EIPA trend: More emphasis on smaller and newer Member States

The National Institute of Public Administration and the European Institute of Public Administration (EIPA) jointly organised the meeting of the EIPA Board of Governors, on 6-7 June 2011, in the context of the Hungarian EU Presidency. During the two-day meeting, the exclusive guests discussed the most important recent matters and current issues of the first half of 2011. Henning Christophersen, the Chairman of the EIPA Board of Governors gave an interview for the official website of the government.

Hungary has nearly completed its six-month EU Presidency period. EIPA has considerably contributed to the preparation of the Hungarian Presidency by delivering tailor-made trainings. Which of these turned out to be the most useful for the performance of the Hungarian Presidency staff?

EIPA organised trainings and seminars in order to help Hungarian officials to understand the rules of the game. We taught them how to chair meetings, how to draw conclusions, how to make compromises. We also taught them that if a country holds the Presidency, this does not mean that you can decide everything yourself. On the contrary, you have to be extremely helpful to other Member States. Learning about these processes is a very good experience for all staff members who are involved, because in this way they come to understand the problems that can exist during for example the chairing of a meeting. Moreover, it is also helpful for the forthcoming Presidency countries, since for those countries the experience can change their attitude towards Presidency tasks, the amount of work and the assumed responsibilities.
Photo: Csaba Pelsőczy

What do you consider the most successful aspect in the performance of the Hungarian Presidency staff?

For a country which is holding the Presidency for the first time – there is always an ambition to be seen as professional managers of all kinds of EU council meetings and board meetings during the six months.
What I saw here is that Hungary has been very successful in doing that. That is good for the future, because the country will be seen as a competent member in following the rules of the game, as well as in terms of providing satisfactory assistance for the largest and smallest of meetings.
The European Union is a big machine which is trying to keep going. I have been working in EU affairs as a minister, commissioner and an adviser since 1978, so I have witnessed many Presidencies. In my opinion, you can be satisfied with what you have been doing and I hope that EIPA, and perhaps I too, made a small contribution to that success.

What is the most important current issue that the Board of Governors (BoG) discussed during these two days in Budapest?

We had a long discussion about our determination to put more emphasis on the individual member countries in terms of implementation.

How it is different compared to earlier practice?

In the future, we will nominate certain people in EIPA to be country managers. They will be responsible for perhaps 2-3 Member States by analysing their needs. We plan to set up this structure because there are a variety of different needs in the 27 member countries. Bigger Member States can fulfil many projects themselves, but smaller countries need more support as well as the benefit of the experience of others. There is also a difference between the old and new Member States; we also have to take that into consideration. Older members can demonstrate their good practices to the newer members.
The introduction of the planned country manager positions is very much welcomed by the Board of Governors from all Member States. The system which we are trying to set up is a little bit like what the European Commission is also trying to do. The Commission also recognised that it has to take into account that different Member States have different needs and competences. In some countries for example, more emphasis should be put on education and health issues; in others it should be environment and legislation.

Considering the regions of Central and Eastern Europe, what do you consider the major challenges that could be managed by strategic training activities?

I still believe that there are parts of EU legislation which have to be implemented in the new Member States. It is not a process that can be accomplished within a few weeks or months – it is a very complex and sometimes difficult operation. I, myself, was involved when my country, Denmark, joined the EU together with the UK and Ireland in 1973. It took 5-7 years before we could say that now we believe things are in place. Then Portugal, Spain and Greece joined and it also took 7 years for them. It is the same experience here in Hungary and other CEE countries as well.

For example, an issue for a newer Member State is that it should understand that many of the pieces of legislation must be implemented locally. Public administration deals with public procurement rules, environmental programmes, legislation and many more issues – the implementation of these projects cannot simply be done by a few people in the capital.
You must involve hundreds, sometimes thousands of people in municipalities and local regional administrations to get them to understand the rules and implement the rules. This priority is also the same in Hungary; it is important to involve local and regional authorities as well and get them to feel that they also have responsibilities – they must not only wait for instructions from Budapest.

(Dorottya Vannai, Ministry of Public Administration and Justice)