REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS 2010 Annual Report on the Instrument for Stability
Date: 2011-08-16
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: foreign aid, international security, stability programme

EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Brussels, 16.8.2011 
COM(2011) 494 final 

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

2010 Annual Report on the Instrument for Stability 

{SEC(2011) 1000 final} 

 
 
 
 
  
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

5. 

Introduction...................................................................................................................3 

Structure of the Instrument for Stability .......................................................................3 

2007-2009 .....................................................................................................................4 

2010 Overview..............................................................................................................4 

Response to Crisis or emerging Crisis (IfS Article 3) ..................................................5 

5.1.  What sort of response to crisis is the IfS equipped to deal with? .................................5 

5.2.  Who is involved in IfS Crisis Response Actions? ........................................................7 

6. 

7. 

8. 

9. 

Threats to Law and Order (IfS Article 4.1) ..................................................................8 

Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Nuclear risk mitigation (CBRN - IfS Article 
4.2) ................................................................................................................................9 

Pre- and Post- Crisis capacity Building (IfS Article 4.3) .............................................9 

Conclusion ..................................................................................................................10 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
1. 

INTRODUCTION 

This  fourth  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).  

It gives an overview of how, in 2010, the Instrument for Stability, IfS, has been directed to 
make an impact on crises and to respond to threats throughout the world. This Annual Report 
is  complemented  by  a  Commission  staff  working  document  providing  a  global 
implementation  update  on  ongoing  crisis  response  measures  by  location  and  longer-term 
programmes. IfS  actions are undertaken by a wide range  of implementing  bodies, including 
the  UN  and  other  international  and  regional  bodies,  EU  Member  State  agencies,  NGOs  and 
other civil society actors. 

2. 

STRUCTURE OF THE INSTRUMENT FOR STABILITY 

The IfS is a key external assistance instrument enabling the EU to help prevent and respond to 
crisis or emerging crisis and create a safe and stable environment. Articles 3 and 4 of the IfS 
Regulation1set out the types of activities which can draw on this Instrument. 

Article 3 foresees ‘Assistance in response to Crisis or emerging Crisis’ responding to serious 
political  and  conflict  situations,  major  natural  disasters,  and  sometimes  a  complex 
combination of both scenarios, such as those encountered in Pakistan and Haiti during 2010. 
These  measures  may  be  “Exceptional  Assistance  Measures2”,  or  “Interim  Response 
Programmes3”,  limited  to  instances  when  the  mainstream  external  assistance  instruments4 
cannot  be  mobilised  in  a  sufficiently  timely  or  appropriate  manner  or  when  ‘windows  of 
opportunity’ emerge for the prevention, mitigation, or resolution of crises. IfS measures often 
complement CSDP5 and other actions as part of comprehensive EU responses. The Instrument 
also provides critical contributions ‘Linking Relief, Reconstruction, and Development’6. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 
6 

Regulation  (EC)  N°1717/2006  of  15  November  2006  establishing  an  Instrument  for  Stability.  OJ  L 
327/1 24.11.2006  

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

Programmes building on exceptional assistance measures, aiming to put in place the conditions for the 
implementation of the EU’s cooperation policies. These are not subject to the same time constraints as 
exceptional assistance measures, but have longer decisional processes, including comitology.  

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

Common Security and Defence Policy. 
LRRD  

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Article  4  foresees  a  programmable  component  of  the  Instrument  encompassing  longer  term 
IfS actions addressing three areas:  

Article 4.1: 

Security and safety threats in a transregional context;  

Article 4.2:  Risk  mitigation  related  to  chemical,  biological,  radiological  and  nuclear 
material; and  

Article 4.3: 

Pre- and post-crisis capacity building7. 

3. 

2007-2009 

By  the  end  of  2009,  the  IfS  was  well  established  in  responding  to  conflict  and  crisis  on  a 
global  level,  taking  actions  to  address  security  threats  on  a  national  and  regional  level,  and 
building  capacity  to  respond  to  crises  and  to  prevent  conflict  with  timely,  efficient  and 
complementary interventions. 

