EUROPEAN COMMISSION 
Brussels, 7.12.2011 
SEC(2011) 1459 final 
  
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING PAPER 
IMPACT ASSESSMENT 
Accompanying the document 
COMMUNICATION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL 
Preparation of the multiannual financial framework regarding the financing of 
EU_cooperation for_African, Caribbean and Pacific States and Overseas Countries and 
Territories_for the 2014- 2020 period_(11th European  Development Fund)__and 
covering the subsequent implementing and financiel regulations of the 11th European 
Development Fund (EDF) 
{COM(2011) 837 final} 
{SEC(2011) 1460 final}  
 
EN 2   EN TABLE OF CONTENTS 
1. Procedural issues and consulta tion of interested parties.............................................. 5 
1.1. Organisation and timing............................................................................................... 5 1.2. Consultation and expertis e (public and internal) ......................................................... 5 
1.3. Impact Assessment Board............................................................................................ 6 2. Problem definition ....................................................................................................... 7 2.1. The problem requiring action and the scope of the instrument ................................... 7 
2.2. Lessons learnt: review of consulta tions, studies and evaluation reports ..................... 9 
2.3. The underlying drivers of the problem: ..................................................................... 12 2.4. Legal basis for EU action and policy framework ...................................................... 13 2.4.1.  Legal basis ................................................................................................................. 13 
2.4.2.  Policy framework ....................................................................................................... 14 
2.5. EU Value Added ........................................................................................................ 15 3. Objectives .................................................................................................................. 17 
3.1. Objectives ................................................................................................................ .. 17 
3.1.1.  General objectives of the 11th EDF ........................................................................... 17 
3.1.2.  Specific objectives for the revision of the instrument ................................................ 17 
3.2. Consistency with external action priorities................................................................ 18 3.3. Consistency with other EU policies........................................................................... 19 4. Policy options............................................................................................................. 1 9 
4.1. Differentiation........................................................................................................... . 20 
4.1.1.  Status quo option ........................................................................................................ 20 
4.1.2.  Alternative option: allow more diffe rentiation between ACP States and OCTs ........ 20 
4.2. Concentration of EU development cooperation activities ......................................... 21 
4.2.1.  Status quo option ........................................................................................................ 21 
4.2.2.  Alternative option: allow more concentration of EU cooperation activities ............. 22 
4.3. Coordination with EU Member States....................................................................... 23 4.3.1.  Status quo option ........................................................................................................ 23 
4.3.2.  Alternative option: allow more c oordination with EU Member States ..................... 23 
 
EN 3   EN 4.4. Innovative financial instruments................................................................................ 24 
4.4.1.  Status quo option ........................................................................................................ 24 
4.4.2.  Alternative option: allow an increased use of innova tive financial instruments ....... 24 
4.5. Flexibility............................................................................................................... .... 25 
4.5.1.  Status quo option ........................................................................................................ 25 
4.5.2.  Alternative option: increase flexibility within the EDF ............................................. 26 
4.6. Stimulate regional coop eration with OCTs................................................................ 28 
4.6.1.  Status quo option ........................................................................................................ 28 
4.6.2.  Alternative option: Link regi onal cooperation resources to the use of existing regional 
cooperation schemes with ACPs and Outermost Regions ......................................... 28 
5. Analysis of impacts.................................................................................................... 29 5.1. Differentiation........................................................................................................... . 30 
5.1.1.  Status quo option ........................................................................................................ 30 
5.1.2.  Alternative option: allow more differe ntiation between ACP Countries and OCTs . 30 
5.2. Concentration of EU cooperation activities............................................................... 32 
5.2.1.  Status quo option ........................................................................................................ 32 
5.2.2.  Alternative option: allow more concentration of EU cooperation activities ............. 32 
5.3. Coordination with EU Member States....................................................................... 33 
5.3.1.  Status quo option ........................................................................................................ 33 
5.3.2.  Alternative option: allow more c oordination with EU Member States ..................... 33 
5.4. Innovative financial instruments................................................................................ 34 5.4.1.  Status quo option ........................................................................................................ 34 
5.4.2.  Alternative option: allow an increased use of innova tive financial instruments ....... 35 
5.5. Flexibility............................................................................................................... .... 36 
5.5.1.  Status quo option ........................................................................................................ 36 
5.5.2.  Alternative option: increase flexibility within the EDF ............................................. 36 
5.6. Stimulate regional coop eration with OCTs................................................................ 39 
5.6.1.  Status quo option ........................................................................................................ 39 
5.6.2.  Alternative option: Link regi onal cooperation resources to the use of existing regional 
cooperation schemes with ACPs and Outermost Regions ......................................... 40 
6. Comparing the options............................................................................................... 40 
 
EN 4   EN 6.1. Weighing of positive and negative impacts per option.............................................. 40 
6.2. Preferred option ......................................................................................................... 4 2 
7. Monitoring and evaluation......................................................................................... 43 7.1. Core indicators of progress towards objectives ......................................................... 43 7.2. Outline for monitoring and evaluation arrangements ................................................ 43 
 
EN 5   EN  
1. PROCEDURAL ISSUES AND CONSULTATION OF INTERESTED PARTIES  
1.1. Organisation and timing 
The preparation of the 11th European Developmen t Fund (EDF) entails speci ficities compared to 
the preparation of the EU regulations for the othe r EU financial instruments for external action, 
because it is linked to the Cotonou Agreement, a legally binding Treaty between the EU and ACP 
(African, Caribbean and Pacific) countries on th e one hand and the Lisbon Treaty and a specific 
Overseas Association Decision with OCTs (Ove rseas Countries and Territories) on the other 
hand.  Moreover, the EDF is outside the EU budge t. Therefore for the EDF the following legal 
texts are covered by the impact assessment: the internal agreement between Representatives of the Governments of the Member States, the implementing regulations and the financial 
regulations.  
The drafting of the Impact Assessment for the EU external action instruments for the period 
2014-2020, including this document
1, has been coordinated by a Task Force composed by 
services in charge of EU external action and the Legal Se rvice. The drafting teams have duly 
taken into consideration the consultations, review s and studies mentioned in Section 2 and have 
liaised with other Commission services to ensu re consistency with other EU policies. The 
European Investment Bank (EIB) was also consu lted. The Task Force has met with the drafting 
team in charge of this Impact Assessment on 7 June, 1 July, 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 Di rectorates General and the Secret ariat General, was launched on 
22 June 2011. It has met twice, on 13 and 26 July 2011.  
The review of this Impact Assessment by th e Impact Assessment Board is scheduled for 14 
September 2011. 
1.2. Consultation and expertis e (public and internal) 
The Commission held a public consultation on future f unding for EU external action  between 
26 November 2010 and 31 January 2011, based on a questionnaire accompan ied by a background 
paper 'What funding for EU external action after 2013?'  prepared with EEAS services . The 220 
contributions received reflect the broad range and the variety of structures, views and traditions 
characterising the external action community. The main lessons learnt from this consultation are: 
Around 70% of the respondents underlined th at EU financial intervention provides a substantial 
added value  in the main policy areas supported through EU financial instruments for external 
action and that the EU should exploit its comparative advant age linked to its global field 
presence, its wide-ranging expertise, its supran ational nature, its role as facilitator of 
coordination, and to the economies of scale.  
92% supported a more differentiated approach,  tailored to the situation of the beneficiary 
country, based on sound criteria an d efficient data collection, as a way to increase the impact of 
EU financial instruments.  
A large majority supported an increased conditionality  based on the beneficiary country's 
respect for human rights, minorities, good govern ance and diversity of cultural expressions 
 
EN 6   EN (78%), or on the quality of its policies and of  its ability and willi ngness to implement sound 
policies (63%).  
A majority of res pondents agreed that joint programming *(for asterisks see glossary in annex 
II) and co-financing with Member States could increase the impact and the coherence of EU 
external action, simplify the delivery of aid and reduce overall transaction costs. Many stressed, 
however, that it should not impl y heavier administrative require ments. A majority approved the 
idea of anchoring joint programming* and divisi on of labour in a piece of EU legislation. 
A majority of respondents suppo rted the reinforcement of cooperation with European Member 
States as well as with European and international financial institutions , while a significant 
number of respondents called for caution regard ing the objectives and expected impact of 
blending, the implementation modalities and the threat of loss of control and visibility for the EU.  
Many respondents proposed increased flexibility margins  within EU external action as a whole, 
to facilitate resource mobilisation to tackle disast ers or global crises. Increased flexibility of the 
geographic limits of EU instruments was supporte d by a significant majority as a way to respond 
to interregional challenges. An explicit role for humanitarian aid actors and interventions in transition situations was supported by a large ma jority. A high number of stakeholders also 
stressed that the EU should improve the inte r-linkages between humanitarian and development 
policy areas and close the gap be tween the related programmes.  
In addition, the Commission launched a Green Paper 'EU development policy in support of 
inclusive growth* and su stainable development'  with a public consultation from 15 November 
2010 to 17 January 2011. Many respondents underlined that ODA* constitutes only a fraction 
of funding for development , to be seen as a complement to domestically mobilised resources, 
foreign investments, loan financing, trade and remittances. At the same time, in low-income 
and/or fragile countries, ODA could provide up to half of development resources available. These 
respondents therefore called for traditional ODA development programmes to be primarily 
reserved for the Least Developed Countries (LDCs). A demand was also made for greater 
coherence in EU development policy especially with regards to middle-income countries. Many 
answers endorsed the notion of more focused aid  and a consolidation of the more than 45 000 
projects currently funded by EU donors, combin ed with further cross-country and in-country 
division of labour. While joint programming  of assistance was endorse d in principle, it should 
be introduced gradually starting with countries where it would yield demonstrable added value. 
Several contributions underscored that  development cooperation should be a reciprocal 
partnership . In exchange for long-term EU commitmen ts, partner countries needed to commit 
themselves to allocating a sufficient part of thei r budgets to priority areas such as social sector 
reform, health and education. 
As far as financial assistance to Overseas Countries and Territories (OCTs)  is concerned, a 
public consultation was organised in the contex t of a Green Paper (COM/2008/383) dated 25 
June 2008. Stakeholders were further consulted in the context of the OCT/EU Forums in 2008, 2010 and March 2011. The different contributions converged with several ideas expressed in the consultation on external funding, notably differentiation, flexibilit y, reciprocal partnerships 
and more focused aid . 
1.3. Impact Assessment Board 
The impact assessment was modified to take into account the comments made by the Impact 
Assessment Board (IAB) on September 14
th 2011. The IAB requested to  better distinguish the 
 
EN 7   EN scope and the limitations of the measures propos ed; therefore th e legal and poli tical boundaries 
for the choice of the options are now highlight ed in chapters 2.4. and in chapter 4 in the 
introductory part and at the end of the propos ed options. The IAB asked to reinforce the 
assessment of the overall strength s and weaknesses of EU developm ent cooperation; to this end 
examples of how the identified problems have a ffected results are introduced in chapter 2.2, to 
explain the underlying drivers summarized in ch apter 2.3. To take into account comments from 
IAB to consider alternative ways by which the objectives could be achie ved, additional possible 
options are included and examined under chapters 4 to 6. The assessment of the impacts in 
chapters 5 and 6 is also improved to better explain the c hoice of the preferred option; in particular 
chapter 5 reflects the trade offs between the va rious options and the risks they entail. New 
elements regarding monitoring and eval uation are included in chapter 7. 
 
2. PROBLEM DEFINITION  
2.1. The problem requiring action and th e scope of the instrument  
2.1.1. The problem  
Poverty remains a major problem in African, Cari bbean and Pacific (ACP) States. Most of them 
are off-track towards the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs)* and they 
do not enjoy a sustainable development. The EU is committed to helping ACP countries to 
address these problems. It is th erefore necessary for th e EU to continue to support ACP countries' 
efforts towards reducing and eventually eradica ting poverty, while attaining the objectives of 
sustainable development and achieving their gr adual integration into  the world economy.  
The economic ties between the OCTs and the EU need  to be further reinforced. OCTs continue to 
face specific economic and social developm ent problems which can also have serious 
implications on their unique and fragile environments.  
2.1.2. The current instrument (EDF) 
The European Union maintains pr ivileged relations with the ACP group of developing countries 
under the ACP-EU Partnership Agreement, signe d in Cotonou on 23 June 2000 for a period of 20 
years. 25 OCTs with constitutional links to Memb er States are associated to the EU through a 
regime based on the provisions of  Part IV of the Treaty on the F unctioning of the EU (TFEU) and 
the detailed rules and procedur es laid down at present in th e Overseas Association Decision 
(OAD) of 27 November 20012.  
The European Development Fund (EDF)  is the main instrument for providing EU assistance 
for development cooperation under the Cotonou Agreement with ACP countries and for 
cooperation with OCTs under the Overseas A ssociation Decision (OAD). The EDF is funded 
outside the EU budget by the EU Member States on the basis of specific contribution keys. Each 
EDF is concluded for a multi-annual pe riod. The 10th EDF Internal Agreement3 establishes the 
total resources and the broad sub-categories for the period 2008-2013 and entails provisions 
regarding its implementation and financial monitoring.  
The resources of the 10th EDF  (€22 682 million at current prices) comprise €21 966 million for 
ACP countries, € 286 million for OCTs and €430 million for support expenditure.  
EDF 9/EDF 10 breakdown into envelopes 
 
EN 8   EN   EDF 9 final 
(M€)* EDF 10 
(M€) 
1. National and regional cooperation 12 146 17 766 
 1.1 National indicative programmes (NIP)     
      A envelopes* (programmable funds) 9 632 13 500
      B envelopes* (unforeseen needs)  1 585 1 800
 1.2 Regional indicative programmes (RIP) 929 1 783
 1.3 Reserve for programmable NIP/RIP allocations    683
2. Intra-ACP cooperation 3 059 2 700 
Sub-total managed by the Commission 15 205 20 466 
3. Investment Facility (managed by the EIB) 2 220 1 500 
Sub-total for ACP operational credits 17 425 21 966
OCT 329 286 
Support expenditure  331 430 
Total ACP + OCT + support 18 086 22 682
 *including transfers from previous EDFs 
EDF resources allocated to ACPs are channell ed via non-reimbursable assistance, broken down 
into three ‘envelopes’: nationa l (including current B-envelope s* for unforeseen needs for 
crisis/transition response including 'Linking Reli ef, Rehabilitation and Development' approaches), 
regional and intra-ACP*, and via th e ACP Investment Facility* which the European Investment 
bank (EIB) manages as a revolving fund, providing lo ans, risk capital, and guarantees, with a 
view to supporting development of the private s ector and of a commercia lly run public sector, 
alongside its own resources4. The EU also created innovativ e instruments* to work with 
development banks and generate more synergies to speed up regional infrastructure delivery, such 
as the EU-Africa Infrastructure Trust Fund* (see glossary under Blending mechanisms).  
The € 286 million allocated for OCTs under the 10th EDF take the following forms, i.e. non-
reimbursable aid for specific territorial (€ 195 million) and regional cooperation (€ 40 million), 
loans, risk capitals and guarantees in the form  of the OCT Investment Facility managed by the 
EIB (€ 30 million), alongside its own resour ces (up to € 30 million ), non-programmed 
emergency aid and compensation payments (€ 15 million), and a technical cooperation facility 
managed by the Commission (€ 6 million). 
2.1.3. Main challenges for the future  
As acknowledged by world leader s at the UN High Level Plenar y Meeting in September 2010, 
while significant progress has been made towards achieving some of the MDGs*, a great deal 
remains to be done, particularly in fragile st ates and transition situations. Around 1.4 billion 
people are still living in extreme poverty (51  % of them in Sub-Saharan Africa) and one sixth of 
the world’s population is undernourished.  
Recent threats and new challenges are complica ting an already difficult situation. Developing 
countries were hard hit by the succession of recent crises (financial and economic crises, food price rises, fuel price volatility). New challenges include climate change
5, energy6 including 
access to sustainable energy, biodiversity loss, security and fragility*, instability and poor 
 
EN 9   EN resilience to shocks, food insecur ity, scarcity of natura l resources entailing risk of aggravating 
ongoing challenges by unsustainable exploitati on of these resources such as overfishing,  
transition towards  knowledge-based societies*, or population pressure7. Good environmental 
management is also a condition for sustainable de velopment. These challenges are particularly 
sensitive for Small Island Developing States (SIDS). 
These, together with the priorities set in the Europe 2020 Strateg y, have prompted the 
Commission to review whether th e EU’s development policy is fit for purpose or whether more 
could be done to add to  its impact, especially given the urge nt need to speed up progress towards 
the MDGs* (see chapter 2.4.2).  
Last year, the EU strongly reaffirmed its commi tment to contribute to the achievement of the 
MDGs, including the reaffirmation of the collectiv e target of devoting 0.7% of its Gross National 
Income to ODA* by 2015. There is no doubt that accel erated action is needed if all the MDGs are 
to be achieved in five years time. Even beyond 2015 and even when some or all of the MDGs 
have been achieved, continued efforts will be needed to eliminate poverty. Development assistance will therefore continue to re quire long-term financial commitment.  
Since the establishment of th e OCT/EU Association with th e 1958 Treaty of Rome, relations 
between the OCTs and the EU have considerably changed. Most of the OCTs cannot be 
considered as developing territories anymor e, even though their micro-economies remain 
extremely vulnerable to external shocks including climate change and environmental 
vulnerabilities. Consequently, continuous financia l assistance to OCTs is needed to maintain 
them on the path to sustainable development and to  help them to develop policies and strategies 
on new priorities of OCT/EU relations.  
2.2. Lessons learnt: review of consulta tions, studies and evaluation reports 8 
10
th EDF Performance review 
The Cotonou agreement called for a Performance review of the 10th EDF to assess financial 
performance as well as quantitati ve and qualitative performance, in particul ar results and impact, 
measured in terms of progress towards achieving the MDGs*.  
The review highlighted the value added of the 10th EDF thanks to its programming, its 
responsiveness and results . In the programming, the EU clearl y identified areas where it could 
offer the best added value and focused its funds strongly on budget support, governance and 
infrastructure. The first years of implementa tion have shown how the balance and hierarchy 
between national, regional a nd intra-ACP were relevant.  
The performance review also highlig hted some lessons learnt and r oom for progress, in particular 
the following: 
- Regarding programming, experience showed that  effective, high-quality delivery to provide the 
greatest long-term impact needs a particular effort in terms of  coordination arrangements; the 
assessment of the 10th EDF programming exercise  showed that the EU could significantly 
improve the synergies between its aid flows . EU aid remains very fragmented, causing 
inefficiencies with financial, deve lopmental and political consequences . For instance aid 
fragmentation can be observed in Uganda (see annex VI) where European aid accounts for 43% of total aid (2008 figure), but proliferation has lead to these 43% being given by at least 8 
individual donors; clear gains co uld be made here. The assessment  showed aid fragmentation* (i) 
 
