EUROPEAN COMMISSION 
Brussels, 7.12.2011 
SEC(2011) 1466 final 
  
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING PAPER 
IMPACT ASSESSMENT 
Accompanying the document 
REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL 
laying down general provisions establishing a European Neighbourhood Instrument 
{COM(2011) 839 final} 
{SEC(2011) 1467 final}  
 
EN 2   EN TABLE OF CONTENTS 
1. Procedural issues and consulta tion of interested parties.............................................. 4 
1.1. Organisation and timing............................................................................................... 4 1.2. Consultation and expertise .......................................................................................... 4 1.3. Impact Assessment Board............................................................................................ 6 2. Problem definition........................................................................................................ 6 2.1. The problem requiring action and the sc ope of the instrument regulation .................. 6 
2.2. Review of evaluation reports ....................................................................................... 8 2.2.1. Results of mid-term review of the financ ial instruments for external actions (2009) . 8 
2.2.2. Study on legal instruments (2011)……………………………………………………9 2.2.3. Court of Auditors Report on the Southern Caucasus................................................. 10 2.3. Review of lessons learnt............................................................................................. 10 2.4. The underlying drivers of the problem....................................................................... 12 2.5. Legal base for EU action............................................................................................ 16 2.6. EU value added .......................................................................................................... 16  
3. Objectives.................................................................................................................. . 17 
3.1. Policy framework and objectives............................................................................... 17 3.2. Consistency with external action priorities................................................................ 18 3.3. Consistency with other EU policies ........................................................................... 19 4. Policy options............................................................................................................. 2 1 
4.1. Option 0: "No EU action" .......................................................................................... 21 4.2. Option 1: “No change”............................................................................................... 21 4.3. Option 2: "Adapting the current set-up" .................................................................... 21 4.4. Option 3: "Table a completely new instrument"........................................................ 25 5. Analysis of impacts.................................................................................................... 25 5.1. Likely economic, social and environmental impacts of each of the options ............. 25 5.2. Impacts on external action, in particular  on Policy Coherence for Development ..... 28 
5.3. Impact in terms of management / implementation modalities................................... 28 6. Comparing the options ............................................................................................... 28 6.1. Weighing of positive and negative impacts per option.............................................. 28 
 
EN 3   EN 6.2. Trade-offs and synergies associated with the options................................................ 29 
6.3. Preferred option.......................................................................................................... 29 
7. Monitoring and evaluation ......................................................................................... 30 7.1. Core indicators of progress towards objectives ......................................................... 30 7.2. Outline for monitoring and evaluation arrangements ................................................ 31 
 
EN 4   EN  
1. PROCEDURAL ISSUES AND CONSULTATION OF INTERESTED PARTIES  
1.1. Organisation and timing 
The drafting of the Impact A ssessment (IA) for the European Union (EU) external action 
instruments for the period 2014-20201, including this document, has been coordinated by a 
Task Force  composed by services in charge of EU external action and the Legal Service.  The 
drafting teams  have duly taken into consideration the consultations, reviews and studies 
mentioned in Section 2 and have liaised with  various European Co mmission (hereafter the 
Commission) services to ensure consistency with other EU policies.  The Task Force met with 
the drafting team in charge of this Imp act Assessment on 7 June, 30 June, 14 July and 2 
August 2011 for organisational and quality-check purposes . 
The work on the European Neighbourhood Instru ment (ENI) was led jo intly by the European 
External Action Service (EEAS) and the Commission. A specific “European Neighbourhood 
Instrument Impact Assessment Working Group” involving a number of services was set up in 
May 2011 to provide inputs and comments on the draft IA. The m eetings of the Group 
allowed for early consultations with the rele vant EEAS and Commission services before the 
draft IA was presented to the Inter-service Impact Assessment Steering Group monitoring the 
preparation of IAs for all exte rnal action instruments. The  Steering Group,  composed by the 
members of the Task Force and representative s of the relevant Commission Directorates 
General and the Secretariat Gene ral as well as of the EEAS,  was launched on 22 June 2011. It 
met twice, on 13 and 26 of July 2011. 
The IA was submitted to the IA Board on 5 August 2011. The review of this Impact 
Assessment by the Impact Assessment Board  is scheduled on 14 September 2011. 
In line with article 27 of the Fi nancial Regulation (Council Regulation  (EC, Euratom) No 
1605/2002) and article 21 of the Implementing ru les of the Financial Regulation (Commission 
Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2342/2002), the present impact assessment is the ex-ante 
evaluation of the European Neighbourhood Instrument (ENI). 
1.2. Consultations and expertise  
A broad consultation process underpins the IA a nd the legislative prop osal on the European 
Neighbourhood Instrument. This process consiste d of the Public consultation on external 
funding carried out for all the EU external actio n instruments on the one hand, and of specific 
consultations held as part of the Strategi c review of the European Neighbourhood Policy 
(ENP) and those on the Cross-Border Coopera tion (CBC) on the other hand. Additionally, 
consultations were held on the future of EU development policy. 
                                                 
1 The instruments are the following: Internal Agreement for the 11th European Development Fund, Development 
Cooperation Instrument, Instrument fo r Pre-Accession assistance, European Neighbourhood Instrument, Instrument 
for Stability, Instrument for Nuclear Safety Cooperation,  European Instrument for Democracy and Human Rights, 
Partnership Instrument and the instruments for the EU-Greenland Part nership. The Macro-Financial Assistance 
instrument, the Common Foreign and Security Policy, the Humanitarian aid instrument  and the Civil Protection 
mechanism are not part of this joint exercise. 
 
EN 5   EN Public consultations 
Public Consultation on funding for EU external action 
The Commission held a public consultation on futu re funding for EU external action between 
26 November 2010 and 31 January 2011. This pro cess was based on an online questionnaire 
accompanied by a background paper ‘What fundi ng for EU external action after 2013?’ 
prepared by the Commission and EEAS . The 220 contributions received in response to this 
public consultation reflect a broa d and diverse spectrum representi ng the variety of structures, 
views and traditions characterising the external action community.  
The majority of respondents confirm that EU financial interventions provide a substantial 
added value in the main policy areas supported through EU financial instruments for external 
action2. The criterion of EU added value is put  forward by many res pondents as the main 
driver for the future: th e EU should exploit its comparative advantage lin ked to its global field 
presence, its wide-ranging expertise, its supran ational nature, its role as facilitator of 
coordination and the economies of scale.  
Nearly all respondents support a mo re differentiated approach tailo red to the situation of the 
beneficiaries and based on sound crite ria, to be used in order to  increase the impact of EU 
financial instruments. There is  also wide support for consider ing conditionality based on the 
respect for human rights, minorit ies, good governance and diversity of cultural expressions, or 
on the quality of beneficiaries’ policies and th eir ability and willingness to implement them.  
Most respondents agree that joint programming and co-financing with Member States can 
increase the impact and the coherence of EU ex ternal action, simplify the delivery of aid and 
reduce the overall transaction costs.  
Consultations in the context of ENP strategic review 
The EEAS held specific consultations with repr esentatives of EU Memb er States and Partner 
countries covered by the ENP as part of the St rategic review of the policy, launched in July 
2010.  
The consultations included the financing of the ENP notably through the European 
Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument (ENPI),  alongside the issues of the long-term 
ENP vision and the ENP medium-term objectives. The ENP Strategic review resulted in the 
Joint Communication of the High Representative of the EU for Foreign Affairs and Security 
Policy and the European Commission “A ne w response to a changing Neighbourhood” (COM 
(2011) 303) adopted on 25 May 2011.  
The consultations revealed that the ENPI was seen  as a step change in the way EU assistance 
was delivered. However, the need for further refinement was also recognized. Many Member 
States underlined the importanc e of improved coherence between  the policy and the financial 
assistance provided by the instrument. Several re spondents highlighted th at allocations should 
be based on performance. Many also stressed  the importance of making financial support 
faster, more efficient and more flexible in responding to emerging needs. A group of Member 
                                                 
2 i.e. peace and security, poverty reduction, humanitarian aid,  investing in stability and growth in enlargement and 
neighbourhood countries, tackling global ch allenges, promoting EU and intern ational standards and values, and 
supporting growth and competitiveness abroad. 
 
EN 6   EN States advocated decentralised implementa tion, and some called for strengthening EU 
Delegations.  
Partner countries underlined the need to accompany economic integration, market opening 
and regulatory convergence with appropriate fina ncial support. The importance of promoting 
foreign investment was also emphasized.  
There was a unanimous perception that ENP Acti on Plans had been very useful as a central 
policy tool. There was also a strong demand for successor docume nts to better steer EU and 
ENP partners’ joint efforts and facilitate a more  effective use of resources from the national 
and EU budgets. This involves more focus, clearer sequencing a nd more measurable 
benchmarks.  
Stakeholder consultations on Cross-Border Cooperation 
Specific consultations on CBC have taken place with all stakeholders. The process was 
launched during a CBC Conference in Brussels in February 2011. The stakeholders were 
consequently consulted on the future re gulatory framework (including on the CBC 
Implementing Rules)  on the basis of a questionnaire ci rculated in May/June 2011. The 
outcomes reflect the need to adapt some provisi ons to strengthen effici ency of the future 
CBC. The aim of the suggested changes is to better reflect integrati on between EU foreign 
policy priorities with the EU Cohesion Policy,  especially by further approximation of the 
CBC on external EU borders to the European Territorial Cooperation (ETC) rules.    
Public consultations on “EU development policy” 
In addition, the Commission la unched a Green Paper “EU devel opment policy in support of 
inclusive growth and sustainable development” with a public consultation from 15 November 
2010 to 17 January 2011. Many respondents underlined that ODA3 constitutes only a fraction 
of funding for development, to be seen as a co mplement to domestically  mobilised resources, 
foreign investments, trade and remittances. A de mand was also made for greater coherence in 
EU development policy especially with rega rds to middle-income countries. While joint 
programming of assistance was endorsed in pr inciple, it should be introduced gradually 
starting with countries where it woul d yield demonstrable added value.  
 
1.3. Impact Assessment Board 
The Impact Assessment Board meeting took place on 14.09.2011. The opinion received by 
the board was taken fully into account and the Impact Assessment Report as well as the 
Impact Assessment Report Summary were modified accordingly. 
 
