EUROPEAN COMMISSION 
Brussels, 7.12.2011 
SEC(2011) 1462 final 
  
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING PAPER 
IMPACT ASSESSMENT 
Accompanying the document 
REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL 
establishing an Instrument for Pre-accesssion Assistance (IPA II) 
{COM(2011) 838 final} 
{SEC(2011) 1463 final}  
 
EN 2   EN TABLE OF CONTENTS 
1. Procedural issues and consulta tion of interested parties.............................................. 4 
1.1. Organisation and timing............................................................................................... 4 1.2. Consultation and expertis e (public and internal) ......................................................... 4 
1.3. Impact Assessment Board............................................................................................ 6 2. Problem definition........................................................................................................ 6 2.1. The problem requiring action and the scope of the instrument.................................... 7 
2.1.1. Description of the problem........................................................................................... 7 2.1.2. Description of the current instrument .......................................................................... 8 2.1.3. Evolution of the context that  justifies a new instrument............................................ 10 
2.2. Lessons learned and outcome of reviews................................................................... 10 2.3. The underlying drivers of the problem....................................................................... 14 2.3.1. Development gap/challenges in the bene ficiary countries and limited capacity to 
overcome these from own resources.......................................................................... 14 
2.3.2. Weak public institutions and administrativ e capacity in the be neficiary countries... 14 
2.3.3. Heterogeneity of beneficiary countries ...................................................................... 14 2.3.4. Aspects of the current IPA set-up affec ting its flexibility to respond to needs, 
absorption of funds and results/impact of the assistance ........................................... 15 
2.4. Legal base for EU action............................................................................................ 17 2.5. EU Added Value ........................................................................................................ 18 3. Objectives.................................................................................................................. . 18 
3.1. Policy framework and objectives............................................................................... 18 3.2. Consistency with external action priorities................................................................ 21 3.3. Consistency with other EU policies ........................................................................... 22 3.4. Geographical/thematic coverage................................................................................ 23 4. Policy options............................................................................................................. 2 4 
5. Analysis of impacts.................................................................................................... 27 5.1. Likely economic, social and environmental impacts of each of the options ............. 28 5.1.1. Economic impacts ...................................................................................................... 28  
5.1.2. Social impacts, including  impacts on human rights................................................... 29 
5.1.3. Environmental impacts............................................................................................... 30 
 
EN 3   EN 5.2. Impact in terms of management / implementation modalities................................... 31 
6. Comparing the options ............................................................................................... 32 6.1. Weighing of positive and negative impacts per option.............................................. 32 6.2. Preferred option.......................................................................................................... 34 
7. Monitoring and evaluation ......................................................................................... 34 7.1. Core indicators of progress towards objectives ......................................................... 34 7.2. Outline for monitoring and evaluation arrangements ................................................ 35 
 
EN 4   EN 1. PROCEDURAL ISSUES AND CONSULTATION OF INTERESTED PARTIES  
1.1. Organisation and timing 
The drafting of the Impact Assessments for the EU external action instruments1 for the period 
2014-2020, including this document, was coordi nated by a Task Force composed by the 
Commission services in charge of EU extern al action as well as the Legal Service. The 
drafting teams, appointed on 7 June 2011, took dul y into account the resu lts of consultations, 
reviews and studies mentioned at points 1.2 and 2.2 below and liaised with other Commission 
services to ensure consistency with other EU policies. The Task Force met with the drafting team in charge of this Impact Assessment on 7 June, 4 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 Directorates Ge neral and the Secretaria t General, was launched 
on 22 June 2011. It met twice, on 13 and 26 of July 2011. 
The Impact Assessment Board (IAB) chaired by  the Secretariat General of the Commission 
reviewed this Impact Assessment on 14 September 2011. 
In line with article 27 of the Financial Regul ation (Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 
1605/2002) and article 21 of the Implementing ru les of the Financial Regulation (Commission 
Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2342/2002), the Commission conducted an  ex-ante evaluation 
of the Instrument for Pre-Accession Assi stance (IPA) which underpins this Impact 
Assessment, as further referred to at points 1.2 and 2.2 below. 
1.2. Consultation and expertise (public and internal) 
(a) Stakeholders consultation on future pre-accession assistance 
Preparations for the future pre-accession fi nancial instrument post-2013 were based on 
extensive consultation with stakeholders  which started at the Conference on " IPA: sustainable 
results and impact " that the Commission organised in Brussels on 6 and 7 December 2010. 
This was followed by a series of consultations w ith stakeholders throu ghout the first part of 
2011, in the context of an ex-ante  evaluation supporting the prep aration of the future pre-
accession assistance instrument
2 (see Annex 1 ). Those included: 
• An online survey , obtaining 338 responses from: Member State representatives; 
public administrations and non-public stakeholders of candidate countries3 and 
                                                 
1 The external action instruments are the following: Internal Agreement for the 11th European 
Development Fund; Development Cooperation Instrument; Instrument for Pre-Accession assistance; European Neighbourhood Instrument; Instrument for Stability; Instrument for Nuclear Safety 
Cooperation; European Instrument for Democracy and Human Rights; Partnership Instrument and the 
instruments for the EU-Greenland 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 'Evaluation to support the prep aration of pre-accession financial instruments beyond 2013' – Final 
Report, 13 June 2011 (henceforth 'Ex-ante evaluation') 
3 Croatia, the former Yugoslav Republic of  Macedonia, Iceland, Montenegro and Turkey   
 
EN 5   EN potential candidates4 benefiting from IPA assistance (hereafter also referred to as 
‘beneficiary countries’ or 'enlargement countries'); Commission staff; donors and 
international financing institutions; other international organisations; non-
governmental organisations (NGOs), resear chers, experts and interest groups. 
• A series of focus groups , in particular: one high-leve l working group; four mixed 
groups comprising Commission officials as well as external stakeholders; three 
special focus groups on IPA assistance for cross-border cooperation, regional, human 
resources and rural development; two meetings  with Member State representatives in 
the technical committee that assists the Commission in implementing the pre-accession assistance; and, a meeting with authorities of Western Balkans focussing on options for future cross–border cooperati on at 'intra' Western Balkans borders.  
• Consultations  with: individual Commission offi cials in headquarters and EU 
Delegations in beneficiary countries; stru ctures providing tec hnical assistance or 
policy support to the benefici ary countries; offices of th e National IPA Coordinators 
of the beneficiary countries; multilateral and bilateral donors; international and regional organisations (United Nations agencies, Regional Cooperation Council, 
OSCE, etc); and, NGOs (European Stability Initiative, International Crisis Group, 
Open society foundation etc) at EU level. 
• A working level meeting  organised by the Commissi on in cooperation with the 
Hungarian Presidency in Za greb on 10-11 May, wh ere the preliminar y results of the 
consultation were presented and discussed.  
(b) Internal consultation on futu re pre-accession assistance 
Within the Commission, preparations for the instrument for pre-accession assistance post-
2013 involved extensive working level discussion within and between the f our services 
involved in managing the assistance, i.e. the Directorates General (DGs) for Enlargement 
(ELARG), Regional Policy (REGIO), Employment , Social Affairs and Inclusion (EMPL) and 
Agriculture and Rural Developm ent (AGRI) as well as with the EU Delegations in the 
Western Balkans, Iceland and Turkey. 
(c) Public consultation on all ex ternal action instruments 
The future of pre-accession assistance was also  covered by a broader public consultation on 
future funding for EU external action that the Commission held between 26 November 2010 
and 31 January 2011. The consultation was based on an online questionnaire accompanied by 
a background paper ' What funding for EU external action after 2013? ' prepared by 
Commission and EEAS services involved.  The 220 contributions rece ived reflect the broad 
and diverse structures and views of  the external action community.  
Among other aspects resulting from  this public consultation that apply more specifically to 
development assistance, the following are rele vant also for pre-accession assistance:  
• A majority of respondents confirmed that EU intervention provides a substantial 
added value
 in the main policy areas supported  through external action financial 
                                                 
4 Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Serbia as well as Kosovo under UNSCR 1244/99 
 
EN 6   EN instruments5. The EU added value is put forw ard by many respondents as the main 
driver for the future: the EU should exploi t its comparative adva ntage linked to its 
global field presence, its wide-ranging expertis e, its supranational nature, its role as 
facilitator of coor dination, and to economies of scale. 
• Nearly all respondents supported a more differentiated approach,  tailored to the 
situation of the beneficiary countries, based on sound criteria and efficient data 
collection, to be used as a way to increase the impact of EU financial instruments. 
• Regarding simplification of instruments, as  concerns the balance between geographic 
and thematic instruments, opinions were mi xed regarding a review of EU thematic 
programmes and a possible reduction in number. Increased flexibility of the 
geographic limits of EU instruments was supported by a significant majority of 
respondents as a way to respond to interregional challenges. 
1.3. Impact Assessment Board 
A draft of this Impact Assessment Report was submitted to the Impact Assessment Board on 5 
August 2011. The Board issued its opinion on  16 September 2011, recommending that the 
definition and analysis of objectives, opti ons and impacts could be improved, providing 
details on aspects that should be better de veloped. The recommendations of the Board are 
largely reflected in this final version of the Report. 
2. PROBLEM DEFINITION  
The rationale behind the Enlargement policy Article 49 of the Treaty on European Union stipul ates that any European State which respects 
the EU values referred to in Article 2 of the Treaty and is committed to promoting them may apply to become a member of the Union. The EU is obliged to treat al l applicati ons in an 
objective way and to assess the applicant countries against a set of political and economic 
criteria, the so-called ‘Copenhagen criteria
6', as well as against the capacity of the EU to 
integrate further members.  
The rationale for continuing with the enlargemen t of the EU was described most recently in 
the Council conclusions of 14 December 2010: “Enlargement reinforces peace, democracy 
and stability in Europe, serves the EU’s strategi c interests, and helps the EU to better achieve 
its policy objectives in important areas which are key to economic recovery and sustainable 
                                                 
5 i.e. peace and security, poverty reduction, humanitarian aid, inve sting in stability and growth in 
enlargement and neighbourhood countries, tackling global challenges, promoting EU and international standards and values, and supporting growth and competitiveness abroad 
6 The key requirements for accession are set out in the conclusions of the European Council in 
Copenhagen in 1993. These are: (i) stability of institutions guaranteeing democracy, the rule of law, human rights and respect for and protection of minor ities; (ii) the existence of a functioning market 
economy, as well as the capacity to cope with competitive pressure and market forces within the Union; 
and (iii) the ability to take on the obligations of membership including adherence to the aims of 
political, economic and monetary union. Also, the Madr id European Council in December 1995 referred 
to the need " to create the conditions for the gradual, harmonious integration of  [the applicant] 
countries, particularly through the development of the market eco nomy, the adjustment of their 
administrative structures and the creation of  a stable economic and monetary environment ". 
Prospective members have to meet these criteri a before membership negotiations can begin. 
 