EN 10   EN between EU instruments (the EDF and the budget) , (ii) between levels of action in the EU 
(national, regional and, thema tic/horizontal), and (iii) between EU Member States' bilateral 
programmes and European Commission and Eu ropean Investment Bank interventions. 
- Regarding EU response capacity, it appeared that  the EU, with its global  reach in ACP States 
and its objective method of allocation of resources, is present in a ll difficult situations and, thanks 
to its unallocated funds, flexible procedures, th e support in situations of fluctuating export 
earnings (FLEX*) and ad hoc instruments, had been  able to respond to unf oreseen events and to 
situations of fragility. Nevertheless, the review highlighted that EU’s responsiveness could be 
improved, especially in relation to (1) aid progr amming in crisis and fragile situation, (2) a 
structural approach to build up the resilience of  recipient countries to both natural hazards and 
economic shocks, and (3) broad and generic e xogenous shocks mechanism. For example, in 
relation to responsiveness for c ountries in fragility and in cr isis, the Performance Review 
underlined that the EDF programming cycle was not sufficiently flexible to respond quickly to 
new crises and unforeseen events like floods or  earthquakes. Ad-hoc re views that are possible 
take too much time, this was in particular i llustrated by the Haiti case. For countries that are 
vulnerable to external shocks such as financial crisis, food or fuel pri ces increases, a more 
structural approach was needed which means that  their vulnerability should be taken into account 
in the design of EU strategies so that those coun tries can better react to these events when they 
occur. 
Study in support of the shaping of  development cooperation after 2013  
In view of reshaping the EU external actions framework, the European Union financed a general 
study to provide analytical elements regardin g EDF interventions. The analysis highlighted 
strengths and weaknesses in  the implementation concerning three main topics:  
(i) On the EDF contribution to th e MDG process, it concluded th at the EDF widely supports the 
efforts of governments to reduce poverty throu gh an important contribution to macro-economic 
stability while partly covering budget deficits , and a support to selected country strategy 
priorities. 
(ii) On the division of labour, th e study identified challenges, and in  particular in relation to the 
large number of projects and programmes impl emented outside agreed focal sectors which  
increases fragmentation and goes against agreed principles on division of labour and 
concentration . The study recommended delegated cooper ation and joint programming as key 
elements in future programmes to enhance ai d effectiveness. For instance the lack of 
concentration can be observed in Ethiopia (see gr aphic in annex VI) where a quick scan of EU-
wide interventions learns that even in sectors where some donors do not have a (self-declared) 
comparative advantage, they sometimes have subs tantial (colour orange) or  modest (colour red) 
investments. In fact, donors should focus on sect ors in which they have both a substantial 
investment and a comparative advantage (colour green). To complete the picture, the colour yellow means that the respective donor has a re latively small investment but a comparative 
advantage in that sector. 
(iii) On the EDF capacity to leverage funding from  other actors in part icular through blending 
mechanisms, the study highlighted the successful Infrastructure Trust Fund mechanism and the 
model of the recently developed Water and Ener gy “Pooling mechanisms” for small projects. It 
recommended to systematically consider the possibility of complementing any grant allocated through these Facilities with a grant from EDF funds managed by th e Commission thereby 
 
EN 11   EN increasing the available amount of grant to be leveraged by funding  and ensuring that the 
Delegations/National Authorising Officers ( NAO) are interested in the success of the 
mechanisms for their country. 
Study on shock absorbing schemes9 
One of the general problems iden tified of the existing facilities was that they supported both low 
income (LICs) and middle income (MICs) countries with quite a large share of resources going to 
MICs. One of the challenges for the future is how to redesign these facilities so as to focus 
more on the most vulnerable countries  including, in particular, low income countries. 
Regarding the type of financing, the study suggested  that grant resources should continue to be 
relevant for low income countries. As in the Vuln erability Flex*, resources could continue to be 
paid through budget support for elig ible countries and in co-ordin ation with other development 
institutions.  
Study on results-based programming and financing 
A study was commissioned by the Commission on results-based pr ogramming and financing in 
view of a stronger results-focus in the future programming and financing of support, to look into 
cash-on-delivery type s of financing*  or other incentive-based modalities, some of which have 
been used by the Commission in  its budget support programmes.  
The main results from the study were that, so fa r, there was no uncontested evidence that results-
based modalities like cash-on-delivery work bette r than others. Researchers found that to be 
successful, results based approaches should be em bedded in a "package" of  other interventions, 
of which an important one is capacity building. A nother finding was that th ere is no evidence that 
results based financing leads to a leveraging of a dditional funds, be they private or public. Lastly, 
consultants found that more results focus could be brough t into EU programmes, but that 
some rules and regulations needed to  be adapted to make it possible . 
Mid-term evaluation of the ACP Investment Facility 
The Commission undertook in 2010 a Mid-Term Evaluation  of the ACP Investment Facility 
including European Investment Bank (EIB) Own-R esources operations in the ACP States. In the 
assessment, the value-added of EIB operations we re measured against three elements: the support 
of EU policy and Cotonou objectives  respectively, the quality of th e projects themselves and the 
financial and non-financial advantages brought in  by the EIB operations compared to potential 
alternatives sources of financing. 
While recognizing the difficult challenge repr esented by the Bank’s mandate under the Cotonou 
Agreement, the Investment Facility was described as having a comparative advantage in its 
high risk bearing capacity , stemming notably from its prudent  project selection, its careful 
analysis of the creditworthiness of operators as well as its technical rigour, whilst it was acknowledged that EIB was exercising due care in intervening without dist orting the markets and 
that specific improvements had been observed in  the financial viability and governance practices 
of the enterprises supported by the Bank, as well as positive trends recorded in terms of employment generation at operation level.  Several factors had limited the ability of EIB to 
maximise its work,  including notably the EIB’s low visibility, its insufficient monitoring of the 
impact of its operations, as well as limited catalyt ic effect of the Investment Facility and own 
resources.  
 
EN 12   EN The evaluation overall acknowledged that EIB had thus far fulfilled the mandate given under the 
Cotonou Agreement and made recommendations on wa ys to enhance its impact and visibility. 
Ways to address the issues raised have been  identified jointly by the Commission and the EIB 
and concern mainly the need to secure suppleme ntal grant resources for technical assistance and 
other blending mechanisms combined with EIB loans and equity investments, the need to 
reinforce the coordination between the two institutions  including notably the definition of 
common operational guidelines to their respective staff, the need  to ensure greater coherence 
between the EIB operations and the country an d regional strategies led by the Commission to 
fully exploit synergies at operati onal and strategic/sector level , and the need to enhance joint 
EU visibility and communication.   
Results of internal assessment on w hat works and what doesn't (2007-2013) 
An internal assessment highlighted that the procedure for preparing and revising the A 
envelope of the National Indicative Programme  (NIP) had proved more rigid than expected.  
While the process was useful to address long term goals, it did not  seem to allow for a prompt 
reaction to a change in the political contex t or to a substantial change in demand. The potential 
for Joint programming had barely been exploited . It has been limited to a handful of pilot 
countries, faced serious constraints and had not  delivered substantial results in terms of 
efficiency. 
Regarding the B envelopes*, used for unforeseen needs, this flexible allocation mechanism had 
shown positive results, notably in its use for crisis/transition respons e, and in terms of flexibility 
and speed, in the context of the Vulnerability  Flex* and the Food Pr ice Crisis Regulation. 
However the support in situations of fluctuatin g export earnings (FLEX*) had not been 
sufficiently countercyclical , in spite of successive simplifications. This is due to the fact that the 
system functions on the basis of an ex-post analys is (trade statistics) rather than a real-time 
mechanism, as well as heavy implementation procedures.  
Assessments and evaluations about OCTs  
Internal and external assessments  and evaluations of the EU's pa st and future cooperation with 
OCTs took place or are in the process of being finalised within the c ontext of the Overseas 
Association Decision. Conclusions and recommendations of the diffe rent assessments seemed to 
agree that the next EDF w ould have to allow for a differentiated approach  for OCTs, with a 
focus on sustainable development, be flexibl e and adapted to the low ai d volumes and the limited 
administrative capacity of OCTs. The EDF should also be conducive to regional cooperation 
between OCTs, Outermost Regions of the EU a nd ACP States. Budget support as preferred aid 
modality and the corresponding policy dialogue incl uding public finance management as well as 
the principle of concentration  were deemed to have had a positive impact. Nevertheless, 
responsiveness  of EU interventions could be improve d and sufficient resources for technical 
assistance, capacity building and for private s ector investments and co-financing operations 
needed to be foreseen. 
 
2.3. The underlying drivers of the problem:  
In a context of financial crisis  and of tight budgetary constraint s within EU Member States, the 
volume of EU resources for development coope ration with ACP States and OCTs remains 
 
EN 13   EN limited. The effectiveness of EU spending could be improved to ensure that it delivers the best 
possible results and to increase its impact.  
The underlying drivers of the problem identified in chapter 2.2 can be summarized as follows: 
– A growing disparity of the profiles of part ner countries, territories and regions  benefitting 
from the EDF can be observed, regarding their needs, capacities and performance10 and the 
potential impact of EU aid. In addition the m odalities for the implementation of EU support to 
these countries or territories are not always ap propriate to take into account each country's 
specificities.  
– Fragmentation of aid remains a major concern . The EU as a whole loses out on impact and 
visibility by not concentrating and coordinating its work sufficiently. 
– Coordination with and between EU Member States  is not sufficient, thus contributing to 
fragmentation and discarding potential economies of scale11. 
– The role of the private sector and financial in stitutions within development strategies is 
not sufficiently encouraged  to support public and private investments within ACP States as 
well as sustainable, inclusive and smart growth and the insertion of ACP States into the global 
economy.   
–  ACP States are confronted with a number of challenges such as external shocks and 
unforeseen needs. This also includes crisis management and tackling transition and 
fragility situations.  While the 10th EDF already entails elements allowing flexibility, EU 
instruments are not always sufficiently respon sive and flexible to tackle these evolving 
situations and to take  positive account of progress made by ACP States and OCTs 
regarding domestic reforms and sound policies.  
–  Regarding OCTs, the EU approach has not been differentiated and flexible enough to take 
into account the specific challenges faced by OCTs, their limited administrative capacities linked to their size, as well as the different type  of relations they entertain with the EU. In 
addition, it has not been supportive enough of regional cooperation  between OCTs, ACP 
States and Outermost Regions. 
2.4. Legal basis for EU action and policy framework 
2.4.1.  Legal basis 
The main policy objectives of EU  external action are described in the Lisbon Treaty (art. 21 
TEU). In addition, the main objective of EU development cooperation (art. 208 TFEU) is the 
reduction and, in the long term, the eradication of poverty. In this cont ext the EU will comply 
with the commitments and take account of the object ives they have approved in the context of the 
United Nations and other international organisations.  
Regarding cooperation with ACP States , this legal framework is complemented by the 
Cotonou Agreement concluded between the members of the ACP Group of Stat es of the one part 
and the European Union and its Member States of  the other part. It was concluded for a twenty-
year period from March 2000 to February 2020, and entered into force in April 2003. It is 
designed to establish a comprehensive partne rship, based on three complementary pillars: 
development cooperation, economic and trade c ooperation, and the political dimension. The 
ACP-EU Partnership is centred on the objective of reducing and eventually eradicating poverty 
consistent with the objectives of  sustainable development and the gradual integration of the ACP 
States into the world economy (Art. 1 of Coton ou Agreement). The partnerhsip principles of the 
Cotonou Agreement include the equality of the pa rtners and the ownership of the development 
 
EN 14   EN strategies, the pivotal role of dialogue with governments of th e partners and the fulfilment of 
mutual obligations. 
The Cotonou Agreement provides for a revision ev ery five years. The second revision of the 
Cotonou Agreement was adopted by the ACP-EU Council of Ministers in June 2010 and has 
been applied on a provisional basis since Novemb er 2010; the decision c oncluding the amending 
agreement should be adopted during 2011.  
The Cotonou Agreement as amended by its first and second revisions is the defined political 
and legal framework for the preparation of the 11th EDF, with re gard to ACP States.  
Therefore the legal requirements and constraints entailed in the Cotonou agreement, and in 
particular its annex IV defining the implementa tion and management procedures as well as 
the principle of partnership with the ACP Stat es, form the boundaries for the scope of this 
impact assessment and for the choice of the opti ons. They must be taken into account and 
do limit the number of possible options.  
The OCT/EU Association  rests on several legal bases. In th e EU's primary law, it is based on 
Part IV of the Treaty (TFEU). The purpose of the Association is to promote the social and 
economic development of the OCTs and to estab lish close economic relations between the OCTs 
and the EU as a whole. The deta iled rules and procedures of the Association have been laid down 
in consecutive Council Decisions on the association of the overseas countries and territories with 
the European Community (Overseas Association Decision), the last of which is Council Decision 
2001/822/EC. The Decision applies to all OCTs listed in Annex II to the Treaty, except for 
Bermuda, which has requested not to fall under the Decision12. This Decision expires on 31 
December 2013 and the Commission is prepari ng a legislative proposal for a new Council 
Decision that should enter into force as of 1 January 2014. This legisl ative proposal will be 
accompanied by a separate Impact Assessment.  
 
2.4.2.  Policy framework  
The Commission adopted in June 2011 a Communication 'A Budget for Europe 2020'13. For the 
post 2013 period, in view of the tight budgetary situations in Member States, and of the 
experience of former proposals by the Commi ssion in the previous multiannual financial 
frameworks to integrate the EDF in to the EU budget ('EDF budgetisation' ), it was decided that 
the situation was not appropriate this  time to propose 'EDF budgetisation' , and that the 11th 
EDF would remain outside the EU budget and thus would not be an integr al part of the overall 
architecture of external action financial instruments. This was announced in the above mentioned 
Communication 'A Budget for Europe 2020' toge ther with the propos ed amount for the 11th EDF. 
The integration of EU developm ent cooperation with ACP count ries into the EU budget is 
foreseen for post 2020 at the e nd of the next multiannual fina ncial framework, coinciding 
with the expiry of the Cotonou agreement.   
This proposal defines the architecture of the 11th EDF and therefore sets the limitations 
regarding the scope of this impact assessmen t where EDF budgetisation is not considered as 
an option. 
The 'European Consensus'14 together with the C ode of Conduct* provides the general framework, 
orientations and focus to steer the implementatio n of EU cooperation with partner countries and 
regions.  
 
EN 15   EN Following the public consultation on the Green Pa per published in November 2010 (see section 
1.2), a Communication on EU development po licy ('Increasing the impact of EU 
development policy: an Agenda for Change') is  expected to be adopted by the Commission 
during 2011 . In parallel, the Commission is also e xpected to publish a communication on EU 
Budget Support*  to third countries. 
Therefore the 'Agenda for Change' will define th e scope of this impact assessment and the 
choice of the options, as the 11th EDF internal agreement, with its implementing and 
financial regulations and the next programming guidelines will be the enabling framework to implement the policy orientations defined in the 'Agenda for Change'. 
Regarding OCTs,  the EU wishes to use the revision of the Overseas Association Decision 
(OAD) as an opportunity to redesign and modernis e the association arrangeme nts, so as to bring 
them more in line with OCT needs and realities. Over the la st ten years discu ssions about this 
revision have taken a central place in the OCT/ EU policy dialogue. In it s conclusions (16710/09) 
adopted on 22 December 2009, the Council e ndorsed the proposals of the Commission put 
forward in its earlier Communication (COM/2009/ 623) which identifies three general objectives 
for the future OCT/EU partnership: to enhance OCT competitiveness, to reduce OCT 
vulnerability and to stimulate re gional cooperation and integration. As regards the EU's financial 
assistance to OCTs as of 2014, the Communi cation suggests strength ening the financial 
instrument's strategic approach and favours thematic and financial concentration. The 
Commission also suggested that co-financing by OCTs and Member States as well as moving 
away from development aid could be consider ed. The revision of the OAD is ongoing and, as 
mentioned, a separate impact assessment of the legislative proposal is conducted in parallel.  
This constitutes a limitation fo r the scope of this impact a ssessment and for the level of 
details  of the possible options regarding OC Ts, which should not pre-empt the on-going 
revision of the OAD. The possi ble options will be examined in the separate impact 
assessment to be published at a later stage. Th erefore the general objectives defined in the 
December 2009 Council conclusions constitute the framework for the scope of the impact 
assessment. 
 
2.5. EU Value Added 
Global issues, global response and global leadership  
As the world's largest donor, the EU and Member St ates provide more than half of global aid to 
developing countries. The EU provides aid to th e poorest people in more than 150 countries and 
is committed to achieving the MDG by the end of 2015. The funding for aid handled by the Commission alone represents 20% of total EU aid.  
Over the last ten years, the EU has improved  its performance in de velopment cooperation , 
rallying Member States around shared policy a pproaches and the aid effectiveness agenda, 
modernising its partnerships, cooperation agreem ents and financial instruments and putting in 
place mechanisms to ensure policy coherence for de velopment. The EU has started to move away 
from a donor-beneficiary type of relation to a partnership involvi ng contractual approaches, based 
on policy dialogue and linking results to specif ic cooperation programmes or instruments.  
In line with the European C onsensus on Development, the Pari s Declaration* and the Accra 
Agenda for Action*, the EU has clearly identified the areas where it can offer added value  in 
the EDF and has focused its f unds strongly on budge t support, governance and infrastructure. 
 
EN 16   EN The 10th EDF has also demonstrated its added value in the form of strong responsiveness.  
By keeping unallocated funds in the EDF to co ver unforeseen needs and by means of innovative 
instruments such as FLEX* and V-FLEX*, the EU ha s been able to play a key role vis-à-vis ACP 
States facing disasters or food, economic and financial crises.  
The critical weight of the EU 
For EU Member States, the ACP-EU partnership and the EDF offer a global reach and a means to 
implement a consistent set of objectives across 77 ACP States. In terms of presence, scale and 
focus, EDF operations offer signific ant benefits over national action.  The EU’s role in ACP 
States gives Member States a strong voice on key issues such  as governance, budget support, 
regional cooperation, economic development and infr astructure. This critical mass also puts the 
EU in a better position to conduct political dialo gue with partner governments. The EU also has a 
long standing reputation and role as a prom oter of inclusiveness and multilateralism. 
Thanks to the large scale of the EU, it can deliver help to the poor in some of the world's most 
remote areas, where most of the Member States have no strategic interest and their presence is 
limited. Thanks to the network of EU delegations in the Pacific re gion for example, development 
aid reaches the people who need it most, and the EU  adapts its response to the smallest partners. 
The EU is best placed to coordinate  
The EU plays a multi-faceted role : as implementing agent of EU aid and as EU coordinator and 
policy-maker in the development field, as econom ic and trade partner, through security policy 
and political dialogue, as well as  through other EU sector policies – such as migration, climate, 
biodiversity, fisheries or energy.  
The EU can do more than other international orga nisations, because of its holistic approach to 
development and external relations through its various instruments, including promotion of 
democracy and mechanisms to respond to a crisis . The EU established a framework of analysis 
for ensuring Policy Coherence for Development*  to 'development-proof' non-development policy 
initiatives and make sure that EU development policy objectives are taken into account in other 
policy areas.  
Division of labour through the EU is a crucial component of its added value . In the work on 
the ground in partner countri es, acting as one is crucial in orde r to bring about more added value, 
increased strength and legitimacy, and more  impact and effectiveness for EU aid. 
A few examples regarding EU development cooperation under the EDF: 
Through the EU's MDG initiative , announced last year at the MDG Summit, the EU will 
increase its support to make progr ess on the most off-track of th e eight Millennium Development 
Goals. 
The African Peace Facility  is a prime example of how the EU  can take the initiative on a major 
issue in the field of conflict re solution, thanks to its size and budge t as well as the specificities 
allowed by the Cotonou agreement. Since 2004, th e EU has provided €740 million to this end, 
helping to prevent conflicts and promote stability after they have taken place.  
When the global economic crisis o ccurred in 2009, the EU was able  to step in and create the 
Vulnerability FLEX* , set up to protect develo ping countries from its impact, again showing that 
 
EN 17   EN the EU is uniquely placed to respond flexib ly where needed. €434 million out of the €500 million 
allocated under the mechanism in 2009 and 2010 have been disbursed. 23 of the most affected countries across the ACPs have benefited. 
Positive Impact of EU Cooperation with OCTs 
EU interventions in the OCTs have added value because in many cases, it is the only other 
donor apart from the Member States to wh ich the OCTs are constitutionally linked . 
Cooperation and coordination with Member St ates has been high. The non-programmed funds 
have positively contributed to mitigating the impact of disasters such as hurricanes. 
Inclusion of EU financial assistance to OCTs in the EDFs has ensured that sufficient funds 
were available and that OCT/EU cooperation rem ained coherent with the evolution of EU 
development policy and coop eration with ACP countries , of which most OCTs are direct 
neighbours.  
OCT arrangements in the successive EDFs have seen a move towards putting the OCTs' 
sustainable development as well as their priori ties and strategies at the heart of OCT/EU 
cooperation .  
 
