JOINT STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Report on the consultation on Resilience as a strategic priority of the external action of the European Union. Accompanying the document Joint Communication to the European Parliament and the Council A Strategic Approach to Resilience in the EU's external action
Date: 2017-06-07
Institutions: European Commission, European External Action Service
Subjects: EU action, EU financing, European neighbourhood policy, climate change policy, common foreign and security policy, humanitarian aid, migration policy, participatory democracy, political cooperation, sustainable development

EN 

   EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION HIGH REPRESENTATIVE OF THE UNION FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS AND SECURITY POLICY Brussels, 7.6.2017  SWD(2017) 226 final   JOINT STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT  Report on the consultation on Resilience as a strategic priority of the external action of the European Union. Accompanying the document Joint Communication to the European Parliament and the Council A Strategic Approach to Resilience in the EU's external action {JOIN(2017) 21 final} {SWD(2017) 227 final}  
 
 
The European Commission and the European External Action Service (EEAS) held an open, 
operational consultation to help them with the process of drafting their joint communication. 
This  consultation  focused  on  discussions  with  the  following  stakeholders:  civil  society, 
international partners, university researchers and think tanks, and the Member States.    

This report contains a description of the consultation (Part 1), a presentation of the concept 
of  resilience  as  developed  by  the  various  stakeholders  together  with  an  account  of  the 
reactions  elicited  by  the  project  for  a  Joint  Communication  on  Resilience  (Part  2),  and  a 
summary of the stakeholders’ main recommendations (Part 3). 

1  THE CONSULTATION 

1.1  Drawing on recent research on resilience 

Researchers  and  academics  working  on  resilience  were  first  consulted  on  what  a 

European approach to resilience should entail. 

Researchers working on resilience as an EU priority were invited to discuss their work at a 
meeting held by the EEAS in Brussels on 6 February 2017. A second meeting was held by the 
EEAS on 29 March 2017 at which researchers had an opportunity to share their thoughts on 
what the European approach to resilience should entail.1. 

The  authors  monitored  discussions  at  seminars  and  meetings  organised  by  the 

European Union Institute for Security Studies and on the initiative of Member States. 

The authors took advantage of the opportunity presented by the seminars organised by or 
in  association  with  the  EUISS  on  resilience.  A  seminar  on  resilience  in  the  wider 
EU neighbourhood was supplemented by three others exploring the following regions in more 
depth: the Balkans, the North-East and the Black Sea2. These seminars gave researchers and 
experts a platform and enabled the particular characteristics of various geographical regions to 
be identified. Several Member States  contributed to the consultation through  these seminars 
and smaller meetings. 

1.2  Listening to civil society organisations and the EU’s partners  

Collecting  feedback  from  and  listening  to  the  experiences  of  representatives  of  civil 

society and non-governmental organisations was one of the editors’ priorities. 

Non-governmental  organisations  and,  more  broadly,  civil  society  organisations,  were 
consulted  at  meetings  arranged  on  the  initiative  of  the  various  NGOs.  A  major  consultation 
meeting was also held in Brussels on 17 February 2017 in cooperation with VOICE3. Several 
NGOs,  invited  to  send  in  comments  and  views  in  writing,  either  directly  or  via  the 
Commission website, explained their ideas and recommendations4. 

In  order  to  pinpoint  how  their  approaches  to  resilience  could  be  combined  with  a 
European  approach,  the  EIB  and  the  EU’s  international  partners  (UN,  OECD,  World 
Bank, EBRD) were consulted. 

The  various  United  Nations  organisations  were  hosted  at  a  meeting  held  in  Brussels  on 
10 March 2017.  Agencies,  programmes,  funds  and  sister  organisations  shared  their  opinions 

1 A list of think tanks represented at the meeting is set out in Annex 4. 
2 Details of the seminars organised by or in cooperation with the EUISS are set out in Annex 1. 
3 A list of the NGOs represented at the meeting on 17 February 2017 is set out in Annex 2. 
4 A list of contributions received by the authors from NGOs is set out in Annex 5. 

