JOINT STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Towards a new European Neighbourhood Policy Accompanying the document JOINT COMMUNICATION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS Review of the European Neighbourhood Policy
Date: 2015-11-18
Institutions: European Commission, European External Action Service
Subjects: European neighbourhood policy, cooperation policy, public consultation, the EU's international role

EN 

   EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION HIGH REPRESENTATIVE OF THE UNION FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS AND SECURITY POLICY Brussels, 18.11.2015  SWD(2015) 500 final   JOINT STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT  Towards a new European Neighbourhood Policy Accompanying the document JOINT COMMUNICATION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS Review of the European Neighbourhood Policy {JOIN(2015) 50 final}  
 
 
Section 1 Executive Summary 

This Staff Working Document (SWD) accompanies the Joint Communication to the European 
Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of 
the  Regions  on  Review  of  the  European  Neighbourhood  Policy  (ENP).  It  summarises  the 
results  of  the  public  consultation  on  the  ENP  review  as  well  as  findings  from  existing 
evaluations relating to the ENP. In particular it aims to summarise and analyse responses to 
the  public  consultation  submitted  by  the  governments  of  Member  States  and  partner 
countries,  and  by  their  parliaments  and  businesses,  expert  and  civil  society  groups  and 
international organisations. 

There  has  been  broad  support  for  the  review  of  the  ENP  with  a  view  to  increasing  the 
relevance  and  effectiveness  of  the  policy  in  the  context  of  multiple  crises  and  growing 
instability in the EU’s neighbourhood.  

The  review  posed  some  fundamental  questions,  including  about  whether  the  policy  is  still 
needed.  Most  responses  indicated  that  the  policy  is  still  deeply  relevant;  all  Member 
States  and  partner  countries  as  well  as  the  European  Parliament  expressed  support  for 
maintaining a common framework. The Foreign Affairs Council in April 2015 concluded that 
the  ENP  was  a  key  part  of  both  the  EU’s  Common  Foreign  and  Security  Policy  and  other 
areas of the EU's external relations. 

A  number  of  respondents  have  said  that  the  ENP  has  been  successful  in  some  countries 
(especially those that have signed Association Agreements/Deep Comprehensive Free Trade 
Areas  with  the  EU,  or  are  in  the  process  of  negotiating  them),  but  that  the  ENP  should 
respond  better  to  the  diversity  of  aspirations  and  challenges  in  the  neighbourhood.  The 
current Review aims to engage constructively with these critiques. Certain academics suggest 
that  the  ENP  has  not  brought  the  added  value  initially  expected,  arguing  that  bilateral 
external relationships are far more effective than a loose framework such as the ENP.  

Many  contributors,  including  many  Member  States,  the  European  Parliament  and  partner 
countries consider that the geographical scope of the ENP should be maintained but that 
there  should  be  a  stronger  focus  on  shared  or  common  interests  and  greater 
differentiation  between  countries.  Others  highlighted  the  importance  of  wider  cooperation 
with  third  countries  on  issues  such  as  energy  (with  Central  Asia  and  Russia)  or  migration 
(with  African  countries  beyond  North  Africa)  and  with  the  countries  of  the  Arabian 
Peninsula, Turkey, Iran, Iraq, etc. 

In  terms of  the formal structures  of the policy, a number of  submissions  suggested that the 
existing  Action  Plans  were  somewhat  outdated  and  should  be  revised  to  reflect  current 
priorities,  in  line  with  the  new  generation  of  Association  Agendas.  Many  submissions  also 
suggested  changing  the  format  of  the  annual  ENP  Package.  Although  especially  civil 
society and some international organisations felt the ENP and country Progress Reports were 
useful  tools,  some  respondents  criticised  them  as  being  too  heavy.  Some  partners  felt  they 
were too one-sided or Euro-centric. There was a general consensus that the reports should be 
shorter, simpler and more focused and flexible. 

Most  of  the  submissions  and  evaluations  support  the  idea  that  the  ENP  be  reviewed  on  the 
basis of the principles of differentiation, flexibility, focus and ownership, as suggested in 

2 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
the Joint Consultation paper. These are recommendations that are echoed in the evaluations of 
financial cooperation, especially in relation to regional programmes1. 

think 

tanks/academics  consider 

Several  Member  states  and  some 
the  EU's 
"comprehensive approach" (endorsed also by the Council in May 2014) should be central 
and  combine  all  the  policy  areas:  diplomacy,  security,  finance,  trade,  development,  human 
rights,  justice,  and  migration.  The  EU  should  work  closely  in  partnership  with  other 
international organisations on security and defence capacity building and with organisations 
such  as  the  Organisation  for  Security  and  Cooperation  in  Europe  (OSCE)  for  conflict 
resolution. The EU should also engage with the Council of Europe, the League of Arab States 
and  Turkey  and  make  more  effective  use  of  the  Union  for  Mediterranean,  the  EaP  and  the 
Black Sea Synergy. 

that 

To sum up, there was agreement that in order to retain its relevance, the revised ENP must be 
more  political,  differentiated  and  focused,  all  the  while  based  on  the  EU's  values  and 
principles.  

Section 2 Introduction 

The  ENP  was  designed  in  2003-2004  to  develop  closer  relations  between  the  EU  and  its 
neighbouring  countries.  In  the  South,  the  ENP  partners  are  Algeria,  Egypt,  Israel,  Jordan, 
Lebanon,  Libya,  Morocco,  Palestine2,  Syria  and  Tunisia.  In  the  East,  the  partner  countries 
include Armenia, Azerbaijan,  Belarus,  Georgia,  the  Republic  of  Moldova  and  Ukraine. The 
principal objectives were strengthening the prosperity, stability and security of the EU and its 
neighbours, and preventing the emergence of new dividing  lines between the EU and these 
neighbours.3 

The  political  environment  has  changed  substantially  since  the  ENP's  inception.  For  this 
reason, the European Commission and the Member States called for a review of the  policy, 
with  support  from  the  partner  countries.  President  Juncker  launched  a  year-long  review 
process at the beginning of the new Commission’s mandate in November 2014. 

The  High  Representative  and  the  Commission  put  forward  the  Joint  Consultation  Paper 
'Towards  a  New  Neighbourhood  Policy'  on  4  March  20154  as  the  basis  for  a  public 
consultation  on  the  ENP.  The  Foreign  Affairs  Council  welcomed  this  paper  and  the 
consultation process in April 2015. 

The public consultation took place from March to June 2015. In total, 250 contributions were 
received  in  response  to  the  consultation  paper  and  in  meetings  arranged  by  the  European 
External Action  Service  (EEAS)  and  the  Commission  with  stakeholders  from  governments 
and international organisations, civil society, academia and the business community, both in 
the  EU  and  in  its  partner  countries.  The  European  Parliament  adopted  a  resolution  on  the 

1 Strategic evaluation of the EU cooperation with East and South ENPI regions (2004-2010): https://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/strategic-
evaluation-eu-cooperation-east-and-south-enpi-regions-2004-2010_en  
2 This designation shall not be construed as recognition of a State of Palestine and is without prejudice to the individual positions of the 
Member States on this issue. 
3 http://eeas.europa.eu/enp/about-us/index_en.htm  
4 http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/neighbourhood/consultation/consultation.pdf  

3 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
review of the European Neighbourhood Policy on 9 July 2015.5 

This  Staff  Working  Document  is  based  on  the  inputs  received  as  part  of  the  ENP  public 
consultation process and on individual evaluations carried out by the Commission on specific 
thematic and country  interventions in the ENP region  since 2009. It aims to  summarise the 
main lessons  as identified in the public consultation and the evaluations6, from a  decade of 
implementing the ENP. The Staff Working Document is not itself an evaluation of the policy. 
The  SWD  does  not  contain  any  data  or  quantitative  information  on  the  performance  of  the 
policy  as  a  whole.  Even  where  data  are  available  on  the  economic,  political  and  social 
situation  in  the  neighbourhood  countries,  it  is  extremely  challenging  to  assess  the 
contribution of the ENP to the evolution of the indicators.  

