REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS 2011 Annual Report on the Instrument for Stability
Date: 2012-07-24
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: common foreign and security policy, foreign aid, international conflict, international security, the EU's international role

EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Brussels, 24.7.2012  
COM(2012) 405 final 

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

2011 Annual Report on the Instrument for Stability 

{SWD(2012) 225 final} 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
  
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

5. 

6. 

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

Structure of the Instrument for Stability (IfS).............................................................. 3 

Implementation of the Instrument for Stability............................................................ 4 

Overview of the IfS for the period 2007-2011............................................................. 5 

State of play of the IfS in 2011 .................................................................................... 6 

Response to situations of crisis or emerging crisis (IfS Article 3)............................... 7 

6.1. 

How has the IfS responded to crises in 2011? ............................................................. 7 

6.2.  Who is involved in IfS crisis response actions?........................................................... 9 

7. 

7.1. 

7.2. 

Assistance in the context of stable conditions for cooperation (IfS Article 4) .......... 10 

Threats to security and safety (IfS Article 4.1) .......................................................... 10 

Risk mitigation linked to Chemical, Biological, Radiological and Nuclear (CBRN) 
materials (IfS Article 4.2) .......................................................................................... 12 

7.3. 

Pre- and post- crisis capacity-building (IfS Article 4.3) ............................................ 13 

8. 

Conclusion.................................................................................................................. 15 

EN 

2 

   EN 

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

2011 Annual Report on the Instrument for Stability 

1. 

INTRODUCTION 

This fifth Annual Report is submitted to the European Parliament, the Council, the Economic 
and  Social  Committee  and  the  Committee  of  the  Regions,  in  compliance  with  the  reporting 
requirement  set  out  in  Article  23  of  Regulation  (EC)  N°1717/2006  of  the  European 
Parliament and the Council of 15 November 2006 establishing an Instrument for Stability.1 

The  Instrument  for  Stability  (IfS)  is  an  important  tool  under  the  authority  of  the  High 
Representative/Vice President, enabling her to target  resources in support of  comprehensive 
EU approaches aimed at preventing, mitigating and dealing with the aftermath of crises and 
security threats around the world. The report gives an overview of how the IfS was mobilised 
in 2011. 

This  report  is  complemented  by  two  Commission  Staff  Working  Documents  which  provide 
comprehensive and detailed global implementation updates on: (i) urgent IfS crisis response 
measures that were launched and/or ongoing in 2011; and (ii) longer-term IfS programmes. 

The  IfS  actions  described  in  this  report  are  undertaken  by  a  wide  range  of  implementing 
bodies, including agencies of the United Nations, other international and regional bodies, EU 
Member State bodies, NGOs and other civil society organisations. 

2. 

STRUCTURE OF THE INSTRUMENT FOR STABILITY (IFS) 

The IfS is one of the key external assistance instruments that enable the EU to take a lead in 
helping to prevent and respond to actual or emerging crises around the world. 

As summarised below, Articles 3 and 4 of the IfS Regulation set out the types of activities for 
which this instrument can be mobilised. 

Article  3  foresees  ‘assistance  in  response  to  crisis  or  emerging  crisis’.  This  can  include 
responding to serious political and conflict situations, major natural disasters and sometimes a 
complex  combination  of  both  scenarios.  Where  windows  of  opportunity  emerge  for  the 
prevention, mitigation or resolution of crises, such IfS assistance, which is limited to instances 
when  the  mainstream  external  assistance  instruments2  cannot  be  mobilised  in  a  sufficiently 
timely or appropriate manner, takes the form of immediate Exceptional Assistance Measures.3 

1 
2 

3 

OJ L 327/1 24.11.2006 
Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance (IPA); European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument 
(ENPI); Development Co-operation Instrument (DCI); European Development Fund (EDF); and 
European Instrument for Democracy and Human Rights (EIDHR); etc. 
Maximum duration of 18 months, with accelerated procedures for adoption and implementation for 
programmes of less than EUR 20 million, as set out in Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
                                                 
These  response  measures  are  in  some  cases  followed  up  by  subsequent  Interim  Response 
Programmes.4  

IfS  measures  often  complement  EU  humanitarian  assistance,  while  the  instrument  also 
provides  critical  contributions  to  the  ‘Linking  Relief,  Reconstruction,  and  Development’5 
approach. In addition,  IfS  actions  can  complement  EU  CSDP6 operations and other actions, 
and  also  make  further  critical  contributions  to  the  EU  comprehensive  approach  to  crisis 
response. 

IfS  responses  complement  the  mainstream  assistance  instruments  which,  due  to  their  scope, 
strategic planning and programming cycles, are often not suited to react in cases of crisis or 
emerging crisis. Indeed, an important asset of the EU external action toolbox is the fact that it 
includes such a wide range of instruments, enabling the Union to provide tailored responses to 
suit different situations.  

