# EUR-Lex - 52015JC0006 - EN

*|*

# 52015JC0006

**JOINT CONSULTATION PAPER Towards a new European Neighbourhood Policy /* JOIN/2015/0006 final */**

			*

			*

I.      Introduction.
A Special Relationship

We need a
stronger Europe when it comes to foreign policy. With countries in our
neighbourhood, we need to step up close cooperation, association and
partnership to further strengthen our economic and political ties.

Article 8(1) of
the Treaty on European Union states that "the
Union shall develop a special relationship with neighbouring countries, aiming
to establish an area of prosperity and good neighbourliness, founded on the
values of the Union and characterised by close and peaceful relations based on cooperation".

The European
Neighbourhood Policy (ENP) was designed in 2003 (Communication ‘Wider Europe’[1]) to
develop closer relations between the EU and its neighbouring countries
including by giving the opportunity of closer economic integration with the EU
and the prospect of increased access to the EU’s Internal Market. The plan was
for integration to be progressive, through the implementation of challenging
political, economic and institutional reforms, and a commitment to common
values.

Over the past
ten years, there have been significant political developments in the
neighbourhood. Today’s neighbourhood is less stable than it was ten years ago.
For example, in the East, growing challenges to a number of Eastern Partnership
countries, from the crisis in Georgia in 2008 to the on-going conflict in
Ukraine, have been caused by an increasingly assertive Russian foreign policy,
which has also resulted in exacerbating divisions between Russia and the EU. In
the South, Syria has been afflicted by civil war since 2011 which has had a
serious impact on its neighbours. Libya is currently a country in conflict.
Over the past three years, Egypt has also undergone complex political change.
Despite considerable efforts, the Middle East Peace Process is still stalled
and there have been several outbreaks of hostilities, including in 2014 in
Gaza. These events have served to increase the challenges faced by both the EU
and its partners, aggravating economic and social pressures, irregular
migration and refugee flows, security threats and leading to diverging
aspirations.

The ENP has
evolved over this period: the regional component has been strengthened as the
Barcelona Process evolved into the creation of the Union for the Mediterranean
in 2008 and the Eastern Partnership was launched in 2009. The content of the
policy has also significantly increased. Neighbouring countries now have the
prospect of Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Areas, as well as Mobility
Partnerships or a visa free regime. Some of these have already been concluded.
In addition, the ENP was reviewed in 2011[2] to design a
response to the events of the Arab Spring, during which popular uprisings and
ensuing consequences led to some progress, such as in Tunisia, but also to
wider instability and political tension. The transitions have been very
different in nature depending on the country.

The ENP has not
always been able to offer adequate responses to these recent developments, nor
to the changing aspirations of our partners. Therefore, the EU’s own interests
have not been fully served either.

Partners have
demonstrated increasing differences of engagement with the EU as a whole and in
relation to different policy sectors. The ENP has extended the EU’s influence
in some respects, but in a number of areas, the reform agenda has stalled, in
part due to competing interests, in part because not
all partners seem equally interested in a special partnership with the EU under
the model of pluralism and integration. The EU has also experienced a
major economic crisis in recent years, which
has inevitably had an impact on our neighbours.

Political
and economic reforms have a deep effect on societies and economies, as the EU’s
own experience has shown. Partners assess the benefits in the long term, but
also the costs that arise in the short term as a result of their relationship
with the EU under the ENP.

Our
neighbours’ strategic orientations determine the extent to which each of them
wishes to engage with different actors including the EU. Some
partners have chosen to engage on a path of closer association with the EU, and
the EU is ready to deepen its relations with them. Others prefer to follow a
different path. The EU respects these sovereign
choices and is ready to seek other forms of engagement.

Given all this,
there is now a clear need to review the assumptions on which the policy is
based, as well as its scope, and how instruments should be used, including how
different policy sectors can better contribute to cooperation, ensuring
linkages between internal and external priorities.  The purpose of such a
review is to ensure the ENP can, in the future, support more effectively the
development of an area of shared stability, security and prosperity with our
partners. It also has to explore whether the ‘special relationship’ is
reaching its full potential, and what can be done to strengthen it in the
interests of both the EU and its partners.

A clearer
analysis of the interests, both of the EU and its partners is needed to make
the ENP fit for purpose. On one hand, it is essential to consult partners on
their interests and ambitions for this partnership. On the other, the EU needs
to define more clearly its own aims and interests, while promoting the values
on which it is based.

