COMMISSION STAFF WORKING PAPER IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Date: 2011-12-07
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Community budget, EU financial instrument, European integration, foreign aid, pre-accession aid

EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Brussels, 7.12.2011 
SEC(2011) 1462 final 

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING PAPER 

IMPACT ASSESSMENT 

Accompanying the document 

REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL 

establishing an Instrument for Pre-accesssion Assistance (IPA II) 

{COM(2011) 838 final} 
{SEC(2011) 1463 final} 

 
 
 
 
  
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

1. 

1.1. 

1.2. 

1.3. 

2. 

Procedural issues and consultation of interested parties .............................................. 4 

Organisation and timing............................................................................................... 4 

Consultation and expertise (public and internal) ......................................................... 4 

Impact Assessment Board ............................................................................................ 6 

Problem definition........................................................................................................ 6 

2.1. 

The problem requiring action and the scope of the instrument.................................... 7 

2.1.1.  Description of the problem........................................................................................... 7 

2.1.2.  Description of the current instrument .......................................................................... 8 

2.1.3.  Evolution of the context that justifies a new instrument............................................ 10 

2.2. 

2.3. 

Lessons learned and outcome of reviews................................................................... 10 

The underlying drivers of the problem....................................................................... 14 

2.3.1.  Development gap/challenges in the beneficiary countries and limited capacity to 

overcome these from own resources .......................................................................... 14 

2.3.2.  Weak public institutions and administrative capacity in the beneficiary countries ... 14 

2.3.3.  Heterogeneity of beneficiary countries ...................................................................... 14 

2.3.4.  Aspects of the current IPA set-up affecting its flexibility to respond to needs, 

absorption of funds and results/impact of the assistance ........................................... 15 

2.4. 

2.5. 

3. 

3.1. 

3.2. 

3.3. 

3.4. 

4. 

5. 

Legal base for EU action............................................................................................ 17 

EU Added Value ........................................................................................................ 18 

Objectives................................................................................................................... 18 

Policy framework and objectives ............................................................................... 18 

Consistency with external action priorities ................................................................ 21 

Consistency with other EU policies ........................................................................... 22 

Geographical/thematic coverage................................................................................ 23 

Policy options............................................................................................................. 24 

Analysis of impacts .................................................................................................... 27 

5.1. 

Likely economic, social and environmental impacts of each of the options ............. 28 

5.1.1.  Economic impacts ...................................................................................................... 28 

5.1.2.  Social impacts, including impacts on human rights................................................... 29 

5.1.3.  Environmental impacts............................................................................................... 30 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
5.2. 

Impact in terms of management / implementation modalities ................................... 31 

6. 

Comparing the options ............................................................................................... 32 

6.1.  Weighing of positive and negative impacts per option.............................................. 32 

6.2. 

Preferred option.......................................................................................................... 34 

7. 

7.1. 

7.2. 

Monitoring and evaluation ......................................................................................... 34 

Core indicators of progress towards objectives ......................................................... 34 

Outline for monitoring and evaluation arrangements ................................................ 35 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
1. 

PROCEDURAL ISSUES AND CONSULTATION OF INTERESTED PARTIES  

1.1. 

Organisation and timing 

The drafting of the Impact Assessments for the EU external action instruments1 for the period 
2014-2020,  including  this  document,  was  coordinated  by  a  Task  Force  composed  by  the 
Commission  services  in  charge  of  EU  external  action  as  well  as  the  Legal  Service.  The 
drafting teams, appointed on 7 June 2011, took duly into account the results of consultations, 
reviews and studies mentioned at points 1.2 and 2.2 below and liaised with other Commission 
services to ensure consistency with other EU policies. The Task Force met with the drafting 
team in charge of this Impact Assessment on 7 June, 4 July, 15 July and 2 August 2011 for 
organisational and quality-check purposes. 

An  Impact  Assessment  Steering  Group,  composed  by  the  members  of  the  Task  Force  and 
representatives  of  interested  Directorates  General and the Secretariat General, was launched 
on 22 June 2011. It met twice, on 13 and 26 of July 2011. 

The Impact  Assessment  Board (IAB) chaired by the  Secretariat General of the Commission 
reviewed this Impact Assessment on 14 September 2011. 

In  line  with  article  27  of  the  Financial  Regulation  (Council  Regulation  (EC,  Euratom)  No 
1605/2002) and article 21 of the Implementing rules of the Financial Regulation (Commission 
Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2342/2002), the Commission conducted an ex-ante evaluation 
of  the  Instrument  for  Pre-Accession  Assistance  (IPA)  which  underpins  this  Impact 
Assessment, as further referred to at points 1.2 and 2.2 below. 

1.2. 

Consultation and expertise (public and internal) 

(a) 

Stakeholders consultation on future pre-accession assistance 

Preparations  for  the  future  pre-accession  financial  instrument  post-2013  were  based  on 
extensive consultation with stakeholders which started at the Conference on "IPA: sustainable 
results and impact" that the Commission organised in Brussels on 6 and 7 December 2010. 
This was followed by a series of consultations with stakeholders throughout the first part of 
2011,  in  the  context  of  an  ex-ante  evaluation  supporting  the  preparation  of  the  future  pre-
accession assistance instrument2 (see Annex 1). Those included: 

• 

1 

2 

3 

An  online  survey,  obtaining  338  responses  from:  Member  State  representatives; 
public  administrations  and  non-public  stakeholders  of  candidate  countries3  and 

The  external  action  instruments  are  the  following:  Internal  Agreement  for  the  11th  European 
Development  Fund;  Development  Cooperation  Instrument;  Instrument  for  Pre-Accession  assistance; 
European  Neighbourhood  Instrument;  Instrument  for  Stability;  Instrument  for  Nuclear  Safety 
Cooperation; European Instrument for Democracy and Human Rights; Partnership Instrument and the 
instruments  for  the  EU-Greenland  Partnership.  The  Macro-Financial  Assistance  instrument,  the 
Common  Foreign  and  Security  Policy,  the  Humanitarian  aid  instrument  and  the  Civil  Protection 
mechanism are not part of this joint exercise. 
'Evaluation  to  support  the  preparation  of  pre-accession  financial  instruments  beyond  2013'  –  Final 
Report, 13 June 2011 (henceforth 'Ex-ante evaluation') 
Croatia, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Iceland, Montenegro and Turkey  

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
                                                 
potential  candidates4  benefiting  from  IPA  assistance  (hereafter  also  referred  to  as 
‘beneficiary  countries’  or  'enlargement  countries');  Commission  staff;  donors  and 
international 
international  organisations;  non-
governmental organisations (NGOs), researchers, experts and interest groups. 

institutions;  other 

financing 

• 

• 

• 

A  series  of  focus  groups,  in  particular:  one  high-level  working  group;  four  mixed 
groups  comprising  Commission  officials  as  well  as  external  stakeholders;  three 
special focus groups on IPA assistance for cross-border cooperation, regional, human 
resources and rural development; two meetings with Member State representatives in 
the  technical  committee  that  assists  the  Commission  in  implementing  the  pre-
accession  assistance;  and,  a  meeting  with  authorities  of  Western  Balkans  focussing 
on options for future cross–border cooperation at 'intra' Western Balkans borders.  

Consultations  with:  individual  Commission  officials  in  headquarters  and  EU 
Delegations  in  beneficiary  countries;  structures  providing  technical  assistance  or 
policy support to the beneficiary countries; offices of the National IPA Coordinators 
of  the  beneficiary  countries;  multilateral  and  bilateral  donors;  international  and 
regional  organisations  (United  Nations  agencies,  Regional  Cooperation  Council, 
OSCE,  etc);  and,  NGOs  (European  Stability  Initiative,  International  Crisis  Group, 
Open society foundation etc) at EU level. 

A  working  level  meeting  organised  by  the  Commission  in  cooperation  with  the 
Hungarian Presidency in Zagreb on 10-11 May, where the preliminary results of the 
consultation were presented and discussed.  

(b) 

Internal consultation on future pre-accession assistance 

Within  the  Commission,  preparations  for  the  instrument  for  pre-accession  assistance  post-
2013  involved  extensive  working  level  discussion  within  and  between  the  four  services 
involved  in  managing  the  assistance,  i.e.  the  Directorates  General  (DGs)  for  Enlargement 
(ELARG), Regional Policy (REGIO), Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion (EMPL) and 
Agriculture  and  Rural  Development  (AGRI)  as  well  as  with  the  EU  Delegations  in  the 
Western Balkans, Iceland and Turkey. 

(c) 

Public consultation on all external action instruments 

The future of pre-accession assistance was also covered by a broader public consultation on 
future funding for EU external action that the Commission held between 26 November 2010 
and 31 January 2011. The consultation was based on an online questionnaire accompanied by 
a  background  paper  'What  funding  for  EU  external  action  after  2013?'  prepared  by 
Commission  and  EEAS  services  involved.  The  220  contributions  received  reflect  the  broad 
and diverse structures and views of the external action community.  

Among  other  aspects  resulting  from  this  public  consultation  that  apply  more  specifically  to 
development assistance, the following are relevant also for pre-accession assistance:  

• 

4 

EN 

A  majority  of  respondents  confirmed  that  EU  intervention  provides  a  substantial 
added  value  in  the  main  policy  areas  supported  through  external  action  financial 

Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Serbia as well as Kosovo under UNSCR 1244/99 

5 

   EN 

 
                                                 
instruments5. The EU added value is put forward by many respondents as the main 
driver  for  the  future:  the  EU  should  exploit  its  comparative  advantage  linked  to  its 
global field presence, its wide-ranging expertise, its supranational nature, its role as 
facilitator of coordination, and to economies of scale. 

Nearly  all  respondents  supported  a  more  differentiated  approach,  tailored  to  the 
situation  of  the  beneficiary  countries,  based  on  sound  criteria  and  efficient  data 
collection, to be used as a way to increase the impact of EU financial instruments. 

Regarding simplification of instruments, as concerns the balance between geographic 
and  thematic  instruments,  opinions  were  mixed  regarding  a  review  of  EU  thematic 
programmes  and  a  possible  reduction  in  number.  Increased  flexibility  of  the 
geographic  limits  of  EU  instruments  was  supported  by  a  significant  majority  of 
respondents as a way to respond to interregional challenges. 

• 

• 

1.3. 

Impact Assessment Board 

A draft of this Impact Assessment Report was submitted to the Impact Assessment Board on 5 
August  2011.  The  Board  issued  its  opinion  on  16  September  2011,  recommending  that  the 
definition  and  analysis  of  objectives,  options  and  impacts  could  be  improved,  providing 
details  on  aspects  that  should  be  better  developed.  The  recommendations  of  the  Board  are 
largely reflected in this final version of the Report. 

2. 

PROBLEM DEFINITION  

The rationale behind the Enlargement policy 

Article 49 of the Treaty on European Union stipulates that any European State which respects 
the EU values referred to in Article 2 of the Treaty and is committed to promoting them may 
apply  to  become  a  member  of  the  Union.  The  EU  is  obliged  to  treat  all  applications  in  an 
objective  way  and  to  assess  the  applicant  countries  against  a  set  of  political  and  economic 
criteria,  the  so-called  ‘Copenhagen  criteria6',  as  well  as  against  the  capacity  of  the  EU  to 
integrate further members.  

The rationale for continuing with the enlargement of the EU was described most recently in 
the  Council  conclusions  of  14  December  2010:  “Enlargement  reinforces  peace,  democracy 
and stability in Europe, serves the EU’s strategic interests, and helps the EU to better achieve 
its policy objectives in important areas which are key to economic recovery and sustainable 

5 

6 

i.e.  peace  and  security,  poverty  reduction,  humanitarian  aid,  investing  in  stability  and  growth  in 
enlargement and neighbourhood countries, tackling global challenges, promoting EU and international 
standards and values, and supporting growth and competitiveness abroad 
The  key  requirements  for  accession  are  set  out  in  the  conclusions  of  the  European  Council  in 
Copenhagen  in  1993.  These  are:  (i)  stability  of  institutions  guaranteeing  democracy,  the  rule  of  law, 
human  rights  and  respect  for  and  protection  of  minorities;  (ii)  the  existence  of  a  functioning  market 
economy, as well as the capacity to cope with competitive pressure and market forces within the Union; 
and  (iii)  the  ability  to  take  on  the  obligations  of  membership  including  adherence  to  the  aims  of 
political, economic and monetary union. Also, the Madrid European Council in December 1995 referred 
to  the  need  "to  create  the  conditions  for  the  gradual,  harmonious  integration  of  [the  applicant] 
countries,  particularly  through  the  development  of  the  market  economy,  the  adjustment  of  their 
administrative  structures  and  the  creation  of  a  stable  economic  and  monetary  environment". 
Prospective members have to meet these criteria before membership negotiations can begin. 

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
                                                 
growth”.  The  Council  conclusions  reiterated  that  there  should  be  no  conflict  between 
deepening and widening, stating that with the Lisbon Treaty entering into force, the EU can at 
the same time pursue its enlargement agenda and maintain the impetus of deeper integration.  

For  the  past  50  years  the  EU  has  simultaneously  pursued  integration  and  enlargement, 
increasing  from  6  to  the  present  27  Member  States  and  from  a  population  of  less  than  200 
million to more than 500 million people. A review, five years after the fifth enlargement of 
the EU in 2004,7 concluded that: the latest enlargements brought greater prosperity for all EU 
citizens and made Europe a stronger player in the world economy; the institutional and legal 
frameworks  and  the  common  policies  of  the  EU  played  a  vital  role  in  ensuring  success; 
entrepreneurs and citizens experienced clear benefits; and, the enlarged EU is better prepared 
to address current and future challenges.  

