EN    EN  COMMISSION OF THE E UROPEAN COMMUNITIES 
Brussels, 11.4.2008 
COM(2008) 181 final 
  
REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO  THE COUNCIL AND THE EUROPEAN 
PARLIAMENT 
Annual report from the European Commission 
on the Instrument for Stability  in 2007 – Executive Summary 
   
{SEC(2008) 446} 
 
EN 2   EN REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO  THE COUNCIL AND THE EUROPEAN 
PARLIAMENT 
Annual report from the European Commission 
on the Instrument for Stability  in 2007 – Executive Summary 
INTRODUCTION  
This report is submitted to the European Parl iament and the Council in compliance with the 
reporting requirement set out in Article 23 of  Regulation (EC) N°1717/2006 of the European 
Parliament and the Council of 15 November 2006 es tablishing an Instrument for Stability (the 
IfS Regulation). This article states:  
‘The Commission shall examine progress achieved in implementing the measures 
undertaken pursuant to this Regulation and shall submit to the European Parliament 
and the Council an annual report on the implementation of th e assistance. The report 
shall also be addressed to the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. The report shal l contain information relating to the 
previous year on the measures financed and in formation on the results of monitoring 
and evaluation exercises and the implem entation of budget commitments and 
payments, broken down by country , region and cooperation sector’.  
This report is also submitted in complement  to the information already provided in 
accordance with the reporting requirement of Artic le 6(6) of the IfS Regulation, which states:  
‘At as early a stage as possible, follow ing the adoption of Exceptional Assistance 
Measures, and in any case within seven months of doing so, the Commission shall report to the European Pa rliament and the Council by giving an overview of the 
existing and planned Community response, including the contribution to be made 
from other Community financing instrument s, the status of existing Country and 
Multi-Country Strategy Papers, and the Community’s role w ithin the broader 
international and multilateral response. This  report shall also indicate whether and, 
if so, for how long the Commission intends to  continue the Excep tional Assistance 
Measures’.  
The current practice establishe d by the Commission during 2007 is  to systematically inform 
the European Parliament and the Council of Ex ceptional Assistance Measures about to be 
supported under the IfS as part of  the EU’s crisis response. In view of the need to keep the 
reporting requirements on each indi vidual programme manageable, it is proposed to use this 
and the future annual reports for a global im plementation update on all on-going measures 
earlier described, including those aspects on which information could not be provided 
upstream of the start of implementation.  
I. B
ACKGROUND TO THE INSTRUMENT FOR STABILITY  
EC external instruments have for a number of years been providing the Commission’s 
contribution to the Union’s overall crisis responses , be it in response to natural disasters or 
to political crises in third countries, in the latter case often alongsid e EU Joint Actions under 
Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) or  European Security and Defence Policy 
(ESDP). Between 2000 and 2006, this role was notably played by the EC Rapid Reaction 
Mechanism  (RRM) as regards non-humanitarian crisis responses. Despite modest financial 
envelopes (in the order of €30 million per year) and a tight lim it on the duration of 
 