2 

 
 
                                                             
and  experiences5.  To  discuss  their  approaches  to  resilience,  a  meeting  was  held  with  the 
OECD  on  21 March 2017,  followed  by  a  videoconference  with  the  World  Bank  on 
22 March 2017. The EBRD was also invited to share the experience it had gained in Eastern 
Europe at the ‘Balkans’ seminar held in Brussels on 16 February 20176. The EIB, meanwhile, 
was consulted on 11 April 20177. 

Lastly, the authors took part in a debate with NATO on its approach to resilience and 

possible coordination with the EU. 

Emphasis  was  placed  on  the  value  of  coordinating  the  actions  of  NATO  and  the  EU  in 
order  to  strengthen  Member  States’  resilience,  particularly  in  relation  to  combating  hybrid 
threats.  In  anticipation  of  the  Communication,  the  consultations  were  held  as  part  of  the 
commitments entered into in the NATO-EU joint declaration of 8 July 2016, adopted by the 
Council  on  6 December 2016.  Particular  attention  has  been  given  to  interrelationships 
between  the  civil,  private  and  military  sectors,  which  were  explored  in  detail  during  a 
conference held by NATO with the support of the EEAS on 2-3 May 2017.   

1.3 

Initiating  a  dialogue  with  the  European  Parliament  and  Member  States  on  a 
common approach to resilience 

A  dialogue  with  the  European  Parliament  on  resilience  was  initiated  via  the 

Committee on Development (DEVE). 

A  hearing  organised  on  20 March 2017  by  the  Committee  on  Development  (DEVE)  to 
assist  with  the  drafting  of  a  resolution  on  the  subject  allowed  the  authors  of  the  Joint 
Communication  to  set  out  their  ideas  on  a  European  approach  to  resilience  and  to  take 
feedback and questions from European parliamentary groups. 

The  Member  States  were  included  in  the  preparatory  discussions  on  the  Joint 

Communication with a view to fostering future cooperation. 

The Member States were consulted in the Political and Security Committee (PSC) on the 
broad outline of the project. Two meetings followed which were attended by national experts. 
They shared their experience and points of view, particularly on the geographical scope and 
risks  to  be  monitored,  but  also  the  relationship  between  internal  and  external  policies  and 
implementation  arrangements.  Several  Member  States  wanted  to  share  their  thoughts  and 
recommendations  with  the  other  Member  States  and  the  authors  in  the  form  of  working 
documents8.  

2  FEEDBACK 

2.1  A  plural  concept  now  used  by  many  stakeholders,  resilience  is  seen  as  a  way  of 

achieving greater efficiency 

Resilience is a potentially useful concept thanks to the pragmatic approach it inspires 

and its multiple possible interpretations. 

Resilience is defined less as a set of circumstances than as a way of thinking about those 
circumstances  and  how  to  improve  them.  Any  action  must  be  conceived  by  analysing  the 

5 The list of attendees at the meeting held on 10 March is set out in Annex 3. 
6 EBRD: European Bank for Reconstruction and Development. 
7 EIB: European Investment Bank. 
8 The list of working documents shared by Member States is provided in Annex 5. 

3 

 
 
                                                             
ability of individuals, families, communities, societies and states to deal with shock, pressure, 
uncertainty  and  causes  of  vulnerability.  Strengthening  resilience  means  strengthening  the 
ability  of  local  stakeholders  to  show  resistance,  but  also  to  anticipate,  absorb  and  adapt. 
Resilience  is  not  a  conservative  concept.  On  the  contrary:  strengthening  resilience  means 
building transformation capacities.  

This  kind  of  pragmatic  approach  is  well-suited  to  the  complex  and  uncertain  modern 
world.  The  multiple  meaning  of  resilience  serves  a  practical  purpose:  it  acknowledges  the 
uncertainty of the world, while at the same time encouraging us not to feel disheartened and 
instead to seek and strengthen the capacities of stakeholders and the effective solutions they 
devise. 

