The Looming Closure of European Union Delegations (EUDs): Impacts and Implications

Recent reports reveal that the European Union is considering closing approximately 100 EUDs-) worldwide, alongside a significant reduction of its development offices. According to Euronews, this move reflects a shift in strategy, driven by budgetary constraints and geopolitical recalibrations. Approximately 80 development offices are set to close, reflecting a broader restructuring aimed at aligning with the EU’s financial priorities and strategic agenda.

The immediate fallout of these closures is alarming. On the one hand, these closures risk severing critical connections with countries that supply essential raw materials, undermining the EU’s strategic autonomy in sectors dependent on these imports, while allowing other forces to capitalise on local sympathies. On the other hand,  local staff, such as guards, administrative assistants, and externalised personnel, face imminent unemployment, further exposing the fragile employment dynamics surrounding EU operations. These measures reveal a systemic issue: the institutionalisation of precariousness and lack of strategic thinking across the EU civil service. The roots of this phenomenon are evident in the historical trajectory of EUDs and the broader practices of the EU’s external action.

EU Agencies and the Rise of the “Third Way”

As EUDs evolved, EU agencies emerged to fulfil specific policy mandates, often relying heavily on non-permanent staff. While these agencies contributed to specialised policymaking, their staffing practices mirrored the precariousness trend, increasingly favouring short-term contracts over permanent roles. They also embed the dual workforce expressed above.

Technical Assistance and Executive Agencies

The 1990s saw a reliance on Technical Assistance Bureaus, some of which were later replaced by Executive Agencies. These entities, focal in implementing EU-funded programs, employed external consultants and contractors. By the late 1990s, consultants were paid approximately 4,000 ECUs (European currency unit) monthly, highlighting a growing reliance on external expertise. This model allowed the EU to meet operational demands without increasing permanent positions but created a precarious workforce dependent on private contractors.

The Risks of Contract Agents

Contract agents became a cost-efficient solution for staffing flexibility, but their role introduced significant risks:

1. Security Concerns: Former CAs often transition to external entities with sensitive institutional knowledge, posing risks to EU integrity.
2. Loss of Expertise: Institutions invest in training CAs, only to lose them to external organisations, resulting in wasted resources and diminished institutional capacity.

Global Gateway and Its Flawed Premises

The EU’s strategic shift towards the “Global Gateway” mirrors the precariousness trends but introduces additional complexities. Unlike development cooperation that emphasises poverty reduction and international solidarity, the Global Gateway emphasises supporting the private sector with public funds. This paradigm risks:

• Amplifying inequality: In beneficiary countries, only those aligned with the private sector may benefit, widening social disparities.
• Weakening EU credibility: By prioritising corporate interests over development, the EU risks alienating partner countries and undermining its global influence.

This shift also moves away from the principles that historically guided EU cooperation, replacing partnerships with transactional relationships.

The Rise Of A Fourth Way?

Amid ongoing geopolitical challenges and the shaping of the post-2027 Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF), European institutions find themselves grappling with issues that could further erode the stability of an already weakened civil service. These discussions, including early discussions on new staff regulations, risk accelerating troubling patterns within the EU civil service. One begs to question, if we are standing at the precipice of a new phase of the precariousness of the EU civil service. Below, we explore these trends and their implications for the workforce.

Increasing number of temporary contracts

One of the most alarming trends is the rising prevalence of temporary contracts across EU institutions. Some of the examples listed below are the evidence that this is becoming an alarming trend.

Currently, 30% of Eurostat’s workforce is employed on temporary contracts (temporary agents and contract agents), highlighting a systemic issue. In many European Commission services, temporary contracts are often terminated before the six-year limit. This happens by a combination of claims that the position is no longer necessary and an increase in negative probation period reporting. The European Parliament and the Court of Justice are also seeing a marked rise in reliance on temporary contracts. In the Commission, the percentage of Temporary Agents has doubled since January 2022, at the expense of Officials.

