REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL Mid-term review report of the External Financing Instruments
Date: 2017-12-15
Institutions: Directorate-General for International Cooperation and Development, European Commission
Subjects: EU financial instrument, European Development Fund, European neighbourhood policy, development aid, financial aid, human rights, nuclear safety, peacekeeping, pre-accession aid, sustainable development

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 15.12.2017  COM(2017) 720 final  REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL Mid-term review report of the External Financing Instruments {SWD(2017) 463 final} - {SWD(2017) 600 final} - {SWD(2017) 601 final} - {SWD(2017) 602 final} - {SWD(2017) 604 final} - {SWD(2017) 605 final} - {SWD(2017) 606 final} - {SWD(2017) 607 final} - {SWD(2017) 608 final} - {SWD(2017) 609 final}  
 
 
Contents 

Executive summary .................................................................................................................... 2 

1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 3 

Purpose ................................................................................................................................... 3 

Scope ...................................................................................................................................... 3 

2. Background ............................................................................................................................ 4 

3. Financial breakdown .............................................................................................................. 6 

4. Achievement of objectives ..................................................................................................... 6 

Relevance of the objectives .................................................................................................... 8 

Effectiveness ........................................................................................................................ 10 

Efficiency ............................................................................................................................. 12 

Internal coherence, external coherence, complementarity and synergies between external 
financing instruments ........................................................................................................... 13 

Added-value ......................................................................................................................... 14 

Leverage effect ..................................................................................................................... 15 

Scope for simplification ....................................................................................................... 16 

Contribution to a consistent EU external action ................................................................... 16 

Contribution to EU priorities for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth .......................... 18 

Long-term impact ................................................................................................................. 18 

5. Conclusions .......................................................................................................................... 19 

Annexes .................................................................................................................................... 21 

List of acronyms ....................................................................................................................... 27 

1 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Executive summary 

This  report  responds  to  the  Regulation  (EU)  236/2014  of  11 March 2014  laying  down 
common  rules  and  procedures  for  the  implementation  of  the  European  Union's  (EU) 
instruments  for  financing  external  action1  ('the  Common  Implementing  Regulation')  which 
requires  a  mid-term  review  report  on  several  EU  external  financing  instruments  ('the 
instruments').  

This  report  assesses  whether  these  instruments  are  still  fit  for  purpose,  so  as  to  ensure  the 
effective  implementation  of  the  EU's  assistance.  It  will  inform  decisions  on  the  renewal, 
amendment or suspension of the types of actions implemented under the set of instruments.  

The  report  analyses  whether  the  objectives  have  been  met,  focusing  on  the  results,  their 
efficiency,  added-value,  the  scope  for  simplification,  internal  and  external  coherence 
including  complementarity  and  synergies,  the  continued  relevance  of  all  objectives,  their 
contribution  to  a  consistent  EU  external  action  and  where  relevant  to  the  EU  priorities  for 
smart, sustainable and inclusive growth, and the leverage effect achieved. 

The report is based on the findings from a set of 10 evaluation staff working documents (one 
per  external  financing  instrument)  which  are  annexed  to  this  report.  These  staff  working 
documents are themselves based on 10 external evaluations of the instruments that took place 
in  2016-2017  and  an  overarching  report  (the  'coherence  report')  that  drew  lessons  and  key 
messages from across the set of these instruments.  

The evaluation staff working documents show that the instruments are at this time, generally 
fit for purpose and positive trends are emerging in relation to the instruments' objectives. In 
conclusion,  there  is  no  need  to  amend  the  instruments  through  legislative  amendments  or 
delegated acts. 

Since the adoption of the instruments, the international and EU policy framework has changed 
with the adoption of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, the Global Strategy for 
the  European  Union's  Foreign  and  Security  Policy  and  the  new  European  Consensus  on 
Development.  Nevertheless,  the  broad  nature  of  the  instruments'  objectives  covers  partner 
country needs and global and EU priorities without any major gaps. Furthermore, in their first 
years  of  implementation,  they  have  in  part  enabled  the  EU  to  respond  to  new  crises  and 
evolving  needs.  However,  limited  resources  and  financial  flexibility,  combined  with  a 
multiplication of crises, have stretched the instruments to their limits.  

The  main  findings  of  the  evaluation  point  to  a  need  to  adapt  the  way  the  instruments  are 
implemented,  notably  through  a  more  strategic  and  overarching  programming  and  ensuring 
coherent interactions at operational level in the renewed international context. 

Looking towards the future, the next generation of instruments will need to take into account 
the  level  of  financial  and  other  forms  of  flexibility  needed  for  external  action  in  order  to 
respond to the challenges faced by the EU on the world stage.  

1 See the Common Implementing Regulation:  

https://publications.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/43f92a44-af94-11e3-86f9-01aa75ed71a1/language-en  

2 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
1. Introduction 

Purpose 
This report responds to Article 17 of the Common Implementing Regulation which requires a 
mid-term review report of the EU's external financing instruments ("the instruments") by the 
end  of  2017.  This  report  assesses  whether  these  instruments  remain  fit  for  purpose,  with  a 
view to ensuring the effective implementation of the EU's assistance. It will inform decisions 
on  the  renewal,  amendment  or  suspension  of  the  types  of  actions  implemented  under  the 
instruments. 

Scope  
The Common Implementing Regulation applies to the following: 

  Development Cooperation Instrument2;  
  European Instrument for Human Rights and Democracy3;  
  European Neighbourhood Instrument4;  
 
 
  Partnership Instrument for Cooperation with third countries7.  

Instrument contributing to Stability and Peace5;  
Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance;6 and  

Other  instruments  that  follow  the  requirements  set  out  in  the  Common  Implementing 
Regulation and have therefore been included in this report are:  

Instrument for Nuclear Safety Cooperation8; and  

 
  Greenland Decision9.  

Since this report provides an overview of the instruments, it also includes the 11th European 
Development  Fund  (EDF).  The  11th  EDF  refers  to  a  performance  review10  that  needs  to  be 
carried  out  by  the  end  of  2018.  The  performance  review  is  similar  to  the  mid-term  review 
provided  in  the  Common  Implementing  Regulation.  The  Decision  on  the  association  of  the 

2  Regulation 

(EU)  233/2014  of  11  March  2014,  OJ  L77  of  15  March  2014,  p.  44 

https://eeas.europa.eu/sites/eeas/files/regulation_eu_no_2332014_of_the_ep_and_the_council_establishing_a_financing_in
strument_for_development_cooperation_2014-2020_0.pdf 

3 Regulation 235/2014 of 11 March 2014, OJ L77 of 15 March 2014, p. 85  

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2014:077:0085:0094:EN:PDF 

4 Regulation 232/2014 of 11 March 2014, OJ L77 of 15 March 2014, p. 27  

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32014R0232&from=EN 

5 Regulation 230/2014 of 11 March 2014, OJ L77 of 15 March 2014, p. 01 

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32014R0230&from=EN 

6 Regulation 231/2014 of 11 March 2014, OJ L77 of 15 March 2014, p. 11  

https://ec.europa.eu/neighbourhood-enlargement/sites/near/files/pdf/financial_assistance/ipa/2014/231-2014_ipa-2-reg.pdf  

7 Regulation 234/2014 of 11 March 2014, OJ L77 of 15 March 2014, p. 77  

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32014R0234&from=EN 

8 Regulation 237/2014 of 11 March 2014, OJ L77 of 15 March 2014, p. 109  

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32014R0237&from=EN 

9 Council Decision 2014/137/EU of 14 March 2014 on relations between the European Union on one hand, and 

Greenland and the Kingdom of Denmark on the other, OJ L 76 of 15 March 2014  
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32014D0137&from=HU 

10 Article 18 of Regulation 2015/322 of 02 March 2015 on the implementation of the 11th EDF, OJ L 58 of 03 

March 2015  
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32015R0322&from=EN 

3 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
overseas  countries  and  territories  was  included  in  the  performance  review  of  the  11th  EDF. 
This  mid-term  review  report  therefore  covers  nine  instruments  as  well  as  the  Common 
Implementation Review itself. 

In line with the requirements of the Common Implementation Regulation, this report covers 
the period from 1 January 2014 to 30 June 2017. It analyses the achievement of the objectives 
of each of the instruments mentioned above, focusing on their results, efficiency, added-value, 
the  scope  for  simplification,  internal  and  external  coherence  including  complementarity  and 
synergies between the instruments, the continued relevance of all objectives, the contribution 
of the instruments to a consistent EU external action and where relevant to the EU's priorities 
for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth, and the leverage effect achieved by the funds.   

A  series  of  external  evaluations  took  place  in  2016-2017  on  all  the  instruments11  to  inform 
this report. The evaluation staff working documents linked to this report are also largely based 
on these external evaluations. 

2. Background 

The EU remains the world's biggest provider of external assistance. Through this assistance it 
aims  to  reduce  poverty,  promote  global  and  EU  interests  and  fundamental  values  (such  as 
democracy,  human  rights,  peace,  stability,  solidarity,  and  prosperity)12  and  support  the 
safeguarding of global public goods. 

The instruments make up a major part of the 2014-2020 Multi-annual Financial Framework's 
(MFF)13  Heading  IV  "Global  Europe"14.  The  initial  total  amount  of  Heading  IV  was  EUR 
66.2  billion  (i.e.  6  %  of  the  MFF).  The  EU  budget  instruments  falling  under  this  report15 
represent  a  total  of  EUR  51.8  billion.  In  addition,  the  11th  EDF  which  is  outside  the  EU 
budget has an allocation of EUR 30.5 billion.  