An  analysis8  of  the  potential  benefits  of  enlarging  to  the  current  candidate  countries  and 
potential candidates points to potential economic benefits deriving from the expansion of the 
internal market comparable to those that accrued to both the EU and the acceding countries at 
the  time  of  the  5th  enlargement  in  2004/20079.  Other  potential  benefits  identified  include 
accelerating  the  upgrading  of  transnational  infrastructure  networks  and  cross-border 
cooperation, reduced risks of political instability, improved security and leverage on fighting 
organised  crime,  reduced  migration  pressures,  cultural  enrichment  and  reduced  negative 
environmental externalities, e.g. greenhouse gas emissions. 

2.1. 

The problem requiring action and the scope of the instrument  

2.1.1.  Description of the problem 

In its own interest, the EU needs to grant efficient and effective support to the enlargement 
countries. Candidate countries need to meet the political and economic conditions set by the 
‘Copenhagen  criteria’.  Potential  candidates  need  to  be  sufficiently  prepared  before  they  can 
submit  an  application  for  membership  which  is  receivable. There  is  a  need  to  further  assist 
those  countries  in  preparing  for  eventual  membership  and  implementing  the  necessary 
reforms.  

Future  Member  States  must  be  soundly  prepared  to  assume  the  full  responsibilities  that  go 
with  membership  status  and  to  develop  an  economy  which  can  withstand  the  competitive 
pressure  in  the  internal  market.  To  ensure  a  comprehensive  approach  of  accession 
preparations,  reinforce  the  sustainability  of  the  assistance  and  secure  that  beneficiary 
countries can fully enjoy the benefits from accession, in addition to supporting alignment with 
the  acquis,  pre-accession  assistance  needs  to  address  more  strongly  public  administration 
reform,  including  public  finance  management  and  financial  control,  as  well  as  law 

7 

8 
9 

“Five years of an enlarged EU – economic achievements and challenges” - Communication from the 
Commission to the Council, Parliament, European Economic and Social Committee, Committee of the 
Regions and the ECB, 20 February 2009  
Cf. Annex 1, Ex-ante evaluation, Section 2.2 and related Annex 6 
'Income  per  capita  rose  from  40%  of  the  old  Member  States'  average  in  1999  to  52%  in  2008.  It  is 
estimated that the accession process boosted economic growth in the new Member States by about 1¾ 
percentage points per year over 2000-08, when growth increased from 3½%, on average, in 1999-2003 
to 5½% in 2004-08. Growth in the old Member States also benefited from enlargement (adding up to a 
cumulative increase in output of around ½% over the same period), in particular in those countries that 
increased  trade  with  and  investment  in  the  new  Members'  –  Cf.  'Five  years  of  an  enlarged  EU  – 
Economic achievements and challenges' – COM(2009) 79/3 of 20.2.2008, page 4 

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
                                                 
enforcement  capacity.  Socio-economic  development  and  social  inclusion,  in  particular  the 
inclusion of vulnerable groups with a focus on Roma and people belonging to minorities, are 
also  pressing  issues  that  need  to  be  addressed  as  a  matter  of  priority.  Furthermore, 
enlargement  countries  need  to  be  prepared  to  withstand  global  challenges  and  contribute  to 
the  Europe  2020  Strategy  objectives  for  smart,  sustainable,  and  inclusive  growth.  Climate 
change  is  one  of  these  challenges  and  it  will  be  important  to  accompany  the  enlargement 
countries towards a low carbon economy, building upon the EU climate and energy package 
and its 2020 targets. Also linked to the attainment of EU objectives, capacity building in the 
field  of  research  and  innovation  should  be  strengthened  to  underpin  the  objectives  and 
facilitate the necessary reforms required to join the EU.  

The assistance must be deployed swiftly: it needs to be efficient and well targeted, and aim at 
sustainable  results  and  impacts  (reforms  completed,  increased  institutional  capacity,  etc.) 
bringing lasting improvements in the countries' readiness for membership. 

2.1.2.  Description of the current instrument 

EU  assistance  to  candidate  countries  and  potential  candidates  to  sustain  their  efforts  and 
investments  needed  for  acceding  to  the  EU  was,  since  2000,  provided  through  separate 
instruments  with  different  geographic  coverage  and  scope  (PHARE10,  ISPA11,  SAPARD12, 
the  Turkey  Pre-accession  Instrument13  and  CARDS14).  In  2006,  there  was  a  major 
rationalisation of pre-accession assistance as part of a revised external aid framework for the 
2007-2013  financial  perspectives.  All  existing  instruments  were  merged  into  one  single 
instrument,  the  Instrument  for  Pre-accession  Assistance  (IPA)15  in  order  to  reinforce 
coherence and coordination.  

The overall objective of the instrument is to assist beneficiary countries in their progressive 
alignment with the standards and policies of the EU, including where appropriate the acquis 
with a view to membership. The instrument directly addresses needs of beneficiary countries 
to  comply  with  the  Copenhagen  criteria.  IPA  is  also  used  to  promote  social  inclusion  and 
reduction of poverty depending on countries' needs, within the limits of the funds available.  

IPA  is  structured  in  five  different  components:  I  -  Transition  Assistance  and  Institution 
Building;  II  -  Cross-Border  Co-operation  (CBC);  III  -  Regional  Development;  IV  -  Human 
Resources  Development;  V  -  Rural  Development.  While  components  I  and  II  are  open  to 
candidate countries and potential candidates, components III, IV and V are open to candidate 
countries only with a view to prepare them for the management of EU Structural, Cohesion 
and Rural Development Funds becoming available upon accession. This requires beneficiary 
countries to have adequate administrative capacity and structures to take responsibility for the 
management of IPA assistance.  

10 

11 

12 

13 
14 

15 

Council  Regulation  (EEC)  No  3906/89  of  19  December  1989  on  economic  aid  to  the  Republic  of 
Hungary and the Polish People's Republic 
Instrument for Structural Policies for Pre-Accession, Council Regulation (EC) No 1267/1999 of 21 June 
1999 
Special  Accession  Programme  for  Agriculture  and  Rural  Development,  Council  Regulation  (EC)  No 
1268/1999 of 21 June 1999 
Council Regulation (EC) No 2500/2001 of 17 December 2001 
Community  Assistance  for  Reconstruction,  Development  and  Stabilisation,  Council  Regulation  (EC) 
No 2666/2000 of 5 December 2000 
Council Regulation 1085/2006 of 17 July 2006 

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Within  the  Commission,  ELARG  manages  component  I  and  the  part  of  component  II  that 
covers  cross-border  cooperation  between  candidate  countries/potential  candidates.  REGIO 
manages  cross-border  cooperation  with  neighbouring  Member  States  and  component  III. 
EMPL  manages  component  IV  and  AGRI  manages  component  V.  ELARG  leads  in  the 
coordination  of  the  IPA  instrument  as  a  whole  and  prepares  the  overall  Enlargement  policy 
and the annual Enlargement Strategy16. 

The  indicative  breakdown  of  the  overall  IPA  envelope  by  country  and  by  component  is 
provided  by  the  Multiannual  Indicative  Financial  Framework  (MIFF)  adopted  by  the 
Commission. Based on MIFF allocations  and on the priorities  identified in the Enlargement 
Strategy,  the  Commission  established,  in  consultation  with  beneficiary  countries  and  other 
stakeholders,  Multi-annual  Indicative  Planning  Documents  (MIPDs)  per  beneficiary  and  at 
multi-beneficiary level. MIPDs give a three-year strategic perspective, reviewed annually, and 
represent the Commission's view of the main priorities for assistance that are expected to be 
covered by IPA programmes.  

The  programmes  covering  technical  assistance,  capacity  building,  acquis  compliance  and 
investment  actions  funded  under  component  I  have  been  so  far  adopted  annually,  based  on 
project proposed by the IPA beneficiary countries. On the other hand, reflecting the approach 
used in Member States for Structural, Cohesion and Rural Development Funds, assistance for 
regional,  human  resources  and  rural  development  is  programme–based  and  adopted  on  a 
multi-annual  basis.  Operational  Programmes  for  regional,  human  resources  and  rural 
development  are  based  on  strategic  documents  prepared  by  the  beneficiary  countries 
(Strategic Coherence Frameworks, National Rural Development Strategies) and, in the case of 
regional  development,  are  defined  by 
regional 
competitiveness). In all cases, programmes undergo extensive consultation with stakeholders 
and are subject to the approval of the relevant Committee of Member States17.  

(transport,  environment, 

theme 

IPA  assistance  can  take  various  forms,  inter  alia  technical  assistance  to  national  authorities; 
twinning with Member States18; supplies, services and works for developing infrastructures; 
grants  for  investment  projects,  people-to-people  projects,  civil  society  organisations,  etc.; 
support for participation in EU programmes or Agencies; general or sector budget support19 
(granted exceptionally and subject to supervision).  

16 
17 

18 

19 

Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/press_corner/key-documents/reports_nov_2010_en.htm 
The IPA Committee for programmes funded under components I and II; the Coordination Committee 
for the funds (COCOF) for programmes under component III; the COCOF and European Social Fund 
(ESF)  Committee  for  programmes  under  Component  IV;  the  Rural  Development  Committee  for 
programmes under component V.  
Twinning provides the framework for administrations and semi-public organisations in the beneficiary 
countries  to  work  with  their  counterparts  in  Member  States.  Together  they  develop  and  implement  a 
project that targets the transposition, enforcement and implementation of a specific part of the acquis.  
Budget  Support  (general  or  sector-related)  is  an  aid  modality  consisting  in  transferring  financial 
resources of an external financing agency to the national treasury of a partner country. These financial 
resources  form  part  of  the partner  county's  global  resources  and  are  consequently  used  in  accordance 
with its public financial management system. The typical eligibility criteria and conditions for budget 
support  are:  well-defined,  agreed  and  adopted  national  or  sector  development  strategies;  policies  in 
place  safeguarding  macroeconomic  stability;  and,  credible  programmes  to  improve  public  financial 
management.  Find  more  on 
this  at  http://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/how/delivering-aid/budget-
support/index_en.htm  

EN 

9 

   EN 

 
                                                 
2.1.3.  Evolution of the context that justifies a new instrument 

Currently,  the  EU  is  dealing  with  5  candidate  countries  and  4  potential  candidates  (see 
footnotes  3  and  4).  Before  2014,  at  least  one  candidate  country  should  become  a  Member 
State, and some potential candidates may become candidate countries. With the exception of 
Iceland – which has been a member of the European Economic Area for years – the GDP per 
capita  and  other  socio-economic  indicators  show  that  enlargement  countries  are  still  well 
below EU average and even below the level of the lowest ranked Member States20. The very 
low  level  of  socio-economic  development  in  some  of  them  causes  the  need  for  substantial 
investments  to  bring  their  situation  close  to  one  that  is  aligned  to  EU  standards  and  allows 
them  to  withstand  the  competitive  pressures  of  the  single  market  and  to  take  on  board  the 
obligations of membership. 

In addition, the countries in the Western Balkans are still relatively young states formed after 
the  disintegration  of  the  former  Yugoslavia.  Political  stability,  the  full  establishment  of  the 
principles  of  democracy  and  the  respect  of  human  rights  and  good  governance  –  all 
fundamental values of the EU – still need to be strengthened.  

These countries cannot sustain alone all the efforts and cost of meeting the criteria for joining 
the  EU.  There  are  encouraging  signs  of  their  ability  to  reduce  debt  and  attract  foreign 
investment,  but  nevertheless  most  of  them  lack  the  capacity  to  finance  alone  the  public 
investments  and  reforms  necessary  to  stabilize  their  societies  and  economies  and  put  them 
onto a sustainable development path. Like in the previous enlargement rounds, the EU should 
continue to offer them technical and financial assistance to overcome their difficult situation 
and develop sustainably, gradually aligning on EU rules and standards.  

The  legal  basis  for  IPA  will  expire  at  the  end  of  2013.  The  key  challenge  for  the  new 
instrument is how best to focus the limited funds in relation to the new challenges faced by 
the EU and the future members and the political response to these challenges taking into 
account also the Europe 2020 Strategy. 

2.2. 

Lessons learned and outcome of reviews 

In assessing the options for the new instrument for pre-accession assistance, the Commission 
took into account the lessons learned from the implementation of current and past assistance, 
as identified in various evaluations:  

(a) 

IPA meta evaluation  

A mid-term meta evaluation of IPA, completed in February 2011 and focused mainly on the 
IPA  strategic  framework  (MIPDs)  and  programming  (mainly  technical  assistance  and 
institution building component), assessed the intervention logic and  the performance (actual 
or expected) of the assistance, particularly as regards its relevance, efficiency, effectiveness, 
impact and sustainability (see Annex 2).  