A  significant  number  of  IfS  measures  in  line  with  IfS  Regulation  Article  3  were  crafted  to 
complement  humanitarian  assistance,  with  a  view  to  enhancing  the  link  between  relief, 
rehabilitation and development, or to facilitate the achievement of the political objectives of 
CSDP missions. €350 million had been mobilised  for 100 individual actions in 48 countries 
worldwide. There was a wide geographical spread: some 25% targeted Africa; 20% for Asia; 
18%  for  the  Middle  East;  15%  in  the  Western  Balkans  and  Eastern  Europe;  11%  in  Latin 
America; and 11% for Central Asia and Southern Caucasus. 

With  regard  to  Article  4,  the  Commission  adopted  the  new  Multi-Annual  Indicative 
three  priority areas:  (i)  the  support  to 
Programme  2009-2011  for  up  to  €225  million  for  the 
international efforts to address the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, by 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) the fight 
against trafficking, terrorism and organised crime; and (iii) measures aimed at strengthening 
international and regional capacity to analyse, prevent and respond to threats to stability and 
human development.  

4. 

2010 OVERVIEW 

The total available budget for the IfS in 2010 was €213,559,000,  a 15% increase over 2009. 
Of this, €21m was allocated for trans-regiona l threats (IfS Article  4.1),  €41m  for  Chemical, 
Biological,  Radiological,  Nuclear  risk  mitigation  (IfS  Article  4.2),  and  €20m  for  Pre-  and 
Post-  Crisis  capacity  building  (IfS  Article  4.3).  The  balance  of  €131,559,000  responded  to 
crisis or emerging crisis (IfS Article 3). All of these funds were committed.  

The Council was kept informed through regular notes to the Political and Security Committee 
on  the  planning  of  EU  assistance  and  updates  on  the  implementation  of  ongoing  measures. 
The Working Group on Conflict, Security and Development of the Foreign Affairs committee 
of  the  European  Parliament  was  established  in  the  framework  of  democratic  scrutiny  of  the 
IfS and met four times. In September, the European Commission, together with the European 

7 

Also known as the IfS ‘Peace building Partnership’ (PbP) 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Parliament,  organised  a  Photo  Exhibition  on  the  Instrument  for  Stability  that  portrayed 
conflict prevention efforts across 11 counties.  

In looking forward, a high level seminar on the use of the Instrument for Stability to address 
long term security threats took place on the 2nd and 3rd December 2010, to kick off the debate 
on  the  2012-2013  IfS  Strategy  Paper.  It  was  attended  by  a  wide  range  of  interested 
stakeholders from civil society, EU Member States and institutions. 

5. 

RESPONSE TO CRISIS OR EMERGING CRISIS (IFS ARTICLE 3)  

5.1. 

How has the IfS responded to Crisis in 2010? 

Illustrative  of  activities  in  2010,  here  are  short  descriptions  of  some  programmes 
demonstrating the breadth of scope, and the very different types of issue to which the IfS is 
called to respond. Full details of all IfS programmes under implementation in 2010 are set out 
in  the  Commission  Working  paper  in  Annex.  All  programmes  in  2010  are  Exceptional 
Assistance  Measures.  No  Interim  Response  Measures  were  put  in  place.  The  geographic 
distribution in 2010 is global, covering all continents other than Australia and Antartica: €19.3 
million in Africa; €17.8 million in the Middle Ea st; €550,000 in Eastern Europe and Western 
Balkans;  €39  million  in  South  and  Western  Asia;  €8.7  million  in  South-east  Asia;  €17.1 
million in Central Asia and Southern Caucasus; and, finally, €29.1 million in Latin America 8.  

Haiti: In response to the devastating consequences of the 12 January 2010 earthquake, the EU 
was  able  to  react  swiftly,  thanks  inter-alia  to  the  Instrument  for  Stability  intervention.  The 
European  Commission  and  EU  Member  States  played  a  key  role  in  the  intensive  ‘Post-
Disaster  Needs  Assessment”  (PDNA)  which  received  funding  from  IfS.  This  exercise  was 
undertaken jointly with the UN and the World Bank in preparation for the New York donors’ 
conference,  where  for  the  first  time  HR/VP  Ashton  was  mandated  to  present  an  overall  EU 
contribution  to  the  disaster  recovery  in  the  amount  of  €  1.2  billion.  In 
this  context,  the  IfS 
contributed €5 million to the UN DP managed ‘Cash for Work’ scheme which helped with the 
initial  rubble  removal  tasks  and  also  contributed  to  quickly  re-starting  the  micro-economy 
around the numerous informal displaced camps. The IfS also put in place later in the year a 
€14.5  million  programme  to  improve  the  disaster   preparedness  capacities  of  Haitian  Civil 
Protection services. This programme is being carried out in partnership with Civil Protection 
services of five EU Member States and in close cooperation with DG ECHO on the ground.  

