EUROPEAN COMMISSION 
Brussels, 7.12.2011 
SEC(2011) 1481 final 
  
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING PAPER 
IMPACT ASSESSMENT 
Accompanying the document 
REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL 
establishing an Instrument for Stability 
{COM(2011) 845 final} 
{SEC(2011) 1482 final}  
 
EN 2   EN TABLE OF CONTENTS 
1. Procedural issues and consulta tion of interested parties.............................................. 3 
1.1. Organisation and timing............................................................................................... 3 1.2. Consultation and expertis e (public and internal) ......................................................... 3 
1.3. Impact Assessment Board............................................................................................ 4 2. Problem definition........................................................................................................ 5 2.1. The problem requiring action and the sc ope of the instrument regulation .................. 5 
2.2. Outcomes of evaluation reports and lessons learned ................................................... 8 2.2.1. Outcomes from evaluations.......................................................................................... 8 2.2.2. Lessons Learned......................................................................................................... 10 
2.3. The underlying drivers of the problem....................................................................... 11 2.4. Legal base for EU action............................................................................................ 13 2.5. EU added value .......................................................................................................... 13  
3. Objectives.................................................................................................................. . 14 
3.1. Policy framework and objectives............................................................................... 14 3.2. Consistency with external action priorities................................................................ 14 3.3. Consistency with other EU policies ........................................................................... 15 3.4. Geographic/thematic coverage................................................................................... 15 4. Policy options............................................................................................................. 1 6 
5. Analysis of impacts.................................................................................................... 16 5.1. Likely economic, social a nd environmental impacts ................................................. 16 
5.2. Impact on external action........................................................................................... 17 5.3. Impact in terms of management and implementation................................................ 17 6. Comparing the options ............................................................................................... 20 7. Monitoring and evaluation ......................................................................................... 23 7.1. Core indicators of progress towards objectives ......................................................... 23 7.2. Outline for monitoring and evaluation arrangements ................................................ 24 
 
EN 3   EN 1. PROCEDURAL ISSUES AND CONSULTATION OF INTERESTED PARTIES  
1.1. Organisation and timing 
The drafting of the Impact Assessment for the EU  external action instru ments for the period 
2014-2020, including this document1, has been coordinated by a Task Force  composed by 
services in charge of EU external action and the Legal Service. The drafting teams , 
appointed on 7 June 2011, have duly taken into consideration the consultations, reviews and 
studies mentioned in Section 2 and have liaised  with other Commission services to ensure 
consistency with other EU policies. The Task Fo rce has met with the drafting team in charge 
of this Impact Assessment on 7 June, 4 and 15 July and 2 August 2011 for organisational and 
quality-check purposes. 
An Impact Assessment Steering Group,  composed by the members of the Task Force and 
representatives of interested Directorates Ge neral and the Secretaria t General, was launched 
on 22 June 2011 It has met twice, on 13 and 26 of July 2011. 
This review of this Impact Assessment by the Impact Assessment Board  took place on 14 
September 2011. 
In line with article 27 of the Fi nancial Regulation (Council Regulation  (EC, Euratom) No 
1605/2002) and article 21 of the Implementi ng Rules of the Financial Regulation 
(Commission Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2342/ 2002), the present impact assessment is the 
ex-ante evaluation of the Instrument for Stability.  
1.2. Consultation and expertise (public and internal) 
The European Commission held a public consultation  on future funding for EU external 
action between 26 November 2010 and 31 January 2011. This process was based on an online 
questionnaire accompanied by a background paper 'What funding for EU external action 
after 2013 ' prepared by Commission a nd EEAS services involved . The 220 contributions 
received to the public consultation reflected a broad and diverse spec trum representing the 
variety of structures, views and traditions characterising the external action community. 
Regarding EU external action on peace and international security , the strengthening of EU 
peace-building and crisis preparedness is men tioned as a primary objective for the next 
Multiannual Financial Framework. The importance of investing in long-term stability, human 
rights and economic development was also u nderlined by many respondents. As regards 
specifically the Instrument for Stability (IfS)2 the public consultation  showed that the (IfS) is 
highly valued and many re spondents urge the EU:  
1) to enhance its potential, in particular as regards the capacity  building for crisis prevention  
2) to safeguard the key advantag es of the Instrument for Stabili ty (IfS), namely the speed of 
delivery and direct financing”. 
                                                 
1 The instruments are the following: Internal Agreement for the 11th European Development Fund, Development 
Cooperation Instrument, Instrument fo r Pre-Accession assistance, European Neighbourhood Instrument, Instrument 
for Stability, Instrument for Nuclear Safety Cooperation,  European Instrument for Democracy and Human Rights, 
Partnership Instrument and the instru ments for the EU-Greenland Partnership. The Macro-Financial Assistance 
instrument, the Common Foreign and Security Policy, the Humanitarian aid instrument  and the Civil Protection 
mechanism are not part of this joint exercise.  
2 Regulation (EC) No 1717/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 November 2006 
establishing an Instrument for Stability (OJ L327 of 24.11.06, p.1) 
 
EN 4   EN In terms of expertise, a comparative review  between the Instrument for Stability, the UN 
Peacebuilding Fund, and the World Bank’s St ate-building and Peace-building Fund was 
commissioned by the UK Department for Inte rnational Development in 2010. It concluded 
that the IfS enables the EU: “…to contribute in fragile po st-conflict transitions, and 
complement (its) broader institutional capacity and eng agement in such contexts. The 
potential of (the IfS) to mobilise significant technical and financial resources in support of 
state-building and peace-building processes and reconstruction efforts, including the 
strengthening of key institutions and systems, and to link up to  longer term development 
programmes is a clear comparative advantage”.  The study highlighted also the governance 
and decision-making arrangements of the IfS as particularly effective because of the direct 
linkage at the level of the EU Political and Security Committee, thereby allowing for political-risk management judgment as well as in creased coordination with EU partners.  
The European Parliament’s External Relations  Committee (AFET) has been supportive of the 
IfS for its value-added in the range of inst ruments for supporting external actions. The AFET 
has established a specific Working Group on Crisis, Security and Development.  
Member States have consistently recognised the value of the IfS as an efficient means 
allowing the EU to rapidly intervene in crisis si tuations with strategica lly important actions. A 
high degree of political coordination has been de veloped at the level of the Political and 
Security Committee (PSC) between the Commi ssion departments in charge of IfS and 
Member States, which has resulted in politi cally consensual inte rventions through this 
Instrument. 
In addition, it is str ongly supported and utilise d by civil society groups active in the areas of 
conflict resolution and development as well as  many of the EU’s key external partners, 
notably the World Bank and UN-family organizations.  
In looking forward, a high level seminar on the use of the Instrument for Stability to address 
long term security threats took place on the 2
nd and 3rd December 2010 and a Consultation 
Meeting on the Instrument for Stability (IfS) Cr isis Preparedness Component (Article 4.3) on 
24 January 2011 concluded that there is a gene ral consensus on the need for the EU to 
continue strengthening its capacit ies and to further increase its presence in this area.  
1.3. Impact Assessment Board 
The Impact Assessment Board recommended that th e report explain better the nature of the 
Instrument for Stability to clarify how it lin ks with and complements other EU financial 
instruments. The problem definition should be st rengthened by presenting the results of the 
2011 Programme-level Evaluation in greater de tail and by clearly id entifying issues and 
objectives. The presentation of policy options should provide mo re detailed information on 
available policy alternatives and clearly identify which elements of the current Instrument will 
be changed. The report should al so better differentiate the e xpected impacts of different 
policy options. All of the above remarks have been  incorporated into a revised version of the 
report. 
 