EN 3   EN programmes (maximum six months), RRM-funded pr ojects played an important role in a 
number of crisis response undertakings by the EU, in many cases kick -starting programmes 
under geographic instruments or dovetailing wi th CFSP/ESDP actions. The RRM was used 
successfully for example following the crisis in Afghanistan, in  response to the tsunami and 
for the Aceh Peace Process, for the EU Bord er Assistance Mission to the Republic of 
Moldova and Ukraine, and in response to a series of other cr ises in Africa, Latin America, the 
Western Balkans and the Middle East.  
The launch of the Instrument for Stability  (IfS) in 2007 enhanced considerably the 
Commission’s crisis response capacity, since th e crisis response component constitutes the 
biggest part of this new instrument (more than one and a half billion euros out of the total of just over two bill ion over seven years)
1. Compared to the RRM, the crisis response 
component of the IfS represents a considerable increase in financial allocations (€93 million 
in 2007, and an average of €230 million per year  for crisis responses during the period 2007-
2013) and in the duration of programmes (18 mont hs, with the possibility of extension under 
certain conditions). Section II  of this report and the annexed Commission Staff Working 
Document present the measures adopted unde r Article 3 of the If S Regulation, namely 
‘assistance in response to situations of cris is or emerging crisis’. The ‘crisis response’ 
component of the IfS is under dire ct responsibility of Directorat e A of Directorate General for 
External Relations (DG RELEX) of the European Commission, with an increased 
involvement of Commission Delegations in thir d countries at the im plementation stage.  
The IfS also contains a longer term component, providing for ‘ assistance in the context of 
stable conditions for cooperation’ . Programmable measures under the IfS include:  
1. Measures addressing longer-term trans-re gional security threats under Articles 
4(1) and 4(2) of the IfS Regulation . In the Instrument for Stability Strategy Paper 
2007-2013, the Commission has identified the priorities for longer-term actions 
under Article 4(1) and Article 4(2). First, to support international efforts to address 
the proliferation of wea pons of mass destruction, th rough actions aiming at 
improving effective control of chemical , biological, radiological and nuclear 
materials and agents, control of dual-us e goods, and the redirection of weapons 
scientists’ knowledge towards peaceful activities. (€53 million for 2007-08). Second, to support global and trans-regional efforts to address the threats posed by trafficking, terrorism and organised cr ime (€19 million for 2007-08). The long-term 
component of the IfS repeals some previ ously-existing budget lines (e.g on drugs). 
Two additional priorities under Article 4(1) are threats to critical infrastructure and 
major public health threats with a potenti al trans-national dimension. These latter 
areas are new and will require extensive pr eparation to design specific programmes. 
The Commission plans to come back to th ese two areas in subsequent Indicative 
Programmes. 
The Strategy for the years 2007-2011 and the Indicative Programme for the years 
2007-2008 under article 4 of the IfS have rece ived a favourable opinion by unanimity 
from the IfS Committee as we ll as favourable opinion of the European Parliament, 
and have been adopted in August 2007. Th is component is programmed by DG 
                                                
 
1 The overall financial envelope for the Instrument for Stability for the period 2007-2013 is 
€2,062,000,000. Out of this amount, the regulation specifies that no more than respectively 7%, 15% 
and 5% shall be allocated to measures falling under Articles 4(1), 4(2) and 4(3). This leaves at least 
73% or €1,505,260,000 of the total for measures falling under Article 3 or ‘crisis response’.  
 
EN 4   EN RELEX but managed under direct responsibil ity of EuropeAid Co -operation Office 
(DG AIDCO). It is described in  Section IV of this report. 
2. ‘ Pre- and post-crisis capacity building measures’ under Article 4(3) of the IfS 
Regulation , hereafter referred to as ‘crisis preparedness’. For the period 2007-2008, 
€15 million were programmed for this co mponent, out of which €7 million for 2007. 
This component, which is also managed centrally by DG RELEX/A, is described in 
Section III of this report. 
II. C RISIS RESPONSES UNDER THE INSTRUMENT FOR STABILITY (ARTICLE 3, BUDGET 
HEADING 19.06.01) 
II.1. The IfS as part of the EU’s  broader crisis response toolbox 
In order for the EU to play an enhanced role as a foreign and security policy actor, it must 
have an effective capacity to respond to crisis situations in third countries , to assist 
bringing these countries back on the road of  sustainable development. Strengthening the 
Union’s capacities to respond to the world’ s crises means both reinforcing the various 
instruments at the Union’s disposal (civilian and military crisis management instruments, 
diplomacy, as well as development aid or trad e policy), and ensuring that these instruments 
can be made to work together as a coherent whole . The IfS constitutes an important 
addition to Community instruments in response to crisis situations, the other ones being 
humanitarian assistance2, civil protection (through the MIC)3, or other external financial 
instruments when urgently re-deployed in response to a crisis situation4. These Community 
instruments together with EU Joint Actions under CFSP/ESDP, constitute the essence of the 
EU’s crisis response capability.  
Even prior to the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty, complementary and closely co-
ordinated use of Community and CFSP instru ments in response to political crises in 
third countries has become the rule.  Beyond the Treaty obligation to ensure coherence in 
external action, Europe’s citizens and the outside world expect the Union ove rall to be able to 
deliver. No instrument exemplifies this better th an the crisis response component of the IfS: 
while remaining a first-pillar instrument decided upon by the Commission, the practice of 
close political co-ordination with EU Member St ates (notably in the Political and Security 
                                                 