EN 7   EN growth”. The Council conclusions reiterated  that there should be no conflict between 
deepening and widening, stating that with the Li sbon Treaty entering into force, the EU can at 
the same time pursue its enlargement agenda and maintain the impetus of deeper integration.  
For the past 50 years the EU has simultaneously pursued integration and enlargement, 
increasing from 6 to the present 27 Member States and from a population of less than 200 
million to more than 500 million people. A review , five years after the fifth enlargement of 
the EU in 2004,7 concluded that: the latest  enlargements brought greate r prosperity for all EU 
citizens and made Europe a stronger player in the world economy; the institutional and legal 
frameworks and the common policies of the EU played a vital role in ensuring success; 
entrepreneurs and citizens experi enced clear benefits; and, the en larged EU is better prepared 
to address current and future challenges.  
An analysis8 of the potential benefits of enlarging to the current candidate countries and 
potential candidates points to pot ential economic benefits derivi ng from the expansion of the 
internal market comparable to those that accrued to both the EU and the acceding countries at 
the time of the 5th enlargement in 2004/20079. Other potential benefits identified include 
accelerating the upgrading of transnational in frastructure networks and cross-border 
cooperation, reduced risks of po litical instability, improved security and leverage on fighting 
organised crime, reduced migration pressure s, cultural enrichment  and reduced negative 
environmental externalities,  e.g. greenhouse gas emissions. 
2.1. The problem requiring action and the scope of the instrument  
2.1.1.  Description of the problem 
In its own interest, the EU n eeds to grant efficient and eff ective support to the enlargement 
countries. Candidate countries need to meet the political and economic conditions set by the 
‘Copenhagen criteria’. Potential candidates need to be sufficiently prepared before they can 
submit an application for membership which is receivable. There is a need to further assist 
those countries in preparing for eventual membership and implementing the necessary 
reforms .  
Future Member States must be soundly prepared to assume th e full responsibilities that go 
with membership status and to develop an  economy which can withstand the competitive 
pressure in the internal market. To ensure a  comprehensive approach of accession 
preparations, reinforce the sustainability of  the assistance and secure that beneficiary 
countries can fully enjoy the benefits from acce ssion, in addition to supporting alignment with 
the acquis,  pre-accession assistance needs to addr ess more strongly public administration 
reform, including public finance management and financial control, as well as law 
                                                 
7 “ Five years of an enlarged EU – economic achievements and challenges ” - Communication from the 
Commission to the Council, Parliament, European Economic and Social Committee, Committee of the 
Regions and the ECB, 20 February 2009  
8 Cf. Annex 1, Ex-ante evaluation, Section 2.2 and related Annex 6 
9 'Income per capita rose from 40% of the old Member States' average in 1999 to 52% in 2008. It is 
estimated that the accession process boosted economic growth in the new Member States by about 1¾ 
percentage points per year over 2000-08, when growth increased from 3½%, on average, in 1999-2003 
to 5½% in 2004-08. Growth in the old Member States also benefited from enlargement (adding up to a cumulative increase in output of around ½% over the same period), in particular in those countries that 
increased trade with and investment in the new Members ' – Cf. 'Five years of an enlarged EU – 
Economic achievements and challenges' – COM(2009) 79/3 of 20.2.2008, page 4 
 
EN 8   EN enforcement capacity. Socio-economic developmen t and social inclusion, in particular the 
inclusion of vulnerable groups with a focus on Roma and people belongi ng to minorities, are 
also pressing issues that need to be addr essed as a matter of pr iority. Furthermore, 
enlargement countries need to be  prepared to withstand global  challenges and contribute to 
the Europe 2020 Strategy objectives for smart, sustainable, and inclusive growth. Climate 
change is one of these challenges and it wi ll be important to accompany the enlargement 
countries towards a low carbon economy, building upon the EU climate and energy package and its 2020 targets. Also linked to the attainme nt of EU objectives, capacity building in the 
field of research and innovation should be strengthened to underpin the objectives and 
facilitate the necessary reform s required to join the EU.  
The assistance must be deployed swiftly: it needs to be efficient and well targeted , and aim at 
sustainable results and impacts (reforms comp leted, increased institutional capacity, etc.) 
bringing lasting improvements in the countries' readiness for membership.
 
2.1.2.  Description of the current instrument 
EU assistance to candidate countries and poten tial candidates to sustain their efforts and 
investments needed for acceding to the EU was, since 2000, provided through separate 
instruments with different geogra phic coverage and scope (PHARE10, ISPA11, SAPARD12, 
the Turkey Pre-accession Instrument13 and CARDS14). In 2006, there was a major 
rationalisation of pre-accession as sistance as part of a revised external aid framework for the 
2007-2013 financial perspectives. All existing in struments were merged into one single 
instrument, the Instrument for Pre-accession Assistance (IPA)15 in order to reinforce 
coherence and coordination.  
The overall objective of the instrument is to as sist beneficiary countries  in their progressive 
alignment with the standards and policies of  the EU, including where appropriate the acquis 
with a view to membership. The instrument dire ctly addresses needs of beneficiary countries 
to comply with the Copenhagen criteria. IPA is  also used to promote social inclusion and 
reduction of poverty depending on countries' needs, within the limits of th e funds available.  
IPA is structured in five different components : I - Transition Assistance and Institution 
Building; II - Cross-Border Co-operation ( CBC); III - Regional Deve lopment; IV - Human 
Resources Development; V - Rural Developmen t. While components I and II are open to 
candidate countries and potential  candidates, component s III, IV and V are open to candidate 
countries only with a view to prepare them fo r the management of EU  Structural, Cohesion 
and Rural Development Funds becoming availabl e upon accession. This requires beneficiary 
countries to have adequate administrative capacity  and structures to take  responsibility for the 
management of IPA assistance.  
                                                 
10 Council Regulation (EEC) No 3906/89 of 19 December 1989 on economic aid to the Republic of 
Hungary and the Polish People's Republic 
11 Instrument for Structural Policies for Pre-Accession, Council Regulation (EC) No 1267/1999 of 21 June 
1999 
12 Special Accession Programme for Agriculture and Rural Developmen t, Council Regulation (EC) No 
1268/1999 of 21 June 1999 
13 Council Regulation (EC) No 2500/2001 of 17 December 2001 
14 Community Assistance for Reconstruction, Development and Stabilisation, Council Regulation (EC) 
No 2666/2000 of 5 December 2000 
15 Council Regulation 1085/2006 of 17 July 2006 
 
EN 9   EN Within the Commission, ELARG manages component I and the part of component II that 
covers cross-border cooperation between candid ate countries/potential candidates. REGIO 
manages cross-border cooperation with nei ghbouring Member States and component III. 
EMPL manages component IV and AGRI mana ges component V. ELARG leads in the 
coordination of the IPA instrument as a whol e and prepares the overall Enlargement policy 
and the annual Enlargement Strategy16. 
The indicative breakdown of the overall IP A envelope by country and by component is 
provided by the Multiannual Indicative Fina ncial Framework (MIFF) adopted by the 
Commission. Based on MIFF alloca tions and on the priorities identified in the Enlargement 
Strategy, the Commission established, in consu ltation with beneficiar y countries and other 
stakeholders, Multi-annual Indicative Pl anning Documents (MIPDs)  per beneficiary and at 
multi-beneficiary level. MIPDs give a three-year  strategic perspective, reviewed annually, and 
represent the Commission's view of  the main priorities for assist ance that are expected to be 
covered by IPA programmes.  
The programmes covering technica l assistance, capacity building, acquis  compliance and 
investment actions funded under compone nt I have been so far adopted annually, based  on 
project proposed by the IPA bene ficiary countries. On the othe r hand, reflecting the approach 
used in Member States for Structural, Cohe sion and Rural Development Funds, assistance for 
regional, human resources and rural development is programme–based  and adopted on a 
multi-annual  basis. Operational Programmes for regional, human resources and rural 
development are based on strategic documents  prepared by the be neficiary countries 
(Strategic Coherence Frameworks, National Rura l Development Strategies) and, in the case of 
regional development, are defined by theme (transport, environment, regional competitiveness). In all cases, programmes under go extensive consultation with stakeholders 
and are subject to the approval of the relevant Committee of Member States
17.  
IPA assistance can take various forms, inter alia  technical assistance to  national authorities; 
twinning with Member States18; supplies, services and works for developing infrastructures; 
grants for investment projects, people-to-peop le projects, civil soci ety organisations, etc.; 
support for participation in EU programmes or  Agencies; general or sector budget support19 
(granted exceptionally and subject to supervision).  
                                                 
16 Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/press_corner/key-documents/reports_nov_2010_en.htm 
17 The IPA Committee for programmes funded under components I and II; the Coordination Committee 
for the funds (COCOF) for programmes under com ponent III; the COCOF and European Social Fund 
(ESF) Committee for programmes under Component IV; the Rural Development Committee for 
programmes under component V.  
18 Twinning provides the framework for administrations  and semi-public organisations in the beneficiary 
countries to work with their counterparts in Memb er States. Together they develop and implement a 
project that targets the transposition, enforcement and implementation of a specific part of the acquis .  
19 Budget Support (general or sector-related) is an  aid modality consisting in transferring financial 
resources of an external financing agency to the national treasury of a partner country. These financial 
resources form part of the partne r county's global resources and ar e consequently used in accordance 
with its public financial management system. The typical eligibility criteria and conditions for budget 
support are: well-defined, agreed and adopted national or sector development strategies; policies in place safeguarding macroeconomic stability; and, cr edible programmes to improve public financial 
management. Find more on this at http://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/how/delivering-aid/budget-
support/index_en.htm   
 
EN 10   EN 2.1.3.  Evolution of the context that  justifies a new instrument 
Currently, the EU is dealing with 5 candida te countries and 4 potential candidates (see 
footnotes 3 and 4). Before 2014, at least one candidate country should become a Member 
State, and some potential candidates may become  candidate countries. With the exception of 
Iceland – which has been a member of the Eu ropean Economic Area for years – the GDP per 
capita and other socio-economic indicators show that enlargem ent countries are still well 
below EU average and even below the le vel of the lowest ranked Member States20. The very 
low level of socio-economic development in some of them causes the need for substantial 
investments  to bring their situation close to one that  is aligned to EU standards and allows 
them to withstand the competitive pressures of the single market and to take on board the obligations of membership. 
In addition, the countries in the Western Balkan s are still relatively young states formed after 
the disintegration of the former Yugoslavia. Political stability, the fu ll establishment of the 
principles of democracy and the re spect of human rights and good governance – all 
fundamental values of the EU –  still need to be strengthened.   
These countries cannot sustain alone all the effort s and cost of meeting the criteria for joining 
the EU. There are encouraging signs of their ability to reduce debt and attract foreign 
investment, but nevertheless most of them lack the capacity to finance alone the public 
investments and reforms necessary to stabili ze their societies and economies and put them 
onto a sustainable development path. Like in the previous enlargement rounds, the EU should 
continue to offer them technica l and financial assistance to over come their difficult situation 
and develop sustainably,
 gradually aligning on EU rules and standards.  
The legal basis for IPA will expire at th e end of 2013. The key challenge for the new 
instrument is how best to focus the limited fund s in relation to the new challenges faced by 
the EU and the future members and the political response to these challenges taking into 
account also the Europe 2020 Strategy. 
2.2. Lessons learned and outcome of reviews 
In assessing the options for the new instrument  for pre-accession assistance, the Commission 
took into account the lessons le arned from the implementation of  current and past assistance, 
as identified in various evaluations:  
(a) IPA meta evaluation  
A mid-term meta evaluation of IPA, complete d in February 2011 and focused mainly on the 
IPA strategic framework (MIPDs) and progr amming (mainly technical assistance and 
institution building component), assessed the in tervention logic and the performance (actual 
or expected) of the assistance, particularly as regards its relevance, efficiency, effectiveness, 
impact and sustainability (see Annex 2 ).  
Regarding the intervention logic (i.e. how assistance is planned and programmed), the 
evaluation concluded that the MIPDs are key programming documents which provide 
essential direction and focus to the programmi ng process and are clea rly better than the 
equivalent programming documents for past pre-accession assistance programmes. The 
                                                 