The  EU's  Better  Regulation  agenda7  was  launched  during  the  period  of  the  public 
consultations  on  the  ENP  review.  In  accordance  with  this  agenda,  the  future  impact  of  the 
ENP will be monitored and evaluated as appropriate as the revised policy is implemented and 
the stakeholders involved in the public consultation process will continue to be consulted.  

Section 3 Background 

The EU's relationship with ENP countries is guided by the Article 8(1) of the Treaty on the 
European  Union,  which  states  that  "the  Union  shall  develop  a  special  relationship  with 
neighbouring countries, aiming to establish an area of prosperity and good neighbourliness, 
founded on the values of the Union and characterised by close and peaceful relations based 
on cooperation"8. These have been the objectives of the ENP since its inception. The Council 
in  its  conclusions  of  April  2015  also  stated  that:  "The  ENP  aims  to  develop  a  democratic, 
stable  and  prosperous  neighbourhood,  based  on  a  commitment  to  fundamental  values, 
including the rule of law, the protection of human rights and gender equality."9 

The ENP has been a framework for the development of bilateral policies between the EU and 
each  partner  country,  and  for  the  development  of  a  regional  approach  in  the  Eastern  and 
Southern  neighbourhoods.  To  that  end,  the  EU  has  developed  a  complex  set  of  tools  and 
instruments. 

The ENP has been and remains distinct from the enlargement process. In accordance with the 
provisions  of  the  EU  treaty  it  does  not  prejudge,  for  European  neighbours,  how  their 
relationship with the EU may develop in future. 

Among  the  aims  of  the  ENP  has  been  the  development  of  closer  political  and  economic 
relations between the EU and its neighbouring countries. This has included possible political 

5 http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//TEXT+TA+P8-TA-2015-0272+0+DOC+XML+V0//EN   
6 The main limitation for the use of these evaluations is the fact that the scope of the different evaluations reviewed was not defined with the 
ENP review in mind and focused mainly on the implementation of the EU financial assistance. As a consequence, the different evaluations 
and documents reviewed do not properly address some of the issues brought up in the ENP review. In addition, evaluation of effectiveness 
and efficiency of an EU policy in regions outside the EU and outside the EU’s control, where the political crisis were largely generated by 
the aggressive or assertive policies of other international players or by the internal economic, social and political factors of the neighbouring 
countries, pose important methodological challenges. 
7 http://ec.europa.eu/smart-regulation/index_en.htm  
8 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex:12012M/TXT 
9  http://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2015/04/20-council-conclusions-review-european-neighbourhood-policy  They  are 
in line also with the Joint Staff Working Document  "Gender Equality and Women's  Empowerment: Transforming the Lives  of Girls  and 
Women  through  EU External  Relations  2016-2020":  https://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/sites/devco/files/staff-working-document-gender-2016-
2020-20150922_en.pdf  

4 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
association and economic integration, with the prospect of increased access to the EU’s single 
market. This option was designed to be progressive and underpinned by the implementation 
of challenging political, economic and institutional reforms, and a commitment to democracy, 
the rule of law and respect for human rights. 

The ENP has also offered its partners a very concrete set of opportunities through its sector 
policies.  These  cover  a  broad  range  of  issues,  including  trade,  energy  security,  transport, 
research and innovation, health, education, culture and youth, employment and social policy, 
industrial  and  competition  policy,  agriculture  and  rural  development,  regional  development, 
and climate change and environment. 

The  ENP  has  significant  regional  and  multilateral  co-operation  dimensions:  the  Eastern 
Partnership10  (EaP)  was  launched  in  Prague  in  May  2009,  and  the  Union  for  the 
Mediterranean  was  launched  in  Paris  in  July  200811  building  on  the  Barcelona  Process,  the 
central  instrument  since  1995  for  cooperation  and  integration  in  the  Euro-Mediterranean 
region. There is also cooperation in the framework of the Black Sea Synergy.12  

In 2010-2011, the EU reviewed the ENP13 to calibrate its response to the events of the Arab 
Spring  and  put  a  strong  focus  on  the  promotion  of  deep  and  sustainable  democracy, 
accompanied  by  support  for  inclusive  economic  development.  The  EU  also  stressed  the 
special  role  of  civil  society  in  the  reform  process,  and  its  intention  to  support  civil  society 
more effectively. It also proposed the incentive-based approach ("More for More") to foster 
stronger  partnerships  with  those  neighbours  that  made  more  progress  towards  political  and 
institutional  reform,  including  in  relations  to  free  and  fair  elections;  freedom  of  expression, 
assembly and association; judicial independence; fighting against corruption  and democratic 
control of the armed forces. 

The current review comes at a time when the neighbourhood is facing numerous challenges, 
and creative approaches are required to meet these challenges in the most effective manner. 
Security  has  become  a  great  challenge  across  much  of  the  neighbourhood.  Since  2014  the 
Eastern Neighbourhood has been severely affected by the conflict in Ukraine, which has had 
strong  negative  effects  on  the  region’s  economic  and  political  landscape.  In  the  Southern 
Neighbourhood,  the  continuation  of  the  armed  conflict  in  Syria,  the  conflict  around  the 
emergence  and  expansion  of  Da'esh,  the  conflicts  in  Libya,  and  the  recurrent  military 
confrontation in the Gaza Strip continued to affect the economies of the region and to hinder 
political and economic reform. The ‘frozen conflicts’ in the neighbourhood remain far from 
being resolved. 

Section 4 Implementation state of play (Results) 

10 http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/en/er/107589.pdf 
11 http://ufmsecretariat.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/ufm_paris_declaration1.pdf  
12 http://eeas.europa.eu/enp/pdf/pdf/com07_160_en.pdf   
13 http://eeas.europa.eu/enp/pdf/pdf/com_11_303_en.pdf 

5 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Since  the  launch  of  the  ENP,  a  number  of  ENP  partners  have  significantly  deepened  their 
cooperation with the EU, and the ENP has been able to provide considerable support for these 
countries’  reforms.  However,  a  number  of  partners  have  also  experienced  conflict  and 
instability.  Some  face  new  and  complex  challenges  that  the  ENP  has  been  able  to  address 
only partially. Principles of democratic governance are embraced by only a few partners. 

The  EU  has  employed  a  variety  of  tools  to  implement  the  ENP.  It  upgraded  its  contractual 
relations with a number of partners, in several cases via Association Agreements, sometimes 
combined  with  Deep  and  Comprehensive  Free  Trade  Agreements  (DCFTAs);  it  negotiated 
Action Plans or Association Agendas with partners to drive reforms; Progress Reports were 
drafted  to  monitor  the  progress  of  cooperation  and  reforms;  and  sectoral  cooperation  was 
developed notably through dedicated agreements based on the specific focus of each partner 
country (e.g. in agriculture, aviation, energy, research and development). Visa liberalisation 
and visa facilitation processes have eased travel and cemented difficult structural reforms in 
the  rule  of  law  area.  Mobility  partnerships  have  contributed  towards  greater  migration 
expertise,  informed  decision-making  and  increased  migration  management  capacity,  with 
assistance programmes to support these processes. 

