TABLE OF CONTENTS

1........... Introduction.................................................................................................................... 3

2........... Structure of the Instrument for Stability (IfS).................................................................... 3

3........... Implementation of the Instrument for Stability................................................................... 4

4........... Overview of the IfS for the period 2007-2011................................................................ 5

5........... State of play of the IfS in 2011........................................................................................ 6

6........... Response to situations of crisis or emerging crisis (IfS Article 3)....................................... 7

6.1........ How has the IfS responded to crises in 2011?................................................................. 7

6.2........ Who is involved in IfS crisis response actions?................................................................. 9

7........... Assistance in the context of stable conditions for cooperation (IfS Article 4)................... 10

7.1........ Threats to security and safety (IfS Article 4.1)............................................................... 10

7.2........ Risk mitigation linked to Chemical, Biological, Radiological and Nuclear (CBRN) materials (IfS Article 4.2) 12

7.3........ Pre- and post- crisis capacity-building (IfS Article 4.3).................................................. 13

8........... Conclusion................................................................................................................... 15

REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS

2011 Annual Report on the Instrument for Stability

1. Introduction

This fifth Annual Report is submitted to the European Parliament, the Council, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, 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 establishing an Instrument for Stability.[1]

The Instrument for Stability (IfS) is an important tool under the authority of the High Representative/Vice President, enabling her to target resources in support of comprehensive EU approaches aimed at preventing, mitigating and dealing with the aftermath of crises and security threats around the world. The report gives an overview of how the IfS was mobilised in 2011.

This report is complemented by two Commission Staff Working Documents which provide comprehensive and detailed global implementation updates on: (i) urgent IfS crisis response measures that were launched and/or ongoing in 2011; and (ii) longer-term IfS programmes.

The IfS actions described in this report are undertaken by a wide range of implementing bodies, including agencies of the United Nations, other international and regional bodies, EU Member State bodies, NGOs and other civil society organisations.

2. Structure of the Instrument for Stability (IfS)

The IfS is one of the key external assistance instruments that enable the EU to take a lead in helping to prevent and respond to actual or emerging crises around the world.

As summarised below, Articles 3 and 4 of the IfS Regulation set out the types of activities for which this instrument can be mobilised.

Article 3 foresees ‘assistance in response to crisis or emerging crisis’. This can include responding to serious political and conflict situations, major natural disasters and sometimes a complex combination of both scenarios. Where windows of opportunity emerge for the prevention, mitigation or resolution of crises, such IfS assistance, which is limited to instances when the mainstream external assistance instruments[2] cannot be mobilised in a sufficiently timely or appropriate manner, takes the form of immediate Exceptional Assistance Measures.[3] These response measures are in some cases followed up by subsequent Interim Response Programmes.[4]

IfS measures often complement EU humanitarian assistance, while the instrument also provides critical contributions to the ‘Linking Relief, Reconstruction, and Development’[5] approach. In addition, IfS actions can complement EU CSDP[6] operations and other actions, and also make further critical contributions to the EU comprehensive approach to crisis response.

IfS responses complement the mainstream assistance instruments which, due to their scope, strategic planning and programming cycles, are often not suited to react in cases of crisis or emerging crisis. Indeed, an important asset of the EU external action toolbox is the fact that it includes such a wide range of instruments, enabling the Union to provide tailored responses to suit different situations.

Various smaller scale IfS crisis response measures are financed under a facility, set up through a financing Decision, which allows the EU to provide rapid and flexible IfS support for a range of types of actions, with each one being up to a maximum amount of EUR 2 million. This is known as the IfS Facility for Policy Advice, Technical Assistance, Mediation, Reconciliation and other areas of assistance for the benefit of third countries affected by crisis situations (PAMF).

Article 4 of the IfS Regulation foresees a programmable component of the Instrument which encompasses longer-term IfS programmes addressing three focal areas:

· Security and safety threats in a trans-regional context (Article 4.1);

· Risk mitigation linked to Chemical, Biological, Radiological and Nuclear (CBRN) materials (Article 4.2); and

· Pre- and post-crisis capacity building (Article 4.3).[7]

3. Implementation of the Instrument for Stability

The entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty signalled the creation, in 2011, of the Service for Foreign Policy Instruments (FPI), a new Commission service which works alongside the also new European External Action Service (EEAS), the latter being a functionally autonomous body of the Union.[8] Both services report to High Representative/Vice President Ashton, with the FPI coming under her responsibilities as Vice President of the European Commission.