The review needs
to answer the demands of partners with very different levels of ambition. Where
there is already full engagement and commitment to integration, the review
should consider how we can take forward and deepen our partnership. The EU
remains committed to ensuring that the full potential of each partnership is
reached, building on achievements to date.

Where partners
have shown less engagement, or none at all, the review of the ENP should
consider the reasons for this, and examine ways to fit better the aspirations
on both sides. Some partners currently outside the neighbourhood may be needed
to be more closely associated. It should also be considered how the EU should
best respond to crises and conflict situations, including protracted ones,
taking into account the sources of influence and pressure on our partners that
determine their political positions, including towards the EU.

In this regard,
an effective ENP needs to be closely integrated into an overall EU Foreign
Policy with a comprehensive approach using all instruments both of the EU and
of Member States.

It is in this
context that President Juncker decided that the ENP will be reviewed within the
first year of the new Commission’s mandate. EU Member States have also called for
a review, and have already made proposals. Partner countries have expressed the
need to revisit  the policy; as have external stakeholders, including civil
society organisations and social partners’ organisations.

In parallel the
Commission is refining the Enlargement policy, which remains distinct from the
ENP. In this context, President Juncker has stated in his Political Guidelines
that no further enlargement will take place over the next five years.

The aim of this
document is to frame the discussion for a thorough re-examination of the ENP.
In section II, we set out some preliminary findings in terms of lessons learned
from the ENP to date. In section III, we develop some suggested first elements
of response towards developing a stronger partnership and identify a number of
key questions for discussion with key partners and stakeholders. In section IV,
we summarise the next steps with regard to structuring public consultation. The
results of the consultation will contribute to a further Communication in the
autumn of 2015, setting out concrete proposals for the future direction of the
ENP.

II.    Lessons
Learned and Questions on the Future
Direction of ENP

This section
draws on the experience of ten years of implementation of the policy, as
reflected by regular and frequent contacts with EU Member States and ENP
partner countries and the current period of informal consultation, to which
many have already contributed.

Since 2004, the
ENP has provided a framework for the EU’s relations with its neighbouring countries,
enabling the EU Member States to reach consensus on greater engagement with
neighbours both to the East and to the South. The EU’s relations with
neighbourhood countries have significantly intensified through the ENP, as a
result of clear commitments spelled out by both sides in the ENP Action Plans.
The ENP has provided a way to respond to the partners’ own demands for greater
engagement with the Union. After 10 years, the partnerships with the neighbours
have a higher profile in EU affairs; the EU is the main trading partner for
most partner countries; passenger and migration flows between the ENP and EU
have been constantly on the rise. The EU has used the ENP to foster and
evaluate, on an annual basis, reform efforts in each country, in particular on
governance issues, on the basis of action plans agreed with the individual
partners.

However, some
shortcomings have been identified.

Some partners
are actively seeking closer integration with the EU. Others are not, or not
currently, attracted by it, calling into question some of the assumptions on
which the ENP has been constructed.

Although the
concept of differentiation has been present from the start, individual
countries do not always find their specific aspirations sufficiently reflected.
The lack of a sense of shared ownership with partners prevents the policy from
achieving its full potential.

The approach of
‘more for more’ underlines the EU’s commitment to its core values, but has not
always contributed to an atmosphere of equal partnership, and has not always
been successful in providing incentives further reforms in the partner
countries.

The questions
raised in this Communication seek to explore how the ENP can become a more
effective vehicle for promoting both the EU’s interests and those of its
partners, and a framework more conducive to developing fuller partnerships in
which both sides find their aspirations better reflected.

The importance of building deeper
  relationships with the EU’s partners is not in question.

Should the ENP
be maintained? Should a single framework continue to cover both East and South?

The current framework of the ENP
  covers 16 neighbouring countries. However, many of the challenges
  that need to be tackled by the EU and its neighbours together, cannot be
  adequately addressed without taking into account, or in some cases
  co-operating with, the neighbours of the neighbours.

Should the
current geographical scope be maintained? Should the ENP allow for more
flexible ways of working with the neighbours of the neighbours? How can the EU,
through the ENP framework, support its neighbours in their interactions with
their own neighbours? What could be done better to ensure greater coherence
between the ENP and the EU’s relations with Russia, with partners in Central
Asia, or in Africa, especially in the Sahel and in the Horn of Africa, and with
the Gulf countries?

While the ENP is conducted through
  the EU
  institutions, greater Member State involvement could lead
  to greater results.

