The EU’s attention to fragility: Priority or afterthought?

#
Laura Heaton / Enough Project via Flickr – CC BY-NC-ND 2.0

Authors

On 6 November, the European Parliament will hold hearings to assess the suitability of 
Jozef Síkela, commissioner-designate for international partnerships, and Hadja Lahbib, commissioner-designate for preparedness and crisis management, and equality. According to the mission letters of European Commission president Ursula von der Leyen, both commissioners-designate will be responsible for addressing fragile, crisis- and conflict-affected environments – alongside a broad range of other tasks. 

But to what extent will they prioritise attention to fragile areas during their term, given the institutional instruments and budgets at their disposal? And what role will Kaja Kallas, who is set to become the EU’s next foreign policy chief and European Commission vice-president, play in this? The recently published written answers of the commissioners-designate ahead of their respective Parliament hearings offer a glimpse behind the curtain. 

% Complete

    Growing concerns among those dealing with fragility


    Organisations whose work is impacted by the EU’s external action in fragile, crisis- and conflict-affected environments awaited the mission letters, published on 17 September, with great interest. Even before their publication, policy analysts, practitioners and EU officials dealing with such contexts shared their concerns and recommendations on how much priority the new Commission would and should give to fragile areas. Back in 2022, the OECD identified a record high of 60 fragile contexts across the globe, including 15 classified as extremely fragile. Since then, rising levels of conflict, along with global and economic turmoil, have persisted, increasing the urgency to engage effectively in fragile contexts.

    Concerns about the EU’s engagement in fragile settings have steadily increased since the introduction of the Commission’s Global Gateway strategy in December 2021. The Global Gateway has emerged as the EU’s strategic offer to its partners, serving as a global investment strategy focused on infrastructure projects and human development in emerging markets and developing economies across the transport, digital, green energy, health and education sectors.

    Concerns about the EU’s engagement in fragile settings have steadily increased since the introduction of the Commission’s Global Gateway strategy in December 2021.

    As we highlighted before, the strategy is only marginally suitable for highly fragile and conflict-affected countries – which is increasingly recognised by EU member states and officials dealing with these countries, but also by Jozef Síkela. Investments require stability, security and ‘good enough’ governance, along with calculable risks and predictability. Managing risks in fragile contexts comes at a – possibly too – high price, because development funding must be used to ‘de-risk’ investments, thereby taking the responsibility of financial risk management.

    What the briefings, mission letters and written answers tell us… 


    A few documents offer an idea of what to expect from the incoming Commission. The ‘briefing book’ for the new international partnerships commissioner, leaked by POLITICO in April 2024, underlined that the Global Gateway is here to stay and will continue to guide the framing and direction of the EU’s international cooperation.

    While fragile areas are mentioned sparingly in the leaked document, they re-emerged in Jozef Síkela’s mission letter. Point 13 of a 15-point task list stipulates that he should “support a differentiated approach with regard to Least Developed Countries by focusing more effectively on their specific vulnerabilities and to conflict areas, fragile countries, and other complex settings”. The letter also instructs him to play a leading role in strengthening the EU’s partnership with Africa, the continent with the highest number of fragile countries in the world.

    In his written answers to questions from the European Parliament ahead of his confirmation hearing, Síkela addressed some concerns about engagement in fragile settings, particularly the risk of disengaging and the need to tailor responses to the situation of each specific country. Encouragingly, his proposal includes further promoting the humanitarian-development-peace nexus, as well as economic development, support to local governance and conflict prevention. However, his written responses make no reference to playing an active role in developing a Commission-wide approach or strategy on fragility, or a possible collaboration with the crisis response commissioner.

    As fragile areas often require humanitarian assistance, it is no surprise that Hadja Lahbib’s mission letter instructs her to “work with other Members of College on a Commission-wide integrated approach to fragility, ensuring that humanitarian, development, peace and other policies all work together to better link urgent relief and longer-term solutions”.

