EN    EN EN 
 
EN    EN  COMMISSION OF THE E UROPEAN COMMUNITIES 
Brussels, 21.4.2009 
SEC(2009) 530 
  
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 
 
Report evaluating the implementation of th e financial instruments for external actions  
Accompanying the 
COMMUNICATION FROM THE CO MMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN 
PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL 
Mid-term review of the financial instruments for external actions  
{COM(2009) 196} 
 
EN 2   EN 1. D EVELOPMENT COOPERATION INSTRUMENT  
In the new framework for planning and delive ring assistance, Regula tion (EC) No 1905/2006 
establishes a financing instrument for deve lopment cooperation providing direct support for 
the Community’s development cooperation policy. The primary and overarching objective of 
EU development cooperation is the eradicatio n of poverty in the context of sustainable 
development, including pursuit of the Millenni um Development Goals (MDGs) as stated in 
Article 2.1 of the regulation. The EU is determined  to work to assist the achievement of these 
goals and the development objectives agreed  at the major UN conferences and summits. 
Development cooperation under the DCI is im plemented through geographic and thematic 
programmes (including the “sui  generis” programme related to the ACP sugar protocol 
countries). 
1.1. Geographic programmes: Latin Americ a, Asia, Central Asia, Middle East, 
South Africa 
1.1.1 Delivery against the declared objectives 
Geographic programmes should support the devel opment of, and reinforce the cooperation 
with eligible countries and regions in Latin Am erica, Asia, Central Asia, the Middle East and 
South Africa. The geographic programmes for DC I countries and regions have in general 
been operating smoothly and without major pr oblems. They have allowed the EU to 
contribute to the DCI objectives and should c ontribute positively to the development of the 
countries and regions concerne d. In the preparation and implementation of geographic 
strategy papers and multiannual indicative programm es, the principles of aid effectiveness, 
ownership, partnership, coordi nation, harmonisation, alignment with recipient country or 
regional systems and results-oriented appro ach were applied. The programming documents 
were also drafted taking in c onsideration the differentiated and specific conditions of 
countries and (sub)regions. Their implementation started in 2007 with the adoption of the first 
Annual Action Programmes. 
In the case of Latin America,  Country Strategy Papers (CSPs) for the 17 countries, three 
Regional Strategy Papers (RSPs) for Mercosur, the Andean Community and Central America, 
and one Regional Strategy Paper for Latin Amer ica were prepared and approved for the 
period 2007-2013. As specified in the DCI, Community assistance  to Latin America 
supported actions with particular attention to th e areas of cooperation specified in Article 6 — 
reflecting the specific situation in Latin Ameri ca. In particular, the promotion of social 
cohesion, that is the fight against poverty, inequa lity and exclusion, is at the centre of the 
programming exercise as a focal sector fo r a large majority of National Indicative 
Programmes. Also, support to region al integration at sub-regional le vel is the main priority in 
the RSPs for Mercosur, the Andean Community  and Central America, and strong emphasis 
has been put on support to higher educa tion at the global regional level.  
In the case of Asia , 18 Country Strategy Papers and one Regional Strategy Paper for Asia for 
the period 2007-2013, and their corresponding Mu lti-annual Indicative Programmes (MIPs) 
2007-2010, were prepared in 2005-2006. In addition, under Article 23 of the DCI, three 
special measures not provided for in th e strategy papers or multiannual indicative 
programmes were adopted for Sri Lanka, Indones ia and the Democratic  People’s Republic of 
Korea. As stated in the DCI, Co mmunity assistance to Asia is c onsistent with Article 5 with a 
special emphasis on a number of areas of c ooperation mentioned in Ar ticle 7 reflecting the 
specific situation of Asia. In particular, MDGs in the field of health, including HIV/AIDS, 
 
EN 3   EN and education, inter alia , through policy dialogue for sectoral  reform, are at the heart of the 
programming exercise as focal sectors fo r the majority of MIPs 2007-2010 (health: 15.5%; 
basic education: 18,5%); addressi ng governance issues in particular  in fragile States is highly 
relevant for Afghanistan, Nepal, Philippines, and Sri Lanka; encouraging greater regional integration and cooperation is reflected in the majority of programming documents; 
contributing to the control of epidemics and zo onoses is one of the ma in priorities under the 
Regional Programming for Asia; promoting sustai nable development in all its dimensions, 
with particular attention to the protection of forests and biodiversity is programmed for 
Bangladesh, Bhutan, China and under the Re gional programming, and fighting against 
production, consumption and traffi cking of drugs and against ot her trafficking concentrates 
mainly on Afghanistan. 
Concerning Central Asia , Community assistance is embedded in one Regional Strategy 
Paper for 2007-2013 and a Multi-annual Indica tive Programme for 2007-2010. The latter 
document identifies the specific focal sector s retained for the Central Asia regional 
cooperation programme and for each country in particular, with emphasis on a number of 
areas of cooperation mentioned in Article 7 re flecting the specific situ ation of Central Asia. 
The adoption by the European Council of a St rategy for a new enhanced partnership with 
Central Asia in June 2007 has given impetus to  dialogue and reinforced cooperation with the 
five countries on major issues facing the region for poverty re duction, sustainable 
development and stability which had been at the heart of the program ming exercise for 2007-
2013 and can now be pursued with a higher leve l of political commitment and impact. The 
overriding priority given to povert y reduction was translated in th e primacy of social sectors 
— social protection, health a nd education — and community ba sed rural development in the 
assistance. Particular attenti on was also given to governance issues, notably public finance 
management and the rule of law, which refl ect directly on governme nt implementation of 
reform policies, and particularly on the impa ct and efficiency of Community assistance. 
Coordination with other donors, including throu gh participation in drafting and follow up on 
Joint Country Strategies has also enabled to im prove EU response and impact of assistance at 
country level. 
In the DCI Middle East region (Iraq, Iran, Yemen), only Iraq and Yemen have so far 
benefitted from assistance; Iran is a potential beneficiary but has received no DCI geographical assistance since 2007. The unique instability of Iraq has necessitated an 
annualised approach using Special Measures u nder Article 23 DCI to enable the responsive 
deployment of reconstruction, re habilitation and development as sistance, as well as close 
coordination with humanitarian relief efforts. The high-risk environment, and consequent 
constraints on in-country project management, dictated that most DCI support until 2008 was 
delivered through the United Nations-World Bank multi-donor trust fund (IRFFI), to which 
the EU has been the largest donor. In future, as  Community funding is delivered progressively 
through bilateral channels and pr ogrammed on a multiannual basis, it will be vital to maintain 
the high level of coordination that wa s built in the multi-donor trust fund.  
The case of Yemen is less atypical, involving the preparation and implementation of a CSP 
with an unequivocal focus on the MDGs, notably  in the areas of health, governance, food 
security and agriculture. This said, increasing potential for state fragility, as well as high 
exposure to food price increases, will almost certainly imply caref ul mid-term review of the 
CSP, to ensure that EU assistance to Yemen fo rms part of a coordinated and concerted effort 
to maintain stability as well as  promote the development of th e country. The DCI has, overall, 
provided a sound basis for much of the EU coop eration with these tw o countries. Financing 
from other instruments and thematic program mes (IfS, EIDHR, Food Security) has also 
 
EN 4   EN offered valuable complementary sources, for sp ecific purposes. However, scope for certain 
cooperation activities in Iraq and Iran (such as energy coope ration, public diplomacy) which 
could be ineligible as ODA is  being provided for in the legislative proposal for non-ODA 
cooperation.  
The MDGs, and in particular poverty eradica tion, employment creatio n and basic services, 
constitute the bulk of the Commissi on’s development cooperation in South Africa . Between 
65 and 85% of the multiannual Indicative Pr ogramme over 2007-2010 is targeted towards 
employment creation and service delivery for social cohesion, in cluding health and education 
programmes. So far, the instrument has enable d implementation of the main policy objectives, 
both in terms of poverty alleviati on and reduction of ine qualities in the count ry, as well as in 
terms of supporting the broader EU dialogue and cooperation w ith South Africa. Overall, 
dialogue with Parliament as foreseen in the instrument has been supportive of the 
Commission’s objectives with re spect to the implementation of  development cooperation with 
South Africa. The programming allocates between 30-40% for capacity for service delivery and social cohesion. In addition, 5-20% of the e nvelope is earmarked for support in the area 
of governance, and 4-10% for regional and pan-Af rican support. Up to 5% of the South Africa 
envelope is reserved for s upporting policy dialogue and EU-S A cooperation in a wide range 
of areas like environmental policy, energy, trade- related issues, transport, etc. This is a 
relatively small proportion and is justified fr om the perspective of supporting the broader 
scope of EU-SA relations and of facilitating dialogue to ensure the full implementation of the Trade, Development and Cooperation Agreement (TDCA) with South Africa. All actions are 
supported from the perspective of  contributing to poverty erad ication, employment creation 
and sustainable development.  
The democratic scrutiny dialogue  with the European Parlia ment has been an innovative 
mechanism in the process of adopting the stra tegy documents. The Commission entered into a 
dialogue with the Parliament as  agreed during the negotiations leading to the adoption of the 
instruments and reflected in declarations No  4 and 5 attached to the Interinstitutional 
Agreement on budgetary discipline and sound fina ncial management. The democratic scrutiny 
dialogue provides for the draft thematic, regiona l, and country strategy papers of co-decided 
instruments to be sent to the Parliament and for the Commission to take its comments into 
account. When examining the draft strategy pape rs, the Parliament expressed concern about 
some of the programmed measures which it cons idered not to be sufficiently geared towards 
the eradication of poverty and the Millennium Development Go als. The Parliament adopted 
four resolutions
1 under its formal right of scrutiny (A rticle 8 of the comitology decision2) 
                                                 
1 Resolution of 15 February 2007 on the draft Commission decisions establishing Country Strategy 
Papers and Indicative Programmes for Malaysia, Braz il and Pakistan (OJ C 287 E, 29.11.2007, p. 507).
  
Resolution of 7 June 2007 on the draft Commission decision establishing Regional Strategy Papers and 
Regional Indicative Programmes for Mercosur and Latin America (OJ C 125 E, 22.5.2008, p. 213).  
Resolution of 21 June 2007 on the draft Commission decision establishing a Regional Strategy 
Document 2007-2013 and a Multiannual Indicative Programme for Asia (OJ C 146 E, 12.6.2008, p. 
337).  
 Resolution of 25 October 2007 on the draft Commission decision establishing a Special Measure 2007 
for Iraq (OJ C 263 E, 16.10.2008, p. 624). 
2 Council Decision 1999/468/EC (OJ L 184, 17.7.1999, p. 23), as last amended by Council Decision 
2006/512/EC. 
 
EN 5   EN pursuant to Rule 81 of its Rules of Procedure,  signalling that, in its view, the Commission had 
exceeded its implementing powers and calling for the withdrawal of the measures. 
While the Commission was of the view that virt ually all the activities concerned were fully 
covered by the DCI, it nevertheless responded to  the EP’s concerns by amending its approach 
and withdrawing some contested activities from  indicative programmes. This was the case for 
Brazil (where the proposal for a Euro-Centre wa s modified); for Mercos ur (where the film 
industry programme was put on hold and will be financed under a preparatory action); for 
Malaysia (where the Commission accepted the EP’s  points on the EU visibility programme); 
and for the regional strategy on Asia (where the component ‘support to research institutes’ 
was removed and will be funded under separate preparatory actions).  
In addition, with the rise of emerging economies, in particular China, India and Brazil, and the 
intensification of EU relati ons with several dynamic devel oping country partners, the 
possibility of funding measures beyond Offi cial Development Assistance (ODA) in 
developing countries is becoming increasingly important. In that  context, the budget authority 
launched four preparatory actions  aimed at supporting measures wh ich it considered could not 
be financed under the DCI (e.g. for business centr es in China and India, and for ‘sectors 
capable of developing independently’ in Asia and Latin America). By definition, Preparatory 
Actions are meant to provide for temporary s upport and are supposed to lead to legislative 
proposals within three years. Therefore, curren t preparatory actions ar e building the basis for 
a longer-term support to finance certain  activities in the EU’s interest.  
The dialogue with the Parliame nt also gave the opportunity to exchanges views on higher 
education. The objective in this sector is to  build upon the success of Erasmus Mundus (EM), 
adapting it in the context of development cooperation — through the EM External 
Cooperation Window (EMEWC) set up by the Comm ission. The actions in clude the financing 
of fellowships for Latin American, Asian, and South-African students and academics coming 
to the EU, and also the sending of EU students (and academic staff, including researchers, to 
reinforce local capacity building in the sector). The Parliament has objected to using the DCI 
for financing the European mobility component on the grounds that it does not fulfil the criteria for ODA eligibility
3. Following the EP’s request, the Commission agreed to exclude 
from the DCI measures to send EU students as  from 2010 onwards, and to find a legislative 
solution under the mid-term review of the instruments. 
In conclusion, the current DCI Regulation constrains the scope of the bilateral geographical 
cooperation with eligible count ries by requiring all measures financed to fulfil the 
OECD/DAC criteria for Offici al Development Assistance. Legislative follow-up to the 
Preparatory Actions is proposed to fill this gap in order to have an enabling instrument to 
cover activities, in particular  for emerging countries, which do not meet ODA criteria.  
1.1.2 Implementation issues 
The DCI regulation presents a number of advant ages in relation to the previous regulation 
(ALA). It introduces new methods  of implementation facilitati ng joint financing arrangements 
with other development partners such as the pooling of funds through th e joint co-financing 
mechanism (DCI Article 27(2)).  It is therefore more adap ted to the efforts of donor 
harmonisation and alignment to national procedures and streng thens the ownership of the 
programmes by the recipient count ries. Moreover, the DCI allows faster and more relevant 
                                                 
3 Resolution of 9 July 2008 on the draft Commission decisions establishing Annual Action Programmes 
for Brazil for 2008 and for Argentina for 2008 (Texts adopted, P6-TA(2008)0338). 
 
