REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS 2009 Annual Report from the European Commission on the Instrument for Stability  {SEC(2010) 1114}
Date: 2010-09-28
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: activity report, cooperation policy, development aid, foreign policy, international security

EN 

EN 

   EN 

 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Brussels, 28.9.2010 
COM(2010) 512 final 

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

2009 Annual Report from the European Commission 
on the Instrument for Stability 

{SEC(2010) 1114} 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
  
 
1. 

INTRODUCTION 

This third Annual Report is submitted to the European Parliament, the Council, the 
Economic and Social Committee, and the Committee of the Regions, in compliance 
with the reporting requirement set out in Article 23 of Regulation (EC) N°1717/2006 
of  the  European  Parliament  and  the  Council  of  15  November  2006  establishing  an 
Instrument for Stability (the IfS Regulation).  

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. The 
practice established by the Commission since 2007 is to inform the Council as well 
as  the  European  Parliament  of  Exceptional  Assistance  Measures  about  to  be 
supported under the IfS as part of the EU’s crisis response. In order to also present 
information  on  downstream  progress  of  adopted  measures,  the  Annual  Report  is 
complemented  by  a  Commission  staff  working  document  providing  for  a  global 
implementation update on on-going measures. 

2. 

BACKGROUND TO THE INSTRUMENT FOR STABILITY 

Since its inception in 2007, and its endowment with some €2 billion over the period 
2007-2013,  the  Instrument  for  Stability  has  responded  to  conflict  and  crisis  on  a 
global level, by taking actions to address security threats on a national and regional 
level, and by building capacity to respond to crises and to prevent conflict. Thus, the 
Instrument  for  Stability  has  enabled  the  EU  to  work  across  the  conflict  cycle  with 
timely, efficient and complementary interventions. 

Crisis Response 

The  Stability  Instrument  ‘crisis  response’  component,  under  Article  3  of  the  IfS 
Regulation,  represents  the  bulk  of  the  IfS  budget  (€1.4  billion  for  the  period  2007-
2013) The IfS can be used to anticipate or respond to political crisis, violent conflict 
or  natural  disasters,  and  is  designed  to  ensure  the  delivery  of  timely,  flexible, 
integrated and politically sensitive assistance to third countries. 

Since  2007,  a  significant  number  of  IfS  measures  have  been  crafted  to  complement 
the  overall  EU  or  broader  international  response  in  the  field,  often  in  parallel  with 
humanitarian  assistance,  with  a  view  to  enhancing  the  link  between  relief, 
rehabilitation  and  development  (LRRD),  or  to  facilitate  the  achievement  of  the 
political  objectives  of  CSDP  missions.  By  their  very  nature,  IfS  crisis  response 
programmes  cannot  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  EU  financial  instruments,  taking  account  of  horizontal  and 
geographical objectives and strategic priorities of the EU. Actions undertaken must be 
complementary  and  seek  synergies  with  EU  geographic  policies  and  instruments. 
They shall also be coherent with objectives of country and regional strategies. 

IfS  approval  procedures  are  designed  to  ensure  rapid  adoption  of  crisis  response 
programmes  up  to  €20  million.  IfS  actions  ar e  political  measures.  Reflecting  this, 
proper political consultations within the EU, with country authorities as appropriate, 

EN 

2 

   EN 

and with other international and non-state actors is an important part of the decision-
making process. 

Long-term challenges 

The IfS also contains a longer term dimension covering three components, which are 
programmable,  providing  for  ‘assistance  in  the  context  of  stable  conditions  for 
cooperation’, for measures addressing safety and security threats under Article 4(1), 
risk  mitigation  related  to  chemical,  biological,  radiological  and  nuclear  materials 
under Article 4(2) as well as for crisis preparedness purposes under Article 4(3).  

In the Instrument for Stability Strategy Paper 2007-2011, the Commission identified 
the  priorities  for  longer-term  actions  under  Article  4.  These  include  (i)  supporting 
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,  (ii) 
supporting  global  and  trans-regional  efforts  addressing  the  threats  posed  by 
trafficking,  terrorism  and  organised  crime,  and  (iii)  setting  up  longer-term  capacity 
building measures aimed at strengthening international organisations and non- state 
actors with a crisis prevention or response mandate. 

3. 