EN 5   EN  
2. PROBLEM DEFINITION  
2.1. The problem requiring action and the scope of the instrument regulation 
Definition 
Crises and conflicts affect c ountries world-wide and pose a risk to global security and 
stability. Conflicts are often lin ked to state fragility and exace rbated by weak governance and 
poverty. Responding to these structural challenge s requires a signifi cant collective effort, 
based on strong partnerships with other states , civil society actors, multilateral and regional 
partners to create the conditions  for supporting countries  to avoid the relapse into conflict.  
In this context, the EU must be able to play its part and respond in a fast and in a flexible 
manner to evolving circumstances. This requires a capacity to decide qu ickly on interventions 
along with the mobilization of the resources. Th e EU cooperation financial instruments are 
not designed to provide such re sponse: they aim to long-term i nvestment in collaboration with 
the beneficiary country and predic tability of the assi stance is important. These instruments are 
subject to multi-annual programming and cannot be  mobilized sufficiently fast for situations 
of emerging conflict or crisis.  
To support countries stricken by  political conflicts or natura l disasters the EU essentially 
needs more flexibility, beyond humanitarian and civil protection assist ance aiming at saving 
lives and relief human suffering, to  swiftly fill the gaps in cris is response, complement crisis 
management operations (incl uding those under CFSP) and fac ilitate a better link between 
early recovery, reconstruction and longer-term development, as necessary for the lasting 
stabilization of the countries concerned.  
Furthermore, natural or man-made disasters,  drug trafficking, organi zed crime, terrorism, 
cyber security threats, hamper  development, weaken the ru le of law and contribute to 
worldwide instability. Human, environmental, clim ate change and security risks associated 
with chemical, biological, radioactive and nucle ar materials (CBRN) also transcend national 
and regional frontiers. 
To address these challenges, under the 2007-13 fi nancial framework, a new Instrument – the 
Instrument for Stability – was adopted to co ntribute to developing a comprehensive response 
with regard to conflic t prevention and peace-building, crisis  management and relevant global 
and transregional security-related threats. In just under four year s, the IfS has proven to be an 
effective instrument to respond to emerging and existing crises as well to address long-term challenges affecting wider global security.  
However, to address the multiple drivers of inst ability that can lead to conflicts and growing 
security challenges and for the EU to fully pl ay its role on the world stage promoting EU’s 
values and interests, the Instrument for Stability needs to further enhance it effectiveness in terms of  
a speed of assistance in response to situ ations of crisis or emerging crisis  
b) development of EU’s own capacities and EU’s partners capabilities for conflict prevention, 
crisis preparedness and peace-building and  
c) addressing a wider range of global trans-national security threats.  
 
EN 6   EN Scope of the current Instrument  
The scope of the Instrument is worldwide a nd its interventions ar e not bound by OECD DAC 
criteria. Its double Treaty legal basis (“ development cooperation ” and “ economic, financial 
and technical cooperation with third countries ”) allows the EU to effectively tackle the 
security and development nexus. 
The specific objectives of the Instrument fo r Stability (IfS) under the current Regulation3 are: 
(a) in a situation of crisis or emerging cris is, to contribute to stability by providing an 
effective response to help preserve, establish or  re-establish the conditions essential to the 
proper implementation of the deve lopment and cooperation policies; 
(b) in the context of stable conditions for the implementation of cooperation policies in third 
countries, to help build capacity both to addre ss specific global and trans-regional threats 
having a destabilising effect and to  ensure crisis preparedness.  
As a ‘subsidiary’ instrument, the IfS  addresses needs that cannot otherwise be tackled under 
any other instrument either because of (a) the ur gency of the response, (b) the global or trans-
regional nature of the problem, exceeding the scope of a geographic instrument; (c) the 
exclusion of the supported area from funding under ODA-bound instruments (e.g., counter-
terrorism), or (d) the non-country specific natu re of the assistance (e.g. projects to develop 
international standards or policies in the fi eld of conflict prevention and peace-building). 
In order to respond to crisis and/or to rapidly intervene to preserve peace and prevent conflict, 
the instrument allows inter alia  support for international state and non-state actors in 
promoting confidence-building, mediation, dialogue  and reconciliation; the establishment and 
the functioning of interim administrations mandate d in accordance with international law; the 
development of democratic, pluralistic state institutions, including measures to enhance 
civilian administrations and th e role of women; internatio nal criminal tribunals and ad hoc  
national tribunals, truth and reconciliation co mmissions; civilian measures related to the 
demobilisation and reintegration of former combat ants into civil society as well as measures 
to reintegrate victims of armed conflict incl uding gender-based viol ence and the specific 
needs of women and children and measures in re sponse to natural or man-made disasters in 
the absence of or as a complement to humanitarian assistance.  
Over the four-year period 2007-20 10, the IfS crisis response co mponent has been called to 
intervene in 48 countries, mobilizing EUR 521 million in total for 154 individual actions 
worldwide. Examples of interventions financed by the IfS, all relating to decisions taken in 
2010, are described below: 
• Haiti Earthquake: A n IfS-financed ‘Post-Disaster Needs Assessment’ (PDNA) 
identified €25M earmarked for improvement  of the disaster pr eparedness capacities 
of Haitian Civil Protection services, and is providing the Haitian leadership with 
strategic advice on reconstruc tion, with a further €5m in  support for elections, in 
addition to an EU Election Observation Mission.  
                                                 
3  
 
EN 7   EN • Pakistan:  Two emergency response measures ha ve responded to (a) the political 
crisis in the north-west region bordering on Afghanistan (€15m) and (b) the floods 
(€18m). 
• Sudan: With a January 2011 referendum on self determination for southern Sudan, a 
€15m IfS Financing Decision provided s upport to organisation of the referendum 
process and the conduct of negotiations  between the north and south on post 
referendum arrangements and for population of  South Sudan basic services, bridging 
a gap until EDF funding could take over later in 2011. 
• Philippines: Following Council agreement that the EU contribute to their MILF 
peace process, an IfS action ( €3m) was put in place to supp ort the monitoring of the 
parties' compliance with their commitme nts on humanitarian, rehabilitation, and 
development activitie s; monitor protection, and suppor t the internatio nal political 
support to dialogue. 
• Somali Piracy Crisis: j oint EU-UNODC support to piracy trials in Kenya and the 
Seychelles complementing the CSDP Atalanta naval operation. 
Further details of the type of  financed activity under the Instrument can be found in the 
Annual Reports from the Commission to the EP, the Council, the Eur opean Economic and 
Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions4. 
Evolution of the Context 
UN estimates show that at least 80 countries wi ll face the prospects of prolonged deadlock or 
potentially violent internal te nsions and instability beyond 2014. Ot her factors such as climate 
change and natural disasters add to the potential for further global instability. 
The most critical security challenges th e world faces today are interconnected and 
increasingly complex, impacting on both deve loping and industrialized countries alike and 
require concerted efforts to combat these threats. 
The new Treaty on the European Union (Ar ticle 21) has defined common overarching 
principles and objectives for th e external action of the Union, inter alia  to “ preserve peace, 
prevent conflicts and strengthen international security”. This is also supported by various 
Council Conclusions concerning the effectivene ss of external action (2004), Security and 
Development (2007) and Gene ral Conclusions (2010) the latter calling for further 
reinforcement of EU crisis management t ools to support Common Security and Defense 
Policy. Additional political guidance was give n by the Foreign Affairs Council Conclusions 
on conflict prevention of 20 June 2011. 
Following the Council conclusions of 2008 and 2009 on reinforcing the Union’s disaster 
response capacity, the Commission has prepared an implementation plan for the EU Strategy 
for supporting Disaster Risk Re duction in developing countries5, which identify the 
                                                 