EN 6   EN preparation of programmes, as identification formulation and implementation rely more and 
more on the most experienced donor in the bene ficiary country or regi on. It is also more 
effective because the DCI allows pooling of funds (i.e. joint co-f inancing) around a common 
objective defined by the recipi ent countries and donors.  
This aspect is strengthened by the introducti on of annual action prog rammes, which ensure 
better consistency between the programmes prep ared by the Commission for a given year and 
the overall framework of the country strategies  formalised by the strategy papers and the 
multiannual programming. The Commission also ma kes constant efforts to improve the 
availability of information about the implementation and ev aluation of its programmes in 
particular when they are implemented through budget support a nd/or trust funds.  
Implementation of programmes and projects st arted relatively recently (end of 2007). The 
main difficulties encountered are linked to the payment of taxes, duties and charges. There is 
a need for a technical amendment to harmonise  Article 25(2) of the DCI Regulation with 
other instruments so as to a llow payment of taxes, duties a nd charges in exceptional cases, 
notably where the goal of the relevant action can only be attained if it is financed in full by 
Community funds. The same technical problem appears with the EIDHR instrument working 
mainly with NGOs.  
The harmonisation of such flexibility with the wording “in principle” will be framed through 
internal guidelines for all instruments since the exception to the principle has to be granted on 
a case by case basis giving duly justified reasons. 
1.1.3 Delivery against the commitments undertaken 
The adoption of the DCI Regulation wa s accompanied by a Commission Declaration 
concerning Article 5 of the DCI (geographic programmes) where the Commission reaffirms 
that the eradication of povert y and the pursuit of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) 
are at the core of the primary objectiv es of its development assistance.  
In line with MDGs, the objectives and genera l principles of the DCI are to implement 
Geographic and Thematic programmes aiming at  strengthening human development (notably 
health and education), social  cohesion and employment, governance and democracy, trade 
and regional integration, environment and sust ainable development of natural resources and 
contributing to the stabilisation of post-crisis  situation and fragile states. In 2002 the 
Commission reached an understanding with th e European Parliament to report on a 
benchmark of 35% of geographic cooperatio n with developing countries under the budget 
being allocated to social infrastructure and se rvices, including macroeconomic assistance with 
social sector conditionality. Th e Commission has further committed to prioritise basic health 
and education, and social cohesion as a whol e in its programming, a nd to include an MDG 
profile in the programming documents. The 35%  benchmark has been superseded but the 
Commission’s commitment is to  continue reporting annually on actual spending in these 
sectors. A new commitment is “ to endeavour to ensure that  a benchmark of 20% of its 
allocated assistance under count ry programmes is dedicated, by the year 2009, to basic and 
secondary education and basic health, through project, programme or budget support linked 
to these sectors, taking an average across all geographical areas and recognising that a 
degree of flexibility must be the norm, such as exceptional assistance ”. The Commission took 
this element into account in its dialogue with recipient countries/regions and difficulties are not foreseen to reach that target. Assistance to  each and every country will not necessarily be 
able to reach this benchmark — because of owne rship and donor coordination as set out in the 
“European Consensus on Development” — but th is goal will be achieved on average across 
all geographical areas as ag reed. The Commission has also included in its 2008 Annual 
 
EN 7   EN Report on EC External Assistance the follow up of the 20% benchmark. Ai d directly targeting 
basic health and basic and secondary educ ation sectors reached some 17% of total 
commitments in 2007 under the relevant geogra phical programmes (Asia, Latin America and 
South Africa), even without including general budget support linked to these sectors. The 
Commission is thus well  on track to reach, by 200 9, the 20% goal agreed with the adoption of 
the DCI Regulation for assistance to these sectors under the DCI country programmes.  
However, such financial input benchmarking is  not the most effective approach to aid 
assessment. In line with the international commitments on aid effectiveness, the Commission has increasingly shifted attention from input-bas ed approaches to management for results, 
thereby promoting division of labour and budge t support. As a result, it would be more 
effective to replace such benchmarking by a mo re up-to-date systematic follow up of the 
social sectors, so as to ensu re that health and basic and s econdary education are priority 
sectors in government development plans and that from the donor perspective these sectors 
are indeed not orphan aid sectors. 
1.1.4 Adequacy of the financial envelopes and financial provisions 
The programming 2007-2009 has been established in line with the financial envelopes 
allocated to the respective regions (Annex IV of the DCI Regulation). There are no specific 
difficulties regarding these envelopes, so there is no need to change the indicative financial allocations for the period 2007-2013. The budget au thority has increased the Latin America, 
Asia, Central Asia and Middle East (Iraq, Iran, Yemen) enve lopes by respectively EUR 14 
million, EUR 27 million, EUR 4 million, and EU R 15 million over 2007-2008 compared to 
the legislative financial statement reflecting the initial programming of  the indicative amounts 
within the reference amount of the Regula tion. The programmed pr ofile 2009-2013 of the 
Central Asia envelope has been adjusted further to the new enha nced partnership with Central 
Asia adopted in June 2007 by frontloading part of the envelope over 2009-2010 without 
modifying the overall in dicative allocation.  
The DCI Middle East (Iraq, Iran, Yemen) allo cation was programmed to decline in size 
significantly over the period (fro m EUR 109 millions in 2007 to  less than EUR 60 millions 
from 2010 onwards). This decline assumed that  the volume of aid to Iraq would decrease 
dramatically according to progress in the situ ation of the country, that the volume for Iran 
would remain negligible in view of the pol itical circumstances, and that the volume for 
Yemen should remain steady. The need to conti nue with an — albeit much smaller — support 
programme for Iraq is evident, and the focus will shift away from reconstruction towards 
much less capital-intensive capacity buildi ng. The situation in Yemen, however, has 
deteriorated to the point where weak governan ce and increasing poverty levels have created a 
situation of unrest and potential for state fragil ity to which the EU is committed to responding 
with the full range of instruments at its dis posal, from crisis resp onse to longer term 
development tools. The mid-term review of the Yemen Country Strategy will reflect these 
developments.  
1.2 Thematic programmes: Migration and asylum, Investing in people, 
Environment and sustainable manageme nt of natural resources including 
energy, Non-state actors and local authorities in deve lopment, Food security, 
ACP sugar protocol countries 
The implementation of the thematic programmes and projects started re latively recently. No 
major difficulties have been encountered.  
 
EN 8   EN 1.2.1 Non-state actors and local auth orities in development (NSA)  
The objective of this thematic programme is to  co-finance initiatives proposed or carried out 
by civil society organisations a nd local authorities originating in the Community and partner 
countries in the area of deve lopment. The programme must be  implemented consistent with 
the objective of the DCI and strengthen the capac ity of non-state actors and local authorities 
in the policy making process, so as to: 
- Promote an inclusive and empowered civil society. - Increase awareness of “developmen t issues” among European citizens. 
- Improve networking and communication between  European NSA and LA associations, and 
of these networks with European institutions. 
The multiannual strategy was adopted in July  2007. No issues were raised during the 
democratic scrutiny and comitology process. The strategy has been implemented through 
annual action programmes (AAP). The approval of the first Annual Action Programme by the 
Member States, while completely in line with the multiannual strategy adopted previously by them, has revealed to be difficult. The main problem lied in the definition of priority 
countries, with Member States seeking to incl ude countries that were not considered by the 
Commission as satisfying the selection criteria  defined in the multiannual strategy and guided 
by the principles of subsidiarity and comple mentarity. In line with  the strategy paper 2007-
2010, in-country interventions ar e targeted on cases which dem onstrate a specific added-value 
to the different geographic programmes (E DF, DCI geographic programmes, ENPI) as 
follows:  
• Country situations which are not conducive to  ensuring NSA involvement such as: difficult 
partnerships (suspended NIP, no government co mmitment to basic development principles, 
no status for NSAs), unstable situat ions, conflicts, poor governance, etc. 
• Populations out of reach of mainstream se rvices and resources, excluded from policy 
making processes. 
• Multi-country and/or multi-regional interventi ons, networking and coordination activities 
ensured more efficiently through the thematic programme than through geographic 
programmes. 
The definition of these selection criteria may be reviewed in the mid-term review of the 
strategy paper for the next programming peri od (2011-2013) in order to make them more 
tangible.  
The award of projects selected  under the calls fo r proposals covered by the 2007 Annual 
Action Programme was completed at the end of 2008. In support of actions in developing 
countries (objective 1), the Commission select ed 385 projects proposed by non-state actors 
from the EU and partner countries and 32 projec ts proposed by local authorities from the EU 
and partner countries for a total contri bution of EUR 171.7 million, comprising EUR 106.8 
million for projects selected under local calls for proposals ma naged by EC Delegations in 
partner countries and EUR 64.9 million for proj ects selected under centralised calls for 
proposals managed by EuropeAid headquarters.  Activities raising th e awareness of the 
European public (objective 2) were supporte d for a total contribution of EUR 27.8 million 
supporting 47 projects (out of which 41 pr oposed by non-state actors for EUR 25.1 million 
and 6 proposed by local authorities for EUR 2. 7 million). Activities fostering coordination 
and networking of non-state actors and loca l authorities (objective 3) working on 
development were also supported for a total contribution of EUR 3.9 million supporting 8 
 
EN 9   EN projects (6 proposed by non-state actors for EUR 3.3 million and 2 proposed by local 
authorities totalling EUR 0.6 million). 
As regards the 2008 annual action programme, 5 cen tralised calls for proposals were launched 
in December 2008 and another 71 have been published or are to be published by EC Delegations. The process for the selection of pr oposals related to these calls is still ongoing 
and the results should be known before the end of 2009. In princi ple, the centralised calls for 
proposals published in December 2008 will cover budget years 2008 and 2009.  
The Commission has started compiling data from 2007 implementation, but it is too early to 
have practical feedback on outputs and impact of this programme.   
The programmed amounts are in line with the envelope foreseen in the Regulation. The 
current outlook for the period 2010-2013 is that  this situation should be maintained. 
1.2.2 Migration and asylum 
The thematic programme on Migration and Asylum is fulfilling its fundamental objective of 
assisting third countries in thei r efforts to manage better their migration flows and asylum 
issues. The coverage of this programme, wh ich encourages the pr omotion of synergies 
between migration and development, support for legal labour migration, discouragement and 
control of illegal migration, the protection of mi grants and successful management of asylum 
issues has offered the comprehensiveness and fl exibility to tackle emerging routes and to 
accommodate new initiatives. 
The opportunity to implement the funding rece ived through both annual Calls for Proposals 
and, when needed, targeted projects with international organisa tion has added needed 
flexibility to take advantage of particular t ypes of expertise needed to address particular 
challenges and specific situations. Support, for example, has been made available rapidly 
through targeted actions in response to the ne gotiation of mobility part nerships with third 
countries (e.g. Cape Verde, Moldova, Libya).  
Of the EUR 384 million envelope for this programme under the DCI Regulation for the period 
2007-13, EUR 205 million has been programmed under the 2007-10 Strategy Paper adopted 
in 2007. These funds have been programmed acco rding to the main migratory routes as 
follows: Southern Route — EUR 70 million; Ea stern Route — EUR 50 million; Middle East 
and Gulf — EUR 5 million; South and East Asia and the Pacific — EUR 16 million; Latin 
America and the Caribbean — EUR 16 million; Global and multi-regional actions — EUR 28 
million; Special measures (Art. 23 of DC I Regulation) — EUR 20 million. The 2009 Annual 
Action Programme will be adopted in mi d-May and €48.36 million is programmed. In 
addition, €3 million is planned to be committed at a later stage this year for a project aiming at 
strengthening African countries and regiona l economic communities (REC) capacities to 
cooperate on migration issues and actively moni tor the implementation of the Africa and EU 
partnership on migration, mobility and employment. 
Due to the very nature of the programme, which includes among its objectives asylum and 
international protection as well as curbing illegal migration, some activities cannot be 
classified as Official Devel opment Assistance (ODA). This wa s specifically foreseen in the 
Regulation and reflected in the flexibilit y granted under Article 2(4) for thematic 
programmes. 
The European Council of Decem ber 2005 established that up to 3% of the funding for our 
neighbours should be devoted to areas concerni ng or related to migration. Amounts of EUR 
48 million and EUR 52 million were allocated  respectively in 2007 and 2008 to the DCI 
migration thematic programme for a wide geogr aphical area, including ENPI countries. Under 
 