On the political front, the IfS is also funding high level strategic advice to Haitian leadership, 
through  ‘peer  to  peer’  missions  by  former  world  leaders,  on  issues  related  to  the  successful 
reconstruction of the country. A further €5 million was allocated to support the crucial 2010 
Presidential elections, complementing the work of the EU Electoral Experts Mission financed 
under the EIDHR instrument. The overall IfS contribution under these programmes exceeded 
€25 million during 2010.  

Pakistan:  The  case  of  Pakistan  demonstrates  the  versatility  of  the  IfS.  Two  emergency 
response measures have been mobilised to respond consecutively to (1) the political crisis in 
the  north-west  region  bordering  Afghanistan,  financing  a  Post-Conflict  Needs  Assessment 
(PCNA), and then a €15m post-conf lict recovery package, and (2) three months later, an €18 

8 

In  percentage  terms:  14.7%  Africa;  13.5%  Middle  East;  0.4%  Europe;  29.6%  Southwest  Asia;  6.7% 
Southeast Asia; 13% Central Asia and Southern Caucasus; 22.1% Latin America 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
                                                 
million  early  recovery  programme  was  put  in  place,  complementing  the  EU’s  humanitarian 
aid efforts following the unprecedented flooding disaster. 

Sudan: In the context of preparing for the January 2011 referendum on self determination for 
southern Sudan, the IfS provided support to the organisation of the referendum process,  the 
conduct  of  negotiations  between  the  north  and  south  on  post-referendum  arrangements,  and 
also  ‘peace  dividends’  through  the  provision  of  basic  services  for  the  population  of  South 
Sudan’. This support bridges a gap until funding under the European Development Fund can 
take over later in 2011. 

Kyrgyzstan:  Following  the  popular  uprising,  ousting  President  Kurmambek  Bakiev,  and  the 
violent inter-ethnic clashes of June 2010 in the south, with more than 400 deaths and 375,000 
displaced,  a  wide-reaching  early  IfS  intervention  has  since  attained  remarkable  results.  The 
programme  has  contributed  to:  the  drafting,  consultation  and  dissemination  of  a  new 
Constitution; financing and organising the 27th June referendum to approve this Constitution 
and the 10th October Parliamentary elections; the reconstruction by December of 400 of those 
houses  damaged  or  destroyed  during  the  June  violence.  Furthermore,  an  Independent 
International  Commission  of  Inquiry  was  established,  as  was  the  UN  Office  of  the  High 
Commissioner  for  Human  Rights  (OHCHR)  in  Osh,  which  has,  during  its  first  8  months, 
received more than 1,500 calls and provided over 7,000 free legal consultations since the June 
2010 inter-ethnic violence.  

Philippines: The Government of the Philippines and the Moro Islamic Liberation Front9 made 
a request to the EU to contribute to their peace process by being an active participant in an 
International Monitoring Team, to lead the supervision of both parties' compliance with their 
commitments on humanitarian, rehabilitation, and development activities in the south of the 
country.  Following  on  Council  agreement  to  the  request,  a  politically  significant  IfS 
intervention of €3 million is s upporting the EU team, and, in parallel, the means for NGOs to 
monitor  protection  activities,  and  support  the  political  dialogue  process  through  the 
International Contact Group, chaired by Malaysia. 

Georgia: IfS actions from 2008 to 2010 in Georgia have been key in allowing the EU to be 
present in the conflict-affected areas, particularly Abkhazia, and bring other stakeholders in, 
such  as  local  and  international  NGOs,  international  organisations  and  other  donors.  Actions 
are in line with the EU strategy in the South Caucasus and complement EU humanitarian aid 
and assistance provided under the European Neighbourhood Policy (ENP) annual action plans 
in the aftermath of the August 2008. The interventions respond to the different needs of the 
local  population,  flexibly  and  with  complementarity,  dealing  with  issues  such  as  early 
recovery,  socio-economic  reintegration  of  displaced  persons,  political  dialogue  and 
confidence building measures. Particularly successful has been the Confidence Building Early 
Response  Mechanism,  established  in  2010,  which  financed  and  opened  the  door  for  the 
implementation  of  some  68  small  scale  projects  between  communities  in  both  Georgia  and 
Abkhazia.  It  cooperates  closely  with  the  EU  CSDP  mission,  whose  role  is  to  analyse  and 
monitor  the  stabilization  process  while  strengthening  the  leading  role  the  EU  has  played  in 
reducing tension in the region.  