2. PROBLEM DEFINITION  
                                                 
3 Official Development Aid  
 
EN 7   EN 2.1. The problem requiring action and the scope of the instrument regulation 
The Treaty on European Union (TEU) in its artic le 8 provides specifica lly for developing by 
the EU of a special relationshi p with neighbouring countries, aimi ng to establish an area of 
prosperity and good neighbourliness at the EU’s borders, founded on the values of the Union 
and characterized by close and peaceful relations  based on cooperation. This dedicated article, 
introduced by the Lisbon Treaty, emphasises th e growing importance of the EU relationship 
with its neighbours. 
The EU policy towards its neighbours, the EN P, was launched in 2004 following the EU 
enlargement in the same year, in order to a void the emergence of ne w dividing lines between 
the enlarged EU and its neighbours and to strengthen the prosperi ty, stability and security of 
all. The ENP is addressed to 16 partners to the East and South of the EU’s borders, notably to 
Algeria, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Egypt , Georgia, Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, Libya, the 
Republic of Moldova, Morocco, the occupied Pa lestinian territory, Syria, Tunisia and 
Ukraine. The ENP is supported through a dedica ted instrument, the ENPI, which covers the 
16 above-mentioned partners and Russia. 
Within the ENP the EU offers the nei ghbours a privileged rela tionship, building upon a 
mutual commitment to values such as democracy and human rights, rule of law, good governance, market economy principles and sustainable development. The policy also 
provides for political associa tion and deeper economic integr ation, increased mobility and 
enhanced people-to-people contacts. On the basis of jointly agreed priorities, the EU supports 
partners in implementing reforms to improve th eir standards of democracy and human rights, 
to increase their access to the EU’s single mark et, to improve the environment and to step up 
their cooperation with th e EU on issues such as  climate change, energy, transport, Information 
and Communication Technologi es (ICT) and migration.  
Since the launch of the ENP a number of im portant developments have taken place, in 
particular: 
• deepening of relationship with the neighbours, notably through the launch of 
Association Agreement negotia tions in the East and pro cesses to upgrade relations 
(e.g. statut avancé)  in the South; 
• related to the above, the progressi ve differentiation of partners; 
• qualitative change of the partnership w ith Russia, with the “Partnership for 
Modernisation” launched in 2010; 
• launch of the regional dimensions: the Union for the Mediterranean, the Eastern 
Partnership and the Black Sea Synergy, the EU Strategy for the Baltic Sea and the 
EU policy for the Arctic region; 
• stability concerns in the ENP region ( notably Middle East, Belarus, Georgia); 
• democratic transition processes initiated in several countries in the Southern 
Neighbourhood. 
This evolving relationship called for a new res ponse that was elaborated as a result of the 
Strategic review of the ENP. The Joint Comm unication of the High Representative of the EU 
 
EN 8   EN for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy and the European Commission “A new response to a 
changing Neighbourhood” of 25 May 2011 outlines  the new ENP vision and builds on the 
Joint Communication “A Partnership for Democracy  and shared Prosperity  with the Southern 
Mediterranean” adopted on 8 March 2011. The ne w approach provides notably for greater 
support to partners committed to building democr atic societies and undertaking reforms, in 
line with a “more for more” principle, and therefore for a greater differentiation. The 
associated principle of “mutual accountability” in turn implies the EU commitment to deliver on policy offers made, notably in the field of market access and mobility. The Eastern 
Partnership Summit to take place in Septembe r 2011 in Warsaw will offer a possibility to 
further strengthen the relationship with the partners in the East. 
Neighbours committed to these objectives will be  offered closer economic integration and 
stronger political and sector c ooperation with a particular focus on climate change and the 
environment, energy, transport and technol ogy, knowledge and innovation. Enhanced support 
to partners engaged in credible reforms will come in various forms, including increased 
funding, greater market access, increased suppor t to investments, support for free and 
uninterrupted access to information and comm unication means and greater facilitation of 
mobility. Within the renewed ENP there is al so more emphasis on rural development and 
strengthening of social, econom ic and territorial cohesion.  
Financial support to the Neighbours is provi ded notably through the ENPI. Set up by 
Regulation 1638/2006 of 24 October 2006, the inst rument had been endowed with an 
envelope of EUR 11.8 billion for the period 2007-2013 and covers the 16 ENP partners as 
well as Russia. 
The core of the financial intervention in the Neighbourhood is deli vered through country 
programmes (about 75%), which foster ownershi p, allow for coherence of EU action with 
country policies and ultimately enhance thei r impact. The rest is delivered through multi-
country programmes and through specific CBC pr ogrammes targeting beneficiaries from the 
EU and neighbours’ border regions. The CBC constitutes a unique example of external 
cooperation where partners have full ownership and participate on an equal footing with EU 
Member States in the decision-making process a nd setting up joint projects over the external 
EU border, with a si ngle set of rules. 
The current ENPI support is provided through a number of aid moda lities, including budget 
support, project approach, twinning with Member States’ administrations, technical assistance 
and blending mechanisms. It brings under the same umbrella bilatera l, regional and Cross-
Border Cooperation with countries formerly dealt with through two separate regulations 
(TACIS
4 and MEDA5). 
2.2. Review of evaluation reports 
As a relatively new instrument, the ENPI as a whole has not yet been subject to dedicated 
evaluations. However the Mid-term review of the instrument, featuring lessons learned as 
well as some assessments, outline the major aspects that need to be considered in the future, to accompany the revised policy framework.  
                                                
 
4 Technical Aid to the Commonwealth of Independent States  
5 MEDA programme used to be  the main financial instru ment for implementing the Euro -Mediterranean Partnership 
 
EN 9   EN 2.2.1.  Results of Mid-term review of the financial instruments for external actions (2009) 
The ENPI Mid-term review carried out in 200 9 concludes that on th e whole the ENPI has 
gone a long way towards addressing its decl ared objectives. Programming documents have 
become more geared towards s upporting the implementation of ENP Action Plans, their scope 
reflects the scope of the partnerships betw een the EU and the partners, and their budget 
reflects the “ambition” of such partnershi ps. Multi-country programmes have been 
instrumental in supporting ENP flagship initia tives and the ENP regional dimensions, both in 
the South and in the East. 
As for implementation issues, the ENPI has at it s disposal a broader ra nge of tools than its 
predecessors MEDA and TACIS and this allows fo r a more effective and efficient delivery of 
assistance. Through implementation mech anisms such as twinning and TAIEX6, EU public 
sector expertise is made available for institut ion building to partners engaged in legislative 
approximation and regulatory a lignment. Budget support opera tions are instrumental to 
promote the reform agenda agreed in the cont ext of the ENP Action Pl ans and the monitoring 
of such operations allows for a deeper  policy dialogue with the partners.   
The Mid-term review concludes that the provisi ons of the ENPI Regulation appear adequate 
to sustain cooperation with nei ghbouring countries provided that the following two issues are 
addressed.  
The first one concerns the issue of “revolving  funds”, the possibility to use reflows from 
previous operations of the Inte rnational Financial Institutions (IFIs) in order to strengthen the 
Facility for Euro-Mediterrane an Investment and Partnershi p (FEMIP) and the Neighbourhood 
Investment Facility (NIF) to which the EN PI contributes. The ambiguity of the ENPI 
Regulation on this issue and the resulting lack of the use of the reflows hamper the Union’s ability to support private sector operations.  
Secondly, the Review considers the financial enve lope for the ENPI to be very tight and not 
allowing the support of new and ambitious regional initiatives while simultaneously 
responding to “protracted” crisis situations.  
The Mid-term review was finalised in 2009 an d therefore could not take into account new 
developments that have happened since and the new policy context. 
2.2.2.  Study on legal instruments (2011) 
The study on Legal Instruments conducted in 2011 identified many positive results that come 
from the evaluations of the in struments preceding the ENPI (MEDA and TACIS) but that are 
also relevant to the ENPI. It appears th at the support provided has made a positive 
contribution to the development of trade relationships between the EU and the ENP partners, and to the development of the private sector. Some positive results have been achieved in the water and social sectors and in  the support to Civil Society. 
According to the study, budget support is successfully supporting comprehensive 
structural/sector reforms, avoiding the gaps and “stop-go” effect of a project approach. Whilst 
this requires stronger public financial management (PFM), budget support does also 
                                                
 
6 Technical Assistance and Information Exchange instrument  
 
EN 10   EN contribute, when successful, to  improvements in the PFM. In  particular, budget support 
appears to be efficient when combined with policy dialogue and cap acity building. It has 
contributed to the formulation, implementati on and acceleration of reforms that were 
nationally owned and considered as important by the EU. Other aid delivery mechanisms such 
as the project approach or twinning  remain very effective to s upport reforms. They can also 
be successfully deployed in co mbination with budget support. 
Mixed results  were noted in cases where interventions  were unsustainable, in particular 
because of the scarcity of financial resources  available.  
From the findings of the study, th e following points have emerged that could be useful for the 
design of the future assi stance to the Neighbourhood: 
(1) There seem to be indications  of limited coherence betwee n the programming process and 
implementation. No evidence was found that all the priorities expre ssed in the country 
strategies were subsequently carried th roughout the programming chain and assistance. 
(1) Budget support is bringing good results in support of comp rehensive structural/sector 
reforms and allows for avoiding the gaps a nd “stop-go” effect of a project approach. 
Other aid delivery mechanisms such as projects or twinning remain effective in targeted reforms. 
(2) Respecting ownership is ke y to ensuring success. 
2.2.3.   Court of Auditors report on the Southern Caucasus 
The Special Report of the Court of Audito rs on the ENPI in the Southern Caucasus
7 
highlights challenges related to the programming  process. The Report states that the lengthy 
programming and design process does not suit th e fast changing environment of the Southern 
Caucasus, thus endangering the rele vance of the assistance. It notes  further that the usefulness 
of the programming work is reduc ed by insufficient prioritisati on and weak links between the 
ENP Action Plans and Country St rategy Papers and National Indi cative Programmes. It also 
concludes that the areas selected for assi stance do not derive clearly enough from the 
programming documents.  
The key recommendations include: further prio ritisation during the programming process, 
with the guiding objective of offering ENP Part ner Countries the prosp ect of an increasingly 
closer relationship with the EU; rationa lizing (merging) the strategic documents; 
strengthening the links betw een strategic programming documents and annual action 
programmes and avoiding successive cycles of approval.  
The above assessment can be c onsidered equally relevant fo r the programming process for 
most of the ENP Partners. 
2.3. Review of lessons learnt 
In terms of lessons learnt, a number of issues  have emerged since th e launch of the ENPI, 
related directly or i ndirectly to the design of the inst rument. A long programming process and 
                                                 
7 Court of Auditors Special Report No 13/2010: “Is th e new European Neighbourhood a nd Partnership Instrument 
successfully launched and achieving results in the Southern Caucasus (Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia)?” 
 
