COMMISSION STAFF WORKING PAPER EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Date: 2011-12-07
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU financial instrument, European cooperation, democratisation, fundamental rights, human rights, rule of law

EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Brussels, 7.12.2011 
SEC(2011) 1479 final 

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING PAPER 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT 

Accompanying the document 

REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL 

establishing a financing instrument for the promotion of democracy and human rights 
worldwide 

{COM(2011) 844 final} 
{SEC(2011) 1478 final} 

 
 
 
 
  
 
1. 

PROBLEM DEFINITION  

Human  rights  are  universal  and  indivisible.  The  European  Union  therefore  actively 
promotes  and  defends  them  both  within  its  borders  and  in  its  relations  with  third 
countries, living up to its commitments under the EU Fundamental Rights Charter and the 
Universal Declaration of Human Rights and in line with the Treaty mandates under Art. 2 
and 21 TEU. They are also integral to effective work on poverty alleviation and conflict 
prevention and resolution. 

The  European  Instrument  for  Democracy  and  Human  Rights  (EIDHR)  is  the  concrete 
expression of the EU’s commitment to promote and support democracy and human rights 
worldwide and a key element of the EU’s wide-ranging toolbox of policy instruments to 
this  effect.  Therefore,  maintaining  for  the  period  2014-2020  a  self-standing,  dedicated 
democracy  and  human  rights  instrument  remains  essential,  as  else  EU’s  capacity  of 
promoting  and  supporting  these  values  worldwide  in  a  concrete  and  tangible  manner 
would be seriously jeopardized and the EU’s international profile negatively affected. 

Moreover,  the  large  number  of  country  situations  where  basic  rights  and  freedoms 
continue to be violated and repressed, as well as the need and interest to back emerging 
democracies and trends towards greater respect for human rights, not least in the wake of 
the Arab Spring, makes it even more important for the EU to maintain a specific capacity 
of  action  with  improved  delivery  mechanisms  to  support  democracy  and  human  rights 
worldwide. 

Launched in 2007, and endowed with an annual budget of approximately € 157 million a 
year,  the  EIDHR  is  currently  funding  more  than  1200  projects  in  over  100  countries. 
Despite  difficult  operational  contexts  and  constraints  linked  to  the  nature  of  the 
instrument and the often complex environments in which it operates, concrete results and 
success stories exist in numbers, supported by a large number of evaluations and reviews. 

While the comparative advantage of the EIDHR as such does not seem controversial at 
EU level, it is essential to base the future instrument on lessons learnt. This implies, on 
the  one  hand,  to  keep  the  proven  added  values  and  recognised  working  principles  and 
specificities of the EIDHR. It also implies, on the other hand, to introduce amendments 
and changes to the delivery mechanisms of the instrument, in order to further improve its 
reactivity, its flexibility and impact on the ground. 

2. 

ANALYSIS OF SUBSIDIARITY  

On the background of its own accomplishments in conflict solution, peace building and 
prosperity  creation,  the  EU  would  seem  to  be  in  an  excellent  position  to  deliver  on 
external  action,  on  behalf  of  and  with  its  Member  States,  generally  enjoying  high 
credibility  in  the  countries  where  it  works  in.  With  27  Member  States  acting  with 
common  policies  and  strategies,  the  EU  has  a  critical  weight  to  respond  to  global 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
challenges. The EU is well placed to take on the role of a global leader on behalf of its 
citizens, in particular in its support and promotion of democracy and human rights. 

3. 

OBJECTIVES OF EU INITIATIVE 

The goal pursued by the EIDHR is to contribute to the development and consolidation of 
democracy and the rule of law and to promoting respect for fundamental freedoms and all 
human  rights,  within  the  overall  framework  of  the  EU’s  policy  on  development 
cooperation  and  economic,  financial  and  technical  cooperation  with  third  countries  and 
consistent with the EU’s foreign policy and external action as a whole. This objective is 
to be maintained. It is deemed important to maintain the EIDHR’s added values which lie 
in  its  complementarity:  Its  independence  of  action  allows  it  to  intervene  in  the  most 
difficult country situations (worldwide) without consent of the host government, creating 
synergies and complementarity where geographical instruments could not act. 

• 

• 

• 

It allows for unique actions not covered by other instruments, such as in cases of 
serious  human  rights  violations  or  urgent  protection  need,  thematic  advocacy 
such  as  the  fight  against  torture,  death  penalty  or  discrimination,  election 
observation, support to the International Criminal Court (ICC), etc. 

While limited in financial scope, its flexible tools have worked very well and are 
essential  (e.g.  direct  support  to  human  rights  defenders,  direct  small  grants, 
working with informal partners, re-granting). 

A  pragmatic  combination  of  targeted  projects  and  calls  for  proposals, 
management by both HQ and Delegations, global, regional and local actions, has 
allowed  maintaining  a  largely  comprehensive  and  coherent  implementation 
involving  all  actors:  civil  society  (main  target)  as  well  as  international  and 
regional organisations. 