11 The external reports are annexed to the staff working documents that are linked to this report. The external 
evaluations are also available at:  
https://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/public-consultation-external-financing-instruments-european-union_en  
12 See Article 3 (5), 21 of the Treaty on the European Union. The EU's interests, principles and fundamental 
values are further defined in international agreements and EU external relation policies such as: the 2030 Agenda 
for Sustainable Development (https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/post2015/transformingourworld); the Addis Ababa 
Action Agenda of the Third International Conference on Financing for Development 
(https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/index.php?page=view&type=400&nr=2051&menu=35); the Paris Agreement 
under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (http://unfccc.int/paris_agreement/items/9485.php ); the 
European Consensus on Development  
(https://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/policies/european-development-policy/european-consensus-development_en ); the 
Partnership Framework with Third Countries under the European Agenda on Migration  
(https://ec.europa.eu/home-affairs/sites/homeaffairs/files/what-we-do/policies/european-agenda-migration/proposal-
implementation-package/docs/20160607/communication_external_aspects_eam_towards_new_migration_ompact_en.pdf ); 
and the Global Strategy for the European Union on Foreign and Security Policy (https://europa.eu/globalstrategy) 
13  Council  Regulation  (EU,  EURATOM)  No  1311/2013  of  2  December  2013  laying  down  the  Multi-annual 
Financial Framework for the years 2014-2020, OJ L 347/884, p. 884. 
14 The Multi-annual Financial Framework is divided into six broad groups of expenditure called "Headings". 
15 See instruments mentioned in the section on "Scope" and also listed under 1-10 in Table 1. 

4 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Table 1: Main Heading IV instruments and EDF16 

Instruments 

1. 

2. 

Instrument for Pre-accession assistance 
(IPA II) 
European Neighbourhood Instrument 
(ENI) 

Amounts, € 
millions 
12.138,63 

16.496,26 

3.  Development Cooperation Instrument 

19.947,59 

(DCI) 
Partnership Instrument (PI) 

4. 

5. 

6. 

European Instrument for Democracy 
and Human Rights (EIDHR) 
Instrument contributing to Stability and 
Peace (IcSP) 
Instrument for Nuclear Safety 
Cooperation (INSC) 
8.  Greenland Decision (GD) 

7. 

Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) 

Macro-financial Assistance (MFA) 

Guarantee Fund for External Actions 

Humanitarian aid 

EU Civil Protection Mechanism 

EU Aid Volunteers initiative (EUAV) 

European Fund for Sustainable Development 
(EFSD) 
Margin 4 

958,53 

1.306,56 

2.365,85 

325,321 

217,8 

2.121,24 

294,843 

1.627,67 

8.2909,02 

122,827 

126,02 

350 

-672,572 

30.506,00 

Most  instruments  have  been  under  financial 
pressure since their creation because of: 

instability in  the  Neighbourhood  and 

  an increase in the number of crises;  
 
beyond;  
 
  unprecedented refugee flows; and  
  a 

irregular 
migration17 and trafficking of human beings. 

terrorist threats;  

increase 

sharp 

in 

enhance 

to  help 

Innovative and ad hoc mechanisms had to be 
set  up 
the  EU's 
responsiveness in the face of new pressures, 
such  as  trust  funds  and  the  Facility  for 
Refugees  in  Turkey18.  The  recently  adopted 
European Fund for Sustainable Development 
(September  2017)  has  also  been  established 
to provide further leverage capacity19. 

9. 

11th European Development Fund, 
including the Overseas Countries and 
Territories Decision 

10.  Common Implementing Regulation (not 
a financing instrument but a Regulation 
for the implementation of some of the 
above instruments) 

Adopted in early 2014, the instruments were 
designed  to  be  broad  enough  to  adapt  to  an 
evolving  policy  framework.  Their  enabling 
nature  has  been  tested  as  the  lines  between 
foreign  and  development  policies  and  the 
importance  of  the  link  between  internal  and  external  policies  have  evolved  in  the  past  few 
years20.  That  said,  no  amendments  were  considered  as  needed  since  the  instruments  were 

N/A 

16  Figures  include  all  transfers  between  instruments  up  to  July  2017  and  the  mid-term  review  of  the  MFF: 
http://ec.europa.eu/budget/mff/figures/index_en.cfm 
17 Irregular immigrants are third-country nationals who do not fulfil, or no longer fulfil, the conditions of entry as 
set out in Article 5 of the Schengen Borders Code or other conditions for entry, stay or residence in that Member 
State.    In  2014  there  was  an  almost  three-fold  increase  compared  with  2013  (source:  European  Parliament 
briefing): 
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/BRIE/2015/554202/EPRS_BRI(2015)554202_EN.pdf). On the whole, this 
trend has subsequently been confirmed. 
18  The  four  EU  trust  funds  created  during  January  2014-June  2017  are:  1)  the  European  Trust  Fund  for  the 
Central African Republic (i.e. the Bêkou Trust Fund, July 2014), 2) the EU regional Trust Fund in response to 
the  Syrian  crisis  (i.e.  the  Madad  Trust  Fund,  December  2014),  3)  the  European  Emergency  Trust  Fund  for 
stability and addressing root causes of irregular migration and displaced people in Africa (November 2015), and 
4) the EU Trust Fund for Colombia (December 2016). Furthermore, the Facility for Refugees in Turkey was set 
up  in  February  2016  (.Commission Decision  C/2016/855  of 10 February  2016 on  the Facility  for  Refugees  in 
Turkey amending Commission Decision C(2015) 9500 of 24 November 2015. 
19  Regulation (EU) 2017/1601 of 27 September 2017, OJ L249 p. 1 
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=OJ:L:2017:249:TOC  The  External  Fund 
for  Sustainable 
Development will combine blending activities with a guarantee, to unblock bottlenecks to private investment by 
reducing the risks involved.   
20  See  the  external  "Coherence  Report:  insights  from  the  external  evaluations  of  the  external  financing 
instruments" (July 2017),    
https://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/coherence-report-insights-external-evaluation-external-financing-instruments_en, 
paragraph 8.  

5 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
  
established,  except  to  cover  new  actions  in  capacity-building  for  security  and  development 
under the Instrument contributing to Stability and Peace21.  

3. Financial breakdown 

As  required  by  the  Common  Implementing  Regulation,  the  tables  in  the  annexes  display 
consolidated  information  on  all  funding  included  in  the  scope  of  this  report:  spending  by 
country and region, and per instrument together with contributions to trust funds and external 
assigned revenues. 

4. Achievement of objectives 

The instruments pursue different, overall objectives: 

EFI 

DCI 

ENI 

IPA II 

11th EDF 

PI 

EIDHR 

IcSP 

INSC 

Greenland 

Main objective 

Reduce and in the long-term eradicate poverty in developing countries that do not 
benefit from funding under EDF, ENI or IPA. 

Provide  thematic  support  for  development-related  global  public  goods  and 
challenges  (GPGC),  and  to  civil  society  organisations  and  local  authorities  in 
partner countries (CSO/LAs). 

Support the strategic partnership between Africa and the EU. 

Further  advance  towards  an  area  of  shared  prosperity  and  good  neighbourliness 
involving the EU and 16 countries and territories22.  
Support  eight  beneficiaries23  in  adopting  and  implementing  the  reforms  required 
for EU membership. 

Reduce  and  in  the  long-term  eradicate  poverty  in  African,  Caribbean  and  Pacific 
States. 

Attain sustainable development of overseas countries and territories. 

Advance  and  promote  EU  and  mutual  interests  and  support  partnership  and 
alliance-building on global challenges and external aspects of EU internal policies. 
Support  democracy  and  enhance  respect  for  human  rights  and  fundamental 
freedoms, and democracy in third countries. 
Provide  crisis  response  and  conflict  prevention,  support  peace-building  and 
address global, trans-regional and emerging threats. 
Promote a high-level of nuclear safety, radiation protection, and the application of 
efficient and effective safeguards of nuclear material in third countries. 
Preserve  the  close  and  lasting  links  between  Greenland,  the  EU  and  Denmark, 
while supporting the sustainable development of Greenland. 

21 See also Section 4 "Contribution to a consistent Union external action".  See proposal for a Regulation of the 
European Parliament and of the Council COM(2016)447: 
https://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/proposal-amending-regulation-eu-no-2302014-establishing-icsp-com2016-447_en 
22 These 16 countries and territories are: Algeria, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Egypt, Georgia, Israel, Jordan, 
Lebanon, Libya, Moldova, Morocco, Occupied Palestinian Territory, Syria, Tunisia, and Ukraine. 
23 These 8 beneficiaries are: Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Iceland, Kosovo*, Montenegro, Serbia, Turkey, 
the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. (* This designation is without prejudice to positions on status and 
is  in  line  with  the  United  Nations  Security  Council  Resolution  1244/1999  and  International  Court  of  Justice 
opinion on the Kosovo declaration of independence). Iceland has decided not to continue the discussions related 
to the accession process. 

6 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
The evaluation staff working documents show that positive trends are emerging in relation to 
these  objectives24.  For  example,  most  countries  where  the  11th  EDF  and  DCI  geographic 
programmes  operate  have  experienced  progress  in  poverty  reduction  and  human  and 
economic development over the last 10 years25.  

In the western Balkans, IPA II assistance contributed to the implementation of reforms in key 
areas,  such  as  the  judiciary,  anti-corruption,  public  administration  and  social  inclusion,  and 
supported the progressive alignment with EU legislation and standards.  

In  the  Neighbourhood,  ENI  assistance  produced  visible  results  in  various  sectors,  such  as 
regional development, agriculture, the labour market, border management and migration. At 
the  same  time,  the  instruments  (ENI  complemented  by  IcSP26)  demonstrated  a  capacity  to 
respond to evolving needs and crisis situations.  

The  INSC  raised  levels  of  nuclear  safety,  for  example  by  supporting  follow-up  to  the  joint 
comprehensive plan of action cooperation with Iran, and stress testing nuclear power plants in 
various countries.  

The  PI  effectively  influenced  policy  developments  in  partner  countries  in  line  with  EU 
interests  and  contributed  to  development  of  mutual  relationship  with  third  countries,27 
complementing the larger thematic activities financed under the DCI, in particular the Global 
Public Goods and Challenges programme. 

