COMMISSION STAFF WORKING PAPER IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Date: 2011-12-07
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: ACP countries, Cotonou Agreement, EU financing, development aid, foreign aid, overseas countries and territories, poverty

EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Brussels, 7.12.2011 
SEC(2011) 1459 final 

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING PAPER 

IMPACT ASSESSMENT 

Accompanying the document 

COMMUNICATION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL 

Preparation of the multiannual financial framework regarding the financing of 
EU_cooperation for_African, Caribbean and Pacific States and Overseas Countries and 
Territories_for the 2014-2020 period_(11th European Development Fund)__and 
covering the subsequent implementing and financiel regulations of the 11th European 
Development Fund (EDF) 

{COM(2011) 837 final} 
{SEC(2011) 1460 final} 

 
 
 
 
  
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

1. 

1.1. 

1.2. 

1.3. 

2. 

2.1. 

2.2. 

2.3. 

2.4. 

Procedural issues and consultation of interested parties.............................................. 5 

Organisation and timing............................................................................................... 5 

Consultation and expertise (public and internal) ......................................................... 5 

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

Problem definition ....................................................................................................... 7 

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

Lessons learnt: review of consultations, studies and evaluation reports ..................... 9 

The underlying drivers of the problem: ..................................................................... 12 

Legal basis for EU action and policy framework ...................................................... 13 

2.4.1.  Legal basis ................................................................................................................. 13 

2.4.2.  Policy framework ....................................................................................................... 14 

2.5. 

EU Value Added ........................................................................................................ 15 

3. 

Objectives .................................................................................................................. 17 

3.1. 

Objectives .................................................................................................................. 17 

3.1.1.  General objectives of the 11th EDF........................................................................... 17 

3.1.2. 

Specific objectives for the revision of the instrument ................................................ 17 

3.2. 

3.3. 

4. 

Consistency with external action priorities................................................................ 18 

Consistency with other EU policies........................................................................... 19 

Policy options............................................................................................................. 19 

4.1. 

Differentiation............................................................................................................ 20 

4.1.1. 

Status quo option........................................................................................................ 20 

4.1.2.  Alternative option: allow more differentiation between ACP States and OCTs........ 20 

4.2. 

Concentration of EU development cooperation activities ......................................... 21 

4.2.1. 

Status quo option........................................................................................................ 21 

4.2.2.  Alternative option: allow more concentration of EU cooperation activities............. 22 

4.3. 

Coordination with EU Member States ....................................................................... 23 

4.3.1. 

Status quo option........................................................................................................ 23 

4.3.2.  Alternative option: allow more coordination with EU Member States ..................... 23 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
4.4. 

Innovative financial instruments................................................................................ 24 

4.4.1. 

Status quo option........................................................................................................ 24 

4.4.2.  Alternative option: allow an increased use of innovative financial instruments....... 24 

4.5. 

Flexibility................................................................................................................... 25 

4.5.1. 

Status quo option........................................................................................................ 25 

4.5.2.  Alternative option: increase flexibility within the EDF............................................. 26 

4.6. 

Stimulate regional cooperation with OCTs................................................................ 28 

4.6.1. 

Status quo option........................................................................................................ 28 

4.6.2.  Alternative option: Link regional cooperation resources to the use of existing regional 
cooperation schemes with ACPs and Outermost Regions ......................................... 28 

5. 

Analysis of impacts.................................................................................................... 29 

5.1. 

Differentiation............................................................................................................ 30 

5.1.1. 

Status quo option........................................................................................................ 30 

5.1.2.  Alternative option: allow more differentiation between ACP Countries and OCTs . 30 

5.2. 

Concentration of EU cooperation activities ............................................................... 32 

5.2.1. 

Status quo option........................................................................................................ 32 

5.2.2.  Alternative option: allow more concentration of EU cooperation activities............. 32 

5.3. 

Coordination with EU Member States ....................................................................... 33 

5.3.1. 

Status quo option........................................................................................................ 33 

5.3.2.  Alternative option: allow more coordination with EU Member States ..................... 33 

5.4. 

Innovative financial instruments................................................................................ 34 

5.4.1. 

Status quo option........................................................................................................ 34 

5.4.2.  Alternative option: allow an increased use of innovative financial instruments....... 35 

5.5. 

Flexibility................................................................................................................... 36 

5.5.1. 

Status quo option........................................................................................................ 36 

5.5.2.  Alternative option: increase flexibility within the EDF............................................. 36 

5.6. 

Stimulate regional cooperation with OCTs................................................................ 39 

5.6.1. 

Status quo option........................................................................................................ 39 

5.6.2.  Alternative option: Link regional cooperation resources to the use of existing regional 
cooperation schemes with ACPs and Outermost Regions ......................................... 40 

6. 

Comparing the options............................................................................................... 40 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
6.1.  Weighing of positive and negative impacts per option.............................................. 40 

6.2. 

Preferred option ......................................................................................................... 42 

7. 

7.1. 

7.2. 

Monitoring and evaluation......................................................................................... 43 

Core indicators of progress towards objectives ......................................................... 43 

Outline for monitoring and evaluation arrangements ................................................ 43 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
1.  PROCEDURAL ISSUES AND CONSULTATION OF INTERESTED PARTIES  

1.1.  Organisation and timing 

The preparation of the 11th European Development Fund (EDF) entails specificities compared to 
the preparation of the EU regulations for the other EU financial instruments for external action, 
because it is linked to the Cotonou Agreement, a legally binding Treaty between the EU and ACP 
(African, Caribbean and Pacific) countries on the one hand and the Lisbon Treaty and a specific 
Overseas  Association  Decision  with  OCTs  (Overseas  Countries  and  Territories)  on  the  other 
hand.  Moreover, the EDF is outside the EU budget. Therefore for the EDF the following legal 
texts  are  covered  by  the  impact  assessment:  the  internal  agreement  between  Representatives  of 
the  Governments  of  the  Member  States,  the  implementing  regulations  and  the  financial 
regulations.  

The  drafting  of  the  Impact  Assessment  for  the  EU  external  action  instruments  for  the  period 
2014-2020,  including  this  document1,  has  been  coordinated  by  a  Task  Force  composed  by 
services  in  charge  of  EU  external  action  and  the  Legal  Service.  The  drafting  teams  have  duly 
taken into consideration the consultations, reviews and studies mentioned in Section 2 and have 
liaised  with  other  Commission  services  to  ensure  consistency  with  other  EU  policies.  The 
European Investment Bank (EIB) was also consulted. The Task Force has met with the drafting 
team  in  charge  of  this  Impact  Assessment  on  7  June,  1  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 has met twice, on 13 and 26 July 2011.  

The  review  of  this  Impact  Assessment  by  the  Impact  Assessment  Board  is  scheduled  for  14 
September 2011. 

1.2.  Consultation and expertise (public and internal) 

The Commission held a public consultation on future funding for EU external action between 
26 November 2010 and 31 January 2011, based on a questionnaire accompanied by a background 
paper 'What funding for EU external action after 2013?' prepared with EEAS services. The 220 
contributions received reflect the broad range and the variety of structures, views and traditions 
characterising the external action community. The main lessons learnt from this consultation are: 

Around 70% of the respondents underlined that EU financial intervention provides a substantial 
added  value  in  the  main  policy  areas  supported  through  EU  financial  instruments  for  external 
action  and  that  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 the economies of scale.  

92%  supported  a  more  differentiated  approach,  tailored  to  the  situation  of  the  beneficiary 
country, based on sound criteria and efficient data collection, as a way to increase the impact of 
EU financial instruments.  

A  large  majority  supported  an  increased  conditionality  based  on  the  beneficiary  country's 
respect  for  human  rights,  minorities,  good  governance  and  diversity  of  cultural  expressions 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
 
(78%),  or  on  the  quality  of  its  policies  and  of  its  ability  and  willingness  to  implement  sound 
policies (63%).  

A majority of respondents agreed that joint programming*(for asterisks see glossary in annex 
II)  and  co-financing  with  Member  States  could  increase  the  impact  and  the  coherence  of  EU 
external action, simplify the delivery of aid and reduce overall transaction costs. Many stressed, 
however, that it should not imply heavier administrative requirements. A majority approved the 
idea of anchoring joint programming* and division of labour in a piece of EU legislation. 

A majority of respondents supported the reinforcement of cooperation with European Member 
States  as  well  as  with  European  and  international  financial  institutions,  while  a  significant 
number  of  respondents  called  for  caution  regarding  the  objectives  and  expected  impact  of 
blending, the implementation modalities and the threat of loss of control and visibility for the EU.  

Many respondents proposed increased flexibility margins within EU external action as a whole, 
to facilitate resource mobilisation to tackle disasters or global crises. Increased flexibility of the 
geographic limits of EU instruments was supported by a significant majority as a way to respond 
to  interregional  challenges.  An  explicit  role  for  humanitarian  aid  actors  and  interventions  in 
transition  situations  was  supported  by  a  large  majority.  A  high  number  of  stakeholders  also 
stressed  that  the  EU  should  improve  the  inter-linkages  between  humanitarian  and  development 
policy areas and close the gap between the related programmes.  

In  addition,  the  Commission  launched  a  Green  Paper  'EU  development  policy  in  support  of 
inclusive growth* and sustainable development' with a public consultation from 15 November 
2010 to 17 January 2011. Many respondents underlined that ODA* constitutes only a fraction 
of funding for development, to be seen as a complement to domestically mobilised resources, 
foreign  investments,  loan  financing,  trade  and  remittances.  At  the  same  time,  in  low-income 
and/or fragile countries, ODA could provide up to half of development resources available. These 
respondents  therefore  called  for  traditional  ODA  development  programmes  to  be  primarily 
reserved  for  the  Least  Developed  Countries  (LDCs).  A  demand  was  also  made  for  greater 
coherence in EU development policy especially with regards to middle-income countries. Many 
answers endorsed the notion of more focused aid and a consolidation of the more than 45 000 
projects  currently  funded  by  EU  donors,  combined  with  further  cross-country  and  in-country 
division of labour. While joint programming of assistance was endorsed in principle, it should 
be introduced gradually starting with countries where it would yield demonstrable added value. 
Several  contributions  underscored  that  development  cooperation  should  be  a  reciprocal 
partnership.  In  exchange  for  long-term  EU  commitments,  partner  countries  needed  to  commit 
themselves to allocating  a  sufficient  part of their budgets to priority  areas  such as  social sector 
reform, health and education. 

As  far  as  financial  assistance  to  Overseas  Countries  and  Territories  (OCTs)  is  concerned,  a 
public  consultation  was  organised  in  the  context  of  a  Green  Paper  (COM/2008/383)  dated  25 
June 2008. Stakeholders were further consulted in the context of the OCT/EU Forums in 2008, 
2010 and March 2011. The different contributions converged with several ideas expressed in the 
consultation  on  external  funding,  notably  differentiation,  flexibility,  reciprocal  partnerships 
and more focused aid. 

1.3.  Impact Assessment Board 

The  impact  assessment  was  modified  to  take  into  account  the  comments  made  by  the  Impact 
Assessment  Board  (IAB)  on  September  14th  2011.  The  IAB  requested  to  better  distinguish  the 

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
scope and the limitations of the measures proposed; therefore the legal and political boundaries 
for  the  choice  of  the  options  are  now  highlighted  in  chapters  2.4.  and  in  chapter  4  in  the 
introductory  part  and  at  the  end  of  the  proposed  options.  The  IAB  asked  to  reinforce  the 
assessment of the overall strengths and weaknesses of EU development cooperation; to this end 
examples of how  the  identified  problems have affected results are introduced in chapter 2.2, to 
explain the underlying drivers summarized in chapter 2.3. To take into account comments from 
IAB to consider alternative ways by which the objectives could be achieved, additional possible 
options  are  included  and  examined  under  chapters  4  to  6.  The  assessment  of  the  impacts  in 
chapters 5 and 6 is also improved to better explain the choice of the preferred option; in particular 
chapter  5  reflects  the  trade  offs  between  the  various  options  and  the  risks  they  entail.  New 
elements regarding monitoring and evaluation are included in chapter 7. 

2.  PROBLEM DEFINITION  

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

2.1.1. The problem  

Poverty remains a major problem in African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) States. Most of them 
are off-track towards the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs)* and they 
do  not  enjoy  a  sustainable  development.  The  EU  is  committed  to  helping  ACP  countries  to 
address these problems. It is therefore necessary for the EU to continue to support ACP countries' 
efforts  towards  reducing  and  eventually  eradicating  poverty,  while  attaining  the  objectives  of 
sustainable development and achieving their gradual integration into the world economy.  

The economic ties between the OCTs and the EU need to be further reinforced. OCTs continue to 
face  specific  economic  and  social  development  problems  which  can  also  have  serious 
implications on their unique and fragile environments.  

2.1.2. The current instrument (EDF) 

The European Union maintains privileged relations with the ACP group of developing countries 
under the ACP-EU Partnership Agreement, signed in Cotonou on 23 June 2000 for a period of 20 
years.  25  OCTs  with  constitutional  links  to  Member  States  are  associated  to  the  EU  through  a 
regime based on the provisions of Part IV of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU (TFEU) and 
the  detailed  rules  and  procedures  laid  down  at  present  in  the  Overseas  Association  Decision 
(OAD) of 27 November 20012.  

The  European  Development  Fund  (EDF)  is  the  main  instrument  for  providing  EU  assistance 
for  development  cooperation  under  the  Cotonou  Agreement  with  ACP  countries  and  for 
cooperation  with  OCTs  under  the  Overseas  Association  Decision  (OAD).  The  EDF  is  funded 
outside the EU budget by the EU Member States on the basis of specific contribution keys. Each 
EDF is concluded for a multi-annual period. The 10th EDF Internal Agreement3 establishes the 
total  resources  and  the  broad  sub-categories  for  the  period  2008-2013  and  entails  provisions 
regarding its implementation and financial monitoring.  

The resources of the 10th EDF (€22 682 million at current prices) comprise €21 966 million for 
ACP countries, € 286 million for OCTs and €430 million for support expenditure.  

EDF 9/EDF 10 breakdown into envelopes 

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
 
1. National and regional cooperation 

1.1 National indicative programmes (NIP) 

(cid:31) A envelopes* (programmable funds) 

(cid:31) B envelopes* (unforeseen needs)  

1.2 Regional indicative programmes (RIP) 

1.3 Reserve for programmable NIP/RIP allocations  

2. Intra-ACP cooperation 

Sub-total managed by the Commission 

EDF 9 final 

EDF 10 

(M€)* 

(M€) 

12 146 

17 766 

9 632 

1 585 

929 

13 500

1 800

1 783

683

3 059 

2 700 

15 205 

20 466 

3. Investment Facility (managed by the EIB) 

2 220 

1 500 

Sub-total for ACP operational credits 

17 425 

21 966

OCT 

Support expenditure  

Total ACP + OCT + support 

 *including transfers from previous EDFs 

329  286 

331  430 

18 086 

22 682

EDF resources allocated to ACPs are channelled via non-reimbursable assistance, broken down 
into  three  ‘envelopes’:  national  (including  current  B-envelopes*  for  unforeseen  needs  for 
crisis/transition response including 'Linking Relief, Rehabilitation and Development' approaches), 
regional and intra-ACP*, and via the ACP Investment Facility* which the European Investment 
bank  (EIB)  manages  as  a  revolving  fund,  providing  loans,  risk  capital,  and  guarantees,  with  a 
view  to  supporting  development  of  the  private  sector  and  of  a  commercially  run  public  sector, 
alongside  its  own  resources4.  The  EU  also  created  innovative  instruments*  to  work  with 
development banks and generate more synergies to speed up regional infrastructure delivery, such 
as the EU-Africa Infrastructure Trust Fund* (see glossary under Blending mechanisms).  

The  €  286  million  allocated  for  OCTs  under  the  10th  EDF  take  the  following  forms,  i.e.  non-
reimbursable aid for specific territorial (€ 195  million) and regional cooperation (€ 40 million), 
loans, risk capitals and guarantees in the form  of  the  OCT  Investment Facility managed  by the 
EIB  (€  30  million),  alongside  its  own  resour ces  (up  to  €  30  million  ),  non-programmed 
emergency  aid  and  compensation  payments  (€  15  million),  and  a  technical  cooperation  facility 
managed by the Commission (€ 6 million). 

2.1.3. Main challenges for the future 

As acknowledged by world leaders at the UN High Level Plenary Meeting in September 2010, 
while  significant  progress  has  been  made  towards  achieving  some  of  the  MDGs*,  a  great  deal 
remains  to  be  done,  particularly  in  fragile  states  and  transition  situations.  Around  1.4  billion 
people are still living in extreme poverty (51 % of them in Sub-Saharan Africa) and one sixth of 
the world’s population is undernourished.  

Recent  threats  and  new  challenges  are  complicating  an  already  difficult  situation.  Developing 
countries  were  hard  hit  by  the  succession  of  recent  crises  (financial  and  economic  crises,  food 
price  rises,  fuel  price  volatility).  New  challenges  include  climate  change5,  energy6  including 
access  to  sustainable  energy,  biodiversity  loss,  security  and  fragility*,  instability  and  poor 

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
  
 
  
  
    
 
    
 
 
 
  
resilience  to  shocks,  food  insecurity,  scarcity  of  natural  resources  entailing  risk  of  aggravating 
ongoing  challenges  by  unsustainable  exploitation  of  these  resources  such  as  overfishing, 
transition  towards    knowledge-based  societies*,  or  population  pressure7.  Good  environmental 
management  is  also  a  condition  for  sustainable  development.  These  challenges  are  particularly 
sensitive for Small Island Developing States (SIDS). 

These,  together  with  the  priorities  set  in  the  Europe  2020  Strategy,  have  prompted  the 
Commission to review whether the EU’s development policy is fit for purpose or whether more 
could be done to add to its impact, especially given the urgent need to speed up progress towards 
the MDGs* (see chapter 2.4.2).  

Last  year,  the  EU  strongly  reaffirmed  its  commitment  to  contribute  to  the  achievement  of  the 
MDGs, including the reaffirmation of the collective target of devoting 0.7% of its Gross National 
Income to ODA* by 2015. There is no doubt that accelerated action is needed if all the MDGs are 
to be achieved in five years time. Even beyond 2015 and  even  when  some or all of the MDGs 
have  been  achieved,  continued  efforts  will  be  needed  to  eliminate  poverty.  Development 
assistance will therefore continue to require long-term financial commitment.  

Since  the  establishment  of  the  OCT/EU  Association  with  the  1958  Treaty  of  Rome,  relations 
between  the  OCTs  and  the  EU  have  considerably  changed.  Most  of  the  OCTs  cannot  be 
considered  as  developing  territories  anymore,  even  though  their  micro-economies  remain 
extremely  vulnerable 
including  climate  change  and  environmental 
vulnerabilities.  Consequently,  continuous  financial  assistance  to  OCTs  is  needed  to  maintain 
them on the path to sustainable development and to help them to develop policies and strategies 
on new priorities of OCT/EU relations.  

to  external  shocks 

2.2.  Lessons learnt: review of consultations, studies and evaluation reports8 

10th EDF Performance review 

The  Cotonou  agreement  called  for  a  Performance  review  of  the  10th  EDF  to  assess  financial 
performance as well as quantitative and qualitative performance, in particular results and impact, 
measured in terms of progress towards achieving the MDGs*.  

The  review  highlighted  the  value  added  of  the  10th  EDF  thanks  to  its  programming,  its 
responsiveness  and  results.  In  the  programming,  the  EU  clearly  identified  areas  where  it  could 
offer  the  best  added  value  and  focused  its  funds  strongly  on  budget  support,  governance  and 
infrastructure.  The  first  years  of  implementation  have  shown  how  the  balance  and  hierarchy 
between national, regional and intra-ACP were relevant.  

The performance review also highlighted some lessons learnt and room for progress, in particular 
the following: 

- Regarding programming, experience showed that effective, high-quality delivery to provide the 
greatest  long-term  impact  needs  a  particular  effort  in  terms  of  coordination  arrangements;  the 
assessment  of  the  10th  EDF  programming  exercise  showed  that  the  EU  could  significantly 
improve  the  synergies  between  its  aid  flows.  EU  aid  remains  very  fragmented,  causing 
inefficiencies  with  financial,  developmental  and  political  consequences.  For  instance  aid 
fragmentation can be observed in Uganda (see annex VI) where European aid accounts for 43% 
of  total  aid  (2008  figure),  but  proliferation  has  lead  to  these  43%  being  given  by  at  least  8 
individual donors; clear gains could be made here. The assessment showed aid fragmentation* (i) 

EN 

9 

   EN 

 
between  EU  instruments  (the  EDF  and  the  budget),  (ii)  between  levels  of  action  in  the  EU 
(national,  regional  and,  thematic/horizontal),  and  (iii)  between  EU  Member  States'  bilateral 
programmes and European Commission and European Investment Bank interventions. 

- Regarding EU response capacity, it appeared that the EU, with its global reach in ACP States 
and its objective method of allocation of resources, is present in all difficult situations and, thanks 
to  its  unallocated  funds,  flexible  procedures,  the  support  in  situations  of  fluctuating  export 
earnings (FLEX*) and ad hoc instruments, had been able to respond to unforeseen events and to 
situations  of  fragility.  Nevertheless,  the  review  highlighted  that  EU’s  responsiveness  could  be 
improved,  especially  in  relation  to  (1)  aid  programming  in  crisis  and  fragile  situation,  (2)  a 
structural  approach  to  build  up  the  resilience  of  recipient  countries  to  both  natural  hazards  and 
economic  shocks,  and  (3)  broad  and  generic  exogenous  shocks  mechanism.  For  example,  in 
relation  to  responsiveness  for  countries  in  fragility  and  in  crisis,  the  Performance  Review 
underlined  that  the  EDF  programming  cycle  was  not sufficiently  flexible  to  respond  quickly  to 
new  crises  and  unforeseen  events  like  floods  or  earthquakes.  Ad-hoc  reviews  that  are  possible 
take  too  much  time,  this  was  in  particular  illustrated  by  the  Haiti  case.  For  countries  that  are 
vulnerable  to  external  shocks  such  as  financial  crisis,  food  or  fuel  prices  increases,  a  more 
structural approach was needed which means that their vulnerability should be taken into account 
in the design of EU strategies so that those countries can better react to these events when they 
occur. 