How could a more
comprehensive approach with more active involvement by Member States give the
policy greater weight? Would stronger co-ownership of the policy be preferred
by partners?

· 
The
ENP has developed and applied tools for closer political association and
economic integration of partners aspiring towards this goal,
including
far-reaching
agreements such as the Association Agreements and the Deep and Comprehensive
Free Trade Areas (AAs/DCFTAs).

Are the
Association Agreements and DCFTAs the right objective for all or should more
tailor-made alternatives be developed, to reflect differing interests and
ambitions of some partners?

ENP Action Plans
  have framed the development of relationships between the EU and most ENP
  partners.

Are the ENP
Action Plans the right tool to deepen our partnerships? Are they too broad for
some partners? Would the EU, would partners, benefit from a narrower focus and
greater prioritisation?

ENP Progress Reports
  have helped the EU monitor closely progress with each of the ENP partners
  that have Action Plans, against the jointly agreed objectives set out in
  those Plans.

Is this approach
appropriate for all partners? Has it added value to the EU’s relations with
each of its partners? Can EU and/or partner interests be served by a lighter
reporting mechanism? Should the reporting be modulated according to the level
of engagement of the ENP partner concerned? How can we better communicate key
elements?

· 
The
ENP has provided a framework for sector cooperation across a broad range
of areas (including energy, transport, agriculture and
rural development, justice and home affairs, customs,
taxation, environment, disaster management, research and
innovation,
education, youth,
culture,
health, etc.).

Can partnerships
be focussed more explicitly on joint interests, in order to increase ownership
on both sides? How should the ENP accommodate the differentiation that this
would entail? Are new elements needed to support deeper cooperation in these or
other fields?

Visa liberalisation
  and visa facilitation processes have eased travel and cemented reforms;
  mobility partnerships have furthered contacts, with programmes supporting
  these processes.

What further
work is necessary in this area, which is regarded as key by all ENP partners?
How can the ENP further support the management of migration and help to draw
the benefits of mobility?

The EU seeks to promote prosperity
  on its borders. Prosperity in the partner countries is negatively affected
  by structural weaknesses such as inequalities, poverty, the informal
  economy and deficiencies in democracy, pluralism and respect for the rule
  of law. In addition, much of the ENP partners’ economic and social
  development has been disrupted by turbulence due to conflict or rapid
  internal change.

How can the EU
do more to support sustainable economic and social development in the ENP
partner countries? How can we empower economically, politically and socially
the younger generation? How to better promote sustainable employment? And how
can these objectives be better linked to indispensable reforms in the fields of
anti-corruption, judicial reform, governance and security, which are
prerequisites for foreign direct investment?

The EU seeks to promote stability
  on its borders. To address existing challenges effectively, the EU has to
  draw on all its cooperation instruments. Activities under the Common
  Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) and the Common Security and Defence
  Policy (CSDP) have until now been conducted outside of the ENP framework.
  The level of instability in some partner countries not only disrupts
  progress towards democracy but also threatens the rule of law, violates
  human rights and has serious impacts on the EU, such as irregular
  migratory flows and security threats.

How should the
ENP address conflicts and crises in the neighbourhood? Should
CFSP and CSDP activities be better integrated in the ENP framework? Should it
have a greater role in developing confidence-building measures and
post-conflict actions as well as related state- and institution-building
activities?

Should the ENP
be given a strengthened focus on working with partners on the prevention of
radicalisation, the fight against terrorism and organised crime?

Should security
sector reform be given greater importance in the ENP?

The ENP includes a clear objective
  to promote regional cooperation. Together with partners, the EU has
  pursued such cooperation through the Union for the Mediterranean (UfM) in
  the South and the Eastern Partnership (EaP) in the East.

Is the
multilateral dimension able to deliver further added value? Are these formats
fit for purpose? How can their effectiveness be strengthened? Can we more
effectively use other, more flexible frameworks? Can we better cooperate with
other regional actors (Council of Europe, OSCE, League of Arab States, Organisation
of the Islamic Conference, African Union)?

· 
The
ENP works extensively with governments, but also seeks to engage with civil
society, including enhancing its monitoring function, particularly in
countries where civil society is free, or largely free, to operate.

How should the
ENP further develop engagement with civil society in its widest sense? Can more
be done to network different parts of the partner populations?

What more can be
done to promote links between business communities? With and between Social
Partners (trade unions and employers’ organisations) and to promote social
dialogue?What can be done to promote links between scientific communities,
universities, local authorities, women, youth, the media?