However, difficulties in measuring the achievement of objectives should be noted. As this is a 
mid-term  review  report  and  several  of  the  instruments  only  recently  started  being 
implemented  (following  the  drafting  of  strategy  documents),  it  is  too  early  to  measure  the 
achievement  of  high-level  (and  long-term)  objectives  at  this  stage.  To  help  mitigate  this 
situation,  the  external  evaluations  also  collected  data  from  previous  instruments.  That  said, 
other limitations in measuring the achievement of objectives must be taken into consideration. 
Often EU support can only be seen as a contributing factor towards any results achieved. For 
example, the fight to eradicate poverty is a highly ambitious endeavour. Many factors, both 
internal  and  external,  affect  the  development  of  the  EU's  partner  countries  and  other 
objectives.  Other  major  external  relations  actors  play  an  active  role,  together  with  an 
increasing  number  of  private  donors  including  foundations.  In  addition,  it  is  for  the  partner 
countries  to  adopt  and  implement  the  necessary  reforms  and  policies  that  the  instruments 
support. 

indicators  on  poverty  evolution 

24 See Section 4 on "Effectiveness" for further examples of how the instruments are achieving their objectives. 
25  See 
in 
http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/2015_MDG_Report/pdf/MDG%202015%20rev%20(July%201).pdf 
26 Source Commission staff working document on the evaluation of the IcSP, Section 5. 
27 Source: Commission staff working document on the evaluation of PI, Section 5.  

last  Millennium  Development  Goal  Report  (2015) 

the 

7 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Relevance of the objectives 

The evaluation staff working documents have confirmed that the instruments' objectives were 
largely relevant to the policy priorities at the time of their design28.  

Compared  to  the  2007-2013  MFF,  the  strategic  relevance  has  improved  substantially,  as 
lessons from the past were integrated in the new regulations:  

  confirmation of global reach (IcSP, PI);  
  promotion of EU interests worldwide (PI);  
 
increased focus on conflict prevention (IcSP);  
  new common programming principles (DCI, EDF);  
  greater differentiation (DCI, ENI, IPA);  
  sharper focus on sector approaches (IPA);  
  clear delineation of specific objectives (EIDHR);  
  enhanced  consistency  and  complementarity  between  the  IcSP  and  the  geographical 

cooperation instruments29 and with CFSP operations;  
  broader ambitions for the Greenland partnership (GD); and 
  harmonisation of implementing procedures (CIR)  

Furthermore,  the  external  evaluations  underline  the  strategic  relevance  of  the  thematic 
instruments30,  in  particular  their  ability  to  act  without  the  explicit  consent  of  the  partner 
country if required, such as engaging in crisis response, human rights and democratisation in a 
deteriorating  context  and  promoting  EU  interests  and  global  actions  on  public  goods, 
including climate change. 

28  Examples:  Communication  COM(2011)637  final  of  13  October  2011  'Increasing  the  impact  of  EU 
Development Policy: an Agenda for Change'  
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX%3A52011DC0637&qid=1412922281378&from=EN 
Council  Conclusions  on  "Increasing  the  Impact  of  EU  Development  Policy:  an  Agenda  for  Change”  (3166th 
Foreign Affairs Council Meeting, Brussels), 14 May 2012),the European Consensus on Development (while the 
'Joint statement by the Council, the European Parliament and the Commission on European Union Development 
Policy:  the  European  Consensus'  was  adopted  in  2005,  it  was  published  in  the  Official  Journal  C46  of  24 
February 2006, p1):  
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ%3AC%3A2006%3A046%3A0001%3A0019%3AEN%3APDF  
Neighbourhood  Policy:  Communication  COM  (2011)303  final,  24  May  2011  'A  new  response  to  a  changing 
Neighbourhood';   
the  EU  Strategic  Partnerships:  Strategic  Partnership  Agreements  have  been  signed  with  10  countries:  Brazil, 
Canada, China, India, Japan, Mexico, the Republic of Korea, Republic of South Africa, the Russian Federation, 
and the United States of America 
Strategy  for  Smart  and  sustainable  Growth  (Europe  2020):  Communication  COM  (2010)  of  3  March  2010 
'Europe 2020: A strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth" 
, 
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A52010DC2020  
Policy on Trade, Growth and World Affairs: Communication COM(2010) 612 final of 9 November 2010 "Trade, 
Growth  and  World  Affairs.  Trade  Policy  as  a  core  component  of  the  EU's  2020  strategy';  and  the  European 
Security  Strategy:  "A  secure  Europe  in  a  better  world.  European  Security  Strategy",  adopted  by  the  European 
Council, 12 December 2003. 
29 Source: Coherence Report, paragraph 10. 
30 Source: Coherence Report paragraph 13. 

;  

8 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
The  set  of  broad,  enabling  instruments  have  been  able  to  cover  EU  priorities  without  any 
major gaps31, except for capacity-building in support of security and development (CBSD)32.  

However,  on  programming  (where  programming  applies)  and  implementation  of  the 
instruments, this potential was not always fully exploited. In some countries actions under the 
instruments  were  strategically  combined33,  whereas  in  others,  the  potential  for  strategically 
combining actions was not always used34.  

A major benefit of the instruments' relevance is the flexibility that they have built into them. 
Flexibility to respond to unforeseen events is required at different levels:  

(i) 
(ii) 
(iii) 

(iv) 

(v) 

short-term crisis response35;  
flexibility in choice of programming and implementation methods36;  
financial  flexibility37  with  reserve  funds  and  reallocations  within  and  between 
instruments;  
flexibility in the multi-annual programming with the possibility to adapt the duration 
of the programming to the situation on the ground and to swiftly redirect the funding 
in case of major changes; and  
the use of special measures provided for by the Common Implementing Regulation38.  

The  evaluation  staff  working  documents  found  that  the  instruments,  due  to  their  enabling 
character and sufficiently broad objectives, facilitated the EU to respond to new crises and its 
evolving  needs  and  policy  objectives  as  well  as  those  of  partner  countries.  However,  the 
ability to reallocate financial resources was fully exhausted with the emergence of new crises 
in countries surrounding the EU. 

Internal resources and funds that were not earmarked were insufficient to deal with the crises. 
Consequently, Heading IV  had to be increased during the mid-term review of the MFF, and 
the EU had to set up different crisis-related trust funds and coordination mechanisms such as a 
Facility for Refugees in Turkey (FRiT)39. Through the trust funds and the FRiT, the EU was 
able  to  respond  fairly  rapidly  to  the  crises  and  mobilise  additional  funds  from  EU  Member 
States  and  other  donors,  even  if  the  contributions  from  Member  States  were  less  than 
expected. The response also had to be facilitated by the use of special measures outside the 
regular programming decisions.   

It  is  too  early  to  conclude  whether  all  the  instruments  are  adequately  designed  to  fully 
implement  the  Global  Strategy  for  the  EU's  Foreign  and  Security  Policy  and  the  new 
European  Consensus  on  Development,  which  focuses  on  the  implementation  of  the 

31 Source: Coherence Report, paragraph 14. 
32 See Section 2 "Background" about the amendment to the IcSP.  
33 Source Commission staff working document on the evaluation of the IcSP, Section 5 
34 Source: Coherence Report, paragraph 16. 
35 Source: Coherence Report, Table 2, page 7. 
36 Source: Commission staff working document on the evaluation of PI, Section 5. 
37 The financial flexibility of the 11th EDF was particularly noted, with some 20 % of its funds being unallocated 
from the onset. 
38 Source: Commission staff working document on the evaluation of IPA II, Section 5. 
39 See annexes on the financial breakdown for further details on the EU trust funds and the Facility for Refugees 
in Turkey. 

9 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
internationally  agreed  Sustainable  Development  Goals  (SDGs).  Although  there  is  a  clear 
alignment between the new SDGs and the objectives of several instruments.  

Overall, it appears that the priorities and sectors of intervention defined in the regulations for 
the  11th  EDF,  EIDHR,  ENI,  DCI,  IPA  II,  IcSP  and  the  PI  are  still  relevant  and  encompass 
current needs and priorities. This implies that no amendments to the regulations are needed at 
this stage40. Nevertheless, the lessons-learned from the mid-term review of the MFF in terms 
of limited financial flexibility and complexity of the current architecture, thwarting enhanced 
complementarity on the ground, as well as to cover gaps in the area of security would need to 
be considered in the future architecture of the instruments41. 

Effectiveness 

Many  of  the  partner  countries  and  themes  addressed  by  the  instruments  have  experienced 
positive progress over the last years. Recent annual reports on the implementation of the EU 
instruments  for  financing  external  actions42  present  numerous  positive  examples  for  all  the 
objectives  concerned,  despite  the  sometimes  difficult  contexts  (e.g.  in  the  case  of  the 
Neighbourhood and sub-Saharan Africa). For example:  

 
 
 

the public administration reform in Georgia;  
the 90% reduction in poverty in Vietnam over the last decade;  
the  stabilisation  of  Colombia  after  the  peace  agreement  (by  short  and  longer-term 
actions43); and 

  supporting the training of nuclear power plant staff in Ukraine to improve safety.  

However, the overall effectiveness of the instruments in meeting their objectives is difficult to 
measure,  partly  because  of  the  difficulty  in  defining  appropriate  monitoring  and  evaluation 
systems  at  the  instrument-level.  Also  a  number  of  results  can  only  be  measured  at  country 
and/or sector level and cannot be aggregated at instrument-level, partly because of the variety 
of countries and themes concerned. In a few cases (e.g. EDF and DCI) high-level indicators 
linked to the Millennium Development Goals (until 2015) and the Sustainable Development 
Goals (since 2015) were included in the legal base and are used to measure global progress44 
but these are:  

(i) 
(ii) 

(iii) 

not directly attributable to the actions of the instruments;  
influenced  by  many  external  factors  (e.g.  government  policies,  interventions  from 
other donors and the international context) and  
unable to assess the instruments' characteristics such as flexibility.  

40 With the exception of the CBSD proposal, see Section 2 "Background"  
41 See "Conclusions" in Section 5 and Coherence Report paragraph 65.  
42  For  example  see  the  '2016  Annual  Report  on  the  implementation  of  the  European  Union's  instruments  for 

financing external actions in 2015', SWD (2016) 456 final of 19 December 2016. 

