Report from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament - Annual Report from the European Commission on the instrument for stability in 2007 – Executive summary {SEC(2008) 446}
Date: 2008-04-11
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: cooperation policy, development aid, foreign policy, international security, report

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 

Brussels, 11.4.2008 
COM(2008) 181 final 

REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL AND THE EUROPEAN 
PARLIAMENT 

Annual report from the European Commission 
on the Instrument for Stability in 2007 – Executive Summary 

{SEC(2008) 446} 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
  
 
 
 
REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL AND THE EUROPEAN 
PARLIAMENT 

Annual report from the European Commission 
on the Instrument for Stability in 2007 – Executive Summary 

INTRODUCTION 

This report is submitted to the European Parliament and the Council in compliance with the 
reporting requirement set out in Article 23 of Regulation (EC) N°1717/2006 of the European 
Parliament and the Council of 15 November 2006 establishing an Instrument for Stability (the 
IfS Regulation). This article states:  

‘The  Commission  shall  examine  progress  achieved  in  implementing  the  measures 
undertaken pursuant to this Regulation and shall submit to the European Parliament 
and the Council an annual report on the implementation of the assistance. The report 
shall  also  be  addressed  to  the  European  Economic  and  Social  Committee  and  the 
Committee  of  the  Regions.  The  report  shall  contain  information  relating  to  the 
previous year on the measures financed and information on the results of monitoring 
and  evaluation  exercises  and  the  implementation  of  budget  commitments  and 
payments, broken down by country, region and cooperation sector’.  

This  report  is  also  submitted  in  complement  to  the  information  already  provided  in 
accordance with the reporting requirement of Article 6(6) of the IfS Regulation, which states:  

‘At  as  early  a  stage  as  possible,  following  the  adoption  of  Exceptional  Assistance 
Measures,  and  in  any  case  within  seven  months  of  doing  so,  the  Commission  shall 
report  to  the  European  Parliament  and  the  Council  by  giving  an  overview  of  the 
existing  and  planned  Community  response,  including  the  contribution  to  be  made 
from  other  Community  financing  instruments,  the  status  of  existing  Country  and 
Multi-Country  Strategy  Papers,  and  the  Community’s  role  within  the  broader 
international and multilateral response. This report shall also indicate whether and, 
if  so,  for  how  long  the  Commission  intends  to  continue  the  Exceptional  Assistance 
Measures’.  

The current practice established by the Commission during 2007 is to systematically inform 
the  European  Parliament  and  the  Council  of  Exceptional  Assistance  Measures  about  to  be 
supported under the IfS as part of the EU’s crisis response. In view of the need to keep the 
reporting requirements on each individual programme manageable, it is proposed to use this 
and  the  future  annual  reports  for  a  global  implementation  update  on  all  on-going  measures 
earlier  described,  including  those  aspects  on  which  information  could  not  be  provided 
upstream of the start of implementation.  

I. 

BACKGROUND TO THE INSTRUMENT FOR STABILITY 

EC  external  instruments  have  for  a  number  of  years  been  providing  the  Commission’s 
contribution to the Union’s overall crisis responses, be it in response to natural disasters or 
to political crises in third countries, in the latter case often alongside EU Joint Actions under 
Common  Foreign  and  Security  Policy  (CFSP)  or  European  Security  and  Defence  Policy 
(ESDP).  Between  2000  and  2006,  this  role  was  notably  played  by  the  EC  Rapid  Reaction 
Mechanism  (RRM)  as  regards  non-humanitarian  crisis  responses.  Despite  modest  financial 
envelopes  (in  the  order  of  €30  million  per  year)  and  a  tight  limit  on  the  duration  of 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
programmes  (maximum  six  months),  RRM-funded  projects  played  an  important  role  in  a 
number of crisis response undertakings by the EU, in many cases kick-starting programmes 
under  geographic  instruments  or  dovetailing  with  CFSP/ESDP  actions.  The  RRM  was  used 
successfully for example following the crisis in Afghanistan, in response to the tsunami and 
for  the  Aceh  Peace  Process,  for  the  EU  Border  Assistance  Mission  to  the  Republic  of 
Moldova and Ukraine, and in response to a series of other crises in Africa, Latin America, the 
Western Balkans and the Middle East.  