Article 9 of the Decision creating the EEAS specifies that the management of the Union’s external cooperation remains under the responsibility of the Commission, with the High Representative ensuring overall political coordination of external assistance instruments, including the IfS. Thus, the EEAS provides the political steer for Article 3 of the Instrument for Stability and works jointly on the preparation of measures with the FPI which is responsible for the implementation of agreed actions. The EEAS also provides the strategic programming for Article 4 through the Strategy Papers and Multi-annual Indicative Programmes. The corresponding Annual Action Plans (AAP) are defined and executed by DG DEVCO[9] (for Art. 4.1 & 4.2) and FPI (for Art. 4.3). Working in tandem on Art. 4.1 and Art. 4.2, the EEAS, and DG DEVCO agree measures to address a number of security threats and other global challenges and these complement other measures implemented under EU geographic instruments.

4. Overview of the IfS for the period 2007-2011

After five years in existence, the IfS is now well established as an EU instrument responding to conflicts and crises around the world, addressing security threats at national and regional levels, as well as building capacities to respond to crises and prevent conflict.

Over the period 2007 - 2011, the short-term crisis response component of the IfS has made available EUR 670 million for some 203 actions responding to crises worldwide. The geographic coverage for the period 2007-2011 is shown in Figure 1.

Figure 2 illustrates how funding was distributed amongst crisis response measures (Art. 3) and the longer-term programmes (Art. 4) in this period.

5. State of play of the IfS in 2011

Of the EUR 282 million budget available and fully committed for the IfS in 2011[10] (a near 15% increase on the previous year) the breakdown of allocations was:

· EUR 188 million for crisis or emerging crisis situations, amounting to a 43% increase on the previous year;

· EUR 30 million for responses to trans-regional threats;

· EUR 49 million for CBRN risk mitigation; and

· EUR 15 million[11]for pre- and post- crisis capacity building

Through regular notes presented to the Political and Security Committee, the Council was kept informed on the planning of new Art. 3 crisis response measures and also updated on the implementation of ongoing measures. The Working Group on Conflict, Security and Development of the Foreign Affairs Committee of the European Parliament, which was established in the framework of the democratic scrutiny of the IfS, convened five meetings with representatives from the Commission and the EEAS.

In terms of geographic distribution, Figure 3 above shows that various crises in Sub-Saharan Africa in 2011 required a high level of IfS funding to support important stabilisation efforts. In addition there was a very significant increase in the percentage of overall IfS funding allocated in 2011 for the Middle East and North Africa region, due to the events of the unfolding ‘Arab Spring.’ The EU’s strong commitment to supporting the Southern Mediterranean region, in line with the Joint Communication of 8th March 2011 by the High Representative and the Commission on A Partnership for Democracy and Shared Prosperity with the Southern Mediterranean, is also demonstrated by the planned funding transfers from the global IfS budget to the European Neighbourhood Policy Instrument (ENPI) budget, amounting to EUR 60 million for 2012 and EUR 70 million for 2013.

Though there were fewer new IfS actions launched in a number of other regions in 2011, many actions already launched in these regions in 2010 remained ongoing throughout 2011. With regard to the longer-term IfS programmes, the year 2011 saw the end of the period covered by the 2007-2011 IfS Strategy Paper and its two accompanying Multi-annual Indicative Programmes covering respectively the periods 2007-2008 and 2009-2011.

Specific examples of IfS projects in 2011 are given in the next two sections.

6. Response to situations of crisis or emerging crisis (IfS Article 3)

6.1. How has the IfS responded to crises in 2011?

Full details of all IfS measures under implementation in 2011 are set out in the Commission Staff Working Document I which accompanies this Annual Report. Illustrative of activities in 2011, the following actions demonstrate the wide scope and the many different types of crises the IfS was called to respond to in various locations around the world:

· ‘Arab Spring’ – In addition to direct support to peaceful elections, emphasis was put on strengthened participation of civil society in the transition processes (Tunisia, Egypt and Libya), including a particular focus on supporting the role of women. The turbulent situation in Yemen forced the cancellation of ongoing actions involving Government enforcement agencies, while other actions aiming at a strengthened voice for civil society continued;