Study in support of the shaping of development cooperation after 2013  

In view of reshaping the EU external actions framework, the European Union financed a general 
study  to  provide  analytical  elements  regarding  EDF  interventions.  The  analysis  highlighted 
strengths and weaknesses in the implementation concerning three main topics:  

(i) On the EDF contribution to the MDG process, it concluded that the EDF widely supports the 
efforts of governments to reduce poverty through an important contribution to macro-economic 
stability  while  partly  covering  budget  deficits,  and  a  support  to  selected  country  strategy 
priorities. 

(ii) On the division of labour, the study identified challenges, and in particular in relation to the 
large  number  of  projects  and  programmes  implemented  outside  agreed  focal  sectors  which 
increases  fragmentation  and  goes  against  agreed  principles  on  division  of  labour  and 
concentration.  The  study  recommended  delegated  cooperation  and  joint  programming  as  key 
elements  in  future  programmes  to  enhance  aid  effectiveness.  For  instance  the  lack  of 
concentration can be observed in Ethiopia (see graphic in annex VI) where a quick scan of EU-
wide  interventions  learns  that  even  in  sectors  where  some  donors  do  not  have  a  (self-declared) 
comparative advantage, they sometimes have substantial (colour orange) or modest (colour red) 
investments.  In  fact,  donors  should  focus  on  sectors  in  which  they  have  both  a  substantial 
investment  and  a  comparative  advantage  (colour  green).  To  complete  the  picture,  the  colour 
yellow  means  that  the  respective  donor  has  a  relatively  small  investment  but  a  comparative 
advantage in that sector. 

(iii)  On  the  EDF  capacity  to  leverage  funding  from  other  actors  in  particular  through  blending 
mechanisms,  the  study  highlighted  the  successful Infrastructure  Trust  Fund  mechanism  and  the 
model of the recently developed Water and Energy “Pooling mechanisms” for small projects. It 
recommended  to  systematically  consider  the  possibility  of  complementing  any  grant  allocated 
through  these  Facilities  with  a  grant  from  EDF  funds  managed  by  the  Commission  thereby 

EN 

10 

   EN 

 
increasing  the  available  amount  of  grant  to  be  leveraged  by  funding  and  ensuring  that  the 
Delegations/National  Authorising  Officers  (NAO)  are  interested  in  the  success  of  the 
mechanisms for their country. 

Study on shock absorbing schemes9 

One of the general problems identified of the existing facilities was that they supported both low 
income (LICs) and middle income (MICs) countries with quite a large share of resources going to 
MICs.  One  of  the  challenges  for  the  future  is  how  to  redesign  these  facilities  so  as  to  focus 
more  on  the  most  vulnerable  countries  including,  in  particular,  low  income  countries. 
Regarding the type of financing, the study suggested that grant resources should continue to be 
relevant for low income countries. As in the Vulnerability Flex*, resources could continue to be 
paid  through  budget  support  for  eligible  countries  and  in  co-ordination  with  other  development 
institutions.  

Study on results-based programming and financing 

A study was commissioned by the Commission on results-based programming and financing in 
view of a stronger results-focus in the future programming and financing of support, to look into 
cash-on-delivery  types  of  financing*  or  other  incentive-based  modalities,  some  of  which  have 
been used by the Commission in its budget support programmes.  

The main results from the study were that, so far, there was no uncontested evidence that results-
based  modalities  like  cash-on-delivery  work  better  than  others.  Researchers  found  that  to  be 
successful, results based approaches should be embedded in a "package" of other interventions, 
of which an important one is capacity building. Another finding was that there is no evidence that 
results based financing leads to a leveraging of additional funds, be they private or public. Lastly, 
consultants  found  that  more  results  focus  could  be  brought  into  EU  programmes,  but  that 
some rules and regulations needed to be adapted to make it possible. 

Mid-term evaluation of the ACP Investment Facility 

The  Commission  undertook  in  2010  a  Mid-Term  Evaluation  of  the  ACP  Investment  Facility 
including European Investment Bank (EIB) Own-Resources operations in the ACP States. In the 
assessment, the value-added of EIB operations were measured against three elements: the support 
of EU policy and Cotonou objectives respectively, the quality of the projects themselves and the 
financial  and  non-financial  advantages  brought  in  by  the  EIB  operations  compared  to  potential 
alternatives sources of financing. 

While recognizing the difficult challenge represented by the Bank’s mandate under the Cotonou 
Agreement, the Investment Facility was described as having a comparative advantage in its 
high  risk  bearing  capacity,  stemming  notably  from  its  prudent  project  selection,  its  careful 
analysis  of  the  creditworthiness  of  operators  as  well  as  its  technical  rigour,  whilst  it  was 
acknowledged that EIB was exercising due care in intervening without distorting the markets and 
that specific improvements had been observed in the financial viability and governance practices 
of  the  enterprises  supported  by  the  Bank,  as  well  as  positive  trends  recorded  in  terms  of 
employment  generation  at  operation  level.    Several  factors  had  limited  the  ability  of  EIB  to 
maximise its work, including notably the EIB’s low visibility, its insufficient monitoring of the 
impact  of  its  operations,  as  well  as  limited  catalytic  effect  of  the  Investment  Facility  and  own 
resources.  

EN 

11 

   EN 

 
The evaluation overall acknowledged that EIB had thus far fulfilled the mandate given under the 
Cotonou  Agreement  and  made  recommendations  on  ways  to  enhance  its  impact  and  visibility. 
Ways  to  address  the  issues  raised  have  been  identified  jointly  by  the  Commission  and  the  EIB 
and concern mainly the need to secure supplemental grant resources for technical assistance and 
other  blending  mechanisms  combined  with  EIB  loans  and  equity  investments,  the  need  to 
reinforce  the  coordination  between  the  two  institutions  including  notably  the  definition  of 
common  operational  guidelines  to  their  respective  staff,  the  need  to  ensure  greater  coherence 
between  the  EIB  operations  and  the  country  and  regional  strategies  led  by  the  Commission  to 
fully exploit synergies at operational and strategic/sector level, and the need to enhance joint 
EU visibility and communication.   

Results of internal assessment on what works and what doesn't (2007-2013) 

An  internal  assessment  highlighted  that  the  procedure  for  preparing  and  revising  the  A 
envelope of the National Indicative Programme (NIP) had proved more rigid than expected. 
While the process was useful to address long term goals, it did not seem to allow for a prompt 
reaction to a change in the political context or to a substantial change in demand. The potential 
for  Joint  programming  had  barely  been  exploited.  It  has  been  limited  to  a  handful  of  pilot 
countries,  faced  serious  constraints  and  had  not  delivered  substantial  results  in  terms  of 
efficiency. 

Regarding the B envelopes*, used for unforeseen needs, this flexible allocation mechanism had 
shown positive results, notably in its use for crisis/transition response, and in terms of flexibility 
and  speed,  in  the  context  of  the  Vulnerability  Flex*  and  the  Food  Price  Crisis  Regulation. 
However  the  support  in  situations  of  fluctuating  export  earnings  (FLEX*)  had  not  been 
sufficiently countercyclical, in spite of successive simplifications. This is due to the fact that the 
system  functions  on  the  basis  of  an  ex-post  analysis  (trade  statistics)  rather  than  a  real-time 
mechanism, as well as heavy implementation procedures.  

Assessments and evaluations about OCTs  

Internal  and  external  assessments  and  evaluations  of  the  EU's  past  and  future  cooperation  with 
OCTs  took  place  or  are  in  the  process  of  being  finalised  within  the  context  of  the  Overseas 
Association Decision. Conclusions and recommendations of the different assessments seemed to 
agree  that  the  next  EDF  would  have  to  allow  for  a  differentiated  approach  for  OCTs,  with  a 
focus on sustainable development, be flexible and adapted to the low aid volumes and the limited 
administrative  capacity  of  OCTs.  The  EDF  should  also  be  conducive  to  regional  cooperation 
between OCTs, Outermost Regions of the EU and ACP States. Budget support as preferred aid 
modality and the corresponding policy dialogue including public finance management as well as 
the  principle  of  concentration  were  deemed  to  have  had  a  positive  impact.  Nevertheless, 
responsiveness  of  EU  interventions  could  be  improved  and  sufficient  resources  for  technical 
assistance,  capacity  building  and  for  private  sector  investments  and  co-financing  operations 
needed to be foreseen. 

2.3.  The underlying drivers of the problem:  

In a context of financial crisis and of tight budgetary constraints within EU Member States, the 
volume  of  EU  resources  for  development  cooperation  with  ACP  States  and  OCTs  remains 

EN 

12 

   EN 

 
 
limited. The effectiveness of EU spending could be improved to ensure that it delivers the best 
possible results and to increase its impact.  

The underlying drivers of the problem identified in chapter 2.2 can be summarized as follows: 

–  A growing disparity of the profiles of partner countries, territories and regions benefitting 
from  the  EDF  can  be  observed,  regarding  their  needs,  capacities  and  performance10  and  the 
potential impact of EU aid. In addition the modalities for the implementation of EU support to 
these  countries  or  territories  are  not  always  appropriate  to  take  into  account  each  country's 
specificities.  

–  Fragmentation of aid remains a major concern. The EU as a whole loses out on impact and 

visibility by not concentrating and coordinating its work sufficiently. 

–  Coordination  with  and  between  EU  Member  States  is  not  sufficient,  thus  contributing  to 

fragmentation and discarding potential economies of scale11. 

–  The role of the private sector and financial institutions within development strategies is 
not sufficiently encouraged to support public and private investments within ACP States as 
well as sustainable, inclusive and smart growth and the insertion of ACP States into the global 
economy.   

–  ACP  States  are  confronted  with  a  number  of  challenges  such  as  external  shocks  and 
unforeseen  needs.  This  also  includes  crisis  management  and  tackling  transition  and 
fragility  situations.  While  the  10th  EDF  already  entails  elements  allowing  flexibility,  EU 
instruments  are  not  always  sufficiently  responsive  and  flexible  to  tackle  these  evolving 
situations  and  to  take  positive  account  of  progress  made  by  ACP  States  and  OCTs 
regarding domestic reforms and sound policies.  

–  Regarding OCTs, the EU approach has not been differentiated and flexible enough to take 
into  account  the  specific  challenges  faced  by  OCTs,  their  limited  administrative  capacities 
linked  to  their  size,  as  well  as  the  different  type  of  relations  they  entertain  with  the  EU.  In 
addition,  it  has  not  been  supportive  enough  of  regional  cooperation  between  OCTs,  ACP 
States and Outermost Regions. 

2.4.  Legal basis for EU action and policy framework 

2.4.1.  Legal basis 

The  main  policy  objectives  of  EU  external  action  are  described  in  the  Lisbon  Treaty  (art.  21 
TEU).  In  addition,  the  main  objective  of  EU  development  cooperation  (art.  208  TFEU)  is  the 
reduction  and,  in  the  long  term,  the  eradication  of  poverty.  In  this  context  the  EU  will  comply 
with the commitments and take account of the objectives they have approved in the context of the 
United Nations and other international organisations.  

Regarding  cooperation  with  ACP  States,  this  legal  framework  is  complemented  by  the 
Cotonou Agreement concluded between the members of the ACP Group of States of the one part 
and the European Union and its Member States of the other part. It was concluded for a twenty-
year  period  from  March  2000  to  February  2020,  and  entered  into  force  in  April  2003.  It  is 
designed  to  establish  a  comprehensive  partnership,  based  on  three  complementary  pillars: 
development  cooperation,  economic  and  trade  cooperation,  and  the  political  dimension.  The 
ACP-EU Partnership is centred on the objective of reducing and eventually eradicating poverty 
consistent with the objectives of sustainable development and the gradual integration of the ACP 
States into the world economy (Art. 1 of Cotonou Agreement). The partnerhsip principles of the 
Cotonou  Agreement  include  the  equality  of  the  partners  and  the  ownership  of  the  development 

EN 

13 

   EN 

 
strategies,  the  pivotal  role  of  dialogue  with  governments  of  the  partners  and  the  fulfilment  of 
mutual obligations. 

The  Cotonou  Agreement  provides  for  a  revision  every  five  years.  The  second  revision  of  the 
Cotonou  Agreement  was  adopted  by  the  ACP-EU  Council  of  Ministers  in  June  2010  and  has 
been applied on a provisional basis since November 2010; the decision concluding the amending 
agreement should be adopted during 2011.  

The Cotonou Agreement as amended by its first and second revisions is the defined political 
and  legal  framework  for  the  preparation  of  the  11th  EDF,  with  regard  to  ACP  States.  
Therefore the legal requirements and constraints entailed in the Cotonou agreement, and in 
particular its annex IV defining the implementation and management procedures as well as 
the principle of partnership with the ACP States, form the boundaries for the scope of this 
impact assessment and for the choice of the options. They must be taken into account and 
do limit the number of possible options.  

The OCT/EU Association rests on several legal bases. In the EU's primary law, it is based on 
Part  IV  of  the  Treaty  (TFEU).  The  purpose  of  the  Association  is  to  promote  the  social  and 
economic development of the OCTs and to establish close economic relations between the OCTs 
and the EU as a whole. The detailed rules and procedures of the Association have been laid down 
in consecutive Council Decisions on the association of the overseas countries and territories with 
the European Community (Overseas Association Decision), the last of which is Council Decision 
2001/822/EC.  The  Decision  applies  to  all  OCTs  listed  in  Annex  II  to  the  Treaty,  except  for 
Bermuda,  which  has  requested  not  to  fall  under  the  Decision12.  This  Decision  expires  on  31 
December  2013  and  the  Commission  is  preparing  a  legislative  proposal  for  a  new  Council 
Decision  that  should  enter  into  force  as  of  1  January  2014.  This  legislative  proposal  will  be 
accompanied by a separate Impact Assessment.  

2.4.2.  Policy framework  

The Commission adopted in June 2011 a Communication 'A Budget for Europe 2020'13. For the 
post  2013  period,  in  view  of  the  tight  budgetary  situations  in  Member  States,  and  of  the 
experience  of  former  proposals  by  the  Commission  in  the  previous  multiannual  financial 
frameworks to integrate the EDF into the EU budget ('EDF budgetisation'), it was decided that 
the situation was not appropriate this time to propose 'EDF budgetisation', and that the 11th 
EDF would remain outside the EU budget and thus would not be an integral part of the overall 
architecture of external action financial instruments. This was announced in the above mentioned 
Communication 'A Budget for Europe 2020' together with the proposed amount for the 11th EDF. 
The integration of EU development cooperation with ACP countries into the EU budget is 
foreseen for post 2020 at the end of the next multiannual financial framework, coinciding 
with the expiry of the Cotonou agreement.  

This  proposal  defines  the  architecture  of  the  11th  EDF  and  therefore  sets  the  limitations 
regarding the scope of this impact assessment where EDF budgetisation is not considered as 
an option. 

The 'European Consensus'14 together with the Code of Conduct* provides the general framework, 
orientations and focus to steer the implementation of EU cooperation with partner countries and 
regions.  

EN 

14 

   EN 

 
 
Following the public consultation on the Green Paper published in November 2010 (see section 
1.2),  a  Communication  on  EU  development  policy  ('Increasing  the  impact  of  EU 
development policy: an Agenda for Change') is expected to be adopted by the Commission 
during  2011.  In  parallel,  the  Commission  is  also  expected  to  publish  a  communication  on  EU 
Budget Support* to third countries. 

Therefore the 'Agenda for Change' will define the scope of this impact assessment and the 
choice  of  the  options,  as  the  11th  EDF  internal  agreement,  with  its  implementing  and 
financial regulations and the next programming guidelines will be the enabling framework 
to implement the policy orientations defined in the 'Agenda for Change'. 

Regarding  OCTs,  the  EU  wishes  to  use  the  revision  of  the  Overseas  Association  Decision 
(OAD) as an opportunity to redesign and modernise the association arrangements, so as to bring 
them  more  in  line  with  OCT  needs  and  realities.  Over  the  last  ten  years  discussions  about  this 
revision have taken a central place in the OCT/EU policy dialogue. In its conclusions (16710/09) 
adopted  on  22  December  2009,  the  Council  endorsed  the  proposals  of  the  Commission  put 
forward in its earlier Communication (COM/2009/623) which identifies three general objectives 
for  the  future  OCT/EU  partnership:  to  enhance  OCT  competitiveness,  to  reduce  OCT 
vulnerability and to stimulate regional cooperation and integration. As regards the EU's financial 
assistance  to  OCTs  as  of  2014,  the  Communication  suggests  strengthening  the  financial 
instrument's  strategic  approach  and  favours  thematic  and  financial  concentration.  The 
Commission  also  suggested  that  co-financing  by  OCTs  and  Member  States  as  well  as  moving 
away  from  development  aid  could  be  considered.  The  revision  of  the  OAD  is  ongoing  and,  as 
mentioned, a separate impact assessment of the legislative proposal is conducted in parallel.  

This  constitutes  a  limitation  for  the  scope  of  this  impact  assessment  and  for  the  level  of 
details    of  the  possible  options  regarding  OCTs,  which  should  not  pre-empt  the  on-going 
revision  of  the  OAD.  The  possible  options  will  be  examined  in  the  separate  impact 
assessment to be published at a later stage. Therefore the general objectives defined in the 
December  2009  Council  conclusions  constitute  the  framework  for  the  scope  of  the  impact 
assessment. 

2.5.  EU Value Added 

Global issues, global response and global leadership  

As the world's largest donor, the EU and Member States provide more than half of global aid to 
developing countries. The EU provides aid to the poorest people in more than 150 countries and 
is  committed  to  achieving  the  MDG  by  the  end  of  2015.  The  funding  for  aid  handled  by  the 
Commission alone represents 20% of total EU aid.  

Over the last ten years, the EU has improved its performance in development cooperation, 
rallying  Member  States  around  shared  policy  approaches  and  the  aid  effectiveness  agenda, 
modernising  its  partnerships,  cooperation  agreements  and  financial  instruments  and  putting  in 
place mechanisms to ensure policy coherence for development. The EU has started to move away 
from a donor-beneficiary type of relation to a partnership involving contractual approaches, based 
on policy dialogue and linking results to specific cooperation programmes or instruments.  

In  line  with  the  European  Consensus  on  Development,  the  Paris  Declaration*  and  the  Accra 
Agenda for Action*, the EU has clearly identified the areas where it can offer added value in 
the  EDF  and  has  focused  its  funds  strongly  on  budget  support,  governance  and  infrastructure. 

EN 

15 

   EN 

 
 
The 10th EDF has also demonstrated its added value in the form of strong responsiveness. 
By keeping unallocated funds in the EDF to cover unforeseen needs and by means of innovative 
instruments such as FLEX* and V-FLEX*, the EU has been able to play a key role vis-à-vis ACP 
States facing disasters or food, economic and financial crises.  

The critical weight of the EU 

For EU Member States, the ACP-EU partnership and the EDF offer a global reach and a means to 
implement a consistent set of objectives across 77 ACP States. In terms of presence, scale and 
focus, EDF operations offer significant benefits over national action. The EU’s role in ACP 
States  gives  Member  States  a  strong  voice  on  key  issues  such  as  governance,  budget  support, 
regional cooperation, economic development and infrastructure. This critical mass also puts the 
EU in a better position to conduct political dialogue with partner governments. The EU also has a 
long standing reputation and role as a promoter of inclusiveness and multilateralism. 

Thanks to the large scale of the EU, it can deliver help to the poor in some of the world's most 
remote areas,  where most of  the Member States have no strategic interest and their presence is 
limited. Thanks to the network of EU delegations in the Pacific region for example, development 
aid reaches the people who need it most, and the EU adapts its response to the smallest partners. 

The EU is best placed to coordinate 

The EU plays a multi-faceted role: as implementing agent of EU aid and as EU coordinator and 
policy-maker  in  the  development  field,  as  economic  and  trade  partner,  through  security  policy 
and political dialogue, as well as through other EU sector policies – such as migration, climate, 
biodiversity, fisheries or energy.  

The  EU  can  do  more  than  other  international  organisations,  because  of  its  holistic  approach  to 
development  and  external  relations  through  its  various  instruments,  including  promotion  of 
democracy and mechanisms to respond to a crisis. The EU established a framework of analysis 
for ensuring Policy Coherence for Development* to 'development-proof' non-development policy 
initiatives and make sure that EU development policy objectives are taken into account in other 
policy areas.  

Division of labour through the EU is a crucial component of its added value. In the work on 
the ground in partner countries, acting as one is crucial in order to bring about more added value, 
increased strength and legitimacy, and more impact and effectiveness for EU aid. 

A few examples regarding EU development cooperation under the EDF: 

Through  the  EU's  MDG  initiative,  announced  last  year  at  the  MDG  Summit,  the  EU  will 
increase its support to make progress on the most off-track of the eight Millennium Development 
Goals. 

The African Peace Facility is a prime example of how the EU can take the initiative on a major 
issue in the field of conflict resolution, thanks to its size and budget as well as the specificities 
allowed by the Cotonou agreement. Since 2004, the EU has provided €740 million to this end, 
helping to prevent conflicts and promote stability after they have taken place.  