3. O
BJECTIVES  
3.1. Objectives  
3.1.1.  General objectives of the 11th EDF  
The general objectives of the 11th EDF  are those defined in the Cotonou agreement (article 1) 
and in Part IV of the Treaty on the Functio ning of the European Union (article 198): 
– for ACPs: reducing and eventually eradicating poverty, while attaining the objectives of 
sustainable development and achieving their gr adual integration into  the world economy;  
– for OCTs: attaining sustainable developmen t, by strengthening their resilience and 
competitiveness and promoting regional cooperation. 
3.1.2.  Specific objectives for the revision of the instrument 
The specific objectives for the revision of the instrument , in line with the revised policy 
objectives of EU development policy and EU cooperation with OCTs, are the following:   
− The 11th EDF should allow for a more differentiated approach  between beneficiaries, to 
respond to the specific situ ation of each country, taking into account their needs, 
capacities and performance, and potential impact of EU aid. 
− To tackle aid fragmentation, EU developm ent cooperation should be more concentrated  on 
fewer sectors where it can ha ve the greatest impact.  
− In the same perspective, coordination with EU Member States  should be reinforced to 
improve aid effectiveness. 
− The EU should reinforce financial leveraging  of its grant resources through the use of 
innovative financial instruments  such as loans-grants blending mechanisms and reinforced 
partnership with EIB and ot her financial institutions.  
− The flexibility  elements of the EDF should be reinfo rced, to make the 11th EDF even more 
responsive and flexible to tackle the evolving situati ons of beneficiaries, including 
response to external shocks, crisis or  transition and fragility situations. 
 
EN 18   EN − Regarding OCTs specifically , the 11th EDF should also allo w for a more differentiated and 
more flexible approach to take into account their specificities, the sp ecific challenges they 
face, their limited administrative capacities as well as the different type of relations they 
entertain with the EU, while at the same time promoting regional cooperation  between 
OCTs, ACP States and Outermost Regions. 
3.2. Consistency with external action priorities  
The current structure of the existing EU financ ial instruments in the policy area 'development' 
comprises the following elements: (i) the main part  of EU development cooperation is channelled 
through ‘policy-driven ’ geographical instruments, w ith the 'Development Cooperation 
Instrument' (DCI) addressing developing coun tries except for the neighbourhood and ACP 
States15, and with the 10th EDF outside the EU budget coveri ng ACP States and OCTs; (ii) in 
addition, within the DCI there are also thematic  programmes to support actions at global and 
regional level and to contribute  to the financing of intern ational organisations and funds16.  
The general objective of poverty eradication  remains the primary aim of EU development 
cooperation. In addition, despite the different  funding sources of EU development cooperation 
(i.e. mainly the EDF and the DCI), the specific  objectives and modalities of the updated EU 
development policy will be applied equally to  all developing countries through the various 
financial instruments . This includes, in particular, appl ying a more differentiated approach, 
strengthening concentration in certain areas, coor dination with Member St ates and increasing use 
of innovative financial instruments, and flexible  mechanisms to tackle unforeseen events and 
evolving situations.  
In addition, as set by the Lisbon Treaty, development cooperation objectives under the EDF 
will be mutually coherent with oth er initiatives for external action , in particular with 
geographic and thematic cooperatio n under the DCI, but also with  activities financed under the 
instrument for promoting human rights and demo cracy (EIDHR) and the instrument for nuclear 
safety (INSC), humanitarian assistance and/or  civil protection, cris es reaction through the 
Instrument for Stability or macro-financial assist ance, and with civilian or military interventions 
under the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) / Common Security and Defense Policy 
(CSDP)17. Moreover for every country, development c ooperation will be cohe rent with the new 
'Partnership Instrument' for cooperation on EU a nd mutual interests on a global scale, thus 
including ACPs.   
The links between the different external action instruments lay in particular : 
- (i) with cross-cutting, humanitarian or crisis issues: the specific objective of increasing 
flexibility  within the EDF to tackle unforeseen needs or situations of crisis, fragility or transition 
would also reinforce the coherence with the se t of instruments deploy ed. Addressing transition 
challenges requires a mixture of approaches and responses articulated in the framework of a 
transition strategy; this strategy will allow for balancing possible tensions between humanitarian, 
development ad security-o riented approaches, and also betwee n short term reaction and long term 
support.  
- (ii) with multi-countries/regional issues ove rcoming the limits of the different geographic 
instruments: 
Most pan-african initiatives will, in the post 2013 financial perspectives, be supported through a 
new pan-African mechanism within the DCI. The implementation of the Joint Africa-EU Strategy (JAES) and its successive Action Plans may still  be funded under the EDF and the principle of 
 
EN 19   EN 'treating Africa as one' requires the coherent management of the DCI, the future neighbourhood 
instrument (ENPI) and the EDF and the approp riate wording in the related legal bases. 
Regional cooperation in the wider Caribbean and in  the Pacific would involve the DCI, the EDF, 
including the cooperation with OCTs and the EU internal c ohesion instrument with regard to 
outermost regions of the EU. 
3.3. Consistency with other EU policies 
The objectives of the 11th EDF will be implemented in  line with the EU 2020 agenda, 
including through a mutual reinforcement of internal and external actions.  
In a globalised environment, seve ral internal EU policies (such as  climate change, environment, 
energy - including access to sustai nable energy, biodiversity, immigr ation, fisheries, agriculture, 
health, higher education, research and innovatio n for smart growth,…) are increasingly becoming 
part of the EU's external  action. In this regard, integration, and not dup lication, must be the key 
word, to ensure the coherence of EU external action, increase aid effectiveness, notably the 
commitment to reduce the number of actors and programmes, and maximise synergies between 
policy objectives. 
Through mainstreaming, the external dimensions of  internal EU policies can become part of 
policy dialogue with third countries. These aspect s are at the centre of EU  country and regional 
programming in areas such as standards setting including sani tary and phytosan itary issues, 
capacity building, climate action, infrastructu re networks, informa tion and communication 
technologies, trade and business environment, e ducation and research, justice and home affairs 
activities etc. For OCTs, this is  of particular importance as th ey are eligible for funding from 
internal programmes and budget lines. The stre ngthened involvement of line DGs of the 
Commission in the programmi ng process will be welcom ed and should be improved  to ensure an 
appropriate use of the technical expe rtise within the Commission services .  
Regarding coherence between external and inte rnal policy objectives, the EU's commitment to 
advancing Policy Coherence for Development  (PCD)* can also be highlighted, requiring the 
objectives of development cooperation to be take n into account in all EU policies which are 
likely to affect developing c ountries. The PCD strategy was adopted to overcome potential 
negative impacts of internal polic ies on developing partners and to encourage, where possible, the 
search for synergies between the objectives of internal policies and EU  development objectives.  
 
4. POLICY OPTIONS  
As the EU assistance for ACP and OCTs re mains outside the budget under the multiannual 
financial framework for the period 2014 to 2020, the Member States will be invited to set up 
an eleventh European Development Fund (11th EDF) in a new internal agreement on the 
financing of EU aid for ACP States and the allo cation of financial assistance for the OCTs. On 
the basis of this agreement, im plementing and financial regulations  will be adopted.  In the light 
of the final choices made regarding ACPs, the necessity to modify annex IV of the Cotonou 
agreement will also be examined in agreement w ith the ACP partners. These final choices would 
also be reflected in the Co mmission proposal for the revision of the Overseas  Association 
Decision (OAD). 
As stated in the Lisbon Treaty, supporting developing countries' e fforts to eradicate poverty is a 
 
EN 20   EN priority for the EU's action in the world and th e primary objective of deve lopment policy. In this 
context, together with the priori ties set in the Europe 2020 Strategy, the European Commission 
is expected to propose an ambitious 'Age nda for Change' to refocus EU development 
spending and policies and to increase the concrete impact of programmes on the 
achievement of the MDGs* . This package, after an inte nse elaboration and consultation  process,  
should confirm the relevance of most of the ex isting policy framework and especially the ACP-
EU partnership and the EDF, wh ile agreeing on the need for more  impact, to speed up progress 
towards the MDGs.  
The EU will make these changes progressively in  its next programming cycle, but the proposed 
internal agreement, with its implementing regulation, its financial regulation and the next 
programming guidelines, will constitute the enabling framework to allow the implementation of this Agenda for Change.  
For each specific objective identified under ch apter 3.1, this chapter analyses options to 
make these policy changes possible. 
4.1. Differentiation  
4.1.1.  Status quo option 
The aid allocation*
 and implementation processes do not change from the approach 
followed under the 10th EDF.  
Under this option, the main objective of EU c ooperation with ACPs and OCTs would remain 
poverty reduction - and ultimately  poverty eradication, with the MDGs as the main benchmark 
against which to measure progress, but geographi cal differentiation would not be implemented at 
its utmost in view of a higher impact of EU ai d. In more advanced coun tries, where EU funding 
would in certain cases not represent a significant critical mass for beneficiar ies, the impact of EU 
grants would not be optimized. Regarding OCTs , resources would continue to be allocated 
mainly to territorial programmes and projects  in the OCTs eligible under the Overseas 
Association Decision (OAD). 
4.1.2.  Alternative option: allow more differe ntiation between ACP States and OCTs 
 Sub-option A  – Allow focusing EU cooperation on a limited number of partners by using 
statistical data 
The EU allocates grants only to its least de veloped partners and no development grant aid 
in the more advanced. This differentiation would be made using statistical data. 
 
This sub-option would enable es tablishing clear cut and easily defendable criteria that would 
determine on which partners EU cooperation woul d be focused. Nevertheless, in many cases 
statistical data do not paint the en tire picture of the situation in a partner. Indeed, many partners' 
statistics are done on different pr emises and are thus not fully co mparable and/or are not readily 
available. In addition many wealthier partners face challenges and constraints similar to those of 
the poorest and least developed ones.   Some partners would be ex cluded from eligibility to EU grants on this statistical basis. However, 
regarding ACPs, these countries re main signatories to the Cotonou agreement. In this sub-option, 
the partnership principles of the Cotonou agre ement, including policy dialogue, would not be 
 
EN 21   EN fully respected. The same holds true for the OC T/EU association, which is also founded on the 
partnership principle.  
This differentiation would be implemented th rough the implementing regulation(s), the aid 
allocation system and during the programmi ng phase. It would not require a specific 
provision in the internal agreement. 
 
 Sub-option B
 – Allow focusing EU cooperation on a limited number of countries by using 
quantitative and qualitative data 
The EU allocates proportionally more grants to its least developed partners and less or no 
development grant aid in the more advanced, while allowing in the more advanced the 
pursuit of an alternative development relations hip, including potentially through blending 
grants and loans to support investment and the private sector.   
To target its limited resources where they are needed most and where they have greatest impact 
and value for money, the Agenda for Change is expected to propose to review the EU aid portfolio. Under this sub-option, the EU would therefore differe ntiate its action among partner 
countries and regions to ensure that resources are allocated a ccording to needs, capacities, 
country commitments and performance, and pot ential EU impact on policy reform and on 
leverage of EU Aid. To ensure adequate financ ing for development, the EU would achieve more 
variation in grant money among countries.  
Through comprehensive political and policy dialogue , the EU would define, in the programming 
phase, the most appropriate form of cooperation, leadi ng to informed and objective decisions on 
the most effective policy mix, fi nancial instruments and aid arra ngements, including the use of 
new blending mechanisms. EU development coopera tion would be more country-specific, tailor-
made to each partner and be based on their ow n needs, strategies, priorities and assets.  
Cooperation with OCTs would follow similar prin ciples. Only the least developed would be 
guaranteed to receive a territorial  allocation. The concept of least developed territories would be 
adapted so as to take into acc ount problems and challenges of OCTs  such as fragility, isolation 
and structural problems. OCTs ot her than the least developed one s would have to rely on other 
types of financing, such as loans to the priv ate sector. The more developed OCTs could be 
granted a territorial allocation in  case of external shocks, to be  mobilised from a reserve of non-
programmed aid and implemented through budget support. 
According to the provisions of  the Cotonou agreement, specific forms of support would also be 
defined for ACP countries in situation of crisis  including long-term stru ctural instability or 
fragility (see chapter 4.5).   
This differentiation would be implemented th rough the implementing regulation(s), the aid 
allocation system and during the programming phase, taking into account the partnership 
principles of the Cotonou agreement, includ ing policy dialogue. It would not require a 
specific provision in the internal agreement. 
4.2. Concentration of EU development cooperation activities 
4.2.1.  Status quo option 
 
EN 22   EN The Commission continues to allocate aid and intervene in a great variety of sectors.  
Under this option, Commission-managed developm ent aid programmes woul d continue to cover 
globally a wide array of sectors (e.g. health , education and higher education, training and 
scientific research, climate change, energy , environment, agriculture, food security, 
infrastructure, etc.). The sel ection would continue to be done at country level through a 
transparent and in-depth dialogue with partner countries on the basis of a joint analysis, without a 
deep reflection on areas where Co mmission aid has the strongest added value compared to other 
donors and Member States. OCT/EU cooperation woul d remain concentrated at territorial level 
on one sector per OCT; however for technical assistance directly managed by the Commission, 
the number of areas covered would remain wide. 
4.2.2.  Alternative option: allow more concentration of EU cooperation activities 
 Sub-option A  – Allow focusing EU cooperation on a single sector 
EU aid is focused on a single sector in each partner to maximise impact.  
Under this sub-option, a single se ctor in each ACP country woul d have to be selected to 
maximise critical mass and impact. For OCTs , this sub-option would mean that technical 
assistance resources would be used for suppor t in a very limited set of sectors of the 
Commission's choice. While this type of concentrat ion could be relevant in  certain partners where 
many donors are present, this sub-option would no t allow tackling the situation of donor orphans. 
In addition, it could be difficult to agree with the beneficiary partners on th e choice of sector. For 
OCTs, this sub-option may run counter to the pr inciple of diversification between OCTs and 
would not be congruent to the pr inciple of partnership. The abso rption capacity ac cording in the 
sector chosen would also have to  be taken into account, as it coul d lead to a waste of EU funding 
instead of increased impact. 
This concentration of funds on a single se ctor in each partner would be implemented 
during the programming phase. For OCTs, provi sions could also be inserted in the 
implementing regulation. This sub-option wo uld not require a specific provision in the 
internal agreement.  
 Sub-option B – Allow focusing EU cooperation on a limited number of sectors 
EU aid is focused on a limited number of sectors where it can have the greatest impact.   
This sub-option would mean selecting a limited numb er of areas for action when EU aid is being 
programmed in ACPs, instead of spreading efforts too thinly over too many sectors, in order to 
reinforce the Commission role as a delivery agent in areas where size and critical mass are of special importance, avoiding fragmentation. This would include sectors wh ere EU aid can have 
the greatest impact and which are of greatest importa nce to the beneficiary State, in line with the 
Communication 'Agenda for Change' to be adopted. 
For OCTs, this sub-option would foresee a furt her concentration of EU funds by limiting the 
technical assistance directly managed by the Commi ssion to a selected number of areas in line 
with OCT and EU priorities and objectives. 
 
EN 23   EN More concentration of funds in a strictly limited number of areas in ACPs would be 
implemented at country level during the progra mming phase while taking into account the 
specific situation of fragile countries. For OCTs, this would be implemented during the 
programming phase and provisions could be inse rted in the implementing regulation. This 
sub-option would not require a specific provision in the internal agreement.  
4.3. Coordination with EU Member States  
4.3.1.  Status quo option 
Division of labour continues to be  implemented as under the 10th EDF.  
Under this option, the process of  joint programming in ACPs woul d remain limited to selected 
pilot countries, on the basis of the various comm itments taken in Council conclusions to Joint 
programming, most prominently the 2006 Common Fr amework for Country St rategy Papers*. In 
other countries, each donor would continue to  prepare its own country strategy documents, 
including for Commission-managed aid, compre hensive Country Strategy Papers (CSP) as 
defined in the Cotonou agreement. For OCTs , coordination of EU and Member States' 
interventions would continue to consist in para llel programmes defined independently from one 
another. 
4.3.2.  Alternative option: allow more coor dination with EU Member States 
 Sub-option A  – Joint programming with EU Member  States becomes a binding modality 
Joint programming is a compulsory modality  enshrined in the 11th EDF legislative and 
regulatory framework. 
Under this sub-option, a programming document w ould be prepared jointly by the EU and the 
Member States for each partner. This documen t would entail all financial commitments by all 
EU actors, by sector. This woul d ensure effective division of  labour and a high level of 
predictability and visibility of EU acti on, avoiding overlaps. Ho wever applying joint 
programming systematically in all cases is not yet feasible and therefore a legal obligation is not politically acceptable. 
This sub-option would be im plemented through binding provi sions in the implementing 
regulations.  
 Sub-option B
 – Allow reinforcing Joint programming with EU Member States 
Joint programming and division of labo ur are implemented through the 11th EDF 
legislative and regulatory framework. 
Under this sub-option, Joint Programming of EU and Member States' cooperation activities 
would be reinforced in order to achieve be tter division of labour. Where appropriate, the 
European Investment Bank (EIB) could be associated with this process. 
This joint programming process could result for ACPs in a single, joint programming document 
for each partner country as a preferred option, or  as a minimum option an effective agreement on 
division of labour. Indicative financial commitment s by all EU actors, per sector, would be part 
of the agreements on division of labour. To star t with, the new proposal would be 'EU + Member 
 
EN 24   EN States' only present in the country concerned.  Other EU donors not present at country level 
would significantly gain in possibilities for co ntributing inside an EU scheme, which would 
certainly foster opportunities for delegated cooperation.  
For OCTs, this sub-option would seek – where possible – a better alignment of the EU and 
Member States' programmes. Trilateral dialogues between the OCTs, their Member States and 
the Commission could be instrumental to defi ning a division of labour between the different 
partners in the programming phase.  
This sub-option concerns the programming phas e and would not require a provision in the 
internal agreement, but specific provisions including possibly details of the joint 
programming process for ACPs could be integr ated in the implementing regulation.  
In addition to joint programming at country level, the EU and Member States could increase their 
collective impact by making use of aid modalities that  facilitate joint actions. In its proposal for a 
revision of the Financial Regulation for the EU budget, the Commission inserted a provision 
allowing the creation of EU Trust Funds18. Under this sub-option, the possibility to create EU 
Trust Funds managed by the Commission for ACPs  would also be foreseen for the 11th EDF 
framework. 
To allow the establishment of EU Trust funds managed by the Commission for ACP 
Countries, a provision could be introduced in the 11th EDF Financial Regulation.  
4.4. Innovative financial instruments 
4.4.1.  Status quo option 
The existing mechanisms for blending  grants with loans are maintained. 
Under this option, no modification would be fores een regarding the use of existing instruments 
(see chapter 2.2). The balance between grants  and loans would not allow for further 
differentiation and concentra tion of EU grants on part ners which need it most.  
4.4.2.  Alternative option: allow an increased use of innovative financial instruments 
 Sub-option A – Compulsory use of blending mechanisms 
Blending mechanisms* are used system atically in EU cooperation funding. 
In all ACP countries and OCTs, all EU grants would be coupled with loans from Financing 
Institutions (EIB, multilateral, regional and bila teral development banks) in order to leverage 
further resources and thus in crease impact of EU funding.  
However this sub-option would not take sufficiently  into account the dispar ity of situations. In 
particular, it would entail the risk of further incr easing the level of indebt edness of those partners 
who cannot afford it. In addition, this sub-option could be appropriate in a number of sectors, 
notably in the area of infrastructure developmen t or the promotion of a competitive local private 
sector. However, it could be inefficient and ir relevant in other areas such as promoting 
regulatory frameworks to be established by pa rtner countries governments or for a range of 
typical public sector activities, often linked to social sectors, like for instance improvement of 
education or health systems. Therefore this sub-option would not be applicable always but 
should rather be applied gr adually (see sub-option B).  
 