The  Association  Agreements/DCFTAs  offer  advanced  integration  with  the  EU  in  a  wide 
variety  of  areas.  The  Association  Agreements  provide  a  blueprint  for  partner  countries  to 
develop  good  governance,  improve  justice  and  strengthen  the  rule  of  law.  DCFTAs  go 
beyond  a  classical  free  trade  area  and  provide  for  the  liberalisation  of  trade  in  goods  and 
services. But they also include general provisions on the approximation of partner countries’ 
legislation with relevant parts of the EU acquis.14 

The past decade of the ENP's implementation, however, shows that partners' aspirations as to 
the depth of engagement with the EU differ. Relations with many partners therefore need to 
be formalised and developed in more diverse ways. 

In  parallel,  the  EU  offered  ENP  countries  technical  and  policy  support  and  financial 
assistance for their reforms. Grants worth €12 billion were allocated to ENP-related projects 
in 2007-2013. In the 2014-2020 period, the European Neighbourhood Instrument (ENI) has a 
budget of €15.4 billion. Assistance provided to ENP partners through that channel follows the 
principle of differentiation and an incentives-based approach.15 Partner countries' association 
with a number of EU Agencies and programmes, such as Horizon 2020, Creative Europe and 
COSME (programme for the Competitiveness of Small and Medium-sized Enterprises), has 
broadened considerably since 2013. The Erasmus+ programme has also been opened to the 
ENP  partners.16  The  support  was  increased  and  adapted,  wherever  necessary,  in  case  of 
emerging needs and urgency.  

Under the ENP, trade relations between the EU and ENP countries intensified. The EU is the 
main  trading  partner  for  most  ENP  countries.  In  2011  trade  between  the  EU  and  its  ENP 
partners totalled €230 billion and in 2014 it increased to €253.6 billion. Total EU trade with 

14 Implementation of the European Neighbourhood Policy in 2014 Regional report : Eastern 
Partnership http://www.eeas.europa.eu/enp/pdf/2015/enp-regional-report-eastern_partnership_en.pdf   
15 http://eeas.europa.eu/enp/how-is-it-financed/index_en.htm   
16 The Eastern Partnership – a policy that delivers, Brussels, 21 May 2015: http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-15-5019_fr.htm 

6 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
the  eastern  neighbourhood  in  2014  was  worth  €65.6  million.  In  the  same  year,  total  trade 
between the EU and the southern neighbourhood was worth €188 billion17. 

Mobility  and  migration  have  been  challenging  topics  in  the  relations  with  most  Southern 
partners, as further highlighted also by this year’s migration and refugee  crises. Yet regular 
migration  and  the  mobility  of  people  between  the  EU  and  ENP  countries  has  significantly 
intensified over the past decade, especially in the East. In 2014, 3.7 million Schengen visas 
were issued to visa applicants from ENP countries. Moldova enjoys a visa-free regime since 
2014.  The  Eastern  Partnership  (EaP)  Summit  in  Riga  (May  2015)  noted  the  substantial 
progress achieved by Georgia and Ukraine in implementing their  Visa Liberalisation Action 
Plans.  On  15/16 June  2015  "the  Council  confirmed  the  agreement  on  the  Joint  Declaration 
establishing a Mobility Partnership between Belarus and the European Union".18 

Under the Erasmus+ Programme for exchanges in higher education, the EU expects to fund 
over 15,900 EaP students from 2014 to 2020. Israel is the only Southern ENP partner to enjoy 
a visa-free regime. 

The  EU  neighbours  and  adjacent  third  countries  are  also  the  EU's  energy  security  partners, 
both as sources and as transit countries. Energy security has featured high on the agenda of 
the  ENP  and  its  sectoral  cooperation,  and  there  is  strong  shared  interest  in  furthering 
cooperation. The EU's energy security has been negatively affected by the crises in the East 
and in the South. 

Consequently,  the  EU  has  initiated  measures  for  increased  energy  security  in  collaboration 
with its neighbours. Energy interconnections in the EaP region have been improved in the last 
years: natural gas reverse flow capacities to Ukraine from the EU have been enabled; the Iasi-
Ungheni gas interconnector  has  been inaugurated in  2014 and preliminary  work has started 
on the Isaccea-Vulcanesti electricity interconnector with the Republic of Moldova. Work has 
advanced considerably  on the Southern Gas Corridor, the expansion of the South Caucasus 
Pipeline, the Trans-Anatolian Pipeline and the Trans-Adriatic Pipeline. 19 

Progress  has  also  been  made  on  integrating  the  respective  transport  systems  following  the 
approval of the EaP regional transport network in Luxembourg in 2013 and its inclusion in 
the  indicative  TEN-T  maps;  work  is  also  underway  on  the  proposed  inclusion  of  inland 
waterways in the agreed network and on preparing future investments in the infrastructure 20. 
The Regional Action Plan for the Mediterranean Region covering the period 2014-2020 aims 
at  a  regulatory  reform  and  convergence  process  in  all  transport  sectors,  with  a  view  to 
establishing an integrated multimodal Euro-Mediterranean transport network, to be connected 
to the TEN-T maps.  

Environment  and  climate  change  were  also  the  focus  of  cooperation.  Many  regional 
programmes addressed waste and water issues, nature protection and greening the economy. 
The partner countries improved implementation of multilateral environmental agreements and 
made efforts to include environmental considerations in all sectors of the economy.  

17 "Implementation of the European Neighbourhood Policy in 2014". "SWD (2015) 77 final". 
18 Justice and Home Affairs Council meeting: http://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/meetings/jha/2015/06/outcome-of-the-council-
meeting_en_pdf  
19 The Eastern Partnership – a policy that delivers: http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-15-5019_fr.htm 
20  http://eeas.europa.eu/enp/pdf/2015/enp-regional-report-eastern_partnership_en.pdf  

7 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Only  some  of  the  ENP  countries  have  made  progress  on  economic  growth  and  reforms. 
Indeed standards of living remain very low or stagnant in many partner countries. There has 
also  been  a  general  deterioration  in  democracy,  human  rights,  the  rights  of  the  persons 
belonging minorities, the rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans and intersex (LGBTI) people, 
gender equality indicators and political stability indicators in many ENP countries21. 

Details on indicators related to the economic, political and social situation and their evolution 
over  the  years  are  available  in  the  ENP  annual  packages22.  The  effect  of  the  ENP  on  the 
evolution  of  these  indicators remains  extremely  difficult  to  measure,  given  the  influence  of 
the various internal and external factors of a political and economic nature that have affected 
the region.  

Section 5 Method 

This  Staff  Working  Document  draws  on  input  received  through  the  public  consultation  and 
different evaluation reports. It analyses the following sources of information: 

  The public consultation based on the joint EEAS/Commission paper "Towards a New 
Neighbourhood Policy", which was published on the European Commission’s ‘Your 
Voice in Europe’ website on 4 March 2015 and was accessible until 30 June 2015. It 
was open to all stakeholders, with a dedicated webpage and an email address. There 
were  145  contributions  from  a  wide  range  of  stakeholders:  public  authorities 
(international organisations, EU bodies, local governments and national parliaments); 
civil  society  organisations23  (including  among  others  NGOs;  think  tanks,  academic 
institutions, civil society partners, business organisations) and individual citizens. The 
replies received were published on the dedicated webpage. 