EN 10   EN the DCI migration 2007 and 2008 annual prog rammes, amounts of EUR 19.6 million were 
allocated to the Eastern migratory route and EUR 27.6 million to the South migratory route 
that comprises ENPI and ACP countries. Over  the period 2007-2010 some  50% of the global 
allocation provided under the migration budget lin e is set to benefit ENPI countries. This 
funding, together with an estimated amount of EUR 90 million affected to migration-related 
measures under the ENPI countries, multi-coun try, and CBC programmes, will contribute to 
attaining the 3% objective. 
1.2.3 Environment and sustainable manageme nt of natural resources (ENRTP)  
The objectives with respect to  the Environment Thematic Pr ogramme have been flexible 
enough to accommodate three major new init iatives: Global Energy Efficiency and 
Renewable Energy (GEEREF), Global Climat e Change Alliance (GCCA) and Technology 
Transfer for Clean Coal (TTCC) . There is therefore no need to adjust or modify the 
objectives. The ENRTP includes also small a llocations for facilitating policy dialogue, 
coordination, analysis and consultation proces ses of the EU Water Initiative and EU Energy 
Initiative at global, interregi onal, subregional and regional levels for which the main funding 
is made available from the geographical instruments. 
The ENRTP can be considered enabling in the sense that it is a helpful instrument to 
implement certain policies, such as adap tation to climate cha nge, promoting energy 
efficiency, FLEGT (Forest Law Enforcement, Governance, and Trade), and it can play a 
catalytic role in making additional funding avai lable (also from other donors) for these policy 
objectives. However, some areas like biodiver sity and desertification require special 
attention4. The objectives of the ENRTP remain very relevant for working towards achieving 
MDG No 7.  
There are some actions ineligible for Official  Development Assistance (ODA), but these are 
relatively limited and can be accommodated within  the flexibility granted under Article 2(4) 
for thematic programmes . Most of the  actions under the ENRTP, in cluding the contributions 
for GEEREF, are in fact ODA eligible. 
The multiannual strategy was adopted in June 2007. Through comitology and democratic 
scrutiny procedures, both Council and Parliament  have argued for additional funding for the 
ENRTP. Substantial additional funding has been  made available at the initiative of the 
Commission for the major initiatives (GEEREF , GCCA and Technology Transfer for Clean 
Coal) to respond to the need to deal with climate change adap tation. The main deviation from 
the legislative financial allocation (+EUR 176 m illion) stems from the decisions in the APS 
2008 and APS 2009 to allocate more  resources for renewable ener gies and climate change and 
from the final 2009 Budget. The 2008 APS decision added EUR 50 million for climate change (GCCA) over the period 2008-2010 a nd EUR 28.5 million for GEEREF over the 
period 2008-2009. The 2009 APS decision added a fu rther EUR 10 million for climate change 
(GCCA) and EUR 60 million for technology tran sfer over the period 2009-2013. Some EUR 
10 million was added during the budget procedur es, and the final 2009 Budget was adopted 
with a further reinforcement by th e Budget Authority of EUR 17 million.  
The Annual Action Programmes (AAPs) implementing the ENRTP in 2007 and 2008 were 
adopted by the Commission on 3/12/2007 and 7/8/2008 respectively. Th e adoption of the 
                                                
 
4 The EU is not on track to achieve its target of reducing biodiversity loss by 2010 according to the 
review of the EU biodiversity strategy, and desertifi cation is a priority area of  cooperation with the AU 
which currently receives limited funding . It should be noted also that neither is there enough funding 
from other sources for these policy objectives. 
 
EN 11   EN 2009 AAP is expected in April 2009. To date, almost 120 contracts have been concluded 
under the two first AAPs, for a total EC contribution of more than EUR 150 million. 
The implementation of the programme with multiple  priorities and sub-priorities is somewhat 
challenging. Pooling resources and running calls for proposals that draw on two-year rather 
than one-year financing has been identified as a first solution, which has been applied for the 
2007-2008 AAP call and will be applied for the 2009-2010 AAP call. The next multiannual 
programming should avoid being too prescrip tive as regards yearly allocations and 
implementation modalities, which should be left  open for discussion in the context of the 
annual programming. This would allow for as  much flexibility for implementation and 
resource efficiency as possible. 
It should be mentioned that the ENRTP has not been designed to mobilise resources on a 
significant scale to address enviro nmental crisis situations. On th e other hand, in future years, 
an increased focus is necessary for policy obje ctives like biodiversity  and the fight against 
desertification.  
1.2.4 Accompanying Measures for Sugar  Protocol countries (AMSP)  
The objective of supporting the adjustment pro cesses of the Sugar Prot ocol (SP) countries 
following the reform of the Common Market Organisation (CMO) for sugar in 2006 remains 
valid. Given the different situati ons and prospects in SP countries,  their adjustment strategies 
differ. The wide scope of the accompanying meas ures for the Sugar Protocol (AMSP), which 
encompasses competitiveness improvement of the sugar sector, diversification and addressing broader impacts
5, has allowed eligible countries to co mbine and integrate different objectives 
into their individual national strategies. The AMSP are well de signed to meet differentiated 
approaches and this flexibility needs to be maintained. Nevertheless , given the political 
sensitivity of a restructuring reform of the suga r sector, some country strategies may need to 
be revised in order to guarantee their pert inence and viability. The AMSP will undergo a mid-
term review of the strategies  in order to ensure this. 
Dialogue on Multi-Annual Adaptation Strategies and Multi-Annual Indicative Programmes 
(MIPs) with Council and Parliament  has generally worked well.  
The “sui generis” nature of the AMSP in the DCI is  an advantage as it allows for flexibility in 
terms of implementation modalities. Nevertheless, the required annual programming and administrative procedures are fairly inflexible  and can lead to tensions and delays when 
political considerations take precedence. Procedures are rela tively heavy (the DCI requires 
individual country adaptati on strategies, multiannual programming and annual action 
programmes for each of the 18 countries), leadi ng to certain delays and late signing of 
financing agreements in some cases. As a result, although all the multiannual programming has been adopted, implementation in some countri es has only started recently and measurable 
results are therefore not yet visible. 
Considering the importance of AMSP fina ncing in several eligible countries
6, full coherence 
with other cooperation and development funds (e.g. EDF) is necessary. Continued coherence 
                                                 
5 Article 17(1) of the DCI: (a) enhancing the competitiv eness of the sugar and cane sector, where this is a 
sustainable process, taking into account the situation of the different stakeholders in the chain;  
(b) promoting the economic diversification of sugar-dependent areas;  (c) addressing broader impacts generated by the adaptation process, possibly related, but not restricted, 
to employment and social services, land use and envi ronmental restoration, the energy sector, research 
and innovation and macroeconomic stability. 
6 In some countries the AMSP funds are a more important source of cooperation finance than the EDF. 
 
EN 12   EN will be ensured through the mid-term review of the strategies a nd new programming for 2011-
13. As a basis for this review, an external assessment of the AMSP will be carried out in 
2009. 
AMSP is not suited as an instrument to respond  to a crisis situation, but forms a temporary 
structural cooperation approach with long-term objectives to a ssist the adjustment of an 
economic sector to changing market circumst ances. As such, the le gislative indicative 
allocation has been respected in the financ ial programming and is deemed adequate. 
1.2.5 Food security (FSTP) 
The objective and scope of the Food Security Thematic Progra mme are meant to address the 
main food security issues. The programme is  designed to be complementary with other 
instruments and works at the thematic, continen tal, and global level. Consequently, global and 
continental mechanisms and partnerships, the UN and other international organisations, and 
international civil society orga nisations and networks are th e main implementing partners, 
normally in co-financing modality.  
The multiannual strategy was adopted in April 2007. No major issues have been raised during 
the programming phase in the dial ogue with the Council and Par liament. Special attention has 
been given to maintaining the thematic focus of this instrument to fully preserve its comparative advantage. Complementarity with  geographic instruments requires awareness on 
the part of Delegations and Geographic Desks of  the nature, strategy, obj ectives, and expected 
results of the thematic programme, and consequently more active involvement in its programming is necessary to avoid overlapping w ith geographical instruments. This risk does 
not depend on the instrument itself, but on its imple mentation, in particular at the level of the 
formulation of the annual action plans. This implies a strong effort in coordination among the 
different services involved in the preparati on of those annual programmes, and can sometimes 
lead to delays in launching the procedure for its adoption in time.  
The mid-term review of the st rategy will be the opportunity to check alignment with the 
recent adoption of the Food Facility
7 and it will also serve th e purpose of evaluating whether 
the basic aspects which are key to food secu rity such as nutrition, access to food and 
availability of food (through production, markets) and pri ce stability are sufficiently 
considered in the current design of the pr ogramme or whether they should be further 
mainstreamed in its second phase of programming for 2010-2013. 
The mid-term review will also offer the oppor tunity of assessing the value added and 
complementarity of the actions launched at continental and regional level as well as their contribution to food security and to the global food security agenda, including the EU’s commitment to the Food Aid Convention. The Food Facility has triggered additional action in 
50 countries in the short/medium term in th e area of Food Security. The Food Facility 
Regulation requires that complementarity with ex isting instruments is ensured, including with 
the FSTP. This has proved to be a challe nge when (re)programming EUR 50 million of the 
FSTP AAP 2008 as a first measure to address the Food Prices crisis, with actions that are 
sometimes of a similar nature to those financed under the Facility. As th e prices are expected 
to remain high in the next years, the needs of those highly insecure and fragile countries will 
be maintained or even increased by the additiona l impact of the financial and economic crisis.  
In some cases there is a need to look at i ssues cutting across more thematic programmes (e.g. 
the case of biofuels, which cu t across Food Security and Envi ronment). Programmes need to 
                                                
 
7 Regulation No 1337/2008 of 16 Decem ber 2008 (OJ L 354/62 of 31.12.2008). 
 
EN 13   EN have flexibility in allocation to handle these situations (e.g. joint programming on specific 
themes). This will be taken into account also in the next programming and strategy review.  
The implementation of the programme with multiple  priorities and sub-priorities is somewhat 
challenging. Pooling resources and running calls for proposals that draw on two-year rather 
than one-year financing has been  identified as a first solution  
The next multiannual programming  should avoid being too prescr iptive as regards yearly 
allocations and implementation modalities, whic h should be left open for discussion in the 
context of the annual programming. This w ould allow for as much flexibility for 
implementation and resource efficiency as possible. 
As regards the financial enve lope, the EUR 1.0 billion made available under the new Food 
Facility has provided additional funds to address food security at country level in the short to 
medium term (2008-2010). As a result the enve lope is currently programmed up to 2013 
according to the legislative indicative allocation.  
1.2.6 Investing in People (IIP) 
The thematic programme “Investing in People” pursues a broad approach to development, 
poverty reduction and social cohesion. Driven by the ambition to help the EC’s partner 
countries to achieve the Mill ennium Development Goals (MDGs), the programme supports 
action under four main pillars: (1) good health fo r all, (2) education, kno wledge and skills, (3) 
gender equality and (4) other aspects of human and social development (employment and social cohesion, children, youth and culture). 
Under the health  pillar, the implementation of the th ematic programme has been focused on 
the human resources crisis in health-care systems; main povert y-related diseases (HIV/AIDS, 
malaria and tuberculosis); neglected or em erging diseases; access to global goods; and 
improvement of sexual and repr oductive health and rights. 
In the area of education, knowledge and skills , the main focus has been on promotion of 
universal access to quality prim ary education; strengthening of the quality of education and 
improvement in access to vocational and skills training.  
The gender equality  pillar has focused the empowerment  of women, the improvement of 
literacy among adult women as well as capacity build ing of civil society organisations, 
including specifically in the EN PI countries. Addressing gender concerns and issues has also 
been part of all the other components of th e programme. In terms of implementation, the 
limited absorption capacity of civil society in ENPI countries has been emphasised by the 
Commission services both at Hea dquarters and in  Delegations.  
Under the other aspects of human and social development,  the implementation of the 
programme has been focusing on advancement of employment, decent work and social cohesion in the EC’s partner count ries; strengthening of children’s  rights and pa rticipation in 
development; and support for activities to protect and promote cultural diversity.  
In terms of financing, the implementation ha s been guided by the multiannual strategy which 
indicates that 55% of the to tal envelope of EU R 1.060 billion available in 2007-2013 should 
be allocated to the area of health, 12% to education, 5% to gender equality, 21% to other 
aspects of human and social developm ent, and the rest to contingency. 
The multiannual strategy was adopted in May 2007. No critical issues we re raised during the 
democratic scrutiny and comitology process. Ther e have been no significan t difficulties in the 
implementation of the programme. Annual Ac tion Programmes (AAPs) were adopted in 
December 2007, August 2008 and the 2009 AAP is foreseen to be adopted in early May 2009, 
 
EN 14   EN thus catching up delays, due to  late approval of the strate gy, and speeding up implementation. 
The programme has been implemented through ca lls for proposals and direct agreements with 
international or other organisations. In  2008 and 2009 calls for proposals represented 
respectively 60% and 85% of the yearly budgets  (excluding the contribution to the Global 
Health Fund). Calls for proposals enable the programme to strengthen civil society capacity 
and build on local expertise so as to raise awareness on human and social issues, develop methodologies and innovative proj ects, promote stakeholder di alogue and partnerships and 
pool knowledge and experience, thus complementi ng what is done at the bilateral level with 
governments. On the other hand, direct agreements  with international or  other organisations 
form part of the strategic added value of the thematic programme, as a unique way to support 
major international programmes and build joint initiatives so as to address policy issues and develop appropriate respons e at a global level.  
Four calls for proposals were launched betw een 2007 and 2008, and 11 more calls will be 
launched during 2009. The implementation of  the programme with multiple themes, 
objectives and calls is a challenge. The lessons learned in implementation so far show that 
resources available for some objectives on annual ba sis are often too low to be able to finance 
a critical mass of proposals. P ooling resources and running calls  for proposals that draw on 
multi-year rather than one-year financing has been identified as a solution and has been 
applied for some 2007-2008 AAP calls and will be  applied for most of 2009-2010 AAP calls.  
In order to allow for efficient and most effective use of resources it is therefore advisable that 
the next multiannual programming does not pre-de termine in which year a specific objective 
should be implemented and leaves the decisi on concerning the sequencing of implementation 
to the annual programming process. Likewise , the use of implementation modalities best 
suited to achieve individual objectiv es should be left open for discussion in the context of the 
annual programming. 
1.3 Conclusion on the DCI Regulation 
As regards the scope and objectives, the DCI regula tion has proven to be an instrument able to 
respond to the objectives set in terms of coherence, flexibilit y, and effectiveness. The first 
wave of strategy papers and the first three years of AAPs have  been established on the basis 
of donor coordination, dialogue wi th partner countries and part icipation by civil society. 
Besides the need to cover non-ODA activities u nder another legislative instrument, no major 
issues have emerged — except the need to align the flexibility on tax an d duties with the other 
instruments — and it is expected that implementation will continue smoothly.  
As regards the financial envelope, base d on the final budgets 2007 and 2008, and the 2009 
Budget — that is the first 3 years — the fina ncial allocation has exceeded the reference 
amount of EUR 16 897 million by EUR 239 million, i.e. by + 1.4%. Most of this deviation 
stems from the environment and energy them atic programme (+ EUR 176 million) with a 
+22% deviation as regards the sub-allocated enve lope to tackle international challenges linked 
to climate change. Much of the rest of the re inforcements was allocated to the geographical 
programmes by the Budget Authority (+ EUR 60  million). The needs for the food security 
programme will have to be closely monitored as regards food price increases and/or volatility. 
The evolution and the impact of the food facility Regulation will be also monitored. There is 
no need to modify the DCI reference amount taki ng into account the 5% flexibility foreseen in 
the Interinstitutional Agreement. 
Further to this review of  the DCI, it is proposed: 
 