4 IfS 2007 Annual Report COM(2008)181 of 11 April 2008 with annexes (DTS) SEC(2008) 446  
 IfS 2008 Annual Report COM(2009) 341  of 09 July 2009 with annexes (DTS) SEC(2009) 932 
 IfS 2009 Annual Report COM(2010) 512  of 28 September 2010 with annexes (DTS) SEC(2010) 1114  
 IfS 2010 Annual Report : COM (2011) 494 of 16 August 2011 
5 SEC(2011) 215 final 
 
EN 8   EN development of Post Disaster Needs Assessments  (PDNAs) as a priority to integrate disaster 
risk reduction into the re covery frameworks of the affected countries and encourage resilience 
and crisis preparedness.  
The 2008 implementation review of the European  Security Strategy (ESS) identified major 
new security threats such as Cyber security (and cybercrime), which did not have the same 
dimension when the IfS Regulation was adopt ed in 2006. The review of the ESS and the 
March 2008 report from the High Representati ve and the Commissi on to the Council 
concluded that the security implications of climate change have taken on a new urgency.  
Climate and security nexus was identified as a ke y area for further work in the context of the 
recent EEAS-Commission reflection paper on climate diplomacy, as reflected by the 
conclusions of the Foreign Affairs Council on 18 July 2011. Accordingl y the Instrument for 
Stability should make most of the opportunitie s presented for advancing coordinated EU 
efforts in this respect. 
In addition, the ruling of the European Court of Justi ce on the so-called ECOWAS case6 
allows the future Instrument to unrestrictedly address the proliferation of small arms and light 
weapons. 
2.2. Outcomes of evaluation reports and lessons learned  
2.2.1.  Outcomes from evaluations 
A Mid-Term Review of the IfS Regulation (MTR) was carried out in 2009 alongside that 
for the other external action financial instru ments for the period 2007-2013 (Report evaluating 
the implementation of the financial instrume nts for external actions: SEC/2009/530). The 
MTR concluded that IfS provisions were adequate to pursue its objectives. Some technical 
amendments were proposed al ong with an amendment to take  into account the European 
Court of Justice Judgment on small arms and li ght weapons (SALW). The legislative proposal 
was tabled in 2009, but it is still under discussion by the legislative authority. 
Member States have consistently recognized  the value of the Instrument for Stability7 and 
specific evaluations  of EU interventions demonstrated If S catalytic effect, recognizing its 
added-value in preparing and improving the deli very of EU long-term external assistance and 
CFSP actions8. 
During 2011, the IfS carried out a Programme-level  Evaluation  of its crisis response and 
crisis preparedness components (A rticles 3 and 4.3) in order to gauge the results  achieved to 
date and enhance IfS approaches to future cris is response measures and strategies for future 
crisis preparedness programming. The ev aluation concludes that the IfS is “ a unique 
                                                 
6 ECJ Case C-91/05 ECOWAS 
7 A comparative review  of the Instrument for Stability, the UN Peace Building Fund, and the World Bank’s State-
building and Peace-building Fund commissioned by the UK Department for International Development in 2010.  
8 A 2009 publication of the EU Institute for Security Studies providing the first comprehensive review of the ESDP 
operations between 1999 to 2009 states that “the creation of the Instrument for Stability (IfS) represented an 
important innovation in order to improve the Commission’s crisis response capacity and to foster cooperation 
between first and second pillar instruments” and that “Experi ence so far has been quite constructive with regard to 
both process, in terms of engagement of EU institutions a nd Member States, and substance, with a view to concrete 
crisis response initiatives.  
 
EN 9   EN Instrument within the EU peace, security and development architectur e. Articles 3 and 4(3) 
fill an important strategic, funding and capacity gap, and allow the EU to support a broad 
range of critical crisis preparedness and re sponse initiatives. The design and management of 
the Instrument has led to a significant number of achievements that should be recognized and are important contributions to peace and stability globally. Ini tiatives funded by  the crisis 
response and crisis preparedness components have contributed to:  
– Expanding and scaling up EU capacity to intervene in crisis situations from a 
geographic, thematic, funding and time-hor izon viewpoint, particularly through 
Article 3; 
– Leveraging and enhancing the coherence and effectiveness of the EU peace, 
security and development instruments and initiatives in support of critical crisis 
prevention, stabilisation, p eace building initiatives;  
– Providing relevant policy input  at a high-level and helping to kick-start important 
reforms while highlighting EU visibility and political leverage in third countries; 
and 
– Enhancing the capacities of partners to  prepare for and respond to crisis. 
In addition, the IfS has enabled the EU and key partners (UN, World Bank and civil society 
organisations) to support national stakeholders in  responding early to crisis. Initiatives in 
this area include the development of tools, c apacities and provision of funds to undertake Post 
Conflict and Post Disaster Needs Assessments (PCNA/PDNA). 
While largely positive about the implementation to date, severa l areas for improvements were 
highlighted. They specifically refer to speed of  deployment of the Instrument, increasing its 
overall flexibility with regard to implem entation timeframes of exceptional assistance 
measures and interim response programmes.  
The Evaluation concluded that “ given the nature of crises and frequent setbacks in 
stabilisation efforts, there is a need for both more flexibility in the IfS timeframes  (currently 
set at an 18-month limit) and for more attentio n to monitoring and linking the IfS to other 
instruments so that informed  decisions can be taken on how and when to move from one 
instrument to another. Although th e rationale for the IfS is root ed in helping address, and, as 
far as possible, stabilise a crisis until other instruments can come into play, often it is 
unrealistic to expect other instruments to co me up with programming until a degree of 
stability (and predictability) is reached. This  can take a varying amount of time, in most 
instances, more than a year. This suggests the n eed for greater flexibility in implementation 
timeframes – and a clearer articulation of criter ia within the IfS deci sion-making process on 
how and when to move from the IfS to other EU Instruments ….Whenever an IfS intervention 
builds on a previous Exceptiona l Assistance Measure, demons trating the rationale and need 
for the continuation of the in tervention, slim procedures co uld be followed and the adoption 
of Interim Response Programme should not be a requirement.” 
The Evaluation also suggested reviewing the th reshold amounts and increase financial and 
human resources. 
There have been no external evaluations under Article 4.1 ( threats to law and order, to 
the security and safety of individuals, to critical infrastructure and to public health ). 
 
EN 10   EN Ongoing programmes include programmes figh ting organised crime along the cocaine and 
heroin routes; the proliferation of small arms  and light weapons; capacity building in regions 
afflicted by terrorism and enhancing maritime security and safety al ong critical maritime 
routes. These programmes focus on security-rel ated capacity building in close consultation 
with beneficiary countries. Unde r a tailored approach, key count ries in a region are identified 
and the capacities of local law enforcement and security units strengthened by setting up or 
enhancing specialised inter-agency units.  
Evaluations under Article 4.2 ( Chemical Biological Radiological and Nuclear materials 
risk mitigation actions ) showed the importance Member States attached to the EU having its 
own programme to help build capacity in partner countries to fight prol iferation of sensitive 
CBRN materials and expertise. This enabled a nu mber of the smaller EU countries to join 
such work even though they themselves did not have either the t echnical or financial 
resources to implement autonomous outreach pr ogrammes. CBRN risk mitigation actions are 
one of the main ways the EU can collect ively (MS and the Commission) contribute to 
reducing the threat of malevolent uses of w eapons of mass destructio n (WMD) materials and 
know-how. 
In 2009, a stock-taking and scoping study of th e IfS crisis preparedness component  under 
Article 4.3 (the ‘Peace-building Pa rtnership’) recommended to:  
 i) increase focus on transversal and/or thematic  issues relating to both long-term and short-
term conflict prevention and peace-building which demonstrate a clear synergy with other EU 
supported activities and policy priorities;   ii) increase emphasis on organisatio ns working in various geographi cal contexts in relation to 
thematic or transversal issues that support cap acity building of local partners and generate 
learning -benefits for the peace-building sector as a whole;   iii) foster policy dialogue with non-st ate actors on peace-building issues.  
 These recommendations have started to be implemented in subsequent Annual Action Programmes in 2010 and 2011. However, in orde r to fully exploit the possibilities of 
engagement with civil society actors in this fiel d, a more flexible approach is required for the 
funding of these organizations a nd for EU Member States to benefit of this assistance. 
The study also recommended that  building capacities of local organizations should happen at 
country and regional level. This requires the de -concentration of the management of funds to 
EU Delegations.  
2.2.2.  Lessons Learned 
Four years after its launch in  2007, the Instrument for Stability  is now well established as a 
highly complementary EU crisis response tool. To date, the IfS has been successful in 
enabling the EU to fund a broad range of critical conflict-prev ention, crisis preparedness and 
response initiatives as part of its peace, security and develo pment policy framework, when no 
other EU cooperation instruments was available or complementing interventions carried out 
under other instruments.  
 
