#tradeXpresso Lungo: the true memoirs of a negotiator

Yes, I know I am too young to write my memoirs. But I felt inspired by the title of an amusing action movie that received mixed reviews . It is not because the International Procurement Instrument (IPI) - the topic of this #tradeXpresso Lungo - had triggered any mixed reviews throughout its ten year-long institutional marathon that recently ended with the IPI adoption by the Council and the European Parliament. Although, to be frank, IPI did trigger mixed feelings for some time. Which is also what prompted me to share some thoughts on the rather surprising and successful turn in a EU legislative file that for many years was seen as doomed to fail. So, in case procurement is not your cup of #tradeXpresso, relax. This is more a story about EU policymaking, the intricate negotiations between various actors in the EU legislative system over a decade and, ultimately, about leadership.

Before we start let me debunk quickly the acronym, in case you are interested. IPI is a new EU trade policy instrument that is aimed at providing a level playing field in international procurement. The EU public procurement market is one of the largest and most accessible in the world. However, many of the EU's major trading partners apply restrictive practices in their markets that discriminate against EU businesses. These restrictions affect competitive EU sectors such as construction, public transport, medical devices, power generation and pharmaceuticals. The IPI will now empower the EU to initiate investigations in cases of alleged barriers restrictions in third country procurement markets, engage in consultations with the country concerned on the opening of its procurement market and, if all attempts failed, reciprocate with proportionate restrictions in the EU procurement market vis-a-vis those countries.

Now that we got procurement out of the way, let’s focus on the importance of leadership, resilience and teamwork. For the IPI story is, above all, a story about the strengths and weaknesses of EU policymaking. Being deeply involved over the last two years in the negotiating process of the IPI adoption, I have realised how different sometimes reality is from theory. You may have taken some courses on EU integration at university. That’s good, since without them, you will have a hard time to understand the institutional differences between the European Commission, Parliament or Council. You may have read “Getting to Yes ” or taken some courses on international negotiations. That’s good, since without that, you might not appreciate the full complexity of negotiations between 27 Member States, the European Commission, the EU Presidency and, last but not least, the European Parliament.

Before we begin, I need a disclaimer. Like in movies based on reality, some details had to be changed and what follows is purely fiction. The characters portrayed in this #tradeXpresso Lungo are fictitious. No identification with actual persons, places, or buildings is intended or should be inferred. To which I need to add the usual institutional disclaimer: these are all personal views and do not represent the views or any official positions of any EU institution.

Ok, now we can begin the IPI story, which kicked off in 2012 with the first IPI legislative proposal. I don’t know what you remember from 2012. But I remember the release of the “Gangnam Style”. Who doesn’t? I also remember the London Olympics. Not so much for the procurement overspending that happens sometimes in the preparation of major sport events, but more for the resilience and excellent performances of some athletes, including the Olympic record for women’s marathon. Unlike Tiki Gelana, the Olympic marathon winner, the IPI legislative file did not cross the finish line during the London Olympics. Over time people realised that IPI might break the record for the longest EU legislative marathon. Then came 2016, the year of the second attempt by the European Commission to push a revised IPI proposal over the finish line, after four years of difficult discussions in the Council, with many Member States reluctant to endorse the new instrument. 2016 was also the year of the Rio Olympics, of course. There were many outstanding performances in Rio, but one that got unnoticed was the excellent performance of sustainable procurement using resilient supply chains: during the Rio Olympics, Brazil procured an estimated 30 million products with a procurement budget over $2 billion.

Alas, the IPI did not cross the finish line during the 2016 Rio Olympics either. It started to feel for some of the EU officials in charge of this initiative that this may be a lost cause. Some of the people responsible for the IPI file decided to move on. But not everyone. And here comes the first reality lesson for successful EU policymaking: the role of agenda setting and leadership. The IPI file would not have survived without continuity and strong personal leadership in one of the three EU institutions. This strong personal commitment also ensured that the file remained on the EU political agenda, given the growing tendency towards more protectionism in international public procurement .

The Council has a built-in rotational process in its leadership, and the fate of IPI depended on the political will of the rotating presidency to have it as part of key policy deliverables. That was not always the case, and this partly explains why the IPI adoption took so long. In hindsight, the IPI file clearly confirmed the textbook theory about the crucial role of persistence, attention to facts and details, and creativity that several key persons clearly possessed during the long and tortuous IPI negotiations between EU institutions. Whether a seasoned diplomat, a negotiator or an athlete, these are all traits that bring you over the finish line.

These key personalities and their strong leadership over the years finally led to success. But let’s not forget also the hard work. By my count, the IPI file consumed over 2 million hours of work between all the EU officials involved, over the last decade. This is less than the 140 million hours the rest of the planet spent watching the “Gangnam Style ” video on Youtube, although it is doubtful whether that time was well spent. In contrast, working on IPI was clearly worth it. And that includes the few celebratory moments at the end of the IPI saga, when some of those dance moves might have been inadvertently replicated by happy IPI negotiators. Anyway, if you managed to finish reading this long and dry IPI story (which I tried to make it short), you can take a well-deserved break, and click on the link above to add to those 140 million hours…