Various  smaller  scale  IfS  crisis  response  measures  are  financed  under  a  facility,  set  up 
through a financing Decision, which allows the EU to provide rapid and flexible IfS support 
for  a  range  of  types  of  actions,  with  each  one  being  up  to  a  maximum  amount  of  EUR  2 
million. This is known as the IfS Facility for Policy Advice, Technical Assistance, Mediation, 
Reconciliation  and  other  areas  of  assistance  for  the  benefit  of  third  countries affected 
by crisis situations (PAMF). 

Article 4 of the IfS Regulation foresees a programmable component of the Instrument which 
encompasses longer-term IfS programmes addressing three focal areas:  

• 

• 

• 

Security and safety threats in a trans-regional context (Article 4.1); 

Risk  mitigation  linked  to  Chemical,  Biological,  Radiological  and  Nuclear 
(CBRN) materials (Article 4.2); and  

Pre- and post-crisis capacity building (Article 4.3).7 

3. 

IMPLEMENTATION OF THE INSTRUMENT FOR STABILITY 

The entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty signalled the creation, in 2011, of the  Service for 
Foreign Policy Instruments (FPI), a new Commission service which works alongside the also 
new  European  External  Action  Service  (EEAS),  the  latter  being  a  functionally  autonomous 
body of the Union.8 Both services report to High Representative/Vice President Ashton, with 
the FPI coming under her responsibilities as Vice President of the European Commission.  

1605/2002, of 25 June 2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the 
European Communities, as amended, referred to as the Financial Regulation, and the Commission 
Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2342/2002 of 23 December 2002, laying down detailed rules on the 
implementation of the Financial Regulation, referred to as the Implementing Rules. 
Programmes building on ‘Exceptional assistance Measures’, to put in place the conditions for the 
implementation of the EU’s cooperation policies. These can be of longer duration but also require more 
time to be adopted, due to longer decisional processes, including comitology.  
LRRD  
Common Security and Defence Policy (of the EU) 
Also known as the IfS ‘Peace-building Partnership’ (PbP) 
Council Decision of 26 July 2010 establishing the organisation and functioning of the European 
External Action Service (2010/427/EU), OJ L201 

4 

5 
6 
7 
8 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
                                                                                                                                                         
Article  9  of  the  Decision  creating  the  EEAS  specifies  that  the  management  of  the  Union’s 
external  cooperation  remains  under  the  responsibility  of  the  Commission,  with  the  High 
Representative  ensuring  overall  political  coordination  of  external  assistance  instruments, 
including the IfS. Thus, the EEAS provides the political steer for Article 3 of the Instrument 
for  Stability  and  works  jointly  on  the  preparation  of  measures  with  the  FPI  which  is 
responsible  for  the  implementation  of  agreed actions.  The  EEAS  also  provides  the  strategic 
programming  for  Article  4  through  the  Strategy  Papers  and  Multi-annual  Indicative 
Programmes. The corresponding Annual Action Plans (AAP) are defined and executed by DG 
DEVCO9 (for Art. 4.1 & 4.2) and FPI (for Art. 4.3). Working in tandem on Art. 4.1 and Art. 
4.2, the EEAS, and DG DEVCO agree measures to address a number of security threats and 
other  global  challenges  and  these  complement  other  measures  implemented  under  EU 
geographic instruments.  

4. 

OVERVIEW OF THE IFS FOR THE PERIOD 2007-2011  

After five years in existence, the IfS is now well established as an EU instrument responding 
to conflicts and crises around the world, addressing security threats at national and regional 
levels, as well as building capacities to respond to crises and prevent conflict. 

Over the period 2007 - 2011, the short-term crisis response component of the IfS has made 
available  EUR  670  million  for  some  203  actions  responding  to  crises  worldwide.  The 
geographic coverage for the period 2007-2011 is shown in Figure 1. 

Figure 1: Geographic coverage of IfS Crisis Responses, 
2007 to 2011 (as per funding allocations)

Southern Caucasus & 
Central Asia
10%

Global
4%

Africa 
26%

Eastern Europe & 
Western Balkans
8%

Middle East & North 
Africa
20%

Latin America & 
Caribbean
11%

Asia and Pacific
21%

Figure  2  illustrates  how  funding  was  distributed  amongst  crisis  response  measures  (Art.  3) 
and the longer-term programmes (Art. 4) in this period. 

9 

Directorate General for Development and Cooperation – EuropeAid, (European Commission) 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
 
 
                                                 
Figure 2: IfS funding for activities under Articles 3, 4.1, 4.2 and 4.3 
EUR 983 million overall for 2007-2011

Article 4.3
 EUR 54 million

Article 3
EUR 670 million

Article 4.2
EUR 174 million

Article 4.1
EUR 85 million 

5. 