EN 11   EN However, it needs to speed up  its deployment and increase  its overall programming and 
implementation flexibility  in order to better respond to, in ter alia, political guidance from 
Council and meet future peace and security  challenges in sustainable manner.  
For instance, experience has shown that if fo llow up of an exceptional assistance measures ( 
of maximum duration of 18 months ) is urgently needed, the timi ng of adoption of an Interim 
Response Programmes (5-7 months on average) is not compatible with the speed required for 
crisis response. Only in the case of protract ed conflicts, where need for continuation of 
assistance can be foreseen sufficiently on ad vance, the preparation of Interim Response 
Programmes as follow up to exceptional assistan ce measures can be realistically envisaged 
(e.g 2010 Interim Response Programmes for suppor t to Palestinian ref ugee camps in Lebanon 
and emergency stabilisation support in Gaza). A dditional flexibility as regards continuation of 
exceptional assistance measures and lead-times  would therefore enhance effectiveness. 
With regard to conflict prev ention, crisis preparedness and p eace-building activities, overall 
concerted effort in anticipating, preventing and/or responding to conflict and natural disasters 
situations requires the further development of common standards and compatible working 
practices within the EU and with  multilateral, international, regional and local partners. This 
is very important to improve aid effectiven ess and the speed of operational deployment. 
Therefore, there is a continuing need to build up the EU’s own capacities in this regard and to 
both develop concepts and operational models for EU actions in conflict and crisis situations 
and to ensure their compatibility and inter-opera bility with those of ot her relevant actors.  
The maximum amount set under the Regulation for actions in relation to threats to law and 
order, to the security and safety  of individuals, to critical infr astructure and to public health 
has proven insufficient. Ceilings in relation to globa l threats to the security (including as well 
risk mitigation and preparedness measures relati ng to chemical, biological, radiological and 
nuclear materials or agents) should be reviewed  in line with the Commission proposal in the 
framework of the 2009 Mid-Term Review of the Regulation or abolished, to have the 
flexibility to respond to evolving threats in an adequate manner. 
2.3. The underlying drivers of the problem  
The EU as such is a relatively new actor in th e international Peace and Security arena. Since 
the mid-1990s, the EU has given itself an increasi ng number of tools to contribute to preserve 
peace and strengthen international security. Toda y, there is a general consensus, inside and 
outside Europe, that the EU s hould continue strengthening its cap acities to further increase its 
presence in this area.  
In a multi-polar world, concerted multilateral ac tion is required to respond to international 
crises in an effective manner. The challenges to international peace and security cannot be 
efficiently tackled by States acting individually. Furthermore, time is of essence in taking 
action to diffuse conflict or to respond in a conflict or a post-natural disaster theatre. Swift response and flexibility to adapt to evolving scenarios and capacity to  fill the gaps in the 
aftermath of a conflict are the biggest prob lems confronted when  deploying traditional 
programmable aid instruments.  
Since its creation in 2007, the Stab ility Instrument has been one of  the main EU tools used to 
address these problems as it enha nces EU capacity to undertake bot h urgent short-term crisis 
response and crisis prevention measures and medium-term actions addressing international 
security threats. The 2011 Programme-level Evaluation (s ee 2.2 above) confirmed IfS 
 
EN 12   EN relevance and usefulness to date while also id entifying several ways in which IfS efficiency 
could be further strengthened th ereby contributing to enhancing th e EU’s role in the theatres 
where the Instrument is deployed. Some of th ese improvements refer to internal processes 
which can be put in place without the need for any modification to the IfS Regulation. 
However, for certain other recommendations, cha nges to our future legal instrument will be 
required.  
In order to fulfil its new po litical mandate under the Treaty on the European Union and to 
adapt to a changed policy context as explai ned above under section 2.1, the EU needs to 
continue to build on the IfS experience of rece nt years to address the following problems or 
‘drivers’ in a more effective manner. The instrument  post-2013 should therefore provide 
solutions to the following drivers:  
Drivers identified through external Evaluations: 
• Lack of flexibility to adapt to rapidly evolving circumstances on the ground; 
Given the frequent setbacks encountered in stab ilization efforts and the highly contextualized 
nature of crises, he 2011 Progr amme-level Evaluation cited a need for more flexibility in 
deployment timeframes beyond the current limit of 18 months for Exceptional Assistance 
Measures under Article 3. In this regard, the Evaluation stated …”whenever an IfS 
intervention builds on a previous Exception al Assistance Measure, demonstrating the 
rationale and need for the conti nuation of the interven tion, slim procedures could be followed 
and the adoption of Interim Response Pr ogramme should not be a requirement.”  
• Need to improve sustainability of sh ort-term interventions  by better linkage with 
long-term development. 
Given the need to prepare as far as possible for post-crisis stabilization scenarios, the 2011 
Programme-level Evaluation also cited the need to  better link the IfS to other instruments so 
as to expedite and facilitate informed d ecisions on how and when to move from one 
Instrument to another.  
This will allow for the preparation of medium to  long-term post-crisis assistance programmes 
whose design can take a varying amount of time, in most instances, more than a year. In this 
regard, the Evaluation stated “ This suggests the need for greater flexibility in implementation 
timeframes – and a clearer articulation of criter ia within the IfS deci sion-making process on 
how and when to move from the IfS to other EU Instruments  . 
• Speed  of response to crisis in exceptional and unforeseen situations including the 
possibility of resource deployment w ith a very short period of time ; 
Given the dynamic nature of crises in whic h the EU is called upon to intervene, the 2011 
Programme-level Evaluation considers that th e deployment time of 2- 4 months for the 
Instrument (i.e. the period lead ing up to the identification of IfS measures) needs to be 
shortened and accelerated to take account of unfo reseen crisis scenarios . In this regard, the 
Evaluation stated that: “ given the nature of crises and frequent setbacks in stabilisation 
efforts, there is a need for more flexibility in the IfS timeframes   
Drivers identified through experience of IfS implementation:  
 