20 Cf. Annex 1, Ex-ante evaluation, Section 2.3 and related Annex 6 
 
EN 11   EN evaluation found also that the quality of obj ectives and indicators in the MIPDs and the 
programming documents had improved over time.  Nevertheless, further improvements were 
recommended.  
The evaluation found that IPA pr oduced good and meaningful results . Overall, 
outputs/immediate results of the assistance were expected to be  delivered. Effectiveness was 
found to be strongest in acquis  related areas, while some horiz ontal areas, such as public 
administration reform, were found to be partic ularly challenging. The beneficiary countries' 
financial needs, particularly for infrastruc ture, clearly exceed available IPA (and other 
donors') funding. Therefore, a key challenge for the future was to use IPA funds efficiently 
and continue to play a leverage role for other financing sources. It was also found that projects 
were generally well targeted on EU accession re quirements, but focusing institution building 
assistance on a more limited number of priori ty sectors could furthe r enhance effectiveness 
and impact. 
The evaluation found that the mechanisms for donor coordination and harmonisation of 
assistance were well established. Donors pres ent in enlargement c ountries acknowledged the 
leading role played by the Commission, and to  varying degrees they  used the MIPDs to 
orientate their own programmi ng. A determining factor in te rms of achieving impact and 
sustainability was found to be the  beneficiary countries' ownershi p of the reform agenda and 
the capacity of their administration, which need to be strengthened.  
The evaluation concluded that adopting a multi-annual/Sector Based Approach (SBA)21 for 
planning and programming should facilitate prioriti sation and sequencing of assistance, donor 
coordination and enhance benefi ciary countries' ownership.  
(b) Interim evaluation of cross-border coopera tion (CBC) programmes at intra-Western 
Balkans borders  
Concerning component II, a two–phase interim evaluation22 of the first eight IPA CBC 
programmes at intra-Western Balkans borders was completed in May 2011 (see Annex 3 ). 
The evaluation looked at efficien cy in the use of financial assistance and focused on the 
(actual or likely) impacts of  CBC programmes, with the ai m of identifying lessons and 
provide recommendations for the revision of the 2007-2013 CBC progr ammes, due in 2011 
and covering the remaining two years of th e current programming pe riod (2012-2013), as well 
as for the new IPA CBC post 2013.  
The evaluation concluded that stakeholders pe rceive improved neighbourly relations as a 
consequence of the programme and view it as fundamental for future cooperation. The large 
number of applications receive d for the first calls for proposal s showed that there was great 
interest and that conditions were mature fo r increased cooperation. The evaluation confirmed 
also that stakeholders at all levels considered the CBC programme as a precursor for 
Structural Funds, thereby facilitating prepar ation for EU accession. As  IPA CBC rules closely 
reflect those of the Structural Funds CBC, cross-border cooperation provided a valuable 
                                                 
21 A sector approach to planning and programming of the assistance is based on country sector strategies, 
combines resources from different donors an d aims to achieve broader policy objectives 
22 Interim Evaluation of Cross–Border Programmes between Candidate/Potential Candidate Countries 
(Intra–Western Balkans Borders) under the Cross–Border Cooperation Component of IPA – Report I: 
Governance Structure, July 2010; Report II: Performance of Assistance, June 2011 
 
EN 12   EN learning opportunity and prepared the countries  for the absorption of the more substantial 
funds that would become available upon accession.  
(c) Ex-ante and interim evaluations of Oper ational Programmes under components III, 
IV and V and assessments  
The objective of the ex-ante  evaluations23 was to support and streamline the programming 
process. Recommendations to strengthen the analysis underpinning the programmes orientation as well as to improve further th e output, results and impact indicators were 
common to all programmes.  
In addition, the importance of reviewing the result indicators to take into account their 
relevance to the objectives of the programmes as well as the availability of data was raised for 
regional development programmes. For some of them, the evaluation drew attention also on 
the need to better specify and measure envi ronmental impact at programme level and to 
provide environmental indicators. Regarding pa rtnership and consultati on, it was highlighted 
the importance of indicating how feedback informed the content of the operational 
programmes.  
For human resources development programmes, there should be a better link between the 
analysis and the definition of priority axes and measures. The evaluations recommended also 
putting more emphasis on a partnership approac h, and on the quantificat ion of objectives.  
For rural development programmes, the hierarch y of programme objectiv es and the baseline 
should be developed further. The evaluations hi ghlighted also the need for stronger focus on 
increasing the competitiveness of the agricultura l sector, the importance of external factors 
such as training and the availability of rura l credit to secure co-financing and increase 
absorption of funds as well as the availability of well-traine d advisory services for the 
potential beneficiary countries.  
Interim evaluations of multi-annual regional and human resources development programmes 
started only in the second half of 2011, as  actual implementation commenced in 2009 and 
2010, after conferral of management, and re sults are due in 2012. In the meantime the 
Commission assessed and identified  elements of the current IPA instrument that contribute to 
the objective of an efficient preparation fo r management of EU funds after accession as 
regards: 
– Strategic planning: multi-annual operati onal programmes follow the adoption of 
national strategic frameworks/r ural development strategies  that mirror the strategic 
documents required from Member States und er the Cohesion and Rural Development 
policies. 
– Sector analyses: agricultural and rural de velopment sector programmes need to be 
underpinned by thorough independent sector an alyses pointing out weak links in the 
production and processing chains, whic h the programmes can then address. 
– Ownership: the operational pr ogrammes are implemented unde r the responsibility of 
national bodies.  
                                                
 
23 Available upon request.  
 
EN 13   EN – Partnership: Commission, re gional local public authorities and economic and social 
partners are involved at both programming and implementation levels. 
– Management and controls structures in the beneficiary countries are almost identical 
to those in place after accession for Structural, Cohesion and Rural Development Funds.  
– Result orientation:
 the geographic and thematic co ncentration and the practical 
experience gained by the country ("lear ning by doing" approach) also bring 
important results and value added of the instrument. 
(d) Ex-ante evaluation to support the prepara tion of pre-accession financial instruments 
post-2013  
The evaluation and related consul tations revealed that there is  strong rationale for continuing 
financial assistance at EU-level in support for the enlargement process.  The need to ensure 
continuity  with the current instrument emerged clea rly: since it takes years to set up the 
structures and systems necessary  to manage EU assistance, it would be counterproductive to 
drastically change the system in progress. A smooth transition between the current and future instruments was considered crucial. However, in light of the heterogeneity of beneficiary 
countries (in socio-economic term s, with regard to the devel opment of their institutions and 
public administration and their accession perspective)  and to address issues such as delays in 
implementation, high administrative costs, limite d beneficiary ownership and ensuring results 
and impact, the consultation recommended to
24:  
• Tailor assistance according to the needs  and characteristics of each country; 
• Strengthen the sector approach , with a more coherent longer-term planning process 
resulting in a strategic instrument for donor coordination and for st eering private sector 
investment; 
• Introduce multi-annual planning covering the duration of th e next multi-annual financial 
framework, with a mid-term review, and do multi-annual programming  also for 
Component I; better beneficiary involve ment in programming, led by stronger NIPACs; 
• Reward good performance through a reserve to be allocat ed at mid-term based on 
absorption and on achieving strategic targets; use conditionalities in a more strict and 
systematic way at country, sector stra tegy and project level; 
• Allow access to the various types of assistance irrespective of candidate/potential 
candidate status, but dependent on readines s to implement, comb ined with a phased 
approach to decentralising mana gement of the assistance;  
• Re-examine the current component structure , including  ensure a  strengthened 
coordination between the DGs concerned;  
• Continue cooperation with IFIs and to mobilise IFI and other donor funds; 
• Adopt a three-tier approach to monitoring and evaluation, assessing progress relative 
to i) the path to accession; ii) national strategies and iii) achieving programme, sector and measure level results.  
                                                
 
24 For details, cf. Annex 5 to Annex 1, Ex-ante Evaluation  
 
EN 14   EN 2.3. The underlying drivers of the problem 
Four distinct but interrelated issues have b een identified that the new pre-accession assistance 
instrument needs to address in order to better assi st enlargement countries in preparing for 
eventual membership: 
2.3.1.  Development gap/challenges in the benefici ary countries and limited capacity to 
overcome these from own resources  
Most current enlargement countries lag behind  the EU average on key aspects of socio-
economic development, macro-economic stabilit y as well as democracy and good governance 
that are instrumental for future acces sion readiness, i.e. GDP per capita, 
employment/unemployment levels, social exclus ion indicators, external  trade and revenues, 
macro-economic conditions, democracy and good governance25. They lack competitiveness, 
have poor infrastructure and gaps  in basic services and consid erable environmental problems. 
Furthermore, they lack research and innovati on capacity to underpin the necessary reforms 
and are ill-prepared to address complex challeng es such as mitigation of and adaptation to 
climate change, in addition to pursuing low carbon development,  or the achievement of digital 
agenda targets in key action areas such as digital single market or ICT enabled public 
services. Weak public institutions, the pres ence of organised crime and corruption and 
insufficient and uneven respect of the rule of law are major challenges for the development of 
these societies and economies.   
2.3.2.  Weak public institutions and administrative capacity in the beneficiary countries  
Weak public institutions and administrative capac ity as well as gaps in the level of human 
resources development hinder beneficiary count ries' ability to develop quality EU-accession 
related reform policies, strategi es and plans, strong pipelines of well prepared projects, to 
guarantee sound public financial management a nd to ensure sufficient ownership for the 
programmes supported by the EU and coherence w ith national policies a nd strategies. This 
creates a situation where the Commission may still be seen as deciding about strategic 
objectives, sectors for assistance and individual projects and affects generally the possibility 
for the EU to deliver its financial assistance in  a more effective way, with more sustainable 
results and impact. Under the current IPA, a s ector approach to planning and programming 
furthering the link with the political priorities of the Enlarg ement strategy is being gradually 
introduced in the last set of strategic planni ng documents (MIPDs) and in the transition 
assistance and institution building actions for 2012 and 2013. However, some beneficiary countries may have problems applying the sector  approach as they are not in a position to 
elaborate underlying comprehensive strategies.  
2.3.3.  Heterogeneity of beneficiary countries  
Differences among IPA beneficiar y countries in terms of so cio-economic development are 
considerably larger than among the Member States th at joined the EU in 2004 at the time of 
their accession (e.g. Turkey alone accounts for 75% of the population and 79% of total GDP 
of the nine IPA beneficiary c ountries but is allocated a co mparatively lower 46% of the 
current IPA resources). The 'distance to travel ' in order to meet the obligations of EU 
membership varies between them. The signifi cance of IPA and other EU sources (average 
                                                