  Feedback  received  during  consultations  and  events  with  EU  Member  States,  partner 
countries,  international  organisations  and  EU  bodies,  civil  society,  European  and 
international social partner organisations (trade unions and employers' organisations), 
business partners and think tanks. These consultations took place in Brussels, in some 
Member States and in partner countries. 

  EU Member States' and partner countries’ non-papers (discussion documents) shared 
with the EEAS and the Commission, as well as substantive consultations with partner 
countries  during  the  Barcelona  informal  ministerial  meeting  of  the  EU  and  Foreign 
Ministers of Southern ENP countries (13 April 2015); the Luxemburg meeting of EU 
and  Eastern  Partnership  Foreign  Ministers  (20  April  2015);  the  Riga  Summit  of  EU 
Member  States  and  Eastern  Partnership  countries,  and  the  meeting  in  Beirut  of 
Foreign Ministers of Arab ENP countries (21-22 May 2015). 

21 Implementation of the ENP Statistics in 2014: http://eeas.europa.eu/enp/pdf/2015/enp-statistics-report-2014_en.pdf  
22 http://www.eeas.europa.eu/enp/documents/progress-reports/index_en.htm  
23  According  to  the  EU's  2012  Communication  on  civil  society,  the  EU's  definition  of  Civil  Society  Organisations  includes  community-
based  organisations,  non-governmental  organisations,  faith-based  organisations,  foundations,  research  institutions,  Gender  and  LGBT 
organisations, cooperatives, professional and business associations, and the not-for-profit media. Trade unions and employers' organisations, 
the so-called social partners, constitute a specific category of CSOs. 

8 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
  Relevant EU council conclusions24 and European Parliament resolutions.25 

  The annual ENP Packages progress reports and the EEAS/Commission's 

implementation papers26; 

  A  synthesis  of  strategic  evaluations  carried  out  by  the  European  Commission  on 
financial  cooperation  in  the  region  over  the  last  two  years,  plus  selected  earlier 
evaluations  (references  to  evaluations  are  footnoted  throughout  the  text).  All 
evaluations carried out by the European Commission since 2009 were screened with 
the  caveat  that  these  evaluations  were  not  designed  in  order  to  contribute  to  this 
review  and  did  not  address  policy  questions.  They  are  varied  in  nature:  country 
evaluations  (Palestine,  Jordan,  Georgia);  thematic  evaluations  (on  security  and 
integrated  border  management,  private  sector  and  trade  related  assistance,  and  on 
human  rights  and  fundamental  freedoms,  with  global  focus);  evaluations  of  the 
delivery  methods  (with  one  meta-evaluation  on budget  support  and  one focusing  on 
Morocco;  evaluations  of  specific  instruments  (SIGMA27,  with  wider  focus  than  just 
Neighbourhood  region),  and  finally  an  evaluation  of  regional  programmes.  Two 
evaluations  were  on  the  level  of  instruments:  evaluation  of  MEDA  II  regulation  to 
contribute to the preparation of the European Neighbourhood Partnership Instrument 
(ENPI)28, and report on legal instruments, including ENPI 2007-2010 to contribute to 
the preparation of the multiannual financial framework (MFF) after  2013. Given the 
dramatic changes resulting from the Arab spring, the conflicts in Syria, Libya and in 
Ukraine, any evaluation findings or recommendations made before these events or in 
relation to actions which took place prior to these events have been analysed with the 
most recent developments in mind. 

  A review of selected literature produced in 2015, specifically addressing geo-political 

and economic changes in the ENP region. 

However,  to  test  the  content  of  the  policy  and  perform  a  more  in-depth  assessment  of  its 
effectiveness  and  efficiency  in  particular,  a  large  data  collection  exercise  in  the  form  of  an 
evaluation would have been necessary. This constraint has meant that the stakeholder opinion 
along the available studies have been the main source of evidence for this work.  

Section 6 Feedback received: assessing the ENP 

This  section  analyses  the  feedback  received  as  part  of  the  public  consultation  as  well  as 
lessons learned from past financial cooperation. It aims to assess the continued relevance of 

24 Among others, Council Conclusions  20 April 2015:  http://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2015/04/20-council-
conclusions-review-european-neighbourhood-policy/  
25 Among others, European Parliament Resolution of 9 July 2015 on the review of the European Neighbourhood Policy (2015/2002(INI)) 
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//TEXT+TA+P8-TA-2015-0272+0+DOC+XML+V0//EN 
26 Among others, Implementation of the European Neighbourhood Policy in 2014, Brussels, 25.March 2015 
http://eeas.europa.eu/enp/pdf/2015/joint-communication_en.pdf ;  
Neighbourhood at the Crossroads: Implementation of the European Neighbourhood Policy in 2013, Brussels, 27 March 2014:  
 http://eeas.europa.eu/enp/pdf/2014/joint_communication_en.pdf 
27 SIGMA (Support for Improvement in Governance and Management) is a joint initiative of the EU and the OECD. Its key objective is to 
strengthen  the  foundations  for  improved  public  governance.  See  Evaluation  of  programme  Support  for  Improvement  in  Governance  and 
Management  (SIGMA)  for  European  Neighbourhood  Region  (2008-2013):  https://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/evaluation-programme-support-
improvement-governance-and-management-sigma-european-neighbourhood_en  
28 http://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/how/evaluation/evaluation_reports/reports/2009/1264_vol1_en.pdf  

9 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
the ENP and its objectives, the frameworks' added value, the policy's interaction with other 
interventions, and its design and implementation; effectiveness and efficiency. This is not an 
exhaustive assessment. 

i. How relevant is the ENP and its objectives for the EU and its Neighbours today? 

Most  of  the  submissions  received  in  the  public  consultation  conclude  that  the  EU  needs  to 
continue  to  promote  the  stability  and  prosperity  of  its  immediate  neighbourhood.  This 
objective remains deeply relevant, albeit in a neighbourhood that has changed dramatically 
since 2003-2004. 

Submissions  from  Member  States,  partner  countries  and  civil  society  organisations 
highlighted  that  a  close  and  special  partnership  between  the  EU  and  the  neighbourhood 
countries  was  needed  and  warranted  given  the  geographical  proximity,  historical  links,  and 
current interests and challenges in terms of security, trade, migration and energy. Some also 
highlighted democracy and human rights, woman's rights, rights of the LGBTI people, rights 
of the people belonging to minorities. Member States have also suggested the ENP offers a 
good framework for preferential cooperation with a wide range of partners. 

An  overwhelming  majority  of  contributions  (from  Member  States,  partner  countries,  the 
European Parliament and independent actors) felt that the revised ENP should remain a single 
framework for the EU's relations with the ENP region as a whole. 

Most submissions recognised that the ENP has responded well to the needs of those partners 
that  have  sought  the  most  ambitious  levels  of  cooperation  with  the  EU.  The  countries, 
although  not  in  the  majority,  have  seen  the  successful  provisional  application  of  the 
AA/DCFTAs, and progress on visa-liberalisation and wide-ranging reforms, underpinned by 
EU financial and technical support. 

Many submissions also concluded that countries that have not chosen to align with EU norms 
and standards should be able to pursue a  different type of  relationship. Differentiation and 
flexibility were strongly supported by all Member States and partners. The revised ENP will 
therefore strengthen the principles of differentiation and flexibility and seek to apply them to 
countries individually. 