Regarding  the  intervention  logic  (i.e.  how  assistance  is  planned  and  programmed),  the 
evaluation  concluded  that  the  MIPDs  are  key  programming  documents  which  provide 
essential  direction  and  focus  to  the  programming  process  and  are  clearly  better  than  the 
equivalent  programming  documents  for  past  pre-accession  assistance  programmes.  The 

20 

Cf. Annex 1, Ex-ante evaluation, Section 2.3 and related Annex 6 

EN 

10 

   EN 

 
                                                 
evaluation  found  also  that  the  quality  of  objectives  and  indicators  in  the  MIPDs  and  the 
programming documents  had  improved over time.  Nevertheless,  further  improvements  were 
recommended.  

that  IPA  produced  good  and  meaningful  results.  Overall, 
The  evaluation  found 
outputs/immediate results of the assistance were expected to be delivered. Effectiveness was 
found  to  be  strongest  in  acquis  related  areas,  while  some  horizontal  areas,  such  as  public 
administration  reform,  were  found  to  be  particularly  challenging.  The  beneficiary  countries' 
financial  needs,  particularly  for  infrastructure,  clearly  exceed  available  IPA  (and  other 
donors') funding.  Therefore,  a  key  challenge  for the future was to use IPA funds efficiently 
and continue to play a leverage role for other financing sources. It was also found that projects 
were generally well targeted on EU accession requirements, but focusing institution building 
assistance  on  a  more  limited  number  of  priority  sectors  could  further  enhance  effectiveness 
and impact. 

The  evaluation  found  that  the  mechanisms  for  donor  coordination  and  harmonisation  of 
assistance were well established. Donors present in enlargement countries acknowledged the 
leading  role  played  by  the  Commission,  and  to  varying  degrees  they  used  the  MIPDs  to 
orientate  their  own  programming.  A  determining  factor  in  terms  of  achieving  impact  and 
sustainability was found to be the beneficiary countries' ownership of the reform agenda and 
the capacity of their administration, which need to be strengthened.  

The  evaluation  concluded  that  adopting  a  multi-annual/Sector  Based  Approach  (SBA)21  for 
planning and programming should facilitate prioritisation and sequencing of assistance, donor 
coordination and enhance beneficiary countries' ownership.  

(b) 

Interim evaluation of cross-border cooperation (CBC) programmes at intra-Western 
Balkans borders  

Concerning  component  II,  a  two–phase  interim  evaluation22  of  the  first  eight  IPA  CBC 
programmes  at  intra-Western  Balkans  borders  was  completed  in  May  2011  (see  Annex  3). 
The  evaluation  looked  at  efficiency  in  the  use  of  financial  assistance  and  focused  on  the 
(actual  or  likely)  impacts  of  CBC  programmes,  with  the  aim  of  identifying  lessons  and 
provide recommendations for the revision of  the  2007-2013 CBC programmes, due in  2011 
and covering the remaining two years of the current programming period (2012-2013), as well 
as for the new IPA CBC post 2013.  

The  evaluation  concluded  that  stakeholders  perceive  improved  neighbourly  relations  as  a 
consequence of the programme and view it as fundamental for future cooperation. The large 
number of applications received for the first calls for proposals showed that there was great 
interest and that conditions were mature for increased cooperation. The evaluation confirmed 
also  that  stakeholders  at  all  levels  considered  the  CBC  programme  as  a  precursor  for 
Structural Funds, thereby facilitating preparation for EU accession. As IPA CBC rules closely 
reflect  those  of  the  Structural  Funds  CBC,  cross-border  cooperation  provided  a  valuable 

21 

22 

A sector approach to planning and programming of the assistance is based on country sector strategies, 
combines resources from different donors and aims to achieve broader policy objectives 
Interim  Evaluation  of  Cross–Border  Programmes  between  Candidate/Potential  Candidate  Countries 
(Intra–Western Balkans Borders) under the Cross–Border Cooperation Component of IPA – Report I: 
Governance Structure, July 2010; Report II: Performance of Assistance, June 2011 

EN 

11 

   EN 

 
                                                 
learning  opportunity  and  prepared  the  countries  for  the  absorption  of  the  more  substantial 
funds that would become available upon accession.  

(c) 

Ex-ante  and  interim  evaluations  of  Operational  Programmes  under  components  III, 
IV and V and assessments  

The  objective  of  the  ex-ante  evaluations23  was  to  support  and  streamline  the  programming 
process.  Recommendations  to  strengthen  the  analysis  underpinning  the  programmes 
orientation  as  well  as  to  improve  further  the  output,  results  and  impact  indicators  were 
common to all programmes.  

In  addition,  the  importance  of  reviewing  the  result  indicators  to  take  into  account  their 
relevance to the objectives of the programmes as well as the availability of data was raised for 
regional development programmes. For some of them, the evaluation drew attention also on 
the  need  to  better  specify  and  measure  environmental  impact  at  programme  level  and  to 
provide environmental indicators. Regarding partnership and consultation, it was highlighted 
the  importance  of  indicating  how  feedback  informed  the  content  of  the  operational 
programmes.  

For  human  resources  development  programmes,  there  should  be  a  better  link  between  the 
analysis and the definition of priority axes and measures. The evaluations recommended also 
putting more emphasis on a partnership approach, and on the quantification of objectives.  

For rural development programmes, the hierarchy of programme objectives and the baseline 
should be developed further. The evaluations highlighted also the need for stronger focus on 
increasing  the  competitiveness  of  the  agricultural  sector,  the  importance  of  external  factors 
such  as  training  and  the  availability  of  rural  credit  to  secure  co-financing  and  increase 
absorption  of  funds  as  well  as  the  availability  of  well-trained  advisory  services  for  the 
potential beneficiary countries.  

Interim evaluations of multi-annual regional and human resources development programmes 
started  only  in  the  second  half  of  2011,  as  actual  implementation  commenced  in  2009  and 
2010,  after  conferral  of  management,  and  results  are  due  in  2012.  In  the  meantime  the 
Commission assessed and identified elements of the current IPA instrument that contribute to 
the  objective  of  an  efficient  preparation  for  management  of  EU  funds  after  accession  as 
regards: 

– 

– 

– 

Strategic  planning:  multi-annual  operational  programmes  follow  the  adoption  of 
national  strategic  frameworks/rural  development  strategies  that  mirror  the  strategic 
documents required from Member States under the Cohesion and Rural Development 
policies. 

Sector  analyses:  agricultural  and  rural  development  sector  programmes  need  to  be 
underpinned by thorough independent sector analyses pointing out weak links in the 
production and processing chains, which the programmes can then address. 

Ownership: the operational programmes are implemented under the responsibility of 
national bodies.  

23 

Available upon request.  

EN 

12 

   EN 

 
                                                 
– 

– 

– 

Partnership: Commission, regional local public authorities and economic and social 
partners are involved at both programming and implementation levels. 

Management and controls structures in the beneficiary countries are almost identical 
to  those  in  place  after  accession  for  Structural,  Cohesion  and  Rural  Development 
Funds.  

Result  orientation:  the  geographic  and  thematic  concentration  and  the  practical 
experience  gained  by  the  country  ("learning  by  doing"  approach)  also  bring 
important results and value added of the instrument. 

(d) 

Ex-ante evaluation to support the preparation of pre-accession financial instruments 
post-2013  

The evaluation and related consultations revealed that there is strong rationale for continuing 
financial  assistance  at  EU-level  in  support  for  the  enlargement  process.  The  need  to  ensure 
continuity  with  the  current  instrument  emerged  clearly:  since  it  takes  years  to  set  up  the 
structures and systems necessary to manage EU assistance, it would be counterproductive to 
drastically change the system in progress. A smooth transition between the current and future 
instruments  was  considered  crucial.  However,  in  light  of  the  heterogeneity  of  beneficiary 
countries (in socio-economic terms, with regard to the development of their institutions and 
public administration and their accession perspective) and to address issues such as delays in 
implementation, high administrative costs, limited beneficiary ownership and ensuring results 
and impact, the consultation recommended to24:  

•  Tailor assistance according to the needs and characteristics of each country; 

•  Strengthen  the  sector  approach,  with  a  more  coherent  longer-term  planning  process 
resulting  in  a  strategic  instrument  for  donor  coordination  and  for  steering  private  sector 
investment; 

•  Introduce multi-annual planning covering the duration of the next multi-annual financial 
framework,  with  a  mid-term  review,  and  do  multi-annual  programming  also  for 
Component I; better beneficiary involvement in programming, led by stronger NIPACs; 

•  Reward  good  performance  through  a  reserve  to  be  allocated  at  mid-term  based  on 
absorption  and  on  achieving  strategic  targets;  use  conditionalities  in  a  more  strict  and 
systematic way at country, sector strategy and project level; 

•  Allow  access  to  the  various  types  of  assistance  irrespective  of  candidate/potential 
candidate  status,  but  dependent  on  readiness  to  implement,  combined  with  a  phased 
approach to decentralising management of the assistance;  

•  Re-examine  the  current  component  structure,  including  ensure  a  strengthened 

coordination between the DGs concerned;  

•  Continue cooperation with IFIs and to mobilise IFI and other donor funds; 

•  Adopt a three-tier approach to monitoring and evaluation, assessing progress relative 
to i) the path to accession; ii) national strategies and iii) achieving programme, sector and 
measure level results.  

24 

For details, cf. Annex 5 to Annex 1, Ex-ante Evaluation  

EN 

13 

   EN 

 
                                                 
2.3. 

The underlying drivers of the problem 

Four distinct but interrelated issues have been identified that the new pre-accession assistance 
instrument  needs  to  address  in  order  to  better  assist  enlargement  countries  in  preparing  for 
eventual membership: 

2.3.1.  Development  gap/challenges  in  the  beneficiary  countries  and  limited  capacity  to 

overcome these from own resources  

for 

are 

future 

readiness, 

instrumental 

i.e.  GDP  per 

Most  current  enlargement  countries  lag  behind  the  EU  average  on  key  aspects  of  socio-
economic development, macro-economic stability as well as democracy and good governance 
that 
capita, 
accession 
employment/unemployment  levels,  social  exclusion  indicators,  external  trade  and  revenues, 
macro-economic  conditions,  democracy  and  good  governance25.  They  lack  competitiveness, 
have poor infrastructure and gaps in basic services and considerable environmental problems. 
Furthermore,  they  lack  research  and  innovation  capacity  to  underpin  the  necessary  reforms 
and  are  ill-prepared  to  address  complex  challenges  such  as  mitigation  of  and  adaptation  to 
climate change, in addition to pursuing low carbon development, or the achievement of digital 
agenda  targets  in  key  action  areas  such  as  digital  single  market  or  ICT  enabled  public 
services.  Weak  public  institutions,  the  presence  of  organised  crime  and  corruption  and 
insufficient and uneven respect of the rule of law are major challenges for the development of 
these societies and economies.  

2.3.2.  Weak public institutions and administrative capacity in the beneficiary countries  

Weak  public  institutions  and  administrative  capacity  as  well  as  gaps  in  the  level  of  human 
resources  development  hinder  beneficiary  countries'  ability  to  develop  quality  EU-accession 
related  reform  policies,  strategies  and  plans,  strong  pipelines  of  well  prepared  projects,  to 
guarantee  sound  public  financial  management  and  to  ensure  sufficient  ownership  for  the 
programmes  supported  by  the  EU  and  coherence  with  national  policies  and  strategies.  This 
creates  a  situation  where  the  Commission  may  still  be  seen  as  deciding  about  strategic 
objectives, sectors for assistance and individual projects and affects generally the possibility 
for the EU to deliver its financial assistance in a more effective way, with more sustainable 
results  and  impact.  Under  the  current  IPA,  a  sector  approach  to  planning  and  programming 
furthering the link with the political priorities of the Enlargement strategy is being gradually 
introduced  in  the  last  set  of  strategic  planning  documents  (MIPDs)  and  in  the  transition 
assistance  and  institution  building  actions  for  2012  and  2013.  However,  some  beneficiary 
countries  may  have  problems  applying  the  sector  approach  as  they  are  not  in  a  position  to 
elaborate underlying comprehensive strategies.  

2.3.3.  Heterogeneity of beneficiary countries  

Differences  among  IPA  beneficiary  countries  in  terms  of  socio-economic  development  are 
considerably larger than among the Member States that joined the EU in 2004 at the time of 
their accession (e.g. Turkey alone accounts for 75% of the population and 79% of total GDP 
of  the  nine  IPA  beneficiary  countries  but  is  allocated  a  comparatively  lower  46%  of  the 
current  IPA  resources).  The  'distance  to  travel'  in  order  to  meet  the  obligations  of  EU 
membership  varies  between  them.  The  significance  of  IPA  and  other  EU  sources  (average 

25 

Cf. Annex 1, Ex-ante evaluation, Section 2.3 

EN 

14 

   EN 

 
                                                 
2007-2009)  to  the  economies  of  IPA  beneficiary  countries  varies  markedly  (from  2.9%  of 
GDP  for  Kosovo∗  to  less  than  1%  of  GDP  in  Turkey),  with  resulting  implications  for  the 
extent  to  which  IPA  may  lever  policy  change  and  directly  influence  socio-economic 
development.  Also,  the  varying  significance  of  EU  financial  support  compared  with  other 
Overseas  Development  Aid  (particularly  in  Kosovo,  and  to  a  lesser  extent  in  Albania  and 
Bosnia and Herzegovina) has implications for the catalytic and coordination role of the EU. In 
this context, a one-size-fits-all approach to delivery of the assistance cannot be fully effective, 
as IPA must accommodate very different beneficiary countries at very different stages of their 
accession process.  