 
25 Cf. Annex 1, Ex-ante evaluation, Section 2.3 
 
EN 15   EN 2007-2009) to the economies of IP A beneficiary countries varies markedly (from 2.9% of 
GDP for Kosovo∗ to less than 1% of GDP in Turkey),  with resulting implications for the 
extent to which IPA may lever policy cha nge and directly influence socio-economic 
development. Also, the varying significance of  EU financial support compared with other 
Overseas Development Aid (particularly in Ko sovo, and to a lesser ex tent in Albania and 
Bosnia and Herzegovina) has implic ations for the catalytic and c oordination role of the EU. In 
this context,  a one-size-fits-all approach to delivery of the assistance cannot be fully effective, 
as IPA must accommodate very different beneficiar y countries at very different stages of their 
accession process.  
2.3.4.  Aspects of the current IPA set-up affect ing its flexibility to respond to needs, 
absorption of funds and results/impact of the assistance26  
Pre-accession assistance under the IPA inst rument is generally acknowledged to have 
improved considerably from previous pre-accessi on assistance in its intervention logic and in 
the way it prepares the beneficiary countries fo r management of the much more substantial 
amounts of EU funds that become available af ter accession. On the other hand, evaluations 
have identified aspects of the current IPA set- up that, also in light of the environment in 
which IPA is operating, can be improved in order to make the assistance more responsive to 
needs, increase absorption by the beneficiary countries and lead to  stronger results and 
impact. More specifically: 
(a) Issues affecting the ability to deliver the assistance more coherently, strategically 
and in a result-oriented manner 
• Under the current rules, the objectives and target settings  under the different 
components are separate at programming and operational level. The absence of a more integrated framework defining the scope and priorities of pre-accession assistance for each beneficiary country may limit the coherence and the overall impact of the assistance.  
• Currently, project selection ma y respond to pragmatic operational as well as strategic 
considerations, linked to ab sorption/administrative capacity, the availability of 
project proposals, sustainabi lity and support at political and operational levels. Thus, 
the link between the selection of projects and a set of well-defined strategic 
objectives reflecting national priorities linked to the political priorities of the 
Enlargement strategy may sometimes be weak . In addition, this may lead to an 
overemphasis on infrastructure development or other large projects which can ensure 
prompt absorption of funds, whilst more complex accession-driven projects may not 
be pursued. 
• Annual programming  of transition and institution bu ilding assistance was chosen to 
allow for a more flexible delivery to re spond to needs identif ied annually in the 
Enlargement Strategy and to select mature projects. Experience shows that this approach was beneficial in countries with  limited administrative capacity and lacking 
a developed project pipeline, or in countri es very close to acce ssion that need to 
address specific challenges in the nego tiation process. However annual programming 
                                                
 
∗  Under UNSCR 1244/99 
26 Cf. Annex 1, Ex-ante evaluation, Section 2.5 
 
EN 16   EN does not favour a shift of focus from indivi dual projects to policy outcomes and 
results .  
• IPA is not sufficiently results oriented : there is no reward for achieving strategic 
results which all stakeholders support, achieving good outcomes of funded measures 
or for greater absorption of funds. Th is may reduce beneficiary countries’ 
motivation. Similarly, conditionalities for disbursing the assistance (such as 
requirements to adopt/amend legislative acts/ regulations, establish new institutional 
or staffing arrangements, complete land expr opriation or grant permits, etc.) are used 
- but not always enforced - at project leve l but not so much at programme level or 
component level (with the exception of Conferral of Management as a condition for launching operations under decentralised ma nagement). The lack of conditionalities 
and/or fulfilment thereof ma y hinder implementation or aff ect the sustainability of 
funded actions.  
• Under IPA, budget support  is allowed only as an exception  and was used only once. 
Budget support brings potential risks as we ll as benefits. There may be problems of 
accountability and transparency when funds are put into weak systems. However, 
budget support can bring benefits in terms of improved management of resources for results; stronger beneficiary ownership ove r interventions; reduc ed possibilities of 
fragmented projects; impr oved beneficiary public admi nistration capacity and 
accountability; reduced administrative costs for the beneficiary c ountries and the EU 
Delegations.  
(b) Issues affecting the ability to deliver the assistance more flexibly and in a tailor-
made manner, according to needs  
• Access to funding  under components III, IV and V is determined by the beneficiary 
countries' obtaining candidate status , which is based on a poli tical decisi on of the 
Council, and not necessarily driven by th e actual needs and preparedness of the 
beneficiary countries to set up the structures required for managing EU funds. This 
can become counterproductive in so far as  a candidate country may receive less 
financial support than it woul d do if it were still a po tential candidate, simply 
because the accreditation of its  national systems for management of IPA assistance 
takes time. Lessons learned also show th at preparations for management of post-
accession funds need to start at a very early  stage, with a phasing-in that is not 
facilitated by the current system. 
• The components structure as currently conceived, reflected into separate budgetary 
envelopes per component , makes it difficult to reallocate funds between policy areas 
based on performance or needs as they evolve. This may lead to the loss of limited funds, when compared to the needs for refo rms. Further flexibility should be sought 
while preserving ownership and accountability  by the beneficiary countries for each 
policy area.  
• One of the objectives of pre-accession assist ance is that beneficiary countries have 
set up before accession the administrative st ructures that will be needed for 
managing EU funds after accession, and have  a well established track-record of 
sound management of pre-accession funds. This  is beneficial also for managing their 
own national funds. However, the requirement that these administrative structures be 
fully set up and running before pre-accession assistance can even be accessed may be 
 
EN 17   EN disproportionate to actual needs, particul arly where the accession perspective is not 
close, and more progressivity may be required.  
(c) Issues related to simplification and to the efficiency and effectiveness of the 
assistance 
• The current instrument divided in five components managed by four Commission 
services creates coordination and communication challenges  as different 
management and implementation principles, conferral of management procedures or 
specific rules are applied. This is partially due to the fact that the policies and the related management structures to be set up post-accession bear specificities which 
have to be taken into account in order to  best prepare for accession. However there is 
room for rationalisation and simplification of some aspects of implementation or 
conferral of management powers.  
• Annual programming of transition and institution building assistance puts a heavy 
administrative burden  on the implementing structur es, including th e Commission 
and beneficiary public administrations.  
• IPA funds for cross-border c ooperation are broken down on  a country basis. In the 
context of programmes between candidate co untries and potential candidates, this 
approach has proved a source of inefficienci es, e.g. 2 separate contracting authorities 
within the same cross–border programme, tw o financial lead partners per each joint 
project, etc.  
• IPA funds alone are not sufficient  to meet the substantial investment needs in 
beneficiary countries to align with the acquis  (e.g. in energy, tran sport, environment 
and climate change) and improve competitiveness, which are very high.  
• Many donors and IFIs are currently active in  the beneficiary countries. The meta-
evaluation of IPA concluded that the progr amming of interventions took 'adequate 
and relevant account of relevant assi stance provided by key donors'. However, 
stakeholders do not perceive the level of coordination to be fully sufficient  yet. 
Different donors have differe nt views on strategies and policies, different 
programming cycles, strategic and operati onal (financial) requirements. There is 
competition between funding opportuniti es (and overlaps at times).  
• The long programming and procurement cycles  reduce the benefits  and impact that 
the assistance could have if  it were deployed more swif tly. In the case of twinning, 
which is a favoured tool for transferring Member States expertise to beneficiary 
public administration, delivering more sustainable results and with more involvement from beneficiary countries than tec hnical assistance (TA), issues of long 
procurement cycle and mobilisation of suitable experts limit the benefits that can be 
obtained from its use. Therefore TA is more commonly used because beneficiary 
countries find it a more flexible  and controllable instrument. 
2.4. Legal base for EU action 
The instrument proposed is based on Artic le 21 of the Treaty on European Union 
which provides that “the Union's action on the international scene shall be guided by the 
principles which have inspired its own creati on, development and enlargement, and which it 
 
EN 18   EN seeks to advance in the wider world: democracy, the rule of law, the universality and 
indivisibility of human right s and fundamental freedoms, re spect for human dignity, the 
principles of equality and solidarity, and respect for the principles of the United Nations Charter and international law". The legal base fo r financial assistance for pre-accession is Art. 
212(2) of the Treaty on the Functio ning of the European Union.  
2.5. EU Added Value 
Enlargement policy is part of the external action and contributes to meeting the common 
objectives in terms of globa l challenges, global respons e and global leadership.  
The successive enlargement of the EU is by its very nature a common task  which can be 
pursued only at EU level. Only the Member St ates acting together can decide on the accession 
requests by new candidates. The pre-accession assistance provided through the EU budget is 
designed to help candidate countries/potential candidates prepare for future membership: IPA 
is built to give countries a “tes t run” of obligations of memb ership before accession (such as 
put in place institutions for managing pos t-accession EU funds, and/or adopting the acquis 
and EU standards). No other multilateral or  bilateral instrument can provide such a 
comprehensive toolbox
, and in any case only the EU can de fine what kind of assistance is 
needed to prepare for taking over the acquis . 
Pre-accession assistance is  an investment in the future of the EU, supporting  the stability and 
prosperity of neighbouring countries and ensu ring the effective capacity of candidate 
countries to implement the acquis upon accession. Technical and financial assistance speeds 
up the process of preparation and creates incen tives for the necessary transformation of the 
society, the legal systems and the economy. Such assistance helps meet the objectives of the 
internal policies of the EU, creates opportuni ties for EU businesses and provides tangible 
return on investment. Without th e intensive involvement and cl oser partnership embodied in 
pre-accession assistance the EU would certain ly have to spend more on combating illegal 
migration, securing the external borders of the EU, ensuring security of energy supply as well 
as safe and hygienic food imports for its citi zens and combating climate change and pollution.  
In recent years EU Member States have been re ducing the level of their bilateral assistance to 
candidate countries and potential candidates, acknowledging that coordinated action at EU 
level is more effective. About half of the overall financial assistance of the EU to the 
enlargement countries in 2009 came from the EU budget. Multilateral donor organisations 
have largely phased out their support and t hose that remain have now aligned their 
programmes to the EU priorities. It should be  noted that, given its specific development 
objectives and impact, pre-accessi on assistance is also accounted as official development aid 
of the EU (ODA). 
3. OBJECTIVES  
3.1. Policy framework and objectives 
For the policy framework, cf. the introduction and 2.1. 
General objective  
The new pre-accession instrument should continue to focus on delivering on the Enlargement 
Policy  that is one of the core pr iorities of the EU External Action, thus contributing to 
 
EN 19   EN promote stability, security and prosperity in Europe. To that end, given the problems and the 
underlying drivers identified above , the new instrument should c ontinue to pursue the general 
policy objective of supporting candidate countries and potential candidates in implementing 
the appropriate political, institutional, legal, ad ministrative and economic reforms required to 
bring those countries closer to the EU values  and to progressively align to EU rules, 
standards, policies and practices wi th a view to EU membership.  
Specific objectives  
In terms of results and impacts to be achieved , the new instrument should pursue the 
following specific policy  objectives  according to the specific needs of each beneficiary 
country and to their individual enlargement agenda: 
⇒ In order to address the development gap/ challenges in the beneficiary countries and 
limited capacity to overcome these from own resources ( driver 1 ), the weak public 
institutions and/or administrative ca pacity in the beneficiary countries ( driver 2 ) and 
beneficiary countries' heterogeneity  (driver 3 ), the instrument should:  
(i)  Support political reforms , inter alia : the strengthening of democratic 
institutions, as well as of the rule of law, including its enforcement; the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms and 
enhanced respect for minority rights, the promotion of gender equality and non-discrimination, freedom of the pre ss as well as good neighbourly relations; 
the fight against corruption and organized  crime; public administration reform 
and good governance; the development of civil society and social dialogue; 
reconciliation, peace-building and confidence-building measures; 
(ii) Support economic, social and territori al development and reforms, aiming 
at a sustainable, smart and inclusive growth , inter alia through: the 
achievement of EU standards in the economy and economic governance; economic reforms necessary to cope with competitive pressure and market forces within the Union, pursuing economic, social and environmental goals;
 
fostering employment and developing human capital;  social and economic 
inclusion, in particular of minorities and vulnerable groups; the development of physical capital, including regional  networks, and the improvement of 
connections with the EU. 
(iii) Increase  beneficiary countries' ability to assume the obligations of 
membership  by supporting progressive alignment with, adoption, 
implementation and enforcement of the acquis communautaire ;  
(iv) Support regional integration and territorial cooperation between 
beneficiary countries and between them and Member States and, where appropriate, countries beneficiar ies of the European Neighbourhood 
Instrument. 
Making progress in these specific policy objectives will also contribute to the implementation 
of broader EU policy frameworks such as the Europe 2020 strategy, the EU Climate and 
Energy Package and the Innovation Union. 
 