When  the  global  economic  crisis  occurred  in  2009,  the  EU  was  able  to  step  in  and  create  the 
Vulnerability FLEX*, set up to protect developing countries from its impact, again showing that 

EN 

16 

   EN 

 
the EU is uniquely placed to respond flexibly where needed. €434 million out of the €500 million 
allocated under  the mechanism in 2009 and 2010 have been disbursed. 23 of  the most  affected 
countries across the ACPs have benefited. 

Positive Impact of EU Cooperation with OCTs 

EU  interventions  in  the  OCTs  have  added  value  because  in  many  cases,  it  is  the  only  other 
donor  apart  from  the  Member  States  to  which  the  OCTs  are  constitutionally  linked. 
Cooperation  and  coordination  with  Member  States  has  been  high.  The  non-programmed  funds 
have positively contributed to mitigating the impact of disasters such as hurricanes. 

Inclusion  of  EU  financial  assistance  to  OCTs  in  the  EDFs  has  ensured  that  sufficient  funds 
were available and that OCT/EU cooperation remained coherent with the evolution of EU 
development  policy  and  cooperation  with  ACP  countries,  of  which  most  OCTs  are  direct 
neighbours.  

OCT  arrangements  in  the  successive  EDFs  have  seen  a  move  towards  putting  the  OCTs' 
sustainable  development  as  well  as  their  priorities  and  strategies  at  the  heart  of  OCT/EU 
cooperation.  

3.  OBJECTIVES  

3.1.  Objectives  

3.1.1.  General objectives of the 11th EDF  

The general objectives of the 11th EDF are those defined in the Cotonou agreement (article 1) 
and in Part IV of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (article 198): 

–  for ACPs: reducing and eventually eradicating poverty, while attaining the objectives of 
sustainable development and achieving their gradual integration into the world economy; 
–  for  OCTs:  attaining  sustainable  development,  by  strengthening  their  resilience  and 

competitiveness and promoting regional cooperation. 

3.1.2.  Specific objectives for the revision of the instrument 

The  specific  objectives  for  the  revision  of  the  instrument,  in  line  with  the  revised  policy 
objectives of EU development policy and EU cooperation with OCTs, are the following:   

− The  11th  EDF  should  allow  for  a  more  differentiated  approach  between  beneficiaries,  to 
respond  to  the  specific  situation  of  each  country,  taking  into  account  their  needs, 
capacities and performance, and potential impact of EU aid. 

− To tackle aid fragmentation, EU development cooperation should be more concentrated on 

fewer sectors where it can have the greatest impact.  

− In  the  same  perspective,  coordination  with  EU  Member  States  should  be  reinforced  to 

improve aid effectiveness. 

− The  EU  should  reinforce  financial  leveraging  of  its  grant  resources  through  the  use  of 
innovative financial instruments such as loans-grants blending mechanisms and reinforced 
partnership with EIB and other financial institutions.  

− The flexibility elements of the EDF should be reinforced, to make the 11th EDF even more 
responsive  and  flexible  to  tackle  the  evolving  situations  of  beneficiaries,  including 
response to external shocks, crisis or transition and fragility situations. 

EN 

17 

   EN 

 
 
− Regarding OCTs specifically, the 11th EDF should also allow for a more differentiated and 
more flexible approach to take into account their specificities, the specific challenges they 
face, their limited administrative capacities as well as the different type of relations they 
entertain  with  the  EU,  while  at  the  same  time  promoting  regional  cooperation  between 
OCTs, ACP States and Outermost Regions. 

3.2.  Consistency with external action priorities  

‘policy-driven’  geographical 

The  current  structure  of  the  existing  EU  financial  instruments  in  the  policy  area  'development' 
comprises the following elements: (i) the main part of EU development cooperation is channelled 
through 
'Development  Cooperation 
Instrument'  (DCI)  addressing  developing  countries  except  for  the  neighbourhood  and  ACP 
States15,  and  with  the  10th  EDF  outside  the  EU  budget  covering  ACP  States  and  OCTs;  (ii)  in 
addition,  within  the  DCI  there  are  also  thematic  programmes  to  support  actions  at  global  and 
regional level and to contribute to the financing of international organisations and funds16.  

instruments,  with 

the 

The  general  objective  of  poverty  eradication  remains  the  primary  aim  of  EU  development 
cooperation.  In  addition,  despite  the  different  funding  sources  of  EU  development  cooperation 
(i.e. mainly the EDF and the DCI), the specific objectives and modalities of the updated EU 
development policy will be applied equally to all developing countries through the various 
financial  instruments.  This  includes,  in  particular,  applying  a  more  differentiated  approach, 
strengthening concentration in certain areas, coordination with Member States and increasing use 
of  innovative  financial  instruments,  and  flexible  mechanisms  to  tackle  unforeseen  events  and 
evolving situations.  

In addition, as set by the Lisbon Treaty, development cooperation objectives under the EDF 
will  be  mutually  coherent  with  other  initiatives  for  external  action,  in  particular  with 
geographic and thematic cooperation under the DCI, but also with activities financed under the 
instrument for promoting human rights and democracy (EIDHR) and the instrument for nuclear 
safety  (INSC),  humanitarian  assistance  and/or  civil  protection,  crises  reaction  through  the 
Instrument for Stability or macro-financial assistance, and with civilian or military interventions 
under the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) / Common Security and Defense Policy 
(CSDP)17. Moreover for every country, development cooperation will be coherent with the new 
'Partnership  Instrument'  for  cooperation  on  EU  and  mutual  interests  on  a  global  scale,  thus 
including ACPs.   

The links between the different external action instruments lay in particular : 

-  (i)  with  cross-cutting,  humanitarian  or  crisis  issues:  the  specific  objective  of  increasing 
flexibility within the EDF to tackle unforeseen needs or situations of crisis, fragility or transition 
would  also  reinforce  the  coherence  with  the  set  of  instruments  deployed.  Addressing  transition 
challenges  requires  a  mixture  of  approaches  and  responses  articulated  in  the  framework  of  a 
transition strategy; this strategy will allow for balancing possible tensions between humanitarian, 
development ad security-oriented approaches, and also between short term reaction and long term 
support.  

-  (ii)  with  multi-countries/regional  issues  overcoming  the  limits  of  the  different  geographic 
instruments: 

Most pan-african initiatives will, in the post 2013 financial perspectives, be supported through a 
new pan-African mechanism within the DCI. The implementation of the Joint Africa-EU Strategy 
(JAES) and its successive Action Plans may still be funded under the EDF and the principle of 

EN 

18 

   EN 

 
'treating Africa as one' requires the coherent management of the DCI, the future neighbourhood 
instrument (ENPI) and the EDF and the appropriate wording in the related legal bases. 

Regional cooperation in the wider Caribbean and in the Pacific would involve the DCI, the EDF, 
including  the  cooperation  with  OCTs  and  the  EU  internal  cohesion  instrument  with  regard  to 
outermost regions of the EU. 

3.3.  Consistency with other EU policies 

The  objectives  of  the  11th  EDF  will  be  implemented  in  line  with  the  EU  2020  agenda, 
including through a mutual reinforcement of internal and external actions.  

In a globalised environment, several internal EU policies (such as climate change, environment, 
energy - including access to sustainable energy, biodiversity, immigration, fisheries, agriculture, 
health, higher education, research and innovation for smart growth,…) are increasingly becoming 
part of the EU's external action. In this regard, integration, and not duplication, must be the key 
word,  to  ensure  the  coherence  of  EU  external  action,  increase  aid  effectiveness,  notably  the 
commitment to reduce the number of actors and programmes, and maximise synergies between 
policy objectives. 

Through  mainstreaming,  the  external  dimensions  of  internal  EU  policies  can  become  part  of 
policy dialogue with third countries. These aspects are at the centre of EU country and regional 
programming  in  areas  such  as  standards  setting  including  sanitary  and  phytosanitary  issues, 
capacity  building,  climate  action,  infrastructure  networks,  information  and  communication 
technologies,  trade  and  business  environment,  education  and  research,  justice  and  home  affairs 
activities  etc.  For  OCTs,  this  is  of  particular  importance  as  they  are  eligible  for  funding  from 
internal  programmes  and  budget  lines.  The  strengthened  involvement  of  line  DGs  of  the 
Commission in the programming process will be welcomed and should be improved to ensure an 
appropriate use of the technical expertise within the Commission services.  

Regarding  coherence  between  external  and  internal  policy  objectives,  the  EU's  commitment  to 
advancing  Policy  Coherence  for  Development  (PCD)*  can  also  be  highlighted,  requiring  the 
objectives  of  development  cooperation  to  be  taken  into  account  in  all  EU  policies  which  are 
likely  to  affect  developing  countries.  The  PCD  strategy  was  adopted  to  overcome  potential 
negative impacts of internal policies on developing partners and to encourage, where possible, the 
search for synergies between the objectives of internal policies and EU development objectives.  

4.  POLICY OPTIONS  

As  the  EU  assistance  for  ACP  and  OCTs  remains  outside  the  budget  under  the  multiannual 
financial framework for the period 2014 to 2020, the Member States will be invited to set up 
an  eleventh  European  Development  Fund  (11th  EDF)  in  a  new  internal  agreement  on  the 
financing of EU aid for ACP States and the allocation of financial assistance for the OCTs. On 
the basis of this agreement, implementing and financial regulations will be adopted.  In the light 
of  the  final  choices  made  regarding  ACPs,  the  necessity  to  modify  annex  IV  of  the  Cotonou 
agreement will also be examined in agreement with the ACP partners. These final choices would 
also  be  reflected  in  the  Commission  proposal  for  the  revision  of  the  Overseas  Association 
Decision (OAD). 

As stated in the Lisbon Treaty, supporting developing countries' efforts to eradicate poverty is a 

EN 

19 

   EN 

 
 
priority for the EU's action in the world and the primary objective of development policy. In this 
context, together with the priorities set in the Europe 2020 Strategy, the European Commission 
is  expected  to  propose  an  ambitious  'Agenda  for  Change'  to  refocus  EU  development 
spending  and  policies  and  to  increase  the  concrete  impact  of  programmes  on  the 
achievement of the MDGs*. This package, after an intense elaboration and consultation process, 
should confirm the relevance of most of the existing policy framework and especially the ACP-
EU partnership and the EDF, while agreeing on the need for more impact, to speed up progress 
towards the MDGs.  

The EU will make these changes progressively in its next programming cycle, but the proposed 
internal  agreement,  with  its  implementing  regulation,  its  financial  regulation  and  the  next 
programming guidelines, will constitute the enabling framework to allow the implementation of 
this Agenda for Change.  

For  each  specific  objective  identified  under  chapter  3.1,  this  chapter  analyses  options  to 
make these policy changes possible. 

4.1.  Differentiation  

4.1.1.  Status quo option 

The  aid  allocation*  and  implementation  processes  do  not  change  from  the  approach 
followed under the 10th EDF.  

Under  this  option,  the  main  objective  of  EU  cooperation  with  ACPs  and  OCTs  would  remain 
poverty  reduction  -  and  ultimately  poverty  eradication,  with  the MDGs  as  the  main  benchmark 
against which to measure progress, but geographical differentiation would not be implemented at 
its utmost in view of a higher impact of EU aid. In more advanced countries, where EU funding 
would in certain cases not represent a significant critical mass for beneficiaries, the impact of EU 
grants  would  not  be  optimized.  Regarding  OCTs,  resources  would  continue  to  be  allocated 
mainly  to  territorial  programmes  and  projects  in  the  OCTs  eligible  under  the  Overseas 
Association Decision (OAD). 

4.1.2.  Alternative option: allow more differentiation between ACP States and OCTs 

(cid:131)  Sub-option  A  –  Allow  focusing  EU  cooperation  on  a  limited  number  of  partners  by  using 

statistical data 

The EU allocates grants only to its least developed partners and no development grant aid 
in the more advanced. This differentiation would be made using statistical data. 

This  sub-option  would  enable  establishing  clear  cut  and  easily  defendable  criteria  that  would 
determine  on  which  partners  EU  cooperation  would  be  focused.  Nevertheless,  in  many  cases 
statistical data do not paint the entire picture of the situation in a partner. Indeed, many partners' 
statistics are done on different premises and are thus not fully comparable and/or are not readily 
available. In addition many wealthier partners face challenges and constraints similar to those of 
the poorest and least developed ones.  

Some partners would be excluded from eligibility to EU grants on this statistical basis. However, 
regarding ACPs, these countries remain signatories to the Cotonou agreement. In this sub-option, 
the  partnership  principles  of  the  Cotonou  agreement,  including  policy  dialogue,  would  not  be 

EN 

20 

   EN 

 
 
 
fully respected. The same holds true for the OCT/EU association, which is also founded on the 
partnership principle. 

This differentiation would be implemented through the implementing regulation(s), the aid 
allocation  system  and  during  the  programming  phase.  It  would  not  require  a  specific 
provision in the internal agreement. 

(cid:131)  Sub-option  B  –  Allow  focusing  EU  cooperation  on  a  limited  number  of  countries  by  using 

quantitative and qualitative data 

The EU allocates proportionally more grants to its least developed partners and less or no 
development  grant  aid  in  the  more  advanced,  while  allowing  in  the  more  advanced  the 
pursuit of an alternative development relationship, including potentially through blending 
grants and loans to support investment and the private sector.  

To target its limited resources where they are needed most and where they have greatest impact 
and  value  for  money,  the  Agenda  for  Change  is  expected  to  propose  to  review  the  EU  aid 
portfolio.  Under  this  sub-option,  the  EU  would  therefore  differentiate  its  action  among  partner 
countries  and  regions  to  ensure  that  resources  are  allocated  according  to  needs,  capacities, 
country  commitments  and  performance,  and  potential  EU  impact  on  policy  reform  and  on 
leverage of EU Aid. To ensure adequate financing for development, the EU would achieve more 
variation in grant money among countries.  

Through comprehensive political and policy dialogue, the EU would define, in the programming 
phase, the most appropriate form of cooperation, leading to informed and objective decisions on 
the  most  effective  policy  mix,  financial  instruments  and  aid  arrangements,  including  the  use  of 
new blending mechanisms. EU development cooperation would be more country-specific, tailor-
made to each partner and be based on their own needs, strategies, priorities and assets.  

Cooperation  with  OCTs  would  follow  similar  principles.  Only  the  least  developed  would  be 
guaranteed to receive a territorial allocation. The concept of least developed territories would be 
adapted so as to take into account problems and challenges of OCTs such as fragility, isolation 
and structural problems. OCTs other than the least developed ones would have to rely on other 
types  of  financing,  such  as  loans  to  the  private  sector.  The  more  developed  OCTs  could  be 
granted a territorial allocation in case of external shocks, to be mobilised from a reserve of non-
programmed aid and implemented through budget support. 

According to the provisions of the Cotonou agreement, specific forms of support would also be 
defined  for  ACP  countries  in  situation  of  crisis  including  long-term  structural  instability  or 
fragility (see chapter 4.5).  

This differentiation would be implemented through the implementing regulation(s), the aid 
allocation system and during the programming phase, taking into account the partnership 
principles  of  the  Cotonou  agreement,  including  policy  dialogue.  It  would  not  require  a 
specific provision in the internal agreement. 

4.2.  Concentration of EU development cooperation activities 

4.2.1.  Status quo option 

EN 

21 

   EN 

 
 
 
The Commission continues to allocate aid and intervene in a great variety of sectors.  

research,  climate  change,  energy,  environment,  agriculture, 

Under this option, Commission-managed development aid programmes would continue to cover 
globally  a  wide  array  of  sectors  (e.g.  health,  education  and  higher  education,  training  and 
scientific 
food  security, 
infrastructure,  etc.).  The  selection  would  continue  to  be  done  at  country  level  through  a 
transparent and in-depth dialogue with partner countries on the basis of a joint analysis, without a 
deep reflection on areas where Commission aid has the strongest added value compared to other 
donors and  Member  States. OCT/EU cooperation would remain concentrated at  territorial level 
on one sector per OCT; however for technical assistance directly managed by the Commission, 
the number of areas covered would remain wide. 

4.2.2.  Alternative option: allow more concentration of EU cooperation activities 

(cid:131)  Sub-option A – Allow focusing EU cooperation on a single sector 

EU aid is focused on a single sector in each partner to maximise impact.  

Under  this  sub-option,  a  single  sector  in  each  ACP  country  would  have  to  be  selected  to 
maximise  critical  mass  and  impact.  For  OCTs,  this  sub-option  would  mean  that  technical 
assistance  resources  would  be  used  for  support  in  a  very  limited  set  of  sectors  of  the 
Commission's choice. While this type of concentration could be relevant in certain partners where 
many donors are present, this sub-option would not allow tackling the situation of donor orphans. 
In addition, it could be difficult to agree with the beneficiary partners on the choice of sector. For 
OCTs,  this  sub-option  may  run  counter  to  the  principle  of  diversification  between  OCTs  and 
would not be congruent to the principle of partnership. The absorption capacity according in the 
sector chosen would also have to be taken into account, as it could lead to a waste of EU funding 
instead of increased impact. 

This  concentration  of  funds  on  a  single  sector  in  each  partner  would  be  implemented 
during  the  programming  phase.  For  OCTs,  provisions  could  also  be  inserted  in  the 
implementing  regulation.  This  sub-option  would  not  require  a  specific  provision  in  the 
internal agreement.  

(cid:131)  Sub-option B – Allow focusing EU cooperation on a limited number of sectors 

EU aid is focused on a limited number of sectors where it can have the greatest impact.   

This sub-option would mean selecting a limited number of areas for action when EU aid is being 
programmed in ACPs, instead of spreading efforts too thinly over too many sectors, in order to 
reinforce  the  Commission  role  as  a  delivery  agent  in  areas  where  size  and  critical  mass  are  of 
special importance, avoiding fragmentation. This would include sectors where EU aid can have 
the greatest impact and which are of greatest importance to the beneficiary State, in line with the 
Communication 'Agenda for Change' to be adopted. 

For  OCTs,  this  sub-option  would  foresee  a  further  concentration  of  EU  funds  by  limiting  the 
technical  assistance  directly  managed  by  the  Commission  to  a  selected  number  of  areas  in  line 
with OCT and EU priorities and objectives. 

EN 

22 

   EN 

 
More  concentration  of  funds  in  a  strictly  limited  number  of  areas  in  ACPs  would  be 
implemented at country level during the programming phase while taking into account the 
specific  situation  of  fragile  countries.  For  OCTs,  this  would  be  implemented  during  the 
programming phase and provisions could be inserted in the implementing regulation. This 
sub-option would not require a specific provision in the internal agreement.  

4.3.  Coordination with EU Member States  

4.3.1.  Status quo option 

Division of labour continues to be implemented as under the 10th EDF.  

Under this option, the process of joint programming  in ACPs would  remain  limited  to  selected 
pilot  countries,  on  the  basis  of  the  various  commitments  taken  in  Council  conclusions  to  Joint 
programming, most prominently the 2006 Common Framework for Country Strategy Papers*. In 
other  countries,  each  donor  would  continue  to  prepare  its  own  country  strategy  documents, 
including  for  Commission-managed  aid,  comprehensive  Country  Strategy  Papers  (CSP)  as 
defined  in  the  Cotonou  agreement.  For  OCTs,  coordination  of  EU  and  Member  States' 
interventions would continue to consist in parallel programmes defined independently from one 
another. 

4.3.2.  Alternative option: allow more coordination with EU Member States 

(cid:131)  Sub-option A – Joint programming with EU Member States becomes a binding modality 

Joint  programming  is  a  compulsory  modality  enshrined  in  the  11th  EDF  legislative  and 
regulatory framework. 

Under  this sub-option,  a programming document would be prepared jointly by the EU and the 
Member  States  for  each  partner.  This  document  would  entail  all  financial  commitments  by  all 
EU  actors,  by  sector.  This  would  ensure  effective  division  of  labour  and  a  high  level  of 
predictability  and  visibility  of  EU  action,  avoiding  overlaps.  However  applying  joint 
programming systematically in all cases is not yet feasible and therefore a legal obligation is not 
politically acceptable. 

This  sub-option  would  be  implemented  through  binding  provisions  in  the  implementing 
regulations.  

(cid:131)  Sub-option B – Allow reinforcing Joint programming with EU Member States 

Joint  programming  and  division  of  labour  are  implemented  through  the  11th  EDF 
legislative and regulatory framework. 

Under  this  sub-option,  Joint  Programming  of  EU  and  Member  States'  cooperation  activities 
would  be  reinforced  in  order  to  achieve  better  division  of  labour.  Where  appropriate,  the 
European Investment Bank (EIB) could be associated with this process. 

This joint programming process could result for ACPs in a single, joint programming document 
for each partner country as a preferred option, or as a minimum option an effective agreement on 
division of labour. Indicative financial commitments by all EU actors, per sector, would be part 
of the agreements on division of labour. To start with, the new proposal would be 'EU + Member 

EN 

23 

   EN 

 
States'  only  present  in  the  country  concerned.  Other  EU  donors  not  present  at  country  level 
would  significantly  gain  in  possibilities  for  contributing  inside  an  EU  scheme,  which  would 
certainly foster opportunities for delegated cooperation.  

For  OCTs,  this  sub-option  would  seek  –  where  possible  –  a  better  alignment  of  the  EU  and 
Member  States'  programmes.  Trilateral  dialogues  between  the  OCTs,  their  Member  States  and 
the  Commission  could  be  instrumental  to  defining  a  division  of  labour  between  the  different 
partners in the programming phase.  

This sub-option concerns the programming phase and would not require a provision in the 
internal  agreement,  but  specific  provisions  including  possibly  details  of  the  joint 
programming process for ACPs could be integrated in the implementing regulation.  