2.3.4.  Aspects  of  the  current  IPA  set-up  affecting  its  flexibility  to  respond  to  needs, 

absorption of funds and results/impact of the assistance26  

Pre-accession  assistance  under  the  IPA  instrument  is  generally  acknowledged  to  have 
improved considerably from previous pre-accession assistance in its intervention logic and in 
the  way  it  prepares  the  beneficiary  countries  for  management  of  the  much  more  substantial 
amounts  of  EU  funds  that  become  available  after  accession.  On  the  other  hand,  evaluations 
have  identified  aspects  of  the  current  IPA  set-up  that,  also  in  light  of  the  environment  in 
which IPA is operating, can be improved in order to make the assistance more responsive to 
needs,  increase  absorption  by  the  beneficiary  countries  and  lead  to  stronger  results  and 
impact. More specifically: 

(a) 

• 

• 

• 

∗  
26 

Issues affecting the  ability to deliver the assistance more  coherently, strategically 
and in a result-oriented manner 

Under  the  current  rules,  the  objectives  and  target  settings  under  the  different 
components  are  separate  at  programming  and  operational  level.  The  absence  of  a 
more  integrated  framework  defining  the  scope  and  priorities  of  pre-accession 
assistance  for  each  beneficiary  country  may  limit  the  coherence  and  the  overall 
impact of the assistance.  

Currently, project selection may respond to pragmatic operational as well as strategic 
considerations,  linked  to  absorption/administrative  capacity,  the  availability  of 
project proposals, sustainability and support at political and operational levels. Thus, 
the  link  between  the  selection  of  projects  and  a  set  of  well-defined  strategic 
objectives  reflecting  national  priorities  linked  to  the  political  priorities  of  the 
Enlargement  strategy  may  sometimes  be  weak.  In  addition,  this  may  lead  to  an 
overemphasis on infrastructure development or other large projects which can ensure 
prompt absorption of funds, whilst more complex accession-driven projects may not 
be pursued. 

Annual programming of transition and institution building assistance was chosen to 
allow  for  a  more  flexible  delivery  to  respond  to  needs  identified  annually  in  the 
Enlargement  Strategy  and  to  select  mature  projects.  Experience  shows  that  this 
approach was beneficial in countries with limited administrative capacity and lacking 
a  developed  project  pipeline,  or  in  countries  very  close  to  accession  that  need  to 
address specific challenges in the negotiation process. However annual programming 

Under UNSCR 1244/99 
Cf. Annex 1, Ex-ante evaluation, Section 2.5 

EN 

15 

   EN 

 
                                                 
• 

• 

(b) 

• 

• 

• 

does  not  favour  a  shift  of  focus  from  individual  projects  to  policy  outcomes  and 
results.  

IPA  is  not  sufficiently  results  oriented:  there  is  no  reward  for  achieving  strategic 
results which all stakeholders support, achieving good outcomes of funded measures 
or  for  greater  absorption  of  funds.  This  may  reduce  beneficiary  countries’ 
motivation.  Similarly,  conditionalities  for  disbursing  the  assistance  (such  as 
requirements  to  adopt/amend  legislative  acts/regulations,  establish  new  institutional 
or staffing arrangements, complete land expropriation or grant permits, etc.) are used 
- but not always enforced - at project level but not so much at programme level or 
component level (with the exception of Conferral of Management as a condition for 
launching operations under decentralised management). The lack of conditionalities 
and/or  fulfilment  thereof  may  hinder  implementation  or  affect  the  sustainability  of 
funded actions.  

Under IPA, budget support is allowed only as an exception and was used only once. 
Budget support brings potential risks as well as benefits. There may be problems of 
accountability  and  transparency  when  funds  are  put  into  weak  systems.  However, 
budget support can bring benefits in terms of improved management of resources for 
results;  stronger  beneficiary  ownership  over  interventions;  reduced  possibilities  of 
fragmented  projects;  improved  beneficiary  public  administration  capacity  and 
accountability; reduced administrative costs for the beneficiary countries and the EU 
Delegations.  

Issues  affecting  the  ability  to  deliver  the  assistance  more  flexibly  and  in  a  tailor-
made manner, according to needs  

Access to funding under components III, IV and V is determined by the beneficiary 
countries'  obtaining  candidate  status,  which  is  based  on  a  political  decision  of  the 
Council,  and  not  necessarily  driven  by  the  actual  needs  and  preparedness  of  the 
beneficiary countries to set up the structures required for managing EU funds. This 
can  become  counterproductive  in  so  far  as  a  candidate  country  may  receive  less 
financial  support  than  it  would  do  if  it  were  still  a  potential  candidate,  simply 
because the accreditation of its national systems  for  management  of IPA assistance 
takes  time.  Lessons  learned  also  show  that  preparations  for  management  of  post-
accession  funds  need  to  start  at  a  very  early  stage,  with  a  phasing-in  that  is  not 
facilitated by the current system. 

The components structure as currently conceived, reflected into separate budgetary 
envelopes per component, makes it difficult to reallocate funds between policy areas 
based on performance or needs as they evolve. This may lead to the loss of limited 
funds, when compared to the needs for reforms. Further flexibility should be sought 
while preserving ownership and accountability by the beneficiary countries for each 
policy area.  

One  of  the  objectives  of  pre-accession  assistance  is  that  beneficiary  countries  have 
set  up  before  accession  the  administrative  structures  that  will  be  needed  for 
managing  EU  funds  after  accession,  and  have  a  well  established  track-record  of 
sound management of pre-accession funds. This is beneficial also for managing their 
own national funds. However, the requirement that these administrative structures be 
fully set up and running before pre-accession assistance can even be accessed may be 

EN 

16 

   EN 

 
(c) 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

disproportionate to actual needs, particularly where the accession perspective is not 
close, and more progressivity may be required.  

Issues  related  to  simplification  and  to  the  efficiency  and  effectiveness  of  the 
assistance 

The  current  instrument  divided  in  five  components  managed  by  four  Commission 
services  creates  coordination  and  communication  challenges  as  different 
management and implementation principles, conferral of management procedures or 
specific  rules  are  applied.  This  is  partially  due  to  the  fact  that  the  policies  and  the 
related  management  structures  to  be  set  up  post-accession  bear  specificities  which 
have to be taken into account in order to best prepare for accession. However there is 
room  for  rationalisation  and  simplification  of  some  aspects  of  implementation  or 
conferral of management powers.  

Annual  programming  of  transition  and  institution  building  assistance  puts  a  heavy 
administrative  burden  on  the  implementing  structures,  including  the  Commission 
and beneficiary public administrations.  

IPA funds for  cross-border  cooperation  are broken down on a country basis. In the 
context  of  programmes  between  candidate  countries  and  potential  candidates,  this 
approach has proved a source of inefficiencies, e.g. 2 separate contracting authorities 
within the same cross–border programme, two financial lead partners per each joint 
project, etc.  

IPA  funds  alone  are  not  sufficient  to  meet  the  substantial  investment  needs  in 
beneficiary countries to align with the acquis (e.g. in energy, transport, environment 
and climate change) and improve competitiveness, which are very high.  

Many  donors  and  IFIs  are  currently  active  in  the  beneficiary  countries.  The  meta-
evaluation  of  IPA  concluded  that  the  programming  of  interventions  took  'adequate 
and  relevant  account  of  relevant  assistance  provided  by  key  donors'.  However, 
stakeholders  do  not  perceive  the  level  of  coordination  to  be  fully  sufficient  yet. 
Different  donors  have  different  views  on  strategies  and  policies,  different 
programming  cycles,  strategic  and  operational  (financial)  requirements.  There  is 
competition between funding opportunities (and overlaps at times).  

The long programming and procurement cycles reduce the benefits and impact that 
the assistance could have if it were deployed more swiftly. In the case of twinning, 
which  is  a  favoured  tool  for  transferring  Member  States  expertise  to  beneficiary 
public administration, delivering more sustainable results and with more involvement 
long 
from  beneficiary  countries 
procurement cycle and mobilisation of suitable experts limit the benefits that can be 
obtained  from  its  use.  Therefore  TA  is  more  commonly  used  because  beneficiary 
countries find it a more flexible and controllable instrument. 

technical  assistance  (TA), 

issues  of 

than 

2.4. 

Legal base for EU action 

The instrument  proposed  is  based  on  Article  21  of  the  Treaty  on  European  Union 
which provides  that  “the  Union's  action  on  the  international  scene  shall  be  guided  by  the 
principles which have inspired its own creation, development and enlargement, and which it 

EN 

17 

   EN 

 
seeks  to  advance  in  the  wider  world:  democracy,  the  rule  of  law,  the  universality  and 
indivisibility  of  human  rights  and  fundamental  freedoms,  respect  for  human  dignity,  the 
principles  of  equality  and  solidarity,  and  respect  for  the  principles  of  the  United  Nations 
Charter and international law". The legal base for financial assistance for pre-accession is Art. 
212(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.  

2.5. 

EU Added Value 

Enlargement  policy  is  part  of  the  external  action  and  contributes  to  meeting  the  common 
objectives in terms of global challenges, global response and global leadership.  

The  successive  enlargement  of  the  EU  is  by  its  very  nature  a  common  task  which  can  be 
pursued only at EU level. Only the Member States acting together can decide on the accession 
requests by new candidates. The pre-accession assistance provided through the EU budget is 
designed to help candidate countries/potential candidates prepare for future membership: IPA 
is built to give countries a “test run” of obligations of membership before accession (such as 
put  in  place  institutions  for  managing  post-accession  EU  funds,  and/or  adopting  the  acquis 
and  EU  standards).  No  other  multilateral  or  bilateral  instrument  can  provide  such  a 
comprehensive  toolbox,  and  in  any  case  only  the  EU  can  define  what  kind  of  assistance  is 
needed to prepare for taking over the acquis. 

Pre-accession assistance is an investment in the future of the EU, supporting the stability and 
prosperity  of  neighbouring  countries  and  ensuring  the  effective  capacity  of  candidate 
countries to implement the acquis upon accession. Technical and financial assistance speeds 
up  the  process  of  preparation  and  creates  incentives  for  the  necessary  transformation  of  the 
society, the legal systems and the economy. Such assistance helps meet the objectives of the 
internal  policies  of  the  EU,  creates  opportunities  for  EU  businesses  and  provides  tangible 
return on investment. Without the intensive involvement and closer partnership embodied in 
pre-accession  assistance  the  EU  would  certainly  have  to  spend  more  on  combating  illegal 
migration, securing the external borders of the EU, ensuring security of energy supply as well 
as safe and hygienic food imports for its citizens and combating climate change and pollution.  

In recent years EU Member States have been reducing the level of their bilateral assistance to 
candidate  countries  and  potential  candidates,  acknowledging  that  coordinated  action  at  EU 
level  is  more  effective.  About  half  of  the  overall  financial  assistance  of  the  EU  to  the 
enlargement  countries  in  2009  came  from  the  EU  budget.  Multilateral  donor  organisations 
have  largely  phased  out  their  support  and  those  that  remain  have  now  aligned  their 
programmes  to  the  EU  priorities.  It  should  be  noted  that,  given  its  specific  development 
objectives and impact, pre-accession assistance is also accounted as official development aid 
of the EU (ODA). 

3. 

OBJECTIVES  

3.1. 

Policy framework and objectives 

For the policy framework, cf. the introduction and 2.1. 

General objective 

The new pre-accession instrument should continue to focus on delivering on the Enlargement 
Policy  that  is  one  of  the  core  priorities  of  the  EU  External  Action,  thus  contributing  to 

EN 

18 

   EN 

 
promote stability, security and prosperity in Europe. To that end, given the problems and the 
underlying drivers identified above, the new instrument should continue to pursue the general 
policy  objective  of  supporting  candidate  countries  and  potential  candidates  in  implementing 
the appropriate political, institutional, legal, administrative and economic reforms required to 
bring  those  countries  closer  to  the  EU  values  and  to  progressively  align  to  EU  rules, 
standards, policies and practices with a view to EU membership.  

Specific objectives  

In  terms  of  results  and  impacts  to  be  achieved,  the  new  instrument  should  pursue  the 
following  specific  policy  objectives  according  to  the  specific  needs  of  each  beneficiary 
country and to their individual enlargement agenda: 

⇒ 

In order to address the development gap/challenges in the beneficiary countries and 
limited capacity to overcome these from own resources (driver 1), the weak public 
institutions and/or administrative capacity in the beneficiary countries (driver 2) and 
beneficiary countries' heterogeneity (driver 3), the instrument should:  

(i)   Support  political  reforms,  inter  alia:  the  strengthening  of  democratic 
institutions,  as  well  as  of  the  rule  of  law,  including  its  enforcement;  the 
promotion  and  protection  of  human  rights  and  fundamental  freedoms  and 
enhanced  respect  for  minority  rights,  the  promotion  of  gender  equality  and 
non-discrimination, freedom of the press as well as good neighbourly relations; 
the fight against corruption and organized crime; public administration reform 
and  good  governance;  the  development  of  civil  society  and  social  dialogue; 
reconciliation, peace-building and confidence-building measures; 

(ii)  Support economic, social and territorial development and reforms, aiming 
at  a  sustainable,  smart  and  inclusive  growth,  inter  alia  through:  the 
achievement  of  EU  standards  in  the  economy  and  economic  governance; 
economic  reforms  necessary  to  cope  with  competitive  pressure  and  market 
forces  within  the  Union,  pursuing  economic,  social  and  environmental  goals; 
fostering  employment  and  developing  human  capital;  social  and  economic 
inclusion, in particular of minorities and vulnerable groups; the development of 
physical  capital,  including  regional  networks,  and  the  improvement  of 
connections with the EU. 