EN 20   EN At operational level, progress with meeting th e specific policy objectives could be measured 
in relation to corresponding operational objectives , such as27:  
• Improved perceptions of democracy and th e justice system and with respect to 
human rights and non-discrim ination; reduced outstandi ng court caseload and the 
number of infringements of fundamental  rights; increased capacities for law 
enforcement and generally administrativ e capacity, reduced staff turnover.  
• Sound and effective strategies develope d, improved legislative framework; 
regulations aligned with EU standards,  institutions created and strengthened; 
enhanced employment, better so cial inclusion, reduced pove rty rates, improved skills 
and qualification levels, strengthened la bour market services, public investments 
supported.  
• Legislation aligned with the acquis , enforcement structures created and strengthened; 
management structures for EU structur al, cohesion and rural development funds 
available upon accession established, accred itation and conferral of management 
achieved; (deepened) participation to EU programmes. 
• Regional and territorial  cooperation deepened. 
In practice the operational objectives will need to be customized  to the situation in each 
beneficiary country and would be set in the programming documents based on the identified 
challenges.  
In addition, with regard to how the new instrument should work  in order to achieve the results 
and impacts set out above, methodological  ('Regulation specific' ) objectives should be 
pursued: 
⇒ In order to address the aspects of the curre nt IPA set-up affecting its flexibility to 
respond to needs, absorption of  funds, coherence and resu lt/impact of the assistance 
(driver 4 ), and taking into account benefi ciary countries' heterogeneity ( driver 3 ), 
the new instrument should:  
(a) Strengthen further the link between fina ncial assistance and the Enlargement 
policy agenda, making the assistance more strategic ;  
(b) Increase further the efficiency and e ffectiveness of the assistance and bring 
more tangible and sustainable results and impact ;  
(c) Allow for increased flexibility  in the way the instrument operates and 
allocates the assistance, whilst preser ving ownership and accountability by the 
beneficiary countries for each policy area,  so as to respond to evolving needs, 
reward progress and/or address concerns  related to the efficient use of EU 
funds; 
(d) Leverage more funds  from other donors or the private sector by using 
innovative financing instruments; 
                                                 
27 Cf; Annex 1, Ex-ante evaluation, section 8, 8.5 for the full list of possible operational objectives 
 
EN 21   EN (e) Pursue simplification and reduction of  the administrative burden  linked to 
managing the financial assistance. 
3.2. Consistency with external action priorities 
In a world where emerging powers are playing an increasing role, Enlargement gives the EU 
greater weight  and strengthens its voice in international fora. With the entry into force of the 
Lisbon Treaty, the EU has given itself the means to pull its weight further on the global scene. 
The EU's role in the adoption of the UN Ge neral Assembly Resolution on Kosovo is an 
example of this potential.  
The fifth enlargement gave a new impetus to the EU's relations with it s eastern and southern 
neighbours and led it to explore ways of devel oping initiatives in the Baltic and Black sea 
regions. The accession process with countries in  the Western Balkans and Turkey gives the 
EU a still greater interest and influence in th e Mediterranean and Black Sea regions and in the 
Danube basin. Provided that Turkey's role in its  own region is developed as a complement to 
its accession process and in coordi nation with the EU, it can add to both parties' weight in 
world affairs, not least in the Middle East and the Southern Caucasus. By acting together, the 
EU and Turkey can strengthen energy secur ity, address regional co nflicts, and prevent 
cleavages developing along ethnic or  religious lines. Iceland and the EU can together play an 
important role in addressing energy, environm ental, climate change, maritime and security 
issues in the Arctic.  
The proposal maintains a dedicated and integrated  instrument for pre-accession assistance as 
the financial pillar of the Enlargement Strategy  that encompasses all dimensions of internal 
policies and thematic issues. This is because  the Enlargement policy is primarily about 
helping partners to gradually take over the acquis  and EU relations with  candidate countries 
and potential candidates cover pr actically all thematic issues (prosperity, security, trade, 
human rights, etc.). For the sake of coherence,  efficiency, effectiveness and impact, internal 
policies and thematic issues should therefore be mainstreamed in coherent country strategies 
and achieved through country, multi-beneficiary or  cross-border programmes agreed with the 
beneficiary countries. In line with the EU  Policy Coherence for Development agenda28, the 
fact that IPA covers all internal  policies allows to better take into account the external impacts 
of internal policies on pre-accession countr ies, where EU development objectives are 
concerned. This is important notably in areas such as trade, climate change, migration or 
energy. 
However, where the nature of the action warrant s (i.e. technical, global  reach, as opposed to 
primarily accession focus), or where fundamental  European values (such as respect of human 
rights) are not complied with by a beneficiary country, other external action instruments 
should be able to intervene in the enlargement region (e.g. European Instrument for 
Democracy and Human Rights, the Instrument fo r Nuclear Safety Coope ration, the Instrument 
for Stability and Macro-financial Assistance).  
                                                 
28 The EU Policy Coherence for Development allows to 'development-proof' non-development policy 
initiatives and make sure that EU development policy objectives are taken into account in other policy 
areas. Since 2009, the EU PCD agen da focuses on five main challe nges: trade and finance, food 
security, climate change, security and migration. This  horizontal approach that allows to weed out the 
main incoherencies and maximise synergies, especi ally in areas like trade,  where the Commission can 
negotiate trade agreements on behalf of the entire EU, puts the EU in a better position than Member 
States to make the most of the development budget.  
 
EN 22   EN 3.3. Consistency with other EU policies  
The Enlargement process projects the internal policies of the EU in the national order of the 
beneficiary countries. It contributes to the expansion of the internal market, energy and 
transport networks , the protection of the  environment , sustainable fisheries  and efforts to 
address climate change , attain a more strategic approach to maritime policies , educational 
attainment, scientific excellence, poverty reduction and the digital agenda , among others. 
In line with the objectives of the "Europe 2020" strategy for a smart, sustainable and inclusive 
growth in the fields of employment, innovation, education, so cial inclusion and 
climate/energy, particular attention s hould be given to aspects such as resource efficiency  
and enhancing employment  opportunities , skills development , education  and social 
inclusion .  
The countries of the Western Balkans are en tirely surrounded by Member States. Turkey 
adjoins the European Union by land  and sea. The construction of trans-European energy 
and transport corridors , the diversification of energy s ources and promotion of energy 
efficiency, the mitigation of and adaptation to climate change  and the reduction of trans-
boundary air and water pollution  are among the EU goals whos e achievement would require 
the full commitment of the en largement countries. The most recent candidate which has 
begun accession negotiations, Iceland, is a world lead er in various forms of renewable energy 
and has much to contribute to EU innovation efforts in this and ot her advanced fields.  
Financial and technical assistan ce to candidate countries and pot ential candidates triggers and 
supports comprehensive reform agendas in the enlargement countries with a view to align 
them with the rules and be st practices in the EU,  while also contributing to meeting the 
Millennium Development Goals in the benefici ary countries. New elements regarding the 
current reform of the Common Agricultural Policy  of the EU, on innovation, environment, 
climate change, resource efficiency, better unloc king local potential and food security, as well 
as the current reform of the Common Fisheries Policy , will be integrated into the design of 
the new instrument, which will assure coherence between the di fferent policy areas, taking 
into account the enlargement context. Th e current instrument is already funding inter alia  
activities which foster smart growth through su pporting businesses and agriculture to become 
more competitive and to adapt to climate change ; foster sustainable growth by maintaining the 
food, feed & renewables produc tion base, reducing emissions from agriculture, promoting 
resource efficiency and environmental prot ection, increasing competitiveness and supporting 
the development of the full potential of rural areas; foster inclusive growth by unlocking the 
local potential, diversifying rural economies and developing local markets as well as 
supporting farmers' income and opening up alternative opportuniti es to accompany 
agricultural restructuring. 
Stabilisation and Association Agreements and ot her agreements with candidate countries and 
potential candidates include provisions on competition . The EU actively encourages 
enlargement countries to establish competition regimes. Along with other policy objectives 
such as a well-functioning public administratio n and an independent judiciary safeguarding 
the enforceability of contracts, an effective competition policy create s a business environment 
facilitating economic growth. Competition polic y provides a set of transparent rules which 
firms must abide by when competing with rivals. Moreover, the competition authorities - as well as appeal courts in competition cases – f unction as arbiters defining and penalising anti-
competitive behaviour. An effective competition po licy reduces firms' policy risks – the rules 
of the game are known beforehand – and thereby stimulates foreign direct investment. For 
 
EN 23   EN these reasons, competition policy should continue to form an integral part of the Enlargement 
policy actions and programmes.  
In what regards climate change , and taking into acc ount Europe 2020 object ives and the need 
to help other parts of the world to step up their efforts to combat climate change, the Commission has stated in th e June 2011 Communication on " A Budget for Europe 2020"  that 
it intends to increase the proportion of climate related expenditure across the EU budget to at 
least 20%, with varying contribu tions from different policies, subject to impact assessment 
evidence. For the pre-accession assistance inst rument, climate mainstreaming and climate 
objectives would in particular be relevant in re lation to regional and rural development 
activities that can contribute to mitigate and ad apt to climate change, in addition to pursuing 
low carbon development.  
In this same spirit, support should  be granted to strengthening the research and innovation  
capacity as well as information and communications  technologies (ICTs), which in turn would 
facilitate not only the realisation of the Innova tion Union but also underpin the other Europe 
2020 strategy objectives and comp liance with EU technical requ irements and standards in 
many other policies (e.g. public health, f ood security and the environment). The Digital 
agenda  for Europe, a prominent flagship initiat ive of the Europe 2020 Strategy, defines the 
key enabling role that ICTs will have to play if  Europe wants to succeed in its ambitions for 
2020. The challenges the Union is facing in this area have a crucial inte rnational dimension 
which EU enlargement countries could be contri buting to, enlarging as such the digital single 
market footprint, spurring innovation, economic  growth and job creation, and an improved 
access to public services.  
Making Europe a safer place is high on the EU's agenda as defined in the Stockholm 
Programme. The enlargement countries  are required to take over the acquis  of the Union and 
to demonstrate their capacity to implement it fully. For this reason, the Commission has redoubled efforts, including through the impr oved strategic orientation of its financial 
assistance for pre-accession, to  support enlargemen t countries to pr event and tackle organised 
crime and corruption  and to strengthen their law enfo rcement capabilities. With financial 
support from IPA, EU prosecutors, judges and other experts in law enforcement, border 
management and migration  now assist counter-parts in the enlargement countries to share 
their expertise and to check on progress.  
3.4. Geographical/thematic coverage 
The new instrument for pre-accession assistance post-2013 will continue to cover countries 
that are official candidates to EU accession as well as potential candidates, as determined by unanimous decisions of the European Council.  Currently, Croatia, Turkey, the former 
Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Iceland and Montenegro belong to the former group, while Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Serbia, as we ll as Kosovo belong to the latter group. By the 
time the new instrument will come into effect in 2014, Croatia should already be a Member State. As foreseen in the proposal for a Council Regulation laying down the multiannual financial framework for the years 2014-2020
29, 'if new Member States accede to the Union 
during the period covered by the financial fr amework, the financial framework shall be 
adjusted to take account of the expenditure requirements resulting form the outcome of the 
accession negotiations' . 
                                                 