EN 13   EN • Insufficient civilian EU and international community expertise conflict 
prevention,pre- and post-crisis preparedness, and peace-building . 
In order to contribute to antici pating instability and potential tr iggers for conflict, the EU’s 
conflict prevention capacities re quire reinforcement by developi ng the relationship with those 
other actors (civil society, inte rnational and regional organizat ions, bodies in EU Member 
States) who are working on early warning and pe ace building activities (e.g mediation) and on 
ensuring that these can feed the EU’s decision- making process and are transformed into early 
action; 
The EU’s own capacities to participate in pre- and post- crisis scenarios also require further 
attention. Currently, there are no established mechanisms to  allow pre-positioned surge 
capacity in terms of expertise a nd equipment that could facilitate the swift transition from the 
humanitarian to the early recovery phase., Moreover, the further development of common 
bench-marking, guidelines, standard s and compatible working prac tices - notably in relation 
to post-disaster situations - and enhanced co- operation with other inte rnational or ganizations 
who are involved in fielding stabilization missions (UN, OSCE, AU, etc.) needs to be 
undertaken in order to ensure inter-operability in terms of training and the development of 
policy guidelines on conflict-rela ted issues (Needs assessments, Security sector reform; 
Disarmament, de-mobilization and re-integration, etc.). 
• Insufficient funding to adapt and keep pace with the fast-d eveloping security 
threats, such as those to the security and st ability of the Information Communication 
Technologies (ICT) as well as the operation networks and infrastr uctures, such as 
energy and transportation, on which the global community increasingly relies. 
These two drivers are linked to the level of resources. Given the Instrument for Stability’s 
particular political role in the global peace and s ecurity architecture, an increase in its overall 
budget should be considered alongside an a ppropriate increase in  staff resources and 
capacities . An increase in funds would help to bolste r impact and would enable IfS to respond 
to what is likely to be an increasing demand for crisis preparedness a nd strategic responses to 
emerging global threats in what ever shape they may emerge. 
2.4. Legal base for EU action 
The legal bases are Article 209.1 TFEU (e x 179 EC) and Article 212.2 (ex 181a EC).  
2.5. EU added value 
As a global player, the EU has credibility and a perception of neutrality as an honest broker 
hat provides a comparative advantage to intervene in many conflict areas to avoid escalation or to offer good offices in preventing conflict. When conflict has erupted, an increased level 
of impact is achieved when the response is pr ovided at EU level, as our combined efforts 
provide increased leverage over authorities and international partners. Crisis response 
actions when addressed at EU level maximise the coherence of response and aid efficiency. 
Synergies and cooperation are incr easingly needed at internati onal level, as donors are facing 
similar problems in terms of scarce resources. In  this regard, it should be noted that a very 
limited number of EU Member States operate a crisis response or peace-building facility 
comparable in scope to the IfS. 
 
EN 14   EN In the face of increasingly complex challenges, none  of the EU's internal priorities – security, 
growth and job creation, climate change, ac cess to energy, health and pandemics and 
migration - will be achieved in isolation from the wider world. In times of economic crisis,  a 
more coordinated and integrated approach between the EU and its MS through joint 
programming will bring about more added-value, increased strength and legitimacy, and more 
impact and effectiveness .  
The Instrument for Stability has demonstrated a catalytic effect in preparing and improving 
the delivery of EU long-term external assistan ce and actions adopted by the EU in pursuit of 
Common Foreign and Security Policy objectives w ithin the framework of Title V of the TEU. 
3. OBJECTIVES  
3.1. Policy framework and objectives 
IfS enables the EU to strengthen security, pres erve peace and prevent conflict worldwide in a 
timely, efficient and more coordinated ma nner, acting when no other EU cooperation 
instruments are available, or when it is necessary to complement interventions carried out 
under other geographic and thematic instruments.  Because of its nature, it has no direct link 
with the Europe 2020 Strategy as such. 
General Objectives 
The Instrument for Stability is designed to contribute to a comprehensive response with 
regard to conflict prevention and peace-building, crisis management and relevant security-related threats.  
Specific Objectives 
(1) In situations of crisis or emerging crisi s either man-made or as a result of a 
natural disaster,  to contribute to stability by provi ding an effective response to help 
preserve, establish or re-establish the cond itions essential to the proper implementation 
of the Community’s developm ent and cooperation policies. 
(2) to ensure the preparedness  of the EU and its partners to prevent conflicts, build 
peace and address pre- and post-crisis situations in close coordination with 
international, regional and sub-regional organisations, state and non state actors. 
(3) to address global and trans- national security threats  that pose a risk to peace and 
stability.  
3.2. Consistency with external action priorities 
The Treaty on the European Uni on (Article 21) has defined co mmon overarching objectives 
for the external action of the Union inter alia  to “ preserve peace, prevent conflict and 
strengthen international security  and assist populations, countries  and regions confronting 
natural or man-made disasters; 
The Instrument for Stability supports EU actio n to strengthen security , preserve peace and 
prevent conflict, and as any EU external c ooperation instrument, to safeguard EU values, 
notably human rights and democr acy. It contributes to a comp lementary and coherent EU 
 
EN 15   EN response to crisis, and in this framework, is available for deployment alongside CFSP 
operations, the provision of Humanitarian Aid and Civil Protection assistance, Macro-
Financial Assistance and the In strument for Nuclear Safety  Cooperation. The IfS equally 
contributes to conflict prevention, peace-build ing and state-building in synergy with 
mainstream EU geographic inst ruments (ENPI, DCI, EDF, IP A) and thematic instruments 
such as the European Instrument for Democracy and Human Rights (EIDHR).  
It complements the independent and apolit ical delivery of EU Humanitarian Aid  
following political crisis or natural disasters,  where, for example, it can be called upon to 
intervene inter alia  to finance actions that link humanitarian assistance and development aid 
(Linking Relief Rehabilitation and Development or LRRD) in a subsidiary manner, i.e. 
whenever the main geographical or thematic instruments cannot be mobilised in good time or require complementary interventions to provide  an efficient response. IfS also can be 
deployed in such cases to fill gaps than can jeopardise transition towards stability and 
development. 
3.3. Consistency with other EU policies 
Obvious links exist between the EU external ac tion on crisis response and prevention and/or 
on addressing global security threats with inte rnal EU policies on migr ation, justice, freedom 
and security. The Council Conclu sions on enhancing links betw een Internal and External 
Aspects of Counter-Terrorism of 9 June 2011 is of particular relevan ce alongside the Working 
Method for Closer Cooperation and Coordination in the Field of External Security of 6 June 
2011. 
Considering that many trans-regional threats a nd risks are also top EU  external security 
priorities, the Instrument would also contri bute to the implementation of the European 
Security Strategy (as revised in 2008) and to addressing the “exte rnal dimension” of the EU’s 
Internal Security Strategy (2010), which are important EU policies. 
Natural disasters, environmental degradation and competition for resources exacerbate 
conflict, especially in situations of poverty a nd population growth, with humanitarian, health, 
political and security conseque nces, including greater migration. Climate change poses a risk 
to biodiversity and acts as a ‘threat multiplier’ that can also lead to disputes over trade routes, maritime zones and access to resources. The IfS can enhance the external dimension of EU policy on climate change and the environment in line with the Council Conclusions of 18 July 2011. 
3.4. Geographic/thematic coverage 
Given the global nature of the pr oblems it intends to address, the Instrument needs to retain 
world wide coverage  and maintain the same broad thematic coverage of the current 
Instrument with an additional provision to support  measures to limit the proliferation of small 
arms and light weapons in the light of the 2008 judgement of the European Court of Justice on 
the ECOWAS case. It is also important to maintain flexibil ity with the scope of possible 
future interventions and to allow for financi ng of other type of me asures not explicitly 
mentioned within the terms of Article 3 of th e current Instrument in order for the EU to 
effectively respond to a given crisis.  
 