    This clear reference to the humanitarian-development-peace nexus, an EU policy adopted in 2017, suggests that it is seen as crucial for effective engagement in fragile areas, despite the many challenges – alongside the opportunities – that its implementation presents. Lahbib’s written answers provide additional information on a Commission-wide integrated approach to fragility: it would entail joint analysis, as well as a response strategy and monitoring mechanisms formulated in close collaboration with the foreign policy chief and international partnerships commissioner.

    … and what we don’t know yet


    However, the mission letters, leaked briefing book and responses to the European Parliament raise several strategic and institutional issues, including issues related to funding instruments and the implementation of a ‘differentiated’ and ‘integrated’ approach in fragile settings. 

    First, who has the leverage and will take the lead on developing a Commission-wide integrated approach on fragility? Will it be DG ECHO (supporting Hadja Lahbib), despite its traditional humanitarian mandate which does not encompass development, resilience promotion and peacebuilding; issues that often have a political component? 

    Who has the leverage and will take the lead on developing a Commission-wide integrated approach on fragility?

    Or should it be DG INTPA (supporting Jozef Síkela), which has begun testing the ‘Global Gateway 360-degree approach’ to potentially link the humanitarian-development-peace nexus to Global Gateway initiatives and provide support to building ‘enabling environments’ in fragile countries? But while Jozef Síkela referred to the 360-degree approach in his written response to the Parliament – though not specifically linking it to fragile contexts – there are no guiding documents on how to operationalise the concept launched in February this year. 

    The role that Kaja Kallas will play in this is not clear either. In her written responses to the Parliament, she only refers to supporting a ‘differentiated approach’ for a broad group of countries, including “Least Developed Countries, fragile or conflict-torn countries, and other complex settings”. 

    As such, the mission letters and replies of the commissioners-designate lack coherence with regards to the task of shaping a Commission-wide approach, which raises concerns about its implementation by the full College of Commissioners. A coherent approach is particularly important in fragile settings, where needs go beyond immediate humanitarian aid and require dedicated, long-term development and peacebuilding efforts that align with the humanitarian-development-peace nexus.

    Second, who will have a say over the valuable but limited funding available to implement this Commission-wide approach? Within the set-up of the EU’s external financing instruments, most money is embedded in the geographic pillar of the EU’s Neighbourhood, Development and International Cooperation Instrument – Global Europe (NDICI-Global Europe) for the remainder of the EU’s current seven-year budget. Additional funding, though significantly lower, is available for peacebuilding, conflict prevention and emergency response through the thematic and rapid response pillars of NDICI-Global Europe, managed by the European Commission Service for Foreign Policy Instruments.

    The rapid response pillar also allocates some funding to resilience and the humanitarian-development-peace nexus with spending responsibilities split between DG INTPA and DG NEAR. It is not clear to what extent DG NEAR (for the EU’s Eastern Neighbourhood) or the new DG for the Mediterranean (for the Southern Neighbourhood) can access these funds for the remainder of the current seven-year budget. DG ECHO, which manages the Humanitarian Aid Fund – an instrument separate from NDICI-Global Europe – will have no access to any additional funding. It remains unclear how it should finance additional engagements related to the humanitarian-development-peace nexus beyond the existing humanitarian funding.

    The time is now


    As always, the devil is in the details. Practitioners and experts in Brussels and beyond are seeking clear answers to these questions, and call for a well-defined strategic and operational approach on how to deal with fragile areas, including long-term solutions. The EU’s performance in addressing fragile contexts requires improvement, as evidenced by the European Court of Auditors’ recent report on the EU Emergency Trust Fund for Africa. Moreover, institutional fragmentation needs to be overcome and collaboration with EU member states should be actively promoted.

    Soon after the (expected) confirmation of Jozef Síkela and Hadja Lahbib, strategic discussions on the next seven-year budget (2028-2034) and its financial instruments will accelerate and build momentum to ensure focus on fragile settings. Given the increasing fragility, crises and conflict in the EU’s immediate and extended neighbourhood – which also pose a threat to European economic security – the questions we posed need to be addressed from a long-term perspective and cannot be put on the backburner.

    The views are those of the authors and not necessarily those of ECDPM.

    Explore our series 'To the new leaders of Europe'

    Loading Conversation