CRISIS  RESPONSE  UNDER  THE  INSTRUMENT  FOR  STABILITY  (EXCEPTIONAL 
ASSISTANCE MEASURES UNDER ARTICLE 3 OF THE IFS REGULATION) 

Early and swift identification of possible IfS crisis response actions depends on good 
cooperation  and  communication  between  EU  Services  in  Brussels  and  EU 
Delegations  on  the  ground.  Three  types  of  considerations  are  relevant  at  the 
identification stage: (i) the eligibility of a measure (the actual existence of a crisis, the 
complementary character of the measure and scope for synergies with other EU crisis 
response interventions); (ii) the feasibility (i.e. sufficient lead time available for sound 
preparation  of  the  action,  availability  of  a  solid  implementing  partner);  and  (iii)  the 
political  appropriateness  of  the  envisaged  action.  Close  association  of  EU  Member 
States early on, e.g. associating Member States' experts with IfS fact-finding missions, 
can add value and contributes to coherent EU action. 

3.1. 

Geographic distribution so far 

Since  2007,  €350  million  have  been  mobilis ed  for  100  individual  actions  in  48 
countries  worldwide.  In  terms  of  geographic  distribution  of  crisis  response 
interventions over the last three years, there remains a fairly balanced picture, with a 
sizeable share of support continuing to be provided in Africa (mainly Central African 
Republic  (CAR),  Chad,  Democratic  Republic  of  Congo  (DRC),  Somalia  and 
Zimbabwe  –  some  25%),  followed  by  actions  in  Asia  (mainly  Bangladesh,  East 
Timor, Nepal, Pakistan, Philippines, Southern Thailand and Sri Lanka, – some 20%), 
the Middle East (Lebanon, occupied Palestinian territory, and refugees in Syria –some 
18%), Western Balkans and Eastern Europe (Bosnia and Herzegovina, Kosovo1 and 
Republic  of  Moldova  –  some  15%),  Latin  America  and  the  Caribbean  (Bolivia, 

1 

Under UNSC Res. 1244 (1999). 

EN 

3 

   EN 

                                                 
Colombia, Cuba, Haiti, Honduras, Nicaragua and Peru – some 11%), and Central Asia 
and  Southern  Caucasus  (Armenia/Nagorno-Karabakh,  Georgia  and  Kyrgyzstan– 
11%). 

3.2. 

Sectors targeted 

Thematically,  the  adopted  measures  cover  a  broad  range  of  issues  targeted  at  the 
specific needs of each emerging conflict/post-conflict situation:  

•  short-term  advice  to  develop  and  kick-start  post-conflict  security  sector  reform 
(CAR,  DRC,  Guinea-Bissau,  Lebanon,  occupied  Palestinian  territory,  Pakistan, 
Timor-Leste),  

•  enabling  or  supporting  measures  in  areas  where  CSDP  missions  are  deployed 
(Afghanistan,  Chad,  DRC,  Georgia,  Horn  of  Africa/piracy,  Kosovo,2  occupied 
Palestinian territory),  

•  support  to  UN  and/or  regional  organisations-led  Peacekeeping  missions  and 
Peace  building  activities  (MINURCAT  in  Chad,  AU-UN  Mediation  in  Darfur, 
AU in Somalia), 

•  Rule  of  Law  and  transitional  justice  (Afghanistan,  Colombia,  Kyrgyzstan, 

Lebanon, Sierra Leone, Solomon Islands, Timor-Leste, Western Balkans),  

•  support  to  interim  administrations  and  special  tribunals  (ICO  Kosovo,  Lebanon 

Tribunal, Sierra Leone SC, ODIHR /ICTY programme in the Balkans),  

•  support to conflict resolution and reconciliation (Colombia, Georgia, Republic of 
Moldova,  Myanmar/Burma,  Nepal,  occupied  Palestinian  territory,  Peru,  Sri 
Lanka, Southern Thailand, Uganda, Zimbabwe),  

•  support  to  fragile  electoral  processes  (Africa-wide,  Bolivia,  Comoros,  Haiti, 

Republic of Moldova, Pakistan), 

•  post-conflict and post-disaster recovery programmes (Bangladesh, Cuba, Eastern 
DRC, Gaza Strip, Haiti, Lebanon, Myanmar/Burma, Nicaragua, Peru) and funding 
of Joint United Nations (UN)/World Bank/EU needs assessments (eight joint post-
crisis needs assessments undertaken), and 

•  support to displaced populations (Georgia, Lebanon, Syria). 

