Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament - Financial Perspectives 2007 - 2013
Date: 2004-07-14
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU financial instrument, general budget (EU), multiannual financial framework

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 

Brussels, 14.7.2004 
COM(2004) 487 final 

COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL AND THE 
EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT 

Financial Perspectives 2007 - 2013 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL AND THE 
EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT 

Financial Perspectives 2007 - 2013 

In February 2004, the Commission laid out a political project for the Union to tackle the key 
challenges  facing  Europe  and  its  citizens  until  2013.  Its  objective  was  to  launch  a  forward-
looking debate on the European Union’s goals, and the tools required to make these goals a 
reality. 

If action is to be in place by the target date of 1 January 2007, the debate now needs to move 
into  a  new  phase.  Attention  needs  to  shift  to  the  practical  measures  required  to  put  the 
political framework into practice.  

To this end, the Commission has been working to develop a set of detailed policy proposals. 
These proposals make concrete the principles contained in the February Communication: they 
pursue  clear  political  objectives;  they  offer  real  added  value;  they  reflect  a  process  of 
simplification and respect principles of good governance. 

Many of these proposals are now ready. So this is a good moment to take stock of the work 
done since February, recall the value added of the EU action as well as expenditure required 
to further the political project proposed by the Commission for 2007-2013, and explain how 
the delivery instruments of this project will be simplified and rationalised. This is the purpose 
of this paper. 

The  paper  is  accompanied  by  the  first  batch  of  detailed  proposals  setting  out  the  legal 
framework  for  key  policy  areas.  Other  proposals  will  follow,  covering  areas  including 
external relations, environment, research, and freedom, security and justice. 

* 

* 

* 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
1. 

MOVING TOWARDS A DECISION 

The debate with the Council and Parliament 

The  adoption  of  the  10  February  Communication  “Building  our  common  future,  policy 
challenges and budgetary means of the enlarged union”1 was the starting point for a decision 
on  the  new  financial  perspectives.  It  gave  the  Council  and  European  Parliament  an 
opportunity to examine the policy proposals made by the Commission. In April, the European 
Parliament  adopted  a  resolution  which  kept  the  focus  on  the  Union’s  political  priorities.  In 
parallel the Council proceeded to a first discussion of the Commission’s Communication and 
the Irish Presidency produced an analytical report which highlighted some of the key areas for 
further  discussion.  At  the  European  Council  in  June,  it  was  agreed  to  continue  work  on  the 
issues identified in this report, in particular: 

–  the need for a stricter prioritisation between different calls on spending; 

–  the level of expenditure required to meet Member States’ ambitions for the Union; 

–  a deeper analysis of the value added by EU expenditure. 

The Commission welcomes these first reactions to its Communication and to the priorities it 
had identified. 

Building on this debate, the Commission intends to spell out in more detail its analysis of the 
value  added  of  the  proposed  actions  and  of  the  proposed  governance  instruments,  to  allow 
Member States to move the debate forward. The current Communication and the adoption of 
legislative proposals are further input to this discussion. 

It is worth recalling some of the starting points of this debate, which determine the priorities 
set by the Commission in its proposal: 

•  The EU Budget is limited in size. Compared to national budgets which take up an average 
of  around  45%  of  national  income,  the  EU  Budget  is  only  a  little  over  1%.  The 
Commission did not propose any change in the ceiling on resources to be determined at EU 
level,  which  remains  at  1.24%  of  gross  national  income,  but  only  an  increase  in  the 
resources used within that ceiling. Mobilising this margin became necessary because of the 
increasing responsibilities of the Union and of the cost of successive enlargements: against 
this  background,  it  should  be  noted  that  the  increase  rate  of  the  EU  budget  over  the  last  
7 years was half of the increase of the Member States budgets.  

•  Many of the political decisions which will determine the next Financial Perspectives 

have already been taken. These already set clear spending requirements: 

–  The  current  phase  of  enlargement  will  add  5%  to  the  Union’s  GDP  –  and  to  its 
revenues  –  but  with  30%  extra  population.  It  follows  that  expenditure  will 
increase more than revenue. For example, enlargement means 4 million additional 
farmers, an increase of 50%,, and a doubling of income disparities between  rich 

1 

COM(2004)101 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
                                                 
and  poor.  The  Budget  is  expected  to  support  the  Lisbon  strategy  and  the 
transformation of the EU economy towards competitiveness and innovation; 

–  The  agreement  reached  on  agricultural  financing  to  2013  already  determines  a 

large share of the EU Budget;  

–  The European Union is to take on new tasks at EU level, in particular in the area 

of freedom, security and justice to deal with new security threats and crises;  

–  The need for Union to act outside its borders – and the expectation that it will do 
so  effectively  –  has  grown,  at  the  same  time  as  the  stability  of  neighbouring 
countries has become more vulnerable. 

The political consensus for action 

The proposals made build on the work of the Council and the European Parliament to develop 
a clear vision of Europe’s future. There is a broad political consensus about where the Union 
must  act;  this  is  reflected  in  the  Treaty  and  the  Constitution,  in  European  Parliament 
resolutions,  and  in  European  Council  conclusions.  Core  goals  like  employment,  sustainable 
development, security and an effective world role are firmly established: 

•  The  Single  Market  has  given  European  economies  a  real  opportunity  to  add  an  extra 
dimension to growth and prosperity. With Europe’s growth potential slipping from 3% to 
2% in the space of a few years, economic performance must be improved. Unemployment 
remains at unacceptable levels, and the risks of social exclusion are increasing. Where EU 
liberalisation  brings  change,  the  EU  must  help  to  smooth  transition.  Enlargement  has 
brought  a  widening  gap  between  the  richer  and  poorer  Member  States  which  saps  the 
vitality of the European economy.  

To achieve growth and reduce disparities, action is needed at every level. This imperative 
underpins the Lisbon strategy, but so far, the results have fallen well short of expectations. 
A new impetus and a new direction must be found to make Europe a dynamic knowledge-
based  economy;  and  in  parallel  to  reinforce  the  Union’s  cohesion  in  the  wake  of 
enlargement. 

•  Europe is rich in resources. European society has been shaped by its landscapes, its waters, 
its countryside, and the resources they bring. The challenge is to manage and protect these 
resources for current and future generations. The role of the European Union in this field is 
clear. The food Europe produces circulates in a single market, and needs to be maintained 
at a high level of quality. Environmental imperatives must be tackled on a continental and 
global  scale..  It  is  no  coincidence  that  these  have  long  been  amongst  the  core  common 
policies of the Union. 

•  The EU is now called upon to address concerns which go to the heart of citizens’ interests. 
EU citizenship has so far been a question of values: these need to be translated into action. 
Organised  crime  and  terrorism  are  cross-border  threats.  Illegal  immigration  can  only  be 
tackled  by  working  together.  The  Single  Market  automatically  requires  EU  action  on 
public  health,  food  safety  and  consumer 
interests.  Increased  diversity  provides 
opportunities  which  demand  a  collective  response.  In  all  these  areas,  action  is 
indispensable at the European level. 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
 
•  The weight of the EU is impressive: more than 450 million inhabitants, a quarter of world 
output, a leading trade power, the biggest aid donor. Against this background, the outside 
world is constantly testing the EU’s ability to act or react as a political entity. The EU faces 
the crucial choice of whether to accept a responsibility to lead: if it does so, its financial 
and political obligations vis-à-vis its partners and neighbours will be immense. But can it 
isolate itself and refuse to take up the challenge? Working together and speaking with one 
voice,  the  Union  can  bring  to  bear  a  unique  mix  of  policy  levers:  aid,  trade,  economic 
cooperation and political dialogue. 

The  cost  of  inaction  is  high.  A  failure  to  address  problems  and  inject  solutions  into  the 
European economy now would risk a downward economic spiral. A failure to conserve and 
manage natural resources would mean bequeathing extra costs to future generations. A failure 
to address citizens’ concerns for security and quality of life would bring both disillusionment 
and danger. A failure to make external policy more effective would squander the opportunity 
to project and protect European values and to promote peace and development worldwide. 

Making a reality of political goals 

All  available  levers  must  be  harnessed  to  make  these  goals  a  reality:  national  action, 
Community law, coordination, and public spending through the EU budget. The task for the 
Union’s policy-makers is to ensure the right combination at the right time. The objective of 
the  Commission’s  proposal  is  not  to  transfer  funds  to  the  EU  level  as  an  end  in  itself.  The 
return  on  investment  depends  on  targeting  the  right  objectives  at  the  right  level.  National 
action  should  be  chosen  when  this  will  bring  the  best  results:  EU-level  action  when  most 
effective. Where a euro spent through the EU Budget will bring more return than a euro spent 
at national level, this is the best way to offer value for money to the taxpayer. Pooling national 
resources at EU level can bring major savings for national budgets. 

There are many Union instruments where little or no funding is required. In some areas, the 
Union’s  task  is  to  ensure  a  fair  and  effective  regulatory  framework  for  action,  as  in 
competition  policy,  the  Internal  Market  or  the  environment.  This  work  is  essential  to  the 
Union’s political goals, but little funding is involved. 

However,  many  EU  policies  must  be  accompanied  by  financial  resources  if  they  are  to  be 
effective. To expect more Europe for less money is simply unrealistic. New policy areas at the 
EU level imply new financial requirements.  

The Commission has examined where spending is a necessary part of the policy mix. It has 
ensured in its proposals that the size and nature of the expenditure is proportionate; and that 
the policy is managed to bring the best return on the investment. Where these tests are met, 
policy must not be deprived of the resources needed to deliver effectively. 