The  launch  of  the  Instrument  for  Stability  (IfS)  in  2007  enhanced  considerably  the 
Commission’s  crisis  response  capacity,  since  the  crisis  response  component  constitutes  the 
biggest part of this new instrument (more than one and a half billion euros out of the total of 
just  over  two  billion  over  seven  years)1.  Compared  to  the  RRM,  the  crisis  response 
component of the IfS represents a considerable increase in financial allocations (€93 million 
in 2007, and an average of €230 million per year for crisis responses during the period 2007-
2013) and in the duration of programmes (18 months, with the possibility of extension under 
certain  conditions).  Section  II  of  this  report  and  the  annexed  Commission  Staff  Working 
Document  present  the  measures  adopted  under  Article  3  of  the  IfS  Regulation,  namely 
‘assistance  in  response  to  situations  of  crisis  or  emerging  crisis’.  The  ‘crisis  response’ 
component of the IfS is under direct responsibility of Directorate A of Directorate General for 
External  Relations  (DG  RELEX)  of  the  European  Commission,  with  an  increased 
involvement of Commission Delegations in third countries at the implementation stage.  

The IfS also contains a longer term component, providing for ‘assistance in the context of 
stable conditions for cooperation’. Programmable measures under the IfS include:  

1. 

Measures addressing longer-term trans-regional security threats under Articles 
4(1) and 4(2) of the IfS Regulation. In the Instrument for Stability Strategy Paper 
2007-2013,  the  Commission  has  identified  the  priorities  for  longer-term  actions 
under Article 4(1) and Article 4(2). First, to support international efforts to address 
the  proliferation  of  weapons  of  mass  destruction,  through  actions  aiming  at 
improving  effective  control  of  chemical,  biological,  radiological  and  nuclear 
materials  and  agents,  control  of  dual-use  goods,  and  the  redirection  of  weapons 
scientists’ knowledge towards peaceful activities. (€53 million for 2007-08). Second, 
to  support  global  and  trans-regional  efforts  to  address  the  threats  posed  by 
trafficking, terrorism and organised crime (€19 million for 2007-08). The long-term 
component of the IfS repeals some previously-existing budget lines (e.g on drugs). 

Two additional  priorities under Article 4(1) are threats to critical infrastructure and 
major  public  health  threats  with  a  potential  trans-national  dimension.  These  latter 
areas are new and will require extensive preparation to design specific programmes. 
The  Commission  plans  to  come  back  to  these  two  areas  in  subsequent  Indicative 
Programmes. 

The  Strategy  for  the  years  2007-2011  and  the  Indicative  Programme  for  the  years 
2007-2008 under article 4 of the IfS have received a favourable opinion by unanimity 
from  the  IfS  Committee  as  well  as  favourable  opinion  of the  European  Parliament, 
and  have  been  adopted  in  August  2007.  This  component  is  programmed  by  DG 

1 

The  overall  financial  envelope  for  the  Instrument  for  Stability  for  the  period  2007-2013  is 
€2,062,000,000. Out  of  this amount,  the regulation  specifies  that  no  more  than respectively  7%,  15% 
and  5%  shall  be  allocated  to  measures  falling  under  Articles  4(1),  4(2)  and  4(3).  This  leaves  at  least 
73% or €1,505,260,000 of the total for measures falling under Article 3 or ‘crisis response’.  

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
                                                 
RELEX but managed under direct responsibility of EuropeAid Co-operation Office 
(DG AIDCO). It is described in Section IV of this report. 

2. 

‘Pre-  and  post-crisis  capacity  building  measures’  under  Article  4(3)  of  the  IfS 
Regulation, hereafter referred to as ‘crisis preparedness’. For the period 2007-2008, 
€15 million were programmed for this component, out of which €7 million for 2007. 
This component, which is also managed centrally by DG RELEX/A, is described in 
Section III of this report. 

II. 

CRISIS  RESPONSES  UNDER THE INSTRUMENT FOR STABILITY (ARTICLE 3, BUDGET 
HEADING 19.06.01) 

II.1. 