STATE OF PLAY OF THE IFS IN 2011 

Of the EUR 282 million budget available and fully committed for the IfS in 201110 (a near 
15% increase on the previous year) the breakdown of allocations was:  

• 

• 

• 

• 

EUR 188 million for crisis or emerging crisis situations, amounting to a 43% 
increase on the previous year;  

EUR 30 million for responses to trans-regional threats; 

EUR 49 million for CBRN risk mitigation; and 

EUR 15 million11for pre- and post- crisis capacity building  

Through  regular  notes  presented  to  the  Political  and  Security  Committee,  the  Council  was 
kept informed on the planning of new Art. 3 crisis response measures and also updated on the 
implementation  of  ongoing  measures.  The  Working  Group  on  Conflict,  Security  and 
Development  of  the  Foreign  Affairs  Committee  of  the  European  Parliament,  which  was 
established  in  the  framework  of  the  democratic  scrutiny  of  the  IfS,  convened  five  meetings 
with representatives from the Commission and the EEAS. 

10 

11 

Refer to ‘Instrument for Stability: Overview 2011 commitments and payments’ in the Commission Staff 
Working Document II accompanying this report 
Including a EUR 1 million allocation from the European Parliament for a pilot ‘Programme for NGO-
led peacebuilding activities’ 

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
Figure 3: Geographic coverage of new IfS Crisis Responses,
2011 (as per funding allocations)

Eastern Europe & 
Western Balkans
1%

Middle East & 
North Africa
31%

Southern 
Caucasus & 
Central Asia
5%

Global
5%

Africa
42%

Latin America & 
Caribbean
3%

Asia & Pacific
13%

In terms of geographic distribution, Figure 3 above shows that various crises in Sub-Saharan 
Africa in 2011 required a high level of IfS funding to support important stabilisation efforts. 
In  addition  there  was  a  very  significant  increase  in  the  percentage  of  overall  IfS  funding 
allocated  in  2011  for  the  Middle  East  and  North  Africa  region,  due  to  the  events  of  the 
unfolding  ‘Arab  Spring.’  The  EU’s  strong  commitment  to  supporting  the  Southern 
Mediterranean region, in line with the Joint Communication of 8th March 2011 by the High 
Representative and the Commission on A Partnership for Democracy and Shared Prosperity 
with the Southern Mediterranean, is also demonstrated by the planned funding transfers from 
the  global  IfS  budget  to  the  European  Neighbourhood  Policy  Instrument  (ENPI)  budget, 
amounting to EUR 60 million for 2012 and EUR 70 million for 2013.  

Though  there  were  fewer  new  IfS  actions  launched  in  a  number  of  other  regions  in  2011, 
many actions already launched in these regions in 2010 remained ongoing throughout 2011. 
With  regard  to  the  longer-term  IfS  programmes,  the  year  2011  saw  the  end  of  the  period 
covered  by  the  2007-2011  IfS  Strategy  Paper  and  its  two  accompanying  Multi-annual 
Indicative Programmes covering respectively the periods 2007-2008 and 2009-2011. 

Specific examples of IfS projects in 2011 are given in the next two sections. 

6. 

RESPONSE TO SITUATIONS OF CRISIS OR EMERGING CRISIS (IFS ARTICLE 3)  

6.1. 

How has the IfS responded to crises in 2011? 

Full details of all IfS measures under implementation in 2011 are set out in the Commission 
Staff Working Document I which accompanies this Annual Report. Illustrative of activities in 
2011, the following actions demonstrate the wide scope and the many different types of crises 
the IfS was called to respond to in various locations around the world: 

• 

‘Arab Spring’ – In addition to direct support to peaceful elections, emphasis was put 
on  strengthened  participation  of  civil  society  in  the  transition  processes  (Tunisia, 
Egypt  and  Libya),  including  a  particular  focus  on  supporting  the  role  of  women. 
The  turbulent  situation  in  Yemen  forced  the  cancellation  of  ongoing  actions 

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
 
• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

involving  Government  enforcement  agencies,  while  other  actions  aiming  at  a 
strengthened voice for civil society continued; 

Substantial  support  was  given  to  the  Palestinian  people,  including  through  the 
provision of essential rental subsidies to help prevent the outbreak of a new conflict 
in  Palestinian  refugee  camps  in  Lebanon,  thus  helping  to  mitigate  the  risk  of 
escalation and spill-over effects in an already fragile context in the Middle East and 
wider  Mediterranean  region.  An  emergency  socio-economic  stabilisation  support 
package  for  Gaza  was  launched,  aiming  to  support  employment  creation  and 
improve the available supply of water. A further decision was taken to upgrade the 
Kerem  Shalom  crossing  point  in  order  to  facilitate  the  flow  of  goods  to  and  from 
Israel to the Gaza Strip; 

In  terms  of  reconciliation  and  transitional  justice,  funding  was  provided  to  the 
Special  Tribunal  in  Lebanon  which  is  investigating  the  circumstances  surrounding 
the assassination of former Prime Minister Hariri; 