EN 25   EN The systematic use of EU gran ts to blend with loans from European Finance Institutions 
would not require a specific provision in the In ternal Agreement as this would be defined 
during the programming phase. Specific provisio ns could be included in the implementing 
and financial regulations.  
 
 Sub-option B – Increased use of blending mechanisms 
Blending mechanisms* are reinforced to b oost financial resources for development. 
In certain ACP countries or regions, an incr easing percentage of EU development resources 
could be used through existing or new financial in struments, such as blending grants with loans 
or other risk-sharing mechanisms, in order to leverage further resources and thus increase 
impact. Country or regional strategic programming documents could be used to specify this. In 
doing so, sustainability criteria such as indebtedness capacity and local situations and risks 
would be duly taken into account. 
For OCTs, an increased percentage of resources  could also be used for blending mechanisms 
involving EDF resources including resources mana ged by the European Investment Bank (EIB), 
and other financial institutions such as region al development banks and/or the private sector. 
This sub-option would imply the reinforcement of partnerships and coordination with the 
Financing Institutions (EIB, multilateral, regional and bilateral development banks). In 
particular, regarding the ACP and OCT Invest ment Facilities managed by the EIB, it would 
entail a further alignment between Commission, other relevant EU act ors and EIB during the 
programming phase and when identifying projects, to ensure greater coherence with the national 
strategies, as well as the adaptation of the monitoring and reporting framework of the EIB 
operations putting more emphasis on results and outcome. 
The process of reinforcing the use of ble nding mechanisms should be supported by an EU 
platform incorporating notably the Commissi on, Member States and European financial 
institutions. This platform coul d provide a relevant forum to optimise financing and blending 
instruments.  
The increased use of EU grants to blend with  loans from European Finance Institutions 
would not require a specific provision in the In ternal Agreement as this would be defined 
during the programming phase. Specific provisio ns could be included in the implementing 
and financial regulations.  
4.5. Flexibility  
4.5.1.  Status quo option 
The elements of flexibility of the 11th ED F remain limited to those of the 10th EDF. 
Compared to other external action instrument s under the EU budget, the EDF already entails 
important elements of flexibility  in the implementation of aid to swiftly respond to changing 
priorities and needs, such as the use of reserves, of the so called B-envel opes* or articles 72 and 
73 of the Cotonou agreement (for ACPs). Under th is option, those would remain in the 11th EDF 
but no additional elements of flex ibility would be foreseen. This would not allow a sufficiently 
quick response to crisis and situations of frag ility. For the OCTs, the option would entail that the 
 
EN 26   EN revised Overseas Association D ecision would integrate the releva nt elements of flexibility 
already entailed in th e Cotonou agreement. 
4.5.2.  Alternative option: increase flexibility within the EDF 
Flexibility elements will be reinforced in the 11th EDF compared to the 10th EDF. Under this 
option, the possible modalities will be analysed under three pillar s representing different aspects 
of EDF flexibilities. 
First pillar: EDF Reserves  
 Sub-option A – Large amount of funds kept unallocated 
The large majority of funds are kept in res erves for top-ups of country allocations or 
special allocations for specific sectors or initiatives.   
Under this sub-option, only a small amount of f unds would be programmed in initial allocations 
and the large majority of funds would remain unallo cated to ensure maximal flexibility in the use 
of EDF funding. However this woul d not ensure predictability of  funding for ACP partners and it 
would therefore act as a deterrent to struct ural reforms and long term development.  
This sub-option would not require a specific pr ovision in the 11th EDF internal agreement, 
but it would be reflected through progr amming and implementing procedures.  
 Sub-option B – Increased funding kept aside for topping-ups 
Compared to the 10th EDF, initial allocations upfront are limited and more funds are kept 
in reserves for top-ups of country allocations or special allocations for specific sectors or 
initiatives.   
Under this sub-option, a greater margin of flexibility would be possible in th e 11th EDF, to 
improve EU capacity to ensure an appropriate an d rapid response to evolvi ng situations, external 
shocks and unforeseen needs faced by ACP partners19, without deteriorating predictability of 
funds for the partners. This should be done through a holistic approach agreed at country level to 
ensure coherence between short term responses and long term development. 
For OCTs, non programmed funds would be kept as ide for rapid response to external shocks 
such as natural calamities or deep economic crises. 
It should also be proposed to look for greater re ciprocal engagement with partner countries and 
mutual accountability for results, through  aid allocations taking positive account of 
commitments, but also through results based fina ncing, in the spirit of moving further from a 
donor-recipient relationship to one of partnership. Therefore, this sub-option would also allow 
the EU to take into account the progresses of  ACP countries regardin g domestic reforms and 
sound policies, in order to implement a more incentive-based approach.  
This sub-option would not require a specific pr ovision in the 11th EDF internal agreement, 
but it would be reflected through programming  and implementing pro cedures. It would be 
taken into account in the ai d allocation and implemented during the programming phase. 
Second  pillar: Countries in crisis or in situation of fragility  
 
EN 27   EN  Sub-option A – No programming for countries in cris is or in situation of fragility 
No programming mechanisms are required for countries in situation of crisis including 
those in long-term structural instability or fragility  
Under this sub-option, no programming would be requi red for countries or territories in crisis or 
in situation of fragility, to ensure a complete fl exibility for the EU to prepare is response to 
tackle the situations of these countries. This w ould however be detrimental for predictability of 
funding for the partners and make donor coordina tion very difficult. In addition, circumventing 
programming would be a missed opportunity to undertake dialogue with the government of the 
partner country whenever possible, which is partic ularly important for countries or territories in 
situation of crisis or fragility.  
This sub-option would not require a specific pr ovision in the 11th EDF internal agreement, 
but it would be reflected through progr amming and implementing procedures.  
 
 Sub-option B – Specific forms of support for countries in  crisis or in situation of fragility 
Specific forms of support are defined for countr ies in situation of crisis including long-term 
structural instability or fragility  
These forms of support, to be defined according to the provisions of the Cotonou agreement, 
could include a more flexible programming mechanism (response mechanism) and possibly 
unilateral implementation procedures permitting operations that are rapid, flexible and effective, in close coordination with th e international community.  
This sub-option would answer the need to improve  the efficiency of the answers provided by the 
different tools and to build a common approach, based on a common analysis and definition of priorities, with all the stakeholders involved in  the process of fragilit y, transition or crisis 
management, and to make possible a faster  and more flexible response mechanism 
(programming) in such situations. Procedures would reflect the need for urgent and focused 
actions, while taking into account the variety of s ituations and objectives, starting after the first 
emergency assistance of ECHO to state buildi ng and sustainable development. No specific 
instrument would be dedicated to fragile states  but the response mechanism process would have 
to be adapted for those countries. For t hose transition situations, linking relief, 
rehabilitation/reconstruction and developm ent, the modalities for programming and 
implementation of the EDF would promote a nd advocate a better coordination between the 
humanitarian and development instruments. 
For OCTs, the notion of fragility could also be taken into account under certain conditions and 
more flexible programming and implemen tation procedures could be used.  
This sub-option would not require a specific pr ovision in the 11th EDF internal agreement, 
but it would be reflected through progr amming and implementing procedures.  
Third
 pillar: Response strategies  
 Sub-option A – Alignment on strategies of the partners is a compulsory modality 
 
EN 28   EN Full alignment on strategies of the partners is a compulsory modality enshrined in the 11th 
EDF legislative and regulatory framework. 
Under this sub-option, the EU would not any mo re prepare Country Strategy Papers (CSPs) for 
ACPs or Single Programming Documents for OCTs. It would align itself automatically with the 
national/territorial strategies defined by the EU partners and concentrate its efforts in the 
programming phase on preparing response strategies.  
However national/territorial stra tegies defined by the partners , and in particular Poverty 
Reduction Strategy Papers, do not always encompa ss all areas of interest for EU intervention, 
can be of uneven quality or are sometimes la cking. Therefore this su b-option does not seem 
realistic for all ACP countries and OCTs at this  stage unless it is implemented gradually (see 
sub-option B).    
This sub-option would be im plemented through binding provi sions in the implementing 
regulations.  
 Sub-option B – Alignment on strategies of  the partners where possible 
The EU concentrates on response strategies in the programming phase. 
In line with the objectives of alignment, owners hip and aid effectiveness, depending on the level 
of dialogue with the partner c ountry, on the analysis already undertaken in-country and on the 
quality of the strategies already put in place by the partner country, the EU could decide to 
simply align itself with the national/territorial  strategies defined by th e EU partners and to 
concentrate its efforts in the programming phase on preparing the response strategy only rather 
than on drafting a comprehensive Country Strategy Paper (CSP) or Single Programming 
Document for OCTs.  
Specific provisions could be included in the im plementing regulation to foresee a margin of 
flexibility regarding the preparation of the programming documents, allowing the EU to 
focus on response strategies.  
4.6. Stimulate regional coop eration with OCTs 
4.6.1.  Status quo option 
Resources available for OCT regional cooperation continue to be used for projects 
involving all OCTs within a specific region (i .e. the Caribbean, the Indian Ocean and the 
Pacific) and for cooperation benefitting all OCTs.  
This option would not favour gr eater interaction and cooperati on between OCTs and their ACP 
neighbours and European Outermost Regions (i n the Caribbean and the Indian Ocean). 
4.6.2.  Alternative option: Allow stimulat ing regional cooperation with OCTs 
 Sub-option A – Regional cooperation as prime obj ective of OCT/EU cooperation  
EU programmed aid to OCTs would be solely used at regional level in view of giving 
maximum impulses to the EU objective of pr omoting regional cooperation and integration.  
This would mean that no allocations woul d be granted to individual territories. 
 
EN 29   EN Under this sub-option, funds would only be allocated to projects and programmes which 
explicitly inscribe them in a regional persp ective and make use of existing cooperation and 
integration structures.  
This sub-option would not take into account the s ituation of isolated OCTs, which have few to no 
possibilities to cooperation on a re gional level and would exclude them from EU aid; this, while 
some of these isolated OCTs are among the least developed OCTs. This sub- option is likely to be 
difficult to implement as it may prove to be di fficult for the different actors to agree on the 
principle, the areas, form and mo dalities of the cooperation. It would also run counter to the 
principle of diversification betw een OCTs, would not be congruent to the principle of partnership 
and could not guarantee that two of the three objectives of the e nvisaged OCT/EU association be 
taken into account, notably strengthen OCT co mpetiveness and increase their resilience. 
This sub-option would be implemented du ring the programming phase and specific 
provisions could be included in th e implementing regulation. This  would also be reflected in 
the Commission proposal regarding the revis ion of the Overseas Association Decision 
 Sub-option B – Link regional cooperation resources  to the use of existing regional 
cooperation schemes with ACPs and Outermost Regions 
Use of resources for OCT regional cooperation is conditioned to their added value with 
regard to furthering regional cooperati on with ACPs and outermost regions. 
Under this sub-option, allocations  for regional cooperation would onl y be used for initiatives in 
the Caribbean, Indian Ocean and Pacific regions wh ich support the inserti on of OCTs in existing 
regional cooperation and integration schemes with  ACPs and/or outermost regions, preferably by 
making use of regional institutions and bodies for their implementation. These resources could be 
used to allow OCTs to particip ate in regional programmes or Trus t funds of which ACP countries 
are beneficiaries. They could also be used for co-financing of projects involving Outermost 
Regions receiving funding from the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF). 
This sub-option would be implemented du ring the programming phase and specific 
provisions could be included in th e implementing regulation. This  would also be reflected in 
the Commission proposal regarding the revisio n of the Overseas Association Decision.  
 
5. ANALYSIS OF IMPACTS  
The following chapter analyses the impacts of the options for the objectives identified.  
This includes the likely soci o-economic impacts of the opti ons on ACP countries and OCTs, 
stemming from the implementation of the gene ral objectives of pove rty eradication and 
improvements towards MDGs*, sustainable developm ent and integration of countries into the 
world economy. The environmental impacts on ACP countries are also covered by the 
implementation of the general objective of sust ainable development, including EU commitments 
taken in the context of the C limate Change and Biodiversity negotiations (Copenhagen, Nagoya). 
In order to measure the impact of EU aid fund ed through the EDF in beneficiary countries in 
terms of poverty eradication, socio economic pr ogress, progress towards MDGs and integration 
in world economy, various indicators are used (see  indicators and statisti cs by countries in annex 
 
EN 30   EN IV).  Indicators and benchmarks are also used to  measure the part of EU spending dedicated to  
environmental sectors at large, to meas ure environmental impact (see annex IV). 
The socio-economic impacts on EU citizens are lim ited to the analysis of the impacts regarding 
the efficient use of EU taxpayers' money. The an alysis of the environmental impact of the 
options within the EU is not considered in  detail. The Commission will ensure the 
mainstreaming of environmental issues / objectives during the programming process. 
The impacts of the options in terms of mana gement and implementation modalities are also 
taken into account, as well as th e impact on the EU's role and vi sibility in its external action. 
 
5.1. Differentiation  
5.1.1.  Status quo option 
Strengths Weaknesses 
The overarching objectives of poverty 
reduction/eradication, su stainable development, 
integration of ACP countries into the world economy 
remain at the centre of the EU development cooperation. EDF does not integrate th e new objectives for EU 
cooperation with OCTs: stre ngthening OCT competitiveness 
and resilience and promoting regional cooperation with 
OCTs. 
 EU keeps its global presence and global reach (EU added value) Scarce/limited resources spread too thinly (no critical mass), 
resulting in low impact 
Impact of development aid (socio-economic impact) in 
certain countries remains low (waste of resources + 
reputational risk) 
Risks not to progress on MDG targets in poorest countries 
(socio-economic impact) 
Insufficiently adapted response to  countries' specific situation 
Inability to do large-scale proj ects as funds per country are 
too small  
Less efficient use of EU taxpayers' money  
In the long run, EU development aid loses relevance and 
legitimacy because of lower impact 
 
 
5.1.2.  Alternative option: allow more differen tiation between ACP Countries and OCTs 
 
Sub-option A: Allow focusing EU  cooperation on a limited number of partners by using 
statistical data  
Strengths Weaknesses 
 
EN 31   EN The overarching objectives of poverty 
reduction/eradication, su stainable development, 
integration of ACP countries into the world economy 
remain at the centre of the EU development cooperation. 
EDF integrates the new objec tives for EU cooperation 
with OCTs: strengthening OCT competitiveness and 
resilience and promoting regi onal cooperation with OCTs. Potential reduction of global  presence/global reach (EU 
added value) 
Clear cut criteria for differentiation (statistical data) 
Increased critical mass and impact in certain countries 
ACP countries supposedly most in needs (on statistical 
basis) more likely to progress on MDG targets (socio-economic impact) 
EU more likely to meet its  commitments on volumes of 
funding for Sub-Saharan Africa and LDCs 
Opportunity for more modern and meaningful 
relationships with wealthie r developing countries and 
OCTs  Risk of statistical criteria for differentiation not reflecting 
fully needs, capacities, interests and commitments of 
individual partners  
A priori exclusion of certain partners from eligibility to 
funding on a statistical basis not reflecting fully the 
differences in situations 
Partnership principles of Cotonou agreement not fully 
respected 
Potential loss of visibility and influence of EU interventions 
in certain countries and territories 
 
 
Sub-option B: Allow focusing EU cooperation on a limited number of countries by using 
quantitative and qualitative data 
Strengths Weaknesses 
The overarching objectives of poverty 
reduction/eradication, su stainable development, 
integration of ACP countries into the world economy 
remain at the centre of the EU development cooperation. 
EDF integrates the new objec tives for EU cooperation 
with OCTs: strengthening OCT competitiveness and 
resilience and promoting regi onal cooperation with OCTs. Potential reduction of global  presence/global reach (EU 
added value) 
Resources allocations closer to needs, capacities, interests and commitments of individual partners. 
Grants focussing on those partners which need it the most 
and where the impact will be greatest, giving greater value for money (poverty reduction, socio-economic 
impact) 
Increased critical mass in certain countries 
ACP countries most in needs more likely to progress on 
MDG targets (socio-economic impact) 
EU more likely to meet its  commitments on volumes of 
funding for Sub-Saharan Africa and LDCs 
Increased visibility and reputation for the EU in certain 
countries/regions 
Opportunity for more modern and meaningful 
relationships with wealthie r developing countries and 
OCTs, including mutual interests and positive impacts on 
global public goods Difficulty in defining objective a nd criteria for differentiation 
among ACP countries 
Risk of real or perceived predominance of political 
considerations of  development aid 
Difficulty to reconcile the increase of grants targeting the 
poorest countries whereas there ar e still strong in equalities in 
more advanced countries Æ Necessity to find alternative 
sources of funding to ta ckle these challenges. 
In more advanced countries and territories where the share of 
grants is reduced or not guaranteed, risk of loss of visibility 
for EU intervention Æ necessity to find alternative forms of 
cooperation/dialogue with the pa rtner for the EU to develop 
its political presence and influence, including regarding 
global challenges and su stainable development 
 
 
EN 32   EN 5.2. Concentration of EU cooperation activities 
5.2.1.  Status quo option 
Strengths Weaknesses 
The overarching objectives of poverty 
reduction/eradication, su stainable development, 
integration of ACP countries into the world economy 
remain at the centre of the EU development cooperation.  EDF does not integrate th e new objectives for EU 
cooperation with OCTs: stre ngthening OCT competitiveness 
and resilience and promoting regional cooperation with 
OCTs. 
Visibility and possibility for leverage in a larger number 
of sectors in ACPs 
Continuation of concentration of resources to one focus 
sector per OCT at territorial level => EU presence, 
visibility and influence ensured, even if limited due to low 
aid volumes. 
 Fragmentation and dispersion of  development aid not tackled 
(missed opportunity). 
Scarce/limited resources coopera tion spread too thinly (no 
critical mass), resulting in lo w impact (socio-economic 
impact). Less efficient use of EU taxpayers' money  
Could undermine MDG commitment (because if aid is spread 
thinly, the impact is minimal). In the long run, EU aid loses 
relevance and legitimacy because of lower impact 
 