(iii)  Increase  beneficiary  countries'  ability  to  assume  the  obligations  of 
supporting  progressive  alignment  with,  adoption, 

membership  by 
implementation and enforcement of the acquis communautaire;  

(iv)  Support  regional 

integration  and 

territorial  cooperation  between 
beneficiary  countries  and  between  them  and  Member  States  and,  where 
appropriate,  countries  beneficiaries  of 
the  European  Neighbourhood 
Instrument. 

Making progress in these specific policy objectives will also contribute to the implementation 
of  broader  EU  policy  frameworks  such  as  the  Europe  2020  strategy,  the  EU  Climate  and 
Energy Package and the Innovation Union. 

EN 

19 

   EN 

 
At operational level, progress with meeting the specific policy objectives could be measured 
in relation to corresponding operational objectives, such as27:  

• 

• 

• 

Improved  perceptions  of  democracy  and  the  justice  system  and  with  respect  to 
human  rights  and  non-discrimination;  reduced  outstanding  court  caseload  and  the 
number  of  infringements  of  fundamental  rights;  increased  capacities  for  law 
enforcement and generally administrative capacity, reduced staff turnover.  

legislative  framework; 
Sound  and  effective  strategies  developed, 
regulations  aligned  with  EU  standards,  institutions  created  and  strengthened; 
enhanced employment, better social inclusion, reduced poverty rates, improved skills 
and  qualification  levels,  strengthened  labour  market  services,  public  investments 
supported.  

improved 

Legislation aligned with the acquis, enforcement structures created and strengthened; 
management  structures  for  EU  structural,  cohesion  and  rural  development  funds 
available  upon  accession  established,  accreditation  and  conferral  of  management 
achieved; (deepened) participation to EU programmes. 

• 

Regional and territorial cooperation deepened. 

In  practice  the  operational  objectives  will  need  to  be  customized  to  the  situation  in  each 
beneficiary country and would be set in the programming documents based on the identified 
challenges.  

In addition, with regard to how the new instrument should work in order to achieve the results 
and  impacts  set  out  above,  methodological  ('Regulation  specific')  objectives  should  be 
pursued: 

⇒ 

In  order  to  address  the  aspects  of  the  current  IPA  set-up  affecting  its  flexibility  to 
respond to needs, absorption of funds, coherence and result/impact of the assistance 
(driver  4),  and  taking  into  account  beneficiary  countries'  heterogeneity  (driver  3), 
the new instrument should:  

(a)  Strengthen  further  the  link  between  financial  assistance  and  the  Enlargement 

policy agenda, making the assistance more strategic;  

(b) 

Increase  further  the  efficiency  and  effectiveness  of  the  assistance  and  bring 
more tangible and sustainable results and impact;  

(c)  Allow  for  increased  flexibility  in  the  way  the  instrument  operates  and 
allocates the assistance, whilst preserving ownership and accountability by the 
beneficiary countries for each policy area, so as to respond to evolving needs, 
reward  progress  and/or  address  concerns  related  to  the  efficient  use  of  EU 
funds; 

(d)  Leverage  more  funds  from  other  donors  or  the  private  sector  by  using 

innovative financing instruments; 

27 

Cf; Annex 1, Ex-ante evaluation, section 8, 8.5 for the full list of possible operational objectives 

EN 

20 

   EN 

 
                                                 
(e)  Pursue simplification and reduction of the administrative burden linked to 

managing the financial assistance. 

3.2. 

Consistency with external action priorities 

In a world where emerging powers are playing an increasing role, Enlargement gives the EU 
greater weight and strengthens its voice in international fora. With the entry into force of the 
Lisbon Treaty, the EU has given itself the means to pull its weight further on the global scene. 
The  EU's  role  in  the  adoption  of  the  UN  General  Assembly  Resolution  on  Kosovo  is  an 
example of this potential.  

The fifth enlargement gave a new impetus to the EU's relations with its eastern and southern 
neighbours  and  led  it  to  explore  ways  of  developing  initiatives  in  the  Baltic  and  Black  sea 
regions. The accession process with countries in  the  Western  Balkans  and  Turkey  gives  the 
EU a still greater interest and influence in the Mediterranean and Black Sea regions and in the 
Danube basin. Provided that Turkey's role in its own region is developed as a complement to 
its  accession  process  and  in  coordination  with  the  EU,  it  can  add  to  both  parties'  weight  in 
world affairs, not least in the Middle East and the Southern Caucasus. By acting together, the 
EU  and  Turkey  can  strengthen  energy  security,  address  regional  conflicts,  and  prevent 
cleavages developing along ethnic or religious lines. Iceland and the EU can together play an 
important  role  in  addressing  energy,  environmental,  climate  change,  maritime  and  security 
issues in the Arctic.  

The proposal maintains a dedicated and integrated instrument for pre-accession assistance as 
the  financial  pillar  of  the  Enlargement  Strategy  that  encompasses  all  dimensions  of  internal 
policies  and  thematic  issues.  This  is  because  the  Enlargement  policy  is  primarily  about 
helping partners to gradually take over the acquis and EU relations with candidate countries 
and  potential  candidates  cover  practically  all  thematic  issues  (prosperity,  security,  trade, 
human rights, etc.). For the sake of coherence, efficiency, effectiveness and impact, internal 
policies and thematic issues should therefore be mainstreamed in coherent country strategies 
and achieved through country, multi-beneficiary or cross-border programmes agreed with the 
beneficiary  countries.  In  line  with  the  EU  Policy  Coherence  for  Development  agenda28,  the 
fact that IPA covers all internal policies allows to better take into account the external impacts 
of  internal  policies  on  pre-accession  countries,  where  EU  development  objectives  are 
concerned.  This  is  important  notably  in  areas  such  as  trade,  climate  change,  migration  or 
energy. 

However, where the nature of the action warrants (i.e. technical, global reach, as opposed to 
primarily accession focus), or where fundamental European values (such as respect of human 
rights)  are  not  complied  with  by  a  beneficiary  country,  other  external  action  instruments 
should  be  able  to  intervene  in  the  enlargement  region  (e.g.  European  Instrument  for 
Democracy and Human Rights, the Instrument for Nuclear Safety Cooperation, the Instrument 
for Stability and Macro-financial Assistance).  

28 

The  EU  Policy  Coherence  for  Development  allows  to  'development-proof'  non-development  policy 
initiatives and make sure that EU development policy objectives are taken into account in other policy 
areas.  Since  2009,  the  EU  PCD  agenda  focuses  on  five  main  challenges:  trade  and  finance,  food 
security, climate change, security and migration. This horizontal approach that allows to weed out the 
main incoherencies and maximise synergies, especially in areas like trade, where the Commission can 
negotiate  trade  agreements  on  behalf  of  the  entire  EU,  puts  the  EU  in  a  better  position  than  Member 
States to make the most of the development budget.  

EN 

21 

   EN 

 
                                                 
3.3. 

Consistency with other EU policies  

The Enlargement process projects the internal policies of the EU in the national order of the 
beneficiary  countries.  It  contributes  to  the  expansion  of  the  internal  market,  energy  and 
transport networks, the protection of the environment, sustainable fisheries and efforts to 
address climate change, attain a more strategic approach to maritime policies, educational 
attainment, scientific excellence, poverty reduction and the digital agenda, among others. 
In line with the objectives of the "Europe 2020" strategy for a smart, sustainable and inclusive 
inclusion  and 
growth 
climate/energy,  particular  attention  should  be  given  to  aspects  such  as  resource  efficiency 
and  enhancing  employment  opportunities,  skills  development,  education  and  social 
inclusion.  

innovation,  education,  social 

the  fields  of  employment, 

in 

The  countries  of  the  Western  Balkans  are  entirely  surrounded  by  Member  States.  Turkey 
adjoins  the  European  Union  by  land  and  sea.  The  construction  of  trans-European  energy 
and  transport  corridors,  the  diversification  of  energy  sources  and  promotion  of  energy 
efficiency,  the  mitigation  of  and  adaptation  to  climate  change  and  the  reduction  of  trans-
boundary air and water pollution are among the EU goals whose achievement would require 
the  full  commitment  of  the  enlargement  countries.  The  most  recent  candidate  which  has 
begun accession negotiations, Iceland, is a world leader in various forms of renewable energy 
and has much to contribute to EU innovation efforts in this and other advanced fields.  

Financial and technical assistance to candidate countries and potential candidates triggers and 
supports  comprehensive  reform  agendas  in  the  enlargement  countries  with  a  view  to  align 
them  with  the  rules  and  best  practices  in  the  EU,  while  also  contributing  to  meeting  the 
Millennium  Development  Goals  in  the  beneficiary  countries.  New  elements  regarding  the 
current reform of the Common Agricultural Policy of the EU, on innovation, environment, 
climate change, resource efficiency, better unlocking local potential and food security, as well 
as the current reform of the Common Fisheries Policy, will be integrated into the design of 
the  new  instrument,  which  will  assure  coherence  between  the  different  policy  areas,  taking 
into  account  the  enlargement  context.  The  current  instrument  is  already  funding  inter  alia 
activities which foster smart growth through supporting businesses and agriculture to become 
more competitive and to adapt to climate change; foster sustainable growth by maintaining the 
food,  feed  &  renewables  production  base,  reducing  emissions  from  agriculture,  promoting 
resource efficiency and environmental protection, increasing competitiveness and supporting 
the development of the full potential of rural areas; foster inclusive growth by unlocking the 
local  potential,  diversifying  rural  economies  and  developing  local  markets  as  well  as 
supporting  farmers'  income  and  opening  up  alternative  opportunities  to  accompany 
agricultural restructuring. 

Stabilisation and Association Agreements and other agreements with candidate countries and 
potential  candidates  include  provisions  on  competition.  The  EU  actively  encourages 
enlargement  countries  to  establish  competition  regimes.  Along  with  other  policy  objectives 
such  as  a  well-functioning  public  administration  and  an  independent  judiciary  safeguarding 
the enforceability of contracts, an effective competition policy creates a business environment 
facilitating  economic  growth.  Competition  policy  provides  a  set  of  transparent  rules  which 
firms must abide by when competing with rivals. Moreover, the competition authorities - as 
well as appeal courts in competition cases – function as arbiters defining and penalising anti-
competitive behaviour. An effective competition policy reduces firms' policy risks – the rules 
of  the  game  are  known  beforehand  –  and  thereby  stimulates  foreign  direct  investment.  For 

EN 

22 

   EN 

 
these reasons, competition policy should continue to form an integral part of the Enlargement 
policy actions and programmes. 

In what regards climate change, and taking into account Europe 2020 objectives and the need 
to  help  other  parts  of  the  world  to  step  up  their  efforts  to  combat  climate  change,  the 
Commission has stated in the June 2011 Communication on "A Budget for Europe 2020" that 
it intends to increase the proportion of climate related expenditure across the EU budget to at 
least  20%,  with  varying  contributions  from  different  policies,  subject  to  impact  assessment 
evidence.  For  the  pre-accession  assistance  instrument,  climate  mainstreaming  and  climate 
objectives  would  in  particular  be  relevant  in  relation  to  regional  and  rural  development 
activities that can contribute to mitigate and adapt to climate change, in addition to pursuing 
low carbon development.  

In this same spirit, support should be granted to strengthening the research and innovation 
capacity as well as information and communications technologies (ICTs), which in turn would 
facilitate not only the realisation of the Innovation Union but also underpin the other Europe 
2020  strategy  objectives  and  compliance  with  EU  technical  requirements  and  standards  in 
many  other  policies  (e.g.  public  health,  food  security  and  the  environment).  The  Digital 
agenda for Europe, a prominent flagship initiative of the Europe 2020 Strategy, defines the 
key enabling role that ICTs will have to play if Europe wants to succeed in its ambitions for 
2020. The challenges the Union is facing in this area have a crucial international dimension 
which EU enlargement countries could be contributing to, enlarging as such the digital single 
market  footprint,  spurring  innovation,  economic  growth  and  job  creation,  and  an  improved 
access to public services.  

Making  Europe  a  safer  place  is  high  on  the  EU's  agenda  as  defined  in  the  Stockholm 
Programme. The enlargement countries are required to take over the acquis of the Union and 
to  demonstrate  their  capacity  to  implement  it  fully.  For  this  reason,  the  Commission  has 
redoubled  efforts,  including  through  the  improved  strategic  orientation  of  its  financial 
assistance for pre-accession, to support enlargement countries to prevent and tackle organised 
crime  and  corruption  and  to  strengthen  their  law  enforcement  capabilities.  With  financial 
support  from  IPA,  EU  prosecutors,  judges  and  other  experts  in  law  enforcement,  border 
management and migration now assist counter-parts in the enlargement countries to share 
their expertise and to check on progress.  

3.4. 

Geographical/thematic coverage 

The  new  instrument  for  pre-accession  assistance  post-2013  will  continue  to  cover  countries 
that are official candidates to EU accession as well as potential candidates, as determined by 
unanimous  decisions  of  the  European  Council.  Currently,  Croatia,  Turkey,  the  former 
Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Iceland and Montenegro belong to the former group, while 
Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Serbia, as well as Kosovo belong to the latter group. By the 
time the new instrument will come into effect in 2014, Croatia should already be a Member 
State.  As  foreseen  in  the  proposal  for  a  Council  Regulation  laying  down  the  multiannual 
financial  framework  for  the  years  2014-202029,  'if  new  Member  States  accede  to  the  Union 
during  the  period  covered  by  the  financial  framework,  the  financial  framework  shall  be 
adjusted  to  take  account  of  the  expenditure  requirements  resulting  form  the  outcome  of  the 
accession negotiations'. 