29 COM(2011)398 final of 29.6.2011, Art. 11 
 
EN 24   EN The thematic coverage of new instrument will correspond to the general and specific 
objectives i. to v. as set out under paragraph 3.1 above.  
4. POLICY OPTIONS  
In light of the problems and underlying drivers identified, the Commission considered various 
options and sub-options for the future instrument for pre-accession assistance30. Option 1 
represented the base-line scenario against wh ich other options and related impacts were 
assessed:  
Option 1 - “No change" . Assistance to candidate countri es and potential candidates would 
continue with the same objective and scope of  the current pre-accession instrument, i.e. a 
strong focus on compliance with the political  and economic criteria for EU accession, 
progressive alignment with/adoption of the acquis communautaire  and preparations for 
management of Structural, Agriculture and Ru ral Development funds after accession, but with 
limited emphasis on achieving tangible sustai nable socio-economic impacts. Under this 
option, the conditions and modalities for acces s to and delivery (planning, programming, 
management and implementation) of the assist ance would not change from today, remaining 
structured into five separate 'Components'. Wh ile all beneficiary countri es would be able to 
access assistance for compliance wi th the accession criteria, a lignment with/adoption of the 
acquis communautaire and regional and cross-border coope ration (Components I and II), only 
candidate countries could be supported in their preparati ons for management of post-
accession funds (Components III to V). The allo cation of the assistance under all Components 
would continue to be planned on a three-year basis reviewed annually, and the technical and 
financial details for operational implementation would be determined in separate programmes per Component, on an annual (Component I) or multi-annual (Components II to V) basis. 
Operational programmes under Component I woul d keep foreseeing capacity-building and 
acquis -compliance actions also in the areas of regional development (environment, transport, 
competitiveness), human-resources development and rural development, and would typically fund individual projects. EU funds could be used to leverage additional funds from 
International Financial Institutions for financing infrastructure investments in the enlargement 
region. Actual access to assistance under Components III to V would depend on the preparedness and ensuing accreditation of the national systems for managing the assistance 
(without ex-ante  controls by the Commission in the case of Component V). Transferring 
funds across Components in order to address needs and/or absorp tion capacity as they evolved 
would have to follow the related substantia l administrative procedures. Monitoring of 
progress in implementation of the assistance on the ground would be done separately under 
the different Components. There would be sepa rate accreditation proces ses for the managing 
structures and systems when managing a ssistance under different Components.  
This option would target all the policy obj ectives identified for future pre-accession 
assistance, though with a limited focus on social  and economic impacts, while it would not 
address the methodological  objectives set in order to respond more flexibly to needs, increase 
absorption of funds and secure higher cohere nce and result/impact of the assistance.   
Option 2 - “Amend the existing Regulation ” with regard to scope, Components structure 
and implementation arrangements. Three sub-options  were considered: 
                                                
 
30 Cf. Annex 1, Ex-ante Evaluation, Section 5 
 
EN 25   EN – Sub-option 2.1 - "Reduce scope and keep implementation arrangements” .  
Compared with option 1, this option would focus on ‘policy activity’ where the instrument is perceived to deliver the highe st EU added value, i.e. support for the 
necessary legal and institutional changes needed to comply with the Copenhagen 
criteria, adoption and implementation of the acquis  and (where accession is 
foreseeable) the management of EU Stru ctural and Rural Development Funds. The 
policy intervention would also give emphasis to interventions that influence attitudes 
towards the reforms required for EU memb ership. On the other hand it would not 
commit any significant funds for co-financi ng public investments for socio-economic 
development. The latter would be c overed by the benefici ary countries in 
conjunction with IFIs. More specifical ly, this policy opti on would involve a 
reduction in resources available for soci al and economic development and cohesion 
under Components I, III, IV and V compared with the option 1. The conditions and modalities for access to and delivery of th e assistance would remain similar to those 
foreseen under option 1.  
This option would target only partially to  the policy objective aimed at supporting 
economic and social development and reform s, and as option 1 it would not address 
any of the methodological  objectives.   
– Sub-option 2.2 : “Keep the Components structure and add more focus on 
investments ”, in order to increase the socio- economic impact in the beneficiary 
countries and to speed up their preparat ion for managing structural, cohesion and 
rural development funds. The EU would a ssume a catalytic and leadership role 
amongst donors. This option would include  a stronger emphasis on regional needs 
than the option 1 does and would invol ve refining and extending the Western 
Balkans Investment Framework. The conditions and modalities for access to and delivery of the assistance would remain similar to those foreseen under option 1.  
This option would particularly aim at atta ining economic and social development and 
reforms as well as regional and territorial cooperation, while not targeting the other 
policy objectives rela ted to political reforms and in creased beneficiary countries' 
ability to assume the obligations of membership. Methodological  objectives would 
not be addressed.  
– Sub-option 2.3 : “Maintain the scope and adjust  implementation arrangements ”. 
Under this option assistance would continue  to target both compliance with the 
accession criteria, with reinforced emphasi s on public administration reform and 
other horizontal reform requirements of the public sector, and support for socio-
economic development. In addition, it w ould focus on adjusting aspects of the 
current IPA set-up and implementation modaliti es so as to i) improve the strategic 
orientation and results/impact of the assist ance, ii) address the need for flexibility 
resulting from the heterogeneity of benefi ciary countries, iii) enhance absorption of 
funds and increase further the efficiency a nd effectiveness of the assistance, while 
simplifying its operation and reducing the administrative burden. In particular, 
adjustments would include:  
• Un-differentiated access to assistance irrespective of candi date or potential 
candidate status, albeit with different scope  or intensities, on the basis of actual 
needs as well as technical and administ rative capacity. This would also help  
increase preparedness for abso rbing funds after accession.  
 
EN 26   EN • Streamlining the  component structure around principal policy areas , 
including transition process and capaci ty building, regional development, 
employment, social inclusion and human resources development; agriculture and 
rural development; regional and territorial cooperat ion. Assistance under the 
policy areas will support beneficiary countri es in the attainment of the general 
and specific policy objectives. It may s upport, inter alia, the type of actions 
provided for under the EU structural , cohesion, agricultural and rural 
development funds as well as policy development and preparation for the 
implementation and management of those funds.  
• Country and multi-country strategies  spanning the pe riod 2014-2020 and 
addressing selectively the policy areas, covering for each selected area all 
necessary institution building, acquis compliance and investment actions.  
• More systematic multi-annual programming  also for transition and capacity 
building assistance, supporting the eff ective implementation of the related 
strategies; 
• Reinforced (co-) financing of agreed sector strategies (including through sector 
budget support  based on effectively targeted conditionalities)  as opposed to 
individual projects. Project support or other implementation modalities (such as dedicated facilities) woul d remain available for acquis  compliance, when not 
covered by overarching sector strategies.  
• A more progressive,  phased approach to management  of financial assistance  
(from management by the Commission to management by the beneficiary 
country, with or without ex-ante  controls by the Commission), depending on 
status/perspective for accession, sector/policy area of assistance, administrative, technical and management capacity. Ho wever, the creation of management 
structures and procedures mirroring t hose needed post-accession would continue 
to be the aim in relevant policy areas.  
• Better linking the management of assistance to policy priorities  as reflected in 
Progress Reports, the achievement of nego tiation benchmarks or the track record 
in implementing the Association Agreements (e.g. opening or closing benchmarks for negotiating chapters could be linked to the progress in 
implementing decentralised management  under the corresponding policy area). 
• Financial assistance more directly conditional on improved governance and 
ownership by the beneficiary countries, and with elements of flexibility to cater 
for emerging needs and give incentives to improve performance .  
• Possibility to shift allocations between polic y areas in a given country if, 
compared to conditions and indicators set in the country strategy, absorption of 
assistance is lower than planned; Possibility to carry over funds from one year 
to another , if foreseen by the new Financial Regulation.  
• CBC at borders between benefi ciary countries simplified by further aligning 
programming and implementation wi th the Structural Funds approach , 
mainly by allocating EU funds pe r programme, without breakdown per 
 
EN 27   EN participating country, and by designati ng a single contracting authority per 
programme responsible for contracting and payments.  
• More use of innovative financial instruments  that could leverage more private 
funds; exploiting synergies with innovative financial instruments developed for 
the internal policies, on the basis of a coordinated approach to and coordinated 
rules for engaging EU budget in such instruments. An increased leveraging of private and other funds would also help reduce the gap between the levels of 
pre- and post-accession funds .  
• Also as part of the reinforced di rection towards sector-level support,  increased 
cooperation with other donors and international and other financial 
institutions at strategic level, if appropriate  agreeing on policy priorities and on 
a clearer division of labour;  
• Continued support to regional programs/projects/bodies (e.g. the Secretariat 
to the Energy Community) that encourag e knowledge and experience sharing, 
harmonisation of policies, agreement on join t priorities, building of mutual trust 
and enhance the effectiveness of policies e.g. in transport, energy, environment, 
climate change, statistics, fight against organised crime and migration issues.  
In addition to addressing all policy  objectives as option 1, with a particular accent on 
public administration reform, good governance and investments for social and economic development, this option would also address the methodological  objectives 
identified as a result of lessons learne d from implementation of past pre-accession 
and transition assistance.    
Option 3 : "Design a new instrument". This option was not analysed  in detail. Pre-accession 
assistance underwent a major rationalization in  2006, when the existing financial instruments 
for pre-accession were merged into IPA. IP A beneficiary countries will have invested 
considerable financial and human resources by 2 013 to set up the structures and systems for 
implementation of financial assistance under th e rules and procedures of the current IPA 
instrument. The post-2013 instrument should ta ke account of this in order to ensure a 
seamless move to the new period  without jeopardizing efforts already made. Therefore, all 
stakeholders agreed that there is no need fo r fundamental changes th is time and continuity 
should be sought. This option has therefore b een excluded from the analysis of impacts.  
5. A
NALYSIS OF IMPACTS31  
Irrespective of the option selected, the likely ec onomic, social and environmental impacts of 
the future pre-accession assistance cannot be qu antified at this stage, as they depend on the 
strategic and detailed operational c hoices for the interventions in each beneficiary country that 
are determined only at the time when op erational implementation programmes are 
determined, largely based on input from those c ountries. Therefore the analysis below reflects 
assumptions made on the likely impacts of the different options. Howeve r, those assumptions 
can be considered reasonable in the light of th e very nature of pre-accession assistance and the 
experience of past assistance in preparation for the 5th enlargement. As accession criteria are 
                                                 