5.2.2.  Alternative option: allow more concentration of EU cooperation activities 
Sub-option A:  Allow focusing EU cooperation on a single sector 
Strengths Weaknesses 
The overarching objectives of poverty 
reduction/eradication, su stainable development, 
integration of ACP countries into the world economy 
remain at the center of the EU development cooperation.  
EDF integrates the new objec tives for EU cooperation 
with OCTs: strengthening OCT competitiveness and 
resilience and promoting regi onal cooperation with OCTs 
 =The overarching objectives of  EU cooperation could be put 
at risk in countries where ve ry few donors are present (donor 
orphans) and where concentra ting EU intervention in one 
single sector would not be sufficient 
Potential for much greater impact by reaching critical 
mass through concentration of resources on a single sector 
for ACPs (poverty reduction, socio-economic and 
environmental impact) and a single intervention areas of 
the technical assistance to OCTs (sustainable 
development impact) 
Reduction of development aid fragmentation  
Increased visibility and expertise in the long term in the 
chosen sector 
Easier to monitor impact/results 
 
 High risk to undermine principle of country/ territory 
ownership, and of disagreeme nt with partners on sectors 
chosen 
 => risk of creating more gaps and discontinuity in 
cooperation and of undermin ing gains on reducing aid 
fragmentation 
=> knock-on negative effect on EU reputation undermining 
potential increase in EU visibility and reputation in the sector 
chosen 
Potential waste of EU fundi ng (absorption capacity not 
sufficient in a single sector) => could undermine objective of 
higher impact of EU funding  
 
 
Sub-option B: Allow focusing EU cooperati on on a limited number of sectors 
Strengths Weaknesses 
 
EN 33   EN The overarching objectives of poverty 
reduction/eradication, su stainable development, 
integration of ACP countries into the world economy 
remain at the center of the EU development cooperation.  
EDF integrates the new objec tives for EU cooperation 
with OCTs: strengthening OCT competitiveness and 
resilience and promoting regi onal cooperation with OCTs 
  
Potential for much greater impact by reaching critical 
mass through concentration of resources on limited 
number of sectors (poverty re duction, socio-economic and 
environmental impact)  
Further concentration of res ources by limiting the number 
of intervention areas of the technical assistance to OCTs 
directly managed by the Commission ensuring greater 
leverage for the sustainabl e development for OCTs.  
Reduction of development aid fragmentation and 
transaction costs (for EU, MS, partners) 
In the longer-run, high level specialised expertise leading 
to increased efficiency 
Increased visibility and reputation in chosen key sectors 
No a priori reduction in global presence  
Easier to monitor impact/results Could undermine principle of country/ territory ownership 
(+knock-on negative effect on EU  reputation), potentially 
create more gaps and disconti nuity in cooperation due to 
potential disagreement with partners on sectors chosen.  
Could undermine MDG commitmen t (in those sectors where 
EU will no longer be present) =>  However, expected 
mitigation through effective division of labour (EU – MS and 
beyond)  
Risk of losing visibility and leverage in certain sectors (vis-à-
vis other donors) by specialising too much in some sectors or 
in the case of OCTs by no longer having tangible results on 
the ground. 
Loss of COM expertise and competence in certain sectors 
In the long run, reputational risk, reduced credibility for the 
COM to represent/coordinate the EU in all sectors of 
development cooperation global ly (loss of intellectual 
leadership) as it is not present in all sectors at country level 
=> Expected mitigation through leadership on division of 
labour and through increased coordination with programming 
under regional, intra-ACP or thematic (DCI ) allocations. 
 
5.3. Coordination with EU Member States  
5.3.1.  Status quo option 
Strengths Weaknesses 
The overarching objectives of poverty 
reduction/eradication, su stainable development, 
integration of ACP countries into the world economy 
remain at the centre of the EU development cooperation .  EDF does not integrate th e new objectives for EU 
cooperation with OCTs: stre ngthening OCT competitiveness 
and resilience and promoting regional cooperation with 
OCTs. 
 Fragmentation and dispersion of aid not tackled (missed 
opportunity) (poverty reduc tion, socio-economic/ 
environmental impact) 
Risk of overlaps among donors. 
Parallel, but no coordinated EU /Member State interventions 
for OCTs 
Less efficient use of EU taxpayers' money  
In the long run, EU aid loses relevance and legitimacy 
because of lower impact  
 
5.3.2.  Alternative option: allow more coor dination with EU Member States 
Sub-option A: Joint programming with EU Me mber States becomes a binding modality 
 
EN 34   EN Strengths Weaknesses 
The overarching objectives of poverty 
reduction/eradication, su stainable development, 
integration of ACP countries into the world economy 
remain at the centre of the EU development cooperation  
EDF integrates the new objec tives for EU cooperation 
with OCTs: strengthening OCT competitiveness and 
resilience and promoting regi onal cooperation with OCTs  
Increased coordination and better division of labour 
among donors reduces aid fragmentation and transaction costs (poverty reduction, socio-economic impact) 
Strengthened role for COM in initiating and coordinating 
division of labour 
Better alignment of the EU and Member States 
programmes with OCTs
 
 Variety in partners on the ground not taken into account  
(political, economic or security  conditions for instance) 
High transaction costs in the short term (coordination efforts, 
administrative delays) in all partners  
Risk of higher administrative burden, in particular in partners 
where this is not easily attain able due to the variety of 
situations 
Risk of long administrative delays  or impossibility to find an 
agreement on programming in particular in partners where 
this is not easily attainable due to variety of situations 
 
  
 
 
Sub-option B:  Allow reinforcing Joint programming with EU Member States 
Strengths Weaknesses 
The overarching objectives of poverty 
reduction/eradication, su stainable development, 
integration of ACP countries into the world economy 
remain at the centre of the EU development cooperation  
EDF integrates the new objec tives for EU cooperation 
with OCTs: strengthening OCT competitiveness and 
resilience and promoting regi onal cooperation with OCTs   
Increased coordination and better division of labour 
among donors reduces aid fragmentation and transaction 
costs of both the Commission and partner countries, 
thereby increasing the efficiency of aid (poverty 
reduction, socio-economic impact) 
Strengthened role for COM in initiating and coordinating 
division of labour 
Higher leverage in joint pol itical and policy dialogues 
with partner country governments and civil society. 
Better alignment of the EU and Member States 
programmes with OCTs  
Use of EU managed Trust Funds: Higher political visibility for the EU and for EU taxpayers money, useful 
tool for supporting interna tional negotiations, greater 
coordination and exchange of views amongst EU actors
 In the short to medium term , administrative burden for COM 
(and MS): more complex proce dures, increased coordination 
efforts, administrative dela ys in programming phase  
In the short to medium term , higher transaction costs for 
Member States and for COM (transfer /training of staff) 
=> mitigated by gradual approach taking into account the 
variety of situations in partners 
Less ownership and decision power from COM within a 
coordinated approach  
Use of EU managed Trust Funds:  Risk of loss of coherence 
of Aid delivery due to parallel  and potentially independent 
programming processes  
 
5.4. Innovative financial instruments 
5.4.1.  Status quo option 
 
EN 35   EN Strengths Weaknesses 
The overarching objectives of poverty 
reduction/eradication, su stainable development, 
integration of ACP countries into the world economy 
remain at the centre of the EU development cooperation.  EDF does not integrate th e new objectives for EU 
cooperation with OCTs: stre ngthening OCT competitiveness 
and resilience and promoting regional cooperation with 
OCTs.  
 Insufficient critical mass in certain partners and inability to 
do large-scale projects  
Impact of EU grants not maximised (pove rty reduction, 
socio-economic impact, sustainable development) 
Use of EU taxpayers' money not sufficiently efficient  
 
5.4.2.  Alternative option: allow an increased use of innovative financial instruments 
 
Sub-option A:  Compulsory use of blending mechanisms 
Strengths Weaknesses 
The overarching objectives of poverty 
reduction/eradication, su stainable development, 
integration of ACP countries into the world economy 
remain at the centre of the EU development cooperation. 
EDF integrates the new objec tives for EU cooperation 
with OCTs: strengthening OCT competitiveness and 
resilience and promoting regi onal cooperation with OCTs   
incentives to attract financial institutions in EU partners 
and private sector investors Æ drivers for growth in the 
partner  
Increased critical mass in certain partners, ability to do 
larger-scale projects, valu e for money (socio-economic 
impact) 
Financial leverage of EU grant resources (multiplier 
effect, potential for much greater impact) 
Much stronger coordination between the EU, the 
European Financing Institutions and other actors 
Potential gain for EU political visibility when blending 
with European financial institutions 
 
 Strong risk of market distortion resulting by using grant 
funding to blend with loans or other risk-sharing instruments 
in situations where the financ ial institutions and the private 
sector would have otherwise also engaged in the activity. 
Disparity of partners' situa tions not taken into account 
Risk of increased debt of the partner country (+knock-on 
negative effect on EU reputation) 
Loss of visibility/ownership for the Commission in blending 
mechanisms  
Absolutely not applicable in all sectors 
Certainly not applicable to all types of activities the EC wants 
to support 
 
 
Sub-option B: Increased us e of blending mechanisms 
Strengths Weaknesses 
The overarching objectives of poverty 
reduction/eradication, su stainable development, 
integration of ACP countries into the world economy 
remain at the centre of the EU development cooperation. 
EDF integrates the new objec tives for EU cooperation  
 
EN 36   EN with OCTs: strengthening OCT competitiveness and 
resilience and promoting regi onal cooperation with OCTs  
Additional incentives to attract financial institutions in 
EU partners and private sector investors Æ drivers for 
growth in the partner  
Increased critical mass in certain partners, ability to do 
larger-scale projects, valu e for money (socio-economic 
impact) 
Financial leverage of EU grant resources (multiplier 
effect, potential for much greater impact) 
Much stronger coordination between the EU, the 
European Financing Institutions and other actors  
Harmonization of procedur es, while supporting Paris 
declaration and Accra agenda as far as development 
cooperation is concerned 
Potential gain for EU political visibility when blending 
with European financial institutions. 
 In the short to medium term : need to continue on going 
efforts to further develop the coordination on donor and 
European Financing Institutions side 
In the short to medium term  : impact on human resources 
(need for new skills, capacity-building/training programmes); 
nevertheless, developing new skills  should also be seen as an 
opportunity 
Depending on the financial instru ment there might be less 
visibility/ownership for the Commission in blending mechanisms (e.g. in case of in terest rate subsidy; multiple 
partners including financial institutions) than in aid fully 
based on grants 
If sovereign lending to the ACP State itself: increase debt  of 
the partner country (+knock-on negative effect on EU 
reputation) 
=> mitigated by concessionality and subsidisied interest rates 
in accordance with HIPC* framework of equivalent 
Tendency to have these mechanisms  concentrated in the 
hands of the headquarters and ri sk of inconsistencies with 
national programming Æ necessity to complement with more 
in-country coordination, involvement of EU delegations is 
essential also for assessing the projects 
 
 
5.5. Flexibility  
5.5.1.  Status quo option 
Strengths Weaknesses 
The overarching objectives of poverty 
reduction/eradication, su stainable development, 
integration of ACP countries into the world economy remain at the centre of the EU development cooperation.  EDF does not integrate th e new objectives for EU 
cooperation with OCTs: stre ngthening OCT competitiveness 
and resilience and promoting regional cooperation with 
OCTs.
 
 Insufficiently adapted response to partners' specific situations 
(poverty reduction, socio-econ omic impact, sustainable 
development/environmental im pact) – including crisis / 
transition / fragility situations 
Higher risks of inefficiency, affecting COM/EU reputation  
Use of EU taxpayers' money not sufficiently efficient  
 
5.5.2.  Alternative option: increase flexibility within the EDF 
First pillar: EDF Reserves  
Sub-option A: Large amount of funds kept unallocated 
Strengths Weaknesses 
 
EN 37   EN The overarching objectives of poverty 
reduction/eradication, su stainable development, 
integration of ACP countries into the world economy 
remain at the center of the EU development cooperation. 
EDF integrates the new objec tives for EU cooperation 
with OCTs: strengthening OCT competitiveness and 
resilience and promoting regi onal cooperation with OCTs  
Possibility to quickly adapt aid allocations taking into 
account evolving circumstances in ACPs and OCTs 
(poverty reduction, socio-ec onomic and environmental 
impact)  
 Very low predictability of funding 
=> can impair development of structural reforms and long 
term development 
=> could undermine overarching objectives of EU 
cooperation 
High reputational risk for COM: possible criticism over lack 
of transparency, predominance of political considerations, 
subjectivity 
Could undermine objective of more concentration of EU 
funding 
 
 
Sub-option B: Increased funding kept aside for topping-ups 
Strengths Weaknesses 
The overarching objectives of poverty 
reduction/eradication, su stainable development, 
integration of ACP countries into the world economy 
remain at the center of the EU development cooperation. 
EDF integrates the new objec tives for EU cooperation 
with OCTs: strengthening OCT competitiveness and 
resilience and promoting regi onal cooperation with OCTs  
Spare resources  
Possibility to quickly adapt aid allocations taking into 
account evolving circumstances; more effectiveness 
(poverty reduction, socio-ec onomic and environmental 
impact) as well as changing re lationships in a globalising 
world 
Possibility to implement a more incentives-based 
approach :  
Higher incentive for reform by Partner Countries - every 
country does not automatically receives topping ups 
(socio-economic im pact);In the long term, lower aid 
dependency, reinforces  ow nership from partner country 
(socio-economic impact) 
-More efficient use of EU ta xpayer money (Aid goes less 
to countries that don't deserve it) 
Enhanced reputation of EU/COM as a 
responsible/accountable donor 
For OCTs non programmed aid set aside for rapid 
response to external shocks Less predictability of funding 
Æ this risk can be partially addressed  if  flexibility is  taken 
into account in a more comprehensive framework to support 
the recovery/development of the country 
(more incentives-based approach) :  
Less certainty for partner countries to access its 'full 
allocation' – as calculated unde r current EDF-10 (can impair 
development of larg e-scale projects)  
Reputational risk for COM: po ssible criticism over lack of 
transparency, predominance of political considerations, 
subjectivity 
Risk that choice of actions /programmes for ACP countries 
are less driven by real needs than by opportunities of getting 
additional funds  
 
Second  pillar: Countries in crisis or in situation of fragility  
 
EN 38   EN Sub-option A: No programming for countries in  crisis or in sit uation of fragility 
Strengths Weaknesses 
The overarching objectives of poverty 
reduction/eradication, su stainable development, 
integration of ACP countries into the world economy 
remain at the center of the EU development cooperation. 
EDF integrates the new objec tives for EU cooperation 
with OCTs: strengthening OCT competitiveness and 
resilience and promoting regi onal cooperation with OCTs  
Complete flexibility for rapid EU response to tackle 
situations of these countri es which would improve EU 
reaction capacity to unforeseen needs 
 
 
 Risk of  a case by case/short term approach 
Missed opportunity for political dialogue with 
government/political authorities and no national 
empowerment which is essential to prepare the longer term 
response 
Reputational risk for COM: po ssible criticism over lack of 
transparency, predominance of political considerations 
No predictability of funding for beneficiary country => could 
undermine overarching objectives of EU cooperation 
 
 
Sub-option B: Specific forms of su pport for countries in crisis or in situation of fragility 
Strengths Weaknesses 
The overarching objectives of poverty 
reduction/eradication, su stainable development, 
integration of ACP countries into the world economy 
remain at the center of the EU development cooperation. 
EDF integrates the new objec tives for EU cooperation 
with OCTs: strengthening OCT competitiveness and 
resilience and promoting regi onal cooperation with OCTs  
Allow new forms of cooperation adapted to and 
addressing these situations (a voiding a case by case/short 
term approach) 
Facilitate management of f unding through more flexible 
procedures 
Promotion of coherent strategies involving all 
stakeholders   
For OCTs, possibility of taking into account the notion of 
fragility under certain cond itions in the programming and 
implementation  
Third  pillar: Response strategies  
Sub-option A: Alignment on st rategies of the partners as a compulsory modality 
Strengths Weaknesses 
The overarching objectives of poverty 
reduction/eradication, su stainable development, 
integration of ACP countries into the world economy 
remain at the center of the EU development cooperation. 
EDF integrates the new objec tives for EU cooperation 
with OCTs: strengthening OCT competitiveness and  
 
EN 39   EN resilience and promoting regi onal cooperation with OCTs 
Enhance principle of owners hip of partners and full 
alignment with partner's strategies, institutions and 
procedures Variety in partners on the ground not taken into account  
(political, economic or security  conditions for instance) 
Variety in relevance and quality of national/territorial 
strategies defined by the part ners not taken into account 
=> could undermine relevance and effectiveness of EU 
intervention 
=> could undermine overarching objectives of EU 
cooperation 
 
 
Sub-option B: Alignment on strategies of the partners where possible 
 
Strengths Weaknesses 
The overarching objectives of poverty 
reduction/eradication, su stainable development, 
integration of ACP countries into the world economy 
remain at the center of the EU development cooperation. 
EDF integrates the new objec tives for EU cooperation 
with OCTs: strengthening OCT competitiveness and 
resilience and promoting regi onal cooperation with OCTs   
Enhance principle of ownership of partners of their 
development policie s and strategies 
Full alignment with partner's strategies, institutions and 
procedures  Difficulties to work within a unique multi-annual framework (different cycles of the ACP partner countries)   
 
5.6. Stimulate regional coop eration with OCTs 
5.6.1.  Status quo option 
Strengths Weaknesses 
 EDF does not integrate th e new objectives for EU 
cooperation with OCTs: stre ngthening OCT competitiveness 
and resilience and promoting regional cooperation with 
OCTs.  
 No greater interaction and cooperation between OCTs and their ACP and Outermost Region neighbours 
No better articulation betw een EDF and ERDF resources 
No improved possibilities for OCTs participating in regional 
programmes for ACP countries 
 
 
EN 40   EN 5.6.2.  Alternative option: Allow stimulat ing regional cooperation with OCTs 
 
Sub-option A: Allow stimulating re gional cooperation with OCTs 
 
Strengths Weaknesses 
 
Maximum support to EU objec tive of promoting regional 
cooperation and integration  EDF integrates only one of the three new objectives for EU 
cooperation with OCTs: promoti ng regional cooperation with 
OCTs 
 Situation of isolated OCTs not taken into account (limited 
possibilities for regional cooperation) 
Difficult for the different actors to agree to cooperate 
 
 
 
Sub-option B: Link regional c ooperation resources to th e use of existing regional 
cooperation schemes with ACPs and Outermost Regions 
Strengths Weaknesses 
EDF integrates the new objec tives for EU cooperation 
with OCTs: strengthening OCT competitiveness and 
resilience and promoting regi onal cooperation with OCTs   
Greater interaction and c ooperation between OCTs and 
their ACP and Outermost Region neighbours 
Better articulation between EDF and ERDF resources 
Improved possibilities for OCTs participating in regional 
programmes for ACP countries   
 
 
6. COMPARING THE OPTIONS  
6.1. Weighing of positive and negative impacts per 
option 
 
 Status quo options Alternative options 
Options 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5a 5b 5c 6 
Sub-options       A B A B A B A B A B A B A B A B 
General 
objective: 
Contribute to 
poverty + 
 + + + + 
 + + 
  ++ +/- ++ + ++ 
 +/- ++ +/- ++ +/- ++ +/- ++   
 
