May 28, 2008
National pride at stake in Brussels
A big and rather heavy parcel arrived in the Brussels office last week.
It contained three weighty tomes - including Norman Davies’ 1,365 page work ”Europe a History.” Also in the box were three discs, two large, glossy picture books and two brochures - all linked to the western Polish city of Wroclaw.
The package came from Poland and promotes the city, which is vying to host a new EU agency - the European Institute of Technology.
Evidently, national pride and political prestige is at stake when choosing the location of new EU bodies (countries are due to decide on the EIT this week).
If a country secures an EU agency, politicians can tell voters that they won something for them in Brussels. This is even though the EIT concept has been much watered down, under pressure from big, rich member states such as the UK, and the headquarters will employ just 60 people.
Brussels hopes that the institute will turn more high-tech discoveries into money-spinning products and help Europe close the innovation gap with rivals such as the US and Japan.
Poland is competing with Spain, Hungary and an Austrian-Slovak alliance to house the EIT. The chosen area will hope to gain fresh investment, as well as boost its high-tech industry credentials.
All the candidates have lobbied in Brussels ( you wonder how many of these Polish packages have been sent). Barcelona’s bid gave ministers and diplomats an iPod with videos of its site.
The campaigning reminds me of a Finnish-Italian spat in late 2003 over the location of a new EU food safety agency. Here’s a teaser from the story that my colleagues wrote at the time…
Plans for the location of a dozen new European agencies have stalled, thanks to an epic tussle involving the merits of Parma ham.
Matti Vanhanen, Finnish prime minister, vowed this week to block a deal on the siting of the European Union bodies covering areas from satellites to police training - until he resolves a battle with Italy over a new food safety agency.
The dispute has become a question of national pride, with Mr Vanhanen insisting his country has the perfect facilities for the food agency.
But Silvio Berlusconi, Italian prime minister, has blocked the transfer of EU staff to Helsinki for almsot two years, claiming the agency should be based in Parma.
“The Finns don’t even know what prosciutto is, “Mr Berlusconi famously stormed at a summit in 2001.
Read more here.
Italy won the agency, by the way…
While bringing an Agency in, is considered an asset for EU Member States, Greece has treated poorly its own chance.
In 2005, the European Network and Information Security Agency (ENISA) was forced to be seated in remote Herakion on the island of Crete, Greece. ENISA is the only EU Agency located on an island.
The chosen location is marred with an array of shortcomings that include uneasy flight connections, poor international schooling facilities, poor health services and infrastructure. Decisions made can be attributed to a combination of local politics and bad planning.
The choice of seat impacts ENISA because of its role in networking and consensus building in the sensitive area of information security. Operating from a remote location increases costs and adds up to frustration of busy professionals that contact the Agency’s services. The seat has been openly criticised in several reports.
Greece should reconsider its approach to ENISA and have the Agency unconditionally relocated at a suitable hub such as Athens. Otherwise the EU should reconsider its approach towards Greece and redeploy the Agency in a more appropriate location.
Posted by: Leon Band | May 29th, 2008 at 9:43 am | Report this commentMember States feel at ease with the location chosen to seat Agencies awarded to them. In most cases choices are rational, on certain occasions though they leave much to desire.
Connectivity is a critical issue for the Agencies that have to be remain in touch with their customers in the Member States and central services in Brussels and Luxembourg.
There are examples of remote Agency locations in such placses as Alicante, Spain, Angers, France, Vigo, Spain. The most striking case is Heraklion, Greece, a location that is often physically cut off from the mainland by gusting winds blowing over the Med.
The Member States have to remain rational about choosing Agency locations. In Europe decentralisation occurs when a service is moved out of Brussels and into a Member State. Remaining centrally posititoned within that Member State is a critical matter for Agencies.
Remote locations pay little service to the EU’s ability to implement policies and it raises costs for the European taxpayer.
Posted by: D. Elega | May 29th, 2008 at 9:57 am | Report this commentMaybe the FT should investigaqte the process by which the location of US federal agencies is decided….Why was NASA’s space flight center located in Houston, for instance ? Why is the NIST located in Boulder, Colorado ? etc, etc….
Posted by: john somer | May 29th, 2008 at 11:16 am | Report this comment