EN 15   EN 1) to give a legislative follow-up to the Preparatory Actions for non-ODA activities in 
developing countries falli ng under the DCI Regulation. 
2) to proceed with a technical  amendment of the DCI Regulati on to harmonise Article 25(2) 
on taxes and duties with the other instruments in order to allow in exceptional and duly 
justified cases the payment of taxes and duties as follows: “ Community assistance shall, in 
principle , not be used for paying taxes, duties or charges in beneficiary countries.” 
2. E UROPEAN NEIGHBOURHOOD AND PARTNERSHIP INSTRUMENT (ENPI) 
The ENPI aims specifically at developing an ar ea of prosperity and friendly neighbourliness 
involving the European  Union and seventeen8 neighbouring partner countries. Cooperation 
under the ENPI goes beyond promoting sustainable development and economic growth. It 
involves substantial support for measures aimed at a progressi ve economic integration with 
the EU, deeper political cooperation, involving approximation to EU po licies and legislation, 
institution building, participa tion in Community programmes a nd agencies, inter-connections 
and development of common infrastructure.  
2.1 Delivery against the declared objectives 
The ENPI has been conceived as a “policy driv en” financial instrument that operates in the 
framework of the existing bi lateral agreements between the EU and its neighbouring 
countries. It has been specifically designed to  support the implementation of the European 
Neighbourhood Policy (ENP) and in particular of  the bilateral ENP Action Plans concluded 
by the EU and twelve partner countries9. For Russia, our cooperation takes place in the 
context of the EU-Russia “Strat egic Partnership” and is aiming to support the implementation 
of the road-maps for the four common spaces. The instrument also supports complementary 
regional initiatives, such as the Union for the Mediterranean, the Black Sea synergy, and the Eastern Partnership . 
Country Strategy Papers (CSPs) covering the period 2007-13 accompanied by indicative 
programmes for the period 2007-10 have been adopt ed for 15 out of 17 countries. No strategy 
papers have been adopted for Libya, because of  the absence of a cont ractual relation, or for 
the Occupied Palestinian Territory, because of  the protracted crisis. Four other Strategy 
Papers and Indicative programmes were adopted  covering Regional Co operation in the East, 
Regional Cooperation in the Mediterranean, Inte r-regional activities an d the Cross-Border 
Cooperation component. In 2009-10, these Strate gy Papers will undergo a mid-term review, 
as foreseen in the Regulation, and new i ndicative programmes covering the period 2011-2013 
will be adopted.  
These programming documents drafted on the basis of the ENPI Regulation are geared 
towards supporting the implementation of ENP action plans. Their scope and budget reflect 
the breadth and ambition of the partnership be tween the EU and the country concerned. To 
that effect, all the Strategy Papers and Mult i-annual Indicative Prog rammes (MIPs) include 
priorities and measures addres sing, depending on the specific c ountry situations, democratic 
and economic governance, regulatory reform and administrative capacity building. In 
                                                
 
8 Algeria, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Egypt, Georgia, Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, Libya, Moldova, 
Morocco, Palestinian Authority of the West Bank an d Gaza Strip, Russian Federation, Syria, Tunisia 
and Ukraine. 
9 Armenia, Azerbaijan, Egypt, Georgia, Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, Moldova, Morocco, Palestinian 
Authority of the West Bank and G aza Strip, Tunisia and Ukraine. 
 
EN 16   EN countries without an agreed ENP Action Plan (e.g. Algeria, Bela rus, Libya, Syria), the ENPI 
framework has been flexible enough to allow cooperation to be pursued on the basis of EU 
objectives. 
Through its multi-country programmes,  the ENPI has been able to finance flagship initiatives 
such as university cooperation (TEMPUS), stude nt exchanges (Erasmus Mundus), short-term 
expertise from Member States’ administrations  (TAIEX), and medium-term public expertise 
from peer practitioners (SIGMA ), and a facility to foster investment (the Neighbourhood 
Investment Facility) has been cr eated. In addition, the regional  dimension of relations with 
neighbouring countries has been addressed thro ugh dedicated programmes (such as the one in 
support of the Euro-Mediterranean  Partnership) or in the c ontext of existing programmes 
(Black Sea Synergy, Eastern part nership). The ENPI has also b een an important element of 
our cooperation with Russia which benefits, in ter alia, from TEMPUS, Erasmus Mundus and 
TAIEX.  
A specific and innovative feature of the instrument is its cros s-border cooperation component. 
This component combines objectives deriving from external policy and from economic and social cohesion and brings a radical simplifica tion in procedures and substantial gains in 
efficiency. It operates based on principl es such as multiannual programming, shared 
management, partnership and co-financing. It draws on resources from ENPI and from the 
European Regional Development Fund.  
ENPI Cross-border Cooperation (CBC) around the Mediterranean Sea basin  
The Mediterranean Sea Basin programme was one of the first CBC programmes to be 
adopted by the Commission (in August 2008) and th e first to organise a Joint Monitoring 
Committee meeting in November 2008. The pr ogramme has been allocated EUR 173.6 
million and all NUTS II regions (and their equi valents in partner countries) located on the 
coasts of the Mediterranean Basin are elig ible. All countries ar ound the Mediterranean Sea 
are invited to take part in the programme and the vast majority of them are active in it. The 
participants jointly identified and agreed 4 programme priorities: promotion of socio-
economic development and enhancement of eligible  territories, promotion of environmental 
sustainability at the sea basin level, prom otion of better conditions and modalities for 
ensuring the mobility of persons, goods and cap ital in the region and promotion of cultural 
dialogue and local governance. All priorities are broken down into more detailed measures.  
Following the second JMC meeting in January 2009, the programme is currently finalising 
the application pack for its first call for pr oposals in March 2009. The call will be launched 
for a value of EUR 32 million and will concer n standard projects in the four programme 
priorities. The evaluation of the standard projects and first signature of contacts will take 
place in the second half of 2009. Another ca ll concerning larger strategic projects is 
scheduled for June.  
2.2 Implementation issues 
The ENPI has at its disposal a much broade r range of instruments than its predecessors 
MEDA and TACIS and this allows for a more eff ective and efficient delivery of assistance.  
Through mechanisms such as twinning and TA IEX, the Community makes available EU 
public sector expertise for inst itution building to partner count ries engaged in legislative 
approximation and regulatory alignment. Sector  and Budget Support Operations are used to 
promote the reform agenda agreed in the cont ext of the ENP Action Pl ans and the monitoring 
of such operations is an important occasi on for a deeper policy dialogue with partner 
countries. 
 
EN 17   EN Twinning, TAIEX and SIGMA in neighbouring countries 
Institution building in neighbourin g countries is provided mainly  through three instruments: 
TAIEX, providing for short-term expertise from Member States Administration;  
SIGMA, providing for medium-term public expertise from peer practitioners; and 
Institutional twinning, providing for long-term “peer to peer” partnerships between a Public 
Administration from a Member State and from a partner country.  
These instruments are very much welcomed by the ENPI countries. 
The 100th ENP Institutional Twinning project will be launched in 2009 with a total pipeline 
under identification of around 180 partnerships. This shows t hat Institutional Twinning has 
been set as a priority by ENP countries in th e framework of their c ooperation with the EU. 
TAIEX operations have grown in number since their introduction in 2006 and the instrument 
is used now by all ENPI countries (except for Libya and Syria) having reached a rate of around 4 000 participants. The TAIEX instrument has proved to be useful  to pave the way for 
the introduction of the Institutional Twinning in strument as well as SIGMA operations. The 
introduction of SIGMA will allow human resour ces to be strengthened within the public 
administrations and thus pave the way for Institutional Twinning projects more appropriately designed in terms of ownersh ip and sustainability, reinforcing economic 
integration and political cooperation between the EU and ENPI countries. 
 
 
A successful Sector Budget Support operatio n — The programme for consolidation and 
deepening of Public Service Reform in Morocco 
This programme aims to consolidate and d eepen the public service reform that the 
Commission started to support under MEDA (programme PARAP I). It accompanies the transition from a pilot opera tional phase to general implementation in the Moroccan public 
service. 
The re-shaping of the organic Finance Law of  1998, the progressive adoption of forward-
looking management of posts and skills, the strengthening of administrative and budgetary 
devolution, and the strengthening of managem ent capabilities in the field of public 
procurement are among the main objectives. Th is involves the underst anding and use of new 
concepts in budgetary and human resources management by the Moroccan administration and the implementation of new practices. Past, and more recent, experience in certain OECD countries having undertaken  similar reforms has shown th e complexity of processes 
that may last over a decade. Hence, it was impor tant that the EC continue to accompany the 
reform under this second consolidation programme. 
 
ENPI assistance is also being us ed to leverage loans from deve lopment finance institutions to 
finance infrastructure investment projects and to support the private se ctor through loans and 
risk capital operations. This is done with the EI B in the context of the Facility for Euro-
Mediterranean Investment and Partnership (F EMIP) and with the EIB, EBRD and other 
European development finance institutions in the context of the newly established 
Neighbourhood Investment Facility (NIF). Ho wever the regulation does not unambiguously 
provide the possibility of esta blishing “revolving funds”. Such funds are an essential tool 
when it comes to supporting the private sect or and SME development, which are key 
 
EN 18   EN priorities of the action of the European Unio n in the Mediterranean partner countries. The 
possibility to use the reflows from such operations would provide additional resources to 
FEMIP and NIF. This restriction is alrea dy problematic in relation to ongoing operations 
under FEMIP, and the problem will grow for future operations under the NIF. For this reason the Commission has tabled a legislative proposal
10 aimed at amending Article 23 of the 
Regulation.  
The Neighbourhood Investment Facility 
Principally focussed on infr astructure, the Neighbourhood Investment Facility (NIF) 
combines EU grants (with the Commission’s commitm ent to contribute w ith a total amount of 
EUR 700 million for the period 20 07-2013) with loans from consor tia of eligible European 
Finance Institutions. Member States can partici pate through voluntary direct contributions 
which are pooled in a Trust Fund managed by the EIB. So far, EUR 37 million of additional 
contributions have been pl edged for the period 2008-2010. 
The objective of the NIF is to leverage loan financing for large investment projects in the 
energy, transport, and environmenta l sectors. It also supports pr ojects in the social sector 
and the promotion of the private sector deve lopment. In 2008, the NIF funded, for example, 
projects like the renovation of a hospital in the Republic of Moldova, the building of 
renewable energy power plants in Egypt, the rehabilitation of roads facilitating 
communication and trade in the Republic of Mol dova and in rural areas of Morocco, and the 
construction of transmission lines in Georgi a improving energy interconnectivity and 
security.  
The ENPI Regulation also includes specific pr ovisions allowing the Commission to receive 
and manage funds on behalf of the Member States through the Community budget. This 
mechanism has been used by Austria for the PEGASE (Palestino-Européen Gestion de l’Assistance Socio-Economique) mechanism with a EUR 1 million c ontribution through the 
Community budget in 2008. Over the course of  the year PEGASE also managed direct 
bilateral contributions for EUR 130 million of funds from 13 Member  States in addition to the 
Community budget contribution. These funds were  used to support the recurrent expenditure 
of the Palestinian Authority. 
The ENPI cross-border cooperation component  has been launched. By the end of 2008 the 
Commission had adopted thirteen out of the fifteen planned programmes
11. Russia has 
expressed much interest in participating in the seven cross-border cooperation programmes 
and has promised to provide substan tial co-financing to these programmes12.  
2.3 Delivery against the commitments undertaken 
In the Declaration on democratic scrutiny and coherence of external actions the Commission 
undertook to have a regular dial ogue with the European Parl iament on the Strategy Papers. 
For the ENPI this was done in December 2006 before the Strategy Papers received a formal 
opinion by the ENPI Committee and were adopt ed by the Commission. A second meeting was 
                                                 
10 COM(2008) 308 of 21.5.2008. 
11 Spain and Morocco did not present the joint programming document for their two programmes by mid-
2008. As a result, the 2008 allocation for Spain under this programme was returned to the European 
Regional Development Fund. Spain and Morocco may still present a joint programme to the 
Commission until June 2010. 
12 As Russia has regrettably chosen not to sign the relevant Financing Agreement, it is for the time being 
not participating in the Baltic Sea Regional CBC Programme which has caused difficulties for its implementation. 
 