EN 41   EN reduction and 
eventually 
poverty 
eradication, 
enhance 
sustainable 
development 
and integration 
of the ACP 
countries into 
the world 
economy 
   
General 
objective: 
EDF integrates 
the new 
objectives for 
EU cooperation 
with OCTs: 
strengthening 
OCT 
competitiveness 
and resilience 
and promoting 
regional 
cooperation 
with OCTs - - - - - - + ++ + ++ + ++ + ++ + ++ + ++ + ++ +/- ++ 
Specific 
objective 1: 
Increased 
differentiation 
between EU partners  +/- 
      + 
 + +                
Specific 
objective 2: 
Increased 
concentration of 
EU cooperation 
activities  -       + + +              
Specific 
objective 3: 
Increased 
coordination 
with EU 
Member States in partners   
-        + + +            
Specific 
objective 4: 
Increased use of 
innovative 
financial 
instruments    -         + + +          
Specific 
objective 5: 
Increased     +          + ++ + ++ + ++   
 
EN 42   EN flexibility 
within the EDF 
Specific 
objective 6: 
Stimulate 
regional 
cooperation 
with OCTs      -                +/- ++ 
 
 
6.2.  Preferred option 
As reflected in the table above, the comparison of the options shows that for each specific 
objective identified (including in the three pillars regarding flexibility), the second sub-
option of the alternative op tion is the preferred option  as the best approach to tackle the 
problems identified and to respond to the genera l and specific objectives developed above (see 
chapters 2.3 and 3.1): 
− Regarding differentiation , a sharpened geographical focus would lead to targeting 
resources where they are most needed and ha ve the greatest possi ble impact and value 
added in ACPs and OCTs. With the more advanced partners, the EU would define alternative forms of cooperation and dialogue  through the most appropriate policy mix. 
− Regarding concentration , a sharpened sectoral focus w ould contribute to the higher 
impact of EU aid by concentrating resour ces on a limited number of sectors, thus 
increasing the EU's critical mass. The risk of  loosing visibility for the EU in certain 
sectors at country level would have to be mitigated by effective division of labour and 
increased coordination with other funding sources. 
− Regarding coordination with EU Member States , the efficiency and the political 
leverage of EU aid could be reinforced through increased divi sion of labour among 
donors, joint programming and use of EU Trust Funds. 
− Regarding use of innovative financial instruments , the financial leverage of EU grant 
resources would be increased through blending with loans from financing institutions and 
other risk-sharing mechanisms, as well as the cr itical mass in particular for large-scale 
projects.  
− Regarding flexibility , aid allocations could be adapte d rapidly to take into account 
evolving circumstances or specific  situations (such as crisis, fr agility or transition), or to 
implement a more incentives-based appro ach, thereby increasing effectiveness and 
reactivity of EU aid as well as ownership of partners. 
− Regarding regional cooperation with OCTs , efficiency and impact of EU resources 
would be reinforced through better ar ticulation between EDF and EU regional 
cooperation resources as well as participa tion of OCTs in regi onal programmes with 
ACPs. 
 
EN 43   EN This therefore justifies the Comm ission proposals that consist in maintaining the broad structure 
of the 10th EDF while allowing the implementa tion of the principles of differentiation and 
concentration, strengthened coordination with EU Member States and further flexibility. The 11th 
EDF would thereby reflect the re vised policy orientations of EU  development policy and the new 
orientations for EU-OCTs relationship, whic h would contribute to further increase the 
effectiveness and maximise the impact of  EU funding for ACP countries and OCTs. 
These options will contribute to reinforcing simplification and coherence with the other financial 
instruments. For example keeping aside more re serves at national and regional level will allow 
better interaction with humanitarian aid and with the Instrument for Stability by allowing the continuation of programs financed under these two instruments in post-cris is situations (for 
instance in Burkina Faso where EDF intervened on rehabilitation and food security, complementary to humanitarian assistance by ECHO).  
7. M
ONITORING AND EVALUATION  
7.1. Core indicators of progress towards objectives  
The essential elements and the basis for the EU intervention are described in the EDF 
Implementing Regulation. The exact actions ar e defined through annu al action programmes 
detailing the activities to be carried out by the EU, including the objectives pursued by the actions 
in question and the expected resu lts. Specific indicators are fixed at that moment, having in mind 
the particularities of the action in question. Th e implementation of these actions complies with 
performance-based management. Performance based management* serves several purposes: 
making the most of limited resources; improving decision making proce sses and decisions; 
achieving transparency and accountability. 
Regarding the EDF, the results of EU assistance  on poverty eradication are measured using as far 
as possible specific and measurable  indicators. Particular attent ion is given to progress made 
towards achieving the MDGs* (in addition, see Annex IV) 
The EU has committed itself to mainstreaming actio n on climate and biodiversity and for this to 
be meaningful it needs to be accompanied by an obligation to identify relevant programmes so 
that the EU is able to set out clearly how much of  its spending relates to these global challenges. 
Clear benchmarks, monitoring an d reporting rules need to be established. Expenditure that 
promotes climate action20 or energy efficiency as well as the protection and sustainable 
management of biodiversity and ecosystems, will  be tracked using a system that reflects the 
established OECD methodology ('Rio markers').  
7.2. Outline for monitoring and ev aluation arrangements  
The European Commission's Monitoring and Eval uation systems are increasingly focused on 
results. They involve internal staff as well as external expertise. The monitoring system in use 
under the 10th EDF will continue to be applied for the implementation of the 11th EDF through 
the following instruments:  
- Task Managers in Delegations and Headquarter s continuously monitor the implementation of 
projects and programmes in various ways, in cluding wherever possible through field visits. 
Monitoring provides valuable information on progres s; it helps managers to identify actual and 
potential bottlenecks, and to take corrective action. 
 
EN 44   EN - External, independent experts ar e contracted to assess the perfor mance of EU external actions 
through three different systems. These assessmen ts contribute to accountability, and to the 
improvement of ongoing interventions; they also dr aw lessons from past experience to inform 
future policies and actions. The tools all use the internationally -recognised OECD-DAC 
evaluation criteria including (potential) impact. 
- At the project level, the Headquarters-mana ged Results Oriented Monitoring (ROM) system 
provides a brief, focused snapshot of the quality  of a sample of interventions. Using a highly 
structured, standardised methodol ogy, independent ROM experts attribute grades which highlight 
the strengths and weaknesses of the project and give recommendations on how to improve 
effectiveness. This system covers approxima tely 600 projects per year in the ACP region. 
- Project-level evaluations, whic h are managed by the EU Delegati on in charge of the project, 
deliver a more detailed, in depth analysis a nd help project managers to improve ongoing and 
future interventions. External, independent expe rts with thematic and geographic expertise are 
hired to conduct the analysis and gather feedba ck and evidence from all stakeholders, not least 
the final beneficiaries. 
- The Commission also conducts st rategic evaluations of its pol icies, from programming and 
strategy to the implementation of interventions in a specific sector (such as health, education etc), 
in a country or region, or of a sp ecific instrument. These evaluations  are an important input to the 
formulation of policies and the design of instruments and project s. These evaluations are all 
published on the Commission's website and a summa ry of the findings is included in the Annual 
Report to the Council and th e European Parliament. 
 
EN 45   EN Annexes and footnotes  
Annex I  
A) List of Overseas Countries and T erritories (OCTs) mentioned in 
Annex II to the Treaty on the F unctioning of the European Union  
 
Overseas Country or Territory EU Member 
State 
Greenland Denmark 
New Caledonia and Dependencies, French Polynesia, French Southern and Antarctic Territories, Wallis and Futuna Islands, Mayotte, Saint Pierre and Miquelon France 
Aruba, Netherland Antilles (Bonaire, Curaçao, 
Saba, Sint Eustatius, Sint Maarten), The Netherlands 
Anguilla, Bermuda*, British Virgin Islands, 
Cayman Islands, Falkland Islands, South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands, Montserrat, Pitcairn, Saint Helena, Ascension and Tristan da Cunha , British Antarctic 
Territories, British Indian Ocean Territories, Turks and Caicos Islands,  United Kingdom 
*The Overseas Association Decision 2001/822/EC applies to all OCTs listed in Annex II to the Treaty, except for 
Bermuda, which has requested not to fall under the Decision 
 
B) List of ACP States (Cotonou agreement)  
Angola - Antigua and Barbuda - Belize - Cape Verde - Comoros - Bahamas - Barbados - Benin - 
Botswana - Burkina Faso - Burundi - Camer oon - Central African Re public - Chad - Congo 
(Brazzaville) - Congo (Kinsh asa) - Cook Islands - Cote d'Ivoire - Cuba * - Djibouti - Dominica - 
Dominican Republic - Eritrea - Ethiopia - Fiji - Gabon - Gambia - Ghana - Grenada - Republic of 
Guinea - Guinea-Bissau - Equatorial Guinea - G uyana - Haiti - Jamaica - Kenya - Kiribati - 
Lesotho - Liberia - Madagascar - Malawi - Mali  - Marshall Islands - Mauritania - Mauritius - 
Micronesia - Mozambique - Namibia - Nauru - Ni ger - Nigeria - Niue - Palau - Papua New 
Guinea - Rwanda - St. Kitts and Nevis - St. Luci a - St. Vincent and the Grenadines - Solomon 
Islands - Samoa - Sao Tome and Principe - Senega l - Seychelles - Sierra Leone - Somalia - South 
Africa - Sudan - Suriname - Swaziland - Tanzania - Timor Leste - Togo - Tonga - Trinidad and 
Tobago - Tuvalu - Uganda - Vanuatu - Zambia - Zimbabwe  
 * Cuba is part of the ACP group since 2000, but it is not a signatory of the Cotonou Agreement. 
 
EN 46   EN Annex II:    Glossary 
Accra Agenda for Action  (2008): Designed to strengthen and deepen implementation of the 
Paris Declaration, it takes stock of progress an d sets the agenda for accelerated advancement 
towards the Paris targets. It proposes three main  areas for improvement, i.e. ownership, inclusive 
partnerships and delivering results. 
ACP Investment Facility : The ACP Investment Facility is a risk-bearing instrument (using 
loans, equities and guarantees) with a total capital endowment  under the 9th and 10th EDF of 
EUR 3,1 billion. It is structured as a revolving fund aimed at bein g financially sustainable over 
the 20-year horizon of the Cotonou Agreement. Th e Investment Facility is devoted to support 
ACP endogenous investments. 
Aid allocation: The EU presence in all ACP countries is built on objective and transparent 
criteria for resource allocation, based on needs and performance and set by the European Consensus and the Cotonou Agreement. In this  perspective, an aid allocation model was 
developed under the 10th EDF according to the requirements of the Internal Agreement. For OCTs the allocation takes into account the size  of the population, the level of Gross National 
Product, the level and use of prev ious EDF allocations, constraint s due to geographical isolation 
and structural and other obstacles  of the least developed OCTs.  
Aid Fragmentation : the report considers mainly fragment ation of aid across countries. It is 
different from fragment ation of aid within countries, us ually measured by donor spread across 
sectors at country level and small project size. An associate concept is that  of proliferation, i.e. 
number of Donors providing ODA to a given beneficiary country in specific sectors. 
Fragmentation is also associated with the numbe r of aid activities (i.e. number of projects'). 
Blending mechanisms (or Innovative financial instruments):  Blending mechanisms consist in 
combining grants with repayable financing to increase aid impact and enhance private sector 
investment. For example, the EU Africa Infrastr ucture Trust Fund is an  innovative instrument 
blending grants from 9th and 10th EDF (EUR 308 million) and grants from 12 Member States 
(EUR 74 million), with loans from European fi nancing institutions (EIB, KfW, AFD, LuxDev, 
and others) for regional projects . In addition, Water and Energy facilities (pooling mechanisms) 
are financed under the EDF for small projects 
Budget Support : Budget support is an aid delivery instru ment that is increasingly prominent in 
EU cooperation with third countries (25% of all commitments over 2003-2009), consisting in the 
transfer of financial resources of an external  financing agency to the National Treasury of a 
partner country, following the respect by the latter of agreed conditions for payment. 
Cash-on-delivery:  Cash-on-delivery as modality of financing has been developed by the Centre 
for Global Development (Washington, D.C.), under wh ich a contract is si gned between the donor 
and the third party or government that implements an activity, and where payment only takes place after the result or output has been delivered.  
Common Framework for Country Strategy Papers : European Commission and Member 
States agreed to develop and use one single format for writing their country strategies, in order to 
facilitate alignment and division of labour. 
Code of Conduct on Complementarity and the Division of Labour in Development Policy : 
The Code of Conduct was agreed in 2007 (COM/2007/ 72) and presents operat ional principles for 
 
EN 47   EN EU donors regarding complementar ity in development cooperati on. Their aim is to enhance 
effectiveness by improving overall development results and impact fo r poverty reduction and 
reducing the transaction costs, throug h a division of labour between donors.  
(A or B) envelopes: ' A-envelopes' are programmable to co ver long-term cooperation whereas 'B-
envelopes' are non programmable allocations to cover unforeseen needs .  
FLEX: Mechanism existing since 2000 aiming at soci o-economic reforms and policies that could 
be affected negatively as a resu lt of a drop in export earnings. 
Food Facility : Global instrument adopted in 2008 as a ra pid response to soaring and volatile food 
prices in developing countries with  a limited duration of three years. 
Fragility (Country in situation of) : State fragility is here defined as a lack of capacity to 
perform basic state functions , where “capacity” encompasses (a) organisational, institutional and 
financial capacity to carry out basic functions of governin g a population and territory, and (b) the 
state’s ability to develop mutually constructiv e and reinforcing relations with society (OECD 
2010). 
Inclusive and sustainable Growth : the meaning is generally referr ed to the labour intensity of 
growth, its geographical or distribu tional impact or its sectoral pa ttern. It supports the case that 
growth associated with progressive distributiona l changes will have greater impact in reducing 
poverty21. The concept of sustainability implies the idea that growth needed to satisfy present 
needs should not compromise the ability of fu ture generations to meet their own needs. 
Intra-ACP envelope: The intra-ACP envelope provides a means to support global challenges 
that are not necessarily geographica l in nature or not n ecessarily supported by  the authorities of 
partner countries, joint EU-ACP and pan-African institutions a nd instruments, including the EU-
Africa Infrastructure Trust Fund and the Energy and Water Facility, the African Peace Facility, 
and to complement and supply national programming.  
Joint Programming : The objective of Joint Programming is  to synchronize progressively the 
EU's and Member States' programming with partner country strategy cycles. Ways of 
approaching this aim include adapting their cycl es, rolling programmes, re-programming after ad-
hoc reviews, etc. 
Least Developed Countries : they represent the poorest countrie s as identified pe riodically by the 
UN on the basis of established cr iteria (low income, w eak human assets, economic vulnerability). 
The current list of LDCs (United Nations) includes 48 countries; 33 in Africa, 14 in Asia and the 
Pacific and one in Latin America.  
Millennium Develo ment Goals (MDGs) : The European Union togeth er with leaders of 189 
countries at the United Nations Millenni um Summit in 2000 committed to a new global 
partnership, focused on eight MDGs to re duce extreme poverty, with a deadline of 2015, by 
setting out a series of time-bound targets.  
Official Development Assistance (ODA) : Flows of official financ ing administered with the 
promotion of the economic development and welf are of developing countries as the main 
objective, and which are concessional in characte r with a grant element of at least 25 percent 
(using a fixed 10 percent rate of discount). 
 
EN 48   EN Paris Declaration  (2005): it lays out a practical, action-or iented roadmap to improve the quality 
of aid and its impact on development. It puts  in place a series of specific implementation 
measures and establishes a monitoring system to assess progress and ensure that donors and 
recipients hold each other accountable for their co mmitments. The Paris Declaration outlines five 
fundamental principles for making aid more effective which are:  
1) Ownership : Partner countries exercise effectiv e leadership over their development 
policies and strategies  and co-ordinate development actions  
2) Alignment : Donors base their overall support on partner count ries' national 
development strategies, institutions and procedures  
3) Harmonisation : Donors' actions are more harmoni zed, transparent and collectively 
effective  
4) Managing for Results : Managing resources and improvi ng decision-making for results  
5) Mutual Accountability : Donors and partners are acc ountable for development results22. 
Performance based management: A performance management system involves the setting of 
objectives, the decision of how to measure progress and the selection of indicators. This implies a 
three-stage process, firstly a sound analysis of the policies  with a common understanding – 
through policy dialogue – of the objectives and of the logical linkages between the objectives, 
activities and outcomes. Next comes the question of identifying what can be measured in relation 
to the objectives, which of the above-mentioned pur poses it serves and the av ailability, reliability 
and precision of statistical data , including such questions as th e frequency of measurement and 
the use of proxy indicators. Finally the decisions need to be codified to the link between the 
programmes, the methods of calculation, the in terpretive framework and the allocation of 
responsibility for their provision. 
Policy Coherence for Development (PCD): The EU seeks to build synergies between policies 
other than development cooperation that have a strong impact on developing countries, for the 
benefit of overseas development. In 2005, the EU  agreed to apply th e Policy Coherence for 
Development approach in 12 po licy areas (trade, environment and climate change, security, 
agriculture, bilateral fisherie s agreements, social policies,  migration, research/innovation, 
information technologies, transport and ener gy) that could acceler ate progress towards 
the Millennium development goals for development23. In November 2009, Council Conclusions 
on PCD reaffirmed these commitments and approved the initial selection of five priority areas 
where the EU will take account of development obj ectives in a more pro- active way: trade and 
finance, climate change, food security, migration and security. 
Transition towards knowledge-based societies:  The technology landscape in ACP countries 
dramatically changed over the last 10 year s, as highlighted by the information and 
communication technologies (ICTs) uptake in those countries. The growing availability and 
affordability of ICTs, including mobile technologies and internet, offer real opportunities to provide access to basic services as well as leapfrog socio- economic growth, and to bring about 
innovation and have an important impact on job creation in th e countries.     
Vulnerability Flex (V-FLEX) : Ad-hoc temporary scheme which has allocated re sources in 2009 
and 2010 to address the fall out of  the global financial crisis. 
 
 
EN 49   EN Annex III:    List of acronyms 
ACP: African, Caribbean and Pacific States 
CFSP: Common Foreign and Security Policy CSDP: Common Security and Defense Policy CSP: country strategy paper  
DAC: Development Assistance Committee 
DCI: Development Cooperation Instrument DoL: Division of Labour EDF: European Development Fund EIB: European Investment Bank 
ERDF: European regional Development Fund 
EEAS: European External Action Service EIDHR: European Instrument for Human Rights and Democracy ENPI: European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument GDP: Gross Domestic Product GNI: Gross National Income  
IAB: Impact Assessment Board 
IFIs/EFIs: International/Eur opean Financial Institutions 
IFS: Instrument for Stability JAES: Joint Africa-EU Strategy LDCs: Least Developed Countries 
LICs: Low Income Countries 
MDGs: Millennium Development Goals  MFF: Multi-Annual Financial Framework NAO: National Authorising Officer OAD: Overseas Association Decision OCTs: Overseas Countries and Territories 
ODA: Official Development Assistance 
PCD: Policy Coherence for Development  ROM: Results Oriented Monitoring SSA: Sub-Saharan African countries 
 
EN 50   EN Annex IV: Data/indicators to measure impacts 
A/ List of indicators regarding povert y eradication and socio-economic progre ss of ACP countries (off track on MDGs)  
Source and Notes  
− MDG Index :  MDGDASH Board (JRC-Ispra) : http://esl.jrc.it/dc/  
− Human Development Index (HDI) - 2009 Report – United Nations Development Programme (UNDP): http://hdr.undp.org/en/statistics/  
− Fragility list : International Network on Co nflict and Fragility (INCAF)-Organisation fo r Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) ( 2010)  
− Least Developed Countries (LDC): United Nations list 
− Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIP C) - list and reserve from World Bank 
− Needs shows various indexes published by HDI-UNDP (Gender 0=worse; 1 =best), by World Health Organization (WHO) and UNICEF (Wat er- higher % =better ;  
− Health - Highest Index= worse situation), by UNESCO (Education - Highest Index=worse situation) and by International Food Polic y research Institute- IPFRI (Food security-
Global Hunger Index ) : Highest Index= worse situation   
− Performance is based on Country Policy and Institutional Assessmen t (CPIA) - The World Bank 2008. Scale: 1 = Lowest , 6=Highest   
− ODA and Population Data are from OECD-Development A ssistance Committee (DAC) (Aid at Glance) - 2008.  
 