· Substantial support was given to the Palestinian people, including through the provision of essential rental subsidies to help prevent the outbreak of a new conflict in Palestinian refugee camps in Lebanon, thus helping to mitigate the risk of escalation and spill-over effects in an already fragile context in the Middle East and wider Mediterranean region. An emergency socio-economic stabilisation support package for Gaza was launched, aiming to support employment creation and improve the available supply of water. A further decision was taken to upgrade the Kerem Shalom crossing point in order to facilitate the flow of goods to and from Israel to the Gaza Strip;

· In terms of reconciliation and transitional justice, funding was provided to the Special Tribunal in Lebanon which is investigating the circumstances surrounding the assassination of former Prime Minister Hariri;

· The 2011 drought crisis in the Horn of Africa necessitated massive relief action. Complementing EU and other humanitarian relief efforts, the IfS launched a recovery measure to help the agriculture sector re-establish markets and production capacities in Ethiopia. As the drought also influenced the security-political balance in Somalia, mine clearance and related measures were funded to pave the way for recovery and reconstruction efforts in Mogadishu and other previously inaccessible parts of the country;

· Further support was provided to the EU-comprehensive approach for tackling the scourge of piracy off the Horn of Africa, through funding the EU-UNODC programmes supporting piracy trials. The provision of such support also strengthened the EU negotiation position on transfer agreements with countries in the region, which were essential for the success of the EU’s CSDP Atalanta counter piracy naval operation;

· The new country of South Sudan was assisted in addressing local and inter-country threats to stability between Sudan and South Sudan, primarily in the vicinity around their common border area;

· The Instrument was also mobilised following political developments and shifts in political/security power balances. Examples include programmes in Côte d’Ivoire supporting the new Ouattara Government and recent elections, as well as the support to Security Sector Reform in the Democratic Republic of Congo;

· A programme was launched in the Niger Delta region of Nigeria to support the reintegration of ex-militants and thus to promote stability;

· A significant contribution was made to actions supporting the EU’s Sahel strategy, including support to the creation of income and employment generating activities;

· Several actions were launched to reduce mounting tensions between population groups that risked escalating into conflicts between countries. One such programme delivered measures to diffuse tensions between Kyrgyz and Uzbeks in Central Asia’s Fergana Valley, whilst another sought to improve relations between Haitian and host Dominican communities in the Dominican Republic;

· A number of measures were taken to provide critical electoral support in Haiti, Kazakhstan and Belarus, whilst in Afghanistan the IfS supported the Independent Electoral Commission to develop and consolidate capacity for future elections; and

· In Colombia, a project was set up to support the establishment of a truth, justice and reconciliation process dealing with the issue of kidnappings and forced disappearances.

6.2. Who is involved in IfS crisis response actions?

IfS crisis response measures are prepared in close cooperation with a variety of partners: civil society; public administrations; EU Member States; EU institutions; third countries; and others. EU Delegations play a key role, providing early warning and developing concepts and options for responses. In 2011, the majority of new measures were ‘sub-delegated’[12]for local implementation to EU Delegations, whose understanding of local needs and requirements is essential to the success of the activities. This enables contracts to be negotiated with implementing bodies in a timely fashion and the implementation of these often sensitive projects to be monitored at close proximity. As a result, EU Delegations were responsible for 85% of commitments and 82% of payments under the IfS in 2011.

Those EU Delegations with a particularly heavy workload related to IfS programmes continued to be assisted through dedicated staff financed from the IfS administrative support budget. The number of IfS field staff in EU Delegations remained fairly static at 21, made up of 7 Regional Crisis Response Planning Officers supporting headquarters with the identification of effective interventions and 14 IfS Project Managers working at Delegations having either a substantial and/or complex IfS portfolio to manage.

Figure 4 illustrates the range of IfS implementing partners for Art. 3 crisis response measures. Non-state actors were implementing 44% of the IfS budget, and the UN family 42%. The significant UN role is explained by the volatile environments where the IfS operates, with UN bodies often being among the few having a strong in-country presence that can react quickly, using their solid local networks. Implementation by third country governments increased in 2011 to 5% (compared to 3% the previous year). However, in terms of the number of actions, it is the international and local NGOs that manage the largest number of IfS projects.