EN 19   EN held in November 2007 to discuss, inter alia, th e revision of the Strategy Paper for the Inter-
regional Programme leading to the introduction of the NIF. 
In the run-up to the European Council of the December 2005, the Commission expressed its 
intention to devote up to 3% of the funding for our neighbours to areas concerning or related 
to migration. This would correspond to approximately EUR 350 million for the period 2007-
2013. To that effect an estimated EUR 90 million was allocated to migration-related measures 
under the ENPI country, multi-country and cross-border cooperation programmes in 2007 and 2008. This is complemented by the allocatio ns under the DCI thematic programme for 
Migration and Asylum, where amounts of EU R 19.6 million were allocated to the Eastern 
migratory route and EUR 27.6 million to the Sout hern migratory route comprising ENPI and 
ACP countries. Over the period 2007-2010 some 50% of the global a llocation provided under 
the migration thematic programme is set to bene fit ENPI countries. On that basis it should be 
possible to fully meet the 3% objective. 
ENPI countries also benefit from the th ematic programmes established under the 
Development Cooperation Instrument  (DCI). Within the DCI fina ncial envelope an indicative 
amount of EUR 465 million ha s been set aside for neighbour ing countries over the period 
2007-13. To that effect EUR 70 million was committed in 2007-8 and EUR 105 million is 
planned for 2009-10. It is expected that by th e end of 2013 the full amount will be used. 
2.4 Adequacy of the financial envelopes and financial provisions 
The ENPI financial envelope for the period 2007 -13 is EUR 11 181 million. It is expected that 
by the end of 2009 commitments will reach 43.5% of the envelope. This is significantly above the level of 38.3% foreseen in  the original Commission fina ncial programming and reflects 
the need to address the situati on of the occupied Palestinian territories. In view of that, the 
budgetary authority has agreed each year to s upplement the programmed resources with funds 
coming from various sources.  
Article 29 of the ENPI Regulatio n states that up to 5% of th e funds should be  allocated to 
cross-border cooperation progr ammes over the period 2007-13. Fo r the period 2007-2010 it is 
expected that commitments for CBC programmes will remain significantly below this limit, reflecting the slow start of this new type of cooperation and the late adoption of the 
programmes. However, 13 out of the 15 prog rammes have now been  adopted and it is 
expected that implementation will start in 2009.  This will lead to increased absorption over 
time to reach, by 2013, a level close to what was anticipated.  
Point 37 of the Interinstitutional Agreement (IIA) on budgetary discipline and sound financial 
management allows the limit of 5% of the co-d ecided financial envelope to be exceeded only 
when “ new, objective, long term ci rcumstances arise for which explicit and precise reasons 
are given ”. The Commission considers that the events  in the occupied Palestinian territories 
and in Georgia do correspond to these circumstances. Based on the final 2007 and 2008 budgets, and the 2009 Budget, it appears that the reference amount of EUR 11 181 million will be exceeded by more than 5% at the end of the period. The deviation (+ EUR 671 million 
including 2009 Budget) is exclusiv ely due to the situa tions in Palestine and in Georgia which 
have given rise to successive increases above  the programmed amount of the ENPI envelope. 
Some EUR 623 million additional to  the ENPI envelope has been mobilised for Palestine and 
some EUR 48 million in 2008 for the Georgia cr isis. The Commission considers that these 
provisions of the IIA apply fo r the ENPI envelope because the events in the occupied 
Palestinian territory and in Georgia correspond to  an objective and long-term situation with 
explicit and precise reasons provi ded to justify the reinforcements which have been approved 
by the budget authority. Thus ther e is no necessity to modify th e co-decided reference amount 
 
EN 20   EN even when taking into account the additio nal EUR 350 million proposed for the Eastern 
Partnership.  
2.5 Conclusion on the ENPI Regulation 
On the whole, the ENPI has gone a long way towards addressing its declared objectives. 
Programming documents have become more geared towards supporting the implementation 
of ENP action plans, their scope reflects the br eadth of the partnershi ps between the EU and 
the partner countries, and their budget reflects  the “ambition” of such partnerships. Multi-
country programmes have been instrumental in supporting ENP flagship  initiatives and the 
policy regional dimensions. Its cross-border cooperation component has been launched.  
Through implementation mechanisms  such as twinning and TAIEX support is being provided 
for institution building, legislative approxi mation and regulatory alignment. Sector and 
Budget Support Operations are instrumental to promote the reform agenda agreed in the 
context of the ENP Action Plans. However the fact that the regulation does not unambiguously provide the possibility of establ ishing “revolving funds” is a problem when it 
comes to supporting the private sector a nd SME development under FEMIP of NIF.  
The Commission undertook to enter into a democr atic scrutiny dialogue with the Parliament 
on the draft Strategy Papers. This was done  twice in December 2006 and November 2007. 
The Commission has also programmed funds with  the view of devoting up to 3% of the 
funding for our neighbours to areas c oncerning or related to migration.  
The financial envelope is tight. Sustaining pl anned commitments to support reform in ENP 
countries and supporting new and ambitious regional initiatives while simultaneously 
responding to “protracted” crisis s ituations will remain a challenge. 
The provisions of the ENPI Regulation app ear adequate to sust ain cooperation with 
neighbouring countries provided that two issu es are addressed. The first concerns the 
possibility of establishing revolving funds, the lack of which severely hampers the Union’s 
ability to support private sector operations. An amendment to Article 23 of the ENPI 
Regulation has already been ta bled by the Commission and it is  currently being discussed by 
the legislator. The second concerns the financial needs linked to “protracted” crisis situations 
such as in the occupied Palestinian territories or in Georgia. For this to be addressed it may become necessary to rely on the flexibil ity mechanisms provided in the IIA.  
3. I
NSTRUMENT FOR PRE-ACCESSION ASSISTANCE (IPA)13 
The Instrument for Pre-accession Assistance  (IPA) replaces the former pre-accession 
instruments PHARE, ISPA, and SAPARD, the Turkish pre-accession instrument and the 
financial instrument for th e Western Balkans CARDS.  
The primary objective of IPA is to a ssist candidates and potential candidates14 in the process 
of progressive alignment with the standards an d policies of the European Union in order to 
become EU members once they fulfil the nece ssary conditions. That overall primary objective 
                                                 
13 This review draws mainly on operational experience and partly on the 2 evaluations so far carried out in 
respect of IPA: (i) Review of Multi–annual Indica tive Planning Documents’ process (Dec. 2008) and 
(ii) Review of Donor Coordination in Turkey, Croa tia, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and 
Albania (final report under finalisation). 
14 Current candidates are: Croatia, the former Yugoslav Republic of  Macedonia and Turkey. Current 
potential candidates are: Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Montenegro, and Serbia, plus Kosovo under UNSC Resolution 1244/99. 
 
EN 21   EN encompasses a number of secondary objectives  — including the objective to establish 
structures in the countries c oncerned which (i) are effective in delivering sound financial 
management and (ii) will foreshadow the stru ctures they will have to put in place for 
managing post–accession instru ments (e.g. Structural Funds). 
Planning and programming of the assistance is pr ovided in accordance w ith the general policy 
framework for pre-accession defined in the Euro pean and Accession Partnerships, and taking 
due account of the annual Enlargement Stra tegy and Progress Reports issued by the 
Commission. 
IPA streamlines all pre–accession assistance within a single framework. However, in order to 
address each country’s challenges in the most effective way, IPA consists of five different 
components which deliver tailor-made assistance  in accordance to the needs assessment and 
findings in the annual Progress Reports.  
The first two IPA components, “Transition assi stance and institution building” (TAIB) and 
“Cross–border cooperation” (CBC) apply to bot h candidates and poten tial candidates.  
The TAIB component aims at strengthening de mocratic institutions, promotion and protection 
of human rights and fundamental freedoms, ec onomic reforms, social inclusion, and, in 
general, providing assistance for progressive alignment with, or adoption and implementation 
of, the acquis communautaire .  
Typically, the assistance is pr ovided through training, technical  assistance, investment in 
regulatory infrastructure, budgeta ry support etc. However, in potential candidates the TAIB 
component is also used to undertake projects  which would otherwis e fall, in candidate 
countries, under components III, IV and V, e.g. investment-type operations. 
Assistance from EU Member States offici als and experts is al so provided through the 
twinning instruments, TAIEX and SIGMA.  
The CBC component has two primary strands:  cross-border cooperation a) among IPA 
beneficiary countries and b) between them and adjacent Member States. On top of promoting 
sustainable economic and social development in  border areas, cross–border cooperation helps 
reconciliation and good neighbourly relations, while also facilita ting the integration of the 
enlargement countries into the EU. This is par ticularly relevant in the Western Balkans, a 
region with a recent history of  conflict. Secondarily, the CBC component also finances the 
participation of candidates and potential candida tes in transnational cooperation programmes 
with Member States under the Structural Funds’ Territorial Cooperation objective and the 
participation of Turkey in the ENPI Black Sea basin cooperation programme with Member 
States and ENP countries. 
IPA components III, IV and V apply to candida te countries only. They aim at preparing these 
countries for the implementation of Structur al, Cohesion and Rural Development Funds upon 
accession through a “learning by doing” process. This requires the countries to have the 
necessary structures and administrative capacity to manage the assistance.  
Component III, Regional Development, is the pr ecursor of the ERDF and the Cohesion Fund. 
It finances investments and asso ciated technical assistance in areas such as transport and the 
environment as well as economic and social cohesion. 
Human Resources Development (component IV) is the precursor of  the European Social Fund 
(ESF). It supports employment, social inclusi on of disadvantaged people and human capital. 
 
EN 22   EN Component V, Rural development, contributes to the sustainable adaptation of the agricultural 
sector and rural areas and to the candidate co untries’ preparation for the implementation of 
the acquis communautaire  concerning the Common Agricultural  Policy and related policies.  
3.1 Delivery against the declared objectives 
Despite some delays due to the late appr oval of the legal base, IPA planning and 
programming in the years 2007 and 2008 largely took place in a smooth and effective way. 
The first generation of Multiannual Indi cative Planning Documents (MIPDs) 2007 −2009 was 
adopted by the Commission in the first half of 2007. In accordance with the priority for 
assistance indicated in the MIPDs, annual or multiannual programmes − according to the 
respective components − were adopted towards the end of 2007 and in early 2008. The 
evaluation of the MIPD process made some recommendations for improving the processes, 
e.g. reinforcing the internal pr ocedure for reviewing the MIPD, improving the quality of the 
consolidated needs assessments and reducing the scale of the review undertaken for the 
middle year of the three. 
Implementation of IPA programmes only starte d in the course of  2008. In most cases 
individual contracts only started to be signed by later 2008 or ear ly 2009, so it is too early to 
make judgments about the results of thes e programmes. However, the objective of 
establishing the appropriate stru ctures within the countries is  being progressively achieved. 
National authorities responsible for IPA programming and implementation have been 
designated in all cases. They  are responsible for inter −ministerial coordination required for 
setting up IPA programmes. Moreover, candidate c ountries in particular have been very busy 
setting up the management and control syst ems required for the implementation of IPA 
assistance in a decentralised manner.  
In 2008, MIPDs have been reviewed for the horizon 2008 −2010 in the light of the 2007 
enlargement strategy paper and re gular reports, which provide for greater focus to be given at 
an early stage to the rule of law and good gov ernance. The adoption of the revised MIPDs 
was followed, in the second half  of 2008, by the 2008 annual progr ammes, in particular the 
national and multi −beneficiary programmes unde r the TAIB component. 
In order to increase the leve rage of IPA support in the area of economic and social 
development, the initiative has been taken to  coordinate IPA suppor t with that of the 
International Financial Institutions (IFIs) and ot her donors. An Infrastructure Projects Facility 
has been launched with the EIB, the EBRD and the Council of Europe Development Bank 
(CEB). It constitutes an important move towa rds establishing a Western Balkan Investment 
Framework by 2010. Other initiative s included an energy efficien cy facility as well as a 
regional instrument for SME development: the European Fund for South East Europe. This 
benefits tens of thousands of small businesses across the region. 
Special attention has been gi ven to people-to-people cont acts. Visa facilitation and 
readmission agreements entered into force with all countries concerned in January 2008. 
Measures aimed at increasing people-to-people contacts also include more mobility opportunities for undergraduate and graduate st udents under the Erasmus Mundus programme 
and additional funds for youth exchanges and partnership under the Youth in Action 
programme. The Tempus programme continued to  provide support to hi gher education reform 
through partnerships between universities. 
Important efforts have been made to provide  support for regional cooperation initiatives. The 
newly established Regional Cooperation Council (RCC) is operational. It now faces the 
challenge of ensuring the efficiency of regiona l activities and their further streamlining. IPA 
 