EN 11   EN incomplete alignment of the financial assistance with the policy and priorities specified in the 
ENP Action Plans and other rele vant documents have often been pointed at as major 
challenges to be addressed in the future. The sp lit of the ENPI allocati on between the East and 
the South (programming) has been a delic ate matter overshadowing, on a number of 
occasions, major policy issues. Coordination a nd coherence with interventions under other 
instruments are important issues. Provisions allo wing for joint activities with partners/regions 
outside the geographical scope of the ENPI have  been instrumental to implement a number of 
activities and should be maintained. 
Horizontal issues that are of much relevance to the ENPI include flex ibility and ability to 
react to crisis and unforeseen situations. In  the Neighbourhood, addressing protracted crisis 
remains one of the key challenge s. Any solution within the ENPI  will need to be coherent 
with the political choices on the future Instrume nt for Stability (IfS) (notably its scope and 
size) and its relationship with geographic inst ruments. The current mechanisms for rapid 
interventions in case of crises have functi oned well and should be further strengthened. 
Among the objectives of s upport 29 thematic areas of cooperation are sp ecified in the ENPI 
Regulation. While this allows for flexibility, su ch an approach has led to a dispersion of 
efforts, fragmentation of aid and a blurred vision of the ENP. More prioritisation would 
facilitate better coherence between assist ance and political amb itions in key fields. 
The limited flexibility of the ENPI to re-allocate funds has sometimes proved to be an 
obstacle in responding to emerging needs. The current programming procedures make the re-allocation of funds outside the Mid-term revi ew relatively difficult and therefore limit the 
possibility of applying differentiation between c ountries on the basis of their actual merits. 
The current programming process is thus not well suited to apply the “more for more” 
principle that is central in the new ENP vision. The introductio n of the Governance Facility 
was an attempt towards applying performance in centives through ex post financial top-ups to 
best performers. However, the ENP review ha s highlighted that the financial incentives 
provided in this form have not  been a driver for change.  
Consideration needs to be given to how monito ring can be enhanced, including with regard to 
strengthening the link between  policy dialogues and assist ance programmes (including 
technical assistance). It is furthermore importa nt that the ambition of the policy is matched 
with adequate tools to implement it. Considera tion should also be given to how the technical 
assistance/TAIEX can be developed, possibly through extending the scope of the mechanism 
to include elements such as training and case st udies. Furthermore, coope ration in the field of 
statistics should be enhanced.  
ENPI assistance has been used to leverage loans from financial institutions to finance 
infrastructure investment projects and to suppo rt the private sector through loans and risk 
capital operations. This is done with the European Investment Bank (EIB) in the context of 
the FEMIP and with the EIB, the European  Bank for Reconstructi on and Development 
(EBRD) and other European financial institutions  in the context of the NIF. The cooperation 
with IFIs should be further enhanced through th e use of innovative tools.  The use of revolving 
funds could help strengthen th e impact of this cooperation. 
Addressing competition issues for better working markets and institutions outside the EU is 
another important issue. Along with other polic y objectives such as a well-functioning public 
 
EN 12   EN administration and an independent  judiciary safeguarding the enfo rceability of contracts, an 
effective competition policy creates a business environment facilitating economic growth.  
Two main political init iatives have shaped the regional cooperation in the Neighbourhood: the 
Eastern Partnership (EaP) in the East and th e Union for the Mediterranean (UfM) in the 
South. The EaP aims to accelerate political as sociation and further economic integration 
between the EU and the six EaP countries and within the EaP region, and to support political and socio-economic reforms in thes e countries. At the heart of the initiative is the EU offer to 
significantly upgrade contractual relations with partners by concluding Association 
Agreements, where possible including Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Areas. The 
multilateral approach has proven successful in  supporting reform through the exchange of 
best practice on subjects of common interest, such as good g overnance, economic integration, 
energy efficiency and contacts between people. Th e UfM is an important initiative to foster 
regional cooperation with and within the so uthern Neighbourhood, with key initiatives 
focussing for instance on the de-pollution of th e Mediterranean Sea and the establishment of 
maritime and land highways which connect ports and improve rail connections to facilitate 
movement of people and goods. Nevertheless, the past years have shown that some measures 
need to be taken to revitalize this initiative and to enhance cooperation in these key areas. In 
the future, it is important to continue to pr omote and support an efficient regional dimension, 
including through the deployment of transnational ICT services  and infrastructures. The 8
th 
March Communication establishing  “A Partnership for Democracy and Shared Prosperity 
with the Southern Mediterranean” is a step in that direction. 
Globally, regional cooperation has proved its added value notably in fostering regional 
synergies and networks in cruc ial areas of common concern such as environment, climate 
change, energy, sustainable development, Small and Medium Enterprise (SME) development, 
media and freedom of expression, research, IC T and youth mobility. Regional cooperation has 
also proved very effective when  being conducted at intraregi onal level (South and East): a 
number of programmes are “twi ns” (civil protection, private i nvestments promotion) with a 
southern and an eastern focus. The CBC has also played an important role, and the 
mechanism of split commitments used with CBC programmes has proved useful.  
2.4. The underlying drivers of the problem 
Policy problems 
The changing relationship with the neighbours a nd developments since the establishment of 
the ENP have been analysed and assessed in th e framework of the ENP Strategic review that 
resulted in the new policy orientations outlined  in section 2.1. The new ENP vision calls for 
adapting the current framework through which support to the ENP partners is provided.  
While the ENPI has been widely recognized as  a successful instrument to accompany the EU 
policy towards its neighbours, the renewed ENP policy as well as assessments, the Mid-term 
review and lessons learned point towards a number of issues that should be reconsidered in 
the future to allow for an ev en more effective EU response.  
Specific problems linked to the instrument 
Application of the “more for more” principle  
 
EN 13   EN The “more for more” principle is the key el ement of the renewed Neighbourhood Policy, as 
enshrined in the Joint Comm unication “A new response to a changing Neighbourhood”. The 
new approach provides for a much higher level of differentiation among partners, in line with 
their commitment to the jointly agreed values and objectives, and notably to the partnership with EU focussed on democracy and shared prosperi ty. Partners that go further and faster with 
reforms notably those related to democratic stan dards and rule of law will be able to count on 
greater support from the EU. This approach will  already be applied in the allocation of funds 
to some partner countries under the current fina ncial perspectives, in the framework of the 
SPRING package (“Support for Partnership, Refo rms and Inclusive Grow th”) for Southern 
Mediterranean, funded by an additional allocation to the ENPI. 
The new vision goes beyond funding, with an offe r of deeper political association and 
economic integration for those who credibly follow the path of democracy and a reforms 
agenda. The “more for more” principle and mu tual accountability therefore needs to be 
reflected in all aspects of the relationship with the neighbours, especially with regard to the 
bilateral cooperation. Financial incentives for most ambitious reformers feature as an 
important element of the new approach and as  a policy-driven instrument, the future ENI 
should reflect this key principle, notably as regards programming and allocation of support to 
the partners.  
The current ENPI Regulation in its article 7b in dicates the key parameters taken into account 
in the allocation of support. While it provides some room for modulati ng initial a llocations on 
the basis of ambitions and achievements of the partners, it only allows for limited flexibility 
in varying the allocations, essentially follo wing a mid-term review of the programming 
process. The current system therefore constrai ns the possibility to apply differentiation and 
the “more for more” approach in real time on the basis of specific pr ogress indicators. These 
provisions have so far proved of limited im pact in terms of triggering reforms and 
democratization process. The use of Governance Facility attributed to  some ENP countries 
and rewarding performance through ex post financ ial top-ups has not been a sufficient driver 
for change. 
 
Complexity and length of the programming process 
 
The procedure for the programming process is outlined in article 7a of the ENPI Regulation 
(for bilateral and multi-count ry programmes) and in arti cle 9 for the Cross-Border 
Cooperation. Article 7 provides for Strategy Pa pers and Indicative Pr ogrammes for country 
and multi-country programmes. The Strategy Pape rs and Indicative Programmes shall reflect 
the policy framework and the jointly agreed Acti on Plans or other equivalent documents that 
are the key point of reference fo r setting assistance priorities. 
The current programming process includes a nu mber of broad consultations and many other 
procedural steps. In practice, with the curr ent set-up, for all progra mmable external action 
instruments the programming takes on average 18 months. The priorities identified through 
the programming are the basis for the assistance that follows.  
The scope of the programming documents has been another aspect. The current Country 
Strategy Papers under the ENPI follow the format  used for development cooperation. As such 
they provide for an extensive analysis of the s ituation in a given country  in a number of areas 
 
EN 14   EN which adds to the length of the process. In the case of the Neighbour hood however the reality 
is different and the country analysis for most partners (countries th at have concluded an 
Action Plan or an equivalent se t of joint objectives  with the EU) is described annually through 
dedicated Progress Reports making the general part of the Country Strategy Paper redundant. 
Programming documents tend to include a wide range  of priorities. This is a reflection of the 
length of the programming process, and an attempt to provide flexibility for the 
implementation that intervenes at a much later stage.   
As recommended by the Special Report of the Court of Auditors referring to Armenia, 
Azerbaijan and Georgia, linka ges should be strengthened between the ENP Action plans and 
the relevant programming documents. There is  therefore both need and opportunity to 
streamline, shorten and better focus the progra mming process, notably for ENP partners with 
Action Plans or equivalent documents that iden tify jointly agreed priorities between EU and 
ENP partners. The new programming documents should be better aligned and fully reflect 
these priorities.  
Scope of the instrument  
The scope of the ENPI is define d in article 2 of the Regulation. While article 2.1 refers to the 
implementation of partnership and cooperation ag reements, association agreements or other 
relevant agreements, promotion of good gove rnance and equitable social and economic 
development, article 2.2 is a very broad list of 29 thematic areas of cooperation referred to in 
a detailed manner and on an equal footing8. The programming reflects this wide approach and 
in a number of cases coherence between the policy and cooperation has been a challenge. 
The current set up of 29 thematic areas of coope ration offers very little  visibility of the 
objectives and the focus of the ENP. They re sult to a large extent from the willingness of 
various stakeholders to include all the possibl e specific fields of c ooperation that could be 
supported under broader provisions of the Re gulation, while maintaining the necessary 
flexibility for the prog ramming process. The future legislat ive proposal for the ENI offers the 
possibility to better streamline the scope of the instrument while maintaining its current 
flexibility, notably through regr ouping the current set of 29 thematic areas into a few generic 
areas of cooperation encompassing specific objectives of cooperation9 
Partly outdated implementation provisions and lack of coherence between the external 
instruments   
The implementation section of the current ENPI  Regulation is outdated in some parts and 
therefore no longer adequately reflects the way assistance in the Neighbourhood is 
                                                 