Most  submissions  highlighted  the  importance  and  the  added  value  of  regional  cooperation. 
The  EaP  needs  to  be  further  strengthened,  and  a  more  strategic  approach  needs  to  be 
developed  in  the  Southern  Neighbourhood.  Given  the  different  ambitions  of  partners,  the 
submissions  suggest  that  more  needs  to  be  done  to  ensure  the  continued  relevance  of  each 
regional  framework.  A  dedicated  evaluation  pointed  out  that  some  of  the  regional 
programmes failed to duly reflect the diversity of the two ENP regions, for instance in that 
"the  objectives  pursued  through  the  implementation  of  the  regional  strategies  in  the  two 
regions  did  not  always  correspond  to  the  main  priorities  of  each  of  the  ENP  countries, 
resulting  –  at  times  -  in  a  lack  of  commitment  by  the  partner  countries"29.  The  lack  of 

29 Strategic evaluation of the EU cooperation with East and South ENPI regions (2004-2010): https://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/strategic-
evaluation-eu-cooperation-east-and-south-enpi-regions-2004-2010_en    

10 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
linkages  with  the  other  levels  of  interventions  (at  bilateral,  cross-border  and  inter-regional 
level) was pointed out by the same evaluation. 

ii. What is the framework's added-value? 

As  reflected  in  the  Treaty  on  the  European  Union,  developing  special  relations  with  EU 
neighbours based on the promotion of EU's values is an important EU objective. To this end, 
the  EU  deployed  a  plethora  of  political,  technical  and  financial  instruments,  following  the 
principles set out in the EU comprehensive approach. 

A  particular  added  value  of  the  ENP  framework  was  that  it  galvanised  more  of  these 
resources  than  would  have  been  possible  for  individual  Member  States  or  in  bilateral 
partnerships  between  the  EU  and  an  individual  partner  country.  At  the  same  time,  Member 
States collectively endorsed the bilateral policies between the EU and the partners, including 
the respective contractual bases and the Action Plans, giving them additional legitimacy and 
political backing. 

Furthermore, the EU was able to engage more effectively with the partners on issues, which 
are  an  exclusive  EU  competence,  such  as  trade  (offering  access  to  the  EU  single  market). 
Specific instruments, like SIGMA, TAIEX30 and twinning31) are appreciated specifically for 
their  responsiveness,  flexibility  of  approach  and  the  concrete  EU  expertise  provided.  In 
Jordan, the country evaluation emphasised that it was the EU that, together with other actors, 
instigated, through the policy dialogue, significant reforms in the energy sector (especially in 
relation to renewable energy and energy efficiency).32 

The  majority  of  submissions  to  the  consultation  and  evaluations  conclude  that  the  EU  has 
played  a  strong  role  in  supporting  the  reform  processes  in  the  most  ambitious  partner 
countries. However, they emphasise that in those partner countries with a limited interest in 
aligning  with  EU  norms  and  standards,  the  impact  was  less  evident  and  in  some  cases 
negligible. The same observation was made in the strategic budget support evaluation, which 
highlights the limited scope of reforms addressing governance issues.33 

Responses also suggested that although coordination and complementarities between the EU 
institutions  and  the  Member  States  offer  great  potential,  this  needs  to  be  better  utilised  in 
practice. Many contributions concluded that improved coordination of political, financial and 
human resources and technical expertise is essential. This was seen as particularly important 
in relation to trans-national issues, such as the fight against terrorism and organised crime, the 
migration  crisis,  transport  and  energy  connectivity,  and  climate  change  and  environmental 
challenges. 

iii. How does the ENP interact with other policy interventions? 

30  TAIEX  is  the  Technical  Assistance  and  Information  Exchange  instrument  of  the  European  Commission.  TAIEX  supports  public 
administrations with regard to the approximation, application and enforcement of EU legislation as well as facilitating the sharing of EU 
best  practices.  See  the  TAIEX  evaluation  report  (http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/pdf/financial_assistance/phare/evaluation/2015/2014-
346665-1-taiex-evaluation-report-final.pdf), though the evaluation does not cover interventions in the Neighbourhood region. 
31  An  instrument  created  by  the  EU  enabling  the  involvement  of  EU  experts  in  supporting  capacity  development  and  institutional 
transformation in beneficiary countries. 
32 Strategic Evaluation of EC Cooperation with Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan: https://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/evaluation-eu-cooperation-
hashemite-kingdom-jordan-2007-2013_en  
33 Synthesis of budget support evaluations (2010-2014): https://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/synthesis-budget-support-evaluations-2010-2014_en  

11 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Bilateral Action Plans drafted under the ENP have provided for a  consistent framework for 
the development of bilateral relations and the pursuit of a wide agenda of reforms. 

However, there has not always been consistency between the policies of the EU and those of 
Member States. Many submissions underline the need for greater consistency between the 
internal  and  external  strands  of  EU  policy  in  the  fields  of  security,  migration  and 
energy.  A  large  proportion  of  submissions  suggest  it  would  significantly  help  increase  the 
impact of the ENP if Member States were  more involved in its design  and implementation, 
and  if  there  were  more  coordination  and  information  sharing  to  make  programming  more 
targeted,  effective  and  conflict  sensitive.  Shared  analysis,  common  strategic  vision, 
prioritising  prevention  and  mobilising  the  different  strengths  and  capacities  of  the  EU 
Member States are all key. Coordination with development policy should also be stronger – 
for  examples  with  actions  funded  under  the  EU's  Instrument  contributing  to  Stability  and 
Peace (IcSP).  

Some submissions from think tanks suggested that the ENP is not a single policy, but rather a 
toolbox  which  includes  instruments  from  a  range  of  different  policies  (e.g.  trade,  energy, 
security,  migration,  development  and  humanitarian  aid).  They  argue  that  these  individual 
tools should in fact be used in more effective ways outside the ENP framework. Discussions 
with  Member  States  and  internal  consultations  with  EU  bodies  suggested  however  that  the 
existence of the ENP framework enhances commitment to using the individual tools, and the 
necessary financial, expert and operational resources. 

Many respondents pointed to challenges in specific sectors. For instance several said that the 
EU  is  too  often  unable  to  speak  with  one  voice  on  energy  security  and  consider  that 
insufficient Member States' coordination on external energy policies and insufficient Member 
States' involvement in the EU’s external energy partnerships hamper efforts to achieve energy 
security.  This  can  be  evidenced  by  the  difficulties  encountered  in  building  an  integrated 
energy  market  in  the  neighbourhood  and  in  completing  the  Southern  Gas  Corridor. 
Cooperation that takes place under the ENP is, however, a result of consensus among all the 
stakeholders – and this cooperation has brought significant results, especially in the EaP.  

Evaluations also suggest that the  coordination of regional and bilateral programmes is also 
suboptimal.  For  instance,  evaluations  have  shown  that  there  is  little  coordination  between 
bilateral  programmes,  regional  programmes  and  investment  facilities  in  relation  to  private 
sector  development,  an  area  in  which  EU  aid  is  intended  to  come  from  a  combination  of 
bilateral  aid,  regional  PSD  programmes  and  regional  investment  facilities.34  According  to 
another evaluation35, Palestine is also an example case of the lack of consistency between the 
implementation  of  financial  cooperation,  the  EU's  official  discourse  and  actions  taken  by 
individual Member States. 

iv. ENP Design and Implementation: effectiveness efficiency and dilemmas 

Many  critics  of  the  ENP  point  at  the  security,  governance  and  migration  challenges  in  the 
neighbourhood  arguing  that  the  ENP  has  failed  to  achieve  its  goal  of  building  a  circle  of 

34 Thematic Evaluation of the EU's Support to Private Sector Development in Third Countries – Algeria, Jordan, Morocco and Ukraine: 
https://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/strategic-evaluation-eu-support-private-sector-development-third-countries-2004-2010_en  
35 Strategic evaluation of the EU cooperation with the occupied Palestinian Territory and support to the Palestinian people (2008-2013): 
https://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/strategic-evaluation-eu-cooperation-occupied-palestinian-territory-and-support-palestinian-people_en  

12 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
well-governed states around the EU. They say that the ENP brand brings no added value to 
the EU or its partners, and that the single framework encourages a process-based focus rather 
than  one  based  on  impact  and  effectiveness  and  that  this  has  been  highlighted  by  recent 
crises. 