Mobility and Career Challenges

The EU civil service is facing significant barriers to mobility and career advancement:

For staff in EU agencies, mobility between agencies is often the only avenue for career progression. However, each move requires a new contract, creating additional insecurity. A This is something that also affects the Commission. At the Joint Research Centre (JRC), internal mobility can also come with a removal from country for the staff member and their family. Particularly, increasing internal mobility can act as a tool to lead to the closure of smaller sites. While the risk has not been seen at EU agencies level, probably due to the absolute lack of real mobility for Temporary Agents and Contract agents. Finally, the recent decisions concerning the EUDs take the shape of a very visible writing on the wall.

Outsourcing and Inequality

The outsourcing of tasks has widened the disparity between different types of contracts, further complicating career development.

This is particularly toxic when the outsourcing is done as a means to avoid hiring replacement staff, or even worse, the growing trend of outsourcing to former CAs. These former colleagues become service providers, doing the same tasks with less accountability and under worsened contractual conditions.

Probation and Job Security

Probation rules and temporary employment limits are being applied stringently, adding to job insecurity:

Strict Probation Practices: Particularly in workplaces like Luxembourg, probationary periods are being used as a tool for dismissals, compounding instability for new hires.

Expansion of Temporary Positions: Despite staff regulations limiting the use of temporary agents in institutions proper to 3% of the establishment plan, this ceiling is widely disregarded in the European Commission. Temporary and contract agents now form a significant proportion of the workforce, with employment typically capped at seven years (the 6 years rules for contract agents can be complemented by one extra year as temporary agent).

Working Conditions and Health Concerns

The precariousness of work has also led to troubling working conditions:

Health Impacts: Stress and pressure to adopt  unsafe work practices in several institutions caused some side effects, including burnout or cancer.

Toxic Work Environments: Agencies, often described as “golden cages,” are notorious for fostering unhealthy workplaces.

Structural and Systemic Issues

The current system which perpetuates instability through structural inefficiencies, can be seen as a Legacy of the 2004 Kinnock Reform. This reform introduced the contractual agents (CAs) job type. The untold underlying wish was to create a set of Institutions similar to the UN agencies with 85% of precarious jobs (with contracts without term).

Temporary agents (TAs) account for 30% of executive agencies, with 80% of positions filled by Contract Agents.

Officials, Temporary and Contract Agents – whether they work for Institutions, Agencies and other EU bodies – contribute to the same EU pension fund. As highlighted in reports of this fund, the sharp increase of temporary and contract agent positions, in particular in Agencies and Joint Undertakings, poses a risk to the balance of this pension system.

Union Efforts and Prevention

Unions are starting to address issues earlier, especially concerning probation and dismissals. They also voice the need to keep a permanent and independent civil service which should be made of a vast majority of Officials with undetermined duration contracts and job security

There are also regular calls for better measures to prevent illness and improve working conditions, particularly aimed at non-permanent staff who potentially suffer the most (incorrect behaviours, harassment, mobbing, etc)

The new “uber” civil service

A shift towards what some term the “Uberisation” of the civil service is evident:

Policy-Making Gig Work: Temporary agents increasingly resemble “Uber drivers of policy-making,” lacking long-term expert positions. The use of outsourced contracts is the latest hype in this shift.

Intra-Mural Inequality: Disparities between intra-mural staff (e.g., IT contractors, guards, and receptionists) and other contract types are growing, namely with the rise of the false “intra-muros”.

Per task Kleenex approach

The rise of agencies has led to a “per-task” approach to employment and precariousness. Agencies were established to execute specific tasks, with the assumption that once the task is completed, the budget line and workforce could be dissolved.

This “Kleenex” approach undermines workforce stability. The tasks given to the Institutions are carried out by the agencies despite the limited establishment plan (officials and temporary positions, the latter being initially limited to 3% of the total).

Lost human resource investment and high costs

Lost Investment: even if Agencies can offer undetermined term contracts, it is not automatic or systematic. In Institutions, the use of contracts and temporary agents is limited to a maximum 7 years. In all these situations, there is a significant and continuous public money investment that:

a) effectively generates diseconomies of scale (all agencies have their own administration and administrative costs);

b) invests in the training of people who either leave due to dissatisfaction or that reaching the time limit.

Spillover to the Private Sector: Surely a huge spill of public money. The human resource investment also eventually feeds external/private employers and lobbies, constituting a risk to the integrity of the Institutions.