The EU Budget is limited in size, but its expected impact is major. Compared to national 
budgets which take up an average of around 45% of national income, the EU Budget is just a 
little over 1%. National budgets have been rising, with a rate of increase in national budgets 
more than double that of the EU Budget over the past seven years. The Commission proposes 
a moderate increase in the resources available to the Union to meet the above challenges and 
commitments. The Commission will assess regularly, and in any case by 2010, the required 
payment appropriations for the period beyond 2013 in order to ensure an adequate evolution 
of payment with respect to commitment appropriations. This assessment will take account of 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
the  actual  use  of  commitment  and  payment  appropriations,  as  well  as  of  the  forecast  of  the 
EU’s GNI and of the use of appropriations. 

2. 

THE VALUE ADDED OF THE COMMISSION’S PROPOSALS 

The Commission proposes substantial increases in expenditure in certain policy areas for the 
period 2007-2013. If the Commission makes such proposals at a time of budgetary rigour, it is 
because these increases are essential to achieve EU objectives and to meet commitments. A 
failure  to  match  commitments  to  act  with  the  necessary  resources  required  is  a  recipe  for 
public disillusionment about Europe. 

The  full  potential  of  the  European  Union,  both  inside  and  outside  its  borders,  must  be 
unlocked. This means tackling factors which inhibit its ability to act: 

•  Lack  of  connections:  the  vocation  of  the  single  market  is  cross-border  trade,  pan-
European  enterprises,  freedom  to  travel  throughout  the  Union.  However,  in  many  areas 
(education and research; transport, energy, and information technologies infrastructure and 
service  systems;  financial  services;  customs,  civil  protection,  law  enforcement)  national 
systems remain largely fragmented, missing links are left, and mobility is impaired. As a 
consequence the benefits from the freedom of circulation fall well short of their potential. 
This impedes the effectiveness of action. 

•  Lack of European perspective: too often, national governments cannot deal properly with 
cross-cutting  and  external  issues,  because  the  political  and  financial  returns  on  their 
investments (e.g. in research or cross-border educational programmes, intermodal transport 
facilities, management of external borders, environment or health emergency programmes 
and systems) are shared across borders, often Europe-wide, while the costs are borne solely 
by the government financing the action; and because cross-border actions carry significant 
additional  coordination  problems  and  costs.  This  results  in  underprovision  of  critical 
services, and at the same time in a waste of resources and uncoordinated efforts, impeding 
the efficiency of action. 

•  Lack of synergy between objectives and actions: objectives are agreed at EU level, and 
their  delivery  commits  the  EU  and  its  Member  States  to  act.  However,  there  is  no 
organised, systemic complementarity in the different levels of action. So the Union fails to 
deliver the best results. 

The Commission therefore proposes that expenditure in the next financial perspectives should 
address these shortcomings head-on: 

•  Necessary investments to create the missing links, connect Europe and enable mobility. 

•  Reduce the pressure on national budgets by pooling  resources and expertise better at EU 

level. 

•  Use  EU  expenditure  more  to  complement,  stimulate,  and  catalyse  the  delivery  of 
objectives.  This  requires  an  effective  synergy  between  the  tasks  completed  at  different 
levels of the EU. 

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
In the light of the above, the Commission has tested the value added by proposed expenditure 
in all policy areas concerned by the political project for the period 2007-2013. To perform this 
test,  the  Commission  has  used  the  following  criteria,  in  order  to  address  the  problems 
highlighted above: 

•  Effectiveness: cases where EU action is the only way to get results to create missing links, 

avoid fragmentation, and realise the potential of a border-free Europe. 

•  Efficiency: cases where the EU offers better value for money, because externalities can be 

addressed, resources or expertise can be pooled, an action can be better coordinated. 

•  Synergy:  cases  where  EU  action  is  necessary  to  complement,  stimulate,  and  leverage 

action to reduce disparities, raise standards, and create synergies. 

2.1 

Effectiveness: Results can only be achieved through action at EU level 

The Union’s common objectives can only be met through a partnership between national and 
European  level.  National  public spending  can  be  directed  to  bring  huge  benefits  to  citizens, 
increasing the vitality and durability of national economies through public services, education 
and infrastructure; offering internal and external security; and responding to society’s choices 
across  the  full  range  of  policy.  But  there  are  limits  to  the  effectiveness  of  national  action. 
Gaps are left which only the EU can fill. In order to reach its objectives, from the very outset 
the Treaty assigned a central role to fully-fledged common policies such as competition, trade, 
transport, agriculture and fisheries, and more recently EMU. There cannot be a true internal 
market and a customs union without precise rules to establish a level playing field. Without 
harmonising the great diversity of Member State policies, internal border controls would have 
had to be maintained, the EU could not have spoken with one voice in international trade and 
sustainability would have suffered in a downward spiral of negative competition. 

•  The European Union offers a unique opportunity to inject knowledge into the skills base. 
Different strengths and different traditions give Europe an opportunity to harvest real gains 
from  pooled  experience  in  education  and  training.  But  this  potential  is  best  unlocked 
through  mobility:  and  mobility  can  only  be  effectively  handled  at  EU  level.  It  cannot  be 
delivered  unless  there  is  an  EU-wide  network  capable  of  turning  the  strong  demand  for 
student mobility into reality. 

Human capital is one of the major determinants of growth. One additional year of schooling 
can  increase  aggregate  productivity  by  6.2%  for  a  typical  European  country.  Yet  over  the 
period  1995-2000,  public  investment  in  education  and  training  as  a  proportion  of  public 
spending  fell  in  most  Member  States.  Everything  must  be  done  to  lever  the  best  effect  from 
public  spending.  Action  to  support  mobility  will  generate  exchanges  on  a  sufficiently  large 
scale  to  have  a  real  economic  impact,  adding  an  extra  dimension  to  the  skill  set  of  the 
workforce.  Such  a  scale  would  be  provided  by  action  to  cover  some  10%  of  university 
students through placements. 

•  The  fact  that  complex  cross-border  action  can  only  be  properly  handled  at  EU  level  – 
because  of  the  mismatch  between  the  distribution  of  (national)  costs  and  (widespread) 
benefits,  and  because  of  the  additional  hurdles  of  developing  cross-border  infrastructure 
projects  –  was  confirmed  in  the  recent  decision  of  the  Council  and  the  European 
Parliament  to  identify  30  priority  transport  projects  under  the  Trans-European  Network 
programme.  The  development  of  effective  transport  networks  is  central  to  a  successful 

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
economy.  Competitiveness  gains  in  other  sectors  can  be  squandered  if  infrastructure  is 
dogged  by  problems  like  congestion.  As  the  European  economy  has  become  more 
integrated,  the  costs  of  poor  infrastructure  have  grown  and  the  cross-border  deficiencies 
have  become  more  obvious.  Allocating  resources  at  European  level  is  the  only  way  to 
redress  the  natural  preference  for  directing  national  spending  to  schemes  which  start  and 
finish  within  national  boundaries.  It  also  provides  an  opportunity  to  help  the  less-
developed economies of Europe to develop infrastructure of benefit to all. 

The Göteborg European Council in 2001 put particular emphasis on encouraging a shift from 
road to more environmentally-sustainable transport modes. Action to promote inter-modality 
would focus on tackling road congestion in cross-frontier bottlenecks across Europe. Actions 
building on the existing Marco Polo programme are estimated to take some 36 million long-
distance truck journeys off the roads: this means that every euro spent would mean 6 euros of 
savings in terms of reduced pollution and accidents. 

•  The very fact of European integration means that the advantages accruing to one Member 
State from its external operations also benefit the others and clearly justifies intervention at 
EU level, the EU alone also having the full range of available instruments in dealing with 
third countries at its disposal. 

Enlargement  is  a  clear  example:  helping  candidates  to  bring  their  regulatory  framework  in 
line with EU standards requires a significant effort at EU level, even if it means calling upon 
Member  States’  experience  in  the  process  (e.g.  twinning).  Security  and  migration  are  other 
examples,  as  well  as  the  setting  of  norms  and  standards  and  the  external  projection  of  EU 
internal policies (such as biodiversity, climate change, corporate governance…). 

In the Western Balkans, the EU tackled both the crisis and the need for stabilisation with a 
degree  of  efficiency  unlikely  to  be  reached  by  the  combined  action  of  individual  Member 
States.  It  has  used  a  mix  of  political  dialogue,  a  tailor  made  favourable  trade  regime, 
extensive  financial  programmes,  cooperation  in  the  field  of  justice,  and  democratic 
stabilisation measures. 

An  example  of  where  the  potential  falls  short  is  in  international  financial  institutions. 
Although  Member  States  are  a  majority  in  the  Executive  Board  of  the  IMF  and  the  World 
Bank in terms of numbers, they exercise much less influence than the United States. Speaking 
with one voice and acting together is essential to increase visibility and influence. 

2.2 

Efficiency: EU action offers better value for money 

EU action can also be justified on value for money grounds. One euro spent at EU level can 
offer  more  than  one  euro  at  national  level.  In  addition,  uncoordinated  spending  at  national 
level to reach common objectives is a waste of money. In many cases, pooling resources and 
expertise  is  an  efficient  way  to  make  savings,  and  reach  at  the  same  time  the  critical  mass 
required to deliver certain key objectives. Some examples are: 

•  The link between a strong research capacity and a vibrant economy is clear: in 2002, the 
European  Council  fixed  a  target  of  3%  of  GDP  to  be  devoted  to  research  by  2010, 
including 1% from the public sector. Research on the scale of the EU can offer better value 
for  money  than  nationally-funded  research,  and  can  have  a  powerful  leverage  effect  on 
private  funding,  stimulating  large  technological  initiatives  and  the  development  of 
European  poles  of  excellence  in  highly  competitive  fields  such  as  information  and 

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
Communication technology, biotechnology and aeronautics. As the complexity of research 
and the critical financial mass required increases, no Member State acting in isolation can 
create the minimal, critical mass. The economies of scale offered at EU level become more 
linking  specialists  across  borders  more  clear. 
significant  and 

the  benefits  of 

EU research policy can support key research infrastructures of European interest on the scale 
of  the  EU,  developing  projects  such  as  large  lasers  and  neutron  sources  facilities  and 
developing  EU-wide  bio  data-banks  in  genomics.  As  one  example,  52  laboratories  in  20 
different Member States have been networked to work together on Transmissible Spongiform 
Encephalopathies. The results can be picked up and built upon by public and private sector 
operators throughout the EU. 