43 Source: Commission staff working document on the evaluation of the IcSP, Section 5 
44  See  Annex  4  of  part 2/2  of  the  19  December  2016  Commission  staff  working  document  accompanying  the 
document  '2016  Annual  Report  on  the  implementation  of  the  European  Union's  instruments  for  financing 
2016. 
external 
https://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/sites/devco/files/annual-report-swd-part-2-2016-456-20161221_en.pdf 

SWD(2016) 

December 

actions 

2015', 

final 

456 

19 

of 

in 

10 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Since the establishment of the instruments, the Commission has invested efforts and improved 
reporting on the results of projects and programmes. For example with the launch of the EU-
International  cooperation  and  development  results  framework45  in  2015  which  produced  its 
first  report  on  selected  results  in  July  201646.  Other,  similar  performance  frameworks  with 
strategic and operational indicators have also been created specifically for IPA II and the PI47. 
Despite  these  improvements  further  efforts  are  needed  at  instrument  level  to  ensure  a  clear 
monitoring and evaluation system is in place to explain how the EU will measure change. 

The  range  of  implementation  arrangements  available  plays  a  major  role  in  the  instruments’ 
effectiveness48.  The  simplifications  introduced  in  the  Common  Implementation  Regulation 
such as the possibility of sub-granting or awarding grants to entities without legal personality, 
have  reinforced  the  EIDHR’s  effectiveness49.  Benefiting  from  exceptions,  crisis  response 
under the IcSP can be as rapid as humanitarian aid50.  

The introduction of the budget support modality and the related policy dialogue under the IPA 
II  have  played  an  important  role  in  improving  policy  dialogue  in  support  of  furthering  real 
reforms and stabilisation programmes in beneficiary countries. This was particularly the case 
in the western Balkans where this was introduced for the first time51. Similarly in Greenland 
budget  support  arrangements  resulted  in  stronger  public  financial  management  systems  and 
improvements  in  the  national  administration's  ability  to  plan  and  implement  policies52. 
However,  EU  procedures  (originating  from  the  Financial  Regulation)  are  still  perceived  by 
interested parties as lengthy and burdensome53.  

In  terms  of  mainstreaming  EU  priorities,  significant  progress  has  been  noted  in  some 
programmes in the areas of climate change and environment.54 However, more remains to be 
done  to  integrate  these  areas  across  all  sectors  in  view  of  the  scale  of  the  challenges55. 
Mainstreaming human rights issues including gender equality and women's empowerment is 

45  See  further  information  on  the  EU  international  cooperation  and  development  results  framework: 
https://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/devcos-results-framework_en 
46  This  report  presents  selected  results  achieved  from  EU  funded  development  cooperation  projects  and 
programmes completed in mid-2013 - mid-2014 in EU partner countries. See:  
https://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/eu-international-cooperation-and-development-first-report-selected-results-july-2013-june-
2014_en 
47  Source:  Commission  staff  working  document  on  the  evaluation  of    PI,  Section  3  and  the  Commission  staff  
working document on the evaluation of IPA II, Section 5 
48  Source:  Commission  staff  working  document  on  the  evaluation  of  PI,  Section  5.  Annual  programmes  for 
Electoral  Observation  Missions  allow  for  fast  updating  in  line  with  evolving  election  calendars  in  partner 
countries.  
49 Source: Commission staff working document on the evaluation of the EIDHR, Section 5. 
50 Source: Commission staff working document on the evaluation of the IcSP Section 5. 
51 Source: Commission staff working document on the evaluation of IPA II, Section 5. 
52 Source: Commission staff working document on the evaluation of the Council Decision on relations between 
the  European  Union,  on  the  one  hand,  and  Greenland  and  the  Kingdom  of  Denmark  on  the  other  (Greenland 
Decision), section 6. 
53  Source:  for  example  see  Commission  staff  working  document  on  the  evaluation  of  the  EIDHR,  Section  on 

Conclusions. 

54  11th  EDF  climate  contributions  increased  from  3.3%  in  2014  to  23.3%  in  2016  and  DCI  climate  change 
contributions  increased  from  17.7%  in  2014  to  24.9%  in  2016.  Source:  Indicator  12b,  EU  international 
cooperation and development results framework with input from the OECD DAC Creditor Reporting System.  
55  Source:  for  example  see  Commission  staff  working  document  on  the  evaluation  of  the  DCI,  Section  5; 
Commission staff working document on the evaluation of the EDF, Section 5. 

11 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
still a work-in-progress although some positive messages have emerged from the study56 on 
the implementation of the EU gender action plan II57, in particular for the IcSP. Overall, the 
external evaluations have shown partner governments' lack of interest or resistance to working 
in support of human rights often presents a major challenge in implementation. 

Efficiency 

The level of administrative expenditure points to an efficient management of the instruments’ 
respective budgets58.  

While  overall  organisational  performance  may  be  efficient,  some  interested  parties consider 
the  implementation  of  the  instruments  in  some  cases  as  administratively  burdensome.  The 
Commission is perceived by some stakeholders as being more focused on process rather than 
on policy objectives and results.  Requirements such as mainstreaming different policies and 
fulfilling  international  commitments  such  as  ownership  and  partnership  imply  heavy 
processes. Other regulations (such as the Comitology Regulation59) add to the complexity and 
length of time needed to implement the instruments.  

Modest  efficiency  gains  were  made  in  comparison  to  the  instruments  from  the  2007-2013 
MFF.  For  example  by  reducing  the  number  of  DCI  thematic  programmes  from  five  to  two, 
although rigidities remains within the Global Public Goods and Challenges programme since 
five  different  budget  lines  were  created60.  Some  efficiency  gains  resulting  from  the 
simplification  processes  (such  as  the  use  of  national  strategies  rather  than  EU  country 
strategies  and  that  joint  programming  documents  can  replace  multi-annual  indicative 
programmes  if  quality  criteria  are  met)  were  introduced  for  DCI,  EDF,  ENI  and  IPA  II 
programming processes.  

On geographic instruments, a lengthy programming process is in place to safeguard principles 
of  ownership  and  partnership.  In  the  case  of  the  EDF,  the  procedures  also  include 
involvement  of  the  National/Regional  Authorising  Officers  whose  function  is  often  seen  as 
hampering  effectiveness and efficiency, in  particular at  regional level.  An explanation often 
given relates to capacity issues despite regular support in capacity-building61. 

56 Source: EU gender action plan 2016-2020 at year one: European implementation assessment by the European 
Parliament: 
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/thinktank/en/document.html?reference=EPRS_STU%282017%29603256  
57 The gender action plan 2016-2020 is the EU's framework for promoting gender equality and women and girls' 
empowerment  in  external  relations  in  external  relations.  The  above-mentioned  European  implementation 
assessment by the European Parliament states that the EU has mainstreamed the notion of gender equality and 
women's  empowerment  in  partner  countries  and  has  taken  on  board  a  number  of  lessons  identified  from  the 
previous Gender Action Plan (2010-2015). The IcSP was particularly commended on results to date in terms of 
engagement with women’s NGOs/CSOs on the “whole of society” approach. 
58  See  Commission  staff  working  document  accompanying  the  document  '2016  Annual  Report  on  the 
implementation  of  the  European  Union's  instruments  for  financing  external  actions  in  2015',  SWD(2016)456 
final of 19 December 2016. 
59 Comitology refers to a process by which committees made of representatives from Member States assist in the 
making, 
Regulation:  
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=celex%3A32011R0182  
60 Source: Commission staff working document on the evaluation of the DCI, Section 5. 
61 Source: Commission staff working document on the evaluation of the 11th EDF Section 5. 

implementation 

Comitology 

adoption 

laws. 

See 

and 

EU 

of 

12 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
The establishment of the Common Implementation Regulation was a new, simplifying feature 
of  the  2014-2020  MFF  for  the  EU-budget  instruments  covered  by  this  report,  which  was 
largely  replicated  in  the  11th  EDF  implementation  regulation.  By  harmonising  rules  and 
limiting  differences  of  interpretation  across  the  external  financing  instruments,  the  external 
evaluations point to efficiency gains thanks to the Common Implementation Regulation, albeit 
on a modest scale. Under, for example, the EIDHR (in specific cases) and especially the IcSP, 
direct award of funding speeds up implementation in situations of crisis or urgent need. 

Internal  coherence,  external  coherence,  complementarity  and  synergies 
between external financing instruments  

Each  external  financing  instrument  has  its  own  specific  scope  either  based  on  the  issues  of 
substance  it  addresses  (the  EIDHR,  INSC,  IcSP,  and  PI  have  a  potential  worldwide 
application)  or  in  terms  of  geographical  focus  (the  DCI,  EDF,  ENI,  GD,  and  IPA  II 
accompanied by specific themes).  

Three  instruments  are  clearly  designed  to  complement  others  through  their  distinct 
implementation modalities:  

1) 
2) 
3) 

EIDHR (independent and flexible actions); 
IcSP (for quick response with short and long-term actions); and 
PI  (actions  in  the  EU  and/or  mutual  interest  that  are  not  possible  to  fund  under  the 
DCI, ENI or IPA II)62. 

The  internal  coherence  within  the  instruments  is  largely  satisfactory  because  of  revised 
geographic  programming  instructions,  sector  concentration,  appropriate  decision-making 
processes  and  improved  quality  review  systems.  However  significant  variations  can  be 
observed at the level of EU delegations. 

The  evaluation  staff  working  documents  provide  some  examples  of  complementarities 
between  the  instruments.  For  example,  the  EIDHR  and  the  PI  support  certain  actions  that 
other  geographic  instruments  are  not  able  to  finance,  such  as  direct  cooperation  with  civil 
society organisations on human rights issues or cooperation with industrialised countries63.  

Effective synergies between the IcSP (with its ability to provide short-term reactions without 
programming) and the geographic instruments were also found. Although effective follow-up 
is  hampered  by  the  lack  of  flexibility  in  procedures  of  most  other  instruments  which  are 
bound by long programming periods64. 

