Brussels - Immersing in one of the world's most influential hubs for policy debate, participants from the Executive Master in International Negotiation and Policy-Making (INP) conducted visits in the heart of the European Union (EU). Meetings included private sessions with with representatives at the European Parliament, with civil servants of the EU Commission and the Council--as well as with the external actors, from Permanent Representatives to lobbyists, who engage at various levels of the EU policy processes.
Few places in the world rival the complexity of negotiations held at the headquarters of the European Union. Our Executive Master INP course instructor, Robert Weibel--who has extensive experience in training negotiators in the Brussels context--organised a 2-day programme, including seven visits. Collectively, they showcased the EU's unique governance structure, which is ultimately designed to incentivise actors toward consensus-building in the policy-making process.
The visits began with a session hosted by Business Europe, a leading advocate for growth and competitiveness, which campaigns and lobbies on the issues that impact industry and private companies. The organisation, comprised of national business federations, aspires to find common ground that promotes the best policies for advancing business across the EU. However, "finding agreements can be tremendously challenging, given that each member state has its own legislative agenda," stated our programme host at Business Europe. "Even if intention is to harmonise, there can be a perception from individual member states that a particular piece of legislation is encroaching on one's competitive advantage." She went on to explain that before releasing a position paper that represents their membership, Business Europe needs to conduct thorough negotiations with its members--as well as with external constituencies (including trade unions, etc)--to come to a constructive, balanced understanding on an issue. Once its position has been released, it is more difficult to change during the lobbying process. Its negotiations, therefore, are often informal, conducted behind the scenes and well in advance of direct public engagements or official statements.
This kind of interplay between informal and formal negotiations was a resonating theme among the various presenters whom the group met, demonstrating the many layers of negotiation that typically precede the formal negotiations. To put this into practice while in Brussels, the INP cohort conducted a training which simulated a series of video-recorded negotiations, where individuals were assigned a profile, each describing a unique set of negotiations objectives. Participants were required to negotiate through a series of informal-to-formal dialogues, with the latter held according to the official EU rules of procedure. This exercise, designed to highlight the need for constant collaboration, negotiation and consensus-building, teaches the behaviors and negotiation strategies and tactics required for succeeding in such a context like the EU. Used as a teaching tool, critical moments of the recorded simulation are then replayed, for debriefing and coaching (featured in photo, above).
While there may be mechanisms in the structure of the EU to foster consensus-building, other visits in Brussels highlighted some of the ongoing challenges of the EU system, frequently critiqued for its slow response and inefficiency during times of crisis. At the European Commission, for example, the group learned from the Chief of Staff of a Commissioner about how politics can often trump key initiatives proposed by the Commission in its attempt to prevent crises, since such initiatives can be perceived to encroach on the sovereignty (or the national competitiveness) of a particular member state.
One example cited was the EU's recent response to a destructive bacteria that has been rapidly spreading among the olive trees in Italy--which may soon threaten beyond, into other neighboring Mediterranean countries--for which the Commission proposed harsh and costly regulations to Italy. However, these measures would need to be ratified by a qualified majority in the Parliament to take effect, and Italy has enough influence to slow down or to stop that process, with a preference for resolving the issue at the national level. (In a similar way, the ongoing negotiations in Brussels about GMOs may ultimately include, due to political influence, an "opt-out" clause for individual member states--thus weakening the overall impact of the proposed directive).
Similar challenges are faced by the European Union when it comes to speaking with "one voice" on security matters. The group visited with the European External Action Service (EEAS), an entity only five years in existence. Led by the Vice President of the EU Commission (an elected official through a qualified majority of the EU Council), the EEAS aspires to represent EU on particular files of foreign policy negotiations--including during recent negotiations on Iran and Ukraine, for example. Hosted by a member of the crisis group (part of the Security Policy and Conflict Prevention Directorate), our Executive Masters learned about the EU's aspirations to build early warning systems for identifying potential areas of violent conflict--and about the delicate balance required in order to put an early response system into place. Here as well, before hosting formal meetings, informal diplomatic influence is sought in order to build alignment of policy--so that on EU security matters, the EEAS official meetings held at the highest level are often rather scripted, after careful negotiations are conducted in advance.
Parallel challenges were also raised during the group's visit to the European Parliament, where an MEP from the Netherlands shared how that entity faces challenges related to "shared sovereignty" when negotiating on files where regional interests or issues of national competitiveness come to the forefront. During the session, the process of "Codecision" was demystified for the group--taking the class from the obscure, highly complex and rather technical process to the more practical terms of "how things get done". It was explained how the EU governance structure has "built-in" incentives which ultimately encourage collaboration, like the rotation of the EU Presidency each six months, for example.
The group's host at the Parliament described the EU system as designed for building "'a culture of compromise', versus a 'winner-takes-all' approach" (referring to the congressional party system in the US). This visit with Parliament, perhaps more than the others, left the participants with an optimistic feeling about the capacity of the EU system for managing its own complexities to the benefit of European citizens.
A final visit of the day took place at Justus Lipsius, the building of the Council of the EU, where the Head of Unit (Employment and Social Affairs) shared the process for maintaining stability of governance when there is a constant rotation of Presidencies of the Council each six months. One of the responsibilities she and her team carry in their work is to prepare each of the incoming administrations for executing the Office at their best, and her division provides a sense of continuity for the system which is, by design, frequently in leadership transition.
These INP engagements in Brussels were just one set among several, organised as part of the learning journey that participants take (ref. INP Visit to the Human Rights Council, March 2015).
The Executive Master in International Negotiation and Policy-Making (INP), designed for mid-career and senior leaders from across sectors (from both Geneva and beyond). Admissions for its Fall 2015 intake are now open, through 1st of June 2015 (and on a space-available basis, thereafter).
Learn more on the INP Programme website.