research Interview, 2021). At the same time, one interviewee criticized this approach by saying that all MS should contribute to development of all sectors, and that niche expertise will not necessarily lead to more inclusion (Research Interview, 2021). However, majority of interviewees supported the niche approach. Among the Baltics, Estonia has already been developing this approach by focusing on and promoting their e-governance expertise.
Baltic interventions Majority of interviewees supported the idea of having more Baltic cooperation when it comes to development cooperation and engagements with African countries. One interviewee said that Baltic countries should have visits together to Africa to increase visibility of the Baltic region and Baltic countries individually (Research Interview, 2021). Furthermore, in order to have such cooperation, another expert said that Baltic countries should reach a common political line on what they want to achieve with development cooperation (Research Interview, 2021). This would help increase visibility of Baltics as a region and give the Baltic countries an amplified voice in EU fora. Yet, one policy-maker said that the EU might be skeptical of Baltics’ collective efforts, since the three countries do not have a track record of being very close collaborators (Research Interview, 2021).
EU-level interventions
Collaboration between MS could be the answer to bureaucratic hurdles, and lack of information and context that Baltic states face. Some interviewees proposed that EU MS could share experience with each other and work together to strengthen capacities (Research Interview, 2021). This could come in the form of a consultancy or expertise sharing service, with some initiatives already said by interviewees to be available. Similar
Disclaimer: DRAFT proposal was made for the sharing of political context and knowledge how to work in unfamiliar regions (Research Interview, 2021).
Recent EU initiatives such the aforementioned Team Europe approach emphasize inclusiveness and representation of EU as a unified voice. A few policy researchers mentioned that Team Europe initiatives could be a good entry point for smaller EU MS to get involved, since after identifying partner country needs, all MS are called to contribute (Research Interview, 2021). However, they also raised some concerns over the framework. They noted that there is still a lack of information about development partners on the ground and also the linkages between MS that would ensure smooth cooperation (Research Interview, 2021). The interviewees questioned the success of the Team Europe approach by wondering whether the projects will be inclusive and result in more joint implementation or whether Team Europe will be more about communication (Research Interview, 2021). So far, it seems that Team Europe initiatives are not as inclusive as they are meant to be; Pleeck and Gavas (2021) found that Germany and France dominated the Team Europe Initiatives that they researched. Therefore, although Team Europe approach has the potential to foster inclusiveness, additional work is needed to realise its potential.
2. Inclusion of national stakeholders (CSOs and private sector)
NGOs/CSOs
Civil Society organisations are important actors in development cooperation. In 2019, OECD DAC members’ aid for CSOs was around USD 21 billion of ODA (OECD, 2020b). Small NGOs and CSOs from new EU MS often struggle to access European funding and get EU projects. One interviewee said that only a narrow group of stakeholder could easily access EU funds (Research Interview, 2021). Furthermore, they noted that this was the primary reason why they could not uptake projects in Africa (Research Interview, 2021). Big international NGOs get much more access to funding and projects because of their scale, ability to manage applications and financial means. EU fund management is subject to strict audits, and organisations have to be ‘pillar-assessed’ in order to have the ability to indirectly manage EU funding and get much greater access to opportunities (Jones, 2021, p. 9). One interviewee said that this process was mainly geared towards larger organisations from big EU MS (Research Interview, 2021). Therefore, smaller NGOs have limited access to some EU opportunities.
Disclaimer: DRAFT However, including small NGOs would be beneficial for EU development cooperation. Small NGOs can diversify the experience that EU can offer as a block to partner countries. In some small MS, mostly small NGOs are present, and them having limited access to funding means that the experience accumulated in that MS is underused potential in EU development cooperation. For instance, if Estonian organisations can offer experience in digital solutions and Lithuanian ones have insights about transitional experience, inability of these organisations to pass assessments for funding
Private sector
The inclusiveness of private sector in development cooperation has been a widely discussed topic. On one hand, the private sector can contribute to ensuring balanced development, on the other, the profit-seeking interest of private sector entities might not be in line with development cooperation objectives (Rudzite, 2019). This divide in opinion was also evident in our research interviews. While some saw private sector as an important stakeholder that can bring new ways of working, while others argued that the EU should be cautious about merging development cooperation and business (Research Interview, 2021). Some of the concerns were that CSOs will lose space in development cooperation if private sector is involved and that business interest will be more pronounced than partner country interests (Research Interview, 2021).
Nevertheless, $48.4 billion of private finance was mobilised for official development interventions (OECD, 2020a). Furthermore, the EU has expressed support for strengthening local private sector in partner countries and ensuring a good environment for EU’s private investment in partner countries (Rudzite, 2019). Therefore, private sector has secured a role in EU development cooperation efforts.