Nevertheless, overall coherence between instruments could be further improved, in particular 
by streamlining the instruments to reduce the boundaries between geographic (the 11th EDF, 
ENI,  DCI,  and  IPA  II)  and  thematic  instruments/programmes  (thematic  programmes  within 
the DCI, IcSP and PI) which can both intervene in the same areas65. The specific scope of the 

62 Source: Commission staff working document on the evaluation of the PI for cooperation with third countries, 
Section 2. 
63 Including with some strategic partner countries such as: Brazil, China, India and Mexico. 
64 Source: Commission staff working document on the evaluation of IcSP, Section 5. 
65 Source: Coherence Report, paragraph 33 

13 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
geographic instruments has made it difficult to engage strategically and coherently with some 
partner countries. Three geographical instruments are used to  engage with  Africa (the EDF, 
DCI  and  ENI)  and  cooperation  at  continental  level  is  funded  both  from  the  DCI  (the  Pan-
African  programme)  and  with  a  slightly  reduced  scope  from  the  11th  EDF  (intra-ACP 
programme)66.  Similarly,  it  has  proven  difficult  to  build  bridges  between  regions  as,  for 
example,  EU  relations  with  the  Caribbean  and  Latin  America  are  covered  both  by  the  DCI 
and the EDF.  

Policy  Coherence  for  Development67  has  gained  momentum.  The  analysis  of  trade  policy 
support  to  development  in  regional  cooperation  shows  an  increasing  attention  to  the 
trade/development nexus68. The nexuses between security/development/humanitarian aid also 
gained political momentum. 

On  geographic  instruments  (the  DCI,  ENI  and  11th  EDF),  in  terms  of  coherence  between 
partner  country  and  EU  priorities,  some  external  evaluations  mention  tendencies  towards 
predominantly  EU  driven  agendas  during  the  programming.  This  was  despite  the  extensive 
consultation  of  interested  parties  during  programming  and  project  implementation,  and,  in 
particular  in  the  EDF,  the  co-signature  of  the  multi-annual  programming  documents  and 
annual  actions.  This  apparent  trade-off  between  EU  interests/international  values  and 
partnership principles should be seen within the new policy context of the universally agreed 
2030 Agenda/SDGs69. 

Added-value 

A combination of several factors explains the added-value of the EU's instruments70:  

(i) 
(ii) 

(iii) 

the EU's competence or expertise71;  
the EU's nature as a supranational entity, and the relative neutrality, political influence 
and leverage this potentially entails72;  
geographical  spread  of some  instruments73  including  the  presence  in  fragile contexts 
where  there  are  fewer  development  partners  and  the  significant  volume  of  funds 
available74,  

66 In addition, the IcSP crisis response component devoted 33% of its funds to Africa during the period under 
review.   
67 Through Policy Coherence for Development the EU seeks to take account of development objectives in all of 
its  policies  that  are  likely  to  affect  developing  countries.  It  aims  at  minimising  contradictions  and  building 
synergies  between  different  EU  policies  to  benefit  developing  countries  and  increase  the  effectiveness  of 
development  cooperation.  Policy  coherence  in  support  of  development  objectives  was  first  integrated  in  EU 
fundamental law in 1992 and further reinforced in the Treaty of Lisbon (Art. 208 Treaty on the Functioning of 
the EU) making the EU a forerunner on the international stage in this area. 
68 
https://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/policies/policy-coherence-development_en 
69 Source: Coherence Report, paragraph 51-53.  
70 Source: Coherence Report, paragraph 37 and Section 5 of the staff working documents annexed to this report. 
71  See  for  example  the  Centres  of  Thematic  Expertise  created  by  the  Commission.  Source:  Commission  Staff 
working  document  on  the  evaluation  of  IPA  II,  Section  5.  Or  under  the  PI,  for  example  the  EU's  expertise  in 
technical standards, Source: Commission staff working document on the evaluation of PI, Annex 3. 
72  The  EU  is  largely  perceived  by  dialogue  partners  as  an  actor  not  defending  or  advancing  the  interest  of  a 
particular country, which is important for the EU as a peace and security actor under IcSP crisis response and for 
Election Observation Missions under EIDHR. 

Development 

Coherence 

report, 

Policy 

See 

EU 

5th 

for 

2015:  

14 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
(iv) 

(v) 

the  scope  of  the  instruments  and  modalities  (such  as  budget support,  grants,  indirect 
management, blending facilities and rapid decision-making for crisis response); and  
the  ability  of  the  EU  to  lead  on  joint  actions  (i.e.  joint  programming  and  joint 
implementation), especially with Member States.  

Additional  factors  are  that  the  instruments  can  be  used  to  intervene  at  various  levels  (i.e. 
national  regional,  continental),  the  predictability  of  funds  (especially  the  EDF  which  is  not 
subject  to  the  annuality  rule  of  the  EU  budget75),  the  emphasis  placed  on  regional 
cooperation76  and  the  unique  position  of  the  EU  to  prepare  accession  countries  for  EU 
membership through the IPA. 

More  specialised  instruments  have  specific  added-value  linked  to  their  scope.  For  example, 
the IcSP’s speed, flexibility and capacity to adapt to evolving contexts, and presence in zones 
where  other actors  are absent77, and  the EIDHR  actions in  sensitive human rights  situations 
without needing partner governments' consent. 

Leverage effect 

Conditions are in place for the instruments to enable a strengthened policy dialogue at country 
level,  in  particular  when  programmes  are  implemented  through  budget  support78.  The  PI 
substantiates  policy  dialogues/partnerships  with  third  countries  through  support  of  specific 
cooperation  activities  (based  on  mutual  interest)  which  help  to  promote  EU  interests  and 
create a unique political leverage79.  

Another important leverage effect stems from the donor coordination role the EU Delegations 
play:  fostering  complementarity  and  coherence  between  different  EU  actors  and  increasing 
the  visibility  of  the  EU.  This  is  particularly  true  where  joint  programming  processes  have 
been launched80.  

The specialised instruments also engage in targeted policy dialogue, for example through the 
INSC or the EIDHR on election observation. The IcSP contributed to leverage the EU's policy 
dialogue in increasing donor funds spent in a conflict-sensitive manner81. The evaluations also 
point  to  some  drawbacks  for  the  political  leverage  exerted  in  terms  of  enhanced  policy 
dialogue on human rights and fundamental values. The drawbacks were linked in particular to 

on 

the 

financial 

73  EIDHR's  worldwide  scope,  including  Election  Observation  Missions  and  the  PI  (albeit  focused  on  strategic 
partners). 
74 Especially the EDF and the thematic component of the DCI. 
75  Annuality  is  the  budgetary  principle  according  to  which  expenditure  and  revenue  are  programmed  and 
authorised  for  one  year,  starting  on  1 January  and  ending  on  31  December.    Source:  Article  9  of  Regulation 
the  Union: 
rules 
966/2012 
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32012R0966&from=EN 
76 Source: Commission staff working document on the evaluation of IPA II, Section 5. 
77 Source Commission staff working document on the evaluation of the IcSP, Section 2. 
78 Sources: Commission staff working document on ENI, Section 5, and Commission staff working document for 
IPA II, Section 5. 
79 Source: Commission staff working document on the evaluation of PI, Section 5. 
80 See external evaluation on Joint Programming:  
https://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/evaluation-eu-joint-programming-process-development-cooperation-2011-2015_en  
81 Source: Commission staff working documenton the IcSP, Section 5. 

applicable 

general 

budget 

the 

of 

to 

15 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                         
 
a  decreasing  acceptance  of  the  liberal  democratic  model  of  development,  the  diminishing 
importance of official development assistance and the emergence of new actors82.  

The  instruments'  financial  leverage  is  reasonably  high,  thanks  mainly  to  blending  facilities 
(i.e. for DCI, EDF, ENI and IPA).83 The creation of trust funds has also resulted in financial 
leverage84, even if not always at the expected level. 

Scope for simplification 

Cost-efficient  and  effective  delivery  mechanisms  are  essential  to  improve  the  instruments' 
performance. The Commission has embarked on a simplification process through the revision 
of  the  multi-annual  programming  guidelines  and  annual  decision  procedures.  Nevertheless, 
the overall number of instruments as well as some instruments in particular was still viewed 
by  interested  parties  as  complex,  administratively  burdensome  and  lacking  financial 
flexibility.  The  detailed  budget  distribution  included  in  the  DCI  both  for  geographic  and 
thematic  programmes  adds  to  the  complexity  and  rigidity  of  the  instrument,  making  the 
possibilities  to  transfer  funds  between  objectives  and  for  changing  priorities  within  the 
instrument difficult, in particular when there is a need to face emergencies and crises.  

in 

their 

implementation  covering 

Before  the  2014-2020  MFF,  each  instrument  had  its  own  implementing  rules  which  led  to 
divergences 
the  2007-2013  MFF.  The  Common 
Implementing  Regulation,  to  which  the  EDF  implementing  regulation85  is  largely  aligned, 
contributed  to  the  simplification  agenda  in  that  it  prevented  divergences  and  problems  in 
interpretation86.  Since  2014,  the  continued  simplification  efforts  in  external  relations  have 
been  focused  on  eliminating  unnecessary  burdens,  increasing  flexibility  and  reducing 
complexity  for  external  partners  at  implementation  level.  Other  simplifications  are  also  in 
sight,  but  first  require  amendments  to  the  Financial  Regulation  by  the  Council  and  the 
European Parliament, for which a revision87 was proposed by the Commission.  

Contribution to a consistent EU external action 

The EU ensures the security and prosperity for Europeans by actively engaging on the world 
stage,  to  promote  its  interests  and  uphold  the  values  of  democracy,  the  rule  of  law  and 
protection of human rights. EU external action policies88 include international commitments 
such  as  the  2030  Agenda  and  the  Paris  Agreement  on  climate  change,  together  with  the 
Global  Strategy  for  the  EU's  Foreign  and  Security  Policy,  the  new  European  Consensus  on 
Development,  the  renewed  EU-Africa  partnership,  the  reviewed  European  Neighbourhood 

82 Source: Coherence Report, box 1, page 5.   
83 Sources: for example, Commission staff working document on the evaluation of the DCI, Section 5 and the 
staff working document on the evaluation of the EDF, Section 5. 
84 See Table 3 in annex for financial breakdown. 
85 Council Regulation (EU) 2015/323 on the financial regulation applicable to the 11th European Development 
Fund of 2 March 2015, OJ L58, p 17  
86  Source:  Commission  staff  working  document  on  the  evaluation  of  the  Common  Implementing  Regulation, 
page 8. 
87 Commission's proposal COM(2016) 605 final of 14 September 2016,  
88 See Article 3 (5), 21 of the Treaty on the European Union 

16 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
policy, the Enlargement policy and the Consensus on Humanitarian Aid, among others, which 
taken together provides the necessary framework for the EU to achieve its objectives.  