In addition to joint programming at country level, the EU and Member States could increase their 
collective impact by making use of aid modalities that facilitate joint actions. In its proposal for a 
revision  of  the  Financial  Regulation  for  the  EU  budget,  the  Commission  inserted  a  provision 
allowing  the  creation  of  EU  Trust  Funds18.  Under  this  sub-option,  the  possibility  to  create  EU 
Trust  Funds  managed  by  the  Commission  for  ACPs  would  also  be  foreseen  for  the  11th  EDF 
framework. 

To  allow  the  establishment  of  EU  Trust  funds  managed  by  the  Commission  for  ACP 
Countries, a provision could be introduced in the 11th EDF Financial Regulation.  

4.4.  Innovative financial instruments 

4.4.1.  Status quo option 

The existing mechanisms for blending grants with loans are maintained. 

Under this option, no modification would be foreseen regarding the use of existing instruments 
(see  chapter  2.2).  The  balance  between  grants  and  loans  would  not  allow  for  further 
differentiation and concentration of EU grants on partners which need it most.  

4.4.2.  Alternative option: allow an increased use of innovative financial instruments 

(cid:131)  Sub-option A – Compulsory use of blending mechanisms 

Blending mechanisms* are used systematically in EU cooperation funding. 

In  all  ACP  countries  and  OCTs,  all  EU  grants  would  be  coupled  with  loans  from  Financing 
Institutions  (EIB,  multilateral,  regional  and  bilateral  development  banks)  in  order  to  leverage 
further resources and thus increase impact of EU funding.  

However this sub-option would not take sufficiently into account the disparity of situations. In 
particular, it would entail the risk of further increasing the level of indebtedness of those partners 
who  cannot  afford  it.  In  addition,  this  sub-option  could  be  appropriate  in  a  number  of  sectors, 
notably in the area of infrastructure development or the promotion of a competitive local private 
sector.  However,  it  could  be  inefficient  and  irrelevant  in  other  areas  such  as  promoting 
regulatory  frameworks  to  be  established  by  partner  countries  governments  or  for  a  range  of 
typical  public  sector  activities,  often  linked  to  social  sectors,  like  for  instance  improvement  of 
education  or  health  systems.  Therefore  this  sub-option  would  not  be  applicable  always  but 
should rather be applied gradually (see sub-option B).  

EN 

24 

   EN 

 
The  systematic  use  of  EU  grants  to  blend  with  loans  from  European  Finance  Institutions 
would not require a specific provision in the Internal Agreement as this would be defined 
during the programming phase. Specific provisions could be included in the implementing 
and financial regulations.  

(cid:131)  Sub-option B – Increased use of blending mechanisms 

Blending mechanisms* are reinforced to boost financial resources for development. 

In  certain  ACP  countries  or  regions,  an  increasing  percentage  of  EU  development  resources 
could be used through existing or new financial instruments, such as blending grants with loans 
or  other  risk-sharing  mechanisms,  in  order  to  leverage  further  resources  and  thus  increase 
impact. Country or regional strategic programming documents could be used to specify this. In 
doing  so,  sustainability  criteria  such  as  indebtedness  capacity  and  local  situations  and  risks 
would be duly taken into account. 

For  OCTs,  an  increased  percentage  of  resources  could  also  be  used  for  blending  mechanisms 
involving EDF resources including resources managed by the European Investment Bank (EIB), 
and other financial institutions such as regional development banks and/or the private sector. 

This  sub-option  would  imply  the  reinforcement  of  partnerships  and  coordination  with  the 
Financing  Institutions  (EIB,  multilateral,  regional  and  bilateral  development  banks).  In 
particular,  regarding  the  ACP  and  OCT  Investment  Facilities  managed  by  the  EIB,  it  would 
entail  a  further  alignment  between  Commission,  other  relevant  EU  actors  and  EIB  during  the 
programming phase and when identifying projects, to ensure greater coherence with the national 
strategies,  as  well  as  the  adaptation  of  the  monitoring  and  reporting  framework  of  the  EIB 
operations putting more emphasis on results and outcome. 

The  process  of  reinforcing  the  use  of  blending  mechanisms  should  be  supported  by  an  EU 
platform  incorporating  notably  the  Commission,  Member  States  and  European  financial 
institutions.  This  platform  could  provide  a  relevant  forum  to  optimise  financing  and  blending 
instruments. 

The  increased  use  of  EU  grants  to  blend  with  loans  from  European  Finance  Institutions 
would not require a specific provision in the Internal Agreement as this would be defined 
during the programming phase. Specific provisions could be included in the implementing 
and financial regulations.  

4.5.  Flexibility  

4.5.1.  Status quo option 

The elements of flexibility of the 11th EDF remain limited to those of the 10th EDF. 

Compared  to  other  external  action  instruments  under  the  EU  budget,  the  EDF  already  entails 
important  elements  of  flexibility  in  the  implementation  of  aid  to  swiftly  respond  to  changing 
priorities and needs, such as the use of reserves, of the so called B-envelopes* or articles 72 and 
73 of the Cotonou agreement (for ACPs). Under this option, those would remain in the 11th EDF 
but no additional elements of flexibility would be foreseen. This would not allow a sufficiently 
quick response to crisis and situations of fragility. For the OCTs, the option would entail that the 

EN 

25 

   EN 

 
 
revised  Overseas  Association  Decision  would  integrate  the  relevant  elements  of  flexibility 
already entailed in the Cotonou agreement. 

4.5.2.  Alternative option: increase flexibility within the EDF 

Flexibility elements will be reinforced in the 11th EDF compared to the 10th EDF. Under this 
option, the possible modalities will be analysed under three pillars representing different aspects 
of EDF flexibilities. 

First pillar: EDF Reserves 

(cid:131)  Sub-option A – Large amount of funds kept unallocated 

The  large  majority  of  funds  are  kept  in  reserves  for  top-ups  of  country  allocations  or 
special allocations for specific sectors or initiatives.   

Under this sub-option, only a small amount of funds would be programmed in initial allocations 
and the large majority of funds would remain unallocated to ensure maximal flexibility in the use 
of EDF funding. However this would not ensure predictability of funding for ACP partners and it 
would therefore act as a deterrent to structural reforms and long term development.  

This sub-option would not require a specific provision in the 11th EDF internal agreement, 
but it would be reflected through programming and implementing procedures.  

(cid:131)  Sub-option B – Increased funding kept aside for topping-ups 

Compared to the 10th EDF, initial allocations upfront are limited and more funds are kept 
in  reserves  for  top-ups  of  country  allocations  or  special  allocations  for  specific  sectors  or 
initiatives.   

Under  this  sub-option,  a  greater  margin  of  flexibility  would  be  possible  in  the  11th  EDF,  to 
improve EU capacity to ensure an appropriate and rapid response to evolving situations, external 
shocks  and  unforeseen  needs  faced  by  ACP  partners19,  without  deteriorating  predictability  of 
funds for the partners. This should be done through a holistic approach agreed at country level to 
ensure coherence between short term responses and long term development. 

For  OCTs,  non  programmed  funds  would  be  kept  aside  for  rapid  response  to  external  shocks 
such as natural calamities or deep economic crises. 

It should also be proposed to look for greater reciprocal engagement with partner countries and 
mutual  accountability  for  results, 
taking  positive  account  of 
commitments,  but  also  through  results  based  financing,  in  the  spirit  of  moving  further  from  a 
donor-recipient  relationship  to  one  of  partnership.  Therefore,  this  sub-option  would  also  allow 
the  EU  to  take  into  account  the  progresses  of  ACP  countries  regarding  domestic  reforms  and 
sound policies, in order to implement a more incentive-based approach.  

through  aid  allocations 

This sub-option would not require a specific provision in the 11th EDF internal agreement, 
but it would be reflected through programming and implementing procedures. It would be 
taken into account in the aid allocation and implemented during the programming phase. 

Second pillar: Countries in crisis or in situation of fragility 

EN 

26 

   EN 

 
(cid:131)  Sub-option A – No programming for countries in crisis or in situation of fragility 

No  programming  mechanisms  are  required  for  countries  in  situation  of  crisis  including 
those in long-term structural instability or fragility 

Under this sub-option, no programming would be required for countries or territories in crisis or 
in  situation  of  fragility,  to  ensure  a  complete  flexibility  for  the  EU  to  prepare  is  response  to 
tackle the situations of these countries. This would however be detrimental for predictability of 
funding for the partners and make donor coordination very difficult. In addition, circumventing 
programming would be a missed opportunity to undertake dialogue with the government of the 
partner country whenever possible, which is particularly important for countries or territories in 
situation of crisis or fragility.  

This sub-option would not require a specific provision in the 11th EDF internal agreement, 
but it would be reflected through programming and implementing procedures.  

(cid:131)  Sub-option B – Specific forms of support for countries in crisis or in situation of fragility 

Specific forms of support are defined for countries in situation of crisis including long-term 
structural instability or fragility 

These  forms  of  support,  to  be  defined  according  to  the  provisions  of  the  Cotonou  agreement, 
could  include  a  more  flexible  programming  mechanism  (response  mechanism)  and  possibly 
unilateral implementation procedures permitting operations that are rapid, flexible and effective, 
in close coordination with the international community.  

This sub-option would answer the need to improve the efficiency of the answers provided by the 
different tools and to build a common approach, based on a common analysis and definition of 
priorities,  with  all  the  stakeholders  involved  in  the  process  of  fragility,  transition  or  crisis 
management,  and  to  make  possible  a  faster  and  more  flexible  response  mechanism 
(programming)  in  such  situations.  Procedures  would  reflect  the  need  for  urgent  and  focused 
actions, while taking into account the variety of situations and objectives, starting after the first 
emergency  assistance  of  ECHO  to  state  building  and  sustainable  development.  No  specific 
instrument would be dedicated to fragile states but the response mechanism process would have 
to  be  adapted 
relief, 
linking 
rehabilitation/reconstruction  and  development, 
for  programming  and 
implementation  of  the  EDF  would  promote  and  advocate  a  better  coordination  between  the 
humanitarian and development instruments. 

those  countries.  For 

transition  situations, 

the  modalities 

those 

for 

For OCTs, the notion of fragility could also be taken into account under certain conditions and 
more flexible programming and implementation procedures could be used.  

This sub-option would not require a specific provision in the 11th EDF internal agreement, 
but it would be reflected through programming and implementing procedures.  

Third pillar: Response strategies 

(cid:131)  Sub-option A – Alignment on strategies of the partners is a compulsory modality 

EN 

27 

   EN 

 
 
Full alignment on strategies of the partners is a compulsory modality enshrined in the 11th 
EDF legislative and regulatory framework. 

Under this sub-option, the EU would not any more prepare Country Strategy Papers (CSPs) for 
ACPs or Single Programming Documents for OCTs. It would align itself automatically with the 
national/territorial  strategies  defined  by  the  EU  partners  and  concentrate  its  efforts  in  the 
programming phase on preparing response strategies.  

However  national/territorial  strategies  defined  by  the  partners,  and  in  particular  Poverty 
Reduction  Strategy  Papers,  do  not  always  encompass  all  areas  of  interest  for  EU  intervention, 
can  be  of  uneven  quality  or  are  sometimes  lacking.  Therefore  this  sub-option  does  not  seem 
realistic  for  all  ACP  countries  and  OCTs  at  this  stage  unless  it  is  implemented  gradually  (see 
sub-option B).    

This  sub-option  would  be  implemented  through  binding  provisions  in  the  implementing 
regulations.  

(cid:131)  Sub-option B – Alignment on strategies of the partners where possible 

The EU concentrates on response strategies in the programming phase. 

In line with the objectives of alignment, ownership and aid effectiveness, depending on the level 
of dialogue with the partner country, on the analysis  already undertaken in-country  and on the 
quality  of  the  strategies  already  put  in  place  by  the  partner  country,  the  EU  could  decide  to 
simply  align  itself  with  the  national/territorial  strategies  defined  by  the  EU  partners  and  to 
concentrate its efforts in the programming phase on preparing the response strategy only rather 
than  on  drafting  a  comprehensive  Country  Strategy  Paper  (CSP)  or  Single  Programming 
Document for OCTs.  

Specific provisions could be included in the implementing regulation to foresee a margin of 
flexibility  regarding  the  preparation  of  the  programming  documents,  allowing  the  EU  to 
focus on response strategies.  

4.6.  Stimulate regional cooperation with OCTs 

4.6.1.  Status quo option 

Resources  available  for  OCT  regional  cooperation  continue  to  be  used  for  projects 
involving  all  OCTs  within  a  specific  region  (i.e.  the  Caribbean,  the  Indian  Ocean  and  the 
Pacific) and for cooperation benefitting all OCTs.  

This option would not favour greater interaction and cooperation between OCTs and their ACP 
neighbours and European Outermost Regions (in the Caribbean and the Indian Ocean). 

4.6.2.  Alternative option: Allow stimulating regional cooperation with OCTs 

(cid:131)  Sub-option A – Regional cooperation as prime objective of OCT/EU cooperation  

EU  programmed  aid  to  OCTs  would  be  solely  used  at  regional  level  in  view  of  giving 
maximum impulses to the EU objective of promoting regional cooperation and integration. 
This would mean that no allocations would be granted to individual territories. 

EN 

28 

   EN 

 
Under  this  sub-option,  funds  would  only  be  allocated  to  projects  and  programmes  which 
explicitly  inscribe  them  in  a  regional  perspective  and  make  use  of  existing  cooperation  and 
integration structures.  

This sub-option would not take into account the situation of isolated OCTs, which have few to no 
possibilities to cooperation on a regional level and would exclude them from EU aid; this, while 
some of these isolated OCTs are among the least developed OCTs. This sub-option is likely to be 
difficult  to  implement  as  it  may  prove  to  be  difficult  for  the  different  actors  to  agree  on  the 
principle,  the  areas,  form  and  modalities  of  the  cooperation.  It  would  also  run  counter  to  the 
principle of diversification between OCTs, would not be congruent to the principle of partnership 
and could not guarantee that two of the three objectives of the envisaged OCT/EU association be 
taken into account, notably strengthen OCT competiveness and increase their resilience. 

This  sub-option  would  be  implemented  during  the  programming  phase  and  specific 
provisions could be included in the implementing regulation. This would also be reflected in 
the Commission proposal regarding the revision of the Overseas Association Decision 

(cid:131)  Sub-option  B  –  Link  regional  cooperation  resources  to  the  use  of  existing  regional 

cooperation schemes with ACPs and Outermost Regions 

Use  of  resources  for  OCT  regional  cooperation  is  conditioned  to  their  added  value  with 
regard to furthering regional cooperation with ACPs and outermost regions. 

Under this sub-option, allocations for regional cooperation would only be used for initiatives in 
the Caribbean, Indian Ocean and Pacific regions which support the insertion of OCTs in existing 
regional cooperation and integration schemes with ACPs and/or outermost regions, preferably by 
making use of regional institutions and bodies for their implementation. These resources could be 
used to allow OCTs to participate in regional programmes or Trust funds of which ACP countries 
are  beneficiaries.  They  could  also  be  used  for  co-financing  of  projects  involving  Outermost 
Regions receiving funding from the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF). 

This  sub-option  would  be  implemented  during  the  programming  phase  and  specific 
provisions could be included in the implementing regulation. This would also be reflected in 
the Commission proposal regarding the revision of the Overseas Association Decision.  

5.  ANALYSIS OF IMPACTS  

The following chapter analyses the impacts of the options for the objectives identified.  

This  includes  the  likely  socio-economic  impacts  of  the  options  on  ACP  countries  and  OCTs, 
stemming  from  the  implementation  of  the  general  objectives  of  poverty  eradication  and 
improvements  towards  MDGs*,  sustainable  development  and  integration  of  countries  into  the 
world  economy.  The  environmental  impacts  on  ACP  countries  are  also  covered  by  the 
implementation of the general objective of sustainable development, including EU commitments 
taken in the context of the Climate Change and Biodiversity negotiations (Copenhagen, Nagoya). 

In  order  to  measure  the  impact  of  EU  aid  funded  through  the  EDF  in  beneficiary  countries  in 
terms of poverty eradication, socio economic progress, progress towards MDGs and integration 
in world economy, various indicators are used (see indicators and statistics by countries in annex 

EN 

29 

   EN 

 
 
IV).  Indicators and benchmarks are also used to measure the part of EU spending dedicated to  
environmental sectors at large, to measure environmental impact (see annex IV). 

The socio-economic impacts on EU citizens are limited to the analysis of the impacts regarding 
the  efficient  use  of  EU  taxpayers'  money.  The  analysis  of  the  environmental  impact  of  the 
options  within  the  EU  is  not  considered  in  detail.  The  Commission  will  ensure  the 
mainstreaming of environmental issues / objectives during the programming process. 

The  impacts  of  the  options  in  terms  of  management  and  implementation  modalities  are  also 
taken into account, as well as the impact on the EU's role and visibility in its external action. 

5.1.  Differentiation  

5.1.1.  Status quo option 

Strengths 

Weaknesses 

poverty 
overarching 
The 
reduction/eradication, 
development, 
integration  of  ACP  countries  into  the  world  economy 
remain at the centre of the EU development cooperation. 

objectives 
sustainable 

of 

integrate 

the  new  objectives  for  EU 
EDF  does  not 
cooperation with OCTs: strengthening OCT competitiveness 
and  resilience  and  promoting  regional  cooperation  with 
OCTs. 

 EU keeps its global presence and global reach (EU added 
value) 

Scarce/limited resources spread too thinly (no critical mass), 
resulting in low impact 

Impact  of  development  aid  (socio-economic  impact)  in 
low  (waste  of  resources  + 
certain  countries  remains 
reputational risk) 

Risks  not  to  progress  on  MDG  targets  in  poorest  countries 
(socio-economic impact) 

Insufficiently adapted response to countries' specific situation 

Inability  to  do  large-scale  projects  as  funds  per  country  are 
too small  

Less efficient use of EU taxpayers' money  

In  the  long  run,  EU  development  aid  loses  relevance  and 
legitimacy because of lower impact 

5.1.2.  Alternative option: allow more differentiation between ACP Countries and OCTs 

Sub-option  A:  Allow  focusing  EU  cooperation  on  a  limited  number  of  partners  by  using 
statistical data 

Strengths 

Weaknesses 

EN 

30 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
poverty 
The 
overarching 
development, 
reduction/eradication, 
integration  of  ACP  countries  into  the  world  economy 
remain at the centre of the EU development cooperation. 

objectives 
sustainable 

of 

Potential  reduction  of  global  presence/global  reach  (EU 
added value) 

EDF  integrates  the  new  objectives  for  EU  cooperation 
with  OCTs:  strengthening  OCT  competitiveness  and 
resilience and promoting regional cooperation with OCTs. 

Clear cut criteria for differentiation (statistical data) 

Increased critical mass and impact in certain countries 

Risk  of  statistical  criteria  for  differentiation  not  reflecting 
fully  needs,  capacities, 
interests  and  commitments  of 
individual partners  

ACP  countries  supposedly  most  in  needs  (on  statistical 
basis)  more  likely  to  progress  on  MDG  targets  (socio-
economic impact) 

A  priori  exclusion  of  certain  partners  from  eligibility  to 
funding  on  a  statistical  basis  not  reflecting  fully  the 
differences in situations 

EU  more  likely  to  meet  its  commitments  on  volumes  of 
funding for Sub-Saharan Africa and LDCs 

Partnership  principles  of  Cotonou  agreement  not  fully 
respected 

for  more  modern 

Opportunity 
and  meaningful 
relationships  with  wealthier  developing  countries  and 
OCTs  

Potential loss of visibility and influence of EU interventions 
in certain countries and territories 

Sub-option B: Allow focusing EU cooperation on a limited number of countries by using 
quantitative and qualitative data 

Strengths 

Weaknesses 

poverty 
The 
overarching 
reduction/eradication, 
development, 
integration  of  ACP  countries  into  the  world  economy 
remain at the centre of the EU development cooperation. 

objectives 
sustainable 

of 

Potential  reduction  of  global  presence/global  reach  (EU 
added value) 

EDF  integrates  the  new  objectives  for  EU  cooperation 
with  OCTs:  strengthening  OCT  competitiveness  and 
resilience and promoting regional cooperation with OCTs. 

Resources allocations closer to needs, capacities, interests 
and commitments of individual partners. 

Difficulty in defining objective and criteria for differentiation 
among ACP countries 

Grants focussing on those partners which need it the most 
and  where  the  impact  will  be  greatest,  giving  greater 
value  for  money  (poverty  reduction,  socio-economic 
impact) 

Increased critical mass in certain countries 

ACP  countries  most  in  needs  more  likely  to  progress  on 
MDG targets (socio-economic impact) 

EU  more  likely  to  meet  its  commitments  on  volumes  of 
funding for Sub-Saharan Africa and LDCs 

Increased  visibility  and  reputation  for  the  EU  in  certain 
countries/regions 

for  more  modern 

Opportunity 
and  meaningful 
relationships  with  wealthier  developing  countries  and 
OCTs, including mutual interests and positive impacts on 
global public goods 

Risk  of  real  or  perceived  predominance  of  political 
considerations of development aid 

Difficulty  to  reconcile  the  increase  of  grants  targeting  the 
poorest countries whereas there are still strong inequalities in 
more  advanced  countries  (cid:198)  Necessity  to  find  alternative 
sources of funding to tackle these challenges. 

In more advanced countries and territories where the share of 
grants is reduced or not guaranteed, risk of loss of visibility 
for EU intervention(cid:198) necessity to find alternative forms of 
cooperation/dialogue with the partner for the EU to develop 
its political presence and influence, including regarding 
global challenges and sustainable development 

EN 

31 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
5.2.  Concentration of EU cooperation activities 

5.2.1.  Status quo option 

Strengths 

Weaknesses 

poverty 
The 
overarching 
development, 
reduction/eradication, 
integration  of  ACP  countries  into  the  world  economy 
remain at the centre of the EU development cooperation.  

objectives 
sustainable 

of 

integrate 

EDF  does  not 
the  new  objectives  for  EU 
cooperation with OCTs: strengthening OCT competitiveness 
and  resilience  and  promoting  regional  cooperation  with 
OCTs. 