7. Assistance in the context of stable conditions for cooperation (IfS Article 4)

The Commission ensures the preparation of annual programming and the management of assistance under Article 4 in the context of stable conditions for cooperation. The 2011 IfS Annual Action Programmes were adopted as follows: Article 4.1 (security and other threats related to law and order) in September 2011; Article 4.2 (Chemical, Biological, Radiological and Nuclear material risk mitigation) in October 2011; and Article 4.3 (Pre-crisis and Post-crisis capacity building) in June 2011. A detailed implementation update on activities under each of Art 4.1, Art. 4.2 and Art. 4.3 is provided in the Commission Staff Working Document II accompanying this Annual Report.

7.1. Threats to security and safety (IfS Article 4.1)

The programmes devised in the context of trans-regional threats focus on capacity building, in close consultation with beneficiary countries. Typically, security capacities are strengthened at the national, regional and, ultimately, trans-regional level. Under a tailored approach, key countries in a region are identified and the capacities of local law enforcement and security units strengthened by setting up or strengthening specialised inter-agency units. Regional coordination functions are then established, making use of existing structures whenever possible, to foster regional and trans-regional cooperation. Information sharing is promoted through regional information systems. Different domains are covered: tackling trafficking and organised crime along the cocaine and heroin routes; illicit trafficking of firearms and explosive materials; enhancing maritime security and safety along the critical maritime routes; and capacity building in regions afflicted by terrorism.

In 2011, EUR 30 million were committed to actions in the above areas, with a total of around EUR 9.2 million in payments. By the end of 2011, and through the ESF,[13] more than 100 experts were recruited from specialist public or semi-public organisations in the EU Member States, joining forces to make their specific knowledge and expertise available, and providing technical inputs to the identification and detailed planning of IfS actions. This included the 2012 Annual Action Programme, as well as paving the way for a fully-fledged implementation of actions decided in previous Annual Action Programmes. Areas covered include:

· In 2011, the first two Joint Airport Interdiction Task Forces were inaugurated in Cape Verde and Senegal to support the fight against organised crime on the cocaine route (40 countries, EUR 6 million in 2011 out of EUR 19 million). A one week exercise called COCAIR took place in 22 airports and resulted in considerable seizures of drugs;

· To support the fight against organised crime on the heroin route, work continued in ten countries, including Iran, Pakistan and Afghanistan;

· The EUR 14.5 million Critical Maritime Routes programme (EUR 4.5 million in 2011) covers 17 coastal countries of the West Indian Ocean, South East Asia and the Gulf of Guinea. It enhances the information sharing capacities and enforcement functions of coastal states so as to help achieve safer maritime traffic by countering piracy and armed robbery at sea;

· Several projects aim at preventing and combating terrorism, contributing to global counter-terrorism efforts, including implementation of UN strategy. A EUR 6.7 million contract for counter-terrorism in the Sahel has been signed so as to improve capacities to share information, anticipate terrorist acts and respond to terrorist acts on both an operational and judicial level. Collaboration with Pakistan aims to improve the Punjab criminal justice system. In South East Asia, the IfS is engaging in a joint EU-UNODC anti-terrorism initiative;

· Cyber crime is a relatively new manifestation of existing global and trans-regional threats, which can no longer be effectively tackled without addressing their cyber dimension (EUR 3 million earmarked to strengthen the capacity of law enforcement and judicial and civil authorities and promote accession to and implementation of the so-called BUDAPEST Convention). Considering that most critical infrastructure operation systems are network-connected, the potential destabilising effects of a cyber attack or a major accidental failure of key information and communications technologies networks could be devastating. It is against this background that cyber security will be addressed under the IfS (EUR 1.5 million earmarked for trans-regional cooperation as well as on the implementation of international standards in the fields of risk awareness, vulnerability analysis, emergency preparedness, alert and consequence management).

· Falsified medicines are a major threat to public health and safety as they usually contain ingredients which are of bad quality or in the wrong dose or simply ineffective – and in some cases even toxic. Although the scope of the menace is global, developing countries are particularly exposed to this threat (EUR 5 million earmarked to strengthen the legal framework - mainly though the MEDICRIME Convention - as well as capacities to detect and analyse suspicious medicines and finally police investigation and criminal justice capacity to disrupt and dismantle the globalised criminal networks);

· In order to enhance capacities for preventing, combating and controlling illicit trade in small arms and light weapons (SALW), the EU continued to support coordination and implementation of international protocols and conventions in Sub-Saharan Africa, South and Central America (2011: EUR 7.3 million in 41 countries); and

· In 2011, EU Member States' agencies continued to offer expertise and to benefit from synergies via the Expert Support Facility (ESF) for IfS long-term programming and implementation of (Priority 1 and 2) programmes and projects (EUR 2.5 million under AAP 2011), under which more than 100 missions have been carried out since 2008.