Used  by  many  stakeholders,  resilience  offers  a  common  language  on  which  to  build 

cooperation. 

Resilience provides a common language between the European Union and the international 
and non-governmental organisations that have also adopted the concept. Although it could be 
criticised for being too vague, resilience can pave the way to cooperation, especially between 
the EU, its Member States, international partners and civil society. 

Resilience  is  an  ambitious  concept  that  calls  for  an  integrated  approach  allowing 

those involved to work in a more consistent, coordinated and effective manner. 

The value of resilience has often been emphasised. It enhances the link between the short 
and  long-term,  in  order  to  better  safeguard  the  results  of  development  and  reduce 
humanitarian needs. In addition, because it involves monitoring risks of all kinds, resilience 
encourages  different  departments  to  work  together  closely  so  as  to  avoid  duplication  and 
address  shortcomings.  The  ambition  of  a  resilience-based  approach  has  been  emphasised.  It 
involves reviewing working methods and developing new analytical capacities as well as the 
capacity to help local populations take ownership of actions through good networks and solid 
partnerships at all levels. 

2.2  Moving beyond the interest generated by the concept, a resilience-based approach 

must overcome the criticisms and fears the prospect of its realisation can provoke 

Adopting resilience as a key concept of external action may be seen as an attempt to 

conceal a desire on the part of the EU to disengage. 

A  resilience-based  approach  incorporates  the  ambition  of  greater  financial  efficiency  in 
external policies, which could imply that resilience is merely a way of concealing a desire to 
cut costs. In addition, the pragmatic approach advocated by the concept of resilience could be 
interpreted as a form of fatalism. In other words, resilience could detract from resolute action 
against the root causes of the identified threats. Adopting a resilience-based approach could 
therefore be seen as signalling a desire for disengagement.  

Some  fear  that  resilience,  held  up  as  a  new  objective  and  extended  to  states,  could 

signify a collapse of European ambition. 

Concerns have been raised that resilience will be promoted as a new objective of the EU’s 
external  policies  to  the  detriment  of  its  current  aims,  namely  the  protection  of  life,  human 
rights,  democracy,  sustainable  development,  etc.  Some  have  stressed  that  a  resilience-based 
approach could involve creating a collective agenda, but that it should not mean eliminating 
separate goals altogether.  

NGOs  have  expressed  suspicion  about  the  proposal  to  strengthen  the  resilience  of  states 
too.  They  have  also  emphasised  the  danger  of  placing  the  stability  of  states  above  all  other 

4 

 
 
concerns.  Strengthening  states’  resilience  must  not  mean  accepting  harmful  practices,  but 
must include the promotion of inclusive governance.  

The  intended  focus  on  a  wider  EU  neighbourhood  leads  to  fears  that  aims  will  be 

scaled down to security and migration issues alone. 

The  EU’s  Global  Strategy  involves  applying  the  concept  of  resilience  to  the  countries  in 
the wider EU neighbourhood as a priority. This focus has been supported by several Member 
States. It would address the need to safeguard the security of European citizens. Conversely, 
other  states  and  several  NGOs  have  emphasised  the  risk  of  giving  the  impression  that 
resilience is essentially about security and combating migration.  

3  CONCLUSIONS 

3.1  Proposing  a  common  interpretation  of  resilience  as  a  process  and  a  way  of 

thinking about the EU’s external action more effectively. 

In view of the concern sometimes expressed that resilience is essentially meaningless, it is 
necessary to put forward a common interpretation of the concept. This shared interpretation 
would allow European stakeholders to work on a common basis, in line with the approaches 
to resilience developed by international partners and NGOs. The consultation concluded that 
the Communication should: 

  Put forward a common interpretation of resilience.  
  Emphasise that resilience is not a new objective of external action. 
  Explain  that  resilience  should  be  understood  as  a  way  of  devising  and  implementing 

the EU’s external policies more effectively. 