•  The pooling of precious resources offers real value for money. For example, each Member 
State  has  civil  protection  forces  and  health  emergency  units  on  standby  and  ready  to 
intervene  at  very  short  notice.  The  sunk  costs  of  these  forces  are  often  very  high,  with 
specialised  equipment  and  a  high  level  of  training  essential.  For  a  relatively  small 
investment,  EU  coordination  makes  it  possible  to  draw  upon  available  capabilities  for 
cross-border  prevention  and  emergency  actions  at  the  required  speed  and  to  allow 
efficiency gains for national budgets. This helps improve the effectiveness and reduce the 
costs  for  each  Member  State  in  reacting  to  natural  disasters  or  other  crises  and  bringing 
immediate  help  to  victims  to  overcome  the  immediate  consequences  of  the  crisis. 
Moreover,  the  budgetary  impact  of  providing  short-term  relief  and  taking  emergency 
measures  is  generally  very  high.  The  Solidarity  Fund  is  a  way  for  the  Union  to  help 
Member States to face up to the challenge of crisis situations. 

•  Sometimes,  actions  can  be  on  such  a  scale  and  of  such  complexity  that  the  pooling  of 
action  at  EU  level  is  the  only  way  to  achieve  the  critical  mass  required.  This  was  the 
thinking  behind  the  Galileo  project:  that  the  investment  required  to  develop  satellite 
navigation  systems  was  so  significant  that  a  joint  effort  was  essential.  This  effort  now 
needs to be continued into the next stages of the project, deploying Galileo and putting it to 
work.  

•  It is now clearly recognised that the challenges posed by immigration and asylum can no 
longer  be  met  adequately  by  national  administrations  alone.  The  abolition  of  internal 
border  controls  must  be  accompanied  by  common  measures  on  the  effective  control  and 
surveillance of the Union’s external borders. Improved operational cooperation involving 
the pooling of available resources in areas like training and equipment will ensure a more 
efficient use of public funds. In addition, EU action towards an integrated management of 
our  external  borders  is  the  only  way  to  achieve  a  fair  burden-sharing  between  Member 
States,  some  of  whom  face  the  heavy  burden  of  long  frontiers  or  surges  in  migration.  A 
degree of burden-sharing will reinforce solidarity between them and bring overall value for 
money  benefits  through  a  more  credible  and  fairer  policy.  This  is  at  the  heart  of  the 
sustainable migration policy agreed at the Seville European Council.  

The  EU  faces  the  challenge  of  managing  land  borders  stretching  to  some  6,000  kms,  and 
maritime borders to 85,000 kms. This challenge is distributed unevenly: 7 of the new Member 
States represent 40 % of our land external borders. Some 400,000 people apply for asylum in 
the Union each year - with 7 % of asylum applications from the same person in a different 
Member State - and over 14 million third country nationals already live in the EU, of which 

EN 

9 

   EN 

 
 
64  %  in  Germany,  France  and  the  United  Kingdom.  The  scale  of  these  challenges  makes  a 
continental-level response essential. 

•  The  reach  of  the  EU  in  external  relations  is  such  that  it  can  provide  influence  and 
visibility  as  well  as  a  critical  financial  mass  in  its  intervention  and  generate  significant 
economies of scale. 

One  of  the  Millennium  Development  Goals  seeks  to  cut  by  half  the  proportion  of  people 
without safe drinking water – 1 billion people at present. Even if some Member States have a 
comparable expertise to the Commission, the EU offers a comparative advantage through its 
ability to mobilise a critical mass of funding with a real global impact (following the World 
Summit for Sustainable Development, the EU will commit €1 billion with the Water for Life 
Initiative). 

The current juxtaposition of Member States’ and Commission’s external services can provide 
another and very concrete example of potential economies of scale. Members States employ 
around  45  000  persons  abroad  in  around  1  500  Missions  and  the  Commission  employs 
around 5 000 persons in 130 Delegations. By comparison, the US employs 15 000 persons in 
around 300 Missions. 

2.3 

Synergy: EU action to complement, stimulate, and leverage action 

The  European  Union  is  based  on  solidarity,  and  on  learning  from  each  other.  At  the  same 
time, the delivery of key agreed objectives requires synergy between actions and expenditure 
decisions at the EU, national, and regional levels. The Lisbon strategy or external EU action 
are good illustrations of this problem. By complementing and stimulating national efforts to 
promote economic development, the Union can improve the efficiency of national actions and 
demonstrate EU-wide solidarity. This is all the more important given the widening disparities, 
but also the advantages, from increased diversity following enlargement. Reducing disparities 
means also that the European Union must act as a catalyst to raise the standards, and evaluate 
the best practices. Some examples are: 

•  Cohesion  policy  is  based  on  the  conviction  that  the  Union  is  a  community  of  solidarity 
with a common interest in prosperity across its members; and that cohesion interventions 
stimulate  competitiveness  and  offer  a  good  return  on  the  public  investment  made  by 
improving  sustainable  development  at  a  EU  level.  The  imperative  to  make  a  direct  and 
visible expression of EU solidarity towards citizens is stronger than ever in a Europe of 25 
and more. But development strategies and actions must be owned and primarily conducted 
by regional and national authorities. The EU’s role is to complement national action and 
act as a lever to maximise the effectiveness of spending, in particular in areas having the 
largest impact on overall sustainable development. 

The record of cohesion policy shows that regions benefiting have seen a consistently higher 
growth  rate  than  the  EU  average.  Each  euro  spent  on  cohesion  policy  has  a  significant 
leverage  effect  –  three  euros  for  each  euro  spent  in  the  case  of  “Objective  2”  regions. 
Directed solely towards investment, cohesion has meant a real step change in terms of both 
physical  infrastructure  and  human  capital.  Cohesion  policy  has  also  brought  advantages in 
terms of partnership and good governance: the fact that it operates as a shared task between 
the Commission and the Member States has ensured that it works hand in hand with national 
and regional policy. 

EN 

10 

   EN 

 
•  Another  example  of  effective  synergy  comes  from  rural  development  policy.  Rural 
development now constitutes the second pillar of the Common Agricultural Policy, giving 
the  CAP  a  broader  perspective  more  in  tune  with  the  needs  of  today  and  the  enlarged 
Europe.  In  this  way  it  fits  with  other  policies  aiming  to  smooth  the  path  of  social  and 
economic  change.  But  with  over  half  the  population  of  the  EU  living  in  rural  areas 
covering  some  90%  of  the  Union’s  territories,  rural  development  has  an  obvious  role  to 
play in other policies, such as the environment and cohesion. Rural development promotes 
the  adaptation  of  farmers  and the  rural  community  across  the  Union  to  new  needs  in  the 
rural  economy,  while  at  the  same  time  supporting  high  environmental  benchmarks  and 
paying special attention to the Union’s less-developed regions. 

•  The  threat  of  terrorism  is  international  by  its  very  nature.  Ensuring  security  through 
preventing  and  fighting  crime  and  terrorism  will  remain  a  key  challenge  for  the  Union 
which cannot be met by Member States acting alone. A series of unpredictable events, such 
as that in Madrid, have raised public concern and an expectation for action at EU level. At 
the same time the removal of internal border checks should not be a threat to the personal 
safety of EU citizens. As underlined by the Brussels European Council 2004, the threat of 
terrorism  will  only  be  defeated  by  solidarity  and  collective  action.  As  Member  States 
depend upon each other to maintain a high level of security, concerted action at European 
level is necessary. 

•  Much  of  the  work  of  the  Union  concerns  spreading  expertise  and  leveraging  policy 
towards more effective delivery. In many areas – environment, social policy, customs and 
taxation,  fisheries  –  a  relatively  small  investment  can  help  create  a  virtuous  circle  of 
dissemination of expertise and knowledge with real knock-on benefits. 

The  European  Climate  Change  Programme  identifies  the  most  cost-effective  measures  to 
achieve compliance with the Kyoto Protocol at the lowest possible cost. The costs of climate 
change are staggering – insurance companies predict that the cost of natural disasters alone 
will reach $150 billion a year in the next decade. But if the right measures can be identified 
through EU programmes, targets set under the Kyoto Protocol can be achieved at an annual 
cost of €2.9 to €3.7 billion – a small fraction of the potential costs. 

•  Member States are often able to deploy strengths in terms of resources, diplomacy, and the 
defence  end  of  the  external  relations  toolbox  in  different  regions  of  the  world,  due  to 
history  or  geography.  But  EU  action  makes  the  collective  external  effort  more  coherent, 
more  than  the  sum  of  the  parts,  financing  measures  to  make  development  aid  more 
effective or working to ensure that individual efforts do not overlap. EU added value stems 
also from its methods (in particular untying of aid, sectoral and budget support, genuinely 
results-based  approach  to  development,  linking  aid  volumes  directly  to  countries’ 
achievements of their national targets for poverty reduction). 