EN 23   EN provides assistance to the s ecretariat of the RCC, the Regional School of Public 
Administration to be set up in Danilovgrad (Montenegro), a new disaster risk reduction 
initiative, as well as cultural heritage rehab ilitation and history textboo ks projects. IPA also 
supports cooperation in trade matte rs through the CEFT A Secretariat. 
Support under the Civil Society Facility 
Increased participation by civil society orga nisations in the reforms undertaken in the 
enlargement countries is a strong determi nant of the pace and quality of the accession 
process, and of public support for accession.  
The Commission set up a new financing fac ility under IPA to promote civil society 
development and dialogue. Support under the Civil Society Facility for 2008 amounts to some 
€30 million, geared towards capacity building at local level. The Commission organised a 
major conference on civil society development in  Southeast Europe in April 2008 to stimulate 
networking, exchange best practice and build partnerships. 
Under the Facility, further capacity building and networki ng projects will be funded, 
including a ‘People–to-people’ visitor progra mme, the setting up in the first half of 2009 of 
technical support offices in each country, and support schemes for civic partnerships in areas 
such as environment, energy efficiency, he alth and safety at work, and the fight against 
corruption, organised crime and trafficking. Unde r IPA 2009 support schemes to civil society 
partnerships will give priority to sectors such as culture, minorities and business 
associations. 
3.2 Implementation issues  
The TAIB component is implemented through eight annual programmes − one per 
candidate/potential candidate − and a number of annual multi −beneficiary programmes 
covering some or all enlargement countries.  
The CBC component is implemented through eight multi–annual (2007–2009) cross −border 
programmes between West ern Balkans countries15 and ten multi–annual programmes between 
them and adjacent EU Member States16. 
IPA Cross-border Cooperation 
The IPA CBC component has been designed to mirror as much as possible the Territorial 
Cooperation objective of the EU Structural Fu nds with the aim of preparing beneficiary 
countries for its implementation upon acce ssion. Concerning cross-border cooperation 
between EU Member States and IPA beneficiary  countries, IPA has radically simplified the 
programming and implementation. It now takes pl ace under a single set of rules (the IPA 
regulations applying on both side of the border), a single budget (where IPA funds are pooled 
with funds from the ERDF) and under the re sponsibility of a si ngle managing authority 
located in one of the participating EU Member States (shared management). Ten 
                                                 
15 Croatia–Serbia, Croatia–Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia–Montenegro, Serbia–Bosnia and 
Herzegovina, Serbia–Montenegro, Bosnia and Herzegovina–Montenegro, Montenegro–Albania, 
Albania–the former Yugoslav  Republic of Macedonia. 
16 Croatia–Slovenia, Croatia–Hungary, Serbia–Hungary, Serbia–Romania, Serbia–Bulgaria, the former 
Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia–Bulgaria, the former Yugos lav Republic of Macedonia–Greece, 
Turkey–Bulgaria, Albania-Greece and the IPA CBC Adriatic programme (Croatia, Bosnia and 
Herzegovina, Montenegro, Albania and Serbia, the latter in phasing–out, and Slovenia, Italy and Greece). 
 
EN 24   EN cross−border cooperation multiannual (2007 −09) programmes between beneficiary countries 
and neighbouring Member States have been adopted so far. Nine are bilateral and the tenth is 
multilateral, covering the costal areas along the Adriatic of three Member States and four 
Western Balkan countries. At the two rema ining borders between Turkey and adjacent 
Member States (Cyprus −Turkey and Greece −Turkey), the conditions for CBC programmes 
have not been met yet. 
At borders between candidates/pot ential candidates (i.e. intra −Western Balkan borders), 
eight bilateral CBC programmes had been prep ared by national authorities and adopted by 
the Commission by December 2007. This is a remarkable result considering the recent history 
of the region. 
The Regional Development component is implemented in Croatia and Turkey through three 
national multiannual (2007 −2009) operational programmes (environment, transport and 
regional competitiveness). In the former Yugosla v Republic of Macedonia this component is 
implemented through one national multiannual  programme concerning investments in 
environment and transport. In a future revisi on this programme may be extended to include 
regional competitiveness.  
The Human Resources Development and the Rural Development components are 
implemented in the three candidate countries through national multiannual operational 
programmes, respectively “Human Resources Development” and “Rural Development”. 
For components III and IV, the operationa l programmes adopted by the Commission in 
November and December 2007 cover the priorities  and the financial allocations specified in 
the MIPDs 2007–2009. They will be revised in th e course of 2009–2010 to take account of 
the revision of the MIPDs and the addition of the financial envelopes for the years 2010–
2013.  
The Rural Development programmes under com ponent V, adopted by the Commission in 
February 2008, cover the whole 2007–2013 period. They are reviewed annually to take 
account of the revised MIPDs and of the yearly  added financial envelopes in the Multiannual 
Indicative Financial Framework (MIFF). 
In potential candidates, the implementation of the IPA 2007 pr ogrammes started in the course 
of 2008. In candidate countries, the implementati on started only towards the end of 2008, and 
only for some programmes, due to the substantia l delay in the accredit ation of the national 
authorities responsible for managing the assist ance in decentralised mode and the resulting 
delay in conferral of mana gement powers by the Commissi on, a process which is not 
completed yet for all countries/components17.  
In the case of the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, while the management and 
control systems required for decentralised mana gement are being set up, the implementation 
of components I and II programmes is ta king place under the re sponsibility of the 
Commission’s Delegation (centralised deconcen trated management). The implementation of 
components III, IV and V will onl y start once competent authorit ies have been accredited and 
the Commission has conferred management powers  to the authorities of the country. This 
                                                 
17 Commission decisions conferring management powers were adopted in late 2008 for components I to 
IV in Croatia and for components I and II in Turk ey. For the remaining com ponents/countries, conferral 
of management powers by the Commission is expected in the course of 2009 or, in certain cases, in the beginning of 2010. 
 
EN 25   EN process is expected to be completed — including for components I and II — in the course of 
2009. 
Potential candidate coun tries are progressing − though at different speeds − towards 
decentralised management of the assistance. Candidate countries which already implement 
assistance in a decentralised manner, are working on roadmaps to achieve decentralisation without ex ante control by the Commission. 
The transition from implementation of pre-accession assistance by the European Agency for 
Reconstruction (EAR) to the Commission Delega tions and offices in Belgrade, Podgorica, 
Pristina and Skopje has been completed. The Agency was phased out on 31 December 2008. 
The eventual goal is for partner countries th emselves to take over the implementation of 
assistance, when they demonstrate their readiness to do so. 
3.3 Delivery against the commitments undertaken 
Planning and programming of the assistance is pr ovided in accordance w ith the general policy 
framework for pre–accession — defined in the European and Accession Partnerships — and 
taking due account of the annu al progress reports and st rategy paper issued by the 
Commission. Within the framework of the de mocratic scrutiny process, MIPDs were 
submitted to and discussed with the Parlia ment in March 2007 (MIPDs 2007–2009) and in 
September 2008 (MIPDs 2008–2010).  
In terms of the coordination, coherence and co mplementarity of IPA assistance, significant 
progress has been achieved in donor coordination. The Commi ssion has involved in this 
process the major International Financial Ins titutions and bilateral EU and non–EU donors, as 
well as regional cooperation through partners hip with the Regional Cooperation Council.  
Donor Coordination 
Since 2005, the Commission has promoted coor dination among donors in countries benefiting 
from EU pre–accession assistance. To push the process forward, with the entry into force of 
IPA, the Commission promoted more structur ed coordination among donors who operate in 
Western Balkans and Turkey: EU Member States , non-EU donors (such as the USA, Norway, 
Switzerland, UN agencies) and International Fin ancial Institutions (EBRD, EIB, World Bank, 
KFW Bankengruppe, Council of Europe Devel opment Bank). The aim was to increase 
coordination of assistance programmes with a vi ew to increasing effectiveness and efficiency 
in delivery, improving complementarity and avoiding duplications. The Commission promoted 
a consensus among donors to foster “ownership” of the coordination of assistance by the 
beneficiary countries as a v ital element to maximise the impact of aid, and to support the 
national authorities in their efforts to assume  responsibility for donor coordination. This line 
was confirmed during the second annual Donor C oordination conference which took place in 
Brussels in October 2008. The IPA multiannual planning documents and national strategies 
have been recognised as key donor coordination tools. The donors agreed to enhance 
coordination at sector level and promote divisi on of labour based on comparative advantages 
in line with the principles of the Pa ris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness. 
Coordination with International Financial Institu tions (IFIs) has been reflected in a number 
of initiatives taken by the Commission and IFIs  in the last two years. Among others, in 
December 2007 the Commission together with the EIB, EBRD and Council of Europe 
Development Bank (CEB) established the Infrastr ucture Project Facility to help prepare 
infrastructure investment proj ects in the transport, energy, environment and social sectors. 
Moreover, in order to intensify coordinati on, in March 2008 the Commission, the EIB, the 
EBRD and CEB initiated the Western Balkan Investm ent Framework. In the context of the 
 
EN 26   EN economic and financial crisis, since November 2008 the Commission has been working very 
closely with IFIs to coordinat e donors’ responses, to identify potential for join t actions and to 
prepare a “Crisis Response Package” – where th e IPA will contribute a total of EUR 120 
million — to support SMEs and the private sector in general, energy efficiency, and municipal 
investments.   
Based on the analysis set out in the 2007 Enlargement Strategy paper, in the 2008 
programming of the TAIB component increased  support was given to enhance governance, 
encourage administrative and judicial reform, st rengthen the rule of law, support the fight 
against corruption and organised crime, promot e human rights, protect minorities and develop 
civil society. Assistance to political criteria represents now about one third of the TAIB 
component. The other two main priorities for assistance under the TAIB component are 
economic criteria and European standards. Gr eater participation by partner countries in 
Community programmes and agen cies will be encouraged. 
In its meetings of December 2007 and June 20 08, the European Council confirmed the EU’s 
readiness to assist Kosovo’s18 economic and political developm ent through a clear European 
perspective, in line with the Eu ropean perspective of the region. To this end, additional funds 
(EUR 60 million) were earmarked to stre ngthen the TAIB annual 2008 programme.  
In July 2008, the Commission organised a donor conference for the socio-economic 
development of Kosovo which resulted in a to tal pledge of EUR 1.2 billion, with the 
European Union and its member states c ontributing nearly EUR 800 million. This support 
should provide a considerable boost to Kosovo’s development. 
In response to the international financial crisis, the Commission is  ready to consider different 
ways of assisting the authoritie s in the enlargement countries with managing its financial and 
economic consequences.  
3.4 Adequacy of the financial envelopes and financial provisions 
The financial reference amount for the 2007–2013 period is EUR 11.468 billion. Some 
reinforcements to the original financial prog ramming have taken place to tackle the Kosovo 
needs (under UNSCR 1244/1999) to meet commit ments made in 2006 and enhanced at the 
donor conference in July 2008. Barring major changes of circumstance or unforeseen developments in the Western Balkans and Turkey, it will be possible to stay within the 5% deviation allowed for in the interinstitutional agreement. Increases so far amount to around 
1.4% of the total IPA reference amount.  
3.5 Conclusion on the IPA Regulation 
Enlargement proved to be a very powerful EU policy. It is an excellent example of the high 
added value of integrated policies. Therefore,  it should remain a stra tegic priority of the 
European Union throughout the current period.  
There is no need to modify the IPA Regula tion. Possible changes in the status of IPA 
beneficiaries from potential candidate to candidate will require amendments to the annexes to the Council Regulation through the procedure en visaged in Article 23 of the Regulation. 
The financial envelope is currently deemed appropriate, and no change of the reference 
amount is needed. However, it should be closely monitored as it might not be adequate to deal 
with unforeseen developments in the region. 
                                                
 
18 Under UNSCR No 1294/99. 
 
EN 27   EN 4. I NSTRUMENT FOR STABILITY (IFS) 
4.1 Delivery against the declared objectives 
In the new framework, the IfS is the newest a nd most innovative financial instrument. It has 
been established with the objective of:  
- enabling the Community to give a consistent and integrated response to crisis and impending 
crisis, using a single legal instrument with simplified decision-making procedures. 
- building capacity to address specific global  and transregional threats that have a 
destabilising effect and to ensure preparedne ss to address pre- and post-crisis situations. 
As regards the first objective , the instrument is the major innovation of the new architecture 
endowing the Community with an efficient tool for consistent and integrated crisis response 
capacity. By their very nature, crisis response measures can no t be programmed in advance as 
they are developed in response to crisis situatio ns. When used in response to political crises, 
measures can be deployed alongside and in cl ose political coordination with CFSP/ESDP 
actions. This makes it possible for the EU to  accompany a political response with rapid 
delivery. The measures adopted in the course  of 2007 and 2008 vary both geographically and 
thematically. A number of programmes adopted in the course of 2007 have already started 
delivering concrete results. The 2007-2008 measures  supported a broad range  of issues either 
in crisis and conflict-related situations or in  major disaster response programmes. The global 
reach of the instrument is also proving e ssential. Some EUR 220 million was committed in 
2007-2008 for crisis response and EUR 135 milli on is programmed for 2009. The main share 
of support was provided in Africa (mainly DRC,  CAR, Chad, Somalia — 29%), followed by 
actions in Asia (mainly Afghanistan, Sri Lanka , Nepal, Southern Thailand, Aceh, East Timor 
— 19%), the Middle East (Lebanon,  Palestine, Iraqi refugees in Syria — 12%), Kosovo (EUR 
24 million) and Georgia (EUR 17 million). Thematically, the adopted measures cover a broad 
range of issues, targeted on the specific need s of each conflict/post-co nflict situation: short-
term advice to develop and kick-start post- conflict security system reform (CAR, DRC, 
Guinea-Bissau, Lebanon, Palestine, East Timor), measures in areas wh ere ESDP missions are 
deployed (Georgia, Kosovo, DRC, Afghanistan, Chad, Palestine), support to regional peace-
building capacity (AU — AMISOM Somalia, AU-UN Mediation in Darfur), the rule of law and transitional justice (Afghanistan, Kyrgyzst an, Colombia, Haiti, Sierra Leone, Solomon 
Islands), support to in terim administrations (ICO Kosovo, Somalia TFG), conflict resolution 
and reconciliation (Sri Lanka, Thailand, Colo mbia, Uganda, Zimbabwe, Peru, Palestine, 
Burma, Nepal), post-disaster recovery programmes and need s assessments (Bangladesh, 
Nicaragua, Lebanon, Peru), support to displace d populations (Lebanon, Syria), and conflict 
resources (dedicated facility). 
As regards the second objective , support in the context of stab le conditions, the Strategy for 
the years 2007-2011 and the Indicative Programme  for the years 2007-2008 were adopted in 
August 2007 after receiving a unanimously fav ourable opinion from the IfS Committee and 
from the European Parliament through the de mocratic scrutiny process. The Indicative 
Programme 2009-2011 obtained the sa me favourable opinion and will be adopted in March 
2009. The programmes support interna tional efforts to address the proliferation of weapons of 
mass destruction (EUR 53 million for 2007-08 and EUR 123 million for 2009-2011) and global and trans-regional efforts to address the threats posed by trafficking, terrorism and 
organised crime (EUR 19 million for 2007-08 and EUR 63 million for 2009-2011). It is one 
of the new and innovative components of the IfS aiming at developing longer–term EC 
actions to counter global and tr ans–regional threats arising from organised crime, trafficking, 
proliferation of nuclear, biol ogical and chemical agents a nd also threats to critical 
 