· 
The
ENP seeks real partnership with the EU’s neighbours, and this must reflect and
embrace diversity.

How can the ENP
do more to foster religious dialogue and respect
for cultural diversity, and counter prejudice? Should increasing understanding
of each other’s cultures be a more specific goal of the ENP and how should this
be pursued? How can the ENP help tackle discrimination against vulnerable
groups?

III.   Towards
a Partnership with a Clearer
Focus and More Tailored
Cooperation

Experience and
initial comments by a number of EU Member States and ENP
partner countries to this review point to four priority areas which require
further consultation and reflection:

- 
Differentiation

- 
Focus

- 
Flexibility

- 
Ownership
& visibility

1.
The Challenges of Differentiation

Some partners in
the East are embarking on DCFTAs, and aspire to the closest possible
relationship with the EU. Although the large scope of the relationship is far
from exhausted in any of these cases, there is an aspiration on their side to
set a further horizon beyond their Association Agreements/DCFTAs.

In the South,
there are increasing divergences in the aspirations of partner countries and
instability arising from armed conflict. The
events in the Arab world in 2011 and thereafter have fundamentally changed the
region. For some Southern partners, this has led to positive political change;
others are undergoing complex transitions, remain heavily exposed to the
fallout of the Syrian crisis, or remain caught in protracted conflicts.

Should the EU
gradually explore new relationship formats to satisfy the aspirations and
choices of those who do not consider the Association Agreements as the final
stage of political association and economic integration?

How should the
EU take forward the tasking of the 2013 Eastern Partnership Summit in Vilnius
of the long-term goal of a wider common area of economic prosperity based on
WTO rules and sovereign choices throughout Europe and beyond?

Is there scope
within the ENP for some kind of variable geometry, with different kinds of
relationships for those partners that choose different levels of engagement?

2.
Focus

Our cooperation
with ENP partners, as set out in the Action Plans, is currently very broad.
Experience suggests that the ENP will be most effective when the agenda of the
EU and its partner is truly shared. The review needs to clarify what are the
interests of the EU and each partner, and those areas of strongest common
interest. This will help strengthen the partnership between the EU and our
neighbouring countries going forwards.

On the basis of
our informal consultations to date, the initial assessment is that the EU and
our partners have strongest common interest in the following areas:

Promoting trade and
  inclusive and sustainable economic development and enhancing job
  opportunities are priorities for our Neighbours and are also in the
  interests of the EU itself, in areas ranging from traditional rural
  livelihoods to research and digital markets.  
 Both also have strong shared
  interests in improving connectivity, notably in the fields of
  sustainable transport and energy. There is also a shared interest in
  increasing energy security and efficiency, as well as energy safety.
 There are currently a number of
  conflicts affecting the neighbourhood region. Stability is a prerequisite
  for working together on enhanced prosperity. The EU and its Member States
  need to do more together with our partners to address the security threats
  that arise from conflict situations, from organised crime and from
  terrorism, and to develop our ability to jointly manage crises and
  disasters. 
 Our partners face governance
  challenges. Ensuring rule of law, human rights and democracy is first and
  foremost key for their own citizens. By enhancing legal certainty, they
  also address issues that are important for domestic and foreign investors,
  such as fighting corruption and fraud and strengthening public finance
  management, including public internal control
  based on international standards.
 Migration and mobility
  is a key area of co-operation for the EU and our partners. Enhancing mobility,
  especially for education, scientific, cultural, training and professional
  purposes, has positive effects on economies and societies alike. Tackling
  people smuggling and illegal migration is a common challenge. 
 Other common challenges
  with impacts across borders are health security, threats to the
  environment and climate change. 
 Increasing engagement with young
  people, including through educational exchanges and other
  networks, can play a major role in developing a common vision for the
  future. The EU will continue to support increased opportunities for women.

The review is an
opportunity to establish a firm understanding between the EU and our partners
of those areas of strongest common interest. This will be the basis for a
stronger partnership going forwards.

In that regard,
we would propose to focus the consultations on the following questions:

- 
Do
you agree with the proposed areas of focus? If not, what alternative or
additional priorities would you propose?

- 
Which
priorities do partners see in terms of their relations with the EU? Which
sector or policy areas would they like to develop further? Which areas are less
interesting for partners?

- 
Does
the ENP currently have the right tools to address the priorities on which you
consider it should focus? How could sectoral dialogues contribute?