29 

COM(2011)398 final of 29.6.2011, Art. 11 

EN 

23 

   EN 

 
                                                 
The  thematic  coverage  of  new  instrument  will  correspond  to  the  general  and  specific 
objectives i. to v. as set out under paragraph 3.1 above.  

4. 

POLICY OPTIONS  

In light of the problems and underlying drivers identified, the Commission considered various 
options  and  sub-options  for  the  future  instrument  for  pre-accession  assistance30.  Option  1 
represented  the  base-line  scenario  against  which  other  options  and  related  impacts  were 
assessed:  

Option  1  -  “No  change".  Assistance  to  candidate  countries  and  potential  candidates  would 
continue  with  the  same  objective  and  scope  of  the  current  pre-accession  instrument,  i.e.  a 
strong  focus  on  compliance  with  the  political  and  economic  criteria  for  EU  accession, 
progressive  alignment  with/adoption  of  the  acquis  communautaire  and  preparations  for 
management of Structural, Agriculture and Rural Development funds after accession, but with 
limited  emphasis  on  achieving  tangible  sustainable  socio-economic  impacts.  Under  this 
option,  the  conditions  and  modalities  for  access  to  and  delivery  (planning,  programming, 
management and implementation) of the assistance would not change from today, remaining 
structured  into  five  separate  'Components'.  While  all  beneficiary  countries  would  be  able  to 
access  assistance  for  compliance  with  the  accession  criteria,  alignment  with/adoption  of  the 
acquis communautaire and regional and cross-border cooperation (Components I and II), only 
candidate  countries  could  be  supported  in  their  preparations  for  management  of  post-
accession funds (Components III to V). The allocation of the assistance under all Components 
would continue to be planned on a three-year basis reviewed annually, and the technical and 
financial details for operational implementation would be determined in separate programmes 
per  Component,  on  an  annual  (Component  I)  or  multi-annual  (Components  II  to  V)  basis. 
Operational  programmes  under  Component  I  would  keep  foreseeing  capacity-building  and 
acquis-compliance actions also in the areas of regional development (environment, transport, 
competitiveness), human-resources development and rural development, and would typically 
fund  individual  projects.  EU  funds  could  be  used  to  leverage  additional  funds  from 
International Financial Institutions for financing infrastructure investments in the enlargement 
region.  Actual  access  to  assistance  under  Components  III  to  V  would  depend  on  the 
preparedness  and  ensuing  accreditation  of  the  national  systems  for  managing  the  assistance 
(without  ex-ante  controls  by  the  Commission  in  the  case  of  Component  V).  Transferring 
funds across Components in order to address needs and/or absorption capacity as they evolved 
would  have  to  follow  the  related  substantial  administrative  procedures.  Monitoring  of 
progress in implementation of the assistance on the ground would be done separately under 
the different Components. There would be separate accreditation processes for the managing 
structures and systems when managing assistance under different Components.  

This  option  would  target  all  the  policy  objectives  identified  for  future  pre-accession 
assistance,  though  with  a  limited  focus  on  social  and  economic  impacts,  while  it  would  not 
address the methodological objectives set in order to respond more flexibly to needs, increase 
absorption of funds and secure higher coherence and result/impact of the assistance.   

Option  2  -  “Amend  the  existing  Regulation”  with  regard  to  scope,  Components  structure 
and implementation arrangements. Three sub-options were considered: 

30 

Cf. Annex 1, Ex-ante Evaluation, Section 5 

EN 

24 

   EN 

 
                                                 
– 

– 

– 

Sub-option  2.1  -  "Reduce  scope  and  keep  implementation  arrangements”.  
Compared  with  option  1,  this  option  would  focus  on  ‘policy  activity’  where  the 
instrument  is  perceived  to  deliver  the  highest  EU  added  value,  i.e.  support  for  the 
necessary  legal  and  institutional  changes  needed  to  comply  with  the  Copenhagen 
criteria,  adoption  and  implementation  of  the  acquis  and  (where  accession  is 
foreseeable)  the  management  of  EU  Structural  and  Rural  Development  Funds.  The 
policy intervention would also give emphasis to interventions that influence attitudes 
towards  the  reforms  required  for  EU  membership.  On  the  other  hand  it  would  not 
commit any significant funds for co-financing public investments for socio-economic 
development.  The  latter  would  be  covered  by  the  beneficiary  countries  in 
conjunction  with  IFIs.  More  specifically,  this  policy  option  would  involve  a 
reduction in resources available for social and economic development and cohesion 
under Components I, III, IV and V compared with the option 1. The conditions and 
modalities for access to and delivery of the assistance would remain similar to those 
foreseen under option 1.  

This  option  would  target  only  partially  to  the  policy  objective  aimed  at  supporting 
economic and social development and reforms, and as option 1 it would not address 
any of the methodological objectives.   

Sub-option  2.2:  “Keep  the  Components  structure  and  add  more  focus  on 
investments”,  in  order  to  increase  the  socio-economic  impact  in  the  beneficiary 
countries  and  to  speed  up  their  preparation  for  managing  structural,  cohesion  and 
rural  development  funds.  The  EU  would  assume  a  catalytic  and  leadership  role 
amongst  donors.  This  option  would  include  a  stronger  emphasis  on  regional  needs 
than  the  option  1  does  and  would  involve  refining  and  extending  the  Western 
Balkans  Investment  Framework.  The  conditions  and  modalities  for  access  to  and 
delivery of the assistance would remain similar to those foreseen under option 1.  

This option would particularly aim at attaining economic and social development and 
reforms as well as regional and territorial cooperation, while not targeting the other 
policy  objectives  related  to  political  reforms  and  increased  beneficiary  countries' 
ability  to  assume  the  obligations  of  membership.  Methodological  objectives  would 
not be addressed.  

Sub-option 2.3: “Maintain the scope and adjust implementation arrangements”. 
Under  this  option  assistance  would  continue  to  target  both  compliance  with  the 
accession  criteria,  with  reinforced  emphasis  on  public  administration  reform  and 
other  horizontal  reform  requirements  of  the  public  sector,  and  support  for  socio-
economic  development.  In  addition,  it  would  focus  on  adjusting  aspects  of  the 
current  IPA  set-up  and  implementation  modalities  so  as  to  i)  improve  the  strategic 
orientation  and  results/impact  of  the  assistance,  ii)  address  the  need  for  flexibility 
resulting from the heterogeneity of beneficiary countries, iii) enhance absorption of 
funds  and  increase  further  the  efficiency  and  effectiveness  of  the  assistance,  while 
simplifying  its  operation  and  reducing  the  administrative  burden.  In  particular, 
adjustments would include:  

•  Un-differentiated  access  to  assistance  irrespective  of  candidate  or  potential 
candidate status, albeit with different scope or intensities, on the basis of actual 
needs  as  well  as  technical  and  administrative  capacity.  This  would  also  help 
increase preparedness for absorbing funds after accession.  

EN 

25 

   EN 

 
•  Streamlining  the  component  structure  around  principal  policy  areas, 
including  transition  process  and  capacity  building,  regional  development, 
employment, social inclusion and human resources development; agriculture and 
rural  development;  regional  and  territorial  cooperation.  Assistance  under  the 
policy  areas  will  support  beneficiary  countries  in  the  attainment  of  the  general 
and  specific  policy  objectives.  It  may  support,  inter  alia,  the  type  of  actions 
provided  for  under 
the  EU  structural,  cohesion,  agricultural  and  rural 
development  funds  as  well  as  policy  development  and  preparation  for  the 
implementation and management of those funds.  

•  Country  and  multi-country  strategies  spanning  the  period  2014-2020  and 
addressing  selectively  the  policy  areas,  covering  for  each  selected  area  all 
necessary institution building, acquis compliance and investment actions.  

•  More  systematic  multi-annual  programming  also  for  transition  and  capacity 
building  assistance,  supporting  the  effective  implementation  of  the  related 
strategies; 

•  Reinforced (co-)financing of agreed sector strategies (including through sector 
budget  support  based  on  effectively  targeted  conditionalities)  as  opposed  to 
individual  projects.  Project  support  or  other  implementation  modalities  (such  as 
dedicated  facilities)  would  remain  available  for  acquis  compliance,  when  not 
covered by overarching sector strategies.  

•  A more progressive, phased approach to management of financial assistance 
(from  management  by  the  Commission  to  management  by  the  beneficiary 
country,  with  or  without  ex-ante  controls  by  the  Commission),  depending  on 
status/perspective  for  accession,  sector/policy  area  of  assistance,  administrative, 
technical  and  management  capacity.  However,  the  creation  of  management 
structures and procedures mirroring those needed post-accession would continue 
to be the aim in relevant policy areas.  

•  Better linking the management of assistance to policy priorities as reflected in 
Progress Reports, the achievement of negotiation benchmarks or the track record 
the  Association  Agreements  (e.g.  opening  or  closing 
in 
benchmarks  for  negotiating  chapters  could  be  linked  to  the  progress  in 
implementing decentralised management under the corresponding policy area). 

implementing 

•  Financial  assistance  more  directly  conditional  on  improved  governance  and 
ownership by the beneficiary countries, and with elements of flexibility to cater 
for emerging needs and give incentives to improve performance.  

•  Possibility  to  shift  allocations  between  policy  areas  in  a  given  country  if, 
compared to conditions and indicators set in the country strategy, absorption of 
assistance is lower than planned; Possibility to carry over funds from one year 
to another, if foreseen by the new Financial Regulation.  

•  CBC  at  borders  between  beneficiary  countries  simplified  by  further  aligning 
programming  and  implementation  with  the  Structural  Funds  approach, 
mainly  by  allocating  EU  funds  per  programme,  without  breakdown  per 

EN 

26 

   EN 

 
participating  country,  and  by  designating  a  single  contracting  authority  per 
programme responsible for contracting and payments.  

•  More use of innovative financial instruments that could leverage more private 
funds;  exploiting  synergies  with  innovative  financial  instruments  developed  for 
the  internal  policies,  on  the  basis  of  a  coordinated  approach  to  and  coordinated 
rules  for  engaging  EU  budget  in  such  instruments.  An  increased  leveraging  of 
private  and  other  funds  would  also  help  reduce  the  gap  between  the  levels  of 
pre- and post-accession funds.  

•  Also  as  part  of  the  reinforced  direction  towards  sector-level  support,  increased 
cooperation  with  other  donors  and  international  and  other  financial 
institutions at strategic level, if appropriate agreeing on policy priorities and on 
a clearer division of labour;  

•  Continued  support  to  regional  programs/projects/bodies  (e.g.  the  Secretariat 
to  the  Energy  Community)  that  encourage  knowledge  and  experience  sharing, 
harmonisation of policies, agreement on joint priorities, building of mutual trust 
and enhance the effectiveness of policies e.g. in transport, energy, environment, 
climate change, statistics, fight against organised crime and migration issues.  

In addition to addressing all policy objectives as option 1, with a particular accent on 
public  administration  reform,  good  governance  and  investments  for  social  and 
economic development, this option would also address the methodological objectives 
identified  as  a  result  of  lessons  learned  from  implementation  of  past  pre-accession 
and transition assistance.    

Option 3: "Design a new instrument". This option was not analysed in detail. Pre-accession 
assistance underwent a major rationalization in 2006, when the existing financial instruments 
for  pre-accession  were  merged  into  IPA.  IPA  beneficiary  countries  will  have  invested 
considerable financial and human resources by 2013 to set up the structures and systems for 
implementation  of  financial  assistance  under  the  rules  and  procedures  of  the  current  IPA 
instrument.  The  post-2013  instrument  should  take  account  of  this  in  order  to  ensure  a 
seamless  move  to  the  new  period  without  jeopardizing  efforts  already  made.  Therefore,  all 
stakeholders  agreed  that  there  is  no  need  for  fundamental  changes  this  time  and  continuity 
should be sought. This option has therefore been excluded from the analysis of impacts. 

5. 

ANALYSIS OF IMPACTS

31

Irrespective of the option selected, the likely economic, social and environmental impacts of 
the  future  pre-accession  assistance  cannot  be  quantified  at  this  stage,  as  they  depend  on  the 
strategic and detailed operational choices for the interventions in each beneficiary country that 
are  determined  only  at  the  time  when  operational  implementation  programmes  are 
determined, largely based on input from those countries. Therefore the analysis below reflects 
assumptions made on the likely impacts of the different options. However, those assumptions 
can be considered reasonable in the light of the very nature of pre-accession assistance and the 
experience of past assistance in preparation for the 5th enlargement. As accession criteria are 

31 

Cf. Annex 1, Ex-ante Evaluation, Section 6 

EN 

27 

   EN 

 
  
                                                 
related i.a. to the attainment of levels of economic, social and environmental development and 
standards  corresponding  to  those  prevailing  in  the  EU,  and  as  pre-accession  assistance  is 
primarily aimed at supporting applicant countries in their efforts to comply with those criteria, 
it is reasonable to expect that any of the options envisaged would have positive impacts. How 
positive may however vary depending on the focus/scope of the assistance and the modalities 
for its delivery.  

5.1. 

Likely economic, social and environmental impacts of each of the options 

5.1.1.  Economic impacts 

The economic impact of the various options was assessed in terms of the likelihood that the 
options  would:  i)  delay  or  accelerate  enlargement  and  therefore  the  achievement  of  the 
positive  economic  impact  expected  to  arise  from  the  expansion  of  the  internal  market32,;  ii) 
maintain  or  reduce  costs  to  the  EU  and  Member  States  in  terms  of  security  measures  and 
risks,  border  controls  and  irregular  migration;  iii)  constrain  or  improve  the  possibilities  for 
better  economic  integration,  e.g.  through  improved  integration  with  the  Trans-European 
Networks;  iv)  affect  positively  or  negatively  the  confidence  of  donors  and  investors  in  the 
beneficiary countries.  