8  Examples of thematic areas referred to in article 2: supporting cooperation aimed at protecting historical and cultural 
heritage and promoting its development potential, including through tourism; supporting administrative cooperation to 
improve transparency and the exchange of information in the area of taxation in order to combat tax avoidance and 
evasion;  supporting reform and strengtheni ng capacity in the field of justice and home affairs, including issues such as 
asylum, migration and readmission, and the fight against, a nd prevention of, trafficking in human beings as well as 
terrorism and organised crime, including its  financing, money la undering and tax fraud; 
 
 
9      Examples: Progressive integration in the EU internal market, enhanced sector co -operation, creating conditions for well 
managed mobility of people and for promoting people-to-people contacts;  
 
EN 15   EN implemented. There is also lack of coheren ce between the implementation provisions of the 
ENPI and other external action instruments. Fl exibility mechanisms can be further enhanced 
and eligibility criteria widened to match the new policy context. In terms of eligibility, the importance of Civil Society Organizations (CSOs) in the neighbourhood region has been 
growing constantly over the last years, but in Art. 14 on Eligibility CSOs are not explicitly 
mentioned, which does not reflect sufficiently  the good work already done together with 
CSOs in the ENP region, especially concerning  promotion of good governance, rule of law 
and human rights.  
CBC provisions
 
The Cross-Border Cooperation has been a distinct  feature of the relationship between the EU, 
ENP partners and Russia allowing for joint in itiatives with a comm on set of rules on both 
sides of the EU borders. Currently the CBC prog rammes benefit from an overall budget of 
around EUR 1 billion (contributions  from the ENPI and the European Regional Development 
Fund, ERDF). They are managed according to specific Implementing Rules (IR), which use 
shared management as a guiding principle but c ontain significant elemen ts of EU rules and 
procedures for external action (PRAG).  
While the ENPI Regulation indicates the main principles and key orientations of the CBC 
with the neighbours as well as the main im plementing provisions, the CBC Implementing 
Rules are set in detail in  a dedicated Regulation.  
The system is functioning relatively well a lthough consultations with stakeholders 
demonstrate the need for some changes which ma y have an impact on the provisions of the 
Regulations, especially concerning: 
• potential extension of geogra phical eligibility to encompass the important economic, 
social and cultural centers as relevant for the proper functioning of the programmes;  
• full application of “shared management”, i nvolving Member States as signatories of 
Financing agreements;  
• co-financing by pa rtner countries; 
• specific status of Russia. 
As a consequence, specific modifications with respect to these issues would allow for a more 
effectively functioning mechanism.  
Far-reaching changes will be required also in the Commission Regulation laying down the 
CBC Implementing Rules, mainly with regard to the management modalities. 
 
Linkages with internal instruments/policies  
The ENP provides for a gradual po litical association and progre ssive economic integration of 
the partners with the EU and EU internal policies are key references in this process. In the case of the Neighbourhood, a number of initiatives have a transboundary aspect which so far has been addressed only  to a very limited extent. The notable exception is the Cross-Border 
 
EN 16   EN Cooperation that allows for addressing common challenges and objectives  through a single set 
of rules and through pooling resour ces from both the internal a nd external funding sources of 
the EU budget.  
In other areas, such as infrastructure, en ergy, SME development and industrial cooperation, 
ICT, higher education, research and innova tion, environment and cooperation on maritime 
affairs, there is scope for strengthening the linka ges between the relevant internal policies and 
instruments and the ENP and the European  Neighbourhood Instrument. This entails 
strengthened cooperation with the relevant Commission services both at the programming and 
at the monitoring stage. In addition, there is a need for mainstreaming climate considerations 
into all policy sectors, as well as ensuring a tracking mechanism to measure such progress. 
This will be essential in order to prepare pa rtners to address complex challenges such as 
mitigation of and adaptation to climate change.10  
Furthermore, strengthened linkages with inte rnal instruments/polic ies could be achieved 
through replicating the example of Cross-Border  Cooperation, notably po oling of funds from 
various internal and external funding sources of the EU budget and implementing them with a 
single set of rules also in other policy areas, such as infrastructure interconnections. Also, 
extending of funding from internal instrument s to the Neighbourhood could be envisaged, as 
appropriate.    
The ENP offer includes the possibility for ENP pa rtners to participate in EU agencies and 
programmes. This requires an appropriate fina ncial contribution from the ENI. The issue of 
long-term financing of ENP pa rtners’ participati on in EU agencies and programmes thus 
needs to be adequately addressed by the future instrument, including the establishment of appropriate, sustainable delivery mechanisms. 
Evolving relationship with Russia
 
Russia is the only beneficiary of the ENPI not  covered by the ENP. The legal basis for EU 
relations with Russia is the Partnership a nd Cooperation Agreement (PCA) which came into 
force in 1997. The EU is currently working wi th Russia on a new agreement to replace the 
PCA. In 2003, the EU and Russia agreed to reinforce their cooper ation by creating four 
“common spaces”.11 The EU-Russia Partnership for M odernisation was launched in 2010 and 
is now in its implementation phase.   
Financial cooperation with Russia began in the early 1990s, under the TACIS programme, 
which has been replaced by the ENPI. As all other countries, Russia is entitled to benefit from 
both the bilateral, multi-c ountry and cross-border ENPI  funding. However, given the 
significant recent improvements in Russia’s fiscal  position, the need for large volumes of 
financial assistance has declined. Russia aspire s to a relation of equals and has become a 
donor itself. As a result, in the period 2007 -2013 the country received only marginal 
allocations under the bilateral e nvelope of the ENPI. Cooperat ion within the framework of 
                                                 
10 Regarding instruments under the EU budget, in order to r each the Europe 2020 objectives and to help other parts of 
the world step up their efforts to combat climate change, the Commission has stated in the June 2011 
Communication on “A Budget for Europe 2020”  that it intends to increase the proportion of climate-related 
expenditure across the EU budget to at least 20%, with contribution from different pol icies, subject to impact 
assessment evidence.  
11 The Common Economic Space; the Common Space on Freedom, Security and Justice; the Common Space on 
External Security; and the Common Space on Research, Education and Culture. 
 
EN 17   EN multi-country programmes continues and is carri ed out according to the principle of co-
financing by the EU and Russia. Most notabl y, Russia is co-financing CBC programmes. This 
reflects the evolving position of Russia as a st rategic partner where co-financed projects 
should be in both sides’ interest.  
Providing support to Russia through the ENPI has not fully reflected the specific status of 
Russia, as both a Neighbour and a strategic partne r. Russia is also the only partner benefitting 
from the ENPI that is not covered by the ENP.  The need to better align geographic eligibility 
of the future ENI with the policy and to addre ss specific status of Ru ssia should to be taken 
into account in the future MFF. 
2.5. Legal base for EU action 
Article 8 of the TEU pr ovides the orientations and the basi s for the ENP. The legal base for 
the financing instrument to support the ENP is article 209.1  TFEU12 and article 212.2 
TFEU . 
2.6. EU Value Added 
The EU is best placed to  deliver and coordinate 
In neighbourhood countries where alignment to EU rules and st andards is one of the key 
policy objectives, the EU is best placed to deliv er this assistance. Some specific support can 
only be provided at EU level, for example to promote progressive economic integration in the 
EU internal market, access to the Schengen spa ce or participation in EU programmes. Thus 
the EU is the leading cooperation partner in most of these count ries, a role widely recognised 
by Member States, IFIs and other donors. He lping the EU neighbours to align with EU 
policies, rules and standards is a key driver for reforms in the ENP partner countries. The 
benefits to the EU of increased stability and pr osperity at its borders are vital to all Member 
States. Through EU coordination and efforts for instance fighting illiteracy amongst women in 
Morocco has been achieved successfully, or impr ovements  to the water and sanitation system 
in Moldova could have been realized. These projects wouldn't have been such a success 
without the coordinating and leading role of the EU. 
The EU has a network of international agreements  with partners and or ganisations all over the 
world, not matched by individual Member States, whic h gives them influence in almost all fields of 
external relations with our partner countries.  
The EU plays a multi-faceted role in development: as an implementing agent of EU aid and as an EU 
coordinator and policy-maker in the development fi eld, as an economic and trade partner, through 
security policy and political dialogue, as well as through other EU sector policies – such as migration, 
climate or energy.  
 
The EU as a global player  
In the Neighbourhood, the EU is already delivering the lion's share of the external assistance 
and  this confirms the EU's role as a key player  in the region and on the international stage.   
                                                 
12 Treaty on the functioning of the European Union 
 
EN 18   EN In a globalised world, the added value of jo ined-up EU development cooperation is clearly 
established in comparison to 27 member Stat es and the Commission acting on their own.  
In the face of increasingly complex challenges, none  of the EU's internal priorities – security, 
growth and job creation, climate change, ac cess to energy, health and pandemics and 
migration - will be achieved in isolation from the wider world.  
The critical weight of the EU 
With 27 Member States acting within common po licies and strategies, the EU alone has the 
critical weight to respond to global challenge s. The action of Member States can be limited 
and fragmented, with projects which are often t oo small to make a sustainable difference in 
the field.  
This critical mass also puts the EU in a bette r position to conduct policy dialogue with partner 
governments. The ENPI assistance reflecting priori ties of the jointly agreed ENP Action Plans 
is generally accepted by all EU Member States, as well as by other international donors as a 
model example of combining development a ssistance programmes with a transformation 
reform agenda. For these reasons the EU-produced matrices of assistance are often treated as 
points of reference for the donor c oordination in the ENP countries.  
Division of labour within the EU is a crucial component  of its added value. With its network 
of international agreements with partners a nd organisations all over the world, the EU is a 
natural coordinator, and can influence almost all fields of international relations, which 
individual Member States, ac ting within common policies and strategies, cannot do alone.  
Streamlining the work of Member States thro ugh the EU enables be tter coordination and 
makes EU work more effective. The EU is also  more efficient in co ordinating the technical 
and financial assistance to all neighbourhood c ountries under a common umbrella based on a 
common strategy than the individual Member States. 
Acting as one makes financial sense  
At a time of budgetary restrictions , when several Member States have chosen to exit entire 
sectors of cooperation and withdraw from supporti ng certain countries, the EU is able to play 
an active role in promoting democracy, peace, solidarity, stability and prosperity and poverty reduction in the Neighbourhood. In this context, it makes more sense than ever from a purely 
economic perspective to channel aid at EU leve l where a real difference can be made. Acting 
through the EU can actually save  money for Member States.  
Working with the EU is cheaper. Administ rative costs are lower than the average 
administrative costs of the prin cipal donors for bilateral aid.  
In the Neighbourhood the ENPI, apar t form its unquestionable role as provider of the bulk of 
international assistance, has also  a strong leverage effect mobilis ing funds from IFIs and other 
donors. The EU’s commitment to partners gives a positive signal to investors that the support by individual Member States may not bring to the same extent.  
In times of economic crisis,  a more coordinated and integrated approach  between the EU 
and its Member States through joint program ming will bring about more added value, 
increased strength and legitimacy, and more impact and effectiveness . 
 