To  meet  these  objectives,  the  EU  toolbox  for  external  policies  encompasses  development 
cooperation,  diplomacy,  peace,  security  and  defence  actions,  economic  cooperation, 
enlargement,  humanitarian  aid  and  civil  protection,  enhanced  neighbourhood  relations, 
macro-financial assistance, partnership on global challenges and trade. The instruments' part 
of  this  toolbox  accounts  for  more  than  three  quarters  of  the  available  funding  under  the 
present MFF, and have contributed to the EU's external action since 2014, as mentioned in the 
evaluation staff working documents. 

Furthermore,  to  improve  the  EU's  effectiveness  in  supporting  stability,  security  and 
sustainable  development  in  partner  countries  the  Commission  adopted  a  proposal  to  amend 
the IcSP Regulation89. The amendment closes the gap identified in the EU's ability to provide 
support when building EU partners' capacities in the security sector and would enable the EU 
to support military actors, under exceptional and clearly defined circumstances.  

Through the use of joint programming with Member States and other donors, a more coherent 
and  visible  EU  response  to  partner  countries'  development  has  been  created.  A  specific 
evaluation90  published  in  March  2017  found  progress  on  joint  programming  with  Member 
States  showing  that,  despite  still  being  in  its  early  stages,  it  is  valuable  for  the  EU  and  its 
Member States. Challenges linked to ensuring ownership of the process and results by partner 
countries would need to be further addressed.  

On civil society in partner countries, although the geographical instruments work mainly with 
their authorities, cooperation with civil society organisations remains a constant feature across 
the instruments with a view to contributing to reinforcing the organisations’ capacity and to a 
civil  society  that  is  able  to  promote  reforms  and  hold  governments  to  account.  Some 
instruments  and  programmes,  such  as  the  EIDHR  and  the  DCI  CSO/LA  are  primarily 
intended to support civil society. 

The close interconnection between internal and external policies is self-evident, for instance, 
with  the  migration  crisis  where  the  coordination  and  complementarity  between  instruments 
was  necessary.  EU  internal  policy  priorities  have  been  integrated,  to  the  extent  possible,  in 
external  actions  in  a  coherent  and  consistent  way,  in  order  to  safeguard  EU  interests  and 
promote  mutual  interest  solutions  and  also  benefited  from  the  specialist  focus  of  PI  on  the 
internal/external policy nexus. 

To  properly  address  external  interest  and  achieve  global  objectives  stronger  collaboration 
between EU internal and external services have been pursued91 to ensure coherent approaches 
and to avoid duplication and overlaps. To help reinforce coherence, to ensure that EU actions 
are mutually reinforcing and to avoid contradictory approaches, external services need to have 
a more complete picture of the activities that take place outside the EU, in particular on global 
challenges  such  as  climate  change,  biodiversity  or  the  fight  against  terrorism.  The  current 

89 See Section 2 "Background" for more information.  
90See  external  evaluation  of  EU  Joint  Programming  Process  of  Development  Cooperation  (March  2017) 
http://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/evaluation-eu-joint-programming-process-development-cooperation-2011-2015_en 
91 Source: Commission staff working document on the evaluation of PI, Section 5. 

17 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
multiple programming documents covering a given country/region/continent make it difficult 
to have a clear overview of external actions92.  

Contribution to EU priorities for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth 

Smart,  sustainable  and  inclusive  growth  is  at  the  heart  of  the  EU’s  external  assistance.  The 
instruments  contribute  to  smart  growth  through  support  to  trade-related  projects  and  the 
development of collective approaches on climate change and environment. 

In  line  with  the  Agenda  for  Change93  that  aims  to  significantly  increase  the  impact  and 
effectiveness of the EU’s external assistance, EU assistance at country level has to focus on 
three or fewer sectors of concentration in most partner countries. EU support has since been 
more focused on the two priority areas of the Agenda for Change, one of those being inclusive 
and sustainable growth for human development94. 

IPA  II  has  a  clear  objective  of  enhancing  its  beneficiary  countries'  economic  and  social 
development  with  a  view  to  attaining  the  targets  set  in  the  Europe  2020  strategy  for  smart, 
sustainable and inclusive growth. The development instruments have a strong focus on smart, 
sustainable  and  inclusive  growth  as  reflected  in  the  actions  adopted  in  the  various  Annual 
Action  Programmes95.  The  PI  also  contributes  to  these  EU  priorities  as  does  the  Greenland 
Decision.  On  the  PI,  one  of  its  specific  objectives  is  the  promotion  of  the  international 
dimension of the Europe 2020 strategy in all its aspects (e.g. jobs, growth, and investments, 
SMEs).  

Since 2008 the Commission has been setting up blending facilities in different regions of the 
world,  resulting  in  the  leveraging  of  investments,  to  promote  sustainable  economic 
development.  These  blending  operations  have  covered  different  areas  of  intervention 
(infrastructure  projects,  Micro,  Small  and  Medium  Enterprise  financing,  etc.)  and  the  value 
added they generate varies according to the specific additionality objective they are meant to 
address,    as  well  as  to  the  economic  conditions  in  the  given  country  of  operations  (e.g. 
macroeconomic framework, conducive business environment, investment climate).  

Long-term impact 

The external evaluations have highlighted that there are obvious difficulties in measuring the 
long-term impact of the instruments at the mid-point of their implementation, as some of them 
have only recently started implementing a significant number of projects and programmes and 
baselines have, in many cases, not yet been established.  

Nevertheless, some evaluations were able to look at achievements under previous instruments 
to show positive trends in key indicators. For example, the DCI supported the drafting of 50 

92  See  for  example  the  description  of  the  instruments  active  in  Africa  under  Section  4  on  'Internal  coherence, 
external coherence, complementarity and synergies between external financing instruments'.  
93 COM (2011) 637, 13 October 2011. 
94  Source:  Commission  staff  working  document  accompanying  the  document  '2016  Annual  Report  on  the 
implementation  of  the  European  Union's  instruments  for  financing  external  actions  in  2015',  SWD(2016)456 
final of 19 December 2016.. 
95  Source:  Commission  2016  Annual  Report  on  the  implementation  of  the  European  Union's  instruments  for 
financing external actions in 2015, SWD (2016) 456 final of 19 December 2016 

18 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
national and regional climate strategies over the last years; in Neighbourhood countries, and 
despite  difficult  circumstances  (e.g.  the  global  economic  crisis,  regional  crises,  civil  wars, 
terrorism,  and  the  migration  crisis),  some  countries  showed  significant  progress  in  certain 
governance areas (e.g. Georgia in the area of public administration). For the PI the mid-term 
evaluation concludes that the support deployed is on track to deliver the expected impacts96. 

Performance against the current set of objectives contained in the instruments is dependent on 
various  external  factors  outside  the  control  of  the  instruments,  such  as  national  ownership, 
political will and a country's administrative capacity. The cost of non-action or late action in 
external  relations  would  be  catastrophic  if  instability,  conflict  and  war  were  to  increase,  in 
particular in the EU’s Neighbourhood, with potential spill-over effects for the EU itself. 

5. Conclusions 

In conclusion, the current set of instruments is still relevant and has proved to be sufficiently 
enabling. At this stage there is therefore no need to amend them through legislative proposals 
or delegated acts. 

However, the staff working documents linked to this report point to some aspects deserving 
attention  in  the  future,  with  a  view  to  improving  the  implementation  of  the  EU's  external 
action and drawing lessons for the next generation of instruments. 

Issues  addressed  in  the  different  external  evaluations  will  be  taken  into  account  within  the 
remaining period of implementation of the instruments and during the preparation of the next 
generation of the instruments. In particular: 

  The 2030 Agenda is key as it sets out ambitious universal Sustainable Development Goals 
and is based on multi-stakeholder partnerships, highlighting the importance of "non-aid" 
agenda  and  interlinkages  between  goals,  including  the  security-development  nexus.  The 
Sustainable Development Goals must be consistently and coherently taken into account in 
the EU's external action.  In line with the 2030 Agenda, the Global Strategy and the new 
European Consensus on Development provide a new vision for the EU's external action97. 

  The importance  of promoting fundamental values  and human rights is at the core of the 
instruments, but external evaluations point to an increased difficulty to promote and take 
this  agenda  forward  in  many  countries,  and  to  the  shrinking  space  for  civil  society 
organisation in many countries as well. This makes it difficult for the EU to work on these 
important dimensions and highlights another possible tension between some fundamental 
elements of EU external action and the partnership and ownership principles. 

 

In  the  current  context  of  multiple  crises  and  conflicts,  the  EU’s  multi-annual  financial 
framework needs to be able to adjust swiftly to changing priorities and unforeseen events, 
and to deliver rapidly on the ground.98 The instruments similarly need sufficient financial 

96 Source: Commission Staff working document on the evaluation of PI, Section 5. 
97 See also the Rome Declaration of 25 March 2017. 
98  Source:  Communication  from  the  Commission  to  the  European  Parliament  and  the  Council  ‘Mid-term 
review/revision  of  the  multiannual  financial  framework  2014-2020,  and  EU  budget  focused  on  results’,  COM 
(2016) 603 final of 14 September 2016. 

19 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
and other kinds of flexibility for external action to respond to the many challenges for the 
EU on the world stage. This flexibility needs to be built up at different levels. This means 
starting  from  the  budget,  which  should  include  more  substantial  reserves,  through  to 
multi-annual programming, and greater simplification at implementation level to increase 
efficiency and effectiveness. 