7.2. Risk mitigation linked to Chemical, Biological, Radiological and Nuclear (CBRN) materials (IfS Article 4.2)

Historically, activities in most fields were concentrated on the former Soviet Union. In 2010, efforts were made to enlarge the geographical coverage of programme activities. Coverage has been extended to the Mediterranean Basin, the Middle East, South East Asia, Central Asia, South Caucasus and Africa. There are around 40 newly involved countries, in addition to those of the former Soviet Union.

The CBRN programme covers risks related to accidental, natural or malevolent CBRN related issues and aims at improving the safety and security culture by spreading best practices and raising the general level of security and safety awareness. Prior to 2010, different domains were covered separately.[14] From 2010 onwards, the CBRN ‘Centres of Excellence’ set up worldwide by the EU under the Instrument are gradually providing a single and integrated platform for actions in all of the domains of Border Monitoring/Illicit trafficking, export control, bio safety and bio security etc. These Centres of Excellence (CoE) seek to enhance CBRN risk mitigation policies by developing tailored assistance packages (19 actions in five regions, EUR 21.5 million in 2011). They will constitute a major tool for capacity building and developing coherent regional policies and for strengthening the cooperation of national and regional capabilities in this domain. In 2011, the EU established CoE in South-East Asia (Philippines), South East Europe/Southern Caucasus/Ukraine (Georgia), North Africa (Algeria), the "Atlantic façade" (Morocco) and Middle East (Jordan). The first five local CoE Regional Secretariats became operative in late 2011. Furthermore, contacts have been established with Central Asia, Gulf Cooperation Council countries and sub Saharan Africa.

Other areas supported include:

· Assistance and cooperation in export control of dual-use goods activities which resulted in successful programme implementations with more than 28 states around the world. Cooperation with the US EXBS Export Control system has been reinforced;

· To strengthen safety and security against biological threats, several measures to secure facilities in various Central Asian, Caucasus and African countries have been undertaken (EUR 3.5 million in 2011). Together with the European Centre with Disease Prevention, a 17 non-EU country wide human health programme has been started (EUR 3 million in late 2010);

· To support Multilateral Nuclear Assurances (MNA) initiatives, a contract has been signed with IAEA to contribute to the Low Enriched Uranium Bank for the Utilisation of Nuclear Energy (EUR 10 million in 2011). The ‘LEU Bank’, owned and managed by the IAEA, will supply countries introducing civil nuclear programmes with secure nuclear fuel, thus limiting the associated proliferation risks;

· Support for retraining and alternative employment of former weapon scientists and engineers with origin in countries of the former Soviet Union has continued through the dedicated STCU and ISTC centres in Kiev and Moscow. In Iraq, actions continued with engaging former weapons scientists in comprehensive activities for the decommissioning, dismantling and decontamination of nuclear facilities; and

· The fight against illicit trafficking of CBRN materials and deceptive financial practices is ongoing with actions in Central Asia and South East Asia and North Africa. A contract has been signed with IAEA to contribute to a new Nuclear Material Laboratory to be used by IAEA Safeguards Analytical Services in Seibersdorf, Austria (EUR 5 million in 2011).

7.3. Pre- and post- crisis capacity-building (IfS Article 4.3)

The 2011 Annual Action Programme[15] included eight thematically grouped actions, under what is known as the IfS Peace-building Partnership (PbP), which engages partners from civil society organisations, regional and international organisations and EU Member States in building capacities for pre- and post-crisis responses (see Figure 5).