However,  a  majority  of  respondents  appreciated  the  value  added  by  the  framework  which 
paved the way for initiatives as ambitious as the conclusion of the AA/DCFTAs between the 
EU and three ENP countries, and galvanised the Member States support for the ENP. 

In  fact,  most  respondents  recommended  that  current  challenges  in  the  fields  of  security, 
migration and energy be addressed in a broader format in collaboration with both the ENP 
countries  and  their  neighbours,  where  appropriate.  Many,  however,  felt  that  for  this  to 
happen,  the  current  geographical  scope  could  usefully  be  left  unchanged,  and  thematic 
cooperation  could  be  effectively  built  up  to  include  third  parties,  if  necessary.  The  idea 
would be to work in a flexible manner at a regional level on key issues such as migration and 
energy, and include also the neighbours of ENP partners. For example to work with Sahel, 
Horn  of  Africa  and  Turkey  on  migration;  or  with  Turkmenistan,  Kazakhstan,  Turkey,  and 
possibly Iran and Russia on energy. Member States have asked to play a stronger role in such 
cooperation  but  they  also  cautioned  that  it  was  the  sole  right  of  the  EU  and  its  partners  to 
decide in a sovereign way on how they want to proceed in their relations. 

Some of the respondents also stressed the need to be aware of the objectives pursued by the 
Russian  Federation  with  regard  to  its  neighbours.  Respondents  felt  that  constructive 
cooperation with  Russia  could  potentially  be  beneficial  in  terms  of  addressing  the  common 
challenges.  However,  many  pointed  out  that  such  cooperation  would  need  to  be  consistent 
with  EU's  overall  policy  and  relations  with  Russia  and  take  due  account  of  the  state  of 
relations between the ENP partners and Russia. 

In  this  context,  some  Member  States,  think  tanks  and  academics,  as  well  as  the  European 
Parliament's  Foreign  Affairs  Committee  report  on  the  ENP  made  clear  the  importance  of 
pursuing  ongoing  regional  cooperation,  in  particular  the  Union  for  the  Mediterranean,  the 
Eastern Partnership and the Black Sea Synergy. A minority of responses suggested splitting 
the ENP into two dedicated policies – one for the East and one for the South. 

Many critics also challenged some of the formal tools the policy has used. Some think tank 
authors consider that the ENP Action Plans and Progress Reports are not suitable for many 
ENP countries and consider that the time, effort and EU resources that go into preparing the 
ENP reports are disproportionate to the practical results they generate in the ENP countries. 
Some partner governments also criticised these documents. However, civil society groups in 
particular  consider  that  the  ENP  Action  Plans  and  Progress  Reports  are  useful  tools  for 
encouraging democratic reforms. Submissions from partners and civil society groups suggest 
that there is a strong case for lighter procedures. 

Most  contributions,  including  those  from  the  Member  States  and  the  partner  countries, 
expressed  the  view that in  practice,  the  ENP  has  followed  too  much  of  a  "one-size-fits-all" 
approach.  Many  were  strongly  in  favour  of  much  greater  differentiation  and  tailoring 
approaches to partners based on their actual needs, and the interests they share with the EU. 

Responses  by  partners  and  Member  States  indicated  that  the  ENP  interventions  are  too 
scattered  and  addressed  too  many  different  sectors,  often  in  insufficient  depth.  They  called 

13 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
for  the  ENP  to  be  better  focused  prioritising  a  few  key  areas.  Most  responses  support  the 
areas identified in the Joint Consultation Paper. However, various agencies, associations and 
civil  society  organisations  have  also  called  for  greater  focus  on  other  areas,  including 
climate change, the environment, rural livelihoods, humanitarian assistance, social protection 
networks, cultural collaboration, gender equality and the empowerment of women. 

A  number  of  responses  from  both  governments  and  non-governmental  organisations 
underscore  the  issue  of  security.  The  Council  stated  that  the  ENP  'should  contribute  to 
promoting stability in the neighbourhood in line with the "comprehensive approach" and the 
external dimension of other relevant EU policies such as the area of Freedom, Security and 
Justice.'36  The  current  ENP  review  therefore  reflects  the  need  to  intensify  the  focus  on 
security,  and  to  increase  cooperation  with  partners  in  line  with  the  EU's  comprehensive 
approach. This cooperation would include capacity building. The Commission placed strong 
emphasis  on  national  ownership  at  both  policy  and  programming  levels  while  working  on 
security  and  justice  but  its  focus  on  state  institutions  and  its  programming  procedures 
significantly  constrained  its  ability  to  tailor  Justice  and  Security  Sector  Reform  (JSSR) 
assistance effectively37.  

Several  respondents  (Member  States,  think  tank/academia  authors)  mention  the  limited 
effectiveness of the EU's response to conflict situations in ENP countries. They say that the 
EU has not sufficiently developed its conflict management capacities and practice. 

There was a suggestion from some EU Member States and think tank and academics that the 
EU should develop its institutional capacity for strategic analysis. They suggest that the EU 
should  improve  its  capacity  and  the  capacity  of  partner  countries  to  fight  against 
terrorism,  to  counter  the  extremist  narrative,  and  to  fight  against  organized  crime  and 
corruption.  The  EU  should  support  capacity  building  and  reforms  in  the  sectors  of  security 
and  defence,  police,  justice,  border  management,  cyber-security,  energy  security,  and 
reducing  economic  vulnerability  together  with  civil  society  conflict  prevention  and 
peacebuilding  initiatives.  They  also  suggest  that  the  EU  should  promote  a  more  political, 
strategic and security-oriented approach in the ENP, based on stronger coordination between 
the  ENP  and  the  Common  Foreign  and  Security  Policy  (CFSP)  and  Common  Security  and 
Defence  Policy  (CSDP).  Member  States  suggested  that  the  EU  should  aim  for  closer 
coordination between ENP and wider CFSP/CSDP activities. 

Several  Member  States,  members  of  the  business  community,  think  tanks,  academics,  civil 
society  organisations  and  the  European  Parliament,  suggested  that  the  EU  focus  on  energy 
security for the EU and for ENP countries in tandem with effective climate policies. The EU 
should  support  the  diversification  of  energy  sources  and  routes  for  the  EU  and  also 
promote energy efficiency and renewable energy initiatives. Several respondents said that the 
EU  should  support  the  construction  of  infrastructure  for  energy  and  transport 
interconnectivity between ENP countries and the EU. Some respondents suggested that the 
new ENP should address the increased vulnerability of the infrastructure in both the EU and 
the ENP countries to the impacts of climate change and environmental challenges. 

36 http://www.eeas.europa.eu/statements/docs/2013/131211_03_en.pdf  
37 Thematic Evaluation of the EC Support to Justice and Security System Reform (JSSR): https://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/strategic-
evaluation-eu-support-justice-and-security-system-reforms-third-countries-2001-2009_en  

14 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
In light of the ongoing migration crisis, many respondents also called for the ENP to be used 
as  a  framework  for  addressing  more  effectively  the  root  causes  of  the  issue  in  partner 
countries. 