The IfS as part of the EU’s broader crisis response toolbox 

In  order  for  the  EU  to  play  an  enhanced  role as  a foreign  and security policy actor, it  must 
have  an  effective  capacity  to  respond  to  crisis  situations  in  third  countries,  to  assist 
bringing  these  countries  back  on  the  road  of  sustainable  development.  Strengthening  the 
Union’s  capacities  to  respond  to  the  world’s  crises  means  both  reinforcing  the  various 
instruments  at  the  Union’s  disposal  (civilian  and  military  crisis  management  instruments, 
diplomacy,  as well as development aid or trade policy), and ensuring that these instruments 
can  be  made  to  work  together  as  a  coherent  whole.  The  IfS  constitutes  an  important 
addition  to  Community  instruments  in  response  to  crisis  situations,  the  other  ones  being 
humanitarian  assistance2,  civil  protection  (through  the  MIC)3,  or  other  external  financial 
instruments  when  urgently  re-deployed  in  response  to  a  crisis  situation4.  These  Community 
instruments together with EU Joint Actions under CFSP/ESDP, constitute the essence of the 
EU’s crisis response capability.  

Even  prior  to  the  entry  into  force  of  the  Lisbon  Treaty,  complementary  and  closely  co-
ordinated  use  of  Community  and  CFSP  instruments  in  response  to  political  crises  in 
third countries has become the rule. Beyond the Treaty obligation to ensure coherence in 
external action, Europe’s citizens and the outside world expect the Union overall to be able to 
deliver. No instrument exemplifies this better than the crisis response component of the IfS: 
while  remaining  a  first-pillar  instrument  decided  upon  by  the  Commission,  the  practice  of 
close  political  co-ordination  with  EU  Member  States  (notably  in  the  Political  and  Security 

2 

3 

4 

On 18 December 2007, the Presidents of the European Commission, European Parliament and Council 
of  the  European  Union  on  behalf  of  the  27  EU  Member  States  signed  a  ‘European  Consensus  on 
Humanitarian  Aid’,  outlining  a  common  EU  vision  and  practical  approach  to  reach  out  efficiently  to 
millions of people world-wide requiring basic life-saving aid. The Commission is currently preparing a 
5-year  action  plan  to  implement  the  commitments  made  at  EU  level  through  the  Consensus.  The 
adoption  and  subsequent  implementation  of  the  action  plan  will  further  consolidate  and  develop  the 
EU’s response to humanitarian crises. 
The  Community  civil  protection  mechanism,  deployable  within  and  outside  the  EU  through  the 
mechanism’s Monitoring and Information Centre (MIC), was further reinforced during 2007, inter alia 
to allow the Commission to facilitate and in some cases co-finance (up to 50%) the transport of civil 
protection assistance to a disaster affected country.  
Work is also underway to further improve the Commission’s crisis response capacities. In line with 
earlier recommendations of the Barnier report, the network of more than 130 Commission Delegations 
in  third  countries  is  being  strengthened  specifically  as  regards  the  coordination/  facilitation  of  crisis 
responses,  with  the  objective  of  progressively  building  a  number  of  regional  poles  of  multi-sector 
expertise for crisis response. Work is also continuing on further reinforcing emergency aid coordination 
between humanitarian responses, civil protection, and other crisis responses, both at headquarters level 
and in the field.  

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Committee, but also in the geographic working groups) has made it a politically responsive 
EC instrument. 

II.2.  Genesis of IfS crisis response programmes  

By  their  very  nature,  IfS  crisis  response  programmes  can  not  be  programmed  in  advance. 
They  are  developed  in  response  to  situations  of  crisis  or  emerging  crisis,  when  support 
cannot  be  provided  rapidly  enough  under  other  EC  financial  instruments.  Typically,  the  IfS 
can be mobilised in the case of a major new political crisis or natural disaster, or a window of 
opportunity to pre-empt a crisis or an opportunity to advance conflict resolution, or the need 
to secure the conditions for the delivery of EC assistance. When used in response to political 
crises, IfS measures have in a number of cases been crafted and deployed alongside CFSP / 
ESDP actions.  

There can be no automaticity in mobilising the IfS in response to any given crisis situation. 
A  judgement  is  made  case  by  case  whether  or  not  a  ‘crisis  or  emerging  crisis’  in  a  third 
country  justifies  recourse  to  this  instrument.  There  are  cases  of  long-standing  crises  whose 
protracted status by nature would not justify funding new initiatives under the IfS, and where 
EC  geographic  instruments  are  adequate.  In  the  same  way,  there  are  situations  where  the 
potential for an emerging crisis is sufficient to justify the use of the instrument.  