EU-financed budget support creates incentives for reform in partner countries. It also gives 
the Commission a stake in the dialogue on budget systems and helps to strengthen domestic 
accountability. Overall it contributes to create the conditions necessary for the sustainability 
of other donors programmes including those of the Member States.  

EU humanitarian assistance has achieved a highly effective division of labour. The ability to 
share the burden in the most efficient way, the political neutrality of EU humanitarian aid and 
careful  dovetailing  of  Member  States’  bilateral  aid  and  EU  assistance  have  added  up  to  a 
policy able to deliver real benefits in a unique way.  

EN 

11 

   EN 

 
EU action needs to be tailored in such as way as to maximise value added. There are reserves 
of  value  added  to  be  further  exploited.  Improved  coherence  in  the  Union’s  actions  can 
increase its influence. Enhanced instruments can improve its delivery. 

* 

* 

* 

3. 

MAKING  POTENTIAL  VALUE  ADDED  A  REALITY:  BETTER  GOVERNANCE  IN 
IMPLEMENTING POLICY 

In  its  Communication  adopted  on  the  10  February  2004,  the  Commission  laid  out  the 
principles on the basis of which it announced that it will simplify and rationalise its financial 
instruments. The result of this rationalisation is presented below by budgetary Heading. 

3.1 

Heading 1: Sustainable Growth 

Sustainable growth was at the heart of the political programme laid out in February. To reach 
this  target,  action  is  required  across  three  key  axes:  making  Europe  into  a  dynamic 
knowledge-based  economy  geared  towards  growth;  reinforcing  cohesion;  and  ensuring  the 
sustainable management and protection of natural resources. 

The first two of these axes will be addressed through action under Headings 1A and 1B. 

Competitiveness and innovation in the single market 

•  Competitiveness  is  a  complex  and  cross-cutting  issue.  Research,  innovation  and  a 
business-friendly climate are all core aspects of an effective competitiveness strategy. They 
must  also  be  promoted  through  a  healthy  regulatory  environment  with  effective 
competition.  Several  EU  policies  and  instruments  support  European  competitiveness;  a 
framework  programme  for  innovation  and  competitiveness  has  the  potential  to  unlock 
and  facilitate  action  in  certain  targeted  areas.  The  framework  programme  will  embrace 
three key themes: 

– 

– 

Improving the business environment. Amongst the goals to be targeted will be 
access to investment capital; secure electronic networks; the effective delivery 
of  EU-wide  business  services;  and  modernised  services  through  the  use  of 
information and Communication technology. 

Ensuring  that  innovation  works  to  promote  competitiveness  and  is  carried 
through into practical application at a business level. Synergies will be created 
with the industry-led “Technological platforms” under the Research framework 
programme,  in  which  stakeholders  will  develop  research  agendas  targeting 
industrial competitiveness in conjunction with the competitiveness programme. 
Action  would  also  be  targeted  on  environmental  technology,  using  pilot 
technical 
projects  or  first  full-scale  applications 
performance  and  economic  viability;  and  renewable  energy,  working  through 
the Intelligent Energy Agency to bring strategic projects to fruition. 

to  demonstrate 

their 

– 

Backing  up  European  policy  on  enterprise  competitiveness,  innovation, 
entrepreneurship  and  SMEs  with  policy  expertise  and  the  promotion  of  EU 

EN 

12 

   EN 

 
action. All action to support industrial policy, innovation and entrepreneurship 
will be gathered under the competitiveness framework programme, in order to 
maximise the impact. 

•  The  operation  of  the  Single  Market  requires  the  efficient  coordination  of  taxation  and 
customs.  The  current  Fiscalis  and  Customs  programmes  would  be  brought  together  to 
launch  a  series  of  actions  in  partnership  with  national  customs  and  fiscal  authorities  to 
ensure  that  rules  are  applied.  With  training  and  with  compatible  informatics,  national 
customs and fiscal authorities can act as one. 

Strengthening research and technological development 

•  The  Commission  believes  that  the  imperative  need  for  a  quantum  leap  in  European 
research effort justifies a significant boost to the resources devoted to research from the 
EU  budget.  But  the  focus  and  the  delivery  of  European  research  policy  must  also  be 
reworked.  The  7th  Framework  Programme  for  research  will  be  targeted  at  the  following 
goals: 

– 

– 

– 

Creating poles of excellence through trans-national cooperation; 

Launching  European  Technological  Initiatives,  based  on  Technological 
Platforms; 

Stimulating creativity in basic research through competition between research 
teams at European level; 

–  Making Europe more attractive for researchers; 

– 

– 

Developing research infrastructures of common European interest; 

Reinforcing the coordination of national programmes. 

In all these cases, the work would be targeted on subjects  of  key European interest,  closely 
linked  to  areas  of  EU  competence,  with  a  new  focus  on  space  and  on  security.  While  the 
Commission  will  retain  political  responsibility  for  the  policy,  more  decentralisation  will  be 
introduced,  with  more  involvement  for  public  and  private  stakeholders,  drawing  on 
professional scientific expertise through a “European Research Council”. Three avenues have 
been identified: 

•  Partnership  with  Member  States  for  actions  designed  to  coordinate  national  research 

policies on the basis of common objectives. 

•  Externalisation  for  actions  designed  to  support  individual  research  teams,  through  the 

creation of a regulatory or executive agency. 

•  Management  by  the  Commission  for  collaborative  research,  with  a  new  focus  on 
supervision and control. The remaining tasks related to the execution of the actions could 
be transferred to an executive agency. 

EN 

13 

   EN 

 
 
 
An  outline  of  these  proposals  was  adopted  by  the  Commission  in  June2  and  is  now  the 
subject  of  a  consultation  process  to  allow  the  institutions  and  the  research  community  to 
react. 

Promoting sustainable transport, energy and EU networks 

•  A dedicated instrument will be used to bring to completion the trans-European transport 
and  energy  networks  identified  by  the  Council  and  the  European  Parliament.  The 
transport networks would enjoy multi-annual financing in the framework of a regulation to 
govern  financing  of  these  networks  over  the  2007-2013  period.  The  regulation  will 
introduce  streamlined  decision-making  at  EU  level,  clear  rules  on  conditionality  and 
selectivity,  and  a  clearer  project  management  to  improve  the  chain  from  conception  to 
completion.  The  Commission  will  also  explore  whether  an  executive  agency  would 
provide the most effective way of helping partners to bring projects to fruition.  

Provisions  on  energy  networks  would  implement  a  multiannual  programme  centred  on 
support  to  investments  in  interconnectors,  to  maximise  efficiency  and  a  secure  supply  in 
the European energy sector. This will come in the form of support not only to studies as in 
the  past,  but  also  to  developmental  work  and,  in  some  cases,  a  limited  contribution  to 
construction. 

•  A  separate  instrument  will  build  on  the  existing  Marco  Polo  programme  on  inter-
modality,  smaller-scale  projects  to  help  private  sector  actions  with  the  precise  goal  of 
taking freight off the roads. 

•  A separate instrument would also be required to put the satellite navigation system Galileo 

on a new legal basis better suited to the next phase of its work. 

•  In  the  context  of  the  accession  treaties,  legal  obligations  have  been  created  or  are  being 
negotiated concerning the exceptional financial burden represented by decommissioning of 
designated  nuclear  facilities:  the  European  Union  is  committed  to  provide  adequate 
to  support  decommissioning  efforts  beyond  2006. 
additional  financial  assistance 

A specific budget line should be created for this purpose under Heading 1A. This line will 
receive adequate appropriations from two sources: 

–  Amounts  available  from  Heading  1A,  other  than  those  earmarked  for  education, 

research, social policy and the trans-European networks; 

–  The Growth Adjustment Fund where necessary to make up the balance. 

A specific decision on the EU contribution to decommissioning will be tabled for adoption by 
the  Commission  in  September  2004.  It  will  be  based  on  the  objective  assessment  of  the 
financial needs and the time profile of the associated disbursements for each nuclear plant to 
be decommissioned, taking as the starting point the current expenditures already financed for 
the years 2004-06. 

Improving the quality of education and training 

2 Science and Technology, the key to Europe’s future: Guidelines for future European Union policy to support 

research (COM(2004) 353) 

EN 

14 

   EN 

 
 
 
                                                 
•  A lifelong learning programme will bring together actions at every level of education and 
training,  from  schools  to  adult  education,  as  the  sole  successor  to  current  programmes 
(Erasmus,  Erasmus  Mundus,  Comenius,  Socrates,  Leonardo  da  Vinci).  There  will  be  a 
heavy emphasis on mobility grants, backed up by two horizontal actions, covering policy 
development, language learning and the use of new technologies; and Jean Monnet actions 
on European integration. 

The reshaping of a number of different actions will mean common procedures, fewer legal 
instruments  and  fewer  budgetlines,  all  providing  simplification  with  a  real  benefit  for 
users. 

Over 80% of resources will be managed in a decentralised way, using national agencies to 
select  beneficiaries  and  to  disburse  funds  to  users  of  the  programmes.  This  raises  issues 
about the extent of financial control which must be required of national agencies: national 
agencies  disbursing  significant  resources  from  the  EU  budget  should  have  to  meet  the 
same standards of control as the Commission and EU-wide agencies. The management at 
the Commission end will include an executive agency handling actions across the area of 
education and culture. 

A social policy agenda to help European society to anticipate and manage change 

•  The  social  policy  agenda  covers  the  full  range  of  Community  social  objectives:  full 
employment,  social  protection  and  inclusion;  working  conditions;  antidiscrimination  and 
diversity;  and  gender  equality.  Action  in  these  areas  will  be  brought  together  in  a  single 
programme  for  employment  and  social  solidarity  (“PROGRESS”).  It  would  offer  a  “one 
stop shop” for users with common rules for applicants to all strands of the programme.  