The revised Instrument should also address the following challenges identified in light of 
lessons learnt and its flexibility should be enhanced: 

• 

• 

• 

Broadly  defined  objectives  and  strategies  have  caused  some  degree  of 
fragmentation  of  approaches  and  lack  of  legibility  of  the  Instrument,  creating 
risks of duplication, difficulties in measuring its impact and a certain weakening 
of the complementarity; thus the need for making the Instrument more process 
oriented 

Limited  budget  considering  the  vast  geographical  and  thematic  scope  with  the 
result  that  qualitatively  acceptable,  yet  unsatisfied  requests  represent  2-3  times 
more  than  the  funding  capacity  allows  to  cover,  proving  a  high  relevant 
absorption capacity. 

Necessity  to  further  increase  the  flexibility  of  the  Instrument  to  enhance  its 
reactivity in serious and urgent situations of human rights violations or threats, 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
applying a similar methodology for a limited part of the budget as used under the 
Instrument  for  Stability  and  the  Humanitarian  Aid  and  Civil  Protection 
Regulations. 

4. 

POLICY OPTIONS  

Discontinuing  the  EIDHR  (option  0)  as  well  as  maintaining  the  EIDHR  without  any 
amendment (option 1) were the first options considered. 

Option  2  would  consist  of  building  a  better  enabling  regulation  entailing  the  following 
five components: 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

Establishing  a  process  oriented  tool  focusing  on  four  different  windows:  (i) 
thematic  campaigns  and  addressing  serious  violations  of  rights  as  well  as 
providing  core  support  to  key  actors  and  related  civic  education,  (ii)  targeted 
support  to  the  development  of  thriving  civil  societies,  (iii)  reinforced  capacity 
for  the  EU  to  be  able  to  react  quickly  to  human  rights  urgencies  and 
establishment of a comprehensive EU Human Rights Defender mechanism, (iv) 
strengthened  and  better  integrated  approach  to  democratic  cycles  through 
election  observation  and  other  types  of  support  to  democratic  and  electoral 
processes. 

Maintaining the insertion of EU Election Observation Missions (EOMs). 

Maintaining the exclusion of political parties. 

Further untying. 

Adding new flexibilities for most difficult countries/situations. 

5. 

ASSESSMENT OF IMPACTS  

Many stakeholders would view the option 0 (no regulation) as a renouncement by the EU 
of promoting its own core values and relevant international standards. It would certainly 
have  a  very  negative  impact  in  terms  of  the  EU’s  image  both  at  home  and  on  the 
international scene. While the option 1 (no change) will allow for the existing economies 
of  scale  of  a  self-standing  instrument,  it  will  miss  those  resulting  from  the  proposed 
rationalisation  of  the  process  and  its  improved  rapidity  through  additional  flexibility, 
which would be rendered possible under option 2 (enabling regulation). Indeed, a faster 
and more reactive mechanism can make a difference when saving the life of a victim is a 
question of days or even hours. Option 2 would also allow to better impact on the other 
policies  and  reduce  transaction  costs  since  the  revised  EIDHR  would  benefit  from 
enhanced flexibility. 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
6. 

COMPARISON OF OPTIONS  

Option 0 (no regulation) will integrate Human Rights activities within other instruments 
as  a  positive  sign  of  mainstreaming.  Nevertheless,  the  suppression  of  a  self  standing 
instrument will suppress specific working principles, such as the absence consent of the 
host country, there for impeding most activities and reduce the delivery to easiest or show 
case  activities.  It  will  lower  efficiency  of  operational  delivery  and  create  a  strong 
visibility problem. 

Option  1  (no  change)  maintains  the  key  elements  of  an  EIDHR  added  value  i.e.  its 
working  principles.  It  will  allow  benefiting  from  a  rolling  experience  and  helping 
outreach  through  a  cumulative  identification  over  the  year.  It  will  avoid  cost  of  reform 
and focus on day to day improvements. On the other hand, it will not allow addressing 
the identified drivers of problem in a structural manner. 

Option  2  (enabling  regulation)  will  keep  the  existing  added  values,  but  in  addition  will 
allow  for  faster  reactivity,  in  particular  in  cases  of  serious  human  rights  violations  and 
cases  of  urgency.  It  is  nevertheless  important  that  the  Instrument  remains  involved  in 
long term support and in depth activities that have grass root level impact and a lasting 
effect  and  does  not  focus  exclusively  on  day  to  day  crisis  management.  Increased 
coordination with Humanitarian Aid and Civil Protection and the Instrument for Stability 
will have to be set up. This option would thus be chosen knowing that the EIDHR would 
benefit from an increased budget. 

7. 

MONITORING AND EVALUATION  

The  EIDHR  would  be  structured  around  the  four  axes  of  work  mentioned  under 
paragraph 4. The following indicators would be used: 

i) 

ii) 

iii) 

iv) 

v) 

vi) 

vii) 

Number  of  campaigns  launched,  including  number  of  advocacies,  number  of 
international conventions ratification, number of specific field operations, 

Number of citizens, professionals and students trained, 

Number of key actors supported, 

Number of civil society project conducted, at global and at local level, 

Number of Human Rights Defender cases followed, 

Number of project in most difficult countries and situations, 

Number  of  electoral  process  and  democratic  cycles  supported,  observed,  and 
followed. 

EN 

5 

   EN