EN 16   EN With regard to security programmes, while su ch assistance very often qualifies as ODA and is 
reported as such, the instrument should not be bo und to ODA-eligibility criteria, as this would 
reduce the EU’s ability to effectively t ackle the security and development nexus9.  
4. POLICY OPTIONS  
In order to increase the efficiency  and coherence  of EU action on Peace and Security thereby 
increasing EU presence, the following four options were considered. 
– Option 0 : Not having a new Instrument after 2013 Only the geographical 
instruments could intervene in crisis theatres, but with the limitations described under section 2 which have led to the creation of the IfS. 
– Option 1 : Status quo: maintain the Instrument’s current scope and the. size of its 
financial envelope at the same leve l 2007-2013 (€ 2,062 billion for the 7 year 
period).  
– Option 2:  A revised Instrument, broadly mainta ining its current scope but increasing 
its flexibility provisions and with a moderate  increase of its fina ncial envelope. This 
option will allow adjusting the legal provisi ons to tackle the identified shortfalls. 
– Option 3 : A new or new Instruments incorporating the following considerations  
a) to split Crisis Response and Prepare dness issues (Articles 3 and 4.3) from 
security-related issues, notably terrorism,  trans-regional threats and CBRN risks 
(Articles. 4.1 and 4.2) in tw o instruments to provide sh arper focus on the security 
dimension of the EU external action and se parate attention to crisis management.  
b) to encompass EU external action tools currently carried out under other 
Instruments : Bringing together the different Peace and Security instruments currently 
scattered across several geogr aphical and thematic budget lin es to add coherence to 
the different actions the EU can deploy in a crisis scenario. Candidates for this type 
of merger, along with the IfS, would be the African Peace Facility (EDF), the part of 
the EIHDR dealing with elector al observation, and, to a less er extent, certain parts of 
thematic budget lines which can also be ca lled upon to intervene in crisis contexts 
(e.g. migration, human rights).  
5. A
NALYSIS OF IMPACTS  
5.1. Likely economic, social and environmental impacts 
There is a general consensus on the need for the EU to maintain the main characteristics that 
have led to its success (see  Section 1.2). The policy options  considered are intended to 
consolidate and wherever possible, improve the cu rrent IfS features. Because of the nature of 
the Instrument, the choice of a ny of the four options listed ab ove (except for option 0) is not 
likely to lead to significant differences in te rms of “external” impacts (economic, social or 
                                                 
9 Such requirement would exclude any form of c ounter-terrorism assistan ce from the scope of the 
instrument. 
 
EN 17   EN environmental). Nonetheless, th e final choice made would have  important consequences in 
terms of increasing the efficiency, effectiveness and coherence with all other external 
instruments.  
A more efficient instrument should lead to increased EU activity on crisis prevention, 
preserving peace and strengthening internationa l security, including enhancing EU’s capacity 
for crisis preparedness.  
5.2. Impact on external action  
Given its ability as a subsidiary  instrument to “fill the gaps” by financing actions which no 
other instrument could otherwis e support, the IfS contributes to  improve the EU response to 
conflicts and large-scale natural disasters and to address global and trans-regional threats as 
well as to facilitate the Union’ s responsiveness to changing political circumstances in crisis 
areas. 
Option 0 would have an impact on external ac tion. The political levera ge of the instrument 
would be lost and the EU would not have any instrument to mobilize resources for the types 
of interventions that  the IfS finances.  
The other options are neutral since they will enable the EU to fill its role and political 
mandate in this area.  
5.3. Impact in terms of manage ment and implementation 
Option 0 : Not having a new Instrument after 2013 . In crisis and post-cr isis situations, EU 
funds would only be provided from geogra phic instruments that would require re-
programming and from CFSP budget in case  of unanimity decisions by the Council 
This option will not allow the EU to play its ro le as set in the EU Treaty. No EU resources 
would be available such impeding the EU to c ontribute to stabilization in countries and 
regions affected by man-made or natural disaster s. Such role would be filled only by the UN 
and other regional organizations and other donors. The EU would not be able either to fund 
civil society organizations which are important  players in crisis preparedness and peace-
building initiatives. No EU assistance would be  provided to counter global and trans-national 
security threats as they cannot be addressed under instruments that have limita tions in terms 
of geographic coverage (e.g IPA, EDF, DCI).   
Option 1 : In a scenario of “ no change from today’s situation ” the IfS could deliver 
responses as it has been doing si nce its establishment, acting as  a useful EU policy tool  
We would however be missing an  opportunity to improve the Instrument on the basis of 
experience of the last 3 years which has shown that some minor changes could significantly 
enhance the value of the IfS (in particular  those highlighted by the 2011 Programme-level 
Evaluation). Furthermore, if the financial e nvelope would remain constant at €2.1 million, 
would not allow to tackle fully the drivers of  the problem, in particular as regards the 
expected increase in the number of crises and th e need to strengthen capacity building in crisis 
prevention and global threats . 
 
EN 18   EN Option 2 : A revised Instrument, broadly maintaining its current  scope but increasing where 
possible its flexibility provisions and its financial envelope would better  enable the EU to 
assume its growing responsibilities in the area of Peace and Security.  
Under this Option, the Commission would maintain the main feat ures of the Instrument for 
Stability while introducing new provisions to increase its effi ciency and deployment to 
complement other EU instruments. These modifi cations, which partly reflect the problems or 
‘drivers’ highlighted in Section 2 concern: flexibility arrangem ents, the speed of deployment, 
the financing of human resources as well as an increased fi nancial envelope.  
a) Flexibility arrangements: 
Ceilings for maximum amount and duration of Exceptional Assistance Measures.  
External Assistance Measures up to €20 millio n can be adopted by the Commission without 
commitology but with prior information to the Council. 
The current limit of € 20 million (beyond which an Interim Response Programme is required 
to follow up an intervention) have proved insufficient in cases of major political crisis (e.g Georgia in 2008) or in cases where an interven tion in areas of early recovery or LRRD was 
necessary (e.g Haiti or Pakistan in 2010).. Therefor e, it is proposed that a new limit be set at € 
30 million. It is worth noting, however that large programmes constitute the exception in IfS. 
In most cases, only small and rapid interventi ons paving the way for the larger programmes 
financed under other EU instruments, would be  required. The average size of IfS programmes 
in 2010 has been roughly €3 million.  
Similarly, the maximum duration for an Excepti onal Assistance Measure, currently set at 18 
months (extendable under certain  circumstances to 24) has proved to be too short; in fact 
many IfS programmes have recourse to a six-m onth extension. The earli er reasoning behind 
this short period was that th ere would have been enough tim e for the main geographical 
instruments to come on stream after 18 months. However, experience has shown that this is 
often not the case. Changing a strategy paper and putting its new programmes in place takes 
often longer than 18 months, especially in a country in crisis, with fragile government 
structures. New timeframe limits would be set at 24 months extendable to 30 months (under 
certain exceptional and duly ju stified circumstances).  
Additional Exceptional Assistance Measures .  
Art. 6.4 of the current IfS Regulation sets out  that programmes which build on a previous 
Exceptional Assistance Measure shall be ad opted as Interim Response Programmes (i.e 
requiring commitology and a much longer appr oval process ranging in the order of 5-7 
months)  
This is based on the understanding that the Co mmission would have sufficient time during the 
implementation of the first Exceptional Assist ance Measure (typically 18 months) to prepare 
any required follow-up. However, this logic cannot  be applied in all circumstances. Very 
often, the need for a follow-up measure only becomes apparent towa rds the end of the 
implementation period. This is particularly  the case for programmes implemented under 
rapidly-changing political circumst ances which is often the case in IfS programmes. In such 
cases, opting for an Interim Response Programme creates a gap in our intervention which can 
be very detrimental to EU efforts in the concer ned theatre of operations (disengagement of the 
 