The  need  for  economic  development  (including  the  digital  economy/ICT  as  a  driver  for 
growth) was raised in many answers. Some NGOs also felt that the ENP framework should 
address  environmental  and  climate  challenges,  and  sustainable  development  goals.  The 
country  evaluation  on  Tunisia  praised  the  overall  effectiveness  of  the  EU  approach,  which 
contributed  to  stabilise  economic  management  and  public  financial  management  whilst 
supporting  structural  reforms  in  the  direction  of  the  liberalisation  of  the  economy  and  its 
integration in the Euro-Mediterranean zone38.  

Trade  is  broadly  considered  an  area  of  shared  interest  for  the  EU  and  ENP  countries  and 
many answers from governments, the business community, NGOs, think tank and academics 
were in favour of further developing trade relations. The partner countries and their business 
communities  asked  for  wider  access  to  the  EU  market.  Many  submissions  said  that  the 
DCFTAs  offer  significant  access  to  the  EU  market  for  partner  countries'  products.  Some 
think tank and academics criticised the DCFTAs as being too demanding of ENP countries, 
introducing  too  many  "acquis",  norms  and  standards  or  putting  too  much  pressure  on  their 
economies and on their administrative capacity. 

Some respondents (think tanks, some partner governments, MEPs etc.) criticised the "West" 
for  perceived  attempts  to  "impose  its  own  norms  and  standards",  "Western  values"  and 
certain economic interests in the ENP regions. 

Other  respondents  (some  Member  States  and  some  partner  countries,  civil  society)  and  the 
European  Parliament  resolutions  asked  for  the  EU  to  do  more  to  promote  its  values, 
supporting democracy, human rights, rule  of law and civil society, the rights of the persons 
to  minorities,  rights  of  LGBTI  people,  gender  equality  and  woman's 
belonging 
empowerment. 

Several Member States, think tanks, and business community stakeholders) indicated that  a 
better  balance  needs  to  be  found  between  promoting  values  and  interests  (including 
stability and security in the neighbourhood). They said that the EU should recognise that 
approximation to EU rules and standards was not for everyone. Some partner countries were 
unstable, while some partner governments did not subscribe to EU values and did not want 
closer  integration  with  the  EU,  but  were  interested  in  economic  cooperation  and  stability. 
Therefore, according to some think tanks and academics, more pragmatic ways of engaging 
with  those  countries  had  to  be  found,  on  the  basis  of  shared  interests  (such  as  stability, 
security,  energy,  migration  and  trade).  However,  several  Member  States  and  civil  society 
stakeholders emphasise that promoting the EU's interests, differentiation and focus must not 
entail the loss of the values-based agenda.  

Many submissions (from Member States, partner countries, think tanks, academics, and civil 
society  stakeholders)  recognised that some partner  countries were  committed to  EU values, 
democratic  reforms  and  closer  integration  with  the  EU.  Those  countries  should  therefore 

38 Strategic evaluation of the EU cooperation with Tunisia (1995-2008): https://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/strategic-evaluation-eu-cooperation-
tunisia-1995-2008_en  

15 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
receive more substantial support. Some stakeholders were in favour of offering the possibility 
of  EU  membership  (under  the  Article  49  of  the  Treaty  on  European  Union)  to  Eastern 
European  countries  that  implement  the  necessary  reforms.  They  insisted  on  the  need  to 
preserve  the  transformative  power  of  the  EU  and  its  attractiveness  for  partners.  They 
considered  that  the  lack  of  a  clear  possibility  of  EU  membership  for  the  East  European 
countries  has  a  negative  impact  on  their  implementation  of  their  reforms  and  on  the  ENP's 
effectiveness.  However,  several  Member  States  and  think  tanks  emphasised  that  EU 
enlargement is not the purpose of the ENP. The Joint Consultation paper of 4 March stressed 
that President Juncker has stated in his political guidelines that no further enlargement will take 
place in the next five years. 

The  public  consultation  addressed  the  issue  of  incentivising  reform  with  conditions  and 
discussed  the  incentive-based  approach  ("more  for  more"),  intended  to  provide  greater 
support  to  the  most  ambitious  reformers.  The  consensus  between  partner  country 
governments,  most  EU  Member  States,  experts  and  civil  society  organisations  was  that  for 
the  most  part,  the  ‘more  for  more’  principle  had  not  been  fully  effective  in  providing  the 
necessary  incentives  for  further  reforms  in  the  partner  countries.  In  some  cases  the  partner 
countries  said  that  this  principle  has  not  contributed  to  an  atmosphere  of  equal  partnership 
between  the  EU  and  the  ENP  countries.  However,  some  Member  States,  the  European 
Parliament, civil  society and other  experts  considered  that implementation  of the “more for 
more” principle has been effective in the case of the ambitious ENP partners who opted for a 
stronger partnership with the EU accompanied by democratic reforms. 

On  the  whole,  respondents  did  not  address  the  efficiency  of  the  ENP  programmes. 
According  to  the  evaluations,  efficiency  was  not  a  particular  strength  in  the  delivery  of 
financial  assistance,  mainly  due  to  cumbersome  procedures,  but  also  to  weak  capacity  in 
partner  countries.  Where  instruments  have  been  set  up  to  respond  to  crisis  situations, 
ownership and the robust design of programmes have sometimes been sacrificed in the name 
of faster delivery. The cumbersome or ill-adapted procedures, makes it particularly difficult 
for  smaller  civil  society  organisations  and  social  partner  organisations  (trade  unions  and 
employers' organisations) to get involved in project implementation.  

A  mid-term  review  of  financial  instruments,  including  a  specific  evaluation  of  European 
Neighbourhood  Instrument,  is  to  take  place  in  2017.  The  efficiency  of  the  ENI  will  be 
analysed more deeply in that context and there will also be a public consultation, which will 
ultimately inform the impact assessment process required for the MFF beyond 2021. 

The European Parliament Resolution on the ENP states that the EU must match its ambitions 
of increased engagement in its neighbourhood with sufficient funding, namely through the 
upcoming 2017 review of its external financing instruments.39 

The  European  Parliament  resolution  and  some  experts  suggested  that  the  amounts  of  grant 
assistance available from the EU are too small and pale into insignificance compared with 
the  assistance  that  regional  and  other  provide,  southern  neighbours  in  particular.  They  said 
the levels of the EU assistance do not provide a sufficient incentive for reforms. By contrast, 
other  actors  do  not  make  financial  support  and  investment  conditional  on  the  respect  for 
human  rights  and  democracy.  However,  other  experts  highlighted  that  some  ENP  partner 

39 http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//TEXT+TA+P8-TA-2015-0272+0+DOC+XML+V0//EN 

16 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
countries  were  among  the  recipients  of  highest  amount  of  EU  assistance  per  capita  in  the 
world.  They  also  suggested  that  financial  incentives  would  not  be  enough  on  their  own  to 
prompt wide-reaching reforms or social change. 

There  was  a  focus  on  modes  of  aid  delivery  in  public  and  internal  consultations.  Many 
respondents queried the effectiveness of budget support as a mode of aid delivery for partners 
with  less  interest  in  reform.  However,  budget  support  operations  were  also  seen  as 
successful40 in supporting improvements in the general and sectoral legislative frameworks, 
and generally recognised as having contributed to significant reforms in some ENP countries. 
An  evaluation  of  budget  support  upheld  the  notion  that  transaction  costs  are  lower  under 
budget  support  than  under  other  aid  delivery  arrangements.41  The  same  evaluation  also 
suggests that budget support has been much more effectively used in the context of genuine 
partnership, where partners are committed to the reforms and international partners work in a 
coordinated way. 

