Specifics and Trends in the Appointment of European External Action Service Administrative Staff (2011-2019)
Specifics and Trends in the Appointment of European External Action Service Administrative Staff (2011-2019)

Author(s): Bartosz Bieliszczuk, Przemysław Biskup, Bartłomiej Znojek
Contributor(s): Bartłomiej Znojek (Editor)
Subject(s): Politics, Governance, International relations/trade
Published by: PISM Polski Instytut Spraw Międzynarodowych
Keywords: EEAS; specifics; trends; 2011-2019;
Summary/Abstract: Merit is the main recruitment criterion of candidates according to regulations on the functioning of the European External Action Service (EEAS). In addition, the EEAS is required to observe auxiliary conditions, which are to ensure “a meaningful presence of nationals from all the Member States” and an “adequate geographical and gender balance.” The results of an analysis of how the EEAS observed these additional criteria while appointing administrative staff (AD category) - a quarter of which are managers - are ambiguous since the EEAS’s inauguration in 2011 until the end of 2019. The period analysed covered the terms of the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy (hereinafter: High Representative) Catherine Ashton (2009–2014) and her successor, Federica Mogherini (2014–2019). The only measurable requirement in the EEAS recruitment rules is that national diplomats - temporary agents coming from the diplomatic services of the Member States - should represent at least one third of all AD staff in the EEAS while officials - permanent employees of the EU institutions - should represent at least 60% of that category. EEAS data from the end of each year shows that the Service managed to meet the required threshold in 2014, 2018, and 2019. However, since 2013 the EEAS has hovered around the required minimum, which may suggest it has aimed at keeping the share of EU officials at the highest possible level. The EEAS recruitment regulations do not define how to measure “adequate geographical balance”. If one assumes that the national structure of the AD staff should reflect the Member State’s population to the EU population as a whole (hereinafter: population potential), nearly two-thirds of the EU countries had a relatively balanced representation. However, major disproportion is evident for the remaining EU Members. Since the EEAS’s inauguration, Belgians have been the most overrepresented national group in AD staff category. They were followed by citizens of Scandinavian countries and Ireland. Germans and Poles have been the most underrepresented national groups, excluding the British, whose number has consistently been shrinking following the UK’s decision to leave the EU (Brexit). In some cases, balanced representation of citizens of a specific Member State among AD staff co-existed with a clear disproportion in specific AD category groups. Italy is one such example. In 2018, the share of Italian nationals in AD staff was proportionate to Italy’s population in the EU. However, Italians were visibly overrepresented in the main management groups at EEAS Headquarters and among the Heads of Delegations. Moreover, an extraordinary increase in the number of appointments of Italian citizens to EEAS senior posts coincided with fellow Italian citizen Mogherini’s term as High Representative. A similar trend, albeit on a smaller scale, could be seen during Catherine Ashton’s High Representative term regarding the appointments for her fellow British citizens. Nevertheless, it is difficult to determine the actual causes of this phenomenon. It might be that there was a natural increase in interest in EEAS career in the countries of incumbent High Representatives. Staff number should not be the only variable to compare the level of representation of specific national groups. The prominence of the AD positions held should also be taken into account, as they may balance the relatively low number of nationals of a country to its population potential. For example, since the inauguration of the EEAS, Germans - who are highly underrepresented - have gained several key posts at He adquarters (including a representative on the Corporate Board) and the highest number of Heads of Delegations in the EU’s strategic partner countries. − Multiple appointments of citizens of certain EU Member States for the Head of Delegation post in countries with special links to the country, the nominee represents is a peculiar example of disproportion among AD staff. For example, in 2011–2019, 40% of Heads of Delegations in Latin America were Spanish nationals. This pattern likely results from the natural advantage of countries that have robust human resources with knowledge and experience in cooperating with a specific partner. From the EEAS’s perspective, selection of these individuals may be seen as an effective way to develop the EU’s relations with that host country. This phenomenon prompts the question, however, whether it would be in the EEAS’s interest to ensure greater diversification of these appointments by selecting individuals outside the same cultural circle as the one of the host country. This might be the way to enhance the EEAS’s legitimacy as a common EU institution built with the involvement of all Member States, and to increase interest in the appointee’s home country in less-explored areas and regions. Increasing the share of women among AD staff - in particular in senior management - remains a major challenge for the EEAS. Men hold a vast majority of the director posts in Headquarters. Two women High Representatives and one woman in the top EEAS management, i.e., the Corporate Board, were only the exceptions that proved the rule. The process of increasing the share of women has been slow. Ashton had to deal with the fact that the officials transferred to the newly created EEAS from the European Commission (Commission) and the Council of the European Union (Council) were mostly men, a reflection of the gender structure of their previous institutions. A gradual improvement in gender balance indicators became more evident during Mogherini’s term. In 2012-2019, the share of women in the AD category increased from 29% to 35%, while in senior management, from 10% to 26%. In 2018, Poland ranked sixth on the list of countries with the highest number of citizens among AD staff and had one of the highest levels of representation of national diplomats in this group. However, considering Poland’s population potential, since 2011 Polish citizens have been among the most underrepresented populations in the AD category, including in management posts. In 2011–2019, only one Polish national was appointed to one of the top EEAS management posts, i.e., Deputy Secretary-General, and Poland ranked eighth as regards the total number of appointments at the director level and higher in EEAS Headquarters. Although the number of Polish nationals appointed as Heads of Delegation was relatively low compared with other states with a similar population potential, two such appointments concerned EU Delegations for the Union’s strategic partners. The way in which the EEAS implements appointment principles does not conclusively explain the national and the gender structure of its AD staff. The examples of disproportion identified in the research trigger questions that go beyond the scope of this report and publicly available sources. First, how effective are the mechanisms the EEAS uses to eliminate staff structure imbalances and prevent them from deepening? Second, to what extent has the above-average increase of selected national groups resulted from limited interest or lower skills of candidates from other states - those underrepresented in particular? It would be useful to find out how EU Member State policies have influenced EEAS AD staff composition. For example, how effective were the national models to prepare and promote their candidates to the EEAS (including behind-the-scenes lobbying activity) and what was actual level of interest in a career in EU diplomacy among the individuals themselves. The EEAS’s development has been accompanied by an increase in the scope of publicly available staff data. The EEAS’s Human Resources Annual Reports (hereinafter: EEAS HR Report) are the main source of data on the AD category, however, the modifications introduced in the most recent editions hinder the analysis of changes in the administrative personnel. In the HR Report 2019 - published in July 2020 - most statistics are presented as figures that do not contain exact numbers, and only some detailed statistics are available in the text. Consequently, data for 2019 could be included in this publication only in some figures showing multi-annual staff changes. That is why adequate data transparency and comparability over time should be ensured by the EEAS. The Service might consider expanding its HR Reports to include general statistics regarding its recruitment processes. Comparison of the number of candidates from specific EU Member States could, for example, help to assess the level of their citizens’ interest in pursuing a career in EU diplomacy and to explain the obstacles EEAS has faced in increasing the level of representation of these national groups.

• Details
• Contents