The  2011  drought  crisis  in  the  Horn  of  Africa  necessitated  massive  relief  action. 
Complementing  EU  and  other  humanitarian  relief  efforts,  the  IfS  launched  a 
recovery measure to help the agriculture sector re-establish markets and production 
capacities in Ethiopia. As the drought also influenced the security-political balance 
in  Somalia,  mine  clearance  and  related  measures  were  funded  to  pave  the  way  for 
recovery  and  reconstruction efforts  in Mogadishu and other previously  inaccessible 
parts of the country; 

Further  support  was  provided  to  the  EU-comprehensive  approach  for  tackling  the 
scourge  of  piracy  off  the  Horn  of  Africa,  through  funding  the  EU-UNODC 
programmes  supporting  piracy  trials.  The  provision  of  such  support  also 
strengthened the EU negotiation position on transfer agreements with countries in the 
region,  which  were  essential  for  the  success  of  the  EU’s  CSDP  Atalanta  counter 
piracy naval operation; 

The new country of South Sudan was assisted in addressing local and inter-country 
threats to stability between Sudan and South Sudan, primarily in the vicinity around 
their common border area; 

The  Instrument  was  also  mobilised  following  political  developments  and  shifts  in 
political/security  power  balances.  Examples  include  programmes  in  Côte  d’Ivoire 
supporting the new Ouattara Government and recent elections, as well as the support 
to Security Sector Reform in the Democratic Republic of Congo; 

A  programme  was  launched  in  the  Niger  Delta  region  of  Nigeria  to  support  the 
reintegration of ex-militants and thus to promote stability; 

A significant contribution was made to actions supporting the EU’s Sahel strategy, 
including support to the creation of income and employment generating activities; 

Several  actions  were  launched  to  reduce  mounting  tensions  between  population 
groups that risked escalating into conflicts between countries. One such programme 
delivered measures to diffuse tensions between Kyrgyz and Uzbeks in Central Asia’s 
Fergana  Valley,  whilst  another  sought  to  improve  relations  between  Haitian  and 
host Dominican communities in the Dominican Republic; 

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
• 

• 

A  number  of  measures  were  taken  to  provide  critical  electoral  support  in  Haiti, 
Kazakhstan and Belarus, whilst in Afghanistan the IfS supported the Independent 
Electoral Commission to develop and consolidate capacity for future elections; and 

In  Colombia,  a  project  was  set  up  to  support  the  establishment  of  a  truth,  justice 
and  reconciliation  process  dealing  with  the  issue  of  kidnappings  and  forced 
disappearances. 

6.2.  Who is involved in IfS crisis response actions? 

IfS crisis response measures are prepared in close cooperation with a variety of partners: civil 
society;  public  administrations;  EU  Member  States;  EU  institutions;  third  countries;  and 
others. EU Delegations play a key role, providing early warning and developing concepts and 
options for responses. In 2011, the majority of new measures were ‘sub-delegated’12for local 
implementation to EU Delegations, whose understanding of local needs and requirements is 
essential  to  the  success  of  the  activities.  This  enables  contracts  to  be  negotiated  with 
implementing  bodies  in  a  timely  fashion  and  the  implementation  of  these  often  sensitive 
projects to be monitored at close proximity. As a result, EU Delegations were responsible for 
85% of commitments and 82% of payments under the IfS in 2011.  

Those  EU  Delegations  with  a  particularly  heavy  workload  related  to  IfS  programmes 
continued to be assisted through dedicated staff financed from the IfS administrative support 
budget. The number of IfS field staff in EU Delegations remained fairly static at 21, made up 
of  7  Regional  Crisis  Response  Planning  Officers  supporting  headquarters  with  the 
identification of effective interventions and 14 IfS Project Managers working at Delegations 
having either a substantial and/or complex IfS portfolio to manage. 

Figure 4: IfS Crisis Response implementing partners, 
2007 to 2011 (as per funding allocations)

EU Member State 
bodies
9%

Private sector
2%

Other international 
organisations
23%

3rd country 
governments
5%

UN agencies
42%

International & local 
NGOs
19%

Figure 4 illustrates the range of IfS implementing partners for Art. 3 crisis response measures. 
Non-state  actors  were  implementing  44%  of  the  IfS  budget,  and  the  UN  family  42%.  The 
significant UN role is explained by the volatile environments where the IfS operates, with UN 

12 

Legal and financial responsibility for the use of EU funds, including power to sign and amend contracts 
as appropriate is transferred from the European Commission HQ to the EU Delegation concerned. 

EN 

9 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
bodies often being among the few having a strong in-country presence that can react quickly, 
using  their  solid  local  networks.  Implementation  by  third  country  governments  increased  in 
2011 to 5% (compared to 3% the previous year). However, in terms of the number of actions, 
it is the international and local NGOs that manage the largest number of IfS projects. 