Some aspects of social action derive directly from the Commission’s autonomous powers 
under the Treaty, most obviously the support to social dialogue. Existing regulations in the 
areas of coordination of social security schemes and free movement of workers (including 
the  long-standing  EURES  network  between  the  employment  services  of  the  Member 
States)  provide  a  legal  basis  for  the  aspects  of  the  social  policy  agenda  which  cannot  be 
funded on the basis of the Commission’s autonomous powers. 

Responding to changing needs 

An effective strategy to promote competitiveness needs to tackle the long-term issues facing 
the  European  economy.  But  it  must  also  be  responsive. The twin goals of budget discipline 
and  effectiveness  can  be  met  by  reserving  a  sum  to  be  allocated  each  year  by  precise 
targeting.  The  experience  of  the  European  growth  Initiative  showed  that  the  EU  needs  an 
instrument to react quickly to economic change in order to stimulate growth and job creation. 
A more proactive approach to competitiveness will be provided by the creation of a Growth 
Adjustment Fund. Each year, when the Union assesses progress in the implementation of the 
Lisbon strategy at the  Spring  European Council, it could  channel  resources, if  necessary, to 
boost  particularly  effective  initiatives  to  accelerate  progress  in  objectives  running  behind 
schedule  (such  as  TENs  or  large  environmental  or  research  projects)  or  help  respond  to 
unexpected shocks– such as trade disputes or unexpected consequences of trade agreements, 
or exceptional calls for urgent actions like for instance, the necessity to top up financial needs 
to carry out nuclear decommissioning obligations without delay. The Fund would not require 
a separate instrument: it would use existing programmes and delivery mechanisms. 

EN 

15 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
A greater Cohesion for growth and employment 

Cohesion  policy  now  has  a  sufficient  pedigree  and  the  key  issue  is  how  to  rework  existing 
structures to deliver more effectively. The fundamental principle of partnership would remain; 
but the system will be less complex and more strategic. 

The  new  generation  of  cohesion  programmes  will  operate  under  the  following  guiding 
principles: 

•  A  strategic  policy  document  will  be  adopted  for  the  whole  period,  to  act  as  a  point  of 
reference  for  Member  States  and  regions  alike.  It  would  establish  the  key  targets  for  a 
better  concentration  of  cohesion  support.  An  annual  Council  debate  will  tie  cohesion 
targeting  into  the  annual  cycle  for  implementation  of  the  Lisbon  strategy.  The  release  of 
funds  from  a  proposed  performance  reserve  will  also  rest  on  the  extent  to  which  the 
strategy’s goals were being met. In respect of regional competitiveness and employment, a 
proportion of the funds could also be set aside to be drawn upon when needed to react to 
the negative effect of a particular economic event. 

•  Each region or Member State will then propose a strategic reference document for 2007-
2013.  Once  adopted  by  the  Commission,  this  will  serve  as  the  basis  for  a  programming 
which would concentrate on defining priority axes for intervention, leaving the maximum 
of  flexibility  for  decentralised  decision-making.  Financial  management  will  take  place  at 
the  level  of  priority  axes,  not  of  the  measures  themselves;  and  financial  control  and 
evaluation would be more proportional and decentralised. 

•  Users  will  enjoy  the  benefit  of  a  major  rationalisation  in  the  legislative  machinery  to 
implement cohesion policy. Only three financial instruments will be required, the Cohesion 
Fund,  the  European  Regional  Development  Fund,  and  the  European  Social  Fund.  The 
Cohesion Fund and the ERDF will also enjoy joint programming and the same operating 
rules for infrastructure projects. 

•  To  offset  the  legal  obstacles  to  cross-border  cooperation,  an  instrument  will  be  set  up  to 

support such action, which could be drawn upon as an option. 

•  A particular feature of the European Social Fund will be specific actions to reinforce social 
integration  of  migrants  and  increase  their  access  to  employment.  This  will  target  an 
increased participation of migrant workers under the European Employment Strategy and 
action to enable third country nationals of different cultural, religious, linguistic and ethnic 
backgrounds  to  settle  and  take  an  active  part  in  all  aspects  of  European  society.  This 
requires a close coordination between the operations of the European Social Fund in this 
area  and  the  strategy  and  objectives  which  will  be  set  by  the  policy  area  responsible  for 
immigration policy. The programming of European Social Fund actions for the integration 
of third country nationals will be carried out by DG EMPL in agreement with DG JAI. 

3.2 

Heading 2: Conservation and Management of Natural Resources 

With significant sums of public money to be devoted to the objectives under Heading 2, it is 
all  the  more  important  that  the  instruments  and  delivery  mechanisms  are  in  place  to 
implement efficiently. 

•  With the CAP reforms of 2003 and 2004 so fresh and with agricultural spending fixed to 
2013, the framework for the period covered by the Financial Perspectives is set. It is worth 

EN 

16 

   EN 

 
recalling  that  these  reforms  have  already  entailed  a  major  simplification,  with  single 
payments  to  farmers,  a  single  regulatory  framework  for  direct  aid,  and  controls  through 
land management rather than production. Future changes to common market organisations 
would be conducted within this framework. A new regulation will establish a structure for 
CAP funding with a single fund for each pillar, the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund 
and the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development. The Funds would have many 
similar elements, including the exclusive use of authorised paying agencies for payments 
and similar rules for financial control. 

•  Rural development policy will be applied through three major objectives: 

– 

– 

– 

Increasing  the  competitiveness  of  the  agricultural  sector  through  support  for 
restructuring; 

Enhancing  the  environment  and  countryside  through  support  for  land 
management; 

Enhancing  the  quality  of  life  in  rural  areas  and  promoting  diversification  of 
economic activities through measures targeting the farm sector and other rural 
actors. 

Rural development programmes in all Member States should pursue all three goals. But the 
balance chosen between the three goals should be highly decentralised. Member States with a 
relatively  under  developed  agricultural  infrastructure  might  well  decide  to  put  the  emphasis 
on modernisation and restructuring, so that CAP rules can be implemented effectively and the 
agricultural sector can compete well. In contrast, if viability of rural communities is seen as a 
key  problem  in  another  Member  State,  it  might  choose  to  concentrate  on  economic 
diversification. 

In all cases, partners at the national, regional and local level should benefit from a significant 
simplification of the arrangements. This will involve: 

– 

– 

– 

Regrouping  all  measures  under  a  single  instrument  to  deliver  a  single 
programme; 

Special  attention  to  the  need  for  coherence  between  rural  development  and 
cohesion measures; 

A  better  mix  of  control  and  decentralisation:  an  EU  strategy  document  to 
provide  a  frame  for  national  rural  development  strategies;  more  bottom-up 
consultation  in  how  these  programmes  are  devised  and  put  into  practice;  less 
detailed  rules  and  conditions  on  the  implementation  of  programmes;  and 
reinforced  monitoring  and  evaluation.  The  respective  responsibilities  of 
Member States and the Commission in financial management will continue to 
be clearly defined. 

•  Fisheries  policy  will  be  delivered  through  two  instruments.  The  European  Fund  for 
Fisheries will constitute a single Fund for the restructuring of the fisheries sector and the 
development of coastal areas dependant on fishing. This Fund will be centred on a limited 
number of key axes: 

EN 

17 

   EN 

 
– 

– 

– 

The  sustainable  development  of  coastal  areas  (both  in  terms  of  economic 
diversification and the environment); 

Adaptation of the fishing fleet; 

Environmentally-friendly 
processing; 

and 

competitive 

aquaculture 

and 

fisheries 

– 

Other actions of common interest, including pilot projects for conservation. 

Whilst this Fund is clearly closely linked to the cohesion instruments – and would be operated 
through shared management using multi-annual programming – its close connection with the 
implementation of the Common Fisheries Policy makes it appropriate to fall under Heading 2. 

The  second  instrument  would  gather  together  all  the  areas  where  the  Common  Fisheries 
Policy needs finance to support CFP reform: 

– 

Investment in control measures to allow modern control techniques to be put in 
place  in  all  controlled  waters,  and  back  up  the  work  of  the  Fisheries  Control 
Agency; 

–  Measures  to  promote  high  quality  and  easily  available  scientific  advice  and 

technical data; 

– 

Provision  for  the  conclusion  and  the  financing  of  international  fisheries 
agreements and participation in Regional Fisheries Organisations. 

•  Policy  coherence  cannot  be  maintained  if  instruments  are  considered  in  isolation.  In  the 
area  of  environment,  the  bulk  of  EU  action  comes  through  the  mainstreaming  of  the 
environment into other policies. 

The  challenge  for  the  upcoming  period  is  double:  first,  to  ensure  that  key  environmental 
objectives complement and reinforce the growth agenda. The current trends in the state of 
the environment call for increased preventative and remedial action across the full range of 
policy areas. 

Funding  under  Headings  1A  and  1B,  Heading  2  (agri-environmental,  fisheries,  rural 
development)  and  Heading  4  is  fundamental  to  achieving  environmental  policy  goals  as 
part of the wider EU sustainable development aim. For example, at present around 16.5 % 
of the ERDF and 50% of the Cohesion Fund are devoted to the environment. In addition, 
all cohesion interventions must respect Community law on the environment. 

Current  levels  of  funding  for  environmental  activities  should  be  maintained  and  where 
necessary  increased  in  the  next  financing  period,  reflecting  the  importance  of  the 
environment as a pillar of sustainable development. So the mainstreaming of the financing 
of EU environmental policy will be maintained.   