EN 19   EN Greater accountability 
Acting as one makes the EU more accountabl e than acting separate ly. In addition, the 
Commission is one of the most transparent aid b odies in the world. Such transparency is in 
itself an important tool to ensu ring effective value for money.  
 
3. OBJECTIVES  
3.1. Policy framework and objectives  
The key objectives of the ENP are set by Artic le 8 of the TEU as developing a special 
relationship with neighbouring c ountries, aiming to establish an  area of prosperity and good 
neighborliness at the EU’s borde rs, founded on the values of the Union and characterized by 
close and peaceful relations based on coope ration. Funding provided to the neighbours, 
notably through the ENPI, follows  these strategic objectives a nd should continue to do so.  
The specific objectives for th e future instrument consist of responding to a number of 
challenges identified as specific problems, based on the new policy orientations outlined in the section 2.1, as well as on a ssessments and lessons learned. 
Specific objectives of the future instrument 
• Apply the principle of “more for more” a nd mutual accountability in line with the 
new vision of the ENP , notably through specific provisi ons on criteria for financial 
allocations and on the programming process, as required; 
• Address the complexity and leng th of the programming process  in order to 
streamline, shorten and better focus the process, notably for ENP partners which 
have jointly agreed with the EU strategi c priorities through Action Plans or other 
equivalent documents; 
• Streamline the scope of the instrument  with the appropriate balance between the 
flexibility of the instrument and its focu s on the policy objectives and key areas of 
cooperation; 
• Adapt the implementation provisions  and improve the coherence between the 
external instruments; 
• Provide for improved provisions fo r the Cross-Border Cooperation  to facilitate 
effective and fast implementation of the programmes; 
• Promote closer linkages with EU internal instruments and policies,  including through 
strengthened cooperation with  the relevant Commission se rvices at the programming 
stage and, where relevant, mechanisms allo wing for pooling of funds from internal 
and external headings of the EU budget;  
• Respond to the evolving re lationship with Russia  by amending provisions on 
Russia’s eligibility to the ENI funding, reflec ting the specific status of Russia both as 
EU neighbour and strategic partner. 
 
EN 20   EN 3.2. Consistency with external action priorities 
The Lisbon Treaty defines a new institutional fram ework for the Union’s external action. This 
is intended to promote the coherence of EU  stance and enhance the EU standing on the 
international scene. The EU needs to equip itself with a long-term political strategy for 
external action and an appropriate toolbox that should pursue the following strategic 
objectives: 
1. Promoting and defending EU values abroad.  Through the European Neighbourhood 
Instrument the EU will promote transi tional and democratic processes and 
strengthening of civil so ciety around its borders;  
2. Projecting EU policies in support of the EU  2020 agenda for smart, sustainable and 
inclusive growth.  With the ENI, the EU will support addressing major global 
challenges and assist relevant reforms  benefitting  both the EU and the partner countries;  
3. Increasing the impact of EU development cooperation, 
with the primary aim of 
eradicating poverty. Through the ENI, the EU will assist partner countries in meeting 
development challenges according to thei r needs, capacities, interests and 
commitments and the potential for impact . The ENI will also help improve EU 
coordination and Policy Coherence for Development;  
4. Investing in the long-term prosperit y, stability and democracy in the EU  
Neighbourhood. The aim of establishing an area of stability, prosperity and democracy 
is the primary objective of the ENI a nd the renewed Neighbourhood policy. Priority 
will be given to support EU regional and bila teral policies, including thematic ones, in 
the wider Neighbourhood. The democratic tr ansition processes in the southern 
Mediterranean and their possible effects in the wider region make it necessary to better 
support the aspirations of these societies for democratic valu es and principles and for a 
more equitable distribution of the benefits  of growth, whilst pursuing the goals of 
greater political cooperation a nd integration with the neighbo urs, both in the South and 
in the East. This includes an increased focu s on engagement with civil society actors. 
5. Improving crisis prevention and resolution . The ENI should allow for an enhanced and 
more flexible support to crisis prev ention and resoluti on in the Neighbourhood.  
Support to the EU neighbours through a dedicate d, targeted and policy-driven instrument 
endowed with financial resources corresponding to  the ambitions of the renewed ENP is thus 
clearly in line with th e major priorities of the EU external action. 
However, continued complementary assistance to the ENP region will also need to be 
provided through a number of other external action instruments that  have contributed so far: 
Policy instruments 
• Under the five thematic programmes in the framework of the Development 
Cooperation Instrument specific program mes have been implemented in the 
Neighbourhood; 
• Dedicated programmes have received s upport under the European Instrument for 
Democracy and Human Rights;  
• The Instrument for Nuclear Safety Co-ope ration has provided assistance to those 
countries that have a civil nuclear programme. 
 
EN 21   EN Crisis response instruments 
• The Instrument for Stability, both its s hort and long-term component, has provided 
substantial funding to the region; 
• Instrument for Macro-Financial Assistance  has also made available substantial 
funding in the Neighbourhood; 
• Humanitarian Assistance Instrument. 
The EU will ensure that activ ities funded under other external action instruments do not 
overlap and are deployed cohere ntly with activities funded unde r the new ENI. The ENI and 
the other external instruments will continue to include provisions to facilitate funding for 
those regional activities whic h geographically cover countrie s that are outside a given 
instrument’s scope (e.g. INOGATE programme13). The EU will also coordinate with 
financing activities of the EIB, including unde r its external mandate , the EBRD, and other 
IFIs. 
3.3. Consistency with other EU policies 
Development Policy The recent people-led movements in a number of  countries in the Southern Neighbourhood 
have clearly highlighted th at sound progress on the Millenn ium Development Goals (MDGs) 
is essential, but not sufficient. Same is va lid for good marks in the Human Development Index 
and related indicators on inequality, gender and multidimensional poverty. This leads to two 
conclusions: first, that the objectives of  development, democracy, human rights, good 
governance and security are intertwi ned; secondly, that it is cri tical for societies to offer a 
future to young people.  
As set out in the Communication, "Increasing the Impact of EU Development Policy: an 
Agenda for Change", in future the EU should seek  to focus its offer to partner countries where 
it can have the greatest impact and concentr ate its development cooperation on support for: 
• democracy, human rights and other ke y elements of good governance, and 
• inclusive and environmentally sustaina ble growth for human development. 
These elements can also be found in the Join t Communication “A new re sponse to a changing 
Neighbourhood”. The future inst rument should contribute to  implementing and further 
pursuing these goals, in line with th e above-mentioned development objectives. 
Through comprehensive political and policy dialogue  with all partner c ountries the EU will 
define the most appropriate form of cooperati on, leading to informed and objective decisions 
on the most effective policy mix, aid levels, financial instruments and aid arrangements. 
Internal policies 
                                                
 
13 The INOGATE Programme is an international energy co -operation programme between  the European Union and 
the Partner Countries of Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus,  Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kyrg yzstan, Moldova, Tajikistan, 
Turkmenistan, Ukraine and Uzbekistan.  
 
EN 22   EN Through the ENP the EU offers greater trade and investment opportunities within a market of 
500 million people. This provides attractive opportunities to the Neighbourhood and makes a 
genuine contribution to stimula ting growth, prosperity and stab ility. Turning this offer into 
reality requires a prog ressive economic integration in the EU internal market and into the 
relevant policies, such as so cial policy, consumer protec tion, food safety, health, energy, 
climate action, environmental protection, fish eries policy, integrated maritime policy and 
research and innovation. It also implies interc onnection of networks, regulatory convergence 
at sectoral level, institution building and possibilities for pa rtners to participate in EU 
programmes and agencies when possible. Best  practice and experience in the cohesion and 
rural development policies will be shared with  the partners to address common challenges. 
This also means effective support to partners  in the implementation of international and 
regional agreements.  
The ENP Action Plans provide comp rehensive blueprints for such  integration efforts and the 
future ENI will continue to support their implementation. In this context, national and regional programmes will provide a comprehe nsive framework for supporting partners’ 
approximation efforts in a wide range of sector s and their integration into specific EU policy 
initiatives. This will help avoid a multiplication of initiatives, ensure coherence in the approach, foster ownership among beneficiarie s and ultimately enhance effectiveness and 
impact. The ENI will also be key in promoting investment in partner countries including in 
the areas of transport and energy interconnectio ns, environment and climate change, including 
through research and innovation capacity bui lding, and an enhanced use of innovative 
financial instruments.  
Given the objective of the ENP to foster clos er integration between the EU and the partner 
countries, provisions for a better  coordination of EU internal and external policies in the 
Neighbourhood should be strengthened, including through closer cooperat ion with relevant 
Commission services at the programming stage and, where re levant, use of mechanisms 
allowing for pooling of funds from internal and external headings of the EU budget.  
This could notably apply to areas of cooperati on such as infrastructure with cross-border 
dimensions, in particular transpor t and energy networks, the ICT sector
14 and other networked 
industries, as well as higher e ducation and the environment ar ea given their strong cross-
border component. Increased ENI support on build ing capacities in re search and innovation 
would help underpinning all of the above areas of cooperation and assist all partner countries 
in alignment with EU policies and objectives  in order to address global and regional 
challenges. 
Increased synergies with the EU  internal policies and the rela ted use of innovative financial 
instruments should be sought, on the basis of a coordinated approach to engaging EU budget 
in such instruments. This could facilitate poolin g of resources from different headings of the 
Multiannual Financial Framework.    
4. POLICY OPTIONS  
                                                 
14 Deployment of ICT services and infrastructures, impact  of the Internet on growth, freedom and expression of 
democratic values can not be underestimated 
 
EN 23   EN 4.1. Option 0: “No EU Action”;  the EU discontinues its financial support through a 
dedicated instrument for the Neighbourhood. 
Discontinuing EU action would mean not establis hing a new dedicated financial instrument in 
support of the ENP after 2013. Since according to Art. 32 of the Regulation (EC) 1638/2006 
of 24 October 2006 the current ENPI will not apply beyond 31 December 2013,this option 
would thus mean that the ENP partners would stop receiving a substantial amount of financial 
assistance in the areas currently supported by the ENPI. This option wo uld not allow the EU 
to further the objectives of the ENP as set out in article 8 of the TEU, nor to fulfil the ambitions of the renewed ENP vision outlined  in the Joint Communication “A new response 
to a changing Neighbourhood”. 
 