7. 

ASSISTANCE  IN  THE  CONTEXT  OF  STABLE  CONDITIONS  FOR  COOPERATION  (IFS 
ARTICLE 4) 

The  Commission  ensures  the  preparation  of  annual  programming  and  the  management  of 
assistance  under  Article  4  in  the  context  of  stable  conditions  for  cooperation.  The  2011  IfS 
Annual Action Programmes  were  adopted as follows: Article 4.1 (security and other threats 
related to law and order) in September 2011; Article 4.2 (Chemical, Biological, Radiological 
and  Nuclear  material  risk  mitigation)  in  October  2011;  and  Article  4.3  (Pre-crisis  and  Post-
crisis capacity building) in June 2011. A detailed implementation update on activities under 
each of Art 4.1, Art. 4.2 and Art. 4.3 is provided in the Commission Staff Working Document 
II accompanying this Annual Report. 

7.1. 

Threats to security and safety (IfS Article 4.1) 

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

In 2011, EUR 30 million were committed to actions in the above areas, with a total of around 
EUR  9.2  million  in  payments.  By  the  end  of  2011,  and  through  the  ESF,13  more  than  100 
experts were recruited from specialist public or semi-public organisations in the EU Member 
States, joining forces to make their specific knowledge and expertise available, and providing 
technical  inputs  to  the  identification  and  detailed  planning  of  IfS  actions.  This  included  the 
2012  Annual  Action  Programme,  as  well  as  paving  the  way  for  a  fully-fledged 
implementation  of  actions  decided  in  previous  Annual  Action  Programmes.  Areas  covered 
include: 

• 

13 

In  2011,  the  first  two  Joint  Airport  Interdiction  Task  Forces  were  inaugurated  in 
Cape  Verde  and  Senegal  to  support  the  fight  against  organised  crime  on  the 
cocaine route (40 countries, EUR 6 million in 2011 out of EUR 19 million). A one 
week exercise called COCAIR took place in 22 airports and resulted in considerable 
seizures of drugs; 

Expert Support Facility, drawing on specialists from public or semi-public organisations from 
throughout the EU. Since 2008, experts from about 60 organisations in 17 Member States have carried 
out over 100 missions. 

EN 

10 

   EN 

 
                                                 
• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

To support the fight against organised crime on the heroin route, work continued 
in ten countries, including Iran, Pakistan and Afghanistan; 

The  EUR  14.5  million  Critical  Maritime  Routes  programme  (EUR  4.5  million  in 
2011) covers 17 coastal countries of the West Indian Ocean, South East Asia and the 
Gulf  of  Guinea.  It  enhances  the  information  sharing  capacities  and  enforcement 
functions of coastal states so as to help achieve safer maritime traffic by countering 
piracy and armed robbery at sea; 

Several projects aim at preventing and combating terrorism, contributing to global 
counter-terrorism  efforts,  including  implementation  of  UN  strategy.  A  EUR  6.7 
million contract for counter-terrorism in the Sahel has been signed so as to improve 
capacities to share information, anticipate terrorist acts and respond to terrorist acts 
on  both  an  operational  and  judicial  level.  Collaboration  with  Pakistan  aims  to 
improve the Punjab criminal justice system. In South East Asia, the IfS is engaging 
in a joint EU-UNODC anti-terrorism initiative; 

Cyber crime is a relatively new manifestation of existing global and trans-regional 
threats,  which  can  no  longer  be  effectively  tackled  without  addressing  their  cyber 
dimension (EUR 3 million earmarked to strengthen the capacity of law enforcement 
and judicial and civil authorities and promote accession to and implementation of the 
so-called  BUDAPEST  Convention).  Considering  that  most  critical  infrastructure 
operation  systems  are  network-connected,  the  potential  destabilising  effects  of  a 
cyber  attack  or  a  major  accidental  failure  of  key  information  and  communications 
technologies networks could be devastating. It is against this background that cyber 
security  will  be  addressed  under  the  IfS  (EUR  1.5  million  earmarked  for  trans-
regional  cooperation  as  well  as  on  the  implementation  of  international  standards  in 
the  fields  of  risk  awareness,  vulnerability  analysis,  emergency  preparedness,  alert 
and consequence management).  