Somali  Piracy  Crisis:  As  part  of  a  comprehensive  EU  approach  to  tackling  piracy  off  the 
coast  of  Somalia,  the  IfS,  along  with  the  UNODC,  has  developed  programmes  to  support 

9 

MILF 

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
                                                 
piracy  trials.  Agreements  with  Kenya  have  been  implemented  since  May  2009  and  the 
Seychelles in early 2010, complementing the CSDP EU-NAVFOR Atalanta naval operation, 
which relies for its success on trials of suspected pirates in countries of the region. In addition 
to demonstrating the linkages between CDSP and IfS activities, this also provides an example 
of  the  IfS  speed  of  delivery:  it  took  just  one  week  from  the  conclusion  of  a  mission  to 
Mauritius in September 2010 to design a programme and take a formal decision10 to provide 
€1.08m in support for piracy trials there, just  in time for a meeting between HR/VP Ashton 
and  the  Mauritian  Prime  Minister,  allowing  her to  confirm  the  concrete  commitment  of  EU 
funds  to  support  the  Mauritians,  helping  with  negotiations  to  conclude  an  EU-Mauritius 
Transfer Agreement for piracy suspects.  

5.2.  Who is involved in IfS Crisis Response Actions? 

IfS crisis response measures are prepared in close cooperation with a variety of partners: civil 
society  and  public  administrations;  Member  States;  EU  institutions;  third  countries;  and  the 
international  community.  EU  Delegations  play  a  key  role,  providing  early  warning  and 
developing project concepts. In 2010, the majority of new measures, including all 13 specific 
financing decisions11 and six actions under the ‘Policy Advice and Mediation Facility’12, were 
‘sub-delegated’13  to  EU  Delegations  for  implementation  in  the  locations  concerned.  This 
enables  contracts  to  be  negotiated  with  implementing  bodies  in  a  timely  fashion  and 
implementation of these sensitive projects to be monitored at close proximity. As a result, EU 
Delegations are responsible for 78% of commitments and 85% of payments under the IfS in 
2010.  

Some Delegations with a particularly heavy workload on IfS programmes are assisted through 
dedicated staff financed from the IfS administrative support budget line. The number of IfS 
field staff in EU Delegations has grown to 22, with eight Regional Crisis Response Planning 
Officers  supporting  HQ  with  the  identification  of  effective  interventions  and  14  IfS  project 
managers working within Delegations that have a substantial or complex IfS portfolio. 

There is a wide mix of IfS implementing partners as can be seen in the chart below: 

10 

11 
12 

13 

Speedy  approval  is  possible by  an IfS  Financing Decision  which  created  a ‘Policy Advice,  Technical 
Assistance and Mediation Facility’ ( a €20m alloca tion in 2010), from which amounts up to a maximum 
of  €2m  for  any  one  action  could  be  mobilised  following  the  approval  of  the  Director  General  of  the 
Commission’s former Directorate General for External Relations. 
A decision of the Commission for the use of EU finance. 
The  PAMF,  in  itself  a  financing  decision  which  sets  out  conditions  under  which  smaller  actions  of  a 
specific type can be decided more quickly. 
Legal and financial responsibility for the use of EU funds, including power to sign and amend contracts 
as appropriate is transferred from the European Commission HQ to the Delegation concerned. 