Visibility  and  possibility for  leverage  in  a  larger  number 
of sectors in ACPs 

Fragmentation and dispersion of development aid not tackled 
(missed opportunity). 

Continuation  of  concentration  of  resources  to  one  focus 
sector  per  OCT  at  territorial  level  =>  EU  presence, 
visibility and influence ensured, even if limited due to low 
aid volumes. 

Scarce/limited  resources  cooperation  spread  too  thinly  (no 
critical  mass),  resulting  in  low  impact  (socio-economic 
impact). Less efficient use of EU taxpayers' money  

Could undermine MDG commitment (because if aid is spread 
thinly, the impact is minimal). In the long run, EU aid loses 
relevance and legitimacy because of lower impact 

5.2.2.  Alternative option: allow more concentration of EU cooperation activities 

Sub-option A: Allow focusing EU cooperation on a single sector 

Strengths 

Weaknesses 

poverty 
The 
overarching 
reduction/eradication, 
development, 
integration  of  ACP  countries  into  the  world  economy 
remain at the center of the EU development cooperation.  

objectives 
sustainable 

of 

EDF  integrates  the  new  objectives  for  EU  cooperation 
with  OCTs:  strengthening  OCT  competitiveness  and 
resilience and promoting regional cooperation with OCTs 

Potential  for  much  greater  impact  by  reaching  critical 
mass through concentration of resources on a single sector 
reduction,  socio-economic  and 
for  ACPs 
environmental  impact)  and  a  single  intervention  areas  of 
the 
(sustainable 
technical 
development impact) 

to  OCTs 

assistance 

(poverty 

Reduction of development aid fragmentation  

Increased  visibility  and  expertise  in  the  long  term  in  the 
chosen sector 

Easier to monitor impact/results 

=The overarching objectives of EU cooperation could be put 
at risk in countries where very few donors are present (donor 
orphans)  and  where  concentrating  EU  intervention  in  one 
single sector would not be sufficient 

High  risk  to  undermine  principle  of  country/  territory 
ownership,  and  of  disagreement  with  partners  on  sectors 
chosen 

 =>  risk  of  creating  more  gaps  and  discontinuity 
in 
cooperation  and  of  undermining  gains  on  reducing  aid 
fragmentation 

=>  knock-on  negative  effect  on  EU  reputation  undermining 
potential increase in EU visibility and reputation in the sector 
chosen 

Potential  waste  of  EU  funding  (absorption  capacity  not 
sufficient in a single sector) => could undermine objective of 
higher impact of EU funding  

Sub-option B: Allow focusing EU cooperation on a limited number of sectors 

Strengths 

Weaknesses 

EN 

32 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
poverty 
The 
overarching 
development, 
reduction/eradication, 
integration  of  ACP  countries  into  the  world  economy 
remain at the center of the EU development cooperation.  

objectives 
sustainable 

of 

EDF  integrates  the  new  objectives  for  EU  cooperation 
with  OCTs:  strengthening  OCT  competitiveness  and 
resilience and promoting regional cooperation with OCTs 

Potential  for  much  greater  impact  by  reaching  critical 
mass  through  concentration  of  resources  on  limited 
number of sectors (poverty reduction, socio-economic and 
environmental impact)  

Could  undermine  principle  of  country/  territory  ownership 
(+knock-on  negative  effect  on  EU  reputation),  potentially 
create  more  gaps  and  discontinuity  in  cooperation  due  to 
potential disagreement with partners on sectors chosen.  

Further concentration of resources by limiting the number 
of  intervention  areas  of  the  technical  assistance to  OCTs 
directly  managed  by  the  Commission  ensuring  greater 
leverage for the sustainable development for OCTs.  

Could undermine MDG commitment (in those sectors where 
EU  will  no  longer  be  present)  =>    However,  expected 
mitigation through effective division of labour (EU – MS and 
beyond)  

Reduction  of  development  aid 
transaction costs (for EU, MS, partners) 

fragmentation  and 

In the longer-run, high level specialised expertise leading 
to increased efficiency 

Increased visibility and reputation in chosen key sectors 

No a priori reduction in global presence  

Easier to monitor impact/results 

Risk of losing visibility and leverage in certain sectors (vis-à-
vis other donors) by specialising too much in some sectors or 
in the case of OCTs by no longer having tangible results on 
the ground. 

Loss of COM expertise and competence in certain sectors 

In  the  long  run,  reputational  risk,  reduced  credibility  for  the 
COM  to  represent/coordinate  the  EU  in  all  sectors  of 
development  cooperation  globally  (loss  of 
intellectual 
leadership)  as it  is  not  present in  all  sectors  at country  level 
=>  Expected  mitigation  through  leadership  on  division  of 
labour and through increased coordination with programming 
under regional, intra-ACP or thematic (DCI) allocations. 

5.3.  Coordination with EU Member States  

5.3.1.  Status quo option 

Strengths 

Weaknesses 

poverty 
The 
overarching 
reduction/eradication, 
development, 
integration  of  ACP  countries  into  the  world  economy 
remain at the centre of the EU development cooperation.  

objectives 
sustainable 

of 

integrate 

EDF  does  not 
the  new  objectives  for  EU 
cooperation with OCTs: strengthening OCT competitiveness 
and  resilience  and  promoting  regional  cooperation  with 
OCTs. 

Fragmentation  and  dispersion  of  aid  not  tackled  (missed 
opportunity) 
socio-economic/ 
environmental impact) 

reduction, 

(poverty 

Risk of overlaps among donors. 

Parallel,  but  no  coordinated  EU/Member  State  interventions 
for OCTs 

Less efficient use of EU taxpayers' money  

In  the  long  run,  EU  aid  loses  relevance  and  legitimacy 
because of lower impact 

5.3.2.  Alternative option: allow more coordination with EU Member States 

Sub-option A: Joint programming with EU Member States becomes a binding modality 

EN 

33 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Strengths 

Weaknesses 

poverty 
overarching 
The 
reduction/eradication, 
development, 
integration  of  ACP  countries  into  the  world  economy 
remain at the centre of the EU development cooperation  

objectives 
sustainable 

of 

EDF  integrates  the  new  objectives  for  EU  cooperation 
with  OCTs:  strengthening  OCT  competitiveness  and 
resilience and promoting regional cooperation with OCTs 

Increased  coordination  and  better  division  of  labour 
among  donors  reduces  aid  fragmentation  and  transaction 
costs (poverty reduction, socio-economic impact) 

Strengthened role for COM in initiating and coordinating 
division of labour 

Better  alignment  of 
programmes with OCTs 

the  EU  and  Member  States 

Variety  in  partners  on  the  ground  not  taken  into  account  
(political, economic or security  conditions for instance) 

High transaction costs in the short term (coordination efforts, 
administrative delays) in all partners  

Risk of higher administrative burden, in particular in partners 
where  this  is  not  easily  attainable  due  to  the  variety  of 
situations 

Risk of long administrative delays or impossibility to find an 
agreement  on  programming  in  particular  in  partners  where 
this is not easily attainable due to variety of situations 

Sub-option B: Allow reinforcing Joint programming with EU Member States 

Strengths 

Weaknesses 

poverty 
The 
overarching 
reduction/eradication, 
development, 
integration  of  ACP  countries  into  the  world  economy 
remain at the centre of the EU development cooperation  

objectives 
sustainable 

of 

EDF  integrates  the  new  objectives  for  EU  cooperation 
with  OCTs:  strengthening  OCT  competitiveness  and 
resilience and promoting regional cooperation with OCTs 

In the short to medium term, administrative burden for COM 
(and MS): more complex procedures, increased coordination 
efforts, administrative delays in programming phase  

In  the  short  to  medium  term,  higher  transaction  costs  for 
Member States and for COM (transfer /training of staff) 

=>  mitigated  by  gradual  approach  taking  into  account  the 
variety of situations in partners 

Less  ownership  and  decision  power  from  COM  within  a 
coordinated approach 

Use  of  EU  managed  Trust  Funds:  Risk  of  loss  of  coherence 
of  Aid  delivery  due  to  parallel  and  potentially  independent 
programming processes 

Increased  coordination  and  better  division  of  labour 
among  donors  reduces  aid  fragmentation  and  transaction 
costs  of  both  the  Commission  and  partner  countries, 
thereby 
(poverty 
reduction, socio-economic impact) 

the  efficiency  of  aid 

increasing 

Strengthened role for COM in initiating and coordinating 
division of labour 

Higher  leverage  in  joint  political  and  policy  dialogues 
with partner country governments and civil society. 

Better  alignment  of 
programmes with OCTs 

the  EU  and  Member  States 

Use  of  EU  managed  Trust  Funds:  Higher  political 
visibility for the EU and for EU taxpayers money, useful 
tool  for  supporting  international  negotiations,  greater 
coordination and exchange of views amongst EU actors 

5.4.  Innovative financial instruments 

5.4.1.  Status quo option 

EN 

34 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
Strengths 

Weaknesses 

poverty 
overarching 
The 
reduction/eradication, 
development, 
integration  of  ACP  countries  into  the  world  economy 
remain at the centre of the EU development cooperation.  

objectives 
sustainable 

of 

integrate 

the  new  objectives  for  EU 
EDF  does  not 
cooperation with OCTs: strengthening OCT competitiveness 
and  resilience  and  promoting  regional  cooperation  with 
OCTs. 

Insufficient  critical  mass  in  certain  partners  and  inability  to 
do large-scale projects  

Impact  of  EU  grants  not  maximised  (poverty  reduction, 
socio-economic impact, sustainable development) 

Use of EU taxpayers' money not sufficiently efficient 

5.4.2.  Alternative option: allow an increased use of innovative financial instruments 

Sub-option A: Compulsory use of blending mechanisms 

Strengths 

Weaknesses 

poverty 
The 
overarching 
reduction/eradication, 
development, 
integration  of  ACP  countries  into  the  world  economy 
remain at the centre of the EU development cooperation. 

objectives 
sustainable 

of 

EDF  integrates  the  new  objectives  for  EU  cooperation 
with  OCTs:  strengthening  OCT  competitiveness  and 
resilience and promoting regional cooperation with OCTs 

incentives  to  attract  financial  institutions  in  EU  partners 
and  private  sector  investors  (cid:198)  drivers  for  growth  in  the 
partner  

Increased  critical  mass  in  certain  partners,  ability  to  do 
larger-scale  projects,  value  for  money  (socio-economic 
impact) 

Financial  leverage  of  EU  grant  resources  (multiplier 
effect, potential for much greater impact) 

Much  stronger  coordination  between 
European Financing Institutions and other actors 

the  EU, 

the 

Potential  gain  for  EU  political  visibility  when  blending 
with European financial institutions 

Strong  risk  of  market  distortion  resulting  by  using  grant 
funding to blend with loans or other risk-sharing instruments 
in  situations  where  the  financial  institutions  and  the  private 
sector would have otherwise also engaged in the activity. 

Disparity of partners' situations not taken into account 

Risk  of  increased  debt  of  the  partner  country  (+knock-on 
negative effect on EU reputation) 

Loss of visibility/ownership for the Commission in blending 
mechanisms  

Absolutely not applicable in all sectors 

Certainly not applicable to all types of activities the EC wants 
to support 

Sub-option B: Increased use of blending mechanisms 

Strengths 

Weaknesses 

poverty 
overarching 
The 
reduction/eradication, 
development, 
integration  of  ACP  countries  into  the  world  economy 
remain at the centre of the EU development cooperation. 

objectives 
sustainable 

of 

EDF  integrates  the  new  objectives  for  EU  cooperation 

EN 

35 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
with  OCTs:  strengthening  OCT  competitiveness  and 
resilience and promoting regional cooperation with OCTs 

Additional  incentives  to  attract  financial  institutions  in 
EU  partners  and  private  sector  investors  (cid:198)  drivers  for 
growth in the partner  

In  the  short  to  medium  term:  need  to  continue  on  going 
efforts  to  further  develop  the  coordination  on  donor  and 
European Financing Institutions side 

Increased  critical  mass  in  certain  partners,  ability  to  do 
larger-scale  projects,  value  for  money  (socio-economic 
impact) 

Financial  leverage  of  EU  grant  resources  (multiplier 
effect, potential for much greater impact) 

Much  stronger  coordination  between 
European Financing Institutions and other actors  

the  EU, 

the 

Harmonization  of  procedures,  while  supporting  Paris 
declaration  and  Accra  agenda  as  far  as  development 
cooperation is concerned 

Potential  gain  for  EU  political  visibility  when  blending 
with European financial institutions. 

In  the  short  to  medium  term  :  impact  on  human  resources 
(need for new skills, capacity-building/training programmes); 
nevertheless, developing new skills should also be seen as an 
opportunity 

Depending  on  the  financial  instrument  there  might  be  less 
visibility/ownership 
in  blending 
mechanisms  (e.g.  in  case  of  interest  rate  subsidy;  multiple 
partners  including  financial  institutions)  than  in  aid  fully 
based on grants 

the  Commission 

for 

If sovereign lending to the ACP State itself: increase debt  of 
the  partner  country  (+knock-on  negative  effect  on  EU 
reputation) 

=> mitigated by concessionality and subsidisied interest rates 
in accordance with HIPC* framework of equivalent 

Tendency  to  have  these  mechanisms    concentrated  in  the 
hands  of  the  headquarters  and  risk  of  inconsistencies  with 
national programming(cid:198) necessity to complement with more 
in-country  coordination,  involvement  of  EU  delegations  is 
essential also for assessing the projects 

5.5.  Flexibility  

5.5.1.  Status quo option 

Strengths 

Weaknesses 

poverty 
The 
overarching 
development, 
reduction/eradication, 
integration  of  ACP  countries  into  the  world  economy 
remain at the centre of the EU development cooperation.  

objectives 
sustainable 

of 

integrate 

EDF  does  not 
the  new  objectives  for  EU 
cooperation with OCTs: strengthening OCT competitiveness 
and  resilience  and  promoting  regional  cooperation  with 
OCTs. 

Insufficiently adapted response to partners' specific situations 
impact,  sustainable 
(poverty  reduction,  socio-economic 
development/environmental  impact)  –  including  crisis  / 
transition / fragility situations 

Higher risks of inefficiency, affecting COM/EU reputation  

Use of EU taxpayers' money not sufficiently efficient 

5.5.2.  Alternative option: increase flexibility within the EDF 

First pillar: EDF Reserves 

Sub-option A: Large amount of funds kept unallocated 

Strengths 

Weaknesses 

EN 

36 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
poverty 
The 
overarching 
development, 
reduction/eradication, 
integration  of  ACP  countries  into  the  world  economy 
remain at the center of the EU development cooperation. 

objectives 
sustainable 

of 

EDF  integrates  the  new  objectives  for  EU  cooperation 
with  OCTs:  strengthening  OCT  competitiveness  and 
resilience and promoting regional cooperation with OCTs 

Possibility  to  quickly  adapt  aid  allocations  taking  into 
account  evolving  circumstances  in  ACPs  and  OCTs 
(poverty  reduction,  socio-economic  and  environmental 
impact)  

Very low predictability of funding 

=>  can  impair  development  of  structural  reforms  and  long 
term development 

=>  could  undermine  overarching  objectives  of  EU 
cooperation 

High reputational risk for COM: possible criticism over lack 
of  transparency,  predominance  of  political  considerations, 
subjectivity 

Could  undermine  objective  of  more  concentration  of  EU 
funding 

Sub-option B: Increased funding kept aside for topping-ups 

Strengths 

Weaknesses 

poverty 
The 
overarching 
development, 
reduction/eradication, 
integration  of  ACP  countries  into  the  world  economy 
remain at the center of the EU development cooperation. 

objectives 
sustainable 

of 

EDF  integrates  the  new  objectives  for  EU  cooperation 
with  OCTs:  strengthening  OCT  competitiveness  and 
resilience and promoting regional cooperation with OCTs 

Spare resources  

Less predictability of funding 

Possibility  to  quickly  adapt  aid  allocations  taking  into 
account  evolving  circumstances;  more  effectiveness 
(poverty  reduction,  socio-economic  and  environmental 
impact) as well as changing relationships in a globalising 
world 

Possibility 
approach :  

to 

implement  a  more 

incentives-based 

Higher incentive for reform by Partner Countries - every 
country  does  not  automatically  receives  topping  ups 
(socio-economic  impact);In  the  long  term,  lower  aid 
dependency,  reinforces    ownership  from  partner  country 
(socio-economic impact) 

-More efficient use of EU taxpayer money (Aid goes less 
to countries that don't deserve it) 

Enhanced 
of 
responsible/accountable donor 

reputation 

EU/COM 

as 

a 

For  OCTs  non  programmed  aid  set  aside  for  rapid 
response to external shocks 

(cid:198) this risk can be partially addressed  if  flexibility is  taken 
into account in a more comprehensive framework to support 
the recovery/development of the country 

(more incentives-based approach) :  

Less  certainty  for  partner  countries  to  access  its  'full 
allocation' – as calculated under current EDF-10 (can impair 
development of large-scale projects)  

Reputational  risk  for  COM:  possible  criticism  over  lack  of 
transparency,  predominance  of  political  considerations, 
subjectivity 

Risk  that  choice  of  actions/programmes  for  ACP  countries 
are less driven by real needs than by opportunities of getting 
additional funds  

Second pillar: Countries in crisis or in situation of fragility 

EN 

37 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Sub-option A: No programming for countries in crisis or in situation of fragility 

Strengths 

Weaknesses 

poverty 
The 
overarching 
reduction/eradication, 
development, 
integration  of  ACP  countries  into  the  world  economy 
remain at the center of the EU development cooperation. 

objectives 
sustainable 

of 

EDF  integrates  the  new  objectives  for  EU  cooperation 
with  OCTs:  strengthening  OCT  competitiveness  and 
resilience and promoting regional cooperation with OCTs 

Complete  flexibility  for  rapid  EU  response  to  tackle 
situations  of  these  countries  which  would  improve  EU 
reaction capacity to unforeseen needs 

Risk of  a case by case/short term approach 

opportunity 

dialogue  with 
Missed 
government/political 
national 
authorities 
empowerment  which  is  essential  to  prepare  the  longer  term 
response 

political 

and 

for 

no 

Reputational  risk  for  COM:  possible  criticism  over  lack  of 
transparency, predominance of political considerations 

No predictability of funding for beneficiary country => could 
undermine overarching objectives of EU cooperation 

Sub-option B: Specific forms of support for countries in crisis or in situation of fragility 

Strengths 

Weaknesses 

poverty 
overarching 
The 
reduction/eradication, 
development, 
integration  of  ACP  countries  into  the  world  economy 
remain at the center of the EU development cooperation. 

objectives 
sustainable 

of 

EDF  integrates  the  new  objectives  for  EU  cooperation 
with  OCTs:  strengthening  OCT  competitiveness  and 
resilience and promoting regional cooperation with OCTs 

Allow  new  forms  of  cooperation  adapted 
to  and 
addressing these situations (avoiding a case by case/short 
term approach) 

Facilitate  management  of  funding  through  more  flexible 
procedures 

Promotion 
stakeholders   

of 

coherent 

strategies 

involving 

all 

For OCTs, possibility of taking into account the notion of 
fragility under certain conditions in the programming and 
implementation 

Third pillar: Response strategies 

Sub-option A: Alignment on strategies of the partners as a compulsory modality 

Strengths 

Weaknesses 

The 
overarching 
poverty 
development, 
reduction/eradication, 
integration  of  ACP  countries  into  the  world  economy 
remain at the center of the EU development cooperation. 

objectives 
sustainable 

of 

EDF  integrates  the  new  objectives  for  EU  cooperation 
with  OCTs:  strengthening  OCT  competitiveness  and 

EN 

38 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
resilience and promoting regional cooperation with OCTs 

Enhance  principle  of  ownership  of  partners  and  full 
alignment  with  partner's  strategies, 
institutions  and 
procedures 

Variety  in  partners  on  the  ground  not  taken  into  account  
(political, economic or security  conditions for instance) 

Variety 
strategies defined by the partners not taken into account 

in  relevance  and  quality  of  national/territorial 

=>  could  undermine  relevance  and  effectiveness  of  EU 
intervention 

=>  could  undermine  overarching  objectives  of  EU 
cooperation 

Sub-option B: Alignment on strategies of the partners where possible 

Strengths 

Weaknesses 

poverty 
The 
overarching 
reduction/eradication, 
development, 
integration  of  ACP  countries  into  the  world  economy 
remain at the center of the EU development cooperation. 

objectives 
sustainable 

of 

EDF  integrates  the  new  objectives  for  EU  cooperation 
with  OCTs:  strengthening  OCT  competitiveness  and 
resilience and promoting regional cooperation with OCTs 

Enhance  principle  of  ownership  of  partners  of  their 
development policies and strategies 

Difficulties to work within a unique multi-annual framework 
(different cycles of the ACP partner countries)   

Full  alignment  with  partner's  strategies,  institutions  and 
procedures 

5.6. 

Stimulate regional cooperation with OCTs 

5.6.1. 

Status quo option 

Strengths 

Weaknesses 

integrate 

EDF  does  not 
the  new  objectives  for  EU 
cooperation with OCTs: strengthening OCT competitiveness 
and  resilience  and  promoting  regional  cooperation  with 
OCTs. 

No  greater  interaction  and  cooperation  between  OCTs  and 
their ACP and Outermost Region neighbours 

No better articulation between EDF and ERDF resources 

No improved possibilities for OCTs participating in regional 
programmes for ACP countries 

EN 

39 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
5.6.2. 