Falsified  medicines  are  a  major  threat  to  public  health  and  safety  as  they  usually 
contain  ingredients  which  are  of  bad  quality  or  in  the  wrong  dose  or  simply 
ineffective  –  and  in  some  cases  even  toxic.  Although  the  scope  of  the  menace  is 
global,  developing  countries  are  particularly  exposed  to  this  threat  (EUR  5  million 
earmarked  to  strengthen  the  legal  framework  -  mainly  though  the  MEDICRIME 
Convention  -  as  well  as  capacities  to  detect  and  analyse  suspicious  medicines  and 
finally police investigation and criminal justice capacity to disrupt and dismantle the 
globalised criminal networks); 

In order to enhance capacities for preventing, combating and controlling illicit trade 
in  small  arms  and  light  weapons  (SALW),  the  EU  continued  to  support 
coordination and implementation of international protocols and conventions in Sub-
Saharan Africa, South and Central America (2011: EUR 7.3 million in 41 countries); 
and 

In  2011,  EU  Member  States'  agencies  continued  to  offer  expertise  and  to  benefit 
from  synergies  via  the  Expert  Support  Facility  (ESF)  for  IfS  long-term 
programming  and  implementation  of  (Priority  1  and  2)  programmes  and  projects 
(EUR 2.5 million under AAP 2011), under which more than 100 missions have been 
carried out since 2008. 

EN 

11 

   EN 

 
7.2. 

Risk  mitigation  linked  to  Chemical,  Biological,  Radiological  and  Nuclear 
(CBRN) materials (IfS Article 4.2) 

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

The CBRN programme covers risks related to accidental, natural or malevolent CBRN related 
issues and aims at improving the safety and security culture by spreading best practices and 
raising  the  general  level  of  security  and  safety  awareness.  Prior  to  2010,  different  domains 
were  covered  separately.14  From  2010  onwards,  the  CBRN  ‘Centres  of  Excellence’  set  up 
worldwide  by  the  EU  under  the  Instrument  are  gradually  providing  a  single  and  integrated 
platform  for  actions  in  all  of  the  domains  of  Border  Monitoring/Illicit  trafficking,  export 
control, bio safety and bio security etc. These Centres of Excellence (CoE) seek to enhance 
CBRN risk mitigation policies by developing tailored assistance packages (19 actions in five 
regions,  EUR  21.5  million  in  2011).  They  will  constitute  a  major  tool  for  capacity  building 
and  developing  coherent  regional  policies  and  for  strengthening  the  cooperation  of  national 
and regional capabilities in this domain. In 2011, the EU established CoE in South-East Asia 
(Philippines),  South  East  Europe/Southern  Caucasus/Ukraine  (Georgia),  North  Africa 
(Algeria), the "Atlantic façade" (Morocco) and Middle East (Jordan). The first five local CoE 
Regional  Secretariats  became  operative  in  late  2011.  Furthermore,  contacts  have  been 
established with Central Asia, Gulf Cooperation Council countries and sub Saharan Africa. 

Other areas supported include: 

• 

• 

• 

• 

14 

Assistance  and  cooperation  in  export  control  of  dual-use  goods  activities  which 
resulted in successful programme implementations with more than 28 states around 
the  world.  Cooperation  with  the  US  EXBS  Export  Control  system  has  been 
reinforced; 

To strengthen safety and security against biological threats, several measures to 
secure facilities in various Central Asian, Caucasus and African countries have been 
undertaken  (EUR  3.5  million  in  2011).  Together  with  the  European  Centre  with 
Disease  Prevention,  a  17  non-EU  country  wide  human  health  programme  has  been 
started (EUR 3 million in late 2010); 

To  support  Multilateral  Nuclear  Assurances  (MNA)  initiatives,  a  contract  has 
been  signed  with  IAEA  to  contribute  to  the  Low  Enriched  Uranium  Bank  for  the 
Utilisation  of  Nuclear  Energy  (EUR  10  million  in  2011).  The  ‘LEU  Bank’,  owned 
and  managed  by  the  IAEA,  will  supply  countries  introducing  civil  nuclear 
programmes with secure nuclear fuel, thus limiting the associated proliferation risks; 

Support for retraining and alternative employment of former weapon scientists 
and  engineers  with  origin  in  countries  of  the  former  Soviet  Union  has  continued 
through the dedicated STCU and ISTC centres in Kiev and Moscow. In Iraq, actions 
continued  with  engaging  former  weapons  scientists  in  comprehensive  activities  for 
the decommissioning, dismantling and decontamination of nuclear facilities; and 

e.g. export control of dual-use goods, illicit trafficking, redirection of former weapons scientists, safety 
and security culture.  

EN 

12 

   EN 

 
                                                 
• 

The  fight  against  illicit  trafficking  of  CBRN  materials  and  deceptive  financial 
practices  is  ongoing  with  actions  in  Central  Asia  and  South  East  Asia  and  North 
Africa.  A  contract  has  been  signed  with  IAEA  to  contribute  to  a  new  Nuclear 
Material  Laboratory  to  be  used  by  IAEA  Safeguards  Analytical  Services  in 
Seibersdorf, Austria (EUR 5 million in 2011). 

7.3. 

Pre- and post- crisis capacity-building (IfS Article 4.3) 

The  2011  Annual  Action  Programme15  included  eight  thematically  grouped  actions,  under 
what is known  as  the IfS Peace-building Partnership (PbP), which engages partners from 
civil society organisations, regional and international organisations and EU Member States in 
building capacities for pre- and post-crisis responses (see Figure 5). 