Throughout the year, many ongoing actions supported both the crisis management / response and conflict prevention efforts of the EEAS, in particular the priorities of the Crisis Management Board and the newly-established Conflict Prevention Group. This support included the provision of civil society organisations’ conflict analysis input and high-level field information and expertise on early warning and conflict prevention, in line with the Council Conclusions of June 2011.[16] The following examples highlight some of the main areas of achievement in 2011:

· Dialogue with civil society and capacity building of in-country, non-state actors: The Civil Society Dialogue Network[17], a forum for dialogue on peace-building issues between the EU and non-state actors, saw thirteen meetings held on thematic topics (e.g. conflict prevention and early warning, security sector reform and women, peace and security) and country-specific or conflict-specific topics (e.g. meetings on the MENA[18] region, Ivory Coast, Lord’s Resistance Army) with a view to providing input to the EU’s policy-making processes;

· In order to build capacity at grass roots level, twelve civil society-based projects began work across six countries in the areas of mediation and dialogue, human security and the role of women. A further action on early warning focused on building a shared understanding of the risk factors that could turn fragile situations into conflict and measures that could be taken to prevent this;

· Mediation and Dialogue: The EU supported the Standby Team of Mediation Experts, under the Mediation Support Unit (MSU) of the UN Department for Political Affairs (DPA), to quickly provide mediation expertise to the UN, EU Member States, and other international, regional and sub-regional organisations. Two EU-funded experts in the MSU carried out sixteen separate missions to eight countries.[19] Another IfS action in Kenya sought to target the root causes of the post-election violence in 2007[20] and contributed to strengthening the capacities of non-state actors to mitigate inter-community conflicts;

· Natural Resources and Post-Conflict and Post-Disaster Needs Assessments (PCNA/DPNAs): UN MSU experts on natural resources and conflict cooperated to produce extensive research pieces on the Nile River Basin and land conflicts involving indigenous populations in Chile and Panama, and also assisted in the preparatory activities for national dialogues in the MENA region. In the framework of the EU-UN Partnership for Conflict Prevention and the Sustainable Management of Land and Natural Resources, practical guidance notes on land, extractive industries, environmental scarcity and capacity development were produced. Based on the EU-UN-WB partnership regarding PDNAs/PCNAs, UNDOCO[21] developed web-based tools for assessment mission experts. The programme also developed joint training/information programmes - 170 staff from partner and other multilateral organisations received introductory training, whilst 73 experts followed the in-depth programme;

· Peace-building and Human Rights, focusing in particular on Youth and Women: A full range of activities was delivered in 3 regions of Bosnia and Herzegovina under the project ‘Youth for Peace’[22], including the empowerment of youth organisations and training days in peace-building and community development;

· In the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), women activists were assisted in getting involved in investigations into the cases of mass rapes in Fizi perpetrated by the regular army (FARDC), resulting in the first FARDC commander to be sentenced by a special mobile gender court for rape crimes. Similar sentences were handed out near Kalehe and Maniema. Awareness-raising on UNSCR 1325 reached more than 1,000 women through public information sessions resulting in a registered increase in women's political participation and political influence in the areas concerned;[23]

· Cooperation with regional organisations: An operational crisis response centre was established at the Secretariat General of the League of Arab States (SGLAS) and an intensive training programme benefiting SGLAS officials engaged with early warning, crisis analysis and the management of crisis responses is now being implemented. This project has helped facilitate regular and enhanced interaction between the EEAS and the SGLAS on various crises and other topics on the shared EU-LAS agenda;

· International Dialogue on Peace Building and State Building: The EU has supported the OECD led[24] dialogue since 2009 and, specifically in 2011, the work of the Secretariat and that of the four Dialogue working groups, as well as the organisation of international meetings. The Monrovia meeting in June 2011 agreed on final knowledge products and discussed a draft International Action Plan presented in December 2011 at the 4th High-Level Forum on Aid Effectiveness in Busan;

· An inter-agency project in Nepal, Uganda and the DRC focused on the design, monitoring and evaluation of peace-building measures. The project brought together 21 organisations including international NGOs, local civil society and government agencies to share best practice; and

· Cooperation with EU Member States: A two year IfS co-financed programme ‘Europe’s New Training Initiative for Civilian Crisis Management’ (ENTRi) aims to strengthen the capabilities of staff being deployed to and working in international civilian crisis management missions, while at the same time fostering the interoperability and the harmonisation of partners’ approaches to training. In its first year, the ENTRi consortium, composed of 13 training providers from EU Member States, organised 17 courses (both pre-deployment and specialisation), with the participation of 340 experts of 49 nationalities.