EN 28   EN infrastructure and public health. It comp lements actions supported through other EC 
instruments, including the EDF. Projects to  address illicit traffi cking of drugs from 
Afghanistan, of radioactive and nuclear mate rials in the former Soviet Union and to 
strengthen export contro ls of dual-use goods have been im plemented in line with the first 
indicative programme (2007-2008). Weapons of  mass destruction (WMD) and missile 
proliferation constitute a major threat not only for the EU but also for international security. 
In responding to the risks related to WMD, th e EU continued the implementation of its WMD 
Strategy in 2008 through a number of EU Joint Actions, as we ll as through the Stability 
Instrument providing political, financial and technical support to competent multilateral 
bodies and assistance to third countries on nucle ar security, export control, bio-safety/bio-
security, redirection of former weapons scientis ts and border monitoring in conformity with 
the UNSC Resolution 1540. In addition to continuing  efforts in the former Soviet Union, the 
Commission started to develop its assistance in new regions like the Middle East and South-
East Asia. Work has also been taken forward to include a non-prolifer ation clause as an 
essential element in agreements with third co untries. Such a clause has been included in 
agreements between the EU and almost 100 countries worldwide.  
A mechanism to mobilise EU expertise in th e domains covered by the IfS (expert support 
facility) has been successfully developed a nd employed in the preparation of the second 
indicative programme (2009-2011). More than 50 EU experts visited more than 20 potential 
partner countries to assess the scope, needs and conditions for cooperation and assistance under the IfS. Threats to critical infrastructure and major public health th reats with a potential 
trans-national dimension are new areas requiring extensive pr eparation and the Commission 
plans to come back to these two areas in subsequent Indicative Programmes. Finally, an 
important objective is the cr isis-preparedness component. For the period 2007-2008, EUR 15 
million was programmed and committed for this component, and EUR 30-39 million is foreseen for 2009-2011. It has been framed as  a new Peace-Building Partnership which aims 
at mobilising and consolidating civilian exper tise for peace-building activities. It focuses 
principally on strengthening direc tly the upstream capacity of the relevant partners to rapidly 
respond to a crisis scenario, and addresses, no tably, civil society orga nisations, international 
organisations, and relevant agencies in EU Member States. The work under the Peace-building Partnership is the subject of a fruitf ul ongoing dialogue with the relevant sub-group 
of the European Parliament’s Committee on Foreign Affairs.  
The mid-term review of the IfS Strategy Pa per 2007-2011, as required by Article 7(3) of the 
Regulation, is expected to be conducted in 2009. 
As far as landmines are concerned, it is worth recalling that the IfS is not meant to be an 
instrument replacing — legally or financia lly — the repealed Anti-Personnel Landmines 
(APL) thematic budget line. The bulk of the fu nds to support mine ac tion should come from 
the geographic instruments (DCI, IPA, ENPI, EDF)  or the humanitarian aid instrument in case 
of need for humanitarian demining. The IfS suppor t is foreseen only under its short-term remit 
and with some constraints and for addressi ng the illicit trafficking of firearms and 
ammunition. From a stock-taking exercise carrie d out among relevant Co mmission services in 
terms of programming funds committed to mine ac tion after the repeal of  the APL regulation, 
it is evident that funds have  dropped by one third, which was the ratio covered by the APL 
horizontal budget line vis-à-vi s the geographic and developmen t instruments (the remaining 
two thirds). DG External Relations is stre ngthening internal coordination within the 
Commission to ensure that APL are given proper attention a nd hence are addressed within 
national programmes. This has been recently re inforced by the adoption of new guidelines for 
APL action into CSPs and NIPs. 
 
EN 29   EN The objectives and scope of the Regulation ha ve proven to be adequate. However, an 
amendment is necessary to take into account the judgment of the European Court of Justice on 
small arms and light weapons . On 20 May 2008, the Grand Chamber of the European Court 
of Justice annulled Counc il Decision 2004/833/CFSP of 2 December 2004 implementing Joint 
Action 2002/589/CFSP with a view to a EU cont ribution to EC OWAS in the framework of 
the Moratorium on Small Arms and Light Weapons (hereinafter the ECOWAS Case)19. With 
respect to the fight against th e proliferation of small arms and light weapons, the Council had 
already adopted several Joint Actions in the past . The Court held that measures to combat the 
proliferation of small arms and light weapons  fall within the compet ences conferred on the 
Community in the field of deve lopment policy and cannot be pursu ed as part of the CSFP if 
their main aim or component relates to develo pment policy. This view was not shared by the 
Council when the IfS was adopted in Novemb er 2006. Therefore, Artic le 3(2)(i) of the 
Regulation carried the following restriction: 
“Assistance shall be provided only to the extent necessary to re-estab lish the conditions for social and 
economic development of the populations concerned, in a situation of crisis or emerging crisis as 
referred to in paragraph 1. It shall not include s upport for measures to combat the proliferation of 
arms; ” 
When the IfS Regulation was adopted, Council and Commission made a joint statement in 
which they agreed that in th e context of the mid-term revi ew of the IfS Regulation under 
Article 25, the scope of Article 3(2 )(i) would be revised as necessary20. In the view of its clear 
wording excluding financing to comb at the proliferation of small arms and light weapons, it is 
necessary to propose a revision of that Article in order to bring it in line with the case law of 
the Court. For the same reason, Article 4(1)(a) on actions in support of the fight against the 
illicit trafficking should be re vised to refer explicitly to “small arms and light weapons”. 
4.2 Implementation issues 
The provisions foreseen under the regulation have proven to be adequate especially as regards 
the adoption of Exceptional Assistance Measures  below the threshold of EUR 20 million that 
the Commission can adopt without the comitology procedure. This allows for rapid decision-
making, which is absolutely necessary in th e field of crisis management. Council and 
Parliament are kept informed in line with the Regulation and the Commission’s commitments 
(see below under point 4.3).  
One implementation issue has emerge d relating to the provisions for participation and rules 
of origin under Article 17 for the Peace-building Pa rtnership. The first (2007) Annual Action 
Programme under the Peace-building Part nership will finance (EUR 7 million) inter alia : 
capacity-building and early warning activities and exchange of experience on best practice for 
civil society organisations; early warning a nd early recovery work with UNDP and the 
African Union; and training for civil stabilis ation missions (including the continuation of 
training of Member State experts for civilian  crisis management by the European Group for 
Training — EGT). The financing decision was adopted in late 2007, and the first components 
have been contracted during the first half of 2008. A second (2008) Annual Action 
Programme for EUR 8 million was adopted in  March 2008. Moreover, the Peace-building 
Partnership builds upon existing work with rele vant civil society or ganisations, which is 
currently being undertaken in th e context of a preparatory actio n for the continuation of the 
earlier-established ‘Conflict Prevention Network’. While some capacity-building actions are 
                                                 
19 ECJ, Case C-91/05 (ECOWAS). 
20 Council document 14010/06 ADD 1 of 27/10/2006.  
 
EN 30   EN implemented through the direct aw ard of contracts to International Organisa tions, a large part 
(EUR 5.85 million in the AAP 2008) fo r Peace-building Partnership Support (Civil society 
capacity-building: EUR 4 millio n; Civil society early warn ing and field-based analysis 
activities on conflict prevention: EUR 1.5 million;  Pro-active policy advice from civil society: 
EUR 0.35 million) is being awarded through calls for propos als. However, the provisions for 
participation and rules of origin exclude OECD  countries which do not belong to the EU or 
the EEA, like Switzerland and Canada, while no su ch restriction exists  for contracts under 
Article 3 (crisis response). This poses a serious setback to the potential quality of action and 
the attainment of objectives of Article 4(3), which are closely linked to those pursued under 
Article 3. It is therefore proposed to open up pa rticipation in the awar d of procurement or 
grant contracts under Article 4(3) on a global basis, bringing it into line with measures under 
Article 3.  
4.3 Delivery against the commitments undertaken 
The adoption of the IfS was accompanied by a variety of commitments from the Commission 
vis-à-vis the Parliament and th e Council included in various Declarations and exchanges of 
letters. 
Declaration of the Commission to the Pa rliament on the Stability Instrument 
In this Declaration, the Commission undertook to: 
(a) “ inform the Parliament in a timely manner of exceptional assistance measures 
adopted , and  
(b) to ensure that measures adopted under Ar ticle 4(1)(a) in re lation to the fight 
against terrorism and organised crime are in accordance with  international 
law. Such measures will be targeted at  countries which demonstrate a clear 
political will to address thes e problems in a manner wh ich ensures full respect 
for their international human rights obligations and applicable humanitarian 
law. The Commission will monitor carefully the implementation of such measures to ensure compliance with these principles.” 
The Commission has delivered on the first comm itment by communicating to the Parliament 
the information it provides to the Council pursuant to Article 6(5): “ Before adopting or 
renewing any Exceptional Assistance Measures costing up to EUR 20 000 000, the 
Commission shall inform the Council of their nature, objectives and the financial amounts 
envisaged ”. This has been implemented by way of Information Notes on each measure 
addressed to both Council and Parliament. 
Regarding the second commitment, the Commi ssion has so far, unde r the AAP 2007, adopted 
one measure to counter drug trafficking from/to  Afghanistan along the heroin route with a 
special emphasis on the western route. The sp ecific objective is the development of trans-
regional capacity to collect, analyse and share law enforcement data in the areas of border 
control and forensics  for Economic Cooperation Organisatio n (ECO) member countries. The 
project is planned to be implemented through  EU Member States, in collaboration with 
UNODC and Interpol. An additional contributi on of up to EUR 4.3 million is envisaged under 
the AAP 2008. The decision has also been taken on the basis of the democratic process in Afghanistan, and the substantial EU commitment in the country to enhancing the rule of law 
and effective civilian policing with full respect for international human rights. 
 
EN 31   EN Commitment of the Commission to the Par liament towards the establishment of a 
Peace-building Partnership 
In a letter from Commissioner Ferrero-Waldner to  the Chairman of Parliament’s Foreign 
Affairs committee on 7 June 2006, the Commissi on’s proposals for establishing a Peace-
building Partnership under the Stability Instrume nt were set out, to build on the European 
Programme for the Prevention of  Violent Conflict adopted by the 2001 European Council, the 
commitments in the European Consensus on Development on addressing state fragility, and the Communication on Linking Relief , Rehabilitation and Development
21. In delivering on 
this commitment, the Commission included substantial amounts in the 2007 and 2008 AAPs 
for the implementation of Article 4(3) of the IfS for supporting NGOs and other NSAs: EUR 
3.35 million in 2007 and EUR 5.85 million in 2008. The calls for proposals were published in 2008, and the selection process is under way. Framework Partnership Agreements with NGOs are planned to be established in 2009. Regional or ganisations such as the African Union have 
already benefitted from support under Article 4(3) for enhanci ng early warning capabilities.  
Joint Council/Commission Declaratio n on the Stability Instrument 
This declaration was added to the minutes of  the Council when it adopted the IfS Regulation. 
It essentially provides additional detail on a rrangements to implement the information 
requirement under Article 6(5) , in particular that “ The Commission shall keep the Council 
regularly informed about its planning of  Community assistance under Article 3 .”
  