  The balance between long-term commitments to support reforms in partner countries and 
short-term  actions  should  be  reassessed.  This  points  to  a  tension  between  predictability, 
linked  to  aid  effectiveness  commitments  and  the  flexibility  of  the  EU’s  external 
assistance.  

  Overall,  consideration  needs  to  be  given  to  the  future  level  of  ambition  for  peace  and 
security  in  external  actions99.  Also,  based  on  recent  experience,  a  rapid  and  flexible 
capacity for crisis response will continue to be needed. 

  While  there  is  evidence  of  coherence  among  instruments,  this  could  be  enhanced  by 
streamlining their number. This would help to ensure better interactions at the operational 
level, in particular between geographic and thematic instruments and programmes that can 
intervene in the same areas. 

  Mainstreaming  of  EU  priorities,  while  overall  a  success  e.g.  for  climate  change  and 
environmental  protection,  has  proved  challenging  in  some  contexts,  in  particular  due  to 
resistance  from  partner  countries,  and  a  possible  tension  between  furthering  the  EU 
agenda,  e.g.  regarding  the  promotion  of  action  to  address  global  challenges  and  public 
goods or regarding migration and security, and the ownership and partnership principles. 

  The nexus between internal and external policy objectives needs to be better articulated. 
Alternative  approaches  to  this  cooperation  would  need  to  be  developed  building  on  the 
experience of the DCI Global Public Goods and Challenges programme and the PI, which 
has a global scope.  

  The principle of graduation in the DCI intentionally limited the EU's ability to cooperate 
with Upper Middle Income Countries through bilateral cooperation. The EU must pursue 
cooperation with all countries including more advanced developing countries and strategic 
partners, in line with the 2030 Agenda and the European Consensus on Development.  

  The  potential  for  cooperation  with  EU  Member  States,  notably 

joint 
programming, would need to be further strengthened. This however would require more 
commitment  from  both  partner  country  governments  and  Member  States  in  certain 
countries. 

through 

99 Commission COM (2017)2025 of 1 March 2017 - White Paper on the Future of Europe; COM(2017) 315 of 7 
June 2017 - Reflection Paper on the Future of European Defence; COM(2017) 358 of 28 June 2017 - Reflection 
Paper on the future of EU Finances. 

20 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Annexes  

Table 1 Spending by beneficiary country and region and per instrument / in EUR 

21 

DCI TotalBenefitting Zone2014201520162017TOTAL2014201520162017TOTALACP Countries50.00050.00050.00050.000Afghanistan202.117.199246.915.51480.012.500529.045.2135.455.03482.784.01868.499.400156.738.452Africa25.000.00045.389.112070.389.11218.454.14317.704.90936.159.052All Countries354.363.692477.729.883460.030.436255.364.8771.547.488.88828.808.414193.239.844116.665.509338.713.766Asia74.707.12376.373.10497.237.35527.917.210276.234.79250.00011.450.59727.610.79424.289.94463.401.334Asia & the Pacific / South5.000.0005.000.0001.537.4201.151.7772.689.197Bangladesh25.000.00099.050.000136.771.8411.678.159262.500.0006.438.47523.747.19730.185.672Bhutan44.000.00044.000.0001.500.0001.500.000Bolivia102.633.20020.000.0007.000.000129.633.2002.298.64135.753.173173.53938.225.353Brazil4.000.0004.000.00012.85512.855Cambodia50.000.00040.000.00030.000.00040.000.000160.000.0006.315.15021.679.4889.229.92637.224.565Cape Verde1.250.0005.000.0006.250.0001.250.0001.250.000Central Africa Region5.000.0005.000.0002.000.0002.000.000Central America Region34.000.00021.000.00055.000.00015.001.365162.03015.163.395Central Asia Region10.000.00076.300.00020.000.000297.320106.597.320574.44722.402.40810.535.03833.511.892Colombia67.000.00030.680.00040.000.000137.680.00010.447.40421.345.70031.793.104Cuba7.700.0001.850.0009.550.00043.5002.058.5042.102.004Ecuador13.400.0006.400.00019.800.0003.364.3743.364.374El Salvador5.000.00050.000.00055.000.000418.41032.035450.445EU Europe36.000.000250.00036.250.00012.125.54312.315.4582.216.35426.657.354Guatemala25.000.0005.000.00010.300.00015.000.00055.300.000116.3675.322.1915.438.558Guinea-Bissau4.000.0004.000.0001.265.8801.265.880Haiti5.000.0005.000.000419.2021.316.856122.4741.858.531Honduras51.600.00030.000.0005.668.32012.231.68099.500.0002.827.15013.520.3423.538.56719.886.059Iraq50.011.15443.400.00093.411.1544.010.75914.335.23118.345.990Kyrgyzstan30.000.00049.130.00023.000.000102.130.00045.53020.586.3772.342.53822.974.445Laos44.500.00031.000.00075.500.0006.120.1616.362.44112.482.602Latin America and Caribbean10.000.00020.500.00010.000.00040.500.0006.524.5444.905.00211.429.546Latin America Countries59.572.75963.493.537137.977.26370.210.000331.253.559900.19831.347.36034.876.31367.123.871Liberia6.000.0006.000.0000Madagascar8.000.0008.000.0001.830.9021.830.902Mali270.0006.000.0006.270.000147.825147.825Mauritius3.000.0003.000.0000Miscellaneous Countries329.576.970198.422.948299.720.55143.037.840870.758.309133.340.070166.690.507101.002.434401.033.011Mongolia8.200.0008.200.0001.482.119164.0621.646.181Myanmar60.000.00070.000.000-1.783.574128.216.42615.228.88924.241.8791.750.00541.220.772Near and Middle East020.000.00020.000.0000Nepal22.650.000125.000.00081.400.0001.650.000230.700.00056.470.7753.635.18360.105.958Nicaragua8.000.00020.000.00020.000.00048.000.0006.640.7971.461.4478.102.244Niger11.000.000663.14311.663.1434.001.0254.001.025Pacific Region1.900.0001.900.0001.509.9201.509.920Pakistan97.500.000128.000.00045.520.00060.000.000331.020.000601.62521.661.08510.167.75232.430.461Pan-African region97.577.288101.404.04081.382.00788.280.888368.644.22319.549.03751.074.37638.590.783109.214.197Paraguay1.984.0002.000.00057.660.0001.650.00063.294.000457.6251.048.3242.493.3863.999.334Peru5.000.00043.300.000-8.89548.291.1054.650.00012.494.428697.59417.842.022Philippines76.000.0006.100.00082.100.00014.699.345579.00915.278.354Rwanda4.000.0004.000.0002.006.6002.006.600Samoa3.000.0003.000.0000Seychelles3.000.0003.000.000246.560422.650669.210South Africa27.795.00064.245.800-120.92091.919.8805.141.3127.549.7952.206.87814.897.985South East Asia Region35.000.00030.000.00040.000.000105.000.0001.309.4551.560.4136.977.0709.846.938Sri Lanka14.000.00038.000.00012.000.00030.000.00094.000.0004.467.6536.235.20610.702.860Sudan8.500.0008.500.0000Suriname3.000.0003.000.0001.050.0001.050.000Tajikistan35.000.00015.000.00050.000.0004.454.7722.326.0276.780.799Territories to the east of Jordan2.500.000-1.256.580-73.2771.170.143379.113588.90828.523996.544Thailand13.700.00013.700.0004.312.6251.073.7055.386.330Togo10.000.00010.000.0000Turkmenistan9.530.0009.530.0000Non-country allocated313.489.148171.967.039200.886.05013.349.529699.691.7653.089.56081.204.489199.293.05494.974.110378.561.212Uzbekistan20.000.00021.500.000600.00042.100.0003.169.2604.278.8617.448.121Vietnam14.000.0001.100.000108.000.000123.100.0000West Africa Region5.200.0005.200.0000Yemen51.000.00023.104.9148.895.08683.000.00023.677.43617.498.70841.176.144TOTAL2.050.574.1802.407.093.9032.597.992.151796.371.9977.852.032.2317.789.560329.879.3441.151.157.103671.057.2392.159.883.246Paid AmountCommitted AmountDCI ACPBenefitting Zone2014201520162017TOTAL2014201520162017TOTALPan-African region97.577.288101.404.04081.382.00788.280.888368.644.22319.549.03751.074.37638.590.783109.214.197South Africa27.795.00064.245.800-120.92091.919.8805.141.3127.549.7952.206.87814.897.985All countries10.000.00010.000.00040.21040.210TOTAL97.577.288129.199.040155.627.80788.159.968470.564.102024.690.34958.624.17140.837.871124.152.391Committed AmountPaid Amount 
 
 
 
 
 