While it is for the Commission’s Directorate-General for External Relations to propose new 
crisis response measures under the IfS, and the Commission’s exclusive competence to decide 
and implement IfS programmes, ideas for new IfS programmes are often developed, in a 
flexible  manner,  through  discussions  with  a  series  of  actors  within  the  EU  (other 
Directorates-General  and  services  of  the  Commission,  Delegations,  but  also  the  Council  or 
individual  EU  Member  States,  European  Parliament…),  or  within  the  wider  international 
community  (beneficiary  country  authorities,  UN  system  agencies,  bilaterals),  or  with  civil 
society actors. Programme components are identified on the basis of the assessment of needs 
and  of  key  issues  to  be  addressed  in  a  given  crisis  situation.  Projects  are  at  times  designed 
from  the  outset  by  Commission  staff,  while  in  other  cases,  advanced  project  proposals  are 
received from NGOs or international organisations. Beyond the initial screening of proposals 
for  legal  eligibility  and  practical  feasibility,  additional  identification  work  and  negotiations 
with implementing partners are usually necessary. 

IfS approval procedures are designed to ensure rapid adoption of programmes, while also 
allowing for the necessary upstream consultation and co-ordination. Unlike EC humanitarian 
interventions deployable within days or weeks, the lead time for deploying IfS programmes – 
from  the  initial  needs  assessment  to  the  financing  of  the  first  actions  on  the  ground  –  is  in 
general  in  the  order  of  two  to  three  months.  This  is  understandable:  while  humanitarian 
actions are apolitical and allow urgent deployment, IfS actions are very political, and can just 
not be deployed lightly, and without proper political consultation within the EU, the country 
authorities, and with other international actors.  

II.3. 

IfS crisis response programmes adopted in the course of 2007  

The  crisis  response  component  of  the  Stability  Instrument  represents  the  bulk  of  the 
budget under title 19.06 (€91 million in 2007)5. This allocation was almost entirely used in 

5 

The  initial  budgetary  allocation  of  article  190601  was  of  €100  million,  of  which  €7  million  were  set 
aside for ‘crisis preparedness’ (see hereunder), leaving €93 million for crisis response. The difference 
between this initially available allocation of €93 million and the final available allocation of €91 million 
is  explained  by  the  exceptional  transfer  of  €2  million  to  the  budget  line  19.06.03  for  longer-term  IfS 
measures.  The  latter  was  made  necessary  in  order  to  allow  the  Commission  to  adopt  an  unforeseen 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
                                                 
2007:  consumption  of  commitment  appropriations  reached  99%  of  the  available  total, 
while consumption of payment appropriations reached 68% of the available total6 (see details 
in annex). While full use of available budget appropriations is not a priori an essential aim for 
an  instrument  of  this  nature,  the  high  consumption  rate  of  commitment  appropriations 
demonstrates  that  more  could  have  been  spent.  Thus,  a  number  of  already  developed 
programmes  had  to  be  deferred  for  adoption  in  early  2008.  This  demonstrates  the 
appropriateness  of  the  foreseen  increases  on  this  budget  article  during  the  financial 
perspectives.  

The measures adopted in the course of 2007 vary both geographically and thematically: the 
reader is referred to the annexes for summary project descriptions and a tabular overview. A 
number of programmes adopted in the course of 2007 have already started delivering concrete 
results.  

Thematically, the measures supported cover a broad range of issues, targeted on the specific 
needs of each conflict/post-conflict situation: short-term advice to develop and kick-start post-
conflict security system reform (DRC, Guinea Bissau, Lebanon), complementary measures in 
areas where ESDP missions are deployed (e.g. DRC, Afghanistan, Chad), support to regional 
peace-building  capacity  (AU  –  AMISOM  Somalia,  AU-UN  Mediation  in  Darfur),  Rule  of 
Law  and 
interim 
administrations  (ICO  Kosovo),  conflict  resolution  and  reconciliation  (Uganda,  Zimbabwe, 
Burma/Myanmar,  Southern  Thailand),  post-conflict  needs  assessments  and  rehabilitation 
(Lebanon  refugee  camp),  support  to  displaced  populations  (Lebanon,  Syria),  and  conflict 
resources (Kimberley Process through dedicated facility).  