3.3.  With whom does the EU work? 

Some 48% of IfS funds are implemented through UN agencies, which in many cases 
have  existing  field  structures  able  to  deliver  first  responses  in  crisis  and  conflict-
affected countries. Notwithstanding the key role of the UN, the Commission Services 
responsible  for  IfS  crisis  response  activities  have  also  paid  specific  attention  to 
building on expertise available within the growing network of international and local 
NGOs specialised in conflict prevention and peace building. As a result, 22% of funds 

2 

Under UNSC Res. 1244 (1999). 

EN 

4 

   EN 

                                                 
are implemented through NGOs. 17% are implemented in partnership with other, non-
UN  international  organisations,  including  the  African  Union,  the  Organisation  for 
Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) or the World Bank. The remainder has 
been  delivered  through  private  operators  (6%),  EU  Member  States'  agencies  (4%), 
and in some cases through government country systems (3%). 

Instrument for Stability Crisis Response
Implementing Partners 2007-2009

Private sector (technical 
assistance, supplies)
6%

Other Int'l Organisations 
(AU, OSCE, COE, WB, IOM)
17%

EU Member States 
agencies
4%

3rd country Govt's
3%

Int'l and local NGOs
22%

UN agencies
48%

3.4. 

Crisis Response Programmes (Exceptional Assistance Measures) adopted in 2009 

In  its  third  year  of  operation  the  Instrument  for  Stability  has  again  financed  a 
significant  number  of  crisis  response  actions  by  adopting  Exceptional  Assistance 
Measures  pursuant  to  the  IfS  Regulation.  Overall,  20  financing  decisions  and  26 
actions under the IfS facilities have been adopted and launched in 2009. A complete 
list  of  all  financing  decisions  adopted  in  2009  under  budget  heading  19.0601  is 
included  in  the  accompanying  Staff  Working  Document,  which  provides  the 
Annexes to this Report.  

Examples include the swift response in early 2009 to the devastation caused by the 
Israeli  incursion  into  Gaza,  in  conjunction  with  the  Commission's  Directorate-
General  for  Humanitarian  Aid  and  Civil  Protection  (DG  ECHO)-led  humanitarian 
relief  operation.  Other  key  programmes  launched  include  the  civilian  counter-
terrorism  support  in  Pakistan  (€15  million) ,  the  post-conflict  support  package  for 
Georgia  (€14  million),  and  the  IfS  contribution  to  the  EU’s  short-term  transition 
strategy in Zimbabwe (€10.5 million).  

Projects  were  also  launched  quickly  to  provide  urgently  needed  support  to  fragile 
election  processes  called  at  short  notice,  such  as  in  Bolivia,  Zambia  and  the 
Comoros.  In  addition,  the  immediate  launch  of  conflict  mitigation  measures 
contributed  to  stabilising  the  situation  in  Moldova  and  Lebanon.  The  unstable 
situation around the Horn of Africa was addressed through a programme to combat 
illegal trafficking across the Gulf of Aden in Yemen, and through support in Kenya 
and the Seychelles to assist with trials of piracy suspects detained by the EU military 
mission EUNAVFOR ATALANTA. 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
3.5. 

Role of EU Delegations in Crisis Response 

EU Delegations often provide project proposals to the Commission in Brussels and 
are  directly  responsible  for  the  management  of  adopted  exceptional  assistance 
measures. In 2009, the majority of measures – 19 out of 20 financing decisions and 
15  actions  under  the  IfS  facilities  -  were  sub-delegated  to  EU  Delegations  for 
implementation  in  the  country  concerned.  This  enables  contracts  to  be  negotiated 
with  local  counterparts  in  a  timely  fashion  and  provides  for  close  monitoring  of 
project implementation in the field. As a result, EU Delegations accounted for 80% 
of commitments and 90% of payments under the IfS in 2009.  

Instrument for Stability
2009 commitments

Instrument for Stability
2009 payments

RELEX/A2
20%

RELEX/A2
11%

De le gations
80%

De le gations
89%

RELEX/A2 Delegations

RELEX/A2 Delegations

The number of IfS field staff in EU Delegations has grown to 22, with eight acting as 
regional  crisis  response  planning  officers,  and  14  as  IfS  project  managers  in 
Delegations with a substantial IfS portfolio. 