2 On 18 December 2007, th e Presidents of the European Commissi on, European Parliament and Council 
of the European Union on behalf of the 27 EU Member States signed a ‘European Consensus on 
Humanitarian Aid’, outlining a common EU vision and practical approach to reach out efficiently to 
millions of people world-wide requiring basic life-saving aid. The Commission is currently preparing a 5-year action plan to implement the commitments made at EU le vel through the Consensus. The 
adoption and subsequent implementation of the action plan will further consolidate and develop the 
EU’s response to humanitarian crises. 
3 The Community civil protection mechanism, deployable within and outside the EU through the 
mechanism’s Monitoring and Information Centre  (MIC), was further reinforced during 2007, inter alia  
to allow the Commission to facilitate and in some cas es co-finance (up to 50%) the transport of civil 
protection assistance to a di saster affected country.  
4 Work is also underway to further improve the Commission’s crisis response capacities . In line with 
earlier recommendations of the Barnier report, the ne twork of more than 130 Commission Delegations 
in third countries is being strengthened specifically  as regards the coordination/ facilitation of crisis 
responses, with the objective of progressively building a number of regional poles of multi-sector expertise for crisis response. Work is also continui ng on further reinforcing emergency aid coordination 
between humanitarian responses, civil protection, and other crisis responses, both at headquarters level 
and in the field.  
 
EN 5   EN Committee, but also in the geographic worki ng groups) has made it a politically responsive 
EC instrument. 
II.2. Genesis of IfS crisis response programmes  
By their very nature, IfS crisis response pr ogrammes can not be programmed in advance. 
They are developed in response  to situations of crisis or emerging crisis , when support 
cannot be provided rapidly enough under other EC financial inst ruments. Typically, the IfS 
can be mobilised in the case of a major new politic al crisis or natural disaster, or a window of 
opportunity to pre-empt a crisis or an opportuni ty to advance conflict resolution, or the need 
to secure the conditions for the delivery of EC assistance. When used in response to political 
crises, IfS measures have in a number of cas es been crafted and deployed alongside CFSP / 
ESDP actions.  
There can be no automaticity in mobilising the IfS  in response to any gi ven crisis situation. 
A judgement is made case by case whether or not  a ‘crisis or emergi ng crisis’ in a third 
country justifies recourse to this instrument. There are case s of long-standing crises whose 
protracted status by nature w ould not justify funding new initia tives under the IfS, and where 
EC geographic instruments are adequate. In the same way, th ere are situati ons where the 
potential for an emerging crisis is sufficien t to justify the use of the instrument.  
While it is for the Commission’s Directorate-General for External Relations to propose new 
crisis response measures under the IfS, and th e Commission’s exclusive competence to decide 
and implement IfS programmes, ideas for new IfS programmes are often developed, in a 
flexible manner, through discussions with a series of actors  within the EU (other 
Directorates-General and services of the Co mmission, Delegations, but  also the Council or 
individual EU Member States, European Parliament…), or w ithin the wider international 
community (beneficiary country authorities, UN system agencies , bilaterals), or with civil 
society actors. Programme components are identif ied on the basis of th e assessment of needs 
and of key issues to be addre ssed in a given crisis situation. Projects are at times designed 
from the outset by Commission staff, while in ot her cases, advanced project proposals are 
received from NGOs or internat ional organisations. Beyond the initial screening of proposals 
for legal eligibility and practical feasibility, additional identification work and negotiations 
with implementing partners  are usually necessary. 
IfS approval procedures are designed to ensure rapid adoption of programmes , while also 
allowing for the necessary upstream consultatio n and co-ordination. Unlike EC humanitarian 
interventions deployable within days or week s, the lead time for deploying IfS programmes – 
from the initial needs assessment to the financing of the first actions on the ground – is in general in the order of two to  three months. This is under standable: while humanitarian 
actions are apolitical and allow urgent deploymen t, IfS actions are very political, and can just 
not be deployed lightly, and w ithout proper political consultation within the EU, the country 
authorities, and with other international actors.  
II.3. IfS crisis response programmes adopted in the course of 2007  
The crisis response component of th e Stability Instrument represents  the bulk of the 
budget  under title 19.06 (€91 million in 2007)
5. This allocation was almost  entirely used in 
                                                 
5 The initial budgetary allocation of article 190601 wa s of €100 million, of which €7 million were set 
aside for ‘crisis preparedness’ (see hereunder), leav ing €93 million for crisis response. The difference 
between this initially available allocation of €93 million and the final available allocation of €91 million 
is explained by the exceptional transfer of €2 milli on to the budget line 19.0 6.03 for longer-term IfS 
measures. The latter was made necessary in order to allow the Commission to adopt an unforeseen 
 