Figure 5: IfS Peace-building Partnership (PbP) implementing partners, 2007-
2011 (as per funding allocations)

EU Member State 
bodies
17%

International/regional 
organisations
37%

Civil society 
organisations
46%

Throughout the year, many ongoing actions supported both the crisis management / response 
and  conflict  prevention  efforts  of  the  EEAS,  in  particular  the  priorities  of  the  Crisis 
Management  Board  and  the  newly-established  Conflict  Prevention  Group.  This  support 
included  the  provision  of  civil  society  organisations’  conflict  analysis  input  and  high-level 
field  information  and  expertise  on  early  warning  and  conflict  prevention,  in  line  with  the 
Council  Conclusions  of  June  2011.16  The  following  examples  highlight  some  of  the  main 
areas of achievement in 2011: 

• 

15 

16 

17 

Dialogue  with  civil  society  and  capacity  building  of  in-country,  non-state  actors: 
The Civil Society Dialogue Network17, a forum for dialogue on peace-building issues 
between the EU and non-state actors, saw thirteen meetings held on thematic topics 
(e.g. conflict prevention and early warning, security sector reform and women, peace 
and  security)  and  country-specific  or  conflict-specific  topics  (e.g.  meetings  on  the 

The 2011 Annual Action Programme was adopted by the European Commission on 30th June 2011 
(http://www.eeas.europa.eu/ifs/docs/c_2011_4451_en.pdf). 
Council Conclusions on Conflict Prevention, 3101st Foreign Affairs Council, Luxembourg, 20 June 
2011 
The Civil Society Dialogue Network is managed by the European Peace-building Liaison Office 
(EPLO). 

EN 

13 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
MENA18  region,  Ivory  Coast,  Lord’s  Resistance  Army)  with  a  view  to  providing 
input to the EU’s policy-making processes; 

In  order  to  build  capacity  at  grass  roots  level,  twelve  civil  society-based  projects 
began  work  across  six  countries  in  the  areas  of  mediation  and  dialogue,  human 
security  and  the  role  of  women.  A  further  action  on  early  warning  focused  on 
building a shared understanding of the risk factors that could turn fragile situations 
into conflict and measures that could be taken to prevent this; 

Mediation  and  Dialogue:  The  EU  supported  the  Standby  Team  of  Mediation 
Experts,  under  the  Mediation  Support  Unit  (MSU)  of  the  UN  Department  for 
Political  Affairs  (DPA),  to  quickly  provide  mediation  expertise  to  the  UN,  EU 
Member States, and other international, regional and sub-regional organisations. Two 
EU-funded  experts  in  the  MSU  carried  out  sixteen  separate  missions  to  eight 
countries.19 Another IfS action in Kenya sought to target the root causes of the post-
election  violence  in  200720  and  contributed  to  strengthening  the  capacities  of  non-
state actors to mitigate inter-community conflicts; 

Natural  Resources  and  Post-Conflict  and  Post-Disaster  Needs  Assessments 
(PCNA/DPNAs):  UN  MSU  experts  on  natural  resources  and  conflict  cooperated  to 
produce  extensive  research  pieces  on  the  Nile  River  Basin  and  land  conflicts 
involving  indigenous  populations  in  Chile  and  Panama,  and  also  assisted  in  the 
preparatory activities for national dialogues in the MENA region. In the framework 
of the EU-UN Partnership for Conflict Prevention and the Sustainable Management 
of  Land  and  Natural  Resources,  practical  guidance  notes  on  land,  extractive 
industries,  environmental  scarcity  and  capacity  development  were  produced.  Based 
on  the  EU-UN-WB  partnership  regarding  PDNAs/PCNAs,  UNDOCO21  developed 
web-based  tools  for  assessment  mission  experts.  The  programme  also  developed 
joint training/information programmes - 170 staff from partner and other multilateral 
organisations received introductory training, whilst 73 experts followed the in-depth 
programme; 

Peace-building and Human Rights, focusing in particular on Youth and Women: A 
full range of activities was delivered in 3 regions of Bosnia and Herzegovina under 
the  project  ‘Youth  for Peace’22, including  the empowerment  of  youth  organisations 
and training days in peace-building and community development;  

In  the  Democratic  Republic  of  Congo  (DRC),  women  activists  were  assisted  in 
getting involved in investigations into the cases of mass rapes in Fizi perpetrated by 
the regular army (FARDC), resulting in the first FARDC commander to be sentenced 
by a special mobile gender court for rape crimes. Similar sentences were handed out 
near  Kalehe  and  Maniema.  Awareness-raising  on  UNSCR  1325  reached  more  than 