  Stress that resilience requires a new way of working together, with better coordination 

of existing tools and resources. 

  Suggest how adopting a European approach to resilience would facilitate cooperation 

with the EU’s international partners, especially the United Nations and NATO. 

  Explain how resilience would help to improve the link between internal policies and 

external actions. 

3.2  Setting out the overall principles of a European approach to resilience 

The  consultation  produced  a  set  of  principles  which,  in  the  opinions  of  those  consulted, 

should provide the framework for a European approach to resilience.  

  People  should  always  be  at  the  heart  of  all  policies,  even  where  the  aim  is  to 

strengthen the resilience of states. 

  The European approach to resilience should be based on human rights, democracy and 

the rule of law. 

  Development goals, such as those set out in the UN 2030 Agenda, must be included, 

with a particular focus on SDG 16. 

  Minorities  and the  most vulnerable groups (children, women, elderly people and the 

disabled) and gender issues must be given special attention. 

Moreover, the principles identified by the consultation set out the essential characteristics 

of an ambitious approach to resilience. 

5 

 
 
  The approach should be  adapted to each  context, which implies in-depth knowledge 
of  the  context  and  considerable  flexibility  in  terms  of  the  policies  and  instruments 
deployed. 

  Resilience must be strengthened taking all sectors into account.   
  Resilience  must  be  developed  at  all  levels,  from  the  individual  to  the  family,  the 

community, society, the country and beyond. 

  The approach must always be ‘bottom up’, based on an analysis of local communities, 

their strengths and weaknesses. 

  All policies must be based on local ownership of the actions taken.  
  Partnerships must always be sought, especially with the Member States, international 

partners and regional organisations. 

  Civil  society  organisations  must  be  involved  at  all  levels,  when  both  analysing  and 

devising policies. 

3.3  Striking  a  balance  between  a  universal  approach  to  resilience  and  a  particular 

focus on the wider EU neighbourhood 

The stakeholders consulted shared their concerns about the focus being placed exclusively 
or excessively on the European neighbourhood, albeit in a wider sense, although in most cases 
they did not refute the rationale and value of this focus, which is also championed by several 
Member States. The Communication could: 

  Suggest placing a special focus on the neighbourhood with the aim of safeguarding the 
security  of  European  citizens  by  strengthening  the  resilience  of  neighbouring  states 
and societies. 

  Suggest that this focus should be extended to the ACP countries.   
  Specify that the European approach should remain universal in its ambition. 

3.4 

Indicating priority courses of action for implementing the concept 

Several  stakeholders  stressed  the  need  to  include  practical  steps  in  the  Communication. 
Some  recommended  publishing  an  Action  Plan  on  resilience  in  the  wake  of  the  Joint 
Communication.  Drawing  on  their  experience  and  the  needs  assessment,  the  stakeholders 
consulted  made  proposals  for  implementation.  As  a  result  of  these  proposals,  the 
Communication could recommend priority courses of action: 

  Working towards the creation of a more integrated, open, flexible and responsive 

analysis and warning system. 

The analysis system should be integrated and holistic, comprising — but not limited to — 
conflict and policy analyses. It should identify not just the weaknesses but also the strengths 
of each country or region. It should make it possible to pinpoint the emergence or reduction of 
factors that cause vulnerabilities. For example, the system should be sensitive to the issues of 
infrastructure, energy, hybrid threats, cybersecurity and migration. 

The analysis system should draw on the expertise of various stakeholders operating in the 
country  (such  as  local  authorities,  EU  delegations,  NGOs,  international  partners,  the 
Member States  and  the  private  sector).  The  analysis  system  must  be  flexible.  This  would 
allow ongoing supervision to be combined with the ability to conduct more in-depth analysis 
according to the situation that arises. 