EN 6   EN 2007 : consumption of commitment appropriations  reached 99%  of the available total, 
while consumption of payment appropriati ons reached 68% of the available total6 (see details 
in annex). While full use of ava ilable budget appropriations is not a priori an essential aim for 
an instrument of this nature, the high cons umption rate of commitment appropriations 
demonstrates that more could have been sp ent. Thus, a number of already developed 
programmes had to be deferred for adopti on in early 2008. This demonstrates the 
appropriateness of the foreseen increases on  this budget article during the financial 
perspectives.  
The measures adopted in the course of 2007 vary both geographica lly and thematically : the 
reader is referred to the annexes for summary project descriptions a nd a tabular overview. A 
number of programmes adopted in the course of  2007 have already starte d delivering concrete 
results.  
Thematically , the measures supported cover a broad range of issues,  targeted on the specific 
needs of each conflict/post-conflict  situation: short-term advice to develop and kick-start post-
conflict security system reform (DRC, Guinea Bissau, Lebanon), comple mentary measures in 
areas where ESDP missions are deployed (e.g. D RC, Afghanistan, Chad), support to regional 
peace-building capacity (AU – AMISOM Somalia , AU-UN Mediation in Darfur), Rule of 
Law and transitional justice (Afghanist an, Colombia, Haiti), support to interim 
administrations (ICO Kosovo), conflict resolu tion and reconciliation (Uganda, Zimbabwe, 
Burma/Myanmar, Southern Thailand), post-conf lict needs assessments and rehabilitation 
(Lebanon refugee camp), support to displaced populations (Lebanon, Syria), and conflict resources (Kimberley Process th rough dedicated facility).  
No major disaster response programmes were funded in the course of 2007 , however the 
IfS was able to support severa l post-disaster needs assessments  in late 2007 and early 2008, 
which are likely to materialise in disa ster response programmes this year.  
Geographically , the largest share of funds (€ 38.9 million, some 43% of the total) was 
allocated for measures in Sub-Saharan  Africa, namely in  Chad, Darfur, Somalia, DR 
Congo, Uganda, Guinea-Bissau and Zimbabwe (see annex for details). 
In the Middle East , some €19.7 million or 22% of the funds were committed for programmes 
in Lebanon , the occupied Palestinian territories , and in support of Iraqi refugees  in Syria 
(see annex for details). 
In the Western Balkans , €10 million were adopted to support the running costs of the 
International Civilian Office (ICO) in Kosovo (see annex for details).  
In Latin America and the Caribbean, €9 million (some 10% of the funds) were used on 
programmes in Colombia, Haiti, and Bolivia (see annex for details).  
Finally, in the Asia-Pacific region , €5.9 million, some 6% of the total, were made available 
for IfS programmes in Afghanistan, Southern Thailand,  and Burma/Myanmar (see annex 
for details). 
In addition to the above-enumerated programmes adopted and measures supported, a series of 
preparatory measures  (e.g. expert assessment missions) were funded in the course of 2007 
                                                                                                                                                         
financing decision under the long-term component of the IfS to support the continuation of the on-going 
border management project in the Philippines under a more suitable legal basis than the ALA regulation, following a ruling by the ECJ. 
6 The slightly lower than planned payment rate is explained by the fact that advance payments for several 
2007 programmes were made in early 2008 after contract signature.  
 