EN 19   EN parties, loss of momentum, disman tlement of teams, etc.). Such risks could be addressed and 
offset if the Commission were allowed to propose a second Exceptional Assistance Measure 
building on the results of the init ial one, particularly in cases wh ere the need for a consequent 
follow-up could not be foreseen in good time. 
b) Speed of deployment  The average time for adopting a new measure unde r the IfS crisis response component ranges 
between 2 and 4 months. As pointed out by the 2011 Programme-level Evaluation, it would 
be appropriate to try and shorten this  period, thereby acceler ating deployment.  
In certain contexts, a much faster deployment is essential such as for initial post-crisis 
measures requiring support for mediation proc esses, confidence building, assistance in the 
organisation of electoral processe s, etc. In such cases, being able to deploy initial tangible 
support in a matter of days can prove crucial and would certai nly place the EU in a much 
better strategic position in the political proce ss addressing the cr isis in question. 
Under the standard IfS decision-making, the appr oval period cannot be reduced further as any 
IfS measure requires prior information to the Coun cil. However, the possib ility to adopt initial 
measures without prior Council information could be envisage d under this Option. It would 
obviously involve an added provision obligin g the Commission to report Council on the 
measure(s) adopted ex-post . This innovation would allow the EU to deploy initial support to 
react to a crisis within  a period of some 48- 72 hours. In addition to th e many advantages this 
would bring to the EU as a political actor, it w ould also enable the deployment of experts on 
the ground which would contribute with first hand information to a better identification of the 
main IfS or other EU-funded measures th at would immediately follow thereafter. 
c) Human Resources  The 2011 Programme-level Evaluation also highlight ed that current staff resources allocated 
to the management of the crisis response comp onent are inadequate, no tably in Headquarters. 
The current team of 7 crisis response planners  falls short in terms of management of the 
current budget (some € 200 million in 2011) and will clearly struggle in the future when budgets rise as foreseen to some € 350 million a year. This problem would be particularly 
acute with the identification and adoption of larger IfS programmes (currently some 25 a 
year), which is mostly undertaken at Headqu arters along with the monitoring, audit and 
control of all on-going programmes. 
In order to address this problem, this op tion would allow the fo r administrative support 
expenditure directly li nked to the implementation of the instrument to finance staff at 
Headquarters and in Delegations  in order to ensure sound financial management over the 
period. 
d) Budget One of the five strategic objectives set for th e EU external policy dur ing the next financial 
framework is to improve crisis prevention and reso lution capacities. In order to achieve this, it 
is clear that a moderate incr ease in the IfS budget would be n eeded. In order to keep this 
increase to manageable levels, it is proposed  that the level of the 2013 budget becomes the 
baseline for the IfS annual budget as of 2014. The budget would then stay stable over the 
period.  
 
EN 20   EN Option 3 : A new Instrument or Instruments, providing for  
a) A split between  crisis response and prepar edness from security-related issues: This Option 
foresees the separation of the crisis response co mponent of the IfS –(Artic le 3) together with 
the programmable component on crisis prepar edness (Article 4.3) fr om the programmable 
components on security-related th reats – Articles 4.1 and 4.2) unde r two separate legislative 
instruments providing for clearer and more stre amlined conceptual separation between crisis 
and security threats. Allocation of funds betw een the two instruments would be clearer with 
separate management, reporting and evaluation arrangements. 
b) Incorporation of other tools of EU exte rnal action currently carried out under other 
instruments  (e.g. African Peace Facili ty (EDF), the part of the EIHDR dealing with electoral 
observation, etc): This Option sugg ests the appropriateness of br inging together the different 
instruments working on the Peace and Security  field currently scattered across several 
geographical and thematic budget lines. It would add coherence to the different actions that 
the EU can deploy in a crisis scenario a nd simultaneously, rationalise the number of 
instruments and budget lines involved. Obvious ca ndidates for this type  merger, along with 
the Stability Instrument, would be the African Peace Facility (EDF), the part of the EIHDR 
dealing with electoral monitoring, and to a lesse r extent certain parts of thematic budget lines 
which can also be called upon to intervene in cr isis contexts (migration, human rights, etc.) 
By bringing all of the above under the same umbrella, gains would be realised in terms of coherence and in terms of th e timing of their deployment. Improvements would also be 
possible on EU visibility as well as flexibility in the allocation of financial resources to the 
different sub-components. 
6. C
OMPARING THE OPTIONS  
The options are assessed against the following three criteria:  
Coherence means here the possibilities to create synergies in terms of programming and 
delivery towards achieving the agreed objectives  and to avoid negati ve consequences and 
spillovers which would adversely affect the implementation of the policies. This is particularly significant when tw o different instruments have th e same geographical coverage. 
Effectiveness means doing the right things, setting th e right goals and obj ectives and then 
ensuring that they are accomplished .  
Efficiency  means doing things right, and obtaining the most from deployed resources: this 
includes organizational aspects as  well as the expected gains from the simplification of the 
Instrument.  
  Impacts 
Effectiveness 
 Coherence 
Efficiency  
0. - No Instrument    Options 1. - No change from today's situation _ = _ 
 
EN 21   EN 2. - A revised Instrument + + + 
3. - A new Instrument or Instruments    
A) splitting current instrument =  + 
B) adding new scope + +  
 
Option 0 : Because of the obligations incumbent on the European Union under Article 21 of 
the Treaty and the political guidance provided by Council on inter alia  Security and 
Development (2007), European Security Stra tegy (2008) and on conf lict prevention (2011), 
recourse to this option is not politically possible without the EU loosing international 
credibility and capacity to defend its interests.  
Option 1 : IfS could still remain relevant by deli vering responses as it has been doing since 
2007. However, an opportunity to improve and enha nce the Instrument’s value on the basis of 
experience would be missed especially in terms of effectiveness and efficiency 
Option 2 : to maintain the main features and char acteristics of IfS, while streamlining its 
provisions to increase its flexibility and eff ectiveness thereby enabling the EU to swiftly 
respond to future international peace and secur ity challenges. A more efficient instrument 
should lead to increased EU activity on crisis  prevention, preserving peace and strengthening 
international security, including enhancing EU’s capacity for crisis preparedness. 
The IfS would continue to finance actions co mplementary to or in support of measures 
financed under other external instruments and if need be, used as a substitute whenever the latter cannot be deployed rapidly. The exampl e of unforeseen elections whose observation 
could not be planned in advance comes to mi nd or whose preparation requires immediate EU 
support to ensure better conditions  for free and fair results, acceptable to the majority of the 
population so as to avoid disputed results l eading to potential conflic t (Tunisia, Egypt in 
2011)  
Option 3 : A new Instrument or Instruments, providing for  
a) the set up two new Instruments providi ng for split between crisis response and 
preparedness, on the one hand, and global and tran s-national security thr eats on the other, is 
not advisable.  
It is important to highlight the links that exist between crisis response and pre- and post-crisis 
capacity building, on one hand, and addressing globa l and trans-national th reats on the other. 
Together, they form the backbone of EU extern al action on Peace and Security issues (along 
with other instruments such as EIDHR). The po ssible costs in terms of loss of coherence by 
separating these components from e ach other cannot be underestimated. 
Besides running against the overall aim of rationa lising the number of existing instruments, it 
could result in a less coherent a nd complementary interaction in a ddressing drivers of conflict;  
b) broadening the scope of the new Instrume nt to achieve greater coherence in the 
deployment of the different EU interventions ca n also be disregarded given the difficulty of 
 