Alternative option: Allow stimulating regional cooperation with OCTs 

Sub-option A: Allow stimulating regional cooperation with OCTs 

Strengths 

Weaknesses 

Maximum support to EU objective of promoting regional 
cooperation and integration 

EDF  integrates only  one  of  the three  new  objectives  for  EU 
cooperation with OCTs: promoting regional cooperation with 
OCTs 

Situation  of  isolated  OCTs  not  taken  into  account  (limited 
possibilities for regional cooperation) 

Difficult for the different actors to agree to cooperate 

Sub-option  B:  Link  regional  cooperation  resources  to  the  use  of  existing  regional 
cooperation schemes with ACPs and Outermost Regions 

Strengths 

Weaknesses 

EDF  integrates  the  new  objectives  for  EU  cooperation 
with  OCTs:  strengthening  OCT  competitiveness  and 
resilience and promoting regional cooperation with OCTs 

Greater  interaction  and  cooperation  between  OCTs  and 
their ACP and Outermost Region neighbours 

Better articulation between EDF and ERDF resources 

Improved possibilities for OCTs participating in regional 
programmes for ACP countries 

6.  COMPARING THE OPTIONS  

6.1. 

option 

Weighing  of  positive  and  negative  impacts  per 

Status quo options 

Alternative options 

Options 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5a 

5b 

5c 

6 

Sub-options 

A 

B 

A 

B 

A 

B 

A 

B 

A 

B 

A 

B 

A 

B 

A 

B 

+ 

+  +  +  + 

+  + 

++  +/-  ++  +  ++ 

+/-  ++  +/-  ++  +/-  ++  +/-  ++ 

General 
objective: 

Contribute 
poverty 

to 

EN 

40 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
and 

reduction 
eventually 
poverty 
eradication, 
enhance 
sustainable 
development 
and 
of 
countries 
the 
economy 

integration 
the  ACP 
into 
world 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

+  ++ 

+ 

++  +  ++ 

+ 

++ 

+ 

++ 

+ 

++ 

+ 

++  +/-  ++ 

General 
objective: 

integrates 
EDF 
new 
the 
objectives 
for 
EU  cooperation 
OCTs: 
with 
strengthening 
OCT 
competitiveness 
and 
resilience 
and  promoting 
regional 
cooperation 
with OCTs 

Specific 
objective 1: 

+/- 

+ 

++ 

Increased 
differentiation 
between 
partners  

EU 

Specific 
objective 2: 

Increased 
concentration  of 
EU  cooperation 
activities 

Specific 
objective 3: 

Increased 
coordination 
with 
EU 
Member  States 
in partners 

Specific 
objective 
4: 
Increased  use  of 
innovative 
financial 
instruments 

Specific 
objective 5: 

Increased 

- 

+ 

++ 

- 

+  ++ 

- 

+ 

++ 

+ 

+ 

++ 

+ 

++ 

+ 

++ 

EN 

41 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
flexibility 
within the EDF 

Specific 
objective 6: 

Stimulate 
regional 
cooperation 
with OCTs 

- 

+/-  ++ 

6.2. 

 Preferred option 

As  reflected  in  the  table  above,  the  comparison  of  the  options  shows  that  for  each  specific 
objective  identified  (including  in  the  three  pillars  regarding  flexibility),  the  second  sub-
option  of  the  alternative  option  is  the  preferred  option  as  the  best  approach  to  tackle  the 
problems  identified  and  to  respond  to  the  general  and  specific  objectives  developed  above  (see 
chapters 2.3 and 3.1): 

−  Regarding  differentiation,  a  sharpened  geographical  focus  would  lead  to  targeting 
resources  where  they  are  most  needed  and  have  the  greatest  possible  impact  and  value 
added  in  ACPs  and  OCTs.  With  the  more  advanced  partners,  the  EU  would  define 
alternative forms of cooperation and dialogue through the most appropriate policy mix. 

−  Regarding  concentration,  a  sharpened  sectoral  focus  would  contribute  to  the  higher 
impact  of  EU  aid  by  concentrating  resources  on  a  limited  number  of  sectors,  thus 
increasing  the  EU's  critical  mass.  The  risk  of  loosing  visibility  for  the  EU  in  certain 
sectors  at  country  level  would  have  to  be  mitigated  by  effective  division  of  labour  and 
increased coordination with other funding sources. 

−  Regarding  coordination  with  EU  Member  States,  the  efficiency  and  the  political 
leverage  of  EU  aid  could  be  reinforced  through  increased  division  of  labour  among 
donors, joint programming and use of EU Trust Funds. 

−  Regarding  use  of  innovative  financial  instruments,  the  financial  leverage  of  EU  grant 
resources would be increased through blending with loans from financing institutions and 
other  risk-sharing  mechanisms,  as  well  as  the  critical  mass  in  particular  for  large-scale 
projects.  

−  Regarding  flexibility,  aid  allocations  could  be  adapted  rapidly  to  take  into  account 
evolving circumstances or specific situations (such as crisis, fragility or transition), or to 
implement  a  more  incentives-based  approach,  thereby  increasing  effectiveness  and 
reactivity of EU aid as well as ownership of partners. 

−  Regarding  regional  cooperation  with  OCTs,  efficiency  and  impact  of  EU  resources 
would  be  reinforced  through  better  articulation  between  EDF  and  EU  regional 
cooperation  resources  as  well  as  participation  of  OCTs  in  regional  programmes  with 
ACPs. 

EN 

42 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
This therefore justifies the Commission proposals that consist in maintaining the broad structure 
of  the  10th  EDF  while  allowing  the  implementation  of  the  principles  of  differentiation  and 
concentration, strengthened coordination with EU Member States and further flexibility. The 11th 
EDF would thereby reflect the revised policy orientations of EU development policy and the new 
orientations  for  EU-OCTs  relationship,  which  would  contribute  to  further  increase  the 
effectiveness and maximise the impact of EU funding for ACP countries and OCTs. 

These options will contribute to reinforcing simplification and coherence with the other financial 
instruments.  For  example  keeping  aside  more  reserves  at  national  and  regional  level  will  allow 
better  interaction  with  humanitarian  aid  and  with  the  Instrument  for  Stability  by  allowing  the 
continuation  of  programs  financed  under  these  two  instruments  in  post-crisis  situations  (for 
instance  in  Burkina  Faso  where  EDF  intervened  on  rehabilitation  and  food  security, 
complementary to humanitarian assistance by ECHO).  

7.  MONITORING AND EVALUATION  

7.1.  Core indicators of progress towards objectives  

The  essential  elements  and  the  basis  for  the  EU  intervention  are  described  in  the  EDF 
Implementing  Regulation.  The  exact  actions  are  defined  through  annual  action  programmes 
detailing the activities to be carried out by the EU, including the objectives pursued by the actions 
in question and the expected results. Specific indicators are fixed at that moment, having in mind 
the  particularities  of  the  action  in  question.  The  implementation  of  these  actions  complies  with 
performance-based  management.  Performance  based  management*  serves  several  purposes: 
making  the  most  of  limited  resources;  improving  decision  making  processes  and  decisions; 
achieving transparency and accountability. 

Regarding the EDF, the results of EU assistance on poverty eradication are measured using as far 
as  possible  specific  and  measurable  indicators.  Particular  attention  is  given  to  progress  made 
towards achieving the MDGs* (in addition, see Annex IV) 

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 challenges. 
Clear  benchmarks,  monitoring  and  reporting  rules  need  to  be  established.  Expenditure  that 
promotes  climate  action20  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 OECD methodology ('Rio markers').  

7.2.  Outline for monitoring and evaluation arrangements  

The  European  Commission's  Monitoring  and  Evaluation  systems  are  increasingly  focused  on 
results.  They  involve  internal  staff  as  well  as  external  expertise.  The  monitoring  system  in  use 
under the 10th EDF will continue to be applied for the implementation of the 11th EDF through 
the following instruments:  

-  Task  Managers  in  Delegations  and  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 corrective action. 

EN 

43 

   EN 

 
- External, independent experts are contracted to assess the performance of EU external actions 
through  three  different  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  all  use  the  internationally-recognised  OECD-DAC 
evaluation criteria including (potential) impact. 

-  At  the  project  level,  the  Headquarters-managed  Results  Oriented  Monitoring  (ROM)  system 
provides  a  brief,  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. This system covers approximately 600 projects per year in the ACP region. 

-  Project-level  evaluations,  which  are  managed  by  the  EU  Delegation  in  charge  of  the  project, 
deliver  a  more  detailed,  in  depth  analysis  and  help  project  managers  to  improve  ongoing  and 
future  interventions.  External,  independent  experts  with  thematic  and  geographic  expertise  are 
hired to conduct the  analysis  and  gather feedback and evidence from all stakeholders, not least 
the final beneficiaries. 

-  The  Commission  also  conducts  strategic  evaluations  of  its  policies,  from  programming  and 
strategy to the implementation of interventions in a specific sector (such as health, education etc), 
in a country or region, or of a specific instrument. These evaluations are an important input to the 
formulation  of  policies  and  the  design  of  instruments  and  projects.  These  evaluations  are  all 
published on the Commission's website and a summary of the findings is included in the Annual 
Report to the Council and the European Parliament. 

EN 

44 

   EN 

 
Annex I  

Annexes and footnotes 

A) 

List  of  Overseas  Countries  and  Territories  (OCTs)  mentioned  in 

Annex II to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union 

Overseas Country or Territory 

Greenland 

New Caledonia and Dependencies, French 
Polynesia, French Southern and Antarctic 
Territories, Wallis and Futuna Islands, Mayotte, 
Saint Pierre and Miquelon 

Aruba, Netherland Antilles (Bonaire, Curaçao, 
Saba, Sint Eustatius, Sint Maarten), 

Anguilla, Bermuda*, British Virgin Islands, 
Cayman Islands, Falkland Islands, South 
Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands, 
Montserrat, Pitcairn, Saint Helena, Ascension 
and Tristan da Cunha, British Antarctic 
Territories, British Indian Ocean Territories, 
Turks and Caicos Islands,  

EU Member 
State 

Denmark 

France 

The Netherlands 

United Kingdom 

*The Overseas Association Decision 2001/822/EC applies to all OCTs listed in Annex II to the Treaty, except for 
Bermuda, which has requested not to fall under the Decision 

B) 

List of ACP States (Cotonou agreement) 

Angola - Antigua and Barbuda - Belize - Cape Verde - Comoros - Bahamas - Barbados - Benin - 
Botswana - Burkina Faso - Burundi - Cameroon - Central African Republic - Chad - Congo 
(Brazzaville) - Congo (Kinshasa) - Cook Islands - Cote d'Ivoire - Cuba* - Djibouti - Dominica - 
Dominican Republic - Eritrea - Ethiopia - Fiji - Gabon - Gambia - Ghana - Grenada - Republic of 
Guinea - Guinea-Bissau - Equatorial Guinea - Guyana - Haiti - Jamaica - Kenya - Kiribati - 
Lesotho - Liberia - Madagascar - Malawi - Mali - Marshall Islands - Mauritania - Mauritius - 
Micronesia - Mozambique - Namibia - Nauru - Niger - Nigeria - Niue - Palau - Papua New 
Guinea - Rwanda - St. Kitts and Nevis - St. Lucia - St. Vincent and the Grenadines - Solomon 
Islands - Samoa - Sao Tome and Principe - Senegal - Seychelles - Sierra Leone - Somalia - South 
Africa - Sudan - Suriname - Swaziland - Tanzania - Timor Leste - Togo - Tonga - Trinidad and 
Tobago - Tuvalu - Uganda - Vanuatu - Zambia - Zimbabwe  

 * Cuba is part of the ACP group since 2000, but it is not a signatory of the Cotonou Agreement. 

EN 

45 

   EN 

 
 
 
Annex II:  

Glossary 

Accra  Agenda  for  Action  (2008):  Designed  to  strengthen  and  deepen  implementation  of  the 
Paris  Declaration,  it  takes  stock  of  progress  and  sets  the  agenda  for  accelerated  advancement 
towards the Paris targets. It proposes three main areas for improvement, i.e. ownership, inclusive 
partnerships and delivering results. 

ACP  Investment  Facility:  The  ACP  Investment  Facility  is  a  risk-bearing  instrument  (using 
loans,  equities  and  guarantees)  with  a  total  capital  endowment  under  the  9th  and  10th  EDF  of 
EUR 3,1 billion. It is structured as a revolving fund aimed at being financially sustainable over 
the  20-year  horizon  of  the  Cotonou  Agreement.  The  Investment  Facility  is  devoted  to  support 
ACP endogenous investments. 

Aid  allocation:  The  EU  presence  in  all  ACP  countries  is  built  on  objective  and  transparent 
criteria  for  resource  allocation,  based  on  needs  and  performance  and  set  by  the  European 
Consensus  and  the  Cotonou  Agreement.  In  this  perspective,  an  aid  allocation  model  was 
developed  under  the  10th  EDF  according  to  the  requirements  of  the  Internal  Agreement.  For 
OCTs  the  allocation  takes  into  account  the  size  of  the  population,  the  level  of  Gross  National 
Product, the level and use of previous EDF allocations, constraints due to geographical isolation 
and structural and other obstacles of the least developed OCTs.  

Aid  Fragmentation:  the  report  considers  mainly  fragmentation  of  aid  across  countries.  It  is 
different  from  fragmentation  of  aid  within  countries,  usually  measured  by  donor  spread  across 
sectors at country level and small project size. An associate concept is that of proliferation, i.e. 
number  of  Donors  providing  ODA  to  a  given  beneficiary  country  in  specific  sectors. 
Fragmentation is also associated with the number of aid activities (i.e. number of projects'). 

Blending mechanisms (or Innovative financial instruments): Blending mechanisms consist in 
combining  grants  with  repayable  financing  to  increase  aid  impact  and  enhance  private  sector 
investment.  For  example,  the  EU  Africa  Infrastructure  Trust  Fund  is  an  innovative  instrument 
blending  grants  from  9th  and  10th  EDF  (EUR  308  million) and  grants from 12 Member States 
(EUR  74  million),  with  loans  from  European  financing  institutions  (EIB,  KfW,  AFD,  LuxDev, 
and others) for regional projects. In addition, Water and Energy facilities (pooling mechanisms) 
are financed under the EDF for small projects 

Budget Support: Budget support is an aid delivery instrument that is increasingly prominent in 
EU cooperation with third countries (25% of all commitments over 2003-2009), consisting in the 
transfer  of  financial  resources  of  an  external  financing  agency  to  the  National  Treasury  of  a 
partner country, following the respect by the latter of agreed conditions for payment. 

Cash-on-delivery: Cash-on-delivery as modality of financing has been developed by the Centre 
for Global Development (Washington, D.C.), under which a contract is signed between the donor 
and  the  third  party  or  government  that  implements  an  activity,  and  where  payment  only  takes 
place after the result or output has been delivered.  

Common  Framework  for  Country  Strategy  Papers:  European  Commission  and  Member 
States agreed to develop and use one single format for writing their country strategies, in order to 
facilitate alignment and division of labour. 

Code of Conduct on Complementarity and the Division of Labour in Development Policy: 
The Code of Conduct was agreed in 2007 (COM/2007/72) and presents operational principles for 

EN 

46 

   EN 

 
 
 
EU  donors  regarding  complementarity  in  development  cooperation.  Their  aim  is  to  enhance 
effectiveness  by  improving  overall  development  results  and  impact  for  poverty  reduction  and 
reducing the transaction costs, through a division of labour between donors.  

(A or B) envelopes: 'A-envelopes' are programmable to cover long-term cooperation whereas 'B-
envelopes' are non programmable allocations to cover unforeseen needs.  

FLEX: Mechanism existing since 2000 aiming at socio-economic reforms and policies that could 
be affected negatively as a result of a drop in export earnings. 

Food Facility: Global instrument adopted in 2008 as a rapid response to soaring and volatile food 
prices in developing countries with a limited duration of three years. 

Fragility  (Country  in  situation  of):  State  fragility  is  here  defined  as  a  lack  of  capacity  to 
perform basic state functions, where “capacity” encompasses (a) organisational, institutional and 
financial capacity to carry out basic functions of governing a population and territory, and (b) the 
state’s  ability  to  develop  mutually  constructive  and  reinforcing  relations  with  society  (OECD 
2010). 

Inclusive and sustainable Growth: the meaning is generally referred to the labour intensity of 
growth, its geographical or distributional impact or its sectoral pattern. It supports the case that 
growth  associated  with  progressive  distributional  changes  will  have  greater  impact  in  reducing 
poverty21.  The  concept  of  sustainability  implies  the  idea  that  growth  needed  to  satisfy  present 
needs should not compromise the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. 

Intra-ACP  envelope:  The  intra-ACP  envelope  provides  a  means  to  support  global  challenges 
that are not necessarily geographical in nature or not necessarily supported by the authorities of 
partner countries, joint EU-ACP and pan-African institutions and instruments, including the EU-
Africa Infrastructure Trust Fund and the Energy and Water Facility, the African Peace Facility, 
and to complement and supply national programming.  

Joint  Programming:  The  objective  of  Joint  Programming  is  to  synchronize  progressively  the 
EU's  and  Member  States'  programming  with  partner  country  strategy  cycles.  Ways  of 
approaching this aim include adapting their cycles, rolling programmes, re-programming after ad-
hoc reviews, etc. 

Least Developed Countries: they represent the poorest countries as identified periodically by the 
UN on the basis of established criteria (low income, weak human assets, economic vulnerability). 
The current list of LDCs (United Nations) includes 48 countries; 33 in Africa, 14 in Asia and the 
Pacific and one in Latin America.  

Millennium  Develoment  Goals  (MDGs):  The  European  Union  together  with  leaders  of  189 
countries  at  the  United  Nations  Millennium  Summit  in  2000  committed  to  a  new  global 
partnership,  focused  on  eight  MDGs  to  reduce  extreme  poverty,  with  a  deadline  of  2015,  by 
setting out a series of time-bound targets.  

Official  Development  Assistance  (ODA):  Flows  of  official  financing  administered  with  the 
promotion  of  the  economic  development  and  welfare  of  developing  countries  as  the  main 
objective,  and  which  are  concessional  in  character  with  a  grant  element  of  at  least  25  percent 
(using a fixed 10 percent rate of discount). 

EN 

47 

   EN 

 
Paris Declaration (2005): it lays out a practical, action-oriented roadmap to improve the quality 
of  aid  and  its  impact  on  development.  It  puts  in  place  a  series  of  specific  implementation 
measures  and  establishes  a  monitoring  system  to assess  progress and  ensure  that  donors  and 
recipients hold each other accountable for their commitments. The Paris Declaration outlines five 
fundamental principles for making aid more effective which are:  

1)  Ownership:  Partner  countries  exercise  effective  leadership  over  their  development 
policies and strategies and co-ordinate development actions  

2)  Alignment:  Donors  base  their  overall  support  on  partner  countries'  national 
development strategies, institutions and procedures  

3)  Harmonisation:  Donors'  actions  are  more  harmonized,  transparent  and  collectively 
effective  

4) Managing for Results: Managing resources and improving decision-making for results  
5) Mutual Accountability: Donors and partners are accountable for development results22. 

Performance  based  management:  A  performance  management  system  involves  the  setting  of 
objectives, the decision of how to measure progress and the selection of indicators. This implies a 
three-stage  process,  firstly  a  sound  analysis  of  the  policies  with  a  common  understanding  – 
through  policy  dialogue  –  of  the  objectives  and  of  the  logical  linkages  between  the  objectives, 
activities and outcomes. Next comes the question of identifying what can be measured in relation 
to the objectives, which of the above-mentioned purposes it serves and the availability, reliability 
and precision of statistical data, including such questions as the frequency of measurement and 
the  use  of  proxy  indicators.  Finally  the  decisions  need  to  be  codified  to  the  link  between  the 
programmes,  the  methods  of  calculation,  the  interpretive  framework  and  the  allocation  of 
responsibility for their provision. 

Policy Coherence for Development (PCD): The EU seeks to build synergies between policies 
other  than  development  cooperation  that  have  a  strong  impact  on  developing  countries,  for  the 
benefit  of  overseas  development.  In  2005,  the  EU  agreed  to  apply  the  Policy  Coherence  for 
Development  approach  in  12  policy  areas  (trade,  environment  and  climate  change,  security, 
agriculture,  bilateral  fisheries  agreements,  social  policies,  migration,  research/innovation, 
information  technologies,  transport  and  energy)  that  could  accelerate  progress  towards 
the Millennium development goals for development23. In November 2009, Council Conclusions 
on  PCD  reaffirmed  these  commitments  and  approved  the  initial  selection  of  five  priority  areas 
where the EU will take account of development objectives in a more pro-active way: trade and 
finance, climate change, food security, migration and security. 

Transition  towards  knowledge-based  societies:  The  technology  landscape  in  ACP  countries 
dramatically  changed  over  the  last  10  years,  as  highlighted  by  the  information  and 
communication  technologies  (ICTs)  uptake  in  those  countries.  The  growing  availability  and 
affordability  of  ICTs,  including  mobile  technologies  and  internet,  offer  real  opportunities  to 
provide access to basic services as well as leapfrog socio-economic growth, and to bring about 
innovation and have an important impact on job creation in the countries.     

Vulnerability Flex (V-FLEX): Ad-hoc temporary scheme which has allocated resources in 2009 
and 2010 to address the fall out of the global financial crisis. 