31 Cf. Annex 1, Ex-ante Evaluation, Section 6 
 
EN 28   EN related i.a. to the attainment of leve ls of economic, social and environmental development and 
standards corresponding to those prevailing in the EU, and as pre-accession assistance is 
primarily aimed at supporting applicant countries in  their efforts to comply with those criteria, 
it is reasonable to expect that any of the opti ons envisaged would have positive impacts. How 
positive may however vary depending on the focu s/scope of the assistance and the modalities 
for its delivery.  
5.1. Likely economic, social and environmen tal impacts of each of the options 
5.1.1.  Economic impacts 
The economic impact of the various options was assessed in terms of th e likelihood that the 
options would: i) delay or accelerate enlargement and ther efore the achievement of the 
positive economic impact expected to arise from the expansion of the internal market32,; ii) 
maintain or reduce costs to the EU and Member States in terms of security measures and risks, border controls and irre gular migration; iii) constrain or improve the possibilities for 
better economic integration, e.g. through improve d integration with the Trans-European 
Networks; iv) affect positively or negatively the confidence of donors and investors in the beneficiary countries.  
Option 1 'No change'  – Compared to an hypothetical situ ation where no assistance would be 
in place, continuing with a financial instrument th at is primarily aimed at assisting beneficiary 
countries to comply with the political and economic criteria for EU accession, align progressively with and adopt the acquis,  have structures and systems in place for managing 
EU funds post-accession and, to a more limited extent, reduce the gap with the social and 
economic conditions in the EU would contribut e to anticipating enlargement, therefore 
anticipating also the potential economic impact of an expanded internal market. This option 
would also likely reduce the costs to the EU and Member States in terms of security measures 
and risks, border controls and irregular migr ation as a result of technical assistance for 
capacity building, legislative an d regulatory approximation in ar eas related to the security, 
border controls and migration acquis , and thanks to the executi on of the relevant works and 
the provision of the necessary equipment. Impr ovements in Trans-European Networks (TENs) 
resulting from transport infrastructure in vestments co-funded by pre-accession assistance 
would improve the possibilities  for better economic integra tion. Continued substantial EU 
financial assistance would favourably aff ect donors and investors confidence in the 
beneficiary countries, fa vouring foreign investment s in those countries. 
Sub-option 2.1 'Reduce scope and keep  implementation arrangements'  – As financial 
assistance would in this case not be availabl e for co-financing public investments in socio-
economic development, compared to option 1 the large gap between the socio economic conditions in the beneficiary countries and thos e in the EU would be likely to continue under 
this sub-option. As a result, enlargement would likely be delayed for some of the beneficiary 
countries, as they might be motivated to maintain their competitiveness through e.g. lower environmental and labour market standa rds, thus failing to meet important acquis -related pre-
conditions for accession. This would, in turn, delay the main economic impacts expected to arise from the expansion of the internal ma rket. Continued weaknesses in the TENs would 
                                                
 
32  In case of enlargement to all the current IPA benefi ciary countries, the economic impact is estimated to 
be in the order of magnitude of EUR 5 billion per year (assuming a similar impact as observed 
following the fifth enlargement of 2004/2007) 
 
EN 29   EN constrain the possibilities for be tter economic integration. On th e other hand, similarly as it 
would likely be the case under option 1, continued EU financial assistance supporting preparations for EU accession would favourably a ffect donors and investors confidence in the 
beneficiary countries, theref ore favouring their investme nts in those countries. 
Sub-option 2.2  'Keep the component structure and put focus on investments'  – Given the 
reinforced emphasis on investments for socio- economic development, this sub-option would 
help reducing the large gap between the socio economic conditions in the enlargement countries and those in the EU, therefore anticipating further th e potential economic impact of 
an expanded internal market compared to opt ion 1. This sub-option would also likely reduce 
further the costs to the EU and Member States in  terms of security measures and risks, border 
controls and irregular migration, while im proving even further than under option 1 the 
possibilities for better economic integration  following greater improvements in Trans-
European Networks as can be expected from more assistance being available for 
infrastructure investments. However, keepi ng the current components structure would not 
allow allocating EU funds flexibly to the sector s where investments are most needed or where 
the quality of projects prepara tion is the highest. There would be no additional incentives to 
increase administrative and technical capacity to speed up implementation.  
Sub-option 2.3  'Maintain scope and change implementation arrangements' – Under this 
option, the positive economic impact resulting from maintaining investments for socio-
economic development would be compounded by th e improved strategic and results/impact 
orientation of the assistance, its increased flexibility and the other improvements in the 
delivery mechanisms and implementation arrangements aimed at increasing the efficiency and effectiveness of the assistance while simplif ying its operation. In a ddition, the reinforced 
emphasis on public administration reform and other horizontal reform requirements of the public sector should reinforce the sustainability of results.  
5.1.2.  Social impacts, including impacts on human rights 
The social impact of the various options was as sessed in terms of the likely effect on poverty 
and exclusion in the enlargement countries linked to progress towards accession and the creation of conditions for improved economic pe rformance and policy measures that could 
address these issues. Likely effects in terms of risks that the rights in the area of justice and 
the rule of law could be jeopardised in the bene ficiary countries as a consequence of delays in 
and risks to accession taking place were also considered.  
Option 1 – This option was seen as leading to a limite d reduction of proble ms of poverty and 
exclusion in the beneficiary countries compar ed with current conditions. Regular progress 
towards accession would help create the condi tions for improved economic performance and 
policy measures that could further address these issues. Risks that the rights in the area of 
justice and the rule of law woul d be jeopardised in the beneficiary countries as a consequence 
of delays in and risks to accession taking  place would likely be less, compared to a 
hypothetical situation where no as sistance would be in place. 
Sub-option 2.1 - This sub-option would not address the continuing problems of poverty and 
exclusion in the beneficiary coun tries other than thr ough the indirect effect  of continuing and 
regular progress towards accession for cr eating the conditions for improved economic 
performance and policy measures that could addr ess these issues. As a consequence of delays 
in and risks to accession taking place, this sub-option was seen  as bearing risks that the rights 
in the area of justice and the rule of law would be jeopardised in the be neficiary countries.   
 
EN 30   EN Sub-option 2.2  - The increased focus on socio-economic development should help tackle 
poverty and exclusion issues. Continuing, regul ar and potentially accelerated progress 
towards accession should help create the conditions for improved economic performance and policy measures that could further address thes e issues. This option was assessed similarly to 
option 1 in terms of impacts on human rights.  
Sub-option 2.3 – The envisaged revisions to the implementation modalities of the assistance 
would allow for speedier and more efficient implementation, by way of more targeted and 
more ambitious sector strategies, including activ e labour market and social inclusion policies. 
The reinforced emphasis on public administra tion reform and other horizontal reform 
requirements of the public sector should reinforce the sustainability of results. 
5.1.3.  Environmental impacts 
If enlargement was delayed or put at risk, it is  assumed that environmental costs would likely 
accrue, as lower environmental standards ma y be used as a mechanism for generating 
competitive advantages in the beneficiary countries, or in any case implementation of the expensive investments needed to align with the EU environmental acquis  (regarding e.g. air 
quality, water quality and distribution, wastewat er and waste collection and treatment etc.) 
would likely be delayed in the absence of co-f unding from EU assistance and of the leverage 
effect that EU funds could bring on other donors and private sector funds.  
Option 1  –As this option entails a continuation of EU assistance addressing all the relevant 
policy  objectives, it is expected to contribute to  a speedier enlargement, therefore having also 
a positive environmental impact. This positive impact would be compounded by the fact that, 
as it is already the case under the current IP A instrument, part of the assistance would 
continue to be used for cap acity building, legal approximation and investments in the 
infrastructure needed for compliance with the environmental acquis , where the latter is one 
major chapter of accession negotiations and the e nvironment sector is one of the three main 
sectors of assistance in the regional development area (Component III).  
Sub-option 2.1  – By no longer envisaging investme nts for socio-economic development, 
including in the environment sector, the positive environmental impacts of this option are expected to be less than they could otherwise be. However positive impacts would nevertheless result from the fact that tech nical assistance and capacity building actions 
supporting approximation to and adoption of the environmental acquis  would continue. 
Acquis  implementation  would most likely be affected, as  it implies substantial works to 
upgrade the environmental infrastructure.  
Sub-option 2.2  – This option has the potential to incu r high positive environmental impacts, 
if some of the additional resources made ava ilable to investments would be earmarked for 
environmental goods and services with a view  to achieving some EU standards prior to 
accession. Achieving a number of these is indeed likely to incur high public sector investment 
costs.  
Sub-option 2.3 – Because of the improved focus, efficien cy, effectiveness and impact of the 
assistance, including the use of more innovative financial instruments to leverage additional 
funds for infrastructure investments from othe r donors and the private sector, combined with 
continuing investments in the environmental sect or among other priority sectors, this option 
could bring about very positive environmental impacts. Again, the reinforced emphasis on 
 
EN 31   EN public administration reform and other horizontal reform requirements of the public sector 
should reinforce the sustai nability of results.  
5.2. Likely impact of the options in terms of simplification and reduction of the 
administrative burden 
Simplification and reduction of the administ rative burden are linked to implementation 
arrangements. They are therefore expected to  accrue more prominently in relation to option 
2.3. This option pursues simplification primarily by streamlining the component structure 
around principal policy areas . This translates into considerable simplification already at the 
level of the legislative framework of the instru ment and the future implementing rules with a 
streamlining of provisions as to the scope, condi tions for access to and implementation of the 
assistance. Linked to the streamlin ing of the components structure, undifferentiated access to 
assistance  under each policy area will imply that beneficiary countries will no longer need to 
be identified separately in the legal basis of the instrument. As a result, it will no longer be 
necessary to go through a heavy pro cedure in order to reflect a be neficiary's change of status, 
reducing the gap between political decisions  related to financial assistance and 
implementation on the ground. Simila rly, in case a new country should become a potential 
candidate for EU accession, the procedural requi rements for including that country among the 
beneficiaries of the assistance w ould be considerably simplified.  
Different Commission services will remain res ponsible for managing the assistance aimed at 
the different policy areas. However, coordi nation, communication and implementation on the 
ground will be improved through simplificati on on a number of aspects, including closer joint 
monitoring  of the progress of implementation in the beneficiary countries and a reduced 
number of accreditation processes  for conferring management powers to horizontal 
management structures in the beneficiary coun tries (i.e. Operating St ructures, the National 
Fund, the Audit Authority ). Increased coherence of th e action of the Commission under 
option 2.3 should also substantia lly reduce the cost and burden  of coordination incurred by 
beneficiary countries, related the different co mmunication channels and procedures used by 
the Commission. 
Option 2.3 envisages also that st rategic decisions on th e allocation of the assistance are made 
through comprehensive country and multi-country multi-annual strategies covering the full 
period of the new financial framework (2014-2020)  and reviewed once at mid-term, replacing 
the current system of three-year rolling indica tive planning documents revised each year. This 
will reduce for all stakeholders involved the admini strative burden related to the yearly review 
of each document and possible ensuing revisions. Similarly, less administration for all and quicker delivery of the assistance will fo llow from introducing multi-annual programming 
also for transition and cap acity-building assistance.  
More simplification under option 2.3 should re sult also from introducing, for those sectors 
where the conditions for it will be in place, a s ector-based approach to  the allocation of the 
assistance. In addition to favour ing improved effectiveness and im pact of the assistance, this 
approach could translate into a lower number  of bigger projects/contracts being funded, 
therefore a reduced administ rative burden related to proj ect/contract management. If 
conditions allow, the sector approach could also entail the use of budget support, again 
reducing the related administrative burd en compared to project support.  
Detailed provisions on joint monitoring and th e accreditation processes will be provided in 
separate implementing rules. Those rules will pursue also further simplification in relation to 
 