According to Rudzite (2019, the inclusion of private sector enterprises from new, smaller MS is advantageous for the EU development policy. Most the private sector scene in smaller EU states is made up of micro, small, and medium enterprises (MSMEs). Smaller enterprises are considered to be best placed to ensure good livelihoods for local communities (Rudzite, 2019). Similar sentiment is also expressed in the letter to the European Commissioner for International Cooperation and Development signed by government representatives of 11 EU MS; MSMEs are described are drivers of ‘sustainable development’ and inclusive growth (Letter to European Commissioner for International Cooperation and Development, 2016). The letter further urges the EU to focus on MSMEs when it comes to development and take a ‘differentiated approach’ to private sector. Currently, there is no differentiation between
Disclaimer: DRAFT private sector actors that apply for EU support through the EFSD+ instrument (Rudzite, 2019). Large, multinational businesses have more means to access funding through such instruments and hence might rack up majority of development funding meant for developing private sector (Rudzite, 2019)
Interventions needed to foster inclusiveness
Interviewees and research literature propose two main ways of including non-governmental and private sector entities. In order to include small, less experienced NGOs, it is proposed to incentivize consortia building for EU projects between big and small NGOs. According to Carter (2017), development research shows that collaboration might be crucial for addressing complex problems, with a number of evaluations finding positive impact of multistakeholder projects (Carter, 2017, pp.1-3). Some interviewees also supported this idea, saying that it would make small actors more active and visible (Research Interview, 2021). However, it cannot be straightforwardly concluded that working in consortai is good; some reviews cited in Carter (2017) also found that consortia suffered from poor governance, lack of clear common strategy, and high management costs (Carter, 2017). The aforementioned challenges are some of the reasons why working together is not widespread in some areas of development cooperation. For public sector expertise programmes, Schneider and Illan (2020) report that joint implementation was rare and that shared experiences by MS are limited (Schneider, Illan, 2020, p.28).
Furthermore, although more consortia building could help smaller NGOs get more involved in different projects, it also brings a few downsides to them. Firstly, NGOs from new EU MS could become stuck in the ‘smaller sister’ role in these consortia, not being able to properly scale up and manage their own projects. Secondly, with the current framework, Baltic projects through consortia would not be possible, as all three states have mostly small NGOs. One interviewee noted that it would be very hard to secure an EU project for three small states (Research Interview, 2021). This way, the opportunity for Baltic cooperation and common approach would be even more limited. Therefore, although consortia might bring about good results and help involve small NGOs, further reviews of the project funding mechanisms should be considered.
The second proposal, meant to include both NGOs and private sector entities is Policy Coherence for Development. The idea behind Policy Coherence for Development is that all EU policy should be aligned with development goals, so as not to contradict them and harm development efforts (ECDPM, 2007). One Baltic interviewee also supported this idea, by
Disclaimer: DRAFT noting that, for instance, trade policy might poorly influence African development (Research Interview, 2021). Baltic states are starting to recognize the importance of policy coherence for development. Estonia has carried out a study on how PCD principle are implemented in development cooperation and aimed to propose recommendations on how to better implement PCD (European Commission, 2018). The country seems to be involving its private sector into development cooperation, with some Estonian IT companies carrying out digitisation projects. Latvia mentions PCD a few times in its Development Cooperation Policy Guidelines 2016-2020, however, it is unclear whether they have resulted in practical changes (Ministry of Foregn Affairs, 2016). Lithuania has also struggled to include its private sector, however, policy-makers have expressed an interest in doing that (Presentation). Therefore, states should strengthen their PCD in order to ensure that all stakeholders are included in development efforts.
Lastly, private sector entities should be differentiated according to size and type in order to ensure that large multinational corporation do not take up all the space in development cooperation (Rudzite, 2019). By differentiating private sector stakeholders in EU instruments such the External Investment Plan, EU can make sure that MSMEs also get a chance to participate in development efforts, bringing the aforementioned (Rudzite, 2019).
Sources: Alari, C., Thomas, P. (2016) ‘Increasing the Impact of Aid Interventions to Support Centre of Government Reforms’, NSGI
Carter, B. (2017) ‘Effectiveness of working in consortia’, K4D Helpdesk
Di Ciommo, M., Sergejeff, K. (2021) ‘Study on the EU and its member states mobilising public sector expertise for development: analysis paper’, ECDPM
ECDPM (2007) Evaluation of the EU Institutions and Member States’ Mechanisms for Promoting Policy Coherence for Development
European Commission (2019) Commission Staff Working Document: 2019 EU report on Policy Coherence for Development
Disclaimer: DRAFT Jones, A. (2021) ‘Fostering inclusiveness in a Team Europe approach’, ECDPM
Ministry of Foreign Affairs (2016) Development Cooperation Policy Guidelines for 20162020.
Letter to European Commissioner for International Cooperation Development (2016)
OECD (2020a) Amounts mobilised from the private sector for development
OECD (2020b) Civil Society Engagement in Development Co-operation
Ørnemark, C. 2020. ‘Lessons Harvesting’ for monitoring, evaluation and learning from peerto-peer engagements Discussion paper for Effective Institutions Platform – Drawing on lessons from Advisory Group members. July 2020. Effective Institutions Platform.
Pleeck, S. and Gavas, M. 2021. Getting to the Bottom of the Team Europe Initiatives. Center for Global Development. 12 May 2021.
Rudzite, L. (2019) ‘Situating private sector contribution in development cooperation policies of the EU’. Around the Caspian
Schmidt, V., Wood, M. (2019) ‘Conceptualizing throughput legitimacy: Procedural mechanisms of accountability, transparency, inclusiveness and openness in EU governance’, Public Administration, 97 (4), pp. 727–740.
Schneider, E. and Illan, C. (2020) Study on the EU and its Member States mobilising Publicsector expertise for Development. Final Report. Phase I – Mapping Quantitative results and key findings from EU Member States.
Szent-Ivanyi, B., Lightfoot, S. (2015) ‘Central and Eastern European transition experience in EU development policy’, University of Pittsburgh. Thorhallsson, B. (2015) ‘How Do Little Frogs Fly? Small States in the European Union’, Norwegian Institute of International Affairs
Disclaimer: DRAFT