EN 

48 

   EN 

 
 
Annex III:    

List of acronyms 

ACP: African, Caribbean and Pacific States 

CFSP: Common Foreign and Security Policy 

CSDP: Common Security and Defense Policy 

CSP: country strategy paper  

DAC: Development Assistance Committee 

DCI: Development Cooperation Instrument 

DoL: Division of Labour 

EDF: European Development Fund 

EIB: European Investment Bank 

ERDF: European regional Development Fund 

EEAS: European External Action Service 

EIDHR: European Instrument for Human Rights and Democracy 

ENPI: European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument 

GDP: Gross Domestic Product 

GNI: Gross National Income  

IAB: Impact Assessment Board 

IFIs/EFIs: International/European Financial Institutions 

IFS: Instrument for Stability 

JAES: Joint Africa-EU Strategy 

LDCs: Least Developed Countries 

LICs: Low Income Countries 

MDGs: Millennium Development Goals  

MFF: Multi-Annual Financial Framework 

NAO: National Authorising Officer 

OAD: Overseas Association Decision 

OCTs: Overseas Countries and Territories 

ODA: Official Development Assistance 

PCD: Policy Coherence for Development  

ROM: Results Oriented Monitoring 

SSA: Sub-Saharan African countries 

EN 

49 

   EN 

 
 
Annex IV: Data/indicators to measure impacts 

A/ List of indicators regarding poverty eradication and socio-economic progress of ACP countries (off track on MDGs) 

Source and Notes  

−  MDG Index :  MDGDASH Board (JRC-Ispra) : http://esl.jrc.it/dc/ 
−  Human Development Index (HDI) - 2009 Report – United Nations Development Programme (UNDP): http://hdr.undp.org/en/statistics/ 
−  Fragility list : International Network on Conflict and Fragility (INCAF)-Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) ( 2010)  
−  Least Developed Countries (LDC): United Nations list 
−  Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) - list and reserve from World Bank 
−  Needs shows various indexes published by HDI-UNDP (Gender 0=worse; 1 =best), by World Health Organization (WHO) and UNICEF (Water- higher % =better ;  
−  Health - Highest Index= worse situation), by UNESCO (Education - Highest Index=worse situation) and by International Food Policy research Institute- IPFRI (Food security-

Global Hunger Index ) : Highest Index= worse situation   

−  Performance is based on Country Policy and Institutional Assessment (CPIA) - The World Bank 2008. Scale: 1 = Lowest , 6=Highest  
−  ODA and Population Data are from OECD-Development Assistance Committee (DAC) (Aid at Glance) - 2008.  

ACP 
Countries  

MDG 
Index 

HDI 
Index  

LDC 

Fragili
ty List  

(rank) 

HPIC  Reserv

e  

in 
months 

of 
import
s 

Gender
-
related 
Dev 
Index 

Water 
and 
sanitati
on - % 
use of 
sanitati
on 
facility 

Health 
Index 

Educat
ion 
Index 

Food 
Securit
y GHI 
2009 

CPIA  

Popula
tion 
(millio
ns)  

ODA 
per 
capita 

Total 
Net 
ODA 
US $ 
mill 
2008 

Indicators of Vulnerability 

Sector needs 

Chad 

Niger 

186 

175 

245 

182 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

n.a. 

0,380 

5 

0,308 

9 

9 

2,982 

1,641 

31.3 

2,545 

1,974 

28.8 

Policy 
perfor
mance 

2.5 

3.3 

ODA 

416 

11,1 

37,5 

605 

14,7 

41,2 

EN 

50 

EN 

 
  
 
  
 
 
ACP 
Countries  

MDG 
Index 

HDI 
Index  

LDC 

Fragili
ty List  

(rank) 

HPIC  Reserv

e  

in 
months 

of 
import
s 

Gender
-
related 
Dev 
Index 

Water 
and 
sanitati
on - % 
use of 
sanitati
on 
facility 

Health 
Index 

Educat
ion 
Index 

Food 
Securit
y GHI 
2009 

CPIA  

Popula
tion 
(millio
ns)  

ODA 
per 
capita 

Total 
Net 
ODA 
US $ 
mill 
2008 

Indicators of Vulnerability 

Sector needs 

Sierra Leone 

269 

180 

Congo, Dem. 
Rep. 

330 

176 

Mali 

337 

178 

Liberia 

361 

169 

Guinea-
Bissau 

367 

173 

Central 
African Rep 

370 

179 

Haiti 

376 

149 

Mozambique 

387 

172 

Eritrea 

393 

165 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

Policy 
perfor
mance 

3.1 

2.7 

ODA 

367 

5,6 

65,5 

1.610 

64 

25,2 

3,102 

1,319 

33.8 

2,654 

1,368 

39.1 

2,736 

1,694 

19.5 

3.7 

964 

12,7 

75,9 

2,710 

1,948 

24.6 

n.a. 

1.250 

2,217 

2,012 

23.1 

2.6 

132 

3,8 

1,6 

328,9 

82,5 

4 

0,354 

n.a. 

0,370 

4 

1 

6 

0,353 

0,430 

0,381 

13 

23 

36 

17 

21 

n.a. 

0,354 

34 

3,494 

1,931 

28.1 

2.5 

256 

4,4 

58,2 

2 

4 

n.a. 

0,395 

n.a. 

0,459 

17 

17 

14 

1,739 

0,477 

28.2 

2,400 

1,389 

25.3 

1,405 

1,554 

36.5 

2.9 

3.7 

2.3 

912 

9,8 

93,1 

1.994 

21,8 

91,5 

143 

5 

28,6 

EN 

51 

EN 

 
  
  
 
 
  
  
ACP 
Countries  

MDG 
Index 

HDI 
Index  

LDC 

Fragili
ty List  

(rank) 

HPIC  Reserv

e  

in 
months 

of 
import
s 

Gender
-
related 
Dev 
Index 

Water 
and 
sanitati
on - % 
use of 
sanitati
on 
facility 

Health 
Index 

Educat
ion 
Index 

Food 
Securit
y GHI 
2009 

CPIA  

Popula
tion 
(millio
ns)  

ODA 
per 
capita 

Total 
Net 
ODA 
US $ 
mill 
2008 

Indicators of Vulnerability 

Sector needs 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

Guinea 

394 

170 

Djibouti 

398 

155 

Sudan 

398 

150 

Angola 

399 

143 

Burundi 

401 

174 

Ethiopia 

412 

171 

Burkina 
Faso 

416 

177 

Madagascar 

419 

145 

Mauritania 

438 

154 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

Ivory Coast 

443 

163 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

1 

3 

1 

4 

6 

1 

5 

3 

0,425 

0,514 

0,516 

n.a. 

0,390 

0,403 

0,383 

0,541 

n.a. 

0,516 

3 

0,468 

EN 

2,717 

1,303 

18.2 

1,917 

1,954 

22.9 

2,585 

1,275 

19.6 

3,711 

1,044 

25.3 

2,592 

1,490 

38.7 

2,099 

1,541 

30.8 

2,217 

1,788 

20.4 

1,777 

0,686 

28.3 

2,127 

0,836 

22.1 

2,095 

0,997 

14.5 

19 

56 

34 

57 

46 

12 

11 

11 

26 

23 

52 

Policy 
perfor
mance 

ODA 

3.0 

3.1 

2.5 

2.7 

3.0 

3.4 

3.7 

3.7 

3.3 

2.7 

319 

121 

9,8 

0,8 

32,6 

151,3 

2.384 

41,3 

57,7 

369 

509 

18 

8,1 

20,5 

62,8 

3.327 

80,7 

41,2 

998 

15,2 

65,7 

841 

19,1 

44,0 

311 

3,2 

97,2 

617 

20,6 

30,0 

EN 

 
  
  
 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
ACP 
Countries  

MDG 
Index 

HDI 
Index  

LDC 

Fragili
ty List  

(rank) 

HPIC  Reserv

e  

in 
months 

of 
import
s 

Gender
-
related 
Dev 
Index 

Water 
and 
sanitati
on - % 
use of 
sanitati
on 
facility 

Health 
Index 

Educat
ion 
Index 

Food 
Securit
y GHI 
2009 

CPIA  

Popula
tion 
(millio
ns)  

ODA 
per 
capita 

Total 
Net 
ODA 
US $ 
mill 
2008 

Indicators of Vulnerability 

Sector needs 

Policy 
perfor
mance 

ODA 

0,594 

30 

2,434 

1,036 

15.4 

2.7 

505 

3,6 

140,3 

Congo, 
(Rep) 

444 

136 

Togo 

462 

159 

● 

Cameroon 

468 

153 

Rwanda 

470 

167 

● 

Papua  New 
Guinea 

476 

148 

Benin 

481 

161 

Comoros 

482 

139 

Malawi 

484 

160 

Senegal 

484 

166 

Lesotho 

488 

156 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

EN 

3 

4 

4 

5 

3 

7 

n.a. 

0,515 

0,459 

n.a. 

0,477 

n.a. 

0,571 

2 

4 

5 

0,490 

0,457 

0,509 

1,830 

1,036 

23.1 

2,407 

1,080 

17.9 

2,304 

0,803 

25.4 

1,800 

0,772 

n.a. 

1,858 

1,141 

17.2 

2,717 

n.a. 

26.9 

2,156 

1,099 

18.5 

1,737 

0,910 

17.3 

2,633 

1,136 

12.0 

2.7 

3.2 

3.7 

3.3 

3.6 

2.3 

3.4 

3.6 

3.5 

330 

6,5 

50,8 

525 

18,9 

27,8 

931 

304 

641 

37 

9,7 

6,4 

8,7 

0,6 

96,0 

47,5 

73,7 

61,7 

913 

14,3 

63,8 

1.058 

12,2 

86,7 

143 

2 

71,5 

12 

47 

54 

45 

12 

36 

56 

51 

29 

53 

EN 

 
  
  
 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
ACP 
Countries  

MDG 
Index 

HDI 
Index  

LDC 

Fragili
ty List  

(rank) 

HPIC  Reserv

e  

in 
months 

of 
import
s 

Gender
-
related 
Dev 
Index 

Water 
and 
sanitati
on - % 
use of 
sanitati
on 
facility 

Health 
Index 

Educat
ion 
Index 

Food 
Securit
y GHI 
2009 

CPIA  

Popula
tion 
(millio
ns)  

ODA 
per 
capita 

Total 
Net 
ODA 
US $ 
mill 
2008 

Indicators of Vulnerability 

Sector needs 

Uganda 

492 

157 

Zambia 

492 

164 

Swaziland 

502 

142 

● 

● 

Tanzania 

523 

151 

● 

Zimbabwe 

524 

n.a. 

Kenya 

528 

147 

Gambia 

532 

168 

● 

Ghana 

570 

152 

Solomon 
Islands 

590 

135 

● 

Gabon  

594 

103 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

48 

49 

55 

24 

44 

31 

67 

13 

- 

7 

2 

3 

5 

0,509 

0,473 

0,568 

0,527 

n.a. 

n.a. 

0,538 

0,452 

0,524 

n.a. 

3 

3 

3 

4 

2 

Policy 
perfor
mance 

3.9 

3.5 

ODA 

1.657 

31,7 

52,3 

1.086 

12,6 

86,2 

2,260 

0,722 

14.8 

2,625 

0,695 

25.7 

2,359 

0,535 

11.1 

n.a. 

67 

1,2 

55,8 

2,219 

0,670 

21.1 

3.8 

2.331 

42,5 

54,8 

2,219 

0,824 

21.0 

n.a. 

611 

12,5 

48,9 

2,104 

0,600 

20.2 

1,903 

1,245 

18.9 

1,636 

0,899 

11.5 

0,909 

n.a. 

n.a. 

3.6 

3.2 

3.9 

2.8 

1.360 

38,5 

35,3 

94 

1,7 

55,3 

1.293 

23,4 

55,3 

224 

0,5 

448,0 

0,748 

33 

1,748 

0,116 

6.9 

n.a. 

55 

1,4 

39,3 

EN 

54 

EN 

 
  
  
 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
ACP 
Countries  

MDG 
Index 

HDI 
Index  

LDC 

Fragili
ty List  

(rank) 

HPIC  Reserv

e  

in 
months 

of 
import
s 

Gender
-
related 
Dev 
Index 

Water 
and 
sanitati
on - % 
use of 
sanitati
on 
facility 

Health 
Index 

Educat
ion 
Index 

Food 
Securit
y GHI 
2009 

CPIA  

Popula
tion 
(millio
ns)  

ODA 
per 
capita 

Total 
Net 
ODA 
US $ 
mill 
2008 

Indicators of Vulnerability 

Sector needs 

Kiribati 

686 

n.a. 

Tome 

Sao 
Principe 

711 

131 

Tonga  

787 

n.a. 

Timor Leste 

n.a 

162 

Somalia 

n.a. 

n.a. 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

n.a. 

n.a. 

5 

4 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

● 

n.a. 

n.a. 

- 

26 

96 

50 

23 

1,013 

0,613 

n.a. 

1,190 

0,306 

n.a. 

0,569 

0,897 

n.a. 

1,538 

1,376 

25.4 

3,209 

1,929 

n.a. 

n.a. 

758 

9 

84,2 

Policy 
perfor
mance 

3.0 

3.0 

3.2 

2.8 

ODA 

27 

47 

0,1 

0,2 

270,0 

235,0 

26 

0,1 

260,0 

278 

1,13 

246,0 

EN 

55 

EN 

 
  
  
 
 
  
  
  
  
 
 B/  Indicators  of  progress  of  Sub-Saharan  Africa  and  Caribbean  regions  regarding  MDGs  (data 
taken from MDG report 2011, United Nations) 

indicator 

time 
frame 

Sub-Saharan 
Africa 

Caribbean  Developing 

countries 
(average) 

MDG 
1  

population  living  on  less  than  1 
dollar per day 

MDG 
2  

primary school enrolment ratio 

MDG 
3 

girls 
enrolment ratio 

enrolment 

ratio/boys 

primary 
school 

secondary 
school 

tertiary 
school 

MDG 
4 

under-five  mortality  per  1000  live 
births 

MDG 
5 

maternal  death  per  10000 
births 

live 

MDG 
6 

new  HIV  infections  per  10000 
people aged 15-49 

%  of  population  having  access  to 
improved water sources  

MDG 
7 
(only 
7.c) 

1990 

2005 

1999 

2009 

1991 

2009 

1991 

2009 

1991 

2009 

1990 

2009 

1990 

2008 

2001 

2009 

1990 

29 

26 

68 

76 

99 

96 

112 

104 

135 

161 

76 

48 

32 

17 

9 

8 

58

51

54

76

83

92

86

79

53

63

180

129

87

64

57

40

49

- 

2008 

60

- 

45

27

81

89

87

96

78

96

71

97

99

66

44

29

9

8

72

84

EN 

56 

   EN 

 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
C/ Indicators regarding trade integration of Africa (integration in the world economy) 

Share of Africa exports in world exports in % 

2000 

3.4% 

2009 

3.3% 

Agricultural 
products 

Fuel 
mining 

and 

10.2% 

10.9% 

Manufactures 

.8% 

All products 

1.5% 

.3% 

1.5% 

Source WTO Data bank; own calculation 

Change  of  manufacture  exports  /  Ratio  2009  to  2000  (export  value  measured  in  current  US 
dollars)  

World  

Africa  EU 27  

North 
America 

Brazil  China  

India 

World to   1.8 

Africa to   2.0 

EU 27 to 

1.8 

North 
America  

1.2 

3.0 

3.3 

2.4 

2.4 

1.8 

1.5 

1.8 

1.3 

1.2 

1.9 

1.2 

1.0 

2.3 

3.1 

1.9 

1.7 

3.4 

5.9 

4.6 

3.4 

4.7 

1.9 

3.2 

4.3 

Source: WTO and own calculation; to be read: Africa's exports to China measured in current US$ 
has been multiplied by 5.9 between 2000 and 2009 

Comments:  The  share  of  Africa  in  world  exports  in  current  prices  is  constant  since  2000. 
However, the extremely low share of manufactures has declined. On the positive side, it should 
be noted that looking at the growth of manufacture exports, Africa benefits more than Europe or 
North America from the fast growing imports from China and Brazil (but not from India).  

EN 

57 

   EN 

 
 
 
D/  Financial  amounts  regarding  EDF  funded  projects or programmes relevant to environmental 
sectors at large (by decision date) 

Main sector 

Region 

2007 

2008 

2009 

2010 

Agriculture 

ACP   

25000000 

20000000 

AFRICA 

CARIBBEAN 

CENTRAL AFRICA 

EASTERN AFRICA & INDIAN 
OCEAN 

OCEANIA & PACIFIC 

SOUTHERN AFRICA 

SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA 

WEST AFRICA 

1500000 

1900000 

99400000 

10000000 

18000000 

9220000 

20300000 

32000000 

10000000 

23000000 

4300000 

6320000 

20000000 

16000000 

Agriculture Total 

Climate 
Adaptation 

Change 

#N/A 

OCT 

ACP   

CARIBBEAN 

EASTERN AFRICA & INDIAN 
OCEAN 

1500000 

146600000 

122220000 

12000000 

6500000 

160000000 

OCEANIA & PACIFIC 

12460000 

SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA 

WEST AFRICA 

Climate Change Adaptation Total 

Forestry 

ACP   

30960000 

10000000 

160000000 

46620000 

CENTRAL AFRICA 

1496420 

15000000 

5000000 

EASTERN AFRICA & INDIAN 
OCEAN 

OCEANIA & PACIFIC 

SOUTHERN AFRICA 

WEST AFRICA 

16000000 

14000000 

1950000 

9700000 

8000000 

EN 

58 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
  
 
 
  
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
  
 
 
  
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
  
 
 
  
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
Main sector 

Region 

2007 

2008 

2009 

2010 

Forestry Total 

11496420 

31000000 

19650000 

19000000 

Marine  and  Coastal 
Resources 

CARIBBEAN 

17000000 

14800000 

EASTERN AFRICA & INDIAN 
OCEAN 

OCEANIA & PACIFIC 

SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA 

WEST AFRICA 

37855765 

4000000 

Marine and Coastal Resources Total 

17000000 

52655765 

4000000 

Pollution  Control  and 
Waste Management 

CARIBBEAN 

OCEANIA & PACIFIC 

WEST AFRICA 

Pollution Control and Waste Management Total 

Protection  of  Natural 
Areas 

OCT 

ACP   

3030000 

5100000 

8130000 

2475000 

4400000 

4400000 

20000000 

CARIBBEAN 

525575 

CENTRAL AFRICA 

4000000 

29500000 

31000000 

30000000 

EASTERN AFRICA & INDIAN 
OCEAN 

150000 

3000000 

OCEANIA & PACIFIC 

SOUTHERN AFRICA 

SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA 

12000000 

WEST AFRICA 

1500000 

17400000 

Protection of Natural Areas Total 

8125000 

30025575 

34000000 

79400000 

Renewable  Energies 
and 
Energy 
Efficiency 

OCT 

ACP   

CARIBBEAN 

CENTRAL AFRICA 

EASTERN AFRICA & INDIAN 

8737202,3 

8418251 

50733920 

59 

EN 

400000000 

8000000 

18000000 

   EN 

 
  
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
  
  
 
 
  
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
  
 
Main sector 

Region 

OCEAN 

2007 

2008 

2009 

2010 

OCEANIA & PACIFIC 

3530341,8 

37390000 

SOUTHERN AFRICA 

23439541 

SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA 

WEST AFRICA 

25397745 

3000000 

30000000 

Renewable Energies and Energy Efficiency Total 

120257000 

3000000 

445390000 

48000000 

Support 
to 
Environment  Policy 
and 
Capacity 
Building 

ACP   

CARIBBEAN 

EASTERN AFRICA & INDIAN 
OCEAN 

NORTH ATLANTIC 

19500000 

20526000 

10000000 

10000000 

OCEANIA & PACIFIC 

2014000 

1600000 

SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA 

WEST AFRICA 

1000000 

5000000 

20000000 

4000000 

Support to Environment Policy and Capacity Building 
Total 

43040000 

5000000 

31600000 

14000000 

Water Management 

ACP   

CARIBBEAN 

19606730 

CENTRAL AFRICA 

EASTERN AFRICA & INDIAN 
OCEAN 

OCEANIA & PACIFIC 

SOUTHERN AFRICA 

WEST AFRICA 

Water Management Total 

2771678,4 

14700000 

1189103 

23567511 

2550000 

3900000 

18000000 

32000000 

11400000 

35250000 

73300000 

3000000 

23000000 

Grand Total 

264075932 

69025575 

929545765 

406540000 

EN 

60 

   EN 

 
  
 
 
  
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
  
 
  
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
  
 
 
  
 
 
  
 
 
  
 
 
 
  
 
Annex V 

Bibliography: reports covering geographic/thematic areas of the EDF, supporting evidence to this 
Impact Assessment 

TITLE 

DATE OF 
PUBLICATION 

1  Evaluations 

1.1  Country/Region Evaluations 

Evaluation  of  the  European  Commission's  support  to  the  United 
Republic of Tanzania 

Evaluation stratégie pays Mali 

Evaluation  de  la  coopération  de  la  Commission  européenne  avec  le 
Rwanda – évaluation de niveau pays 

Union des Comores – Evaluation de niveau national 

Seychelles – Evaluation de niveau national 

Maurice – Evaluation de niveau national 

April 2006 

19/09/2006 

16/11/2006 

Novembre 2006 

Novembre 2006 

Novembre 2006 

Evaluation de la stratégie régionale de la CE en Afrique Centrale 

Décembre 2006 

Evaluation of the Commission's support to the ACP Pacific region 

September 2007 

Evaluation  of 
the  Commission's  support 
Development Community – SADC – Regional level evaluation 

to  Southern  African 

October 2007 

Evaluation of the European Commission's support to the Republic of 
Mozambique – Country level evaluation 

14/12/2007 

Evaluation de la stratégie régionale de la CE en Afrique de l'Ouest 

Mai 2008 

Evaluation of the European Commission's support to the Republic of 
Guyana 

September 2008 

Evaluation of the Commission's support to the Region of Eastern and 
Southern Africa and the Indian Ocean – Regional level evaluation 

December 2008 

Evaluation  de  la  coopération  de  la  Commission  européenne  avec  la 
République du Tchad – évaluation de niveau national 

Evaluation  de  la  coopération  de  la  Commission  européenne  avec  la 
République Centrafricaine – évaluation de niveau national 

Mars 2009 

Juin 2009 

Country level evaluation Angola 

Country level evaluation Uganda 

Evaluation of the European Commission's co-operation with Namibia 
– Country level evaluation 

Country level evaluation Botswana 

Country level evaluation Nigeria 

EN 

61 

September 2009 

November 2009 

04/12/2009 

December 2009 

May 2010 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Evaluation  de  la  coopération  de  l'Union  européenne  avec  le  Burkina 
Faso – évaluation de niveau national 

Joint  evaluation  of  the  cooperation  of  the  European  Commission, 
Belgium, Denmark, France and Luxembourg with Niger between 2000-
2008 

31/05/2010 

August 2010 

Evaluation of EC’s co-operation with Liberia 

Region  Level  Evaluation  -  Overseas  Countries  and  Territories  (OCT) 
(Final Report (2nd Draft)) 

December 2010 

DRAFT / Ongoing 

1.2 

Instruments / Sector / Thematic Evaluations 

Thematic evaluation of the EC support to good governance 

Thematic evaluation of the water and sanitation sector 

Joint evaluation of co-ordination of trade capacity building in partner 
countries 

June 2006 

July 2006 

November 2006 

Evaluation  of  the  Commission  Support  for  Statistics 
Countries 

in  Third 

15/02/2007 

Evaluation thématique - Développement rural et agricole 

Evaluation of EC support to partner countries in the area of energy 

General  Evaluation  of  Actions  to  Raise  Public  Awareness  of 
Development Issues in Europe / Development Education EC 

Thematic Evaluation of the European Commission support to Conflict 
Prevention  and  Peace  Building  –  Preliminary  study:  scoping  and 
mapping. Final Report for the Preliminary Study 

The  Five-Year  Evaluation  of  the  Global  Fund  to  Fight  AIDS, 
Tuberculosis, and Malaria Synthesis of Study Areas 1, 2 and 3. 