4.2. Option 1: “No change”;  cooperation with the countries concerned remains strictly in 
the framework of the existing ENPI Regulation- baseline scenario.  
The baseline scenario implies maintaining the status quo and continua tion of the EU support 
to the region in its current form and with the current geographic a nd thematic scope. While 
providing funding according to the current rule s allows for a predictable support to the 
partners in many policy areas, th is option would hardly allow for matching the ambitions of 
the Lisbon Treaty, integrating new developments in relations with the Neighbours, as well as 
for implementing the new ENP vision, including the “more for more” principle.  In particular, 
all the specific problems and challenges identifie d in this IA could not be appropriately 
addressed.  
4.3. Option 2: "Adapting the current set-up"; the legislative proposal for the future ENI 
should be based on the current ENPI Regul ation with a number of modifications. 
Article 8 of the Lisbon Treaty and the new ENP vision of a closer, democratic, prosperous 
and stable Neighbourhood, with each partner count ry reaping the benefits of a tailored and 
differentiated approach, call for adapting the future financial instrument for the Neighbourhood to the increased level of ambiti on of the renewed ENP. The more so as 
implementing such a vision is not without challe nges for the partners th at have to undertake 
difficult and costly reforms before the benefits become fully visible.  
The future ENI should notably target reaching the main objectives of the new ENP vision and 
addressing the specific problems and challenges  identified in this IA. The sub-options 
identified below outline main choices to be considered. 
Applying the “more for more” principle
 
Sub-option 1: Mainta ining the status-quo  
Maintaining the current provisions on alloca tion of funds and progr amming would make it 
difficult to fully apply the principles of “m ore for more” and “mutual accountability” which 
feature as the central aspects of the renewed ENP. 
Sub-option 2: Amend provisions on the allocation of funds  and programming  
Amending relevant provisions on the allocati on of funds and the programming process would 
allow for a more differentiated approach to the Neighbours in line with the “more for more” 
 
EN 24   EN principle and thereby for aligning the financial in strument to the new vision of the ENP. This 
new vision is predicated on an incentive-based approach. Differentiating between countries, it 
offers "more for more": those that go further a nd faster with reforms notably those related to 
democratic standards and rule of law will be able to count on greater support from the EU. 
This is of key importance to the EU as fu rther democratization and sector reforms are 
essential elements of building the area of prosperity and good ne ighbourliness around EU 
borders. 
Th “more for more” approach will be applicab le to the full spectrum of incentives proposed 
by the EU: to policy developments as well as to the financial assistance. The main 
benchmarks to be used to assess whethe r a country is genuinely engaged in the 
democratisation process and whether it can expect  to benefit from the increased incentives 
offered by the EU are defined in the Comm unication  “A new res ponse to a changing 
Neighbourhood”: 
– free and fair elections; 
– freedom of association, e xpression and assembly  
– free press and media; 
– the rule of law administered by an indepe ndent judiciary and ri ght to a fair trial; 
– fighting against corruption; 
– security and law enforcement sector reform (including the police) and the 
establishment of democratic contro l over armed and security forces. 
The above criteria are illust rative and cannot be the only  criteria by which support is 
determined.  
Application of the “more for more” principle could include a dedicated performance reserve 
and indicative allocations being establishe d within a specific range (“fourchette”). 
Addressing the complexity and length of the programming process  
Sub-option 1: Mainta ining the status-quo  
Maintaining the current programming process woul d ensure predictability of support to the 
partners but would not addres s the challenge of limited coherence between the programming 
and implementation identified as a specific prob lem and a major weakness. It also would not 
allow for improving the efficiency of the pr ogramming process and responding to the EU 
commitment to simplify programming embedded in the renewed ENP. 
Sub-option 2: Amending provisions on programming  
Amending the relevant provision on progr amming would allow for simplifying and 
streamlining the programming proce ss in line with the orientations set out in the renewed 
ENP.  
The new provisions on programming would provide for two types of programming 
documents: 
 
EN 25   EN a) for the partners that have concluded Action Plans or other equivalent documents with the 
EU, a single, light programming document based on priorities defined wi thin the Action Plans 
(or other equivalent documents) and commitment s entered into by partne r countries, including 
commitments taken in the context of the EaP or  UfM, would replace the Strategy Papers and 
the Indicative Programmes.15 This document, named a Single Support Framework (SSF), 
based on priorities of Action Plans or other equivalent do cuments will review progress in 
relation to policy framework, list priorities for EU support and thei r indicative level of 
funding.  
b) for partners that have not concluded Action Plans or other equivalent documents with the 
EU, the Strategy Paper and Multiannual Indica tive Programme will remain. The Strategy 
paper will define a response strategy and th e MIP will define priorities for support and the 
indicative level of funding. The Strategy papers and MIPS will al so remain for multi-country 
programmes. 
The new provisions allow therefore for introduci ng for the majority of the partners a lighter 
programming document (SSF), aligned to jointly agreed objectives. The new system allows 
also for differentiation of partners from the point  of view of their re lationship with the EU. 
Streamlining the scope of  the instrument  
Sub-option 1: Mainta ining the status-quo  
Maintaining the current approach would allow for a flexible and comprehensive programming 
but would limit the visibility of the focus of the ENP and could lead to the dispersion of 
support.  
Sub-option 2: Amending the pr ovision on the thematic scope  
The streamlined scope of the instrument would offer an enhanced visibility of and focus on 
broad policy objectives and a strengthened link with the ENP. Under this approach the 
possibility to address various sectoral aspects according to the specific needs of the partners 
and mutual interests (including,  where appropriate, the adopti on of or alignment with the 
acquis  and the participation of neighbouring countr ies in EU agencies and programmes), with 
choice of priorities at the programming stage, would be maintained but within a streamlined 
framework, regrouping the current  set of 29 thematic areas in to a few broader chapters. 
Progressive integration in the EU internal market  will be one of the key  specific objectives, 
and others will include notably promotion of human rights and fundamental freedoms, 
establishment of deep and sustainable democracy, promotion of good governance and 
development of a thriving civil society; enha nced sector co-operation, institution building and 
investments; creating conditions for well ma naged mobility of people and for promoting 
people-to-people contacts; sustainable and in clusive development in all aspects, poverty 
reduction, promotion of internal economic, so cial and territorial  cohesion and rural 
development; confidence building and other meas ures contributing to th e prevention of and 
settlement of conflicts; sub-regional, regi onal and neighbourhood wide co-operation as well 
as Cross-Border-Cooperation.  
                                                 
15 The current practice of producing a Count ry Environmental Profile for each be neficiary country, as an important 
tool to promote the consideration of environmental issues from the beginning of  the cycle of operations, should be 
continued. 
 
EN 26   EN This sub-option would therefore allow for a ddressing the specific problem identified with 
respect to the issue. 
Amending and updating of implementation provisions and addressing the lack of 
coherence between external instruments  
Sub-option 1: Mainta ining the status-quo  
The current implementation provisions have f unctioned well in the past and enable an 
efficient implementation of EU assistance in partner countries. However, some aspects are 
outdated and keeping the curre nt provisions would neither adequately reflect the way 
assistance to the Neighbourhood is provided nor  the new policy framework of the ENP. 
Maintaining the status-quo would also mainta in the lack of cohe rence between the ENI 
regulation and the implementation chapters of regulations setting up other external 
instruments. Concerning flexibility in crisis situations, the current regulation already has a 
well-functioning mechanism, but nevertheless the current procedure limits flexibility and speed of reaction to crisis and w ould need to be reinforced in or der to respond to future crisis 
situations. 
Sub-option 2: Adapting implementation modalities
 
Adapting the implementation modalities would allo w to better reflect the way assistance is 
implemented in the ENP region. Updating articl e 15 on “Type of Measures” or widening the 
scope of article 14 “Eligibility” e.g. by explic itly including Civil Society Organisations would 
be more in line with the new ENP vision. In cluding a reference to the use of innovative 
financial instruments such as the NIF would ma ke the chapter more complete. A revision of 
article 23 could allow for establishing revolving funds. Reinforcing the flexibility elements of 
the regulation (i.e. special measur es), including the definition of specific forms of flexible 
support for countries in a situation of fragility, tr ansition or crisis, would enable to better meet 
the challenges of future cris is and possibly further speed up the process of aid delivery in 
these exceptional circumstances.  
To facilitate the coherent implementation of multi-annual measures and ensure faster and 
more effective delivery of assistance, considera tion should be given to apply to part of the 
mainstream financial assistance the mechanism of split commitments used under structural 
funds and ENPI CBC.  
Moreover the coherence between all external assistance instruments could be improved by 
using a more harmonised approach throughout all the instruments.  
Providing for improved provisions for the Cross-Border Cooperation  
Sub-option 1: Mainta ining the status-quo  
Maintaining the current system would in prin ciple allow for continua tion of the CBC although 
it is not unlikely that the interest in and commitment to  this form of cooperation by some 
stakeholders would diminish. This would in turn seriously  hamper the CBC and limit its 
potential. 
Sub-option 2: Adapting the CBC provisions  
Adapting some of the current CBC provisions woul d be beneficial to the overall functioning 
of the CBC programmes. These changes would be  welcomed by the partners (Member States 
 
EN 27   EN and neighbours) as they would address many of the shortcomi ngs identified in the current 
programming period. 
In addition, amending the relevant CBC implemen ting rules is strongly required to address the 
complexity of the current system as identifie d by the stakeholders. Th is would also help 
improve the effectiveness of the programmes and facilitate their timely implementation.  
The main modificati ons will consist of: 
• stronger alignment with the  Eu ropean Territorial Cooperation; 
• extension of geographical e ligibility in order to encompass the important economic, 
social and cultural centers, as relevant; 
• full application of “shared management”, i nvolving Member States as signatories of 
Financing agreements and introducing possibi lity to use other forms of management 
• introducing provisions on national co-finan cing, including the substantial Russian 
co-financing. 
 