3.6. 

International coordination and outreach 

The European Commission organised a conference entitled “Making the difference: 
Strengthening  capacities  to  respond  to  crises  and  security  threats”  (Brussels,  3-4 
June  2009).  The  aim  of  the  conference  was  to  explore  what  works  in  identifying 
effective approaches to the strengthening of crisis response capacities. The conference 
brought  together  many  partners  from  EU  institutions,  civil  society,  academia  and 
international organisations, such as the UN, World Bank, League of Arab States and 
the African Union.  

A series of books have been published on the topic of EU conflict prevention, crisis 
management  and  peace  building.  The  aim  is  to  ensure  target  groups  are  kept  well 
informed  about  developments  in  EU  crisis  response  capacity  and  the  actions 
undertaken  by  the  EU  in  conflicts  around  the  world.  These  are  available  online  at 
http://ec.europa.eu/external_relations/ifs/publications/index_en.htm.  

3.7. 

IfS  Crisis  Response  complementarity  with  CSDP  and  the  nexus  between 
security and development 

To  ensure  a  comprehensive  EU  response  to  crises,  actions  developed  under  the  IfS 
have  continued  focussing  on  complementarity  with  the  Common  Security  and 
Defence  Policy  (CSDP)  in  2009  as  evidenced  by  the  support  in  Kenya  and 
Seychelles  in  assisting  with  trials  of  piracy  suspects  detained  by  EUNAVFOR 
ATALANTA. 

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
There  are  other  examples  for  complementarity  when  deploying  IfS  actions  in  the 
context of CSDP on the one hand, and existing EU aid programmes on the other. The 
protracted  crisis  situations  of  high  priority  in  the  occupied  Palestinian  territory, 
Kosovo3  and  Afghanistan  present  common  features  in  that  EU  development 
assistance already started to address key EU stabilisation priorities, as these could be 
built  into  the  programming  cycle  2007-2013.  The  high-profile  EU  role  on  security 
and  development  in  these  three  cases  is  underlined  by  the  four  CSDP  missions 
currently deployed there (EUPOL COPPS and EUBAM Rafah, EUPOL Afghanistan 
and EULEX Kosovo).  

Given  the  substantial  budgets  already  involved  in  these  cases,  the  IfS  has  been 
mobilised  in  a  closely  targeted  and  complementary  manner  to  address  remaining 
needs such as in Kosovo the closing phase of UNMIK Pillar IV, the vetting of judges 
and prosecutors, and the initial running costs of the International Civilian Office. In 
the  Middle  East,  IfS  actions  provided  for  civil  police  equipment  in  support  of  EU 
efforts to reform Palestinian security services back-to-back with the work of EUPOL 
COPPS, plus €20 million IfS post-conflict supp ort in Gaza. In Afghanistan, the IfS 
kick-started a reinvigoration of Afghan justice reform with the deployment of a high-
level  expert  team,  which  is  now  followed  up  by  a  Development  Cooperation 
Instrument (DCI) programme. Similarly in Georgia, given the increasingly protracted 
post-conflict crisis since the war with Russia in 2008, the European Neighbourhood 
and Partnership Instrument (ENPI), CSDP, and IfS have all been mobilised together 
in a complementary fashion. 

In  other  areas,  notably  in  Aceh,  Bolivia,  Colombia,  Haiti,  Mindanao,  Pakistan,  Sri 
Lanka,  Southern  Thailand,  Timor-Leste  and  Yemen,  the  IfS  has  been  employed  to 
rapidly respond to political crisis or instability when no other EU instruments could 
intervene.  In  these  countries,  EU  development  aid  is  largely  programmed  towards 
long-term poverty eradication and the achievement of the Millennium Development 
Goals, while at the same time there is no scope for a CSDP intervention. This shows 
that  the  IfS  has  enlarged  the  geographical  and  political  options  for  EU  crisis 
response. 

4. 