(Afghanistan,  Colombia,  Haiti),  support 

transitional 

justice 

to 

No major disaster response programmes were funded in the course of 2007, however the 
IfS was able to support several post-disaster needs assessments in late 2007 and early 2008, 
which are likely to materialise in disaster response programmes this year.  

Geographically,  the  largest  share  of  funds  (€  38.9  million,  some  43%  of  the  total)  was 
allocated  for  measures  in  Sub-Saharan  Africa,  namely  in  Chad,  Darfur,  Somalia,  DR 
Congo, Uganda, Guinea-Bissau and Zimbabwe (see annex for details). 

In the Middle East, some €19.7 million or 22% of the funds were committed for programmes 
in Lebanon, the occupied Palestinian territories, and in support of Iraqi refugees in Syria 
(see annex for details). 

In  the  Western  Balkans,  €10  million  were  adopted  to  support  the  running  costs  of  the 
International Civilian Office (ICO) in Kosovo (see annex for details).  

In  Latin  America  and  the  Caribbean,  €9  million  (some  10%  of  the  funds)  were  used  on 
programmes in Colombia, Haiti, and Bolivia (see annex for details).  

Finally, in the Asia-Pacific region, €5.9 million, some 6% of the total, were made available 
for IfS programmes in Afghanistan, Southern Thailand, and Burma/Myanmar (see annex 
for details). 

In addition to the above-enumerated programmes adopted and measures supported, a series of 
preparatory measures (e.g. expert assessment missions) were funded in the course of 2007 

financing decision under the long-term component of the IfS to support the continuation of the on-going 
border  management  project  in  the  Philippines  under  a  more  suitable  legal  basis  than  the  ALA 
regulation, following a ruling by the ECJ. 
The slightly lower than planned payment rate is explained by the fact that advance payments for several 
2007 programmes were made in early 2008 after contract signature.  

6 

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
                                                                                                                                                         
towards  related  programmes  likely  to  be  proposed  under  the  IfS  in  the  course  of  2008  (see 
annex for details).  

Close  and  regular  monitoring  of  all  IfS  programmes  is  ensured  by  EC  Delegations  in  the 
beneficiary  countries.  Delegations  are  in  many  cases  also  directly  responsible  for  the 
implementation  of assistance  programmes. In view of the fact that  the first  IfS programmes 
have only been on-going for some months, no evaluations were conducted to date.  

II.4. 

The first lessons learnt from 2007 

The  first  year  of  operation  of  the  crisis  response  component  of  the  IfS  has  been  a 
success.  Despite  less  than  optimal  resources  and  structures,  the  2007  crisis  response  budget 
was entirely committed (see annex). The programmes adopted have contributed to efforts in 
responding  to  crises  around  the  world,  usefully  (and  sometimes  crucially)  complementing 
other EU crisis response measures.  

Thematically, several of the programmes supported have benefited from parallel policy and 
conceptual  developments  at  EC/EU  level  and  notably  recent  communications  /  guidelines 
SSR, DDR, IBM guidelines, fragile states etc.  

Geographically, it is considered important to tackle crises where they arise, without trying to 
deliberately  balance  between  regions.  For  instance,  no  programmes  were  funded  in  2007  in 
the  NIS  region,  however  sizeable  programmes  were  funded  there  in  the  past  (EUBAM 
Moldova) and are likely to be funded there in 2008 (Kyrgyz republic justice and constitutional 
reform). Also, comparatively less was spent on Asia in 2007, but major programmes are being 
prepared in 2008 for Bangladesh, Nepal etc.  

III. 

THE  CRISIS  PREPAREDNESS  COMPONENT  OF  THE  STABILITY  INSTRUMENT 
(ARTICLE 4.3, BUDGET HEADING 19.06.01)  

In  addition  to  the  above-described  sizeable  and  growing  crisis  response  component,  the 
Instrument for Stability is innovating by introducing a ‘crisis preparedness’ component (€7 
million  in  2007,  and  a  further  €8  million  in  2008).  Framed  as  a  new  Peace-building 
Partnership,  it  aims  at  mobilising  and  consolidating  civilian  expertise  for  peace-building 
activities.  It  will  focus  principally  on  strengthening  directly  the  up-stream  capacity  of  the 
relevant partners to rapidly respond to a crisis scenario, and will address, notably, civil society 
organisations,  but  also  international  organizations  and  relevant  agencies  in  EU  Member 
States.  The  work  under  the  Peace-building  Partnership  is  the  subject  of  a  fruitful  on-going 
dialogue  with  the  relevant  sub-group  of  the  European  Parliament’s  Committee  on  Foreign 
Affairs. 