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Instrument for Stability Crisis Response
Implementing Partners 2007-2010

EU Member States 
agencies
10,5%

3rd country Govt's
3,0%

UN agencies
37,2%

Int'l and local NGOs
28,2%

Private sector (technical 
assistance, supplies)
4,5%

Other Int'l Organisations 
(AU, OSCE, COE, WB, IOM)
16,7%

Looking at the overal period 2007 to 2010 provides a more accurate picture than focusing on 
just  one  year.  Of  the  various  partners,  non-state  actors  were  implementing  32%  of  the  IfS 
budget,  and  the  UN  family  37%.  The  significant  UN  role  is  justified  by  the  volatile 
environments  where  the  IfS  operates,  with  UN  bodies  being  often  among  the  few  with  a 
strong in-country presence able to react quickly, using their solid local networks. The steady 
growth in the NGO sector of partners with conflict prevention and peacebuilding skills, who 
are developing their administrative capacities to manage EU funds, has meant that NGOs are 
being called on more often to implement IfS  actions. In 2010 the  NGO  sector implemented 
almost half14 of the budget attributed to crisis preparedness.15 

6. 

THREATS TO LAW AND ORDER (IFS ARTICLE 4.1) 

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

14 
15 

48% 
Article 4.3 of the IfS Regulation 

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
In  2010,  €  21.5  million  were  committed  to  actions 
in  above  areas,  with  total  of  about  €  7 
million in payments. In 2010 more than 100 experts were recruited through the  ESF16 from 
specialist  public  or  semi-public  organisations  in  the  EU  Member  States,  joining  forces  to 
make their specific knowledge and expertise available, and providing technical inputs to the 
identification  and  detailed  planning  of  IfS  actions,  including  the  2011  Annual  Action 
Programme,  and  paving  the  way  for  full-fledged  implementation  of  actions  decided  in 
previous Annual Action Programmes. 

7. 

CHEMICAL,  BIOLOGICAL,  RADIOLOGICAL,  NUCLEAR  RISK  MITIGATION  (CBRN  - 
IFS ARTICLE 4.2) 

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

The CBRN programme aims at improving the safety culture by spreading best practices and 
raising  the  general  level  of  security  and  safety  awareness.  Prior  to  2010,  different  domains 
were  covered  separately.17  From  2010  onwards,  ‘Centres  of  Excellence’  set  up  under  the 
Instrument are providing a single and integrated platform for actions in all of these domains. 

8. 

PRE- AND POST- CRISIS CAPACITY BUILDING (IFS ARTICLE 4.3)  

In  2010,  the  Annual  Action  Programme  of  IfS  ‘Peace-building  Partnership’  activities18  has 
continued  and  further  developed  clusters  of  activities  supported  in  previous  years.  The 
Programme, which started in April 2010, focused on the following activities: 

i)  building  the  general  capacity  of  non-state  actors  to  respond  to  crisis  situations  and 
facilitating  the  dialogue  between  civil  society  and  the  EU  institutions  on  peace-building 
issues;  

ii) co-operating with international organisations, notably from the UN family, on a series of 
thematic  issues  (including  natural  resources  and  conflict,  disaster  risk  reduction,  and 
Disarmament, De-mobilisation and Re-integration); and  

iii)  working  with  relevant  EU  Member  State  bodies  on  the  training  of  police  and  civilian 
experts to participate in stabilisation missions.  

During  the  year,  implementation  of  activities  funded  under  previous  Annual  Action 
Programmes  has  continued  in  thematic  areas  such  as  post-conflict  and  post-disaster  needs 
assessment,  improving  post-conflict  assistance  data,  mediation  and  dialogue,  and  Security 

16 

17 

18 

Expert  Support  Facility,  drawing  on  specialists  from  public  or  semi-public  organisations  from 
throughout the EU. Since 2008, experts from about 60 organisations in 17 Member States have carried 
out over 100 missions. 
e.g. export control of dual-use goods, illicit trafficking, redirection of former weapon scientists, safety 
and security culture.  
The 2010 Annual Action Programme was adopted by the European Commission on 31st March 2010 ( 
http://www.eeas.europa.eu/ifs/docs/2010_annual_action_programme_en.pdf). 

EN 

9 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Sector Reform in partnership with UN agencies and the World Bank. Specific actions with the 
African Union and the League of Arab States have been put in place to enhance their early 
warning capacity. 