The Commission delivered on these commitment s by providing the Council with an update on 
its planning priorities under Ar ticle 3 on a monthly basis. This  update is regularly discussed 
with Member States, and the Commission is bound to take due account of any guidance provided by the Council. This arrangement has wo rked well and to the satisfaction of both the 
Council and the Commission. 
4.4 Adequacy of the financial envelopes and financial provisions 
The overall financial envelope for the Instru ment for Stability for the period 2007-2013 is 
EUR 2.062 million. Out of this amount, the Regula tion specifies that no more than 7%, 15% 
and 5% is to be allocated to measures falling under Articles 4(1), 4(2)  and 4(3) respectively, 
that is the long-term component, while the ot her 73% is allocated fo r crisis response.  
The crisis response component under Article 3 represents the bulk of the budget (EUR 91 
million in 2007, EUR 128 million in 2008) and has been entirely committed according to the 
priorities. The allocations fo r measures under Article 4(2) (up to 15% of the financial 
envelope) and Article 4(3) (up to 5% of the financial envelope) have also proven to be 
adequate. However, although the financial envelope  foresaw a steep increa se under this “crisis 
response” component, the envelope has been reduced by €240 million and re-allocated to the 
financing of the Food Facility in the framework of the 2009 budge t procedure. This reduction 
has been distributed over 2009-2013 to minimise  its budget impact on that component. As a 
result, the 2009 budget for this component amounts to EUR 135 million. 
As regards the budget allocation foreseen for meas ures under Article 4(1)  (up to 7% of the 
financial envelope), it has proven to be inad equate and needs to be increased. The areas 
covered by Article 4(1) are numerous and, even  with multi-purpose programmes only a few 
can be handled effectively with the resources available. Developing effective actions in the area of critical infrastructures,  public health risks, and globa l responses to trans-regional 
                                                
 
21 COM/2001/153. 
 
EN 32   EN threats requires more substantial measures to a llow real impact, visibility and credibility. In 
addition, the development of trans-regional acti ons which are complementary to national and 
regional envelopes requires an  appropriate level of funding to reach critical mass and 
sustainability. The budgetary allocations so far (EUR 9 million in 2007, EUR 10 million in 
2008, EUR 13 million in 2009), and the limit of 7% in Article 24 of the IfS Regulation do not 
allow for these objectives to be met.  
It is therefore proposed to in crease the maximum share of meas ures under Article 4(1) from 
7% to 10%.  
4.5 Conclusion on the IfS Regulation 
The provisions of this new financial instrument  are adequate to pursue the objectives provided 
that the amendments requested are adopted: 
• As regards small arms and light weapons, a revi sion of the Regulation in order to bring it 
in line with the case law of the Court. 
• The revision of the provisions on participa tion and rules of origin for measures under 
Article 4(3).  
• The adjustment of the budget alloca tion for measures under Article 4(1). 
Finally, the Commission is deli vering on all the various comm itments undertaken in the 
context of the adoption  of the Stability Instrument.  
5. E UROPEAN INSTRUMENT FOR DEMOCRACY AND HUMAN RIGHTS (EIDHR)   
5.1 Delivery against the declared objectives 
Community assistance under this instrument is  complementary to that provided under the 
geographic and thematic instruments for external  actions. The instrument takes over from the 
two previous regulations under a single framewor k with a global reach. It addresses global, 
regional, national and local human  rights and democratisation i ssues mainly in partnership 
with civil society and independe ntly of the consent of third- country governments and other 
public authorities.  
The EIDHR is mainly implemented through calls  for proposals, managed both centrally by 
Headquarters and directly by Delegations. The Strategy Paper 2007-2010 was adopted in 
August 2007 after democratic sc rutiny and comitology. No probl ems were encountered in the 
strategy formulation and the Regulation has prove n very instrumental in the pursuit of the 
policy objectives.  
Following the adoption of the Strategy Paper, the 2007 Annual Action Programme was 
approved in December 2007, and the contractual phase started in autumn 2008. Four calls for 
proposals for the 2008 AAP were launched in January, April and June 2008. A fifth was 
launched and is permanently op ened. The 2009 AAP is likely to  be adopted by the end of 
March 2009. 
It is too early to evaluate the EIDHR delivery against the declared objectives, but this is the 
normal cycle for this kind of programme where th ere is a time-lag betw een the launch of the 
programme and the evaluation of the results. A first indicator at this stage is the high 
participation of civil society organisations in the different calls for proposal, which shows 
these organisations’ interest in the instrument. 
 
EN 33   EN The mid-term revision of the strategy paper will be carried out in 2009 for adoption in early 
2010. 
5.2 Implementation issues 
One of the founding principles of the EIDHR is  its independence from the consent of the 
third-country governments and other public authorit ies. In this context, the implementation of 
the strict wording of Article 13(6), which exclud es the payment of taxes, duties or charges, is 
proving to be highly problematic, especially in  countries where human rights and fundamental 
freedoms are most at risk. Indeed, in these cases, third countries are unwilling to exempt 
EIDHR local beneficiaries.  
The “tax and duties” issue has been systematically raised by Delegations and partner NGOs 
during 2008. Under the current instrument, taxes paid by the beneficiaries are strictly not 
eligible and this creates an extra financial bur den on the beneficiary in a politically sensitive 
area (i.e. increasing de facto the benefici aries’ contribution and decreasing the EC 
contribution). In countries where fundamental rights are most at risk, full financing in 
conformity with Article 169 of th e Financial Regulation is consid ered to protect the security 
of the organisations and their staff: this is  compromised by the current provisions of the 
Regulation.  
The flexibility inserted in the majority of ot her instruments is required to allow for the 
payment of taxes, duties or charges in exceptio nal cases and on a case-by-case basis. There is 
therefore a need for a techni cal amendment to harmonise Article 13(6) with the other 
instruments as follows: “ Community assistance shall, in pr inciple, not be used for paying 
taxes, duties or charges in beneficiary countries”.  This flexibility will be consistently 
circumscribed through internal guidelines for al l instruments, clarifying that the exception can 
only be granted on a case by case basis and under exceptional circumstances.  
5.3 Delivery against the commitments undertaken 
In the framework of the final adoption of  the Regulation, the Commission issued a 
Declaration on limiting Electoral Observati on Missions (EOMs) to 25% of the total available 
funds over the period 2007-2013, with a maximum of  30% for a given year in duly justified 
cases. The programming and funding of EOMs over 2007-2009 has respected that ceiling and 
the Commission will continue over the co ming years to prioritise EOMs where the 
Community’s support will bring the most va lue-added. An ad-hoc budget line has being 
created in the budget nomenc lature to follow-up on EOM funding. The budget was EUR 30 
million in 2007 and EUR 23 million in 2008. For 2009, the budget amounts to EUR 32 million, but the final funding will depend on the number of EOMs supported. This corresponds to 19% of th e total budget covering the first 3 years.  
5.4 Adequacy of the financial envelopes and financial provisions 
The programmed financial enve lope for EIDHR has been respected over the years 2007-2009. 
During the year 2008, a budgetary transfer of EUR 8.4 million from line 19 04 03 (EOMs) to 
line 19 04 01 (general Human Rights and Democracy) has allowed additional EIDHR 
activities to be financed in response to the ca lls for proposals. This was exceptionally possible 
because a lower number of EOMs was decide d in 2008 by the Commission, in agreement 
with the Council and the European Parliament.  
 
EN 34   EN 5.5 Conclusion on the EIDHR Regulation 
Given its implementation methods, the EIDHR cont ractual phase started in autumn 2008. It is 
therefore too early to evaluate its delivery against the declared objectives. However, no 
implementation problems have appeared except fo r the issue of taxes,  duties and charges. 
Further to this review of the EIDHR, it is th erefore proposed to proceed with the technical 
amendment of the Regulation br inging Article 13(6) on taxes, duties and charges into line 
with the other instruments in order to allow in exceptional and duly justified cases for their 
eligibility as follows: “Community financing shall, in principle,  not be used for paying taxes, 
duties or charges in beneficiary countries.” 
6. I NSTRUMENT FOR NUCLEAR SAFETY COOPERATION (INSC)   
6.1 Delivery against the declared objectives 
The Instrument for Nuclear Safety Coopera tion (INSC) provides for the continuation of 
actions undertaken by the Commission in the fi eld of nuclear safety and safeguards which 
took place between 1991 and 2006 under the TACI S nuclear safety programmes. Although 
the scope and implementation provisions have  been adapted, the major change has been 
extension to other third countri es engaging in nuclear installa tions. Jordan and Egypt are the 
first non-CIS countries to benefit from the ne w instrument. The extensive experience of the 
Commission services with assistance and c ooperation on nuclear safety and safeguards has 
been taken into account in th e drafting of the new INSC and the transition has been very 
smooth. 
The Strategy Paper 2007-2013 and Indicative Programme 2007-2009 were submitted in due 
time and discussed with Member States repres entatives within the INSC Committee and later 
adopted by the Commission. Furthermore, the Commission adopted a Communication to the 
Parliament and the Council ‘Addressing the Inte rnational Challenge of Nuclear Safety and 
Security’22. Implementation of the projects under the Annual Action Programme (AAP) for 
2007 has started. Armenia and Ukraine have si gned the relevant Financing Agreements and 
projects for improving the safety at the Med zamor Nuclear Power Plant are in the tendering 
phase. Russia has not signed the Financi ng Agreement related to AAP2007 and a new 
framework for cooperation is to be defined with  this country. The Comm ission is the largest 
contributor to the Chernobyl in ternational funds. Disbursements to these funds have already 
taken place under the INSC23. Due to major additional costs in important projects which are 
entering the construction phase the Commission financ ing will be required in future to ensure 
their completion. 
6.2 Implementation issues and adequa cy of the financial envelopes  
No implementation issues which might require  a revision of the Regulation have been 
encountered.  
The financial envelopes and fi nancial provisions have been  found adequate though slight 
adjustments might be necessary as regard s the 2010-2013 profile, for frontloading some 
operations. However, these adjustments woul d be marginal and budget neutral over the 
period.  
                                                 
22 COM (2008) 312 final of 22.05.2008. 
23 A EUR 10 million grant under AAP2007 (3rd pledge — 2nd part) and another EUR 15 million under 
AAP2008. 
 
EN 35   EN 6.3 Conclusion on the INSC Regulation 
The transition from the previous instruments ha s been very smooth with the main differences 
being that cooperation aspects have been reinforced, includi ng co-financing, and that the 
geographical coverage has been extende d to cover other third countries.  
The financial reference amount and provisions of  the INSC are considered to be adequate. 
No revision of the instrument is required at this stage.  
7. I NSTRUMENT FOR COOPERATION WITH INDUSTRIALISED AND OTHER HIGH -INCOME 
COUNTRIES AND TERRITORIES (ICI)   
7.1 Delivery against the declared objectives 
The ICI promotes cooperation with 17 industria lised and other high-income countries and 
territories in North America, the Asia-Pacific region and the Gulf region. The ICI has a wider 
scope than the former instrument for coope ration with industrialised countries (Council 
Regulation 382/2001), which was confined to six countries and covered a more limited range 
of activities. 
Based on Article 181a of the Tr eaty, the ICI contributes to fo stering relations between the 
Community and countries and territories that  often share similar values, are important 
political and trading partners, and play an active role in multilateral fora and global governance. 
The actions provided for under the aegis of th e ICI support the strategic objectives of the 
Community’s external action in  relation to these countries: 
• advancing EU interests with our main indus trialised partners on (a) key foreign policy, 
security and development issues; (b) economic  integration, including promoting growth, 
trade, investment and jobs; an d (c) global issues such as energy security and climate 
change; 
• managing the existing frameworks for bilateral re lations with the EU’s main industrialised 
and high-income partners and developing thes e frameworks in support of EU objectives; 
• advancing networking and aw areness of the EU, by fac ilitating people-to-people 
exchanges and educational, scientific and academic contacts. 
Specific cooperation activities have been so fa r organised around three main priority areas: 
(1) Public diplomacy and outreach. The key obj ectives are to enhan ce the profile of the 
EU, and to promote better understanding of Community action and positions in partner countries. To achieve these objectives, the ne twork of EU Centres has been strengthened, 
support is provided to public policy think-tanks and research institutes, and targeted events 
are organised in partner countries. 
(2) Economic partnership and business coopera tion. The cooperation activities contribute 
to the strategic objective of strengthening the presence of European companies in key 
markets. In particular, they should facilitate market access for European companies, including 
small and medium-sized enterprises. The range of services provided to  European companies 
under long-standing business cooperation prog rammes has been expanded, in light of 
experience. 
 
EN 36   EN (3) People-to-people links. The main goals are to enhance mutual understanding between 
cultures and facilitate the exchange of knowledge. To this end, the main initiatives are to 
strengthen cooperation in the field of edu cation and promote civil society dialogues. 
In conclusion, the ICI has pr ovided a flexible basis to de velop cooperation with a wider 
number of industrialised and high-income terr itories, and to extend th is cooperation to new 
areas, in particular people-to-pe ople links and education cooperation. 
As from 2011, the ICI will also incorporate th e support to the development of transatlantic 
methods for handling global challenges, which is now carried in the form of a Pilot Project 
started in 2007 under the Parlia ment’s initiative. The scope of the current Regulation can 
cover this activity without any modification.  
7.2 Implementation issues and ade quacy of the financial envelope 
The ICI is implemented in the context of multiannual cooperation programmes and annual 
action programmes. The first multiannual pr ogramme 2007-2010 will be adjusted in 2009 
(mid-term review of multiannual programmes as set out in Article  5(2).) to open an External 
Cooperation Window for industria lised countries in the cont ext of the new programme 
Erasmus Mundus (2009-2013).  
No particular difficulty has been encountered in the implementation of the ICI which would 
point to a need for amendment. 
The financial envelope is tight but it is deemed  adequate as long as no further activities have 
to be financed. For that reason, the incorporation of the Pilot Project “Transatlantic methods 
for handling global challenges” in 2011 will re quire about EUR 1 million per year over the 
rest of the period 2011-2013. This small increa se does not require a modification of the 
reference amount for the industrialised countri es. The scope of the current Regulation can 
cover this activity without any modification.  
7.3 Conclusion on the ICI Regulation  
The ICI has proved an effective and flexible  instrument to develop cooperation with 
industrialised and high-income countries/territori es. No amendment is required as regards the 
cooperation with this group of c ountries, but a slight increase of the budget will be necessary 
to take into consideration the incorporation of the Pilot Proj ect on transatlantic methods for 
handling global challenges. A se parate financial envelope will be added to the amended ICI 
Regulation which concerns only the geogra phical extension to the DCI countries.