ACP 
Countries  MDG 
Index 
(rank) HDI 
Index  LDC Fragili
ty List  HPIC Reserv
e  
in 
months 
of 
import
s Gender
-
related 
Dev 
Index Water 
and 
sanitati
on - % 
use of 
sanitati
on 
facility Health 
Index Educat
ion 
Index Food 
Securit
y GHI 
2009 CPIA  
  Total 
Net 
ODA 
US $ 
mill 
2008 Popula
tion 
(millio
ns)  ODA 
per 
capita 
  Indicators of Vulnerability Sector needs Policy 
perfor
mance ODA 
Chad 186 175 ● ● ● n.a. 0,380 9 2,982 1,641 31.3 2.5 416 11,1 37,5 
Niger 245 182 ● ● ● 5 0,308 9 2,545 1,974 28.8 3.3 605 14,7 41,2 
 
EN 51   EN ACP 
Countries  MDG 
Index 
(rank) HDI 
Index  LDC Fragili
ty List  HPIC Reserv
e  
in 
months 
of 
import
s Gender
-
related 
Dev 
Index Water 
and 
sanitati
on - % 
use of 
sanitati
on 
facility Health 
Index Educat
ion 
Index Food 
Securit
y GHI 
2009 CPIA  
  Total 
Net 
ODA 
US $ 
mill 
2008 Popula
tion 
(millio
ns)  ODA 
per 
capita 
  Indicators of Vulnerability Sector needs Policy 
perfor
mance ODA 
Sierra Leone 269 180 ● ● ● 4 0,354 13 3,102 1,319 33.8 3.1 367 5,6 65,5 
Congo, Dem. 
Rep. 330 176 ● ● ● n.a. 0,370 23 2,654 1,368 39.1 2.7 1.610 64 25,2 
Mali 337 178 ●   ● 4 0,353 36 2,736 1,694 19.5 3.7 964 12,7 75,9 
Liberia 361 169 ● ● ● 1 0,430 17 2,710 1,948 24.6 n.a. 1.250 3,8 328,9 
Guinea-
Bissau 367 173 ● ● ● 6 0,381 21 2,217 2,012 23.1 2.6 132 1,6 82,5 
Central 
African Rep 370 179 ● ● ● n.a. 0,354 34 3,494 1,931 28.1 2.5 256 4,4 58,2 
Haiti 376 149 ● ● ● 2 n.a. 17 1,739 0,477 28.2 2.9 912 9,8 93,1 
Mozambique 387 172 ●   ● 4 0,395 17 2,400 1,389 25.3 3.7 1.994 21,8 91,5 
Eritrea 393 165 ● ● ● n.a. 0,459 14 1,405 1,554 36.5 2.3 143 5 28,6 
 
EN 52   EN ACP 
Countries  MDG 
Index 
(rank) HDI 
Index  LDC Fragili
ty List  HPIC Reserv
e  
in 
months 
of 
import
s Gender
-
related 
Dev 
Index Water 
and 
sanitati
on - % 
use of 
sanitati
on 
facility Health 
Index Educat
ion 
Index Food 
Securit
y GHI 
2009 CPIA  
  Total 
Net 
ODA 
US $ 
mill 
2008 Popula
tion 
(millio
ns)  ODA 
per 
capita 
  Indicators of Vulnerability Sector needs Policy 
perfor
mance ODA 
Guinea 394 170 ● ● ● 1 0,425 19 2,717 1,303 18.2 3.0 319 9,8 32,6 
Djibouti 398 155 ● ●   3 0,514 56 1,917 1,954 22.9 3.1 121 0,8 151,3 
Sudan 398 150 ● ● ● 1 0,516 34 2,585 1,275 19.6 2.5 2.384 41,3 57,7 
Angola 399 143 ● ●   4 n.a. 57 3,711 1,044 25.3 2.7 369 18 20,5 
Burundi 401 174 ● ● ● 6 0,390 46 2,592 1,490 38.7 3.0 509 8,1 62,8 
Ethiopia 412 171 ● ● ● 1 0,403 12 2,099 1,541 30.8 3.4 3.327 80,7 41,2 
Burkina 
Faso 416 177 ●   ● 5 0,383 11 2,217 1,788 20.4 3.7 998 15,2 65,7 
Madagascar 419 145 ●   ● 3 0,541 11 1,777 0,686 28.3 3.7 841 19,1 44,0 
Mauritania 438 154 ●   ● n.a. 0,516 26 2,127 0,836 22.1 3.3 311 3,2 97,2 
Ivory Coast 443 163   ● ● 3 0,468 23 2,095 0,997 14.5 2.7 617 20,6 30,0 
 
EN 53   EN ACP 
Countries  MDG 
Index 
(rank) HDI 
Index  LDC Fragili
ty List  HPIC Reserv
e  
in 
months 
of 
import
s Gender
-
related 
Dev 
Index Water 
and 
sanitati
on - % 
use of 
sanitati
on 
facility Health 
Index Educat
ion 
Index Food 
Securit
y GHI 
2009 CPIA  
  Total 
Net 
ODA 
US $ 
mill 
2008 Popula
tion 
(millio
ns)  ODA 
per 
capita 
  Indicators of Vulnerability Sector needs Policy 
perfor
mance ODA 
Congo, 
(Rep) 444 136   ● ● 3 0,594 30 2,434 1,036 15.4 2.7 505 3,6 140,3 
Togo 462 159 ● ● ● 4 n.a. 12 1,830 1,036 23.1 2.7 330 6,5 50,8 
Cameroon 468 153   ● ● 4 0,515 47 2,407 1,080 17.9 3.2 525 18,9 27,8 
Rwanda 470 167 ● ● ● 5 0,459 54 2,304 0,803 25.4 3.7 931 9,7 96,0 
Papua New 
Guinea 476 148   ●   3 n.a. 45 1,800 0,772 n.a. 3.3 304 6,4 47,5 
Benin 481 161 ●   ● 7 0,477 12 1,858 1,141 17.2 3.6 641 8,7 73,7 
Comoros 482 139 ● ● ● n.a. 0,571 36 2,717 n.a. 26.9 2.3 37 0,6 61,7 
Malawi 484 160 ●   ● 2 0,490 56 2,156 1,099 18.5 3.4 913 14,3 63,8 
Senegal 484 166 ●   ● 4 0,457 51 1,737 0,910 17.3 3.6 1.058 12,2 86,7 
Lesotho 488 156 ●     5 0,509 29 2,633 1,136 12.0 3.5 143 2 71,5 
 
EN 54   EN ACP 
Countries  MDG 
Index 
(rank) HDI 
Index  LDC Fragili
ty List  HPIC Reserv
e  
in 
months 
of 
import
s Gender
-
related 
Dev 
Index Water 
and 
sanitati
on - % 
use of 
sanitati
on 
facility Health 
Index Educat
ion 
Index Food 
Securit
y GHI 
2009 CPIA  
  Total 
Net 
ODA 
US $ 
mill 
2008 Popula
tion 
(millio
ns)  ODA 
per 
capita 
  Indicators of Vulnerability Sector needs Policy 
perfor
mance ODA 
Uganda 492 157 ● ● ● 7 0,509 48 2,260 0,722 14.8 3.9 1.657 31,7 52,3 
Zambia 492 164 ●   ● 2 0,473 49 2,625 0,695 25.7 3.5 1.086 12,6 86,2 
Swaziland 502 142       3 0,568 55 2,359 0,535 11.1 n.a. 67 1,2 55,8 
Tanzania 523 151 ●   ● 5 0,527 24 2,219 0,670 21.1 3.8 2.331 42,5 54,8 
Zimbabwe 524 n.a.   ●   n.a. n.a. 44 2,219 0,824 21.0 n.a. 611 12,5 48,9 
Kenya 528 147   ●   3 0,538 31 2,104 0,600 20.2 3.6 1.360 38,5 35,3 
Gambia 532 168 ● ● ● 3 0,452 67 1,903 1,245 18.9 3.2 94 1,7 55,3 
Ghana 570 152     ● 3 0,524 13 1,636 0,899 11.5 3.9 1.293 23,4 55,3 
Solomon 
Islands 590 135 ● ●   4 n.a. - 0,909 n.a. n.a. 2.8 224 0,5 448,0 
Gabon  594 103       2 0,748 33 1,748 0,116 6.9 n.a. 55 1,4 39,3 
 
EN 55   EN ACP 
Countries  MDG 
Index 
(rank) HDI 
Index  LDC Fragili
ty List  HPIC Reserv
e  
in 
months 
of 
import
s Gender
-
related 
Dev 
Index Water 
and 
sanitati
on - % 
use of 
sanitati
on 
facility Health 
Index Educat
ion 
Index Food 
Securit
y GHI 
2009 CPIA  
  Total 
Net 
ODA 
US $ 
mill 
2008 Popula
tion 
(millio
ns)  ODA 
per 
capita 
  Indicators of Vulnerability Sector needs Policy 
perfor
mance ODA 
Kiribati 686 n.a. ● ●   n.a. n.a. - 1,013 0,613 n.a. 3.0 27 0,1 270,0 
Sao Tome 
Principe 711 131 ● ● ● 5 n.a. 26 1,190 0,306 n.a. 3.0 47 0,2 235,0 
Tonga  787 n.a.   ●   4 n.a. 96 0,569 0,897 n.a. 3.2 26 0,1 260,0 
Timor Leste n.a 162 ● ●   n.a. n.a. 50 1,538 1,376 25.4 2.8 278 1,13 246,0 
Somalia n.a. n.a. ● ● ● n.a. n.a. 23 3,209 1,929 n.a. n.a. 758 9 84,2 
 
 
EN 56   EN  B/ Indicators of progress of Sub-Saharan Af rica and Caribbean regions regarding MDGs (data 
taken from MDG report 2011, United Nations)  
 
  indicator   time 
frame Sub-Saharan 
Africa Caribbean Developing 
countries 
(average) 
MDG 1    1990 58 29 45
  population living on less than 1 
dollar per day 
  2005 51 26 27
MDG 
2    1999 54 68 81
  primary school enrolment ratio 
  2009 76 76 89
1991 83 99 87 primary 
school 
2009 92 96 96
1991 86 112 78
 secondary 
school 
2009 79 104 96
1991 53 135 71
MDG 
3 girls enrolment ratio/boys 
enrolment ratio 
tertiary 
school 
2009 63 161 97
MDG 
4   1990 180 76 99
  under-five mortality per 1000 live 
births 
  2009 129 48 66
MDG 
5   1990 87 32 44
  maternal death per 10000 live 
births 
  2008 64 17 29
MDG 
6   2001 57 9 9
  new HIV infections per 10000 
people aged 15-49 
  2009 40 8 8
MDG 
7 
(only 7.c)   1990 49 - 72
  % of population having access to 
improved water sources  
  2008 60 - 84
 
 
EN 57   EN C/ Indicators regarding trad e integration of Africa (int egration in the world economy)  
Share of Africa exports in world exports in % 
 2000 2009 
Agricultural 
products 3.4% 3.3% 
Fuel and 
mining 10.2% 10.9% 
Manufactures .8% .3% 
All products 1.5% 1.5% 
Source WTO Data bank; own calculation 
Change of manufacture exports / Ratio 2009 to  2000 (export value measured in current US 
dollars)  
 World  Africa EU 27  North 
America Brazil China  India 
World to  1.8 3.0 1.8 1.2 2.3 3.4 4.7 
Africa to  2.0 3.3 1.5 1.9 3.1 5.9 1.9 
EU 27 to 1.8 2.4 1.8 1.2 1.9 4.6 3.2 
North 
America  1.2 2.4 1.3 1.0 1.7 3.4 4.3 
Source: WTO and own calculation; to be read: Afri ca's exports to China measured in current US$ 
has been multiplied by 5.9 between 2000 and 2009 
Comments: The share of Africa in world exports  in current prices is constant since 2000. 
However, the extremely low share of manufactures has declined. On the pos itive side, it should 
be noted that looking at the grow th of manufacture export s, Africa benefits more than Europe or 
North America from the fast growing imports fr om China and Brazil (but not from India).  
 
EN 58   EN D/ Financial amounts regarding EDF funded project s or programmes relevant to environmental 
sectors at large (by decision date)  
 
Main sector Region 2007 2008 2009 2010 
Agriculture ACP     25000000 20000000 
  AFRICA    10000000 
  CARIBBEAN   1900000  
  CENTRAL AFRICA    18000000 
  EASTERN AFRICA & INDIAN 
OCEAN   99400000  
  OCEANIA & PACIFIC    9220000 
  SOUTHERN AFRICA   20300000 32000000 
  SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA    10000000 
  WEST AFRICA 1500000    
  #N/A    23000000 
Agriculture Total   1500000  146600000 122220000 
Climate Change 
Adaptation OCT     
  ACP   12000000  160000000  
  CARIBBEAN 6500000   4300000 
  EASTERN AFRICA & INDIAN 
OCEAN    6320000 
  OCEANIA & PACIFIC 12460000    
  SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA    20000000 
  WEST AFRICA    16000000 
Climate Change Adaptation Total 30960000  160000000 46620000 
Forestry ACP   10000000    
  CENTRAL AFRICA 1496420 15000000  5000000 
  EASTERN AFRICA & INDIAN 
OCEAN  16000000  14000000 
  OCEANIA & PACIFIC   1950000  
  SOUTHERN AFRICA   9700000  
  WEST AFRICA   8000000  
 
EN 59   EN Main sector Region 2007 2008 2009 2010 
Forestry Total   11496420 31000000 19650000 19000000 
Marine and Coastal 
Resources CARIBBEAN 17000000  14800000  
  EASTERN AFRICA & INDIAN 
OCEAN     
  OCEANIA & PACIFIC   37855765  
  SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA     
  WEST AFRICA    4000000 
Marine and Coastal Resources Total 17000000  52655765 4000000 
Pollution Control and 
Waste Management CARIBBEAN 3030000    
  OCEANIA & PACIFIC   4400000  
  WEST AFRICA 5100000    
Pollution Control and Waste Management Total 8130000  4400000  
Protection of Natural 
Areas OCT 2475000    
  ACP      20000000 
  CARIBBEAN  525575   
  CENTRAL AFRICA 4000000 29500000 31000000 30000000 
  EASTERN AFRICA & INDIAN 
OCEAN 150000  3000000  
  OCEANIA & PACIFIC    12000000 
  SOUTHERN AFRICA     
  SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA     
  WEST AFRICA 1500000   17400000 
Protection of Natural Areas Total 8125000 30025575 34000000 79400000 
Renewable Energies 
and Energy 
Efficiency OCT     
  ACP     400000000  
  CARIBBEAN 8737202,3    
  CENTRAL AFRICA 8418251    
  EASTERN AFRICA & INDIAN 50733920  8000000 18000000 
 
EN 60   EN Main sector Region 2007 2008 2009 2010 
OCEAN 
  OCEANIA & PACIFIC 3530341,8  37390000  
  SOUTHERN AFRICA 23439541    
  SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA     
  WEST AFRICA 25397745 3000000  30000000 
Renewable Energies and Energy Efficiency Total 120257000 3000000 445390000 48000000 
Support to 
Environment Policy 
and Capacity 
Building ACP   19500000    
  CARIBBEAN     
  EASTERN AFRICA & INDIAN 
OCEAN 20526000  10000000 10000000 
  NORTH ATLANTIC     
  OCEANIA & PACIFIC 2014000  1600000  
  SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA     
  WEST AFRICA 1000000 5000000 20000000 4000000 
Support to Environment Policy and Capacity Building 
Total 43040000 5000000 31600000 14000000 
Water Management ACP      3000000 
  CARIBBEAN 19606730    
  CENTRAL AFRICA    23000000 
  EASTERN AFRICA & INDIAN 
OCEAN 2771678,4  14700000  
  OCEANIA & PACIFIC   2550000 3900000 
  SOUTHERN AFRICA   18000000 32000000 
  WEST AFRICA 1189103   11400000 
Water Management Total 23567511  35250000 73300000 
Grand Total   264075932 69025575 929545765 406540000 
 
 
EN 61   EN Annex V 
Bibliography: reports covering geog raphic/thematic areas of the EDF, supporting evidence to this 
Impact Assessment  
 TITLE DATE OF 
PUBLICATION 
 
1 Evaluations  
 
1.1 Country/Region Evaluations  
 
 Evaluation of the European Commission's support to the United 
Republic of Tanzania April 2006 
 Evaluation stratégie pays Mali 19/09/2006 
 Evaluation de la coopération de la Commission européenne avec le 
Rwanda – évaluation de niveau pays 16/11/2006 
 Union des Comores – Evaluation de niveau national Novembre 2006 
 Seychelles – Evaluation de niveau national Novembre 2006  Maurice – Evaluation de niveau national Novembre 2006  Evaluation de la stratégie régionale de la CE en Afrique Centrale Décembre 2006  Evaluation of the Commission's support to the ACP Pacific region September 2007 
 Evaluation of the Commission's support to Southern African 
Development Community – SADC – Regional level evaluation October 2007 
 Evaluation of the European Commission's support to the Republic of 
Mozambique – Country level evaluation 14/12/2007 
 Evaluation de la stratégie régionale de la CE en Afrique de l'Ouest Mai 2008 
 Evaluation of the European Commission's support to the Republic of 
Guyana September 2008 
 Evaluation of the Commission's support to the Region of Eastern and 
Southern Africa and the Indian Ocean – Regional level evaluation December 2008 
 Evaluation de la coopération de la Commission européenne avec la 
République du Tchad – évaluation de niveau national Mars 2009 
 Evaluation de la coopération de la Commission européenne avec la 
République Centrafricaine – évaluation de niveau national Juin 2009 
 Country level evaluation Angola September 2009 
 Country level evaluation Uganda November 2009  Evaluation of the European Commission's co-operation with Namibia 
– Country level evaluation 04/12/2009 
 Country level evaluation Botswana December 2009 
 Country level evaluation Nigeria May 2010 
 
EN 62   EN  Evaluation de la coopération de l'Union européenne avec le Burkina 
Faso – évaluation de niveau national 31/05/2010 
 Joint evaluation of the cooperation of the European Commission, 
Belgium, Denmark, France and Luxembourg with Niger between 2000-2008 August 2010 
 Evaluation of EC’s co-operation with Liberia December 2010 
 Region Level Evaluation - Overseas Countries and Territories (OCT) 
(Final Report (2nd Draft)) DRAFT / Ongoing 
 