Facilitating closer linkages with EU  internal instruments and policies  
Sub-option 1: Mainta ining the status-quo  
Maintaining the current system would allow for further pooling of resources from the ENI and 
the ERDF in the CBC context but would not provide  explicitly for replicating this system to 
other internal policies and instruments. While in practi ce a relevant cont ribution from ENI 
would still be possible, the lack of specific provisions could seriously limit the opportunities 
for this kind of cooperation. 
Sub-option 2: Improving provisions for c oordination and linkag es with internal 
instruments/policies  
Strengthening provisions, through the introduction of a new dedicat ed Article referring to  
linkages and coordination with EU internal pol icies and instruments, including through, where 
technically feasible and if agreed in the ne w MFF framework,  pooling of funds from the ENI 
and relevant internal instruments notably for programmes/initiatives with transboundary 
aspects, such as transport and energy networks , the ICT sector and ot her networked industries 
as well as research and innovation (‘Horizon 2 020’), higher education and the environment 
area, would allow for a more eff ective support to initiatives that  serve the common interest of 
the EU and partners.  
These provisions would need to be mirrored by specific provisions in the relevant internal 
instruments. 
Responding to the evolving  relationship with Russia  
Sub-option 1: Mainta ining the status-quo  
Maintaining the current set-up would facilitate  coherence and effective implementation of 
multi-country initiatives and programmes in which the EU, Russia and ENP partners 
 
EN 28   EN participate. However, it would hardly allow for addressing the evolving na ture of EU relations 
with Russia and recognising Russia’s status as a strategic partner.  
Sub-option 2: Amending provisions on Ru ssia’s eligibility to the ENI funding  
Amending the current provisions by transferring the bilateral cooperatio n with Russia to the 
newly created “Partnership Instrument” targeting inter alia the EU’s strategic partners, while 
maintaining Russia as eligible for multi-count ry programmes under the ENI, would allow for 
addressing both the “strateg ic partner” and the “neig hbour” dimension of the EU’s 
relationship with Russia. It w ould also facilitate coherence and effectiv e implementation of 
multi-country initiatives and programmes gathering the EU, Russia and ENP partners. This will also allow for a closer alignment of the bilateral cooperation under the future ENI with 
the geographic scope of the European Neighbourhood Policy. 
4.4. Option 3: "Table a co mpletely new instrument" 
A new financial instrument with a different  geographic scope and focussing on objectives 
broader or different than thos e of the ENP could be consider ed. Such an instrument could 
include either other partners or split the neighbourhood countries, possi bly into two blocks 
(East and South). However, in the light of the Lisbon Treaty a nd the renewed ENP vision that 
provides for a continuation of a consolidated  policy framework, drifting away from the 
current geographical set-up would hardly allow for reaching the EU ’s objectives with regard 
to the Neighbourhood. Since the current ENPI provi des a very relevant basis for the future 
support to the ENP partners and re quires only adaptation of the current set-up, there is neither 
rationale nor added value in tabling a new instrument.  
5. A
NALYSIS OF IMPACTS  
5.1. Likely economic, social and environmen tal impacts of each of the options 
Option 0: "No EU action"  
The ENPI provides support for a wide range of  measures with positive economic, social and 
environmental impacts in the neighbourhood re gion (see below impacts for option 1). 
Discontinuing EU action through a de dicated instrument, which prov ides the bulk of financial 
assistance to the Neighbourhood, would substantia lly reduce impacts in all three areas and 
would endanger the sustainability  of the impacts achieved so far. Compared to the other 
options, it would thus have negative economic, social and environmental impacts. In terms of global impact, choosing this option would also dr amatically and negativel y affect the overall 
EU relations with the ENP partne rs and harm the special relati onship with these countries as 
"neighbours".  
Option 1: "No change" – base-line scenario
 
Economic impact 
With ENPI support partner countries adopt polic ies and measures conducive to stronger and 
more inclusive growth. This includes support fo r efforts to improve th e business environment 
such as simplifying procedures and catering to  SMEs and to promote employability. Support 
is also provided to Public Fina ncial Management (PFM) reforms. Partner countries’ efforts to 
strengthen respect for the rule of law and to fight corruption, supported by the ENPI, also 
 
EN 29   EN have a positive impact on the business environment, facilitating increased foreign direct 
investment and technology transfer which in  turn stimulate innovation and job creation.  
Furthermore, infrastructure projects to which th e ENPI has contributed al so play an important 
role in stimulating growth and development.  Nevertheless, maintaining the status quo might 
hinder the development of new innovative facili ties and investment schemes, which would 
improve even further the leverage of EU financial aid.  
Social impact 
The ENPI supports various projects and progra mmes with a considerable social impact in 
partner countries, including in the areas of education, health and social protection. Support is 
provided, inter alia, to in crease school enrolment rates, to in crease literacy rates, to reform 
education and health care systems and to su pport vulnerable layers of the population and 
people in conflict areas. This support allows also  for strengthening capacities of the relevant 
national institutions, advancing the relevant reforms and the modernisation of schooling. 
Women are being empowered, in particular  through education and vocational training. 
Dedicated measures allow for improving living conditions of Internally Displaced Persons 
(IDPs) and refugees and facili tate their socio-economic integration with host communities. 
The relevant state institutions are also being strengthened.  
The current instruments fails to  react sufficiently fast and flexibly enough to crisis and 
unforeseen events in the neighbou rhood countries, e.g. to the de mocratic transition processes 
initiated in several countries in the Southern Neighbourhood. This  means that also support to 
civil society or to social assi stance programmes might be delaye d in such crisis situations. 
Environmental impact   
The ENPI supports a number of measures aimed at promoting environmental sustainability in 
partner countries, including through projects in the area s of renewable energy, 
environmentally friendly transport systems and water management. 
As many of the environment ch allenges facing ENP partners ha ve a trans-boundary character, 
ENPI regional programmes have in a number of  cases tackled issues where national action 
would not be sufficient, for instance in the fiel d of air quality and water management.  Several 
regional projects have achieved important resu lts, and in many cases regional cooperation 
with country-specific features have proved to  be more efficient than purely bilateral 
cooperation. 
In the field of environment-related infrastructu re, there has been a positive effect of upstream 
work on investments e.g. through the Medite rranean Hot Spot Investment Programme 
(MeHSIP). Such project preparation work, as  well as the NIF financing of projects 
themselves, has enabled ENPI assistance to  provide a catalytic bridge between the 
expectations of partners/ident ification of problems and the im plementation of projects by the 
IFIs.  
Environmental issues are being mainstreamed, wh ere relevant, into activities having a main 
objective other than environmen tal protection. For example, for NIF financing of projects 
other than environmental ones such as transpor t or energy projects, th e Commission seeks to 
ensure that EU environmental pr inciples and standards are app lied as far as possible thereby 
avoiding potential negative impacts on the environment. 
 
EN 30   EN However in the current set-up there are limits to  adequately react to th e launch of the regional 
dimensions and to the potential they have for projects and initiatives in the environmental 
sector.   
Other impacts 
In terms of impact on governance, the current ENPI promotes the reform-driven agendas and 
the fulfillment of commitments within the ENP. Howe ver, so far results in this area have been 
limited. 
At a global level, maintaining the current Regu lation would still enable the EU to continue 
supporting the key objectives of the ENP and to build special relationships with the 
neighbours. Nevertheless this op tion would not allow for addres sing fully the objectives 
outlined in the Lisbon Treaty and  for deliveri ng on the commitments adopted within the new 
ENP vision, with its increased focus on pr omoting deep and sustainable democracy. 
Option 2: "Adapting the current set-up"  
Economic impact 
With the modified instrument partner coun tries would be furthe r supported in adopting 
policies and measures conducive to stronger and more inclusive growth. This includes support 
for efforts to improve the business environmen t such as simplifying procedures and catering 
to SMEs and to promote employability. Partner c ountries’ efforts to strengthen respect for the 
rule of law and to fight corruption, encourag ed by the application of  the “more for more” 
principle, will have a stronger positive impact  on the business enviro nment, facilitating 
increased foreign direct investment, researc h, innovation and technology transfer, stimulating 
innovation and job creation.  
A streamlined programming process would enhan ce the relevance of assistance which would 
allow for a more targeted response to the challenges of growth and development. Improved implementing rules for the Cross-Border C ooperation would strengthen the economic and 
social impact of the CBC programmes. 
Social impact 
A streamlined programming process would enhan ce the relevance of assistance which would 
allow for a more targeted response to social challenges. Improved implementing rules for the 
Cross-Border Cooperation would strengthen the social impact of the CBC programmes. Other 
social impacts would remain as in the case of option 1. 
Environmental impact   
In addition to the positive impacts outlined under option 1, this option would provide for more 
focused sectoral cooperation that will includ e environmental cooperati on allowing the EU and 
partner countries to pursue a higher level of en vironment protection aimed at enforcing higher 
standards of air and water quality, improve d environmental governan ce, higher resource 
efficiency, protection of biodiversity a nd ecosystems, and supporting the necessary 
infrastructure investments.  
 
EN 31   EN Furthermore, a streamlined programming process would enhance the relevance of assistance 
which would allow for a more targeted response to environmental challenges. In particular, 
addressing complex research-based challenges, such as mitigation of and adaptation to climate change and sustainable management of biodiversity, requires an enhanced Cross-
Border Cooperation between the ENP countries  as well as with the EU. Furthermore, 
improved implementing rules for the Cross- Border Cooperation would strengthen the 
environmental and climate change  impact of the CBC programmes. 
This option would have the highest positive environmental impact. 
Other impacts 
The application of the “more for more” principl e should significantly strengthen the impact of 
EU support on governance in partner countrie s and encourage them to enhance their 
commitment to the deep and sustainable democr acy and to undertake far-reaching reforms.  
At a global level, amending the current Regul ation would have the most positive impact on 
the overall EU relations with the ENP countries. The proposed adapting of the current set-up 
would make the new Neighbourhood Instrument mo re effective and more flexible; it would 
allow for meeting the objec tives of the Lisbon Treaty  and the new ENP vision.  
Option 3: "Table a completely new instrument"
 
The economic, social and environmental impacts of  an instrument with a different geographic 
scope and following wider or different objectiv es than those of the ENP can hardly be 
assessed in the given timeframe. However, in terms of coherence with the ENP objectives, the impacts could hardly be positive.  
At a global level, a new inst rument with different and wide ned scope and objectives would 
affect the credibility of the EU as an exte rnal player in the EN P region and would be 
inconsistent with the new policy framework. Mo reover, the option of possibly splitting the 
instrument into two geographical instruments w ould undermine the key objective of an area of 
prosperity and good neighbourliness at the EU’s eas tern and southern borders. It could also 
widen the rift among EU Member States. 
5.2. Impacts on external action, in pa rticular on Policy Coherence for 
Development 
There is no clear impact on Policy Coheren ce for Development (PCD) of either option 0, 
option 1 or option 3. However, option 2 with sub-option 2 designed to  facilitate closer 
linkages with EU internal instruments and po licies could be benefi cial in improving the 
coherence for development, in particular throug h an increased possibility to pool funds from 
the ENI and relevant internal instruments notably for programmes/initiatives with transboundary aspects, such as transport a nd energy networks, the ICT sector and other 
networked industries as well  as research and innovatio n, higher education and the 
environment area. This would in  turn result in a more effective support to this kind of 
initiatives that serve the common in terest of the EU and partners. 
By improving the PCD through option 2 (notably  the sub-option 2 on facilitating closer 
linkages with EU internal in struments and policies) the fu ture Instrument would also 
contribute to the general cohe rence of EU external action. 
 