8. Conclusion

IfS measures implemented in 2011, complementing other EU actions under regional and thematic development instruments, humanitarian assistance and CSDP missions, have contributed significantly to EU efforts to help prevent conflict, preserve peace, respond to crises and strengthen international security, in line with Article 21 of the Treaty of the European Union. In its fifth year of operation, and with a budget which has more than doubled from an amount of EUR 139 million in 2007 to EUR 282 million in 2011, the Instrument for Stability has demonstrated its robustness and capacity to contribute to timely and dynamic EU responses to a wide range of challenges around the world. Such challenges in 2011 included those associated with the impact of the Arab Spring in the Middle East and North Africa region as well as the ever more complex situation throughout the Horn of Africa region.

The maturity of the IfS was reflected in the findings of the overall programme level evaluation report on the Instrument for Stability, that was prepared by an independent consultancy and published in July 2011. Covering the period from inception, the report summarises that “the IfS has significantly contributed to enhancing the overall relevance, effectiveness and efficiency of EU crisis response and preparedness action”. It concluded that “the IfS makes a significant contribution to the coherence of the EU peace, security and development architecture – and to global peace and stability. Critical to its contributions is the demonstrated capacity of the IfS to provide quick, timely and catalytical responses in situations of crisis”.[25]

[1] OJ L 327/1 24.11.2006

[2] Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance (IPA); European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument (ENPI); Development Co-operation Instrument (DCI); European Development Fund (EDF); and European Instrument for Democracy and Human Rights (EIDHR); etc.

[3] Maximum duration of 18 months, with accelerated procedures for adoption and implementation for programmes of less than EUR 20 million, as set out in Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002, of 25 June 2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities, as amended, referred to as the Financial Regulation, and the Commission Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2342/2002 of 23 December 2002, laying down detailed rules on the implementation of the Financial Regulation, referred to as the Implementing Rules.

[4] Programmes building on ‘Exceptional assistance Measures’, to put in place the conditions for the implementation of the EU’s cooperation policies. These can be of longer duration but also require more time to be adopted, due to longer decisional processes, including comitology.

[5] LRRD

[6] Common Security and Defence Policy (of the EU)

[7] Also known as the IfS ‘Peace-building Partnership’ (PbP)

[8] Council Decision of 26 July 2010 establishing the organisation and functioning of the European External Action Service (2010/427/EU), OJ L201

[9] Directorate General for Development and Cooperation – EuropeAid, (European Commission)

[10] Refer to ‘Instrument for Stability: Overview 2011 commitments and payments’ in the Commission Staff Working Document II accompanying this report

[11] Including a EUR 1 million allocation from the European Parliament for a pilot ‘Programme for NGO-led peacebuilding activities’

[12] Legal and financial responsibility for the use of EU funds, including power to sign and amend contracts as appropriate is transferred from the European Commission HQ to the EU Delegation concerned.

[13] Expert Support Facility, drawing on specialists from public or semi-public organisations from throughout the EU. Since 2008, experts from about 60 organisations in 17 Member States have carried out over 100 missions.

[14] e.g. export control of dual-use goods, illicit trafficking, redirection of former weapons scientists, safety and security culture.

[15] The 2011 Annual Action Programme was adopted by the European Commission on 30th June 2011 (http://www.eeas.europa.eu/ifs/docs/c_2011_4451_en.pdf).

[16] Council Conclusions on Conflict Prevention, 3101st Foreign Affairs Council, Luxembourg, 20 June 2011

[17] The Civil Society Dialogue Network is managed by the European Peace-building Liaison Office (EPLO).

[18] Middle East and North Africa.

[19] Including Jordan (supporting UNAMI); Kazakhstan (supporting UNRCCA with regard to the Aral Sea basin region); Kenya (working from Nairobi on Somalia issues); Kyrgyzstan (to support the Government of Kyrgyzstan with the development of a national conflict prevention programme); and Qatar (supporting the Darfur peace talks).

[20] The action ‘Strengthening non-state actors capacities to prevent and resolve conflicts in areas affected by post election violence in Kenya’ was managed by Konrad Adenauer Stiftung e.V.

[21] UN Development Operations Coordination Office (DOCO)

[22] This action was managed by Care International.

[23] ‘Political Participation of Women from Afghanistan, Democratic Republic of Congo and Liberia in Peace and Security Policy’

[24] International Network on Conflict and Fragility (INCAF) under the OECD.

[25] International Conflict and Security Consulting: ‘Evaluation of the Crisis Response and Preparedness Components of the European Union’s Instrument for Stability’, July 2011.