EN 32   EN cross-border cooperatio n between candidate c ountries and potential candidates, by further 
aligning programming and implementation w ith the Structural Funds approach.  
Additionally, simplificat ion of the management and implementation of the assistance will 
follow from aligning with the relevant pr ovisions of the new Financial Regulation.  
6. COMPARING THE OPTIONS  
6.1. Weighing of positive and negative impacts per option 
Option 1  would maintain EU financial commitment to the enlargement pr ocess. Continuing 
with a strong focus on accession criteria would be  to build on IPA's greatest strength. Adding 
some support to public investment would help  accession countries to meet some especially 
urgent needs and would raise the profile of the assistance. In addition, it would allow the EU 
to further support innovative fi nancing arrangements already set up with the International 
Financial Institutions, where IPA funds act as a catalyst for greater investment, leveraging loans from IFIs for investment in infrastruc ture in the region. All this would generate a 
positive signal to beneficiary countries and re inforce the EU commitment to enlargement. 
This should be reflected in the beneficiary countries’ commitment to undertake the necessary 
reforms. The realisation of the anticipated bene fits of enlargement shoul d take place within a 
reasonable timeframe. However, because of unchanged implementation arrangements, this 
option could be associated with circumstan ces where resources are not used optimally 
because beneficiary countries would be required to create systems mirroring those in the EU 
for the implementation of post-accession EU funds even where those systems will not be required in the foreseeable future. Part of the re sources would also not be available to some of 
the beneficiaries although the needs might be there for using them. The coherence
33 of the 
assistance may also be affected by keeping th e assistance separated into five different 
Components. 'Continuation' in scope and im plementation modalities might also send the 
message that the new instrument has not ta ken on board the lessons learned from its 
predecessor.  
Sub-option 2.1  would limit the scope of the EU fina ncial commitment to the enlargement 
process stricto sensu  with the likely consequence of de lays to enlargement and to the 
realisation of its anticipated benefits. Howe ver, this sub-option would focus resources on 
where the EU is perceived to add most value and be most effective34. The meta evaluation of 
the existing instrument judged that the effectiven ess of the current instrument was strongest in 
acquis  related areas, and it found that IPA projects  were generally well targeted on accession 
requirements. However, focusing only on lega l and institutional changes would deprive 
beneficiary countries of direct support for thei r socio-economic development, which is also a 
pre-requisite for helping the beneficiary countri es meet the economic criteria and generate the 
                                                 
33 Coherence  means possibilities to create synergies in terms of programming and delivery towards achieving the 
agreed objectives and to avoid negative consequences and overlaps which would adversely affect the implementation of the policies.
  
 
34 Effectiveness  means doing the right things, that is setting the right goals and objectives and making sure they 
are accomplished.  
 
EN 33   EN income necessary to cover the co st of the preparations for me mbership. In particular, there 
would be no further EU contributions leveragi ng capital inflows from IFIs and other donors, 
thus limiting the efficiency35 of the assistance. The price to be paid for a reduced scope of 
financial assistance would be a prolongation of the period of  preparation for membership. 
This could mean that no savings are made if the amounts allocated over the full period until 
the completion of the accession negotiations are cumulated. Furthermore, financial assistance 
provided to applicant countries produces advantages for the EU  and creates opportunities for 
the businesses in the current Member States. These opportunities would be reduced under this 
sub-option.  
The meta evaluation of IPA showed that benefici ary countries financial needs, particularly for 
infrastructure, clearly exceed available IPA (and other donors') funding. Sub-option 2.2 
would increase EU financial commitment to socio-economic development. This would help accession countries especially in working towards the Copenhagen economic  criteria which 
require candidates to have the ability to cope wi th the pressure of competition and the market 
forces at work inside the Union. It would send to beneficiary countries a positive signal of a 
reinforced EU commitment to Enlargement, wh ich in turn should be reflected in the 
beneficiary countries’ commitment  to undertake the necessary reforms. The realisation of the 
anticipated benefits of enlarg ement might take place more quickly as compared with option 1. 
Some of the expenditure would be on infras tructure that would also assist economic 
integration in the region. However, by keeping the current components structure, a flexible 
and efficient allocation of EU funds to the sectors where investments are most needed or 
where the quality of projects preparation is  highest would be difficult to achieve.  
Sub-option 2.3 would be comparable to option 1 in term s of the benefits of continuing with 
the current scope of pre-acce ssion assistance. In addition, by reinforcing the emphasis on 
public administration reform and other horizontal reform requirements of the public sector and by simplifying further the structure of the instrument and adjusting its implementation 
modalities to make it more strategic, result-ori ented, flexible and tailor-made to needs, this 
option would allow for a more coherent, effici ent, effective and sustainable use of EU 
resources compared to  the other options.  
The following table provides a comparison of th e options described a bove with regard to 
efficiency, effectiveness, coherence and how th ey would influence the underlying drivers of 
the problem that th ey would address: 
Negative or very negative impact: - or -- 
Neutral impact: 0 
Positive or very positive impact: + or ++ 
 
Effect on the underlying driver of 
the problem Option 1 
(no change) Option 2.1 
(reduced 
scope) Option 2.2 
(focus on 
investments ) Option 2.3 
(adjust 
implementation 
arrangements) 
                                                 
35 Efficiency  means doing things right, in other words it is getting the most from EU resources. This encompasses 
organisational aspects and the gains from the simplification of the instruments.  
 
 
EN 34   EN Efficiency - - - ++ 
Effectiveness 0 + + ++ 
Coherence - - - ++ 
i. Reduced development gap + - ++ + 
ii. Reinforced institutions + ++ 0 ++ 
iii. Addresses heterogeneity 0 0 + ++ 
iv. Assistance becomes more:     
strategic and result oriented 0 + + + 
flexible and tailor-made 0 0 0 + 
simplified, efficient, effective  0 0 0 + 
 
6.2. Preferred option 
On balance, sub-option 2.3 “Maintain scope and change implementation arrangements” 
emerged clearly as the preferred option.  
7. MONITORING AND EVALUATION  
7.1. Core indicators of progress towards objectives  
Progress towards the specific objectives of the new instrument can be assessed through three 
main macro-indicators:  
• Progress toward meeting the accession benchmarks (chapters opened/closed) or 
positive track record in implem enting the Association Agreements  as reflected 
i.a. by positive Progress Reports, survey -based indices compiled by reputable 
international organisations for areas such as government  effectiveness; political 
stability and absence of violence; the rule of law;  
• Socio-economic evolution, as measured by impact indicators such as the UNDP's 
human development index as a general measure of prosperity; unemployment rates; 
foreign direct investment inflows; trade balances 
• Regional cooperation and integration, as measured by survey-based indices 
reflecting perceptions on the level (trend)  of security and stability; political, 
economic and cultural interactions, as well as  by measures reflecting the integration 
of Trans European Networks.   
The ex-ante evaluation has also highlighted the n eed to provide detailed  guidance and to build 
capacities in the beneficiary countries to systema tically collect the requisite data that will be 
needed to assess progress at the operational le vel. Previous enlargements have led to 
increased priority being given to programme level monitoring and evaluation and ‘evidence 
based’ policy making in new Member States. Sh ifts towards resource allocations based on 
performance and meeting conditions as well as needs should also encourage a similar 
tendency amongst candidate countries and potential candidates.  
The EU has committed itself to mainstreaming ac tion on climate and biodiversity and for this 
to be meaningful it needs to be accompanied by an obligation to identify relevant programmes 
so that the EU is able to set out clearly how  much of its spending relates to these global 
 
EN 35   EN challenges. Clear benchmarks, monitoring and reporting rules need to be established. 
Expenditure that promotes climate action36 or energy efficiency as well as the protection and 
sustainable management of biodi versity and ecosystems, will be tracked using a system that 
reflects the established Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) 
methodology ("Rio markers"). 
Future monitoring and evaluations will have to take into account that: – Results and impacts will vary across beneficiary countries, given their differences 
and the varying needs and positions on the ‘path to accession’;  
– Because the new instrument will continue to operate alongside the political 
negotiation process  and other interventions with a bearing on accession, it will be 
difficult to identify progress re sulting exclusively from the instrument, except at the 
level of specific activities;  
– Many of the ‘results’  of the future programme – su ch as progress in meeting the 
political criteria for accession - will be by their nature difficult to measure;   
– To some extent the objectives of the inst rument may be achieved through the status 
conferred on the beneficiary as much as through the results of the EU financial interventions;  
– Given the difficult context for evaluation, the relative weight of absorption  as a 
measure for assessing progress should not be overestimated. 
7.2. Outline for monitoring and evaluation arrangements  
Under the selected option, monitoring and eval uation arrangements will be reinforced in 
comparison to the current situation. The proposed  changes will improve the focus on results. 
They will - as called for by the budget review - provide for the definition of specific, 
measurable, achievable objectives as well as for appropriate indicators.  
The European Commission's Monitoring and Ev aluation systems are already increasingly 
focussed on results. They involve internal staff as well as external exper tise. Task managers in 
EU Delegations and at Headquarters continuously  monitor the implementation of projects and 
programmes in various ways, in cluding wherever possible thr ough field visits. Monitoring 
provides valuable information on progress, it help s managers to identify actual and potential 
bottlenecks and to take timely co rrective action where appropriate. 
In addition, external, independent experts are contracted to assess the performance of EU 
external actions through vari ous complementary systems. These assessments contribute to 
accountability and to the improve ment of ongoing interventions; th ey also draw lessons from 
past experience to inform future policies and actions. The tools used are in line with internationally-recognised OECD-DAC evalua tion criteria including (potential) impact. 
                                                
 
36 Regarding instruments under the EU budget, in order to reach the Euro pe 2020 objectives and to help 
other parts of the world to step up their efforts to  combat climate change, th e Commission has stated in 
the June 2011 Communication on “A Budget for Euro pe 2020” that it intends to increase the proportion 
of climate related expenditure across the EU budget to at least 20%, with contribution from different 
policies, subject to impact assessment evidence. 
 
EN 36   EN The Commission also supports be neficiary countries to build their own capacity to monitor 
and evaluate spending. Under the new instrume nt, responsibility on monitoring and evaluation 
will be further delegated to beneficiary coun tries. In particular, where the Commission 
manages the assistance on behalf of the be neficiary, the Commission will retain primary 
responsibility for monitoring and evaluation. On  the other hand, where beneficiary countries 
manage the assistance under their own resp onsibility (decentralised management) the 
Commission will have a mainly supervisory role (apart from ex-ante and ex-post evaluations), 
and primary responsibility will rest with the beneficiary. 
Project level monitoring  reports on the progress against pl ans, particularly concerning: (i) 
contracting/grant awards and (ii) delivery of outputs. Task managers are also supported by the 
Results Oriented Monitoring (ROM) system whic h provides a focused snapshot of the quality 
of a sample of interventions. Using a hi ghly structured, standardised methodology, 
independent ROM experts attribute grades whic h highlight the strengths and weaknesses of 
the project and give recommendations on how to improve effectiveness.  
In addition to monitoring, project-level evaluations  may also be undertaken under the 
management of EU Delegation or the operational  services in charge of the project. Project 
level evaluations are intended to complement existing monitoring systems and should provide 
a more detailed in depth analysis. They shoul d also help project managers to improve ongoing 
interventions or to confirm th eir results and sustainability.  
At sector and programme leve l, monitoring committees  co-chaired by be neficiary countries 
and the Commission provide the structure to assess progress against plans. These committees are supported by the findings of both monito ring reports and evaluations. Under the new 
instrument, the role of monitoring committe es will be strengthened for both candidate 
countries and potential candidates, to ensure  that the implementation of the financial 
assistance properly feeds into the policy dialogue and that committees' conclusions and recommendations are more systematically complied with and followed up.  
Evaluations at a level higher than project  (sector, programme, strategic, thematic, etc) are 
mostly managed by the Commission services. Some evaluations, in particular interim 
evaluations intended to support the decision maki ng process, are progressively delegated to 
beneficiary countries fo r ownership and capacity  building purposes.  
The results of evaluations or summary findi ngs are regularly communicated to the IPA 
Committee, to the Council and th e European Parliament as pa rt of the IPA Annual Report, 
and are published on the Commission's website.