THE  LONG-TERM  PART  OF  THE  STABILITY  INSTRUMENT  (ARTICLE  4  OF  THE  IFS 
REGULATION)  

The  Commission  adopted  the  new  Multi-Annual  Indicative  Programme  2009-2011 
for long-term actions under the IfS in April 2009. It foresaw up to €225 million for 
the  three  priority  areas  under  Article  4  and  includes  new  programmes  of  building 
capacity for coastal states to combat piracy, one of the first Commission programmes 
on counter-terrorism with a focus on Afghanistan/Pakistan and the Sahel Region, and 
a  programme  addressing  organised  crime  linked  to  cocaine  trafficking  in  Western 
Africa  and  Latin  America.  The  crisis  preparedness  part  involves  an  intensive 
dialogue  with  civil  society,  EU  Member  States  and  international  and  regional 
organisations  under  the  “Peacebuilding  Partnership”.  The  resulting  Annual  Action 
Programmes 2009 for non-proliferation and for trans-regional threats, as well as for 
the Peacebuilding Partnership were all adopted in 2009.  

3 

Under UNSC Res. 1244 (1999). 

EN 

7 

   EN 

                                                 
Looking back at 2007-2009, a total of €139  million was mobilised for the long-term 
part  in  the  first  three  years:  €36  milli on  was  committed  for  actions  addressing  trans-
regional  security  threats  (Article  4.1),  €8 3  million  for  actions  on  risk  mitigation  and 
preparedness relating to chemical, nuclear and biological materials or agents (Article 
4.2), and €20 million for actions  under the crisis preparedness component (Article 4.3, 
Peacebuilding Partnership). 

4.1. 

Trans-regional actions in the areas of organised crime, trafficking, protection of 
critical infrastructure, threats to public health and the fight against terrorism  

On the basis of the new indicative programming for 2009-2011, the Annual Action 
Plan  2009  covering  new  programmes  on  cocaine  trafficking  routes  and  on  critical 
maritime  routes  was  adopted  on  25  September  2009,  for  a  total  of  €14  million,  in 
addition to a pilot project on Maritime Awareness and Risks (€1 million). With the 
new  action  programme,  the  main  value  added  lies  in  addressing  the  transregional 
illicit flows, as well as in pursuing an integrated approach where the links between 
organised  crime  and  terrorism  are  addressed  in  key  regions  of  concern  to  the  EU. 
Illicit trafficking of drugs precursors and small arms is one of the major cross-cutting 
problems to be tackled. 

EU efforts in these areas will be complementary to the ongoing and planned activities 
of  Member  States.  Therefore,  close  coordination  and  the  involvement  of  Member 
States' experts in implementing the programmes is important to ensure that synergies 
are  maximised  with  the  expertise  available  in  national  administrations.  To  this  end, 
the  Commission  has  established  the  Expert  Support  Facility  under  the  IfS,  which 
allows for the mobilising, and the financing of the participation, of national experts 
in  field  missions,  in  the  definition  of  actions,  and  in  their  implementation  and 
monitoring. The 2009 informal call for expressions of interest in participating in the 
Expert  Support  Facility  has  been  very  successful  -  some  180  expressions  from 
Member  States'  public  and  para-public  bodies  have  been  received.  By  the  end  of 
2009 more than 40 expert missions had been carried out in 30 countries. 

In  2009,  the  EU  also  continued  to  promote  the  issue  of  Small  Arms  and  Light 
Weapons  (SALW)  in  all  multilateral  fora  and  in  political  dialogue  with  third 
countries.  The  EU  addressed  the  destabilising  effects  of  the  proliferation  and 
trafficking  of  SALW,  firearms  and  explosive  materials  through  concrete  projects 
with  a  trans-regional  dimension.  In  Central  America,  the  EU  supports  the  Central 
American Small and  Light Weapons Control Programme (CASAC)  in its efforts to 
fight  against  the  illicit  trafficking  of  firearms  and  explosive  materials  in  Central 
America and neighbouring countries (€1 milli on). In Africa, the EU provides support 
through  the  Regional  Centre  on  Small  Arms  (RECSA),  located  in  Nairobi,  in  the 
fight against illicit accumulation and trafficking of firearms and explosive materials 
coherently with the framework of the Africa-EU strategic partnership (€3.3 million). 

4.2. 

Actions  in  the  area  of  risk  mitigation  and  preparedness  relating  to  chemical, 
nuclear and biological materials or agents  

On  the  basis  of  the  new  Indicative  Programme  for  the  years  2009-2011  the  third 
Annual  Action  Programme  for  this  component  (€  32  million)  was  defined  and 
adopted on 30 November 2009.  