This  commitment  to  environment  funding  will  be  set  out  in  the  strategic  orientations, 
programming  and  implementation  guideline  documents  which  will  be  proposed  by  the 
Commission  in  the  coming  months.  In  addition,  the  Commission  will  require  Member 
States  to  show  how  they  have  taken  the  financing  needs  of  the  environment,  including 

EN 

18 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
relevant  aspects  of  Natura  2000  into  account  in  developing  their  national  programmes 
under the structural funds and will discuss the need for Community co-financing with them 
as part of the programme approval process. 

•  Although  most  environmental  action  is  delivered  by  mainstreaming  into  other  actions, 
there  remains  a  need  for  an  instrument  to  deliver  action  of  a  uniquely  environmental 
nature.  The  LIFE+  programme  would  seek  to  contribute  to  the  development, 
implementation,  monitoring  and  evaluation  of  EU  environment  policy  and  legislation.  In 
particular, it would support: 

– 

– 

– 

– 

The  deepening  of  the  knowledge  base  on  environmental  policy  and  the 
development  of  key  tools  to  ensure  consistency  (data  collection,  studies, 
scenario building etc); 

The  implementation  of  environment  policy  on  the  ground,  notably  through 
capacity  building,  exchange  of  best  practice  and  networking  and  the 
involvement of NGOs; 

Demonstration of new policy approaches and instruments; 

Information and Communication to raise awareness on environmental issues. 

A  single  instrument  will  allow  for  a  single  set  of  rules  and  decision-making  and  financing 
procedures, as well as more consistent policy targeting. The result will be a reduction in the 
administrative overheads involved, as well as more transparency and visibility. 

3.3 

Heading 3: Citizenship 

Strengthening the EU as an Area of Freedom, Security and Justice 

The  Commission’s  approach  for  achieving  this  goal  is  based  on  three  framework 
programmes  to  replace  the  multitude  of  instruments  and  budget  lines  in  this  field. 
Transparency will increase, as potential “clients” of the programmes will know immediately 
to  which  EU  overall  policy  goal  their  participation  will  contribute.  These  framework 
programmes  will  be  similar  in  their  functioning  and  operational  rules,  so  stakeholders  will 
enjoy something close to a single instrument. 

This  simplified  structure  will  improve  the  effectiveness  of  these  programmes  as  policy 
instruments, drawing policy lessons through appropriate monitoring and evaluation systems. 
Furthermore, programmes defined by the three policy areas allow for greater flexibility in the 
allocation of priorities between different actions within the same policy, and should therefore 
help in providing a swift response to unexpected events – in the area of security, for example, 
the proposed structure allows a margin of flexibility between preventive and reactive action. 

The  bulk  of  funds  allocated  under  this  area  would  be  in  shared  management  with  Member 
States.  The  simplified  structure  of  the  programmes  will  facilitate  the  coordination  with 
national  administrations.  Flexibility  to  adapt  to  national  circumstances  will  be  provided 
through national programming documents. External bodies will form a coherent whole within 
the logic of the three main policy areas. 

•  The Freedom of movement and solidarity in the area of external borders, asylum and 
immigration  programme  will  support  the  implementation  of  solidarity  in  this  area  and 

EN 

19 

   EN 

 
will represent the bulk of funding for freedom, security and justice. It will cover action to 
support  an  integrated  approach  to  the  external  borders  of  the  EU,  and  will  assist  the 
development of a common asylum policy where a sharing of responsibility helps Member 
States  to  respect  their  international  obligations.  The  programme  will  contribute  to  an 
effective  and  sustainable  management  of  migration  flows  –  including  the  fight  against 
illegal  immigration  and  the  return  of  illegally  resident  third  country  nationals  or  persons 
irregularly migrating towards the EU. 

The  implementation  of  a  common  immigration  policy  also  requires  that  the  Community 
provides a credible response to the multidimensional issue of integration of third country 
nationals.  This  implies  that  a  greater  emphasis  be  placed  on  increased  participation  of 
migrants  within  the  activities  developed  by  the  European  Social  Fund.  It  also  calls  for  a 
new form of solidarity in order to support the efforts of Member States in enabling third 
country nationals of different cultural, religious, linguistic and ethnic backgrounds to settle 
and take actively part in all aspects of European societies. Finally, for those actions that are 
not  covered  by  the  ESF,  such  as  participation  in  civic  and  political  life,  respect  for 
diversity  and  civic  citizenship,  or  measures  addressed  to  asylum  seekers,  including 
networking,  benchmarking  and  the  development  of  indicators  in  these  areas,  the  funding 
will be provided under heading 3.  

The  creation  of  an  Agency  for  External  Borders  in  the  field  of  migratory  flows 
management has already been proposed by the Commission. An assessment will be made 
to  establish  whether  the  management  of  the  large-scale  information  systems  in  areas  of 
relevance to Justice and Home Affairs, such as Eurodac, SIS or VIS, could also be brought 
within  this  agency’s  scope,  or  would  require  a  new  agency.  However,  there  are  other 
sectors, such as food safety and customs, which also require rationalisation and increase of 
existing  controls  at  EU  external  borders.  Given  the  economies  of  scale  and  the  potential 
overlaps in certain Member States, the feasibility of using the Agency for External Borders 
as a coordination basis to ensure cooperation between all key bodies responsible for border 
management will be examined. 

•  The Security programme will strengthen the prevention of crime and terrorism, reinforce 
cooperation  and  exchange  between  law  enforcement  authorities,  support  the  provision  of 
intelligence  on  a  European  scale  and  develop  a  European  dimension  to  the  training 
afforded to senior police officers of the Member States.   

The Commission expects that both Europol and the European Police College, currently 
intergovernmental, will turn into EU bodies, in line with the Constitution. 

•  The  Justice  and  Fundamental  Rights  Programme  will  seek  to  promote  judicial 
cooperation, easy access to justice and offer enhanced legal certainty, both to business and 
citizens,  to  back  up  the  growth  in  cross-border  situations.  It  will  monitor  the  growing 
acquis  in  this  area  and  facilitate  mutual  knowledge  and  confidence  in  legal  systems 
through public information and training of judges and other legal practitioners. It will also 
reinforce the coordination and cooperation  between  investigators  and prosecutors  dealing 
with serious cross-border crime, at operational and strategic levels. EU action will also aim 
at  the  exchange  of  information  on  decisions  in  criminal  matters,  such  as  previous 
convictions.  The  promotion  of  fundamental  rights  will  accompany  the  integration  of  the 
Charter into the Constitution and will have a particular focus on democratic participation in 
the run-up to the European elections in 2009. 

EN 

20 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
The Commission expects that Eurojust, currently intergovernmental, will turn into an EU 
body, in line with the Constitution. As agreed by the European Council in December 2003 
the  existing  Observatory  on  Racism  and  Xenophobia  will  be  extended  to  become  a  fully 
fledged Agency on Fundamental Rights.   

The  Commission  plans  to  put  forward  legislative  proposals  next  year.  However,  as 
concerns the solidarity mechanism for the management of the external borders (part of the 
Freedom of movement programme) and the new Justice programme, the entry into force of 
the new Treaty will determine the timing of action. 

Ensuring access to basic goods and services 

Current consumer, food safety and health programmes do not match citizens’ expectations. 
At  present,  for  example,  the  public  health  programme  receives  3  times  more  high  quality 
requests for support than it can meet. Food chain disease eradication is also handicapped by 
funding difficulties, while enlargement poses a particular challenge to the upgrading of social 
infrastructure  (health,  consumers)  across  the  EU  25.  In  order  to  improve  this  situation,  the 
Commission proposes to replace all existing instruments by two major instruments to fit better 
with the political objectives of citizenship. 

•  A food safety programme will mainly seek to combate animal diseases, facilitate better 
cooperation between EU laboratories, narrow the gap in food safety standards within and 
between countries and ensure protection of the whole food chain. 

•  A  consumer  policy  and  public  health  programme  will  provide  sustained  capacity-
building  among  consumer  organisations;  and  improve  consumer  safety  through  better 
cooperation  between  Member  States’  authorities,  as  well  as  between  EU  and  third 
countries.  It  will  also  boost  cooperation  between  Member  States  to  improve  the 
effectiveness and the efficiency of healthcare systems across Europe. 

The  European  Food  Safety  Authority  and  the  European  Centre  for  Disease  Prevention 
and Control should provide the necessary assistance (regulatory and executive) required by 
the Commission in the execution of its tasks. They will deliver advice and analysis but also 
generate networks across the Union to share best practice. 

Fostering European culture and diversity 

The need for simplification in the current generation of programmes on culture, media and 
youth has been a consistent theme of evaluations. Simpler and more proportionate contractual 
and financial rules and less complex rules would allow more energy to be devoted to delivery, 
and less to administration. 

To  this  end,  the  Commission  proposes  fewer,  simpler  and  more  flexible  legal  instruments. 
The  proposals  will  reduce  the  number  of  legal  bases  from  eight  at  present  to  four;  and  the 
number of budget lines from 22 to four. 

The new instruments will permit higher decentralisation. Also, the Commission intends to set 
up an executive agency for all programmes concerned. This new body will be responsible for 
the technical tasks relating to all these programmes and provide assistance and follow-up on a 
day to day basis. 

EN 

21 

   EN 

 
 
 
•  The  new  Youth  programme  will  promote  European  citizenship  to  young  people  at 
European level as well as at national and local levels. The current four budget lines will be 
replaced  by  a  single  one,  which  will  cover  all  the  activities currently  being  implemented 
through  two  separate  legal  bases  (the  Youth  programme  and  the  Community  action 
programme to promote bodies active at European level in the field of youth). 