EN 32   EN 5.3. Impact in terms of management  / implementation modalities 
Adapting the current ENPI Regulation as propose d would have a positive impact in terms of 
implementation modalities, for instance through stre ngthening the flexibility of the instrument 
to respond to crisis and simplifying implementa tion modalities and enhancing their coherence 
with other external action instruments. The proposed changes will allow for reducing 
transaction costs of implementation while increa sing the impact and ther efore the instrument’s 
value for money. 
6. COMPARING THE OPTIONS  
6.1. Weighing of positive and negative impacts per option 
Option 0: No EU action  
While discontinuing EU action would save money for the EU in the short term, the long-term 
effects in many areas, including trade, economic and social development, the environment and 
climate change would have a negative effect on both the EU and on the partner countries. 
Stability and security implicati ons need also to be taken in to account. This option would be 
tantamount to re-nationalise the EU policy towards the Neighbourhood. It would seriously 
undermine the credibility of the EU  as a global actor and abruptly reduce the EU’s role in its 
Neighbourhood. In addition, it would neither allo w the EU to further the objectives of the 
ENP as set out in article 8 of the TEU nor allow the EU to fulfil the ambitions of the renewed 
ENP vision. 
Option 1: No change  
While option 1 allows for a number of positive economic, social and environmental impacts, 
it hardly allows for matching ambitions of th e Lisbon Treaty, integrating new developments 
in relations with the partners a nd implementing the new ENP vision.  
Option 2: Adapting  the current set-up  
Option 2 would allow for achieving stronger positive economic, social, environmental and 
governance impacts than those identified for option 1, through addre ssing a number of 
specific challenges and problems identified since the launch of the current instrument. The 
following measures would need to be undertaken:  
• Amending provisions on Russia’s eligibility to the ENI funding 
• Amending provisions on the allo cation of funds and programming 
• Amending provisions on the programming process 
• Amending provision on the thematic scope 
• Amending provisions on implementation 
• Amending provisions on  CBC  
 
EN 33   EN • Including specific provisions related to internal instruments/policies, including 
financing of participation of partne rs in EU agencies and programmes 
Such an approach would notably facilitate ma tching the ambitions of the renewed ENP with 
the dedicated tool for su pport to the ENP partners. 
Option 3: Table a completely new instrument  
Assessing economic, social and environmental im pacts of option 3 is difficult. However it 
would clearly limit the potential of reaching the objectives of th e consolidated ENP vision. It 
could even lead to undermining the renewed ENP. 
6.2. Trade-offs and synergies associated with the options 
Options 0 and 3 need to be dis carded as they do not offer a viable framework for cooperation 
with the ENP partners based on  the objectives of the renewed ENP vision. Option 2 offers the 
best potential to adjust the current cooperation framework in line with the evolving policy 
context, to reap the benefits of the new EU relationshi p with the Neighbour s, to improve 
coherence of EU external action in the regi on and to address challenges and weaknesses 
identified. Option 1 is the second-best option as  it allows for maintaining support to the ENP 
partners within a consolidated and single fram ework, yet it does not pr ovide for meeting fully 
the objectives of the new ENP vision nor for a ddressing the challenges and specific problems 
identified within the current set-up. 
6.3. Preferred option 
The preferred option is option 2, consisting of  adapting the current set up, with all the 
indicated sub-options numbered as sub-options 2. Option 2 and the indicated sub-options are 
expected to have the highest positive econom ic, social, environmental and global impact. 
 
EN 34   EN 7. MONITORING AND EVALUATION  
7.1. Core indicators of progress towards objectives  
Progress towards meeting policy and sp ecific objectives of the new Neighbourhood 
Instrument can be assessed through indicators referring to: 
1) Main policy objectives  
• Furthering the conditions for close co-ope ration between the EU and its Neighbours 
and for regional and multiregional inte gration (area of good neighbourliness), 
measured notably through (a) number of agreements and Action Plans or other 
relevant documents in place;  (b) leve l of implementation of Action Plans or 
equivalent documents and other commitme nts as reflected by annual Progress 
Reports; 
• Promoting democracy, human rights, rule of  law and development of civil society, 
consolidating democratic transitions a nd contributing to the peaceful Neighbourhood 
measured notably through (a) level of implem entation of political priorities of Action 
Plans or other equivalent documents as  reflected by annual Progress Reports, (b) 
indices of the relevant international organisations and bodi es reflecting the 
levels/trends of security and stability, governance, demo cracy and respect for human 
rights and fundamental values;   
• Supporting EU Neighbours’ economic and s ector reforms and promoting further 
integration with the EU and among neighbouring countries themselves  measured 
notably through (a) level of implementation of the ENP economic reform agenda and 
of the sectoral priorities of  the Action Plans as reflect ed by annual Progress Reports; 
(b) socio-economic evolution as reflected  by survey-based indices compiled by the 
relevant international or ganisations and bodies.  
2) Specific objectives indentif ied for the future instrument  
i. Application of the “more for more” princi ple, measured notably  through furthering 
beneficiaries' commitment and alignment to core values, joint commitments, strengthened political cooperation and economic integration with the EU, as reflected notably through 
annual Progress Reports;  
ii. Adaptation of the programming process, reflected notably through (a) reducing the length 
of the programming cycle and (b) level of coherence betw een programming and financial 
assistance; 
iii. Scope of the instrument, reflected notably th rough (a) enhanced focus of the programming 
on the main policy objectives and (b) leve l of coherence between programming and 
financial assistance; 
iv. Adaptation of implementation, reflected notably through (a) level of fl exibility to provide 
assistance in case of urgent needs and crisis, (b ) level of participation of civil society in 
the relevant EU assistance programmes and (c) coherence with other external assistance 
instruments; 
v. Adaptation of the Cross-Border Cooperation, reflected notably through (a) number of 
CBC programmes, (b) establishment, launc h and implementation of CBC programmes; 
 
EN 35   EN vi. Linkages with external policies, reflected notably through (a) cases of pooling of funds 
from internal and external  headings of the budget as appropriate and (b) improved 
performance of partner countri es in the relevant policy ar eas as measured through annual 
Progress Reports; 
vii. Relationship with Russia, reflected notably through number of inte r-regional and Cross-
Border Cooperation programmes in which Russia participates;  
In practice the operational objectives will need to be customized  to the situation in each 
beneficiary country and would be  set in the programming docu ments based on the challenges 
identified. As the new ENI will be an enabling Regulation establishing the essential elements 
and the basis for the EU intervention, the specific cooperation objectives for each country and region will be defined through programming and the actions will be defined notably at the 
implementation stage with details on activities  to be carried out by the EU, including the 
objectives pursued by the actions in question and the expected results. Specific indicators will 
be fixed at that moment, taking into consideratio n the particularities of the action in question.  
The above said, future monitoring and evalua tions will have to take into account that: 
• because of the heterogeneity of beneficiar ies, with varying needs, capacities and 
performance, the instrument may be able to  achieve more results in some contexts 
than in others;   
• because the instrument will continue to fo cus on the wide ENP objectives as defined 
in the TEU and the relevant policy docum ents, it could be difficult to identify 
progress resulting exclusively from the inst rument, except at the level of specific 
activities;  
• many of the “results” of the future assi stance, such as progress in meeting the 
political benchmarks will be by their nature difficult to measure;  
• to some extent the objectives of the inst rument may be achieved through other EU 
measures (political, trade, etc) as much as through the results of the EU financial 
interventions;  
• given the difficult context for evaluation, the relative weight of absorption as a 
measure for assessing progress should not be overestimated. 
7.2. Outline for monitoring and evaluation arrangements  
The Commission’s Monitoring a nd Evaluation systems are incr easingly focussed on results. 
They involve internal staff as well as external  expertise. Task Manage rs in EU Delegations 
abroad and in Headquarters continuously m onitor the implementation of projects and 
programmes in various ways, including wherev er possible through fiel d visits. Monitoring 
provides valuable information on progress; it he lps managers to identify actual and potential 
bottlenecks, and to take corrective action. 
Furthermore, the Commission also conducts st rategic evaluations of its policies, from 
programming and strategy to the implementation of interventions in a specific sector (such as 
health, education etc), in a c ountry or region, or of a specifi c instrument. These evaluations 
are an important input to the formulation of  policies and the design of instruments and 
 
EN 36   EN projects. These evaluations ar e all published on the Commissi on’s website and a summary of 
the findings is included in the Annual Report to the Council and the European Parliament. 
The EU has committed itself to mainstreaming ac tion on climate and biodiversity and for this 
to be meaningful it needs to be accompanied by an obligation to identify relevant programmes 
so that the EU is able to se t out clearly how much of its spending relates to these global 
challenges. Clear benchmarks, monitoring and reporting rules need to be established. 
Expenditure that promotes climate action16 or energy efficiency as well as the protection and 
sustainable management of biodi versity and ecosystems, will be tracked using a system that 
reflects the established Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) 
methodology ("Rio markers"). 
                                                 
16 Regarding instruments under the EU budget, in order to reach th e Europe 2020 objectives and to help other parts of the world t o 
step up their efforts to combat climate change, the Commissi on has stated in the June 2011 Communication on “A Budget for 
Europe 2020” that it intends to increase the proportion of clim ate related expenditure across the EU budget to at least 20%, wi th 
contribution from different policies, s ubject to impact assessment evidence.