 
1.2 Instruments / Sector / Thematic Evaluations  
 
 Thematic evaluation of the EC support to good governance June 2006 
 Thematic evaluation of the water and sanitation sector July 2006  Joint evaluation of co-ordination of trade capacity building in partner 
countries November 2006 
 Evaluation of the Commission Support for Statistics in Third 
Countries 15/02/2007 
 Evaluation thématique - Développement rural et agricole July 2007 
 Evaluation of EC support to partner countries in the area of energy April 2008  General Evaluation of Actions to Raise Public Awareness of 
Development Issues in Europe / Development Education EC December 2008 
 Thematic Evaluation of the European Commission support to Conflict 
Prevention and Peace Building – Preliminary study: scoping and 
mapping. Final Report for the Preliminary Study July 2009 
 The Five-Year Evaluation of the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, 
Tuberculosis, and Malaria Synthesis of Study Areas 1, 2 and 3. March 2009 
 Assessment of the results of EC funded activities and future needs in 
the defined areas covered by the Instrument for Stability, priority 1 – 
Final Report July 2010 
 Thematic Evaluation of European Commission Support to Conflict 
Prevention and Peace Building - Concept Study – Final Report for the Concept Study September 2010 
 Qualitative Assessment of EC funded Drugs Related Projects October 2010 
 Thematic global evaluation of EC support to the Education sector in 
partner countries December 2010 
 Lessons learned from evaluating EC interventions in the road sector 
(note ARES) 15/12/2010 
 Study on Legal Instruments and Lessons Learned from the 
Evaluations Managed by the Joint Evaluation Unit (draft desk report, 
vol. 1 & 2) January 2011 
 
 
EN 63   EN 1.3 Aid modalities Evaluations  
 
 Evaluation of general budget support: synthesis report –  A Joint 
Evaluation of General Budget Support 1994-2004 May 2006 
 Evaluation of European Commission support to Micro-Project 
Programmes under the European Development Fund in ACP 
countries August 2006 
 Evaluating co-ordination, complementarity and coherence in EU 
development policy: a synthesis November 2007 
 Evaluation of Commission’s external cooperation with partner 
countries through the organisations of the UN family May 2008 
 Evaluation of Commission's aid delivery through Development banks 
and EIB November 2008 
 Evaluation of EC aid delivery through civil society organisations December 2008 
 Final report of the Experts Working Group on additionality of grants 
in the framework of blending mechanisms, established following a 
decision by the ECOFIN Council in December 2008 December 2009 
 Evaluation Methodology & Baseline Study of European Commission 
Technical Cooperation support Inception Report - Final Version  August 2010 
 
2. Court of Audits Special Reports  
 
 Special report No 6/2006 concerning the environmental aspects of the 
Commission's development cooperation – OJ C 235 29/09/2006 
 Special report No 6/2007 on the effectiveness of technical assistance 
in the context of capacity development together with the 
Commission's replies – OJ C 312 21/12/2007 
 Special report No 10/2008 – EC development assistance to health 
services in Sub-Saharan Africa 2008 
 Special report No 4/2009 – The Commission's management of Non-
State Actors' involvement in EC development cooperation 2009 
 Special report No 15/2009 – EU assistance implemented through 
United Nations organisations: decision-making and monitoring 2009 
 Special report No 18/2009 – Effectiveness of EDF support for regional 
economic integration in East Africa and West Africa 2009 
 Special report No, 11/2010 - Commission's management of General 
Budget Support in ACP, Latin American and Asian countries 2010 
 Special report No. 12/2010 - EU Development Assistance for Basic 
Education in Sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia 2010 
 
  
 
EN 64   EN 3 Internal Audit Service Reports  
 
 IAS-2005-AIDCO/ECHO-001 Implementation of the framework 
agreement with UN agencies 2005 
 IAS-2006-AIDCO-003 Eligibility of Costs under the Financial and 
Administrative Framework Agreement with the United Nations by DG AIDCO 2006 
 AIDCO-2006-AIDCO/DEV-003 Audit on Budget Support – Pool Funds 
and Trust Funds 2006 
 IAS-2007-AIDCO-001 Audit on NGO's funding by DG AIDCO – Fup1 2007 
 IAS-2007-AIDCO-003 Financial Management of Regional Programmes 2007  IAS.B-2008-AIDCO/ECHO-001 Follow up of the FAFA implementation 
with UN in DGs AIDCO and ECHO 2008 
 IAS.B5-2009-AIDCO-004 Follow-up of Eligibility of Costs under FAFA 
with UN 2009 
 IAS.B5-2009-AIDCO-003 Second Follow-up of Audit in NGO Funding 
by DG AIDCO 2009 
 IAS.B5-2010-AIDCO-001 Audit on Programmes Estimates financed by 
EU and EDF Budget 2010 
 IAS.B5-2010-AIDCO-003 Financial Management of Intra ACP 
Programmes, namely facilities 2010 
 
4 Internal Audit Capability Reports  
 
 Budget Support, pool and trust funds 2007 
 Budget Support Conditionality 2008  Contribution to the Annual Activity Report (AAR) 2007 – Summary of 
the results of Audits and follow-up Audits carried out by the IAC in 
2007  (note Adonis 955) 23/01/2008 
 Follow-up Audit on Budget Support, pool and trust funds 2009 
 Follow-up Audit on Management of Budget Support Conditionality 2009  Contribution to the Annual Activity Report (AAR) 2008 – Summary of 
the results of Audits and follow-up Audits carried out by the IAC in 
2008  (note Adonis 2518) 09/02/2009 
 Audit Report on Aid Implementation under Crisis Situation 2010 
 Contribution to the Annual Activity Report (AAR) 2009 – Summary of 
the results of Audits and follow-up Audits carried out by AIDCO's IAC 
in 2009 23/02/2010 
 
5 Synthesis based on Result Oriented Monitoring Reports  
 
 
EN 65   EN  Causes underlying Effectiveness and Impact of EC Development 
Projects – Qualitative study based on ongoing and ex post ROM 
reports (2005-2007)  May 2009 
 Executive Summary (internal): Towards a better use of ROM and 
project evaluations September 2010 
 
6 Mid-Term/End-Term Review of Financial Instruments  
 
6.1 9th EDF  
 
 Explanatory note for the members of the EDF Committee on ACP 
cooperation: End-of term review (ETR) of regional and national cooperation under the 9
th European Development Fund - Note Adonis 
n. 8062 14/12/2006 
 Report on the 9th EDF End-of-term review – For internal Commission 
use only – Note Adonis D(2007) 3936 26/09/2007 
 Evaluation 9th EDF End-of-term review – For internal Commission use 
only – Note Adonis D(2007) 3936 26/09/2007 
 
6.2 10th EDF  
 
 Mid-Term Review of the 10th European Development Fund (EDF) - 
Country Strategy Papers - Overview of the Results (Management 
Committee) 25/11/2010 
 Progress Towards the MDGs and the Contribution of the EU in Ten 
Country Case-Studies / FWC N° 2009/229190 - Final Report and Executive Summary 13/12/2010 
 10th EDF Performance Review – Note to Management meeting – Note 
Adonis 2011/36920 17/01/2011 
 Study in support of the shaping of development cooperation after 
2013 – Lessons learnt from the 10th EDF MTR December 2010 
 Study in support of the shaping of development cooperation after 
2013 – Lessons learnt from the 10th EDF MTR: Division of Labour December 2010 
 Study in support of the shaping of development cooperation after 
2013 – Lessons learnt from the 10th EDF MTR: innovative financial 
instruments and blending January 2011 
 
6.3 EDF Shock absorption mechanisms  
 
 Feasibility study on compensatory financing scheme of exogenous 
shocks – (Final Report) June 2009 
 Feasibility study on compensatory financing scheme of exogenous August 2009 
 
EN 66   EN shocks – (Revised Report) 
 Study on shock absorbing schemes in ACP countries – FLEX Study December 2010 
 
7 Mid-Term Reviews of Thematic Strategy Papers  
 
 Mid-term Review and Analysis of the Water Facility and Energy 
Facility May 2008 
 
8 Mid-Term Reviews of Country/Region Strategy Papers  
 
 iQSG Progress Report on second-generation Country Strategy Papers 
2007/8-2013 (SEC(2009) 431 - Commission Staff working document) 30/03/2009 
 State of play of EU joint programming of external assistance – desk 
study of recent experiences 09/12/2010 
 Strategy Papers – Chapter on Lessons learnt: 
- ACP Countries: South Africa 
- Asia: Bangladesh, Bhutan, Cambodia, China, India, Indonesia, 
Laos, Malaysia, Maldives, Mongolia, Myanmar, Nepal, Pakistan, 
Philippines, Sri Lanka, Thailand, Vietnam, Regional Central Asian Countries 
- Latin America: Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, 
Costa Rica, Cuba, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, 
Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Uruguay, 
Venezuela, Regional Latin America, Regional Central America, Regional Comunidad Andina, Regional Mercosur 
- Neighbourhood policy and Middle-East : Algeria, Armenia, 
Azerbaijan, Egypt, Georgia, Jordan, Lebanon, Moldova, 
Morocco, Syria, Tunisia, Ukraine, Yemen  
 
9 External Reviews  
 
 IEG Review of World Bank - Engaging with Fragile States - Support to 
Low-Income Countries Under Stress 2006 
 OECD/DAC Peer review of the European Commission 2007 
 AIDCO follow-up to OECD/DAC Peer Review Recommendations (Note 
to AIDCO Management, 12/11/2008) 12/11/2008 
 Multilateral Organisations Performance Assessment Network 
(MOPAN) Annual MOPAN Survey 2008 2008 
 IMF - Regional Economic Outlook Sub-Saharan Africa - Back to High 
Growth? April 2010 
 IMF - Emerging from the Global Crisis: Macroeconomic Challenges October 2010 
 
EN 67   EN Facing Low-Income Countries   
 
 
EN 68   EN Annex VI: Examples of aid fragmentat ion and of lack of concentration 
1) Aid Fragmentation in Uganda      
Aid Fragmentation in Uganda- 2008
EU MS together
IDA
25%United States
14%AfDF
5%Norway
3%Canada
3%The Global 
Fund
3%
European 
Union
43%6 donors
3%Japan
1%Aid Fragmentation in Uganda- 2008
IDA
26%
United States
14%
United 
Kingdom
8%EC8%Denmark
6%Netherlands
5%AfDF
5%Ireland
4%Germany
4%Sweden
4%Norway
3%Canada
3%The Global 
Fund
3%Japan
1%11 donors
5%Belgium
1%
 
EN 69   EN  
2) Sector presence in Ethiopia (2008) 
    SECTORS
Aust r i a
Belgiu m
Denm ar k
Fi nl and
France
Ge r ma n y
G reeceIre lan d
Ital
y
Luxem bour g
Net her l andsNor wa
y
Port u gal
Spain
Sw eden
U n ited  K in gdom
EC
Education 13 7 242 0,0 1,2 - 3,6 1,9 1,6 0,2 1,4 2,4 - 11,9 1,6 - 0,3 1,3 28,4 - 56%
Health 14 6 273 0,9 0,0 - 0,4 0,1 0,5 0,0 1,9 1,9 - 1,6 0,8 - 1,9 0,2 4,4 2,2 17%
Population Policies and Reproductive Health (incl gender) 10 3 425 0,1 0,0 - - - 0,1 - 0,7 0,1 - 3,8 2,0 - 0,2 0,0 1,1 - 8%
Water Supply and Sanitation 13 1 207 0,1 0,1 - 7,1 1,6 0,1 0,1 0,1 0,3 - 1,7 0,4 - 0,1 - 23,6 11,4 47%
Other Social Infrastructure 14 2 179 0,4 0,2 - 0,9 0,5 0,9 0,0 0,0 0,4 - 0,0 0,2 - 4,0 0,0 2,8 50,8 61%
Economic Infrastructure 13 3 531 0,0 0,1 - 0,0 0,0 1,0 - 0,1 0,1 - 0,0 0,1 - 0,1 0,5 0,9 37,2 40%
Agriculture 13 8 212 0,4 0,0 - 0,1 1,4 3,6 - 0,8 0,0 - 0,9 1,2 - 0,3 1,1 0,1 - 10%
Other Production Sectors (Forestry, Fishing, Industry, Mining, Construction, Trade Policy & T10 4 25 - - - 0,1 0,1 45,6 0,1 0,0 - - 0,7 1,1 - 0,8 2,1 - 20,5 71%
Environment 10 2 11 - 1,2 - 0,6 3,7 8,7 - 0,1 - - 0,1 57,3 - 12,4 4,4 0,7 - 89%
General Budget Support 4 - 3 -------- 0 , 1 ---- 0 , 1 - 9 9 , 4 0 , 4 1 0 0 %
Government and Civil Society 14 6 230 0,2 0,0 0,3 0,3 0,7 2,8 - 1,7 0,4 - 2,8 4,1 - 1,4 2,0 6,2 8,5 31%
Multi sector (incl rural and urban development) 15 9 50 4,9 4,0 0,8 3,1 3,0 20,3 0,5 28,6 2,1 - 2,6 3,1 - 0,4 1,7 1,0 0,0 76%
AVERAGE NUMBER OF EU DONORS PER SECTOR 13 5
 
EN 70   EN                                                                                                                                                               
1 The instruments are the following: Internal Agreement for the 11th European Development Fund, Development 
Cooperation Instrument, Instrument  for Pre-Accession assistance, Eu ropean Neighbourhood Instrument, 
Instrument for Stability, Instrument for Nuclear Safety Cooperation, European Instrument for Democracy and Human Rights, Partnership Instrument and the instruments for the EU-Greenland 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 OJ L 314, 30.11.2001, p. 1. Amended by Decision 2007/249/EC (OJ L 109, 26.04.2007, p. 33). 
3 The 10th EDF Internal Agreement (OJ L 247, 9.9.2006, p32) was signed in July 2006 by the Representatives of the 
Member States meeting within the Council. The 10th EDF implementing Regulation (Council regulation 617/2007) and the 10th EDF Financial Regulation (Council regulati on 215/2008) were adopted respectively in May 2007 and 
February 2008. The 10th EDF entered into force on 1.07.2008 with the entry into force of the 1st revision of the 
Cotonou Agreement. The 10th EDF funding to the OCTs is also governed by the Implementing Regulation 2304/2002 (OJ L 348, 21.12.2002, p. 82) amended by Regulation 1424/2007 (OJ L 317, 5.12.2007, p. 38) and by the 
Overseas Association Decision. 
4 Alongside the ACP Investment Facility, the EIB can lend up to EUR 2 billion from its own resources, with the EU 
Member States providing a 75% guarantee of total amounts opened by the EIB. Under the 10th EDF, both 
the ACP Investment Facility and EIB own resources lending can be blended with EDF grants of EUR 400m 
for interest rate subsidie s or technical assistance. 
5 In addition to the more 'conventional' developmental challenges majority of the ACP countries are among those 
countries most exposed to the adverse consequences of  climate change, which further amplifies the prevailing 
problems. At the same time the EU has developed its own policies in this area and has much to offer to its partners in 
view of integrating climate considerations into overall policy approaches. 
6 On security of energy supply and international co-ope ration - "The EU Energy Policy: Engaging with Partners 
beyond our borders".COM(2011) 539 of 7.09.2011 
7 For ACP countries the omnipresence of these phenomena and the risks they pose to development progress will 
undermine efforts to reduce poverty and reach MDGs if they are not comp rehensively incorporated into the 
development cooperation programmes and approaches. 
8 cf also annex V regarding reports covering geographic/thematic areas of the EDF 
9 The study on shock absorbing schemes reflected upon the lessons learnt of the existing mechanisms (FLEX since 
2000 aiming at socio-economic reforms and policies that coul d be affected negatively as a result of a drop in export 
earnings, the ad-hoc temporary scheme Vulnerability Flex whic h has allocated resources in 2009 and 2010 to address 
the fall out of the global financial cris is, and the Food Facility adopted in 2008 , as a rapid response to soaring and 
volatile food prices in developing countries), and on  the design of a future shock absorbing mechanism. 
10 This diversity between ACPs also concerns their levels of economic development, demographics and geography; 
in particular, the case of Small Island Developing States must  be taken into account. This disparity is also observed 
between ACP countries and OCTs: whereas ACP countries are a ll developing countries, the majority of the OCTs are 
no longer developing territories, even if their micro-economies remain vulnerable. The OCTs' total population 
represents only 0.02% of the world population (1.2 million), compared to 13.3% (800 million) for ACP countries. Not counting Greenland (the world's largest island: 2.2 million km²) and the British Antarctic Territory, the OCT's 
total land mass represents only 80 000 km², compared to 30 million km² for the ACP States. 
11 This would result in substantial financial savings, which, according to a recent study commissioned by the 
European Commission ("The Aid Effectiveness Agenda: Benef its of a European Approach ", Prepared by HTSPE, 
B.T. Carlsson, C.B. Schubert, S. Robinson, 14 October 2009) may be in the range of 2 to 6 billion Euros per year - A 
follow-up study has been commissioned in order to re-confir m these findings and put them in more concrete terms. 
12 Greenland benefits from a specific partnership laid down in Decision 2006/526/EC of 17 July 2006 (OJ L 208, 
29/07/2006, p. 28). Cooperation with Greenland is financed from the EU General Budget. Nevertheless, Greenland can take part in regional projects under the 10th EDF. 
13 COM(2011)500 
14 Joint statement by the Council and the representatives of  the governments of the Memb er States meeting with the 
Council, the Europ ean Parliament and the Co mmission on EU development policy of 20 December 2005. 
 
EN 71   EN                                                                                                                                                               
15 However, South Africa is covered by the DCI. 
16 The 2007-2013 DCI also contains acco mpanying measures for ACP Sugar Prot ocol countries. The legal basis for 
banana accompanying measures (BAM) is pending with the le gislative authority. In addition, to reply to the food 
prices crisis emerging in 2008 the Food Facility was estab lished as a global instrument with a limited duration of 
three years to help developing countries facing this crisis situation. 
17 However, the different institutional decision-making proc edures between CFSP on th e one hand and the exercice 
of conferred competencies under the TFEU on the other should be complied with. 
18 This proposal is currently under discussion with the Council and the European Parliament. 
19 Modifications already foreseen by the second revision of the Cotonou Agreement, that will also contribute to 
reinforce the flexibility elements of the 11th EDF, are not considered as options here. These include the creation of 
regional B-envelopes to cover unforeseen needs with a regi onal dimension, and of future shock absorbing schemes to 
replace current Flex on the basis of the experience of V-Fl ex and of the food facility. The future shock absorbing 
mechanism should normally focus on exogenous shocks with a cross-country dimension (e.g. financial crisis, food or 
fuel prices increases, etc …). 
 20 Regarding instruments under the EU budget, in order to reach the Europe 2020 objectives and to help other parts 
of the world to step up their effo rts to combat climate change, the Co mmission has stated in the June 2011 
Communication on “A Budget for Euro pe 2020” that it intends to increas e the proportion of climate related 
expenditure across the EU budget to at least 20%, with contribution from different policies, subject to impact 
assessment evidence. 
21 Many factors affect the distribution of income or consumption, and there is no clear link between economic 
growth and changes in income distribution.  World Bank Social Indicators Report 2010.  
22 http://www.oecd.org/document/18/0,3343,en_2649_3236398_35401554_1_1_1_1,00.html 23 http://ec.europa.eu/europeai d/what/development-policies/policy-coherence/index_en.htm