The Youth programme is based on a delegation of authority to national agencies, who will 
work within a framework laid down by the Commission. The strength of this system is the 
user-friendliness that national agencies can provide through use of the national language, 
understanding  of  national  systems,  etc.  The  programme  focuses  on  decentralised  actions, 
and  limits  direct  management  to  those  areas  where  it  has  clear  added  value  (such  as 
networks, policy support, and support to NGOs). 

•  The  new  Culture  programme  will  be  open  to  all  cultural  and  artistic  fields,  without 
predetermined  categories,  and  to  a  greater  variety  of  cultural  operators,  ranging  from 
national or local administrations to networks and cultural sector companies. It consists of 
one  legal  base  as  opposed  to  the  current  two,  and  of  one  budget  line  compared  to  the 
current five. The programme will also be more user-friendly. 

•  The new programme for support to the European audiovisual sector will have as global 
objectives to preserve and enhance European cultural diversity and audiovisual heritage; to 
promote  inter-cultural  dialogue  and  understanding;  and  to  increase  the  circulation  of 
European  audiovisual  works  inside  and  outside  the  European  Union.  It  will  integrate  the 
two current MEDIA programmes into a single one, integrating the different components of 
the European audiovisual value chain. In line with the results of public consultation, rules 
and procedures will be simplified. 

•  A  civic  participation  programme  will  build  on  the  recently-launched  programme  and 
cover the period from 2007. It will seek to promote the values and objectives of the Union, 
to  bring  citizens  closer  to  the  EU  and  its  institutions  and  to  stimulate  active  citizenship. 
Support may also be granted to bodies pursuing an aim of general European interest in the 
field of active European citizenship, including “think tanks”. Further action will be needed 
and a new legislative proposal will be tabled in early 2005. 

Solidarity and rapid reaction instrument 

Action  at  European  level  will  also  make  possible  a  common  approach  to  emergency 
situations. A solidarity and rapid reaction instrument will provide citizens with a European 
response  in  the  event  of  major  disasters.  The  scope  of  the  foreseen  instrument  will  include 
both immediate response (co-ordination and deployment of resources to combat a disaster as 
the event unfolds) and financial assistance to cope with emergency situations in the aftermath 
of  an  unforeseen  crisis.  It  could  also  address  the  need  to  cover  preparedness  measures.  The 
instrument  will  provide  funding  to  give  support  to  victims  of  terrorism;  address  civil 
protection  requirements;  and  react  to  public  health  crises,  as  well  as  the  effects  of  other 
natural disasters. 

3.4 

Heading 4: Europe as a global partner 

Over  time,  the  Union  has  developed  a  broad  spectrum  of  external  relations  tools  (common 
trade  policy,  cooperation  under  bilateral  and  multilateral  agreements,  development 
cooperation,  common  foreign  and  security  policy,  common  defence  and  security  policy, 

EN 

22 

   EN 

 
 
 
humanitarian  aid  and  financial  assistance,  as  well  as  the  external  projection  of  internal 
policies:  energy,  environment,  transport,  justice  and  home  affairs,  etc).  The  creation  of  new 
budget lines through the annual budgetary procedure, and the subsequent adoption of ad hoc 
legal bases for their implementation, has added to the proliferation of instruments. 

The result is a mixed and complex set of instruments. EU global external assistance efforts 
are  currently  being  carried  out  through  more  than  30  different  legal  instruments 
(programmes),  thematic  ones  like  “EIDHR3”,  and  geographical  ones  like  EDF  or  TACIS 
programs.  It  also  has  an  array  of  CFSP  instruments  (Joint  Actions)4.  There  are  also  some 
separate  instruments  which  cover  the  external  impact  of  our  internal  policies,  such  as 
Intelligent Energy. Managing these various programmes in an efficient and coordinated 
way  has  become  an  increasingly  difficult  task,  as  well  as  making  communication  and 
visibility harder. 

As foreseen in its February 10 Communication, the Commission therefore proposes a drastic 
simplification  of  instruments,  driven  by  the  need  to  facilitate  coherence  and  consistency  of 
external  actions,  and  achieve  better  and  more  with  resources  available,  by  addressing  the 
following principles: 

•  Policy must lead the instruments: There is a genuine danger of putting the cart before the 
horse  and  having  the  policies  dictated  by  the  instruments,  and  it  is  time  for  the  EU  to 
overhaul its instruments to make them more coherent and results-oriented and to increase 
their leverage effect and flexibility. 

•  Ensuring overall policy coherence: The appropriate policy mix and balance between the 
needs  for  short-term  response  and  long  term  strategies  will  be  ensured  through  Country 
Strategy  Papers  (CSPs)  and  Regional  Strategy  Papers  (RSPs),  as  well  as  accession  and 
thematic strategies. Subject to regular reviews, and calling upon the appropriate mix of the 
new instruments proposed, this will ensure the necessary coherence in approach. 

•  Simplifying  structure  and  procedures5  Budget  lines  and  procedures  (financing 
instruments  and  their  legal  bases)  will  be  streamlined  to  make  them  more  effective  and 
more efficient, in particular with regard to emergencies and crises, and more responsive to 
new initiatives such as the Global Fund to fight HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria or 
the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries initiative. 

•  Output-oriented  resources  allocation:  There  is  a  broad  consensus  on  the  necessity  of 
allocating  resources  according  to  expected  and  measured  performances.  The  CSPs–RSPs 
process, backed up by stronger analytical capabilities, should confront initial goals and real 
achievements. 

•  Better  dialogue  and  coordination  with  other  donors  and  institutions:  First,  with  the 

other EU Institutions, but also with Members States and Bretton Woods institutions. 

3 European Initiative for Democracy and Human Rights 
4 The 100 different instruments mentioned in the 10 February Communication included both 1st Pillar and CFSP 

instruments 

5 There are currently 91 budget lines in the RELEX family policy areas. This does not include budget lines in 

other policy drawing resources from the current Heading 4. 

EN 

23 

   EN 

 
                                                 
•  Better  dialogue  with  third  countries:  All  countries  will  be  covered  by  the  new  and 

simplified set of targeted instruments, bringing better understanding and readability. 

To  further  enhance  overall  effectiveness  of  Commission  managed  EU-aid,  the  new 
instruments and the financial allocations made will be guided by a stronger attention to needs 
and performance criteria. The incorporation of former EDF-aid into the budget will facilitate 
cross-fertilisation towards the best practice level of the hitherto two systems. The Commission 
will  further  seek  that  the  new  framework  regulating  the  aid  programming  and  delivery  will 
put it in an enabling position. 

In  the  new  architecture  proposed,  three  general  instruments  are  directly  supporting 
European  external  policies:  the  pre-accession  policy,  the  neighbourhood  policy  and  the 
development  policy.  Three  thematic  instruments  are  designed  to  respond  to  crisis 
situations, whether political, humanitarian or financial, and will cover all third countries. The 
simplification process will also include the merging of various thematic instruments which at 
present are separate and which can be re-classified according to their thematic scope. 

3.4.1 

Policy-driven instruments 

•  The Pre-Accession Instrument (IPA) 

It will cover the candidate (Turkey, Croatia) and the potential candidate (remaining Western 
Balkans) countries. The IPA, therefore, will supersede existing instruments (PHARE, ISPA, 
SAPARD and Turkey pre-accession Regulation), simplifying the management of programmes 
for accession countries.6 In order to streamline assistance for Western Balkans countries and 
avoid an unnecessary phase-out process, the IPA will also replace CARDS. 

It will cover the following areas: Institution Building; Regional and Cross-border cooperation; 
Regional  Development;  Human  Resources  Development;  Rural  Development.  IPA 
beneficiary countries will be divided into two categories, depending on their status as either 
recognised candidate countries or potential candidate countries. 

All  western  Balkan  countries  are  covered  by  the  Stabilisation  and  association  process  and 
qualify therefore as potential candidate countries. They will be offered assistance building on 
the  principles  and  priorities  currently  laid  down  in  the  CARDS-Regulation:  Institution 
Building  and  Democratisation,  Economic  and  Social  Development,  Regional  and  Cross-
Border Co-operation and some alignment with the acquis communautaire. Once a country has 
acquired the status of a recognised candidate the IPA will complement the assistance covering 
all  five  areas  listed  above,  with  a  much  larger  attention  to  transposing  the  acquis 
communautaire.  A  clear  distinction  will  therefore  be  operated  between  candidate  and 
potential  candidate  countries.  A  country  can  graduate  from  potential  candidate  to  candidate 
status only through a unanimous political decision of the Council following an assessment by 
the Commission. 

•  The European Neighbourhood & Partnership Instrument (ENPI) 

6 In this context, the requirements of the Community policies, which new candidate and pre-candidate countries 

have to implement will be taken into account 

EN 

24 

   EN 

 
                                                 
In  its  Communication  of  12  May  20047  approved  by  the  June  European  Council,  the 
Commission  indicated  that  the  European  Neighbourhood  Policy  (ENP)  in  general  and  the 
ENP Action Plans in particular shall provide a guiding framework for the financial assistance 
to  be  made  available  to  the  relevant  partner  countries.  It  further  proposed  to  create  a  new 
specific neighbourhood Instrument from 2007. 

To date, the assumption had been that this instrument would complement rather than replace 
the existing instruments (TACIS, MEDA) or their successors and focus on cross-border and 
the  EU  external  borders  bringing  a  radical 
transnational  cooperation  activities  at 
simplification in procedures and a substantial efficiency gain. 

As the conceptual work on the various external assistance instruments progressed, it became 
apparent that a broader approach was necessary in order to reflect the specificity of the ENP 
approach,  give  greater  visibility  to  relations  with  neighbouring  countries,  provide  optimal 
coherence  in  the  assistance  to  partner  countries  and  further  simplify  delivery  of  assistance. 
This  entails  enlarging  the  scope  of  the  ENPI,  to  cover  all  the  financial  assistance  to  the 
countries covered by the European Neighbourhood Policy. 