Option 1 'No change' – Compared to an hypothetical situation where no assistance would be 
in place, continuing with a financial instrument that is primarily aimed at assisting beneficiary 
countries  to  comply  with  the  political  and  economic  criteria  for  EU  accession,  align 
progressively with and adopt the acquis, have structures and systems in place for managing 
EU  funds  post-accession  and,  to  a  more  limited  extent,  reduce  the  gap  with  the  social  and 
economic  conditions  in  the  EU  would  contribute  to  anticipating  enlargement,  therefore 
anticipating also the potential economic impact of an expanded internal market. This option 
would also likely reduce the costs to the EU and Member States in terms of security measures 
and  risks,  border  controls  and  irregular  migration  as  a  result  of  technical  assistance  for 
capacity  building,  legislative  and  regulatory  approximation  in  areas  related  to  the  security, 
border controls and migration acquis, and thanks to the execution of the relevant works and 
the provision of the necessary equipment. Improvements in Trans-European Networks (TENs) 
resulting  from  transport  infrastructure  investments  co-funded  by  pre-accession  assistance 
would  improve  the  possibilities  for  better  economic  integration.  Continued  substantial  EU 
financial  assistance  would  favourably  affect  donors  and  investors  confidence  in  the 
beneficiary countries, favouring foreign investments in those countries. 

Sub-option  2.1  'Reduce  scope  and  keep  implementation  arrangements'  –  As  financial 
assistance  would  in  this  case  not  be  available  for  co-financing  public  investments  in  socio-
economic  development,  compared  to  option  1  the  large  gap  between  the  socio  economic 
conditions in the beneficiary countries and those in the EU would be likely to continue under 
this sub-option. As a result, enlargement would likely be delayed for some of the beneficiary 
countries,  as  they  might  be  motivated  to  maintain  their  competitiveness  through  e.g.  lower 
environmental and labour market standards, thus failing to meet important acquis-related pre-
conditions for accession. This would, in turn, delay the main economic impacts expected to 
arise  from  the  expansion  of  the  internal  market.  Continued  weaknesses  in  the  TENs  would 

32  

In case of enlargement to all the current IPA beneficiary countries, the economic impact is estimated to 
be  in  the  order  of  magnitude  of  EUR  5  billion  per  year  (assuming  a  similar  impact  as  observed 
following the fifth enlargement of 2004/2007) 

EN 

28 

   EN 

 
                                                 
constrain  the  possibilities  for  better  economic  integration.  On  the  other  hand,  similarly  as  it 
would  likely  be  the  case  under  option  1,  continued  EU  financial  assistance  supporting 
preparations for EU accession would favourably affect donors and investors confidence in the 
beneficiary countries, therefore favouring their investments in those countries. 

Sub-option 2.2 'Keep the component structure and put focus on investments' – Given the 
reinforced emphasis on investments for socio-economic development, this sub-option would 
help  reducing  the  large  gap  between  the  socio  economic  conditions  in  the  enlargement 
countries and those in the EU, therefore anticipating further the potential economic impact of 
an expanded internal market compared to option 1. This sub-option would also likely reduce 
further the costs to the EU and Member States in terms of security measures and risks, border 
controls  and  irregular  migration,  while  improving  even  further  than  under  option  1  the 
possibilities  for  better  economic  integration  following  greater  improvements  in  Trans-
European  Networks  as  can  be  expected  from  more  assistance  being  available  for 
infrastructure  investments.  However,  keeping  the  current  components  structure  would  not 
allow allocating EU funds flexibly to the sectors where investments are most needed or where 
the quality of projects preparation is the highest. There would be no additional incentives to 
increase administrative and technical capacity to speed up implementation.  

Sub-option 2.3 'Maintain scope and change implementation arrangements' – Under this 
option,  the  positive  economic  impact  resulting  from  maintaining  investments  for  socio-
economic  development  would  be  compounded  by  the  improved  strategic  and  results/impact 
orientation  of  the  assistance,  its  increased  flexibility  and  the  other  improvements  in  the 
delivery mechanisms and implementation arrangements aimed at increasing the efficiency and 
effectiveness  of  the  assistance  while  simplifying  its  operation.  In  addition,  the  reinforced 
emphasis  on  public  administration  reform  and  other  horizontal  reform  requirements  of  the 
public sector should reinforce the sustainability of results.  

5.1.2. 

Social impacts, including impacts on human rights 

The social impact of the various options was assessed in terms of the likely effect on poverty 
and  exclusion  in  the  enlargement  countries  linked  to  progress  towards  accession  and  the 
creation  of  conditions  for  improved  economic  performance  and  policy  measures  that  could 
address these issues. Likely effects in terms of risks that the rights in the area of justice and 
the rule of law could be jeopardised in the beneficiary countries as a consequence of delays in 
and risks to accession taking place were also considered.  

Option 1 – This option was seen as leading to a limited reduction of problems of poverty and 
exclusion  in  the  beneficiary  countries  compared  with  current  conditions.  Regular  progress 
towards accession would help create the conditions for improved economic performance and 
policy  measures  that  could  further  address  these  issues.  Risks  that  the  rights  in  the  area  of 
justice and the rule of law would be jeopardised in the beneficiary countries as a consequence 
of  delays  in  and  risks  to  accession  taking  place  would  likely  be  less,  compared  to  a 
hypothetical situation where no assistance would be in place. 

Sub-option 2.1 - This sub-option would not address the continuing problems of poverty and 
exclusion in the beneficiary countries other than through the indirect effect of continuing and 
regular  progress  towards  accession  for  creating  the  conditions  for  improved  economic 
performance and policy measures that could address these issues. As a consequence of delays 
in and risks to accession taking place, this sub-option was seen as bearing risks that the rights 
in the area of justice and the rule of law would be jeopardised in the beneficiary countries.   

EN 

29 

   EN 

 
Sub-option  2.2  -  The  increased  focus  on  socio-economic  development  should  help  tackle 
poverty  and  exclusion  issues.  Continuing,  regular  and  potentially  accelerated  progress 
towards accession should help create the conditions for improved economic performance and 
policy measures that could further address these issues. This option was assessed similarly to 
option 1 in terms of impacts on human rights.  

Sub-option 2.3 – The envisaged revisions to the implementation modalities of the assistance 
would  allow  for  speedier  and  more  efficient  implementation,  by  way  of  more  targeted  and 
more ambitious sector strategies, including active labour market and social inclusion policies. 
The  reinforced  emphasis  on  public  administration  reform  and  other  horizontal  reform 
requirements of the public sector should reinforce the sustainability of results. 

5.1.3.  Environmental impacts 

If enlargement was delayed or put at risk, it is assumed that environmental costs would likely 
accrue,  as  lower  environmental  standards  may  be  used  as  a  mechanism  for  generating 
competitive  advantages  in  the  beneficiary  countries,  or  in  any  case  implementation  of  the 
expensive investments needed to align with the EU environmental acquis (regarding e.g. air 
quality,  water  quality  and  distribution,  wastewater  and  waste  collection  and  treatment  etc.) 
would likely be delayed in the absence of co-funding from EU assistance and of the leverage 
effect that EU funds could bring on other donors and private sector funds.  

Option 1 –As this option entails a continuation of EU assistance addressing all the relevant 
policy objectives, it is expected to contribute to a speedier enlargement, therefore having also 
a positive environmental impact. This positive impact would be compounded by the fact that, 
as  it  is  already  the  case  under  the  current  IPA  instrument,  part  of  the  assistance  would 
continue  to  be  used  for  capacity  building,  legal  approximation  and  investments  in  the 
infrastructure  needed  for  compliance  with  the  environmental  acquis,  where  the  latter  is  one 
major chapter of accession negotiations and the environment sector is one of the three main 
sectors of assistance in the regional development area (Component III).  

Sub-option  2.1  –  By  no  longer  envisaging  investments  for  socio-economic  development, 
including  in  the  environment  sector,  the  positive  environmental  impacts  of  this  option  are 
expected  to  be  less  than  they  could  otherwise  be.  However  positive  impacts  would 
nevertheless  result  from  the  fact  that  technical  assistance  and  capacity  building  actions 
supporting  approximation  to  and  adoption  of  the  environmental  acquis  would  continue. 
Acquis  implementation  would  most  likely  be  affected,  as  it  implies  substantial  works  to 
upgrade the environmental infrastructure.  

Sub-option 2.2 – This option has the potential to incur high positive environmental impacts, 
if  some  of  the  additional  resources  made  available  to  investments  would  be  earmarked  for 
environmental  goods  and  services  with  a  view  to  achieving  some  EU  standards  prior  to 
accession. Achieving a number of these is indeed likely to incur high public sector investment 
costs.  

Sub-option 2.3 – Because of the improved focus, efficiency, effectiveness and impact of the 
assistance, including the use of more innovative financial instruments to leverage additional 
funds for infrastructure investments from other donors and the private sector, combined with 
continuing investments in the environmental sector among  other priority sectors, this option 
could  bring  about  very  positive  environmental  impacts.  Again,  the  reinforced  emphasis  on 

EN 

30 

   EN 

 
public  administration  reform  and  other  horizontal  reform  requirements  of  the  public  sector 
should reinforce the sustainability of results.  

5.2. 

Likely  impact  of  the  options  in  terms  of  simplification  and  reduction  of  the 
administrative burden 

Simplification  and  reduction  of  the  administrative  burden  are  linked  to  implementation 
arrangements. They are therefore expected to accrue more prominently in relation to option 
2.3.  This  option  pursues  simplification  primarily  by  streamlining  the  component  structure 
around principal policy areas. This translates into considerable simplification already at the 
level of the legislative framework of the instrument and the future implementing rules with a 
streamlining of provisions as to the scope, conditions for access to and implementation of the 
assistance. Linked to the streamlining of the components structure, undifferentiated access to 
assistance under each policy area will imply that beneficiary countries will no longer need to 
be identified separately in the legal basis of the instrument. As a result, it will no longer be 
necessary to go through a heavy procedure in order to reflect a beneficiary's change of status, 
reducing 
to  financial  assistance  and 
implementation  on  the  ground.  Similarly,  in  case  a  new  country  should  become  a  potential 
candidate for EU accession, the procedural requirements for including that country among the 
beneficiaries of the assistance would be considerably simplified.  

the  gap  between  political  decisions  related 

Different Commission services will remain responsible for managing the assistance aimed at 
the different policy areas. However, coordination, communication and implementation on the 
ground will be improved through simplification on a number of aspects, including closer joint 
monitoring  of  the  progress  of  implementation  in  the  beneficiary  countries  and  a  reduced 
number  of  accreditation  processes  for  conferring  management  powers  to  horizontal 
management  structures  in  the  beneficiary  countries  (i.e.  Operating  Structures,  the  National 
Fund,  the  Audit  Authority).  Increased  coherence  of  the  action  of  the  Commission  under 
option  2.3  should  also  substantially  reduce  the  cost  and  burden  of  coordination  incurred  by 
beneficiary  countries,  related  the  different  communication  channels  and  procedures  used  by 
the Commission. 

Option 2.3 envisages also that strategic decisions on the allocation of the assistance are made 
through  comprehensive  country  and  multi-country  multi-annual  strategies  covering  the  full 
period of the new financial framework (2014-2020) and reviewed once at mid-term, replacing 
the current system of three-year rolling indicative planning documents revised each year. This 
will reduce for all stakeholders involved the administrative burden related to the yearly review 
of  each  document  and  possible  ensuing  revisions.  Similarly,  less  administration  for  all  and 
quicker  delivery  of  the  assistance  will  follow  from  introducing  multi-annual  programming 
also for transition and capacity-building assistance.  

More  simplification  under  option  2.3  should  result  also  from  introducing,  for  those  sectors 
where the conditions for it will be in place, a sector-based approach to the allocation of the 
assistance. In addition to favouring improved effectiveness and impact of the assistance, this 
approach  could  translate  into  a  lower  number  of  bigger  projects/contracts  being  funded, 
therefore  a  reduced  administrative  burden  related  to  project/contract  management.  If 
conditions  allow,  the  sector  approach  could  also  entail  the  use  of  budget  support,  again 
reducing the related administrative burden compared to project support.  

Detailed  provisions  on  joint  monitoring  and  the  accreditation  processes  will  be  provided  in 
separate implementing rules. Those rules will pursue also further simplification in relation to 

EN 

31 

   EN 

 
cross-border  cooperation  between  candidate  countries  and  potential  candidates,  by  further 
aligning programming and implementation with the Structural Funds approach.  

Additionally,  simplification  of  the  management  and  implementation  of  the  assistance  will 
follow from aligning with the relevant provisions of the new Financial Regulation.  

6. 