EN 7   EN towards related programmes likely to be propos ed under the IfS in the course of 2008 (see 
annex for details).  
Close and regular monitoring of all IfS programmes is ensu red by EC Delegations in the 
beneficiary countries. Delegati ons are in many cases also di rectly responsible for the 
implementation of assistance programmes. In view  of the fact that the first IfS programmes 
have only been on-going for some months, no evaluations were conducted to date .  
II.4. The first lessons learnt from 2007 
The first year of operation of the crisis response component of the IfS has been a 
success . Despite less than optimal  resources and structures, the 2007 crisis response budget 
was entirely committed (see annex). The programme s adopted have contributed to efforts in 
responding to crises around th e world, usefully (and sometimes crucially) complementing 
other EU crisis response measures.  
Thematically, several of the programmes supported have  benefited from parallel policy and 
conceptual developments at EC/EU level a nd notably recent commu nications / guidelines 
SSR, DDR, IBM guidelines, fragile states etc.  
Geographically , it is considered important to tackle cr ises where they arise, without trying to 
deliberately balance between regions. For in stance, no programmes were funded in 2007 in 
the NIS region, however sizeable programmes were funded there in the past (EUBAM 
Moldova) and are likely to be funded there in 2008 (Kyrgyz republic justice and constitutional 
reform). Also, comparatively less was spent on  Asia in 2007, but majo r programmes are being 
prepared in 2008 for Bangladesh, Nepal etc.  
III. T HE CRISIS PREPAREDNESS COMPONENT OF THE STABILITY INSTRUMENT 
(ARTICLE 4.3,  BUDGET HEADING 19.06.01)   
In addition to the above-described sizeable and growing crisis response component, the 
Instrument for Stability is innovating by introducing a ‘crisis preparedness’ component (€7 
million in 2007, and a further €8 million in 2008). Framed as a new Peace-building 
Partnership , it aims at mobilising and consolidating civilian expertise for peace-building 
activities. It will focus principally on strengthening directly the up-stream capacity of the relevant partners to rapidly res pond to a crisis scenar io, and will address, notably, civil society 
organisations, but also internat ional organizations and releva nt agencies in EU Member 
States. The work under the Peace-building Partne rship is the subject of  a fruitful on-going 
dialogue with the relevant sub-group of the European Parliament’s Committee on Foreign Affairs. 
The first (2007) Annual Action Programme  under the Peace-building  Partnership  will 
finance (to the tune of €7 million), inter alia  : capacity-building and early warning activities 
and exchange of experience on best practice for civil society organizatio ns; early warning and 
early recovery work with UNDP and the Africa n Union; and training for civil stabilization 
missions. A second (2008) A nnual Action Programme for €8 million  has just been endorsed 
by Member States and the Parliament  and shall be adopted by 31 March. 
IV. T
HE LONG -TERM PART OF THE STABILITY INSTRUMENT (ARTICLES 4.1 AND 4.2,  
BUDGET HEADINGS 19.06.02  AND 19.06.03) 
On the basis of the Strategy and the I ndicative Programme for the years 2007-2008 the 
Annual Action Programme (AAP) 2007 was adopted in December 2007. The Annual Action programme focuses on the following actions:  
 
EN 8   EN 19.06.02.01  - ACTIONS IN THE AREA OF RISK MITIGATION AND PREPAREDNESS RELATING TO 
CHEMICAL , NUCLEAR AND BIOLOGICAL MATERIALS OR AGENTS  
(1) Support to the International Science and Technology Centre (ISTC) in Moscow and 
the Science and Technology Centre in Uk raine, Kiev (STCU) - Amount: € 15 M 
(2) Knowledge Management System on CBRN Trafficking - Amount: € 1 M 
(3) Combating illicit trafficking of nuclear a nd radioactive materials in FSU countries - 
Amount € 5 M 
(4) Assistance in export control of dual-use goods - Amount: € 5 M 
19.06.03.01  - TRANS -REGIONAL ACTIONS IN THE AREAS OF ORGANISED CRIME , 
TRAFFICKING , PROTECTION OF CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE , THREATS TO PUBLIC HEALTH 
AND THE FIGHT AGAINST TERRORISM  
(1) Expert Support Facility - Amount: € 3.8 million. 
(2) Fight against trafficking from/to Afghanistan - Amount: € 5.2 million in 2007. 
More detail on these programmes and their obj ectives is provided in  the annexed staff 
working document. The programme s will start to be implemented in 2008. It is therefore too 
early to make an assessment  of their effectiveness.  
AIDCO is also currently working on the prep aration of the Annual Action Programme for 
2008. 
IV.1. Mine Action and the Instrument for Stability 
As far as landmines are concer ned, it is worth recalling that the IfS is not meant to be an 
instrument replacing - legally or financia lly - the repealed Anti-Personnel Landmines 
(APL) thematic budget line.  Main funds to support mine action should come from the 
geographic and development instruments (DCI , IPA, ENPI besides the EDF) or the 
humanitarian aid instrument in case of crisis situations.  
As for the IfS, support to mine action is foreseen only under its short-term remit  (Article 
3.2 h) and with some constraints. There are no provisions for possible APL support under the 
IfS long-term part (art. 4 - ap plicable to "stable conditions") . However, the latter does cover 
firearms and ammunition.  From a stock-taking exercise  carried out among relevant 
Commission services in terms of programming  funds committed to mine action after the 
repeal of the APL budget line, it is evident that funds have dropped by one third, which was 
the ratio covered by the APL horizontal budget li ne vis-à-vis the geographic and development 
instruments (the remaining two thirds). Relex A is strengthening internal coordination within 
the Commission to ensure that APL are give n proper attention and hence are effectively 
mainstreamed in national programs.