If the Union for the Mediterranean (UfM) is leaning on the Barcelona Process, it is because this new political entity’s role within the institutional structure of the European Union remains to be defined. This eminently political problem is directly linked to the question of funding.

Launched in July 2008 under the French EU Presidency, the creation of the UfM differs radically from the Euromed partnership because it is not a policy of the EU for the Mediterranean, but an intergovernmental ‘association’ uniting 44 states and whose ultimate objective is to establish a balance between the North and South shores by putting in place five practical and consensual projects.

This ambitious project nonetheless is having trouble getting off the ground. If the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the depressing economic outlook and the fragmentation of South-shore countries do not provide enough potential stumbling blocks, then its relationship with the existing instruments, such as the Barcelona Process of 1995 and 2004’s European Neighbourhood Policy also cause problems for its effective operation.

Clarification is therefore required in order to exclude any possibility of competition between the different instruments. “Instead of talking about how to make certain things work, we must ask ourselves why are we working together with the UfM,” asked Leonello Gabrici, the Commission’s head of unit for Euromed and regional issues, at a conference at the European Parliament, on 19 November.

This is a question that undeniably depends upon the UfM’s political orientation. Either the UfM takes refuge in an economic and territorial integration, and as a result does not include all of the countries of the Mediterranean’s perimeter, or its political vocation is more Euro-Mediterranean in line with the idea behind the July 2008 declaration. In that case, the compatibility between the UfM and the neighbourhood policy would not be contradictory but complementary, says Gabrici.

CONVERGENCE

He claims, on behalf of the Commission, that there should be a convergence between a Community political dialogue and intergovernmental projects that could be based anywhere.

But while the Commission is positive about this choice, notably because of its tendency to want to keep the upper hand with partner countries of the Mediterranean, it must nonetheless “wait for the Council to settle the dialogue with the Southern partners,” Gabrici explained. He added that the South-shore countries also had the responsibility to decide for themselves how to get the maximum added value from the Community and “personally, I believe that the best possible relations with the EU must be of interest to the people of the South”.

While using the term ‘flexible’, the Commission nonetheless warns that “the Community budget is for the Community. If the initiative is for the Community, the budget is spent according to Community rules and there will be no budgetary kidnapping”. So there will be no single purse and for Richard Weber, director-general of the EuropAid Cooperation Office, “the funding system brings us back once again to the political will”. Outside the EU budget, public financing systems must also be mobilised for “viable, fundable projects that are supported by all the partners”.  In establishing the Facility for Euro-Mediterranean Investment and Partnership (FEMIP) in 2002, the financing instrument dedicated to the development of Mediterranean partner countries, the European Investment Bank intends to “spend financial resources according to the stakes,” said Claudio Cortese, director of the IEB’s Department of Neighbour and Partner Countries. More than €10 billion were allocated to different projects, the main three being the solar plan, the clean-up programme for Mediterranean pollution and aid to small and medium-sized enterprises. Aiming to attract capital, this last project “is the key to success,” explains Olivier de Saint-Lager, programme manager of the EuropeAid Cooperation Office, adding that it would be a great shame not to make the most of this significant potential.