COMPARING THE OPTIONS  

6.1.  Weighing of positive and negative impacts per option 

Option 1 would maintain EU financial commitment to the enlargement process. Continuing 
with a strong focus on accession criteria would be to build on IPA's greatest strength. Adding 
some  support  to  public  investment  would  help  accession  countries  to  meet  some  especially 
urgent needs and would raise the profile of the assistance. In addition, it would allow the EU 
to  further  support  innovative  financing  arrangements  already  set  up  with  the  International 
Financial  Institutions,  where  IPA  funds  act  as  a  catalyst  for  greater  investment,  leveraging 
loans  from  IFIs  for  investment  in  infrastructure  in  the  region.  All  this  would  generate  a 
positive  signal  to  beneficiary  countries  and  reinforce  the  EU  commitment  to  enlargement. 
This should be reflected in the beneficiary countries’ commitment to undertake the necessary 
reforms. The realisation of the anticipated benefits of enlargement should take place within a 
reasonable  timeframe.  However,  because  of  unchanged  implementation  arrangements,  this 
option  could  be  associated  with  circumstances  where  resources  are  not  used  optimally 
because beneficiary countries would be required to create systems mirroring those in the EU 
for  the  implementation  of  post-accession  EU  funds  even  where  those  systems  will  not  be 
required in the foreseeable future. Part of the resources would also not be available to some of 
the  beneficiaries  although  the  needs  might  be  there  for  using  them.  The  coherence33  of  the 
assistance  may  also  be  affected  by  keeping  the  assistance  separated  into  five  different 
Components.  'Continuation'  in  scope  and  implementation  modalities  might  also  send  the 
message  that  the  new  instrument  has  not  taken  on  board  the  lessons  learned  from  its 
predecessor.  

Sub-option  2.1  would  limit  the  scope  of  the  EU  financial  commitment  to  the  enlargement 
process  stricto  sensu  with  the  likely  consequence  of  delays  to  enlargement  and  to  the 
realisation  of  its  anticipated  benefits.  However,  this  sub-option  would  focus  resources  on 
where the EU is perceived to add most value and be most effective34. The meta evaluation of 
the existing instrument judged that the effectiveness of the current instrument was strongest in 
acquis related areas, and it found that IPA projects were generally well targeted on accession 
requirements.  However,  focusing  only  on  legal  and  institutional  changes  would  deprive 
beneficiary countries of direct support for their socio-economic development, which is also a 
pre-requisite for helping the beneficiary countries meet the economic criteria and generate the 

33 Coherence means possibilities to create synergies in terms of programming and delivery towards achieving the 
agreed  objectives  and  to  avoid  negative  consequences  and  overlaps  which  would  adversely  affect  the 
implementation of the policies.  

34 Effectiveness means doing the right things, that is setting the right goals and objectives and making sure they 
are accomplished. 

EN 

32 

   EN 

 
                                                 
 
income  necessary  to  cover  the  cost  of  the  preparations  for  membership.  In  particular,  there 
would be no further EU contributions leveraging capital inflows from IFIs and other donors, 
thus  limiting  the  efficiency35  of  the  assistance.  The  price  to  be  paid  for  a  reduced  scope  of 
financial  assistance  would  be  a  prolongation  of  the  period  of  preparation  for  membership. 
This could mean that no savings are made if the amounts allocated over the full period until 
the completion of the accession negotiations are cumulated. Furthermore, financial assistance 
provided to applicant countries produces advantages for the EU and creates opportunities for 
the businesses in the current Member States. These opportunities would be reduced under this 
sub-option.  

The meta evaluation of IPA showed that beneficiary countries financial needs, particularly for 
infrastructure,  clearly  exceed  available  IPA  (and  other  donors')  funding.  Sub-option  2.2 
would  increase  EU  financial  commitment  to  socio-economic  development.  This  would  help 
accession  countries  especially  in  working  towards  the  Copenhagen  economic  criteria  which 
require candidates to have the ability to cope with the pressure of competition and the market 
forces at work inside the Union. It would send to beneficiary countries a positive signal of a 
reinforced  EU  commitment  to  Enlargement,  which  in  turn  should  be  reflected  in  the 
beneficiary countries’ commitment to undertake the necessary reforms. The realisation of the 
anticipated benefits of enlargement might take place more quickly as compared with option 1. 
Some  of  the  expenditure  would  be  on  infrastructure  that  would  also  assist  economic 
integration  in  the  region.  However,  by  keeping  the  current  components  structure,  a  flexible 
and  efficient  allocation  of  EU  funds  to  the  sectors  where  investments  are  most  needed  or 
where the quality of projects preparation is highest would be difficult to achieve.  

Sub-option 2.3 would be comparable to option 1 in terms of the benefits of continuing with 
the  current  scope  of  pre-accession  assistance.  In  addition,  by  reinforcing  the  emphasis  on 
public  administration  reform  and  other  horizontal  reform  requirements  of  the  public  sector 
and  by  simplifying  further  the  structure  of  the  instrument  and  adjusting  its  implementation 
modalities  to  make  it  more  strategic,  result-oriented,  flexible  and  tailor-made  to  needs,  this 
option  would  allow  for  a  more  coherent,  efficient,  effective  and  sustainable  use  of  EU 
resources compared to the other options.  

The  following  table  provides  a  comparison  of  the  options  described  above  with  regard  to 
efficiency, effectiveness, coherence and how they would influence the underlying drivers of 
the problem that they would address: 

Negative or very negative impact: 
Neutral impact: 
Positive or very positive impact: 

- or -- 
0 
+ or ++ 

Effect on the underlying driver of 
the problem 

Option 1 
(no change) 

Option 2.1 
(reduced 
scope) 

Option 2.2 
(focus on 
investments) 

Option 2.3 
(adjust 
implementation 
arrangements) 

35 Efficiency means doing things right, in other words it is getting the most from EU resources. This encompasses 
organisational aspects and the gains from the simplification of the instruments. 

EN 

33 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
 
Efficiency 
Effectiveness 
Coherence 
i.  Reduced development gap 
ii. Reinforced institutions 
iii. Addresses heterogeneity 
iv. Assistance becomes more: 

strategic and result oriented 
flexible and tailor-made 
simplified, efficient, effective  

- 
0 
- 
+ 
+ 
0 

0 
0 
0 

- 
+ 
- 
- 
++ 
0 

+ 
0 
0 

- 
+ 
- 
++ 
0 
+ 

+ 
0 
0 

++ 
++ 
++ 
+ 
++ 
++ 

+ 
+ 
+ 

6.2. 

Preferred option 

On  balance,  sub-option  2.3  “Maintain  scope  and  change  implementation  arrangements” 
emerged clearly as the preferred option.  

7. 

MONITORING AND EVALUATION  

7.1. 

Core indicators of progress towards objectives  

Progress towards the specific objectives of the new instrument can be assessed through three 
main macro-indicators:  

• 

• 

• 

Progress toward meeting the accession benchmarks (chapters opened/closed) or 
positive  track  record  in  implementing  the  Association  Agreements  as  reflected 
i.a.  by  positive  Progress  Reports,  survey-based  indices  compiled  by  reputable 
international  organisations  for  areas  such  as  government  effectiveness;  political 
stability and absence of violence; the rule of law;  

Socio-economic  evolution,  as  measured  by  impact  indicators  such  as  the  UNDP's 
human development index as a general measure of prosperity; unemployment rates; 
foreign direct investment inflows; trade balances 

Regional  cooperation  and  integration,  as  measured  by  survey-based  indices 
reflecting  perceptions  on  the  level  (trend)  of  security  and  stability;  political, 
economic and cultural interactions, as well as by measures reflecting the integration 
of Trans European Networks.  

The ex-ante evaluation has also highlighted the need to provide detailed guidance and to build 
capacities in the beneficiary countries to systematically collect the requisite data that will be 
needed  to  assess  progress  at  the  operational  level.  Previous  enlargements  have  led  to 
increased priority being given to programme  level  monitoring and evaluation  and ‘evidence 
based’  policy  making  in  new  Member  States.  Shifts  towards  resource  allocations  based  on 
performance  and  meeting  conditions  as  well  as  needs  should  also  encourage  a  similar 
tendency amongst candidate countries and potential candidates.  

The EU has committed itself to mainstreaming action on climate and biodiversity and for this 
to be meaningful it needs to be accompanied by an obligation to identify relevant programmes 
so  that  the  EU  is  able  to  set  out  clearly  how  much  of  its  spending  relates  to  these  global 

EN 

34 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
challenges.  Clear  benchmarks,  monitoring  and  reporting  rules  need  to  be  established. 
Expenditure that promotes climate action36 or energy efficiency as well as the protection and 
sustainable management of biodiversity and ecosystems, will be tracked using a system that 
reflects  the  established  Organisation  for  Economic  Cooperation  and  Development  (OECD) 
methodology ("Rio markers"). 

Future monitoring and evaluations will have to take into account that: 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

Results  and  impacts  will  vary  across  beneficiary  countries,  given  their  differences 
and the varying needs and positions on the ‘path to accession’;  

Because  the  new  instrument  will  continue  to  operate  alongside  the  political 
negotiation  process  and  other  interventions  with  a  bearing  on  accession,  it  will  be 
difficult to identify progress resulting exclusively from the instrument, except at the 
level of specific activities;  

Many  of  the  ‘results’  of  the  future  programme  –  such  as  progress  in  meeting  the 
political criteria for accession - will be by their nature difficult to measure;  

To some extent the objectives of the instrument may be achieved through the status 
conferred  on  the  beneficiary  as  much  as  through  the  results  of  the  EU  financial 
interventions;  

Given  the  difficult  context  for  evaluation,  the  relative  weight  of  absorption  as  a 
measure for assessing progress should not be overestimated. 

7.2. 

Outline for monitoring and evaluation arrangements  

Under  the  selected  option,  monitoring  and  evaluation  arrangements  will  be  reinforced  in 
comparison to the current situation. The proposed changes will improve the focus on results. 
They  will  -  as  called  for  by  the  budget  review  -  provide  for  the  definition  of  specific, 
measurable, achievable objectives as well as for appropriate indicators.  

The  European  Commission's  Monitoring  and  Evaluation  systems  are  already  increasingly 
focussed on results. They involve internal staff as well as external expertise. Task managers in 
EU Delegations and at Headquarters continuously monitor the implementation of projects and 
programmes  in  various  ways,  including  wherever  possible  through  field  visits.  Monitoring 
provides valuable information on progress, it helps managers to identify actual and potential 
bottlenecks and to take timely corrective action where appropriate. 

In  addition,  external,  independent  experts  are  contracted  to  assess  the  performance  of  EU 
external  actions  through  various  complementary  systems.  These  assessments  contribute  to 
accountability and to the improvement of ongoing interventions; they also draw lessons from 
past  experience  to  inform  future  policies  and  actions.  The  tools  used  are  in  line  with 
internationally-recognised OECD-DAC evaluation criteria including (potential) impact. 

36

Regarding instruments under the EU budget, in order to reach the Europe 2020 objectives and to help 
other parts of the world to step up their efforts to combat climate change, the Commission has stated in 
the June 2011 Communication on “A Budget for Europe 2020” that it intends to increase the proportion 
of  climate  related  expenditure  across  the  EU  budget  to  at  least  20%,  with  contribution  from  different 
policies, subject to impact assessment evidence. 

EN 

35 

   EN 

 
                                                 
 
The  Commission  also  supports  beneficiary  countries  to  build  their  own  capacity  to  monitor 
and evaluate spending. Under the new instrument, responsibility on monitoring and evaluation 
will  be  further  delegated  to  beneficiary  countries.  In  particular,  where  the  Commission 
manages  the  assistance  on  behalf  of  the  beneficiary,  the  Commission  will  retain  primary 
responsibility for monitoring and evaluation. On the other hand, where beneficiary countries 
manage  the  assistance  under  their  own  responsibility  (decentralised  management)  the 
Commission will have a mainly supervisory role (apart from ex-ante and ex-post evaluations), 
and primary responsibility will rest with the beneficiary. 

Project  level  monitoring  reports  on  the  progress  against  plans,  particularly  concerning:  (i) 
contracting/grant awards and (ii) delivery of outputs. Task managers are also supported by the 
Results Oriented Monitoring (ROM) system which provides a focused snapshot of the quality 
of  a  sample  of  interventions.  Using  a  highly  structured,  standardised  methodology, 
independent  ROM  experts  attribute  grades  which  highlight  the  strengths  and  weaknesses  of 
the project and give recommendations on how to improve effectiveness.  

In  addition  to  monitoring,  project-level  evaluations  may  also  be  undertaken  under  the 
management  of  EU  Delegation  or  the  operational  services  in  charge  of  the  project.  Project 
level evaluations are intended to complement existing monitoring systems and should provide 
a more detailed in depth analysis. They should also help project managers to improve ongoing 
interventions or to confirm their results and sustainability.  

At  sector  and  programme  level,  monitoring  committees  co-chaired  by  beneficiary  countries 
and the Commission provide the structure to assess progress against plans. These committees 
are  supported  by  the  findings  of  both  monitoring  reports  and  evaluations.  Under  the  new 
instrument,  the  role  of  monitoring  committees  will  be  strengthened  for  both  candidate 
countries  and  potential  candidates,  to  ensure  that  the  implementation  of  the  financial 
assistance  properly  feeds  into  the  policy  dialogue  and  that  committees'  conclusions  and 
recommendations are more systematically complied with and followed up.  

Evaluations  at  a  level  higher  than  project  (sector,  programme,  strategic,  thematic,  etc)  are 
mostly  managed  by  the  Commission  services.  Some  evaluations,  in  particular  interim 
evaluations  intended  to  support  the  decision  making  process,  are  progressively  delegated  to 
beneficiary countries for ownership and capacity building purposes.  

The  results  of  evaluations  or  summary  findings  are  regularly  communicated  to  the  IPA 
Committee,  to  the  Council  and  the  European  Parliament  as  part  of  the  IPA  Annual  Report, 
and are published on the Commission's website. 

EN 

36 

   EN