6 

 
 
  Proposing  solutions  to  improve  the  operational  link  between  the  early  warning 

system and rapid action capabilities.  

Several stakeholders emphasised the need to strengthen the EU’s ability to react quickly. 
Although a better analysis and early warning system is required, its link with the rapid action 
system  must  be  developed  to  enhance  the  effectiveness  of  the  EU’s  actions.  Closer 
coordination with the various stakeholders should be sought, especially international partners, 
the Member States and NGOs. 

  Promoting  the  adaptation  of  financing  and  planning  tools  to  the  new  resilience-

based approach. 

The adaptation of financing tools and planning procedures was raised on several occasions 
by stakeholders. Some of them recommended reforming the existing tools to make them more 
flexible, adaptable, stable and predictable. The Communication should also address the issue 
of incorporating resilience into planning. 

  Suggesting  setting  up  a  task  force  responsible  for  coordinating  resilience  actions 

and evaluating their impact.  

Several  stakeholders  recommended  setting  up  a  task  force  on  resilience  within  the 
European institutions capable of coordinating actions and evaluating their impact. The need to 
give the EU the means with which to measure the results of the action it takes to strengthen 
resilience  was  also  highlighted.  The  Communication  could  suggest  working  on  developing 
new indicators or ways of using those that are already employed by the EU or its international 
partners. 

7 

 
 
 
 
ANNEXES 

1. List of regional seminars on the theme of resilience organised by the European Union 

Institute for Security Studies. 

1.  ‘Building Resilience in the Western Balkans’ (16 February 2017, Brussels). Workshop 

organised by the European Union Institute for Security Studies. 

2.  ‘In from the Cold: Europe Confronting Hybrid Threats and Building Resilience’ (7-

8 March 2017, Helsinki). Seminar organised by the Finnish Institute of International Affairs 
(FIIA) and the Finnish Foreign Ministry in association with the European Union Institute for 
Security Studies. 

3.  ‘Building resilience in the EU’s neighbouring and surrounding regions’ (9 March 2017, 

Brussels). Seminar organised by the European Commission’s DG NEAR (enlargement and 
neighbourhood) in association with the European Union Institute for Security Studies. 

4.  ‘Building Resilience in the Black Sea Region. Supporting the implementation of the EU Global 
Strategy on Foreign and Security Policy (EUGS)’ (28-29 March 2017, Bucharest). Seminar 
organised by the European Union Institute for Security Studies in association with the 
Romanian Foreign Ministry, the Romanian Diplomatic Institute (IDR) and the New Strategy 
Center.  

2. List of civil society organisations represented at the consultation meeting held on 

17 February 2017. 

1.  ACTED 
2.  ACT Alliance EU 
3.  ACT Alliance 
4.  Alliance 2015 
5.  CARE 
6.  CARITAS 
7.  CEVSI 
8.  Concern Worldwide 
9.  CONCORD 
10.  CORAID 
11.  DCA 
12.  DRC 
13.  EPD 
14.  EPLO 
15.  EU Cord 
16.  French Red Cross 
17.  GFDRR 
18.  Handicap International 
19.  Interpeace 
20.  Mercy Corps 
21.  MSF 
22.  Oxfam 
23.  Save the children 
24.  VOICE 
25.  Welthungerhilfe 
26. World Vision

8 

 
 
 
 
 
3. List of agencies, programmes, funds and sister organisations of the United Nations 

represented at the consultation meeting held on 10 March 2017. 