EN 

8 

   EN 

It  provides  funding  for  the  set-up  and  establishment  of  chemical,  biological, 
radiological,  and  nuclear  (CBRN)  Centres  of  Excellence,  for  strengthening  civilian 
capabilities and exchange of information to fight against illicit trafficking of CBRN 
materials,  for  improving  capabilities  against  biological  threats,  for  alternative 
employment  of  former  weapon  scientists  and  engineers  through  support  to 
International Science and Technology Centre in Moscow / Science and Technology 
Centre  in  Ukraine  in  Kiev  (ISTC/STCU)  and  support  to  capacity  building  for 
decommissioning of nuclear facilities for redirection of former Iraqi WMD scientists.  

All activities  defined in two previous (2007 and 2008) Annual Action Programmes 
were contracted and started. The first evaluation of programme results was launched 
in  January  2010.  It  covers  three  main  areas:  export  control  of  dual–use  goods, 
combating  illicit  trafficking  of  CBRN  materials,  and  redirection  of  former  WMD 
scientists' and engineers' knowledge to peaceful activities. The evaluation results will 
be  taken  into  consideration  in  the  definition  of  the  new  strategy  and  indicative 
programme 2012-2013 for this component. 

4.3. 

The Crisis preparedness component of the IfS 

On  30  June  2009,  the  Annual  Action  Programme  for  the  crisis  preparedness 
component  of  the  Instrument  for  Stability  -  also  known  as  the  Peacebuilding 
Partnership – was adopted by the Commission for a total of €5 million, focusing on 
the  following  activities:  i)  reinforcing  cooperation  and  building  capacity  with 
international, regional and sub-regional organisations, including support to the UN’s 
Mediation Support Unit; to the UN Peacebuilding Support Office; to the International 
Dialogue on Peacebuilding and Statebuilding between fragile states and development 
partners and the monitoring project on the implementation of the Principles for Good 
International  Engagement  in  Fragile  States  and  Situations,  managed  by  the 
Organisation  for  Economic  Cooperation  and  Development’s  (OECD)  Development 
Assistance  Committee  (DAC)  secretariat;  and  to  early  warning  networks  among 
relevant  international/regional/sub-regional  organisations  through  the  deployment  of 
common  tools  and  working  practices;  ii)  training  of  up  to  600  additional  police 
experts for participation in civilian stabilisation missions.  

The dialogue with civil society organisations was also further enhanced by the means 
of four consultation meetings which took place in 2009 under the framework of the 
Peacebuilding Partnership. Two meetings addressed issues relating to the Partnership 
itself, with the other two providing the opportunity for both European- and field-level 
civil society experts to exchange views with EU policy-makers on specific geographic 
crises such as Bosnia-Herzegovina and Nagorno-Karabakh. 

In  the  first  half  of  2009,  a  Stocktaking  and  Scoping  Study  on  the  Peacebuilding 
Partnership was launched. Consulting with the relevant actors (Commission Services, 
civil  society,  European  Parliament,  etc.),  this  study  aimed  at  drawing  lessons  learnt 
from  the  first  year  of  implementation  of  the  Partnership  and  at  formulating 
recommendations,  which  broadly  constitute  the  basis  for  the  draft  Annual  Action 
Programme  2010 
IfS  crisis  preparedness  component.  The  main 
recommendations  of  the  Study  relate  to  the  adoption  of  as  wide  as  possible  a 
definition of peace-building. Moreover, preference should also be given to thematic or 
transversal  issue  areas  that  work  across  a  range  of  geographical  contexts  and  that 

the 

for 

EN 

9 

   EN 

demonstrate  a  clear  complementarity  with  other  EU  supported  activities  and  policy 
priorities.  

Finally, the Peacebuilding Partnership web-portal has been established as a channel of 
communication  with  civil  society  actors.  It  permits  civil  society  organisations  to 
register  and  to  receive  updates  –  by  means  of  electronic  alerts  –  of  the  latest 
developments 
Partnership. 
to 
(https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/tariqa/PeaceBuilding/). 

regard 

with 

the 

5. 

STABILITY INSTRUMENT BUDGETARY EXECUTION 

5.1. 

2009 

On the 2009 budget, a total of €182,442,000 was committed and €132,822,913 was 
paid under the three budget headings for the short- and long-term components of the 
IfS (19.0601, 19.0602 and 19.0603).  