Assessment of the results of EC funded activities and future needs in 
the defined areas covered by the Instrument for Stability, priority 1 – 
Final Report 

Thematic  Evaluation  of  European  Commission  Support  to  Conflict 
Prevention and Peace Building - Concept Study – Final Report for the 
Concept Study 

Qualitative Assessment of EC funded Drugs Related Projects 

Thematic  global  evaluation  of  EC  support  to  the  Education  sector  in 
partner countries 

July 2007 

April 2008 

December 2008 

July 2009 

March 2009 

July 2010 

September 2010 

October 2010 

December 2010 

Lessons learned from evaluating EC interventions in the road sector 
(note ARES) 

15/12/2010 

the 
Study  on  Legal 
Evaluations Managed by the Joint Evaluation Unit (draft desk report, 
vol. 1 & 2) 

Instruments  and  Lessons  Learned 

from 

January 2011 

EN 

62 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
1.3  Aid modalities Evaluations 

Evaluation  of  general  budget  support:  synthesis  report  –    A  Joint 
Evaluation of General Budget Support 1994-2004 

May 2006 

Evaluation  of  European  Commission  support 
Programmes  under 
countries 

the  European  Development  Fund 

to  Micro-Project 
in  ACP 

August 2006 

Evaluating  co-ordination,  complementarity  and  coherence  in  EU 
development policy: a synthesis 

November 2007 

Evaluation  of  Commission’s  external  cooperation  with  partner 
countries through the organisations of the UN family 

May 2008 

Evaluation of Commission's aid delivery through Development banks 
and EIB 

November 2008 

Evaluation of EC aid delivery through civil society organisations 

December 2008 

Final  report  of  the  Experts  Working  Group  on  additionality  of  grants 
in  the  framework  of  blending  mechanisms,  established  following  a 
decision by the ECOFIN Council in December 2008 

December 2009 

Evaluation  Methodology  &  Baseline  Study  of  European  Commission 
Technical Cooperation support Inception Report - Final Version 

August 2010 

2.  Court of Audits Special Reports 

Special report No 6/2006 concerning the environmental aspects of the 
Commission's development cooperation – OJ C 235 

Special report No 6/2007 on the effectiveness of technical assistance 
in 
the 
Commission's replies – OJ C 312 

the  context  of  capacity  development 

together  with 

Special  report  No  10/2008  –  EC  development  assistance  to  health 
services in Sub-Saharan Africa 

Special  report  No  4/2009  –  The  Commission's  management  of  Non-
State Actors' involvement in EC development cooperation 

Special  report  No  15/2009  –  EU  assistance  implemented  through 
United Nations organisations: decision-making and monitoring 

Special report No 18/2009 – Effectiveness of EDF support for regional 
economic integration in East Africa and West Africa 

Special  report  No,  11/2010  -  Commission's  management  of  General 
Budget Support in ACP, Latin American and Asian countries 

Special  report  No.  12/2010  -  EU  Development  Assistance  for  Basic 
Education in Sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia 

29/09/2006 

21/12/2007 

2008 

2009 

2009 

2009 

2010 

2010 

EN 

63 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
3 

Internal Audit Service Reports 

IAS-2005-AIDCO/ECHO-001 
agreement with UN agencies 

Implementation  of 

the 

framework 

2005 

IAS-2006-AIDCO-003  Eligibility  of  Costs  under  the  Financial  and 
Administrative Framework Agreement with the United Nations by DG 
AIDCO 

AIDCO-2006-AIDCO/DEV-003  Audit  on  Budget  Support  –  Pool  Funds 
and Trust Funds 

IAS-2007-AIDCO-001 Audit on NGO's funding by DG AIDCO – Fup1 

IAS-2007-AIDCO-003 Financial Management of Regional Programmes 

IAS.B-2008-AIDCO/ECHO-001  Follow  up  of  the  FAFA  implementation 
with UN in DGs AIDCO and ECHO 

IAS.B5-2009-AIDCO-004  Follow-up  of  Eligibility  of  Costs  under  FAFA 
with UN 

IAS.B5-2009-AIDCO-003  Second  Follow-up  of  Audit  in  NGO  Funding 
by DG AIDCO 

IAS.B5-2010-AIDCO-001 Audit on Programmes Estimates financed by 
EU and EDF Budget 

2006 

2006 

2007 

2007 

2008 

2009 

2009 

2010 

IAS.B5-2010-AIDCO-003  Financial  Management  of 
Programmes, namely facilities 

Intra  ACP 

2010 

4 

Internal Audit Capability Reports 

Budget Support, pool and trust funds 

Budget Support Conditionality 

Contribution to the Annual Activity Report (AAR) 2007 – Summary of 
the  results  of  Audits  and  follow-up  Audits  carried  out  by  the  IAC  in 
2007  (note Adonis 955) 

Follow-up Audit on Budget Support, pool and trust funds 

Follow-up Audit on Management of Budget Support Conditionality 

Contribution to the Annual Activity Report (AAR) 2008 – Summary of 
the  results  of  Audits  and  follow-up  Audits  carried  out  by  the  IAC  in 
2008  (note Adonis 2518) 

Audit Report on Aid Implementation under Crisis Situation 

Contribution to the Annual Activity Report (AAR) 2009 – Summary of 
the results of Audits and follow-up Audits carried out by AIDCO's IAC 
in 2009 

5  Synthesis based on Result Oriented Monitoring Reports 

2007 

2008 

23/01/2008 

2009 

2009 

09/02/2009 

2010 

23/02/2010 

EN 

64 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Causes  underlying  Effectiveness  and  Impact  of  EC  Development 
Projects  –  Qualitative  study  based  on  ongoing  and  ex  post  ROM 
reports (2005-2007)  

May 2009 

Executive  Summary  (internal):  Towards  a  better  use  of  ROM  and 
project evaluations 

September 2010 

6  Mid-Term/End-Term Review of Financial Instruments 

6.1  9th EDF 

Explanatory  note  for  the  members  of  the  EDF  Committee  on  ACP 
cooperation:  End-of  term  review  (ETR)  of  regional  and  national 
cooperation under the 9th European Development Fund - Note Adonis 
n. 8062 

14/12/2006 

Report on the 9th EDF End-of-term review – For internal Commission 
use only – Note Adonis D(2007) 3936 
Evaluation 9th EDF End-of-term review – For internal Commission use 
only – Note Adonis D(2007) 3936 

26/09/2007 

26/09/2007 

6.2  10th EDF 

Mid-Term  Review  of  the  10th  European  Development  Fund  (EDF)  - 
Country  Strategy  Papers  -  Overview  of  the  Results  (Management 
Committee) 

Progress  Towards  the  MDGs  and  the  Contribution  of  the  EU  in  Ten 
Country  Case-Studies  /  FWC  N°  2009/229190  -  Final  Report  and 
Executive Summary 
10th EDF Performance Review – Note to Management meeting – Note 
Adonis 2011/36920 

25/11/2010 

13/12/2010 

17/01/2011 

Study  in  support  of  the  shaping  of  development  cooperation  after 
2013 – Lessons learnt from the 10th EDF MTR 

December 2010 

Study  in  support  of  the  shaping  of  development  cooperation  after 
2013 – Lessons learnt from the 10th EDF MTR: Division of Labour 

December 2010 

Study  in  support  of  the  shaping  of  development  cooperation  after 
2013  –  Lessons  learnt  from  the  10th  EDF  MTR:  innovative  financial 
instruments and blending 

January 2011 

6.3  EDF Shock absorption mechanisms 

Feasibility  study  on  compensatory  financing  scheme  of  exogenous 
shocks – (Final Report) 

June 2009 

Feasibility  study  on  compensatory  financing  scheme  of  exogenous 

August 2009 

EN 

65 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
shocks – (Revised Report) 

Study on shock absorbing schemes in ACP countries – FLEX Study 

December 2010 

7  Mid-Term Reviews of Thematic Strategy Papers 

Mid-term  Review  and  Analysis  of  the  Water  Facility  and  Energy 
Facility 

May 2008 

8  Mid-Term Reviews of Country/Region Strategy Papers 

iQSG Progress Report on second-generation Country Strategy Papers 
2007/8-2013 (SEC(2009) 431 - Commission Staff working document) 

30/03/2009 

State  of  play  of  EU  joint  programming  of  external  assistance  –  desk 
study of recent experiences 

09/12/2010 

Strategy Papers – Chapter on Lessons learnt: 

-  ACP Countries: South Africa 

-  Asia: Bangladesh, Bhutan, Cambodia, China, India, Indonesia, 
Laos, Malaysia, Maldives, Mongolia, Myanmar, Nepal, Pakistan, 
Philippines, Sri Lanka, Thailand, Vietnam, Regional Central 
Asian Countries 

-  Latin America: Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, 

Costa Rica, Cuba, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, 
Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Uruguay, 
Venezuela, Regional Latin America, Regional Central America, 
Regional Comunidad Andina, Regional Mercosur 

-  Neighbourhood policy and Middle-East : Algeria, Armenia, 
Azerbaijan, Egypt, Georgia, Jordan, Lebanon, Moldova, 
Morocco, Syria, Tunisia, Ukraine, Yemen 

9  External Reviews 

IEG Review of World Bank - Engaging with Fragile States - Support to 
Low-Income Countries Under Stress 

OECD/DAC Peer review of the European Commission 

AIDCO follow-up to OECD/DAC Peer Review Recommendations (Note 
to AIDCO Management, 12/11/2008) 

Multilateral  Organisations  Performance  Assessment  Network 
(MOPAN) Annual MOPAN Survey 2008 

IMF - Regional Economic Outlook Sub-Saharan Africa - Back to High 
Growth? 

2006 

2007 

12/11/2008 

2008 

April 2010 

IMF  -  Emerging  from  the  Global  Crisis:  Macroeconomic  Challenges 

October 2010 

EN 

66 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Facing Low-Income Countries  

EN 

67 

   EN 

 
 
Aid Fragmentation in Uganda- 2008

Aid Fragmentation in Uganda- 2008
EU MS together

Belgium
1%

11 donors
5%

Japan
1%

The Global 
Fund
3%

Canada
3%

IDA
26%

Japan
1%

6 donors
3%

The Global 
Fund
3%

Canada
3%

Norway
3%

AfDF
5%

European 
Union
43%

Norway
3%

Sweden
4%

Germany
4%

Ireland
4%

AfDF
5%

Netherlands
5%

United States
14%

United States
14%

Denmark
6%

EC
8%

United 
Kingdom
8%

IDA
25%

1
)

A
i
d
F
r
a
g
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
i
n
U
g
a
n
d
a

A
n
n
e
x
V
I
:

E
x
a
m
p
l
e
s
o
f
a
i
d
f
r
a
g
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
o
f

l
a
c
k
o
f

c
o
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n

E
N

6
8

E
N

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
     
SECTORS
13
Education
14
Health
10
Population Policies and Reproductive Health (incl gender)
13
Water Supply and Sanitation
14
Other Social Infrastructure 
13
Economic Infrastructure
Agriculture
13
Other Production Sectors (Forestry, Fishing, Industry, Mining, Construction, Trade Policy & T 10
10
Environment
4
General Budget Support
14
Government and Civil Society
15
Multi sector (incl rural and urban development)
13

AVERAGE NUMBER OF EU DONORS PER SECTOR

7
6
3
1
2
3
8
4
2
-
6
9
5

m
u

i

g

l

k

r

a

m
n

e

e

a
i

r

t

s

u

d

n

a
l

n

i

e

c

n

a
r

y

n

a

m

r

e

e

c

e

e
r

A

B

D

F

F

G

G

d

n

a
l

e
r

y
l

a
t

I

I

0,0

0,9

0,1

0,1

0,4

0,0

0,4

-

-

-

0,2

4,9

1,2

0,0

0,0

0,1

0,2

0,1

0,0

-

1,2

-

0,0

4,0

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

0,3

0,8

3,6

0,4

-

7,1

0,9

0,0

0,1

0,1

0,6

-

0,3

3,1

1,9

0,1

-

1,6

0,5

0,0

1,4

0,1

3,7

-

0,7

3,0

1,6

0,5

0,1

0,1

0,9

1,0

3,6

0,2

0,0

-

0,1

0,0

-

-

45,6

0,1

8,7

-

2,8

-

-

-

1,4

1,9

0,7

0,1

0,0

0,1

0,8

0,0

0,1

-

1,7

20,3

0,5

28,6

2,4

1,9

0,1

0,3

0,4

0,1

0,0

-

-

0,1

0,4

2,1

242
273
425
207
179
531
212
25
11
3
230
50

s

d

n

a
l

r

e

h
t

y

a

w

r

l

a

g

u
t

r

n

i

a

e

o

o

p

m
o

d

g

n

i

K

d

e
t

i

n

n

e

d

e

w

C

N

N

P

S

S

U

E

g
r

u

o

b

m
e

x

u

L

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

11,9

1,6

3,8

1,7

0,0

0,0

0,9

0,7

0,1

-

2,8

2,6

1,6

0,8

2,0

0,4

0,2

0,1

1,2

1,1

57,3

-

4,1

3,1

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

0,3

1,9

0,2

0,1

4,0

0,1

0,3

0,8

12,4

0,1

1,4

0,4

1,3

0,2

0,0

28,4

-

4,4

1,1

2,2

-

-

23,6 11,4

0,0

0,5

1,1

2,1

4,4

-

2,0

1,7

2,8

0,9

0,1

50,8

37,2

-

-

20,5

0,7

99,4

6,2

1,0

-

0,4

8,5

0,0

56%

17%

8%

47%

61%

40%

10%

71%

89%

100%

31%

76%

)
8
0
0
2
(

a
i
p
o
i
h
t
E
n
i

e
c
n
e
s
e
r
p
r
o
t
c
e
S
)
2

N
E

9
6

N
E

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
       
 
1  The  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. 
2 OJ L 314, 30.11.2001, p. 1. Amended by Decision 2007/249/EC (OJ L 109, 26.04.2007, p. 33). 

3 The 10th EDF Internal Agreement (OJ L 247, 9.9.2006, p32) was signed in July 2006 by the Representatives of the 
Member States meeting within the Council. The 10th EDF implementing Regulation (Council regulation 617/2007) 
and the 10th EDF Financial Regulation (Council regulation 215/2008) were adopted respectively in May 2007 and 
February  2008.  The  10th  EDF  entered  into  force  on  1.07.2008  with  the  entry  into  force  of  the  1st  revision  of  the 
Cotonou  Agreement.  The  10th  EDF  funding  to  the  OCTs  is  also  governed  by  the  Implementing  Regulation 
2304/2002 (OJ L 348, 21.12.2002, p. 82) amended by Regulation 1424/2007 (OJ L 317, 5.12.2007, p. 38) and by the 
Overseas Association Decision. 
4 Alongside the ACP Investment Facility, the EIB can lend up to EUR 2 billion from its own resources, with the EU 
Member States providing a 75% guarantee of total amounts opened by the EIB. Under the 10th EDF, both 
the ACP Investment Facility and EIB own resources lending can be blended with EDF grants of EUR 400m 
for interest rate subsidies or technical assistance. 

5  In  addition  to  the  more  'conventional'  developmental  challenges  majority  of  the ACP  countries  are among  those 
countries  most  exposed  to  the  adverse  consequences  of  climate  change,  which  further  amplifies  the  prevailing 
problems. At the same time the EU has developed its own policies in this area and has much to offer to its partners in 
view of integrating climate considerations into overall policy approaches. 
6  On  security  of  energy  supply  and  international  co-operation  -  "The  EU  Energy  Policy:  Engaging  with  Partners 
beyond our borders".COM(2011) 539 of 7.09.2011 

7  For  ACP  countries  the  omnipresence  of  these  phenomena  and  the  risks  they  pose  to  development  progress  will 
undermine  efforts  to  reduce  poverty  and  reach  MDGs  if  they  are  not  comprehensively  incorporated  into  the 
development cooperation programmes and approaches. 

8 cf also annex V regarding reports covering geographic/thematic areas of the EDF 

9 The study on shock absorbing schemes reflected upon the lessons learnt of the existing mechanisms (FLEX since 
2000 aiming at socio-economic reforms and policies that could be affected negatively as a result of a drop in export 
earnings, the ad-hoc temporary scheme Vulnerability Flex which has allocated resources in 2009 and 2010 to address 
the fall out of the global financial crisis, and the Food Facility adopted in 2008, as a rapid response to soaring and 
volatile food prices in developing countries), and on the design of a future shock absorbing mechanism. 

10 This diversity between ACPs also concerns their levels of economic development, demographics and geography; 
in particular, the case of Small Island Developing States must be taken into account. This disparity is also observed 
between ACP countries and OCTs: whereas ACP countries are all developing countries, the majority of the OCTs are 
no  longer  developing  territories,  even  if  their  micro-economies  remain  vulnerable.  The  OCTs'  total  population 
represents only 0.02% of the world population (1.2 million), compared to 13.3% (800 million) for ACP countries. 
Not counting Greenland (the world's largest island: 2.2 million km²) and the British Antarctic Territory, the OCT's 
total land mass represents only 80 000 km², compared to 30 million km² for the ACP States. 

11  This  would  result  in  substantial  financial  savings,  which,  according  to  a  recent  study  commissioned  by  the 
European  Commission  ("The  Aid  Effectiveness  Agenda:  Benefits  of  a  European  Approach",  Prepared  by  HTSPE, 
B.T. Carlsson, C.B. Schubert, S. Robinson, 14 October 2009) may be in the range of 2 to 6 billion Euros per year - A 
follow-up study has been commissioned in order to re-confirm these findings and put them in more concrete terms. 
12 Greenland benefits from a specific partnership laid down in Decision 2006/526/EC of 17 July 2006 (OJ L 208, 
29/07/2006, p. 28). Cooperation with Greenland is financed from the EU General Budget. Nevertheless, Greenland 
can take part in regional projects under the 10th EDF. 
13 COM(2011)500 

14 Joint statement by the Council and the representatives of the governments of the Member States meeting with the 
Council, the European Parliament and the Commission on EU development policy of 20 December 2005. 

EN 

70 

   EN 

 
                                                                                                                                                              
15 However, South Africa is covered by the DCI. 

16 The 2007-2013 DCI also contains accompanying measures for ACP Sugar Protocol countries. The legal basis for 
banana  accompanying  measures  (BAM)  is  pending  with  the  legislative  authority.  In  addition,  to  reply  to  the  food 
prices  crisis  emerging  in  2008  the  Food  Facility  was  established  as  a  global  instrument  with  a  limited  duration  of 
three years to help developing countries facing this crisis situation. 

17 However, the different institutional decision-making procedures between CFSP on the one hand and the exercice 
of conferred competencies under the TFEU on the other should be complied with. 

18 This proposal is currently under discussion with the Council and the European Parliament. 

19  Modifications  already  foreseen  by  the  second  revision  of  the  Cotonou  Agreement,  that  will  also  contribute  to 
reinforce the flexibility elements of the 11th EDF, are not considered as options here. These include the creation of 
regional B-envelopes to cover unforeseen needs with a regional dimension, and of future shock absorbing schemes to 
replace current Flex on the basis of the experience of V-Flex and of the food facility. The future shock absorbing 
mechanism should normally focus on exogenous shocks with a cross-country dimension (e.g. financial crisis, food or 
fuel prices increases, etc …). 

20 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. 

21  Many  factors  affect  the  distribution  of  income  or  consumption,  and  there  is  no  clear  link  between  economic 
growth and changes in income distribution.  World Bank Social Indicators Report 2010.  

22 http://www.oecd.org/document/18/0,3343,en_2649_3236398_35401554_1_1_1_1,00.html 

23 http://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/what/development-policies/policy-coherence/index_en.htm 

EN 

71 

   EN