1.  FAO – UN Food and Agriculture Organisation 
2.  HCR – High Commissioner for Refugees 
3.  IOM – International Organization for Migration 
4.  WHO – World Health Organisation 
5.  UNIDO – United Nations Industrial Development Organisation 
6.  UN Environment 
7.  UN Women 
8.  WFP – World Food Programme 
9.  UNDP – United Nations Development Programme 
10.  UNESCO – United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation 
11.  UNICEF – United Nations Children’s Fund 
12.  UNISDR – United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction 
13.  UNOPS – United Nations Office for Project Services 
14. UNRWA – United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East 

4. List of think tanks represented at the consultation meeting held on 29 March 2017  

1.  Adelphi 
2.  Barcelona Centre for International Affairs (CIDOB) 
3.  Bertelsmann Stiftung 
4.  Carnegie Europe 
5.  Centre for European Reform (CER) 
6.  Clingendael Institute 
7.  Egmont Institute 
8.  European Policy Centre (EPC)  
9.  European Union Institute for Security Studies (EUISS)  
10.  Friends pf Europe  
11.  German Development Institute/Deutsches Institut Für Entwicklungspolitik (DIE)  
12.  German Institute for International and Security Affairs (SWP)  
13.  German Marshall Fund (GMF) 
14.  Global Public Policy Institute (GPPI)  
15.  International Centre for Defence and Security (ICDS)  
16.  International Crisis Group (ICG)  
17.  Leiden University  
18.  The One Campaign (One) 
19.  The School pf International Futures (SOIF)  
20.  Stockholm University 
21.  Swedish Institute of International Affairs  
22.  The Hague Institute for Global Justice 
23. WISS Brussels 

5. List of written contributions received 

Written contributions from non-governmental organisations: 

1.  Online comment by the NGO Baha’I International community, originating in Belgium, dated 

30 March 2017, reference F1490. 

9 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2.  Contribution from the Budapest Center for Mass Atrocities Prevention, received in 

March 2017. 

3.  Contribution from CARE, received in March 2017. 
4.  Contribution from the Red Cross (EU Office), Contribution and recommendations to the EU 

Civil Society Consultation on Resilience, dated 17 February 2017. 

5.  Contribution from the European Partnership for Democracy, What is Resilience, received in 

March 2017. 

6.  Contribution de Human Rights and Democracy Network, A Rights-based Approach to 

Resilience: HRDN’s input to the EEAS and Commission Joint Communication on Resilience, 
dated April 2017.  

7.  Contribution from ONE, Making the Private Sector work on fragile states, received in 

March 2017. 

8.  Joint online common by Pax Christi International, COMECE and Justice & Peace Europe, 

originating in Belgium, dated 23 March 2017, reference F1412. 

9.  Online comment written by the NGO UNOY Peacebuilders, originating in the Netherlands, 

dated 31 March 2017, reference F1495. 

10.  Contribution from VOICE, dated 28 February 2017. 
11.  Online comment, written by the NGO VOICE, originating in Belgium, dated 23 March 2017, 

reference F1413. 

12.  Online comment, written by the NGO World Vision, originating in Belgium, dated 

31 March 2017, reference F1494. 

Written contributions from EU Member States: 

1.  France – Rethinking the security-development continuum: For an overall approach to crisis 

management, working document shared by France in March 2017. 

2.  Ireland – Resilience and the EU Global Strategy on Foreign and Security Policy, working 

document shared by Ireland in March 2017.  

3.  Italy – Resilience and the EU Global Strategy on Foreign and Security Policy, working 

document shared by Italy in April 2017. 

4.  Lithuania – Lithuanian input paper for the Joint Communication on Resilience, working 

document shared by Lithuania in April 2017. 

5.  Netherlands – Building State and Societal Resilience, working document shared by the 

Netherlands, dated 24 March 2017. 

Online comments (on the European Commission website): 

1.  Anonymous online comment, written by a researcher or a research institute, originating in 

Italy, dated 7 March 2017, reference F1378.  

2.  Anonymous online comment, written by a public body, originating in France, dated 

29 March 2017, reference F1481. 

3.  Anonymous online comment, written by an EU citizen, originating in Belgium, dated 

31 March 2017, reference F1493. 

4.  Online comment by Ingrid Nyborg, originating in Norway, dated 3 April 2017, reference 

F1497. 

10