On  Crisis  Response  and  Preparedness  (Article  3  and  4.3  of  the  IfS  Regulation, 
budget  heading  19.0601),  commitments  at  year-end  showed  an  execution  rate  of 
100%.  Out  of  the  total  amount,  €5  million  were  committed  for  crisis  preparedness 
under the Annual Action Programme 2009 of the IfS Peacebuilding Partnership. The 
remainder  of  €130  million  was  committed  for  Cr isis  Response.  Payments  for  crisis 
response  and  preparedness  amounted  to  €113  million.  The  execution  of  payment 
appropriations at year-end reached more than 90%. This represents a further increase 
over 2008 (86%) and 2007, when payment execution reached 68%. 

Another indicator for further improvement in timely delivery of crisis response is the 
fact  that  92%  of  the  2009  commitments  were  contracted, and  2/3  of  the  contracted 
funds disbursed, all within the same year.  

The 2009 budget of €47 million for the remaini ng long-term part of the IfS (Articles 
4.1  and  4.2,  budget  headings  19.0603  and  19.0602)  was  also  fully  committed  at 
100%, with almost half of the funds contracted within the same year. 

5.2. 

Progress on Crisis Response programmes adopted in 2008 and 2007 

All  of  the  2008  and  2007  crisis  response  measures  and  facilities  have  been 
contracted,  using  100%  of  the  budget  appropriations  available  (€215  million, 
excluding  €20  million  allocated  to  the  Peaceb uilding  Partnership).  The  majority  of 
crisis response measures adopted in 2007, and roughly half of the actions adopted in 
2008, have been completed in the course of 2009. In total, 40 out of 100 measures 
adopted  since  2007  have  been  completed  and  some  80%  of  contracted  funds  have 
been disbursed. Detailed statistics on commitments, contracts and disbursements are 
included in the accompanying Staff Working Document, which provides the annexes 
to this Report. 

6. 

CONCLUSION 

Considering  the  above,  the  Instrument  for  Stability  has  considerably  matured  over 
the first three years since its inception, in terms of political relevance, strategic focus, 

EN 

10 

   EN 

overall  coherence,  but  also  regarding 
performance.  

improved  operational  and  budgetary 

A  new  comparative  review  of  the  Instrument  for  Stability,  the  UN  Peacebuilding 
Fund,  and  the  World  Bank’s  Statebuilding  and  Peacebuilding  Fund  confirms  this 
view.  The  Review,  commissioned  by  the  UK  Department  for  International 
Development,  and  supported  by  a  donor  group  (Canada,  Japan,  the  Netherlands, 
Norway and Sweden), concluded that the IfS enables the EU: 

“…to  contribute  in  fragile  post-conflict  transitions,  and  complement  (its)  broader 
institutional capacity and engagement in such contexts. The potential of (the IfS) to 
mobilise  significant  technical  and  financial  resources  in  support  of  state-building 
and peace-building processes and reconstruction efforts, including the strengthening 
of  key  institutions  and  systems,  and  to  link  up  to  longer  term  development 
programmes  is  a  clear  comparative  advantage.  (Its)  governance  and  decision-
making systems appear to be effective and strongly linked to the high-level decision-
making processes. … The IFS headquarter-level governance structure also appears 
to  enable  strategic  decision-making,  including  its  handling  of  highly  sensitive 
political  issues  and  the  management  of  risks  associated  with  working  in  volatile 
environments.  Monthly  briefings  with  the  EU  Political  and  Security  Committee 
ensure  Member  States  are  always  updated  and  increases  coordination  with  EU 
partners”.4 

This is a solid basis on which the IfS can further contribute to joined-up delivery by 
the European External Action Service under the High Representative/Vice-President 
of the Commission of comprehensive EU responses to crises and conflicts, together 
with  relevant  Community  Instruments,  CSDP  and  other  EU  crisis  management 
policy tools.  

4 

Funding  Peacebuilding  and  Recovery:  A  Comparative  Review  of  System-Wide  Multi-Donor  Trust 
Funds and other Funding Instruments for Peacebuilding and Post-Conflict Recovery, report by Donata 
Garrasi commissioned by the UK Department for International Development (DFID), 2010. 

EN 

11 

   EN