Brussels, 13/03/2008 (Agence Europe) - The European Commission, which has not opposed the French project that has become, under pressure from the German chancellor, a “Union for the Mediterranean” (UFM), shows the perplexity it is feeling. It has launched an internal study on the real content of the project, to which its services in various sectors have contributed. One of the first observations made is that there is considerable overlap between what is now a Franco-German project and what already exists, under the “Barcelona process” in particular. The European Commission will also have to determine how its representative will be designated given that a place has been attributed to such a representative as a matter of course within the structures of the UFM.
The study also notes that one of the concerns expressed by its services, in tune with several member states, is that the UFM is not “alongside but within” European Union external policy. In Rome, in December 2007, France, Italy and Spain affirmed their wish to incorporate the initiative in the context of Europe. EU structures have now been assured that they can take part in the organisation of the July “summit” - but it will be necessary to ensure that this is done in a balanced manner and that the non-Mediterranean member states also have their word to say.
The study notes that the projects proposed reflect a “concern regarding the institutionalisation and perpetuation of existing policies, initiatives or networks”. There is the risk, however, of duplication, as the projects concern “areas which are partially or completely covered by the EuroMed partnership and/or by the European neighbourhood policy (ENP)”. One can also see not overlapping but a “strong potential for synergies between projects recommended in the context of the UFM and those financed in the context of the Barcelona process and the ENP”. Nonetheless, according to the European Commission, there is “the danger of developing parallel activities, already covered by existing cooperation frameworks”. Such synergy would, however, be desirable in areas where the current partnership has not proven its effectiveness (health, fight against drugs, etc). Synergies are also possible “where proposals made by France are the achievement of existing initiatives”, as is the case for “sustainable development, cooperation between SMEs or the strengthening of cooperation in the important field of civil protection”. The EuroMed partnership had lacked means or felt the impact of low political will. As a whole, overlapping would be manifest in more targeted sectors such as the proposal for an agency for transport that “seems to ignore the fact that a cooperation centre for transport already groups the countries of the Western Mediterranean”. In the same way, the idea of creating an economic cooperation centre would be “duplication with the FEMISE network”, which is not only already in existence but also effective. The proposal of a professional training centre would be a copy of the European vocational training agency, which is responsible for international cooperation in this area.
In its conclusion, the Commission naturally welcomes the initiative as it “is the expression of the growing interest towards the Mediterranean region and the challenges that this represents for Europe”. It “nonetheless stresses the need to involve the EU and its member states, and to safeguard the existing cooperation achievements and frameworks: European neighbourhood policy and the Euro-Mediterranean partnership”. (F.B.)