One of the EU’s minor agencies

Nov 5th, Turin, L to R: Csaba Sogor MEP; ETF Director Madlen Serban; Madame Chairman Pervenche Beres MEP; RFH

I have just returned from Turin, where I formed part of a very small parliamentary delegation (three MEPs) from the Unemployment Committee, which has oversight of the European Training Foundation (ETF). We were led by the redoubtable French MEP Madame Pervenche Beres, who also chairs the Committee.  The ETF is a fairly small operation with a budget of €19 million.  It is housed in a vaguely art deco building perched on a dramatic hilltop in Turin.  The building is suffering from subsidence, and its 1930s flat roofs are not entirely watertight, but that’s another story.

The ETF’s function is to advise on Vocational Education and Training (VET), and apprenticeships, in the EU’s neighbouring states, including states applying for membership of the EU.  These are mainly in Eastern Europe, Central Asia and North Africa (plus Iceland), and there are around thirty of them.  The ETF simply advises, and contributes to the planning of relevant EU support programmes.  It does not have the budget or the remit actually to deliver training programmes.  Clearly the EU’s total spending on VET greatly exceeds €19 million.

I am sure that the ETF’s work is of great benefit to the countries on the receiving end.  But it raises the question of why, in these hard times, EU taxpayers are funding it.  The argument seems to be that VET will contribute to prosperity and therefore stability in those countries.  In the cases of those that may in future join the EU, it will help prepare them for membership.  For the others, it will provide a hinterland of skilled workers who may in future contribute to EU economies, either by immigration or by doing work outsourced from the EU.  And there is an almost reluctant and shamefaced admission that by promoting prosperity in the neighbourhood, we reduce the incentive for illegal immigration into the EU.

I was astonished to find that there is another, separate EU agency working on the same issues.  It carries the improbable acronym of CEDEFOP, and is based in Thessalonica, Greece .  CEDEFOP concentrates on EU member-states, rather than the neighbourhood, and has more emphasis on comparative research, and sharing best practice, rather than advising and planning programmes.  Nevertheless, it deals with the same core competences, and there appear to be very significant areas of overlap and synergies between the two.  They of course insist that they have quite distinct remits and that little would be saved by combining them.  But I feel this needs a closer look.

Whatever else they do, they are the masters of cliché.  I was reassured (but not much) to hear that they are dedicated to entrepreneurial learning; to “learnership” as well as apprenticeships; to evidence-based policies; to knowledge-sharing in the EU policy framework; to capacity-building for national stakeholders; to improved governance; to human capital development in a context of sustainability; to fulfilling an intermediating role between the EU and partner countries; to networking and partnership for cooperation amongst multiple stakeholders including education, business and the inevitable “social partners”; to peer-learning activities on cross-cutting thematic issues; to social inclusion with sustainable financing; to multi-disciplinary approaches, facilitating policy dialogues and study trips; and above all to a competence-based approach to human resource management.  Oh, and to “holistic problem-solving in vocational tasks”.  So that’s alright, then.

One amusing anecdote.  Some way through the second day, and in an entirely unrelated context, Madame Beres came up with a remarkable outburst that she had clearly been gestating for some time.  She berated the ETF in uncompromising terms for inviting us at all, arguing that it might appear to be an attempt to exert undue influence on the parliamentary committee charged with scrutiny of the ETF.  Nor should they have paid for our transport from the airport.  This was a slightly weird intervention, given that (A) the ETF had not invited us – the initiative for the meeting came from the parliament; and (B) if Madame Beres had had any reservations about the propriety of the trip, she should surely have raised them in advance, not halfway through the event.  In any case, it seems a little churlish to eat the dinner first, and then to blame your host for providing it.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to One of the EU’s minor agencies

  1. Jean Pierre says:

    When we read the text of this politicians (Csaba Sogor MEP,Madame Beres ), they don’t tackle the real issues. Instead to blame or criticizing the EU agency, we know and they know: They are doing politics to preserve their privileges (huge salaries: 10.000-12000 Euros/month, free taxes) and jobs. How did they get their positions? Competencies, expertise, skills? No. Only by politics!!! and relations-friends. Sorry, they didn’t point out the key issues inside the European Commission. To please themselves and the hierarchy, they are doing politics with foggy speech. During 25 years, we were member of the EU Human Resources, managers, and the European Commission and then in some European Agencies, we have earned a huge salary. Now, we are retired, but we are deeply disappointed by the functioning of these heavy, weak bureaucracies: Simply, there is not accountability, no transparency, and only wasting the EU money.
    For example, the recruitment is not objective. In other words, the EU commission is a kind of citadel for some brilliant, dynamic, capable, EU citizens who can make the difference. Unfortunately, the recruitment is not based on expertise, qualifications, skills, degrees. It is only based on political background, political agendas, and political friends, and quotas. The EU doesn’t recruit the best and brilliant UE citizens. For managerial positions, the choice of the candidate is already made in advance. The screening of eligible applications by an independent Selection Committee is also another joke. The competition between candidate’s is not fair, even objective. It is not really based on experience/qualifications. The invitation of candidate’s is based on political games. They know how to curb and avoid the EU rules of the selection procedure.
    Retired EU civil servants.

  2. AnneMarie says:

    We agree totally with your precious intervention. As civil servants, we experienced the same history at European Commission. At these bureaucracies, the applications-vacancies are a sort of gallery. You really don’t need competence, nor the qualifications/experiences, because the Recruitment, in general, is based on the policy of the clientelism, the policy of the copinage, and the policy of the goatee, and the policy of favouritism, and in particular on that of the quotas. There is no policy of motivation. To advance in the career, it is the seniority which dominates and in addition to these above mentioned policies. For the managerial positions, it is always the policy which comes in front of, and not competence. The majority of these DG are all resulting from a political party.

    Anne-Marie, also retired civil servant, 20 years at the EU Commission

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s