The ENPI should contribute to prevent the emergence of new divisions between the EU and 
its neighbours through greater political, security, economic and cultural co-operation and offer 
to  the  beneficiaries  the  chance  to  participate  in  various  EU  activities.  It  should  focus  in 
particular on the implementation of ENP Action Plans, jointly agreed documents covering a 
set of priorities whose fulfilment will bring partner countries closer to the European Union. 

Its  scope  goes  beyond  promoting  sustainable  development,  economic  growth  and  poverty 
reduction.  It  involves  substantial  support  for  measures  aimed  at  a  progressive  economic 
integration,  deeper  political  cooperation,  involving  legislative  approximation,  institution 
building,  participation  in  Community  programmes  and  Agencies,  inter-connections  and 
development of common infrastructure. In order to make assistance more effective it will also 
build  on  the  experience  acquired  in  the  enlargement  context  and  use  similar  technical 
instruments such as twinning or TAIEX. 

Both IPA and ENPI will include a specific component to promote cross-border co-operation 
(CBC) on each side of the border between the third country and the Member State concerned. 
This  component  will  combine  objectives  deriving  from  external  policy  and  from  economic 
and  social  cohesion  and  operate  according  to  a  common  methodology  and  harmonised 
management  based  on  principles  such  as  multi-annual  programming,  partnership,  and  co-
financing.  Resources  would  be  drawn  from  both  the  Cohesion  and  the  External  Policy 
Headings of the proposed Financial Perspectives. The contribution to ENPI and IPA from the 
Cohesion  Policy  Heading  would  be  broken  down  by  Member  State  concerned  and  would 
contribute to total resources from the Structural Funds and the Cohesion Fund for the purpose 
of the 4% ceiling. 

•  The “Development Cooperation & Economic Cooperation” Instrument 

The new instrument will be the main vehicle to support developing countries in their efforts to 
progress towards the Millennium development goals. The next financial perspective period is 
a crucial vehicle towards meeting the 2015 target for these goals. The instrument’s coverage 

7 COM (2004) 373, European Neighbourhood Policy Strategy Paper  

EN 

25 

   EN 

 
                                                 
will be all countries, territories and regions that will not receive assistance under the IPA or 
the ENPI. 

It will cover development and economic co-operation with partner countries and regions, in 
its various forms and modalities as well as global and horizontal initiatives in conformity with 
articles 179 and 181a of the Treaty. 

It  will  include  the  successor  to  the  9th  EDF  which  will  come  to  an  end  in  2007.  The 
Commission  has  indeed  proposed  not  to  continue  with  a  10th  EDF  but  to  bring  aid  to  ACP 
countries under the mainstream cooperation instruments in full. This is expected to render aid 
to ACP countries more effective (negotiations on country strategies will encompass all aid), 
more  responsive  and  more  efficient  (economies  of  management,  not  only  for  Commission 
services,  but  first  and  foremost  for  beneficiary  countries  and  all  stakeholders).  The  value 
added to be obtained from incorporation of the ACP-aid into the budget framework under full 
authority  of  the  EU  budget  authority  has  been  developed  in  a  separate  Commission 
Communication from October 20038. 

It shall equally cover those areas included in agreements and other bilateral instruments with 
partner  countries,  or  in  co-operation  agendas  jointly  agreed  with  partner  countries,  as  for 
instance:  reinforce  the  various  social  services  (health,  education);  contribute  to  the  core 
infrastructures  needed  to  sustain  economic  and  social  development  (transports,  utilities, 
telecommunication…);  deal  with  sustainable  rural  development  and  food  security  in  their 
various aspects (agricultural reform, environment, etc.) including appropriate measures to deal 
with  the  reform  of  the  sugar  protocol9;  contribute  to  the  emergence  of  an  efficient  private 
sector,  able  to  operate  according  to  the  global  trade  rules  and  the  principles  of  a  market 
economy  (including  the  institution  building  efforts  more  specifically  dedicated  to  this 
objective);  promote  good  governance,  the  rule  of  law  and  respect  for  human  rights  and 
democratisation;  support  institution  building;  management  of  asylum  and  migration  flows; 
address  security  issues,  such  as  the  fight  against  trafficking,  crime,  and  terrorism;  address 
nuclear  safety  issues;  contribute  to  the  development  of  media  and  communication  sectors; 
support economic and cultural cooperation with more advanced countries. 

It  will  include  the  possibility  of  a  rapid  and  integrated  response  to  post-crisis  transitional 
needs. 

3.4.2 

Instruments responding to crises 

•  The Instrument for Stability 

Before the intervention of other instruments, this instrument will allow the Community to: 

–  deliver  an  effective,  immediate,  and  integrated  response  to  crisis  and  instability 
through a single financing instrument, building on the added-value demonstrated 
by  the  Rapid  Reaction  Mechanism,  until  programming  under  one  of  the  general 
instruments for cooperation and assistance can resume; 

8 
9 

COM(2003)590 
These  measures  are  laid  out  in  the  Communication  from  the  Commission  to  the  Council  and  the 
European  Parliament  on  accomplishing  a  sustainable  agricultural  model  for  Europe  through  the 
reformed CAP – sugar sector reform (COM(2004)499) 

EN 

26 

   EN 

 
                                                 
–  address  global  and  regional  trans-border  challenges  affecting  civilian  security, 
such fight against trafficking, organised crime and terrorism, where such actions 
need to be delivered in response to crisis; 

–  address nuclear safety issues where such actions need to be delivered in response 

to crisis; 

–  develop  international  peace-keeping  capacity  in  partnership  with  regional 
organisations,  in  line  with  the  established  policy  agreed  for  the  Africa  Peace 
Facility and the recommendations of the Brahimi report; 

–  undertake  electoral  assistance  missions  in  countries  where  it  is  too  dangerous  to 

send observation missions 

The  instrument  provides,  moreover,  a  framework  for  response  to  new  policy  initiatives 
supported  by  the  Union  in  line  with  the  objectives  of  the  regulation,  where  this  is 
complementary to actions undertaken under the other external action instruments. 

The  existing  legal  constraints  of  the  Treaties10  do  not  allow  the  creation  of  a  single,  cross-
pillar  instrument  to  deal  with  all  these  aspects.  The  Instrument  for  Stability  addresses 
therefore  purely  first-pillar  measures.  Second  pillar  measures  will  continue  to  be  adopted 
under the CFSP, the scope of which will be defined by the Council on a case-by-case basis, as 
is the current practice. 

•  The Humanitarian Aid instrument 

It is proposed to maintain the present format of EU humanitarian assistance, which is regarded 
as sufficiently well defined in terms of scope and objectives and performing well in terms of 
delivery and efficiency. 

Nevertheless,  as  part  of  the  simplification  and  rationalisation  process,  it  is  proposed  to 
integrate  other  activities  of  a  humanitarian  nature  in  the  humanitarian  aid  instrument.  This 
concerns inter alia food aid activities and the humanitarian aspects of aid to uprooted people. 

•  Macro-Financial Assistance (MFA) 

Since  its  inception  in  1990,  MFA  has  proved  an  efficient  instrument  for  economic 
stabilisation  and  a  driver  for  structural  reforms  in  the  beneficiary  countries.  It  has  to  be 
maintained and reinforced in the face of increased potential needs, notably from the enlarged 
Union’s neighbouring countries: Western NIS (Moldova, Ukraine, Belarus), the Caucasus and 
Mediterranean non-member countries. 

The instrument will continue, as long as the Constitutional Treaty has not entered into force, 
to be governed by ad hoc Decisions of the Council under Art. 308 of the Treaty. 

3.4.3 

The external aspects of internal policies 

The  projection  of  internal  policies  outside  the  Union  is  also  a  critical  aspect  of  the  Union’s 
external relations. It is vital to reconcile the need for policy coherence and thematic visibility 

10 

This constraint will remain even if the Constitution is adopted 

EN 

27 

   EN 

 
                                                 
for the internal policies concerned (notably education; environment; immigration and asylum; 
customs and taxation; and networks), with the need for overall coherence of external relations 
(as defined in country or regional strategy papers). 

The 3 general instruments proposed in the field of external relations should cover all policy 
areas, either as a thematic strand or in the context of the policy mix defined for a given third 
country.  As  a  general  rule,  there  is  therefore  no  need  for  separate  legal  instruments  to  deal 
with external aspects of internal policies, if appropriate equivalent provisions are introduced 
in  the  external  legal  instrument  to  cover  the  specific  requirements  of  the  thematic  policy 
concerned  and  to  preserve  their  identity.  Within  the  relevant  instruments  appropriate  and 
complete  provision  will  be  made  to  ensure  that  external  aspects  of  internal  policies  are 
properly covered allowing measures in support of policies areas such as environment, asylum 
and  immigration,  education,  transport  and  customs  and  taxation  to  be  covered.  Specific 
recognition will be given to measures in support of third level education (TEMPUS) with an 
emphasis on mobility. In some cases, the pursuit of the policy objective will require that funds 
are  not  programmed  geographically,  as  they  serve  multilateral  objectives,  for  example,  to 
enable the EU to promote its environmental aims in the multilateral context, independently of 
the priorities of individual beneficiaries. 

Management  would  therefore  be  shared  between  the  internal  policy  and  the  external 
Directorates-general: this implies co-programming, presidency of the relevant Committee by 
DG Relex assisted by the internal policy DG concerned, or alternate presidency. The selection 
and evaluation of projects by DG AIDCO will involve the internal policy DG. 

EN 

28 

   EN