The  ‘Peace-building  Partnership’  has  focused  on  enhancing  dialogue  with  civil  society 
organisations  on  peace-building  issues.  A  consultative  meeting  on  the  EU  and  Somalia  was 
held  in  March.  In  addition,  a  Civil  Society  Dialogue  Network19  was  launched  to  facilitate 
dialogue  with  non-state  actors  with  a  view  to  providing  input  to  the  EU’s  policy-making 
processes.  Two  policy  level  meetings  were  held  in  2010:  ‘Peace-building  and  Situations  of 
Fragility’ and ‘Women’s Participation in Peace Processes’, which followed on from the 10th 
anniversary  of  the  UN  Security  Council  Resolution  132520  on  Women,  Peace  and  Security. 
An  illustration  of  how  work  carried  out  in  2010  has  enhanced  policy  dialogue  among  the 
international  community  is  the  notable  progress  made  under  the  joint  EU/UN  initiative  on 
linkages  between  natural  resources  and  conflicts.  Knowledge  materials  were  developed  on 
subjects such as land, extractive industries and environmental scarcity and conflict. Training 
courses  were  jointly  organised  in  Brussels  and  at  the  UN  Staff  College  in  Turin  involving 
representatives from the EU, UN and civil society organisations.  

Considerable  progress  was  also  noted  in  rendering  operational  the  joint  EC-UN-WB 
Declaration on Post Crisis and Post Disaster Needs Assessments21 of September 2008. Under 
two separate actions, joint methodologies, implementation tools, and training were developed 
and implemented. In 2010 a number of joint training/information events were organised for a 
range  of 
introductory  sessions  on 
PDNAs/PCNAs  to  senior  level  expert  seminars  for  EU/UN/WB  staff  and  operators.  There 
were also expert workshops to refine methodologies and develop joint Handbooks/Tools to be 
used by sector experts participating in PDNA/PCNA missions.  

target  groups,  covering  matters  from  general 

As  part  of  EU  efforts  to  enhance  civilian  crisis  management  capabilities,  two  calls  for 
proposals were  launched22  for the  provision  of  specialised  training  programmes, aiming 
at enhancing  the  capabilities  and  skills  of  staff  working  in  civilian  crisis  management 
missions  and  police  officers  likely  to  be  deployed  in  crisis  situations. These  actions  will  be 
implemented as of 2011. 

9. 

CONCLUSION 

IfS  measures  implemented  in  2010,  complementing  EU  regional  and  thematic  development 
instruments, humanitarian assistance and CSDP missions, have supported the EU to preserve 
peace,  prevent  conflict  and  strengthen  international  security,  in  line  with  Article  21  of  the 
Treaty of European Union. In its fourth year, and with a budget which has increased by 59%, 
from  €139,123,000  in  2007,  to  €213,559,000  in  2010,  the  overall  IfS  programme  has  now 
reached a state of maturity solid enough to deal with upcoming challenges, such as those that 
emerged in North Africa and the Arab States of the Middle East in early 2011. An external 
evaluation  of  the  Instrument  for  Stability  was  launched  at  the  end  of  2010  “to  ascertain  the 
results to date of the IfS crisis response and preparedness components and help enhance IfS 

19 
20 
21 
22 

This were managed by the European Peace-building Liaison Office (EPLO). 
UNSCR1325 
PCNA/PDNA 
The contract for civilian crisis management training was signed in December 2010 with the lead agency 
of a consortium of training bodies from 13 EU Member States.  

EN 

10 

   EN 

 
                                                 
approaches  towards  future  crisis  response  measures  and  strategies  for  future  preparedness 
programming”. The evaluation has concluded that IfS is “a unique Instrument within the EU 
peace, security and development architecture. Articles 3 and 4(3) fill an important strategic, 
funding  and  capacity  gap,  and  allow  the  EU  to  support  a  broad  range  of  critical  crisis 
preparedness and response initiatives. The design and management of the Instrument has led 
to  a  significant  number  of  achievements  that  should  be  recognized  and  are  important 
contributions to peace and stability globally". The full report has been transmitted to the IfS 
Committee in July 2011.  

With the creation of the European External Action Service, EEAS, at the end of 2010, and the 
Commission’s  Service  for  Foreign  Policy  Instruments,  FPI,  the  close  working  relationships 
within  the  Commission,  especially  among  those  services  managing  humanitarian  relief, 
development cooperation and foreign policy instruments, with the EEAS, the EU Delegations 
and the wider EU community will remain a cornerstone of the EU’s and IfS effectiveness in 
dealing with crises in the future. 

EN 

11 

   EN