EN 22   EN reconciling different legal basi s and decision-making proce sses under a single legislative 
Instrument. Such option would not be efficient. 
On the contrary, there would be a risk that some of the flex ibility achieved under current 
arrangements could be lost if other instru ments and working methods were brought under the 
same regulatory umbrella. The decision-making pr ocesses for Electoral Observation Missions 
for instance, are hardly compa tible with the speed required when dealing with unforeseen 
elections following a political crisis. Some of the actions financed under the African Peace 
Facility (e.g payment of allowances to Af rican soldiers in AU Peace Keeping Operations) 
which are possible under the EDF, would be impossible to finance under the EU budget. 
These are just two examples showing that su ch a merger would be very complicated to 
implement in practice.  
In summary,  option 2 appears to be  the optimal choice.  
Under this option, the recommendations result ing from the 2011 Programme-level Evaluation 
would need to be streamlined, as follows:   
a) Flexibility arrangements : By its very nature, the IfS is  designed to simplify and render 
more flexible EU interventions in the field of external action. The inte ntion is to broadly re-
conduct current provisions with improvements to the existing Comitology threshold and the 
duration limits as follows: 
• Exceptional Assistance Measures (EAM), cei lings should be increased from €20 to €30 
million and their duration currently at 18 mont hs (should be extendable twice for further 
six months -up to 30 months- under certain duly justifiable circumstances, namely in the 
case of objective and unforeseen obstacles to their implementation or need to bridge the 
gap until cooperation or thematic instruments can intervene, provided that the financial amount of the measure does not increase)
10.  
• The Commission should be also allowed in cases of protracted crisis to propose a 
second Exceptional Assistance Measure building on the resu lts of a previous one. 
Currently, the Regulation requires that this second measure is adopted as an Interim 
Response Programme (Article. 6.4) which is a much heavier decision-making 
procedure, as it requires comitology. Inte rim Response Programmes would then concern 
measures going beyond 30 million or with wh ere more than 2 Exceptional Assistance 
measures become necessary. 
• Programmes related to crisis preparedness a nd addressing global security threats would 
continue to be adopted fo llowing normal Commission pro cedures (comitology, etc.) but 
strategic planning requirements would need  to be further streamlined. Increased 
flexibility for engagement with civil society partners and recognition of EU institutions and Member States officials as beneficiarie s of capacity building assistance also needs 
to be factored in. 
• The need for increased flexibility in the sc ope of the Regulation to address other forms 
of trans-regional illicit trafficking (beyond dr ug trafficking, trafficking in human beings, 
                                                
 
10 Article 6.2 of IfS Regulation 1717/2006 of  15 November 2006 OJL327 of 24.111.2006  
 
EN 23   EN and trafficking in firearms and explosive materi als) such as trafficking in precursors or 
in counterfeit medicines shoul d also be properly addressed. 
b) Speed of deployment.  The Commission should be empower ed to approve measures up to 
a certain limit (e.g. € 3 million) without the need for prior  information to the Council. This 
would enable the EU to deploy initial measures in 48-72 hours after a crisis which in certain 
circumstances may turn out to be critical to  the success of the measure and to the EU’s 
strategic position in responding to the cr isis in question. 
c) Subsidiarity : Retaining overall added-value as a subsidiary  instrument also implies that 
the future IfS should continue to exclude from s upport those issues that can  be better targeted 
at country-level under geographical or thematic  cooperation instruments, even if they are 
security-related (e.g. mine action).  
d) Sustainabilty : To facilitate the possibility of i nvesting in sustainable crisis response 
actions in the field of counter-terrorism in individual countries (eg Pakistan, Yemen), the 
current priority given to trans-regional acti ons under Article 4.2 of the current Instrument 
should not be applicable to counter-terrorism, as it is not possible to  provide this kind of 
support at country level under geographical deve lopment instruments (EDF, DCI) due to their 
tying to ODA eligibility criteria, which explic itly excludes counter terrorism assistance. 
e) Reporting : a review of the Reporting requirement s under the Regulation is necessary to 
ensure most effective use of personnel and operational resources. 
7. MONITORING AND EVALUATION  
7.1. Core indicators of progress towards objectives  
Intended results 
• To contribute to an EU comprehens ive response to addr ess situations of
 fragility and instability, e.g. emerging cr ises, natural disasters, with targeted 
and complementary measures under the IfS crisis response.  
• To enhance EU’s capacity to effectively contribute to multilateral and 
international efforts for global c onflict prevention and resolution. 
• To support conflict prevention and peace- building with a view to reduce the 
number of armed conflicts worldwide a nd diminish the number of countries 
that relapse into conflict. 
• To address global and trans-regional threats complementary with other EU 
instruments and international actors, through capacity buildin g aimed at better 
integration of beneficiaries in the international comm unity. (including 
development of networks, improved capacity to collect and exchange information, support to regional cooperation and platforms).  
Main expenditure-related outputs 
 
EN 24   EN Timely and effective launch of pr ojects in situations of crisis  or emerging crisis (projects 
launched, a concrete number of pr oject cannot be foreseen given the nature of the instrument) 
Percentage of projects launched within 3 months of crisis context. 
– Indicators 
(given the nature of the instrument defining a baseline and a target for 
indicators is not appropriate) 
– Number of interventions where IfS has en abled the EU to efficiently contribute 
to the prevention, resolution or stab ilization of a particular crisis. 
– Increased EU ability to cooperate eff ectively with international and regional 
organizations in crisis prepar edness and response situations. 
– Number of policy dialogues and civil society engagement actions on conflict 
prevention, crisis preparedness and peace-building. 
– Increased integration of beneficiary c ountries in the Inte rnational Community 
and increased compliance with the relevant international legal frameworks addressing global and trans-regional thre ats, enhanced cooperation within and 
between targeted regions, developm ent or establishment of regional 
cooperation platforms, increased partic ipation of beneficiaries in existing 
relevant networks and increased mutual flows of information.  
For the climate mainstreaming
11 commitment to be meaningful this needs to be accompanied 
by a cross-cutting obligation to identify where programmes promote clim ate action or energy 
efficiency so that the EU is able to set out clearly how much of its spending relates to such issues. Clear benchmarks, monitoring and re porting rules for all relevant EU policy 
instruments need to be established. In this resp ect, tracking of climate-related expenditure will 
be performed based on the establishe d OECD methodology (‘Rio markers’).  
In line with the Commission's broader commitment to mainstreaming the OECD DAC marker 
will also be applied for tracking progress on biod iversity and desertification mainstreaming  
7.2. Outline for monitoring and evaluation arrangements  
The European Commission's Monitoring and Ev aluation systems are increasingly focused on 
results. They involve internal sta ff as well as external expertise.  
Task Managers in Delegations and Headquarter s continuously monitor the implementation of 
projects and programmes in various ways, in cluding wherever possibl e through field visits. 
Monitoring provides valuable information on progr ess; it helps managers to identify actual 
and potential bottlenecks, and to take corrective action. 
External, independent experts ar e contracted to assess the perfo rmance of EU external actions. 
These assessments contribute to accountability and to the improvement of ongoing 
                                                
 
11 Regarding instruments under the EU  budget, in order to reach the Eu rope 2020 objectives and to help 
other parts of the world to step up their efforts to  combat climate change, th e Commission has stated in 
the June 2011 Communication on “A Budget for Euro pe 2020” that it intends to increase the proportion 
of climate related expenditure across the EU budget to at least 20%, with contribution from different 
policies, subject to impact assessment evidence. 
 
EN 25   EN interventions; they also draw lessons from pa st experience to inform future policies and 
actions taking into account, inter alia, INCAF12 criteria. 
Project-level evaluations, which are managed by the EU Delegati on in charge of the project, 
deliver a more detailed, in depth analysis and help project managers to improve ongoing 
interventions and prepare future ones. The Comm ission also conducts stra tegic evaluations of 
its policies, from programming and strategy to  the implementation of interventions in a 
specific sector in a country or region, or of a specific instru ment. These evaluations are an 
important input to the formulation of policies and the design of instruments and projects and 
are published on the relevant Commission website . A summary of the findings is included in 
the Annual Report to the Council and the European Parliament. 
A report evaluating the implementation of the new Regulation in its first three years will be 
submitted to the Council and to the Parliament  which will include, if appropriate, a proposal 
for introducing changes or modi fications to the Regulation. 
                                                 
12 OECD DAC's International Networ k on Conflict and Fragility (INCAF)