Middle East and North Africa. 
Including Jordan (supporting UNAMI); Kazakhstan (supporting UNRCCA with regard to the Aral Sea 
basin region); Kenya (working from Nairobi on Somalia issues); Kyrgyzstan (to support the 
Government of Kyrgyzstan with the development of a national conflict prevention programme); and 
Qatar (supporting the Darfur peace talks). 
The action ‘Strengthening non-state actors capacities to prevent and resolve conflicts in areas affected 
by post election violence in Kenya’ was managed by Konrad Adenauer Stiftung e.V. 
UN Development Operations Coordination Office (DOCO) 
This action was managed by Care International. 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

18 
19 

20 

21 
22 

EN 

14 

   EN 

 
                                                 
• 

• 

• 

• 

1,000  women  through  public  information  sessions resulting in a registered increase 
in women's political participation and political influence in the areas concerned;23 

Cooperation with regional organisations: An operational crisis response centre was 
established at the Secretariat General of the League of Arab States (SGLAS) and an 
intensive  training  programme  benefiting  SGLAS  officials  engaged  with  early 
warning,  crisis  analysis  and  the  management  of  crisis  responses  is  now  being 
implemented.  This  project  has  helped  facilitate  regular  and  enhanced  interaction 
between the EEAS and the SGLAS on various crises and other topics on the shared 
EU-LAS agenda;  

International  Dialogue  on  Peace  Building  and  State  Building:  The  EU  has 
supported the OECD led24 dialogue since 2009 and, specifically in 2011, the work of 
the  Secretariat  and  that  of  the  four  Dialogue  working  groups,  as  well  as  the 
organisation  of  international  meetings.  The  Monrovia  meeting  in  June  2011  agreed 
on  final  knowledge  products  and  discussed  a  draft  International  Action  Plan 
presented  in  December  2011  at  the  4th  High-Level  Forum  on  Aid  Effectiveness  in 
Busan; 

An  inter-agency  project  in  Nepal,  Uganda  and  the  DRC  focused  on  the  design, 
monitoring  and  evaluation  of  peace-building  measures.  The  project  brought 
together  21  organisations  including  international  NGOs,  local  civil  society  and 
government agencies to share best practice; and 

Cooperation  with  EU  Member  States:  A  two  year  IfS  co-financed  programme 
‘Europe’s New Training Initiative for Civilian Crisis Management’ (ENTRi) aims to 
strengthen  the  capabilities  of  staff  being  deployed  to  and  working  in  international 
civilian  crisis  management  missions,  while  at  the  same  time  fostering  the 
interoperability and the harmonisation of partners’ approaches to training. In its first 
year,  the  ENTRi consortium,  composed  of  13  training  providers  from  EU  Member 
States, organised  17  courses  (both  pre-deployment  and  specialisation),  with  the 
participation of 340 experts of 49 nationalities. 

8. 

CONCLUSION 

IfS  measures  implemented  in  2011,  complementing  other  EU  actions  under  regional  and 
thematic  development  instruments,  humanitarian  assistance  and  CSDP  missions,  have 
contributed  significantly  to  EU  efforts  to  help  prevent  conflict,  preserve  peace,  respond  to 
crises  and  strengthen  international  security,  in  line  with  Article  21  of  the  Treaty  of  the 
European  Union.  In  its  fifth  year  of  operation,  and  with  a  budget  which  has  more  than 
doubled  from  an  amount  of  EUR  139  million  in  2007  to  EUR  282  million  in  2011,  the 
Instrument for Stability has demonstrated its robustness and capacity to contribute to timely 
and dynamic EU responses to a wide range of challenges around the world. Such challenges 
in 2011 included those associated with the impact of the Arab Spring in the Middle East and 
North Africa region as well as the ever more complex situation throughout the Horn of Africa 
region. 

23 

24 

‘Political Participation of Women from Afghanistan, Democratic Republic of Congo and Liberia in 
Peace and Security Policy’  
International Network on Conflict and Fragility (INCAF) under the OECD. 

EN 

15 

   EN 

 
                                                 
The  maturity  of  the  IfS  was  reflected  in  the  findings  of  the  overall  programme  level 
evaluation  report  on  the  Instrument  for  Stability,  that  was  prepared  by  an  independent 
consultancy  and  published  in  July  2011.  Covering  the  period  from  inception,  the  report 
summarises  that  “the  IfS  has  significantly  contributed  to  enhancing  the  overall  relevance, 
effectiveness  and  efficiency  of  EU  crisis  response  and  preparedness  action”.  It  concluded 
that “the IfS makes a significant contribution to the coherence of the EU peace, security and 
development architecture – and to global peace and stability. Critical to its contributions is 
the  demonstrated  capacity  of  the  IfS  to  provide  quick,  timely  and  catalytical  responses  in 
situations of crisis”.25 

25 

International Conflict and Security Consulting: ‘Evaluation of the Crisis Response and Preparedness 
Components of the European Union’s Instrument for Stability’, July 2011. 

EN 

16 

   EN