- 
If
not, what new tools could be helpful to deepen cooperation in these sectors?

- 
How
can the EU better support a focus on a limited number of key sectors, for
partners that prefer this?

3.
Flexibility – Towards
a More Flexible Toolbox

Over the past
ten years, the EU has developed and expanded the instruments of the ENP. It is
currently based on the following central elements:

o Relations
between the EU and the majority of ENP partner countries are structured in the legal
framework provided by Association Agreements (AAs) or Partnership and
Cooperation Agreements (PCAs).

o Action
Plans or Association Agendas have been agreed to date with 12 ENP partner
countries; for each of these countries, there is an annual report on
implementation of Action Plan priorities.

o In
addition to annual progress reports, the Annual Neighbourhood Package also
comprises one strategic communication and two reports on implementation of
regional cooperation priorities, one on the Partnership for Democracy and
Shared Prosperity with Southern partners and the other on the Eastern
Partnership.

o The
EU holds regular bilateral dialogues with most ENP partner countries in
different formats. This includes formal exchanges foreseen in the AAs or PCAs
(Association/Cooperation Councils, Association/Cooperation Committees, sectoral
subcommittees). There are also numerous other interfaces, such as Human Rights
Dialogues and other sector-specific dialogues.

o Substantial
targeted financial support has already been provided to ENP partner countries.
A further EUR 15 billion is foreseen for the period 2014-2020. A mid-term
review is scheduled for 2017, which will be a major opportunity to adjust the
allocation and implementation of funding from the European Neighbourhood
Instrument in the light of the results of this review and to ensure that the EU
is better able to respond more flexibly through its financial cooperation to
rapidly changing developments in the region.

o How
to streamline Action Plans to adapt them better to individual country needs and
priorities?

o Is
annual reporting needed for countries which do not choose to pursue closer
political and economic integration?

o How
should the EU structure relations with countries that do not currently have
Action Plans?

o How
can the EU adapt the ‘more for more’ principle to a context in which certain
partners do not choose closer integration, in order to create incentives for
the respect of fundamental values and further key reforms?

o How
to assess progress against jointly agreed reform targets when a partner country
experiences significant external pressure, for instance armed conflict or
refugee flows?

o How
can the EU engage more effectively and respond more flexibly to developments in
partner countries affected by conflict situations?

o What
tools would the EU need to respond more effectively to fast-changing
developments in its neighbourhood?

o Are
the choice of sectors and mechanisms for delivery of EU financial support
appropriate? How could its impact and visibility be enhanced?

4.
Ownership & Visibility

One of the most
often repeated criticisms of the ENP is a lacking
sense of ownership with partners, across their societies, and the general
public’s weak awareness of the policy’s aims and impact. It is clear that
substantial efforts are needed in the context of the ENP review to improve both
the ownership of this policy by partner countries and to improve communication
of its objectives and results both within the EU and in the partner countries.

What do partners
seek in the ENP? How can it best accommodate their interests and aspirations?

Can ways of
working be developed that are seen as more respectful by partners and
demonstrate a partnership of equals? How should this
impact on annual reporting ?

Can the
structures of the ENP be made more cooperative, to
underline the partners’ own choices and to enable all civil society actors
across partner countries to take part?

Can the ENP
deliver benefits within a shorter timeframe, in order that the value of the
policy can be more easily grasped by the public? What would this require from
the EU? And from the partner country?

How can the EU
financial support be recast in an investment rather than donor dynamic, in
which the partner country’s active role is clearer?

How can EU
Member States be involved more effectively in the design and implementation of
the policy, including as concerns foreign policy and security related
activities? How can the activities in EU Member States be better coordinated
with the ENP?

This phase of
public consultation will be crucial in helping to build greater ownership and
to pave the way for more effective communication in the future of the
ENP.

IV.   Next
Steps

The purpose of
this document is to frame a policy debate on the future direction of the ENP.
The aim is to consult as widely as possible both with partners in the
neighbouring countries and with stakeholders across the EU. We will consult
with Member States and partners, but also with a wide range of actors from
parliaments, including the European Parliament, civil society and think tanks,
and from the social partners, business and academic communities. We will engage
with key international organisations active in the neighbourhood, including
notably the Council of Europe, the OSCE as well as the major international
financing institutions. Interested members of the public will also have an
opportunity to submit written contributions. The consultation on this document
is foreseen until the end of June.

[1]               COM(2003) 104 final of
11.03.2003

[2]               COM(2011) 303 of
25.05.2011