The  first  (2007)  Annual  Action  Programme  under  the  Peace-building  Partnership  will 
finance (to the tune of €7 million), inter alia : capacity-building and early warning activities 
and exchange of experience on best practice for civil society organizations; early warning and 
early  recovery  work  with  UNDP  and  the  African  Union;  and  training  for  civil  stabilization 
missions. A second (2008) Annual Action Programme for €8 million has just been endorsed 
by Member States and the Parliament and shall be adopted by 31 March. 

IV. 

THE  LONG-TERM  PART  OF  THE  STABILITY  INSTRUMENT  (ARTICLES  4.1  AND  4.2, 
BUDGET HEADINGS 19.06.02 AND 19.06.03) 

On  the  basis  of  the  Strategy  and  the  Indicative  Programme  for  the  years  2007-2008  the 
Annual Action Programme (AAP) 2007 was adopted in December 2007. The Annual Action 
programme focuses on the following actions: 

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
19.06.02.01 - ACTIONS IN THE AREA OF RISK MITIGATION AND PREPAREDNESS RELATING TO 
CHEMICAL, NUCLEAR AND BIOLOGICAL MATERIALS OR AGENTS  

(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

Support  to  the  International  Science  and  Technology  Centre  (ISTC)  in  Moscow  and 
the Science and Technology Centre in Ukraine, Kiev (STCU) - Amount: € 15 M 

Knowledge Management System on CBRN Trafficking - Amount: € 1 M 

Combating  illicit  trafficking  of  nuclear  and  radioactive  materials  in  FSU  countries  - 
Amount € 5 M 

(4) 

Assistance in export control of dual-use goods - Amount: € 5 M 

19.06.03.01  -  TRANS-REGIONAL  ACTIONS 
IN  THE  AREAS  OF  ORGANISED  CRIME, 
TRAFFICKING,  PROTECTION  OF  CRITICAL  INFRASTRUCTURE,  THREATS  TO  PUBLIC  HEALTH 
AND THE FIGHT AGAINST TERRORISM 

(1) 

(2) 

Expert Support Facility - Amount: € 3.8 million. 

Fight against trafficking from/to Afghanistan - Amount: € 5.2 million in 2007. 

More  detail  on  these  programmes  and  their  objectives  is  provided  in  the  annexed  staff 
working document. The programmes will start to be implemented in 2008. It is therefore too 
early to make an assessment of their effectiveness.  

AIDCO  is  also  currently  working  on  the  preparation  of  the  Annual  Action  Programme  for 
2008. 

IV.1.  Mine Action and the Instrument for Stability 

As far as landmines are concerned, it is worth recalling that the IfS is not meant to be an 
instrument  replacing  -  legally  or  financially  -  the  repealed  Anti-Personnel  Landmines 
(APL)  thematic  budget  line.  Main  funds  to  support  mine  action  should  come  from  the 
geographic  and  development  instruments  (DCI,  IPA,  ENPI  besides  the  EDF)  or  the 
humanitarian aid instrument in case of crisis situations.  

As for the IfS, support to mine action is foreseen only under its short-term remit (Article 
3.2 h) and with some constraints. There are no provisions for possible APL support under the 
IfS long-term part (art. 4 - applicable to "stable conditions"). However, the latter does cover 
firearms  and  ammunition.  From  a  stock-taking  exercise  carried  out  among  relevant 
Commission  services  in  terms  of  programming  funds  committed  to  mine  action  after  the 
repeal of the APL budget line, it is evident that funds have dropped by one third, which was 
the ratio covered by the APL horizontal budget line vis-à-vis the geographic and development 
instruments (the remaining two thirds). Relex A is strengthening internal coordination within 
the  Commission  to  ensure  that  APL  are  given  proper  attention  and  hence  are  effectively 
mainstreamed in national programs. 

EN 

8 

   EN