Like the public consultation, some of the evaluations also indicated that the effectiveness of 
EU  interventions  had  been  hampered  by  structural  issues  in  the  partner  countries.  They 
emphasised  that  commitment  to  serious  political  economic  and  social  reforms  was  a 
prerequisite  for  progress  in  implementing  reforms,  and  that  steady  commitment  was 
sometimes  lacing.  Moreover,  as  the  result  of  limited  economic  and  functional  integration 
within the Eastern and Southern neighbourhood, regional programmes did not always manage 
to address areas that corresponded to partner countries' national priorities42.  

Many  submissions  criticised  cumbersome  procedures  for  having  a  negative  impact on  EU's 
policy  interventions,  which  were  seen  as  insufficiently  flexible  and  versatile.  On  the  other 
hand,  partners  appreciated  that  in  case  of  urgency,  special  procedures  accounted  for 
impressive  efficiency  gains,  such  as  for  instance  in  case  of  granting  unilateral  trade 
preferences for agricultural products from Moldova when it faced Russian trade restrictions. 

Many  submissions  stressed  the  need  for  more  effective  communication  of  the  benefits  of 
cooperation  with  the  EU.  The  main  criticism  was  that  the  EU  has  failed  to  explain  the 
cooperation in an accessible way. The EU does not use simple enough language and effective 
ways to reach out to citizens in partner countries. In the East, a large number of respondents 
felt  the  EU  communication  policy  did  little  to  challenge  the  misinformation  propagated  by 
some  Russian  media.  Similarly,  Da'esh  propaganda  was  deemed  by  many  not  to  have  been 
sufficiently countered in the Southern Neighbourhood or within the EU. 

The Member States, the European Parliament, think tanks and civil society organisations all 
recommended designing a more  effective and impactful EU communication strategy. There 
was  consensus  that  the  promotion  of  the  EU’s  visibility  has  not  been  sufficient.  They 
recommended  the  EU  develop  real  strategic  communication,  capable  of  influencing  the 
debate  within  partner  countries  on  topics  such  as  extremism,  corruption,  human  rights  and 
governance. 

40 Synthesis of budget support evaluations (2010-2014): https://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/synthesis-budget-support-evaluations-2010-2014_en  
41 For instance, in Tunisia, the framework for delivery of General Budget Support, fully harmonised between the three providers (EC, WB 
and ADB), served to reduce transaction costs considerably. 
42 Evaluation of the European Union support to two Neighbourhood policy regions (vol. 1): https://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/strategic-
evaluation-eu-cooperation-east-and-south-enpi-regions-2004-2010_en  

17 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Several civil society organisations, think tank and academics considered that the EU Member 
States that joined the EU most recently could be a great support to EaP countries, given their 
own transition experience. The EU should therefore support cooperation and  the sharing of 
experience between EaP partners and those EU Member States, as well institutional twining 
projects  and  support  job  creation.  Several  NGOs  and  think  tanks  said  that  an  effective  EU 
communication and some visible gains in the short term were necessary e.g. people-to people 
contacts,  student  exchanges,  visa  facilitation  for  some  categories  of  citizens,  visa 
liberalisation for Georgia and Ukraine (when they are ready), engagement with stakeholders 
(civil society, business, academia). The EU should win hearts and minds. 

An important theme highlighted in the responses to the public consultation contributions was 
partners’  ownership.  Ownership  was  described  as  essential  in  terms  of  greater  impact  of 
policies,  more  tailor-made  approaches  buy-in  to  difficult  reforms,  and  the  effectiveness  of 
reforms. Many submissions from governments and some think tank authors suggested a 
stronger  role  for  EU  Member  States  and  partner  countries  both  in  the  design  and 
implementation of the ENP, notably identification of priorities. 

All  civil  society  respondents,  the  European  Parliament  and  many  governmental  responses 
stressed that the EU should focus not only on inter-governmental contacts but should also put 
a  greater  emphasis  on  engaging  with  civil  society,  including  social  partners,  business 
associations,  academia,  citizens,  local  and  regional  authorities,  and  do  more  to  promote 
people-to-people  contacts.  It  should  make  funding  more  accessible  particularly  by  making 
procedures  less  bureaucratic.  Civil  society  organisations  said  that  there  are  too  many 
intermediaries between the EU and the stakeholders in ENP countries. The EU's engagement 
is  also  needed  also  in  order  to  support  democracy  and  human  rights,  gender  equality  and 
women's empowerment, rights of the people belonging to minorities, and the rights of LGBTI 
people, to increase co-ownership and partnership with society in ENP countries. 

Section 7 Conclusions 

In  2015  the  EU  finds  itself  confronted  with  a  neighbourhood  characterised  by  many 
challenges  (conflicts,  resurgent  extremism,  migration,  poverty,  corruption,  fragile  states, 
serious deterioration of democracy and human rights situation etc.) with only a few countries 
committed  to  courageous  political  and  economic  reforms.  The  ENP  needs  to  be  better 
equipped to deal with these challenges and support the partners that are continuing on their 
path towards further reforms. 

The public consultation overwhelmingly supports the continuation of the ENP framework 
for the EU's relations with its neighbours. The Member States, the European Parliament, the 
partner countries and most civil society respondents share this view. Most respondents also 
feel the ENP is key for both the EU's Common Foreign and Security Policy and other areas of 
the EU's external activity, reflecting the Council's conclusions in April 2015. 

The  Member  States  further  confirm  that  the  neighbourhood  is  a  strategic  priority  and  a 
fundamental  interest  for  the  EU  and  that  the  EU  must  have  a  special  and  more  effective 
relationship with its neighbours. 

18 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The  findings  of  the  public  consultations  show  that  the  EU  needs  to  increase  the  scope  for 
differentiation  in  the  way  it  works  with  its  partners,  including  through  cooperation  under 
regional  programmes.  Greater  differentiation  will  result  in  different  relationships  with 
different neighbours. 

The  ENP  also  needs  to  be  more  focused  on  areas  that  are  of  interest  to  the  EU  and  its 
citizens. 

The  ENP  needs  to  be  more  flexible.  This  means  being  able  to  respond  rapidly  to  changing 
circumstances and crises, including in relation to the use of the EU's financial instruments. 

The  new  ENP  should  foster  greater  ownership,  reflecting  the  views  and  experience  of  the 
partner countries (government and civil society). The EU should develop a true partnership of 
equals based on shared interests, while always promoting universal principles of democracy 
and human rights. 

A stronger role for EU Member States and partner countries is required in the design and 
implementation  of the policy, notably in  identifying priorities for cooperation, and ensuring 
that  sufficient  resources  are  available  to  pursue  those  priorities  (including  more  joint 
programming of EU and Member States funds together). 

A  large  number  of  stakeholders  expressed  the  view  that  the  EU  needed  to  strengthen  its 
engagement  with  partners  in  the  field  of  security  cooperation.  In  addition,  civil  society 
stakeholders  underlined  the  need  to  focus  on  human  security  –  the  security  of  citizens  and 
communities  and  to  implement  this  aspect  of  security  in  full  respect  of  the  principle  of 
differentiation, the respect of human rights, fundamental freedoms and the rule of law. 

The responses also suggested that the EU promote the more effective communication of the 
benefits of the policy to people in the partner countries. 

The Joint Communication on the Review of the ENP which accompanies this Staff Working 
Document sets out recommendations for how to take this process forward. 

19