22 

DCI ALABolivia102.633.20020.000.000122.633.2002.298.64135.753.173173.53938.225.353Central America Region34.000.00021.000.00055.000.00015.001.365162.03015.163.395Colombia67.000.00030.680.00040.000.000137.680.00010.447.40421.345.70031.793.104Cuba7.700.0001.850.0009.550.00043.5002.058.5042.102.004Ecuador13.400.0006.400.00019.800.0003.364.3743.364.374El Salvador5.000.00050.000.00055.000.000418.41032.035450.445Guatemala25.664.3135.000.00010.300.00015.000.00055.964.313527.891116.3675.322.1915.966.449Honduras51.600.00030.000.0005.668.32012.231.68099.500.0002.827.15013.520.3423.538.56719.886.059Latin America and Caribbean10.000.00012.000.00022.000.0005.076.7433.552.1688.628.910Latin America Countries59.572.75963.493.537137.977.26370.210.000331.253.559900.19831.347.36034.876.31367.123.871Nicaragua8.000.00020.000.00020.000.00048.000.0006.640.7971.461.4478.102.244Paraguay1.984.0002.000.00057.660.0001.650.00063.294.000457.6251.048.3242.493.3863.999.334Peru43.300.00043.300.00012.153.323697.59412.850.917Totals259.804.272309.493.537348.535.583145.141.6801.062.975.0727.011.504131.567.10879.077.847217.656.459Benefitting ZoneCommitted AmountTotalsPaid Amount2014201520162017Totals2014201520162017DCI AsiaAfghanistan182.500.000202.117.199246.915.51480.012.500711.545.2135.455.03482.784.01868.499.400156.738.452All Asia94.707.12396.373.104167.237.35527.917.210386.234.79250.00011.450.59727.617.96638.687.05077.805.612Bangladesh31.000.00091.050.000136.771.8411.678.159260.500.0008.564.52923.747.19732.311.726Bhutan39.000.00039.000.0001.500.0001.500.000Cambodia50.000.00040.000.00030.000.00040.000.000160.000.0006.315.15021.679.4889.229.92637.224.565Central Asia Region10.000.00076.300.00020.000.000297.320106.597.320574.44722.402.40810.535.03833.511.892Iraq50.011.15443.400.00093.411.1544.010.75914.335.23118.345.990Kyrgyzstan30.000.00049.130.00023.000.000102.130.00045.53020.586.3772.342.53822.974.445Laos44.500.00031.000.00075.500.0006.120.1616.362.44112.482.602Mongolia8.200.0008.200.0001.482.119164.0621.646.181Myanmar120.000.00070.000.000-1.783.574188.216.42615.228.88950.044.3021.750.00567.023.195Nepal22.650.000127.000.00081.400.0001.691.644232.741.64457.939.6593.688.13261.627.790Pakistan97.500.000124.000.00045.520.00060.000.000327.020.000601.62521.661.0859.491.68931.754.398Philippines76.000.0006.100.00082.100.00014.699.345579.00915.278.354South Asia Region10.000.00010.000.0004.000.0004.000.000Sri Lanka14.000.00038.000.00012.000.00030.000.00094.000.0004.467.6536.235.20610.702.860Tajikistan35.031.91415.000.00050.031.91431.9144.454.7722.326.0276.812.713Territories to the east of Jordan2.500.000-1.256.580-73.2771.170.143379.113588.90828.523996.544Thailand10.000.00010.000.0003.063.0481.073.7054.136.752Turkmenistan9.530.0009.530.000000Uzbekistan20.000.00026.500.000600.00047.100.0006.169.2604.278.86110.448.121Vietnam14.000.0001.100.000108.000.000123.100.000000Yemen51.000.00023.104.9148.895.08683.000.00023.677.43617.498.70841.176.144Totals869.089.0371.034.581.4571.046.439.469251.018.6423.201.128.60581.91444.050.385382.013.292222.352.747648.498.338Benefitting ZoneCommitted AmountTotalsPaid Amount2014201520162017Totals2014201520162017DCI CSO-LABenefitting Zone2014201520162017TOTAL2014201520162017TOTALAll Countries212.764.950226.381.335246.680.952255.803.719941.630.956017.442.547111.678.82873.795.397202.916.772EU Europe36.000.000250.0000036.250.000012.125.54312.315.4582.216.35426.657.354TOTAL248.764.950226.632.045246.685.178255.803.719977.885.892029.568.799123.997.91576.011.750229.578.465Paid AmountCommitted AmountDCI ENERBenefitting Zone2014201520162017TOTAL2014201520162017TOTALAll Countries82.851.74267.875.23686.191.4120236.918.39004.169.08237.000.0005.416.64746.585.729TOTAL82.851.74267.875.23686.191.4120236.918.39004.169.08237.000.0005.416.64746.585.729Committed AmountPaid AmountINSCBenefitting Zone2014201520162017TOTAL2014201520162017TOTALArmenia01.000.0003.700.00004.700.000000239.726239.726Belarus01.000.0003.500.00004.500.00000000Central Asia Region11.600.0008.000.0000019.600.000012.764.4493.685.551016.450.000China03.000.000003.000.000000579.899579.899Iran005.000.00005.000.000000419.126419.126Iraq1.500.0000001.500.00000000Miscellaneous Countries4.046.87210.386.7867.669.45637.984.13160.087.2450126.3334.336.8291.965.6966.428.859Morocco02.000.000002.000.00000000South East Asia Region001.000.00001.000.00000000Tanzania4.000.0000004.000.000001.201.20001.201.200Turkey003.000.00003.000.00000000Ukraine8.200.00034.500.00046.500.000089.200.0000063.580.0928.794.90872.375.000TOTAL29.346.87259.886.78670.369.45637.984.131197.587.245012.890.78272.803.67311.999.35597.693.810Committed AmountPaid Amount 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
23 

DCI ENVBenefitting Zone2014201520162017TOTAL2014201520162017TOTALACP Countries50.00000050.000050.0000050.000Africa010.000.00020.000.000030.000.000005.168.33313.1255.181.458All Countries45.628.31023.059.01618.985.271087.672.59702.199.41613.836.5829.980.05926.016.057Asia & the Pacific / South05.000.000005.000.000001.537.4201.151.7772.689.197Bangladesh08.000.000008.000.000001.474.00201.474.002Bhutan005.000.00005.000.00000000Cape Verde005.000.00005.000.00000000Central Africa Region5.000.0000005.000.000002.000.00002.000.000Guinea-Bissau04.000.000004.000.000001.265.88001.265.880Latin America and Caribbean08.500.00010.000.000018.500.000001.447.8011.352.8342.800.636Liberia006.000.00006.000.00000000Madagascar08.000.000008.000.000001.830.90201.830.902Mali270.00006.000.00006.270.0000147.82500147.825Mauritius003.000.00003.000.00000000Miscellaneous Countries41.500.00060.000.00046.300.0000147.800.00002.696.44025.113.2819.142.87836.952.600Niger11.000.0000663.143011.663.143004.001.02504.001.025Pacific Region1.900.0000001.900.000001.509.92001.509.920Peru5.000.00000-8.8954.991.1054.650.0000341.10504.991.105Rwanda4.000.0000004.000.000002.006.60002.006.600Samoa03.000.000003.000.00000000Seychelles3.000.0000003.000.00000246.560422.650669.210South East Asia Region010.000.0000010.000.0000001.508.5841.508.584Sudan008.500.00008.500.00000000Suriname03.000.000003.000.000001.050.00001.050.000Togo0010.000.000010.000.00000000Non-country allocated46.700.00034.082.70431.020.0000111.802.7042.550.00023.958.80424.121.20922.014.15072.644.162West Africa Region005.200.00005.200.00000000TOTAL164.048.310176.641.720175.668.414-8.895516.349.5487.200.00029.052.48586.950.62145.586.057168.789.162Committed AmountPaid AmountDCI ERASMBenefitting Zone2014201520162017TOTAL2014201520162017TOTALAll countries100.356.94696.212.671111.672.63913.657.885321.900.141507.64643.156.74186.867.44745.170.650175.702.485TOTAL100.356.94696.212.671111.672.63913.657.885321.900.141507.64643.156.74186.867.44745.170.650175.702.485Committed AmountPaid AmountDCI FOODBenefitting Zone2014201520162017TOTAL2014201520162017TOTALAll Countries1.000.000123.824.295106.172.802-438.842230.558.2550173.70320.637.57725.042.85745.854.137Bolivia007.000.00007.000.00000000Brazil04.000.000004.000.00000012.85512.855Cape Verde01.250.000001.250.00001.250.000001.250.000Haiti5.000.0000005.000.0000419.2021.316.856122.4741.858.531Miscellaneous Countries153.782.99037.897.01091.906.730-523.612283.063.118022.684.45852.554.53734.302.969109.541.964Pakistan04.000.000004.000.000000676.063676.063South East Asia Region15.000.00000015.000.00001.309.4551.560.4131.650.8944.520.762Non-country allocated26.200.000548.774189.185026.937.95907.537.4695.570.8064.310.31817.418.593TOTAL200.982.990171.520.079205.268.717-962.454576.809.333033.374.28781.640.18866.118.431181.132.906Committed AmountPaid AmountDCI HUMABenefitting Zone2014201520162017TOTAL2014201520162017TOTALAll Countries11.200.00036.590.0002.000.000049.790.00004.669.5549.929.3692.430.55017.029.472Multicountry Countries101.893.98074.920.558148.633.82142.516.179367.964.5380101.893.98077.297.60350.743.108229.934.691Non-country allocated50.000.00041.730.14238.030.14238.030.14241.730.14238.030.14238.030.14239.279.72038.030.14239.279.720TOTAL163.093.980153.240.700163.633.82142.516.179522.484.6800106.593.676135.466.55061.066.955303.127.180Committed AmountPaid AmountDCI IMIGRBenefitting Zone2014201520162017TOTAL2014201520162017TOTALAfrica015.000.00025.389.112040.389.1120013.285.81017.691.78430.977.594All Countries918.690000918.6900154.112157.4880311.600Miscellaneous Countries32.400.00025.605.38012.880.0001.045.27371.930.65306.065.19211.725.0856.813.47824.603.755Near and Middle East0020.000.000020.000.00000000Non-country allocated13.185.9751.092.0380014.278.01301.992.7331.861.4274.913.0238.767.183TOTAL46.504.66541.697.41858.269.1121.045.273147.516.46808.212.03727.029.81029.418.28564.660.132Committed AmountPaid AmountEIDHRBenefitting Zone2014201520162017TOTAL2014201520162017TOTALAll Countries132.782.020131.003.323131.138.879134.054.486528.978.7087.946.25237.294.00483.201.14959.659.542188.100.947TOTAL132.782.020131.006.878131.138.879134.054.486528.982.2637.946.25237.297.55983.201.14959.659.542188.104.502Committed AmountPaid AmountGRLDBenefitting Zone2014201520162017TOTAL2014201520162017TOTALGreenland24.569.47130.698.71531.130.00031.630.000118.028.18610.529.89430.273.58937.087.557077.891.040TOTAL24.569.47130.698.71531.130.00031.630.000118.028.18610.529.89430.273.58937.087.557077.891.040Committed AmountPaid Amount 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
24 

ICSPBenefitting Zone2014201520162017TOTAL2014201520162017TOTALAfghanistan008.000.00008.000.0000003.539.1223.539.122Africa0000000000All Countries19.000.00025.000.00027.000.000071.000.0001.339.7575.433.24112.531.4995.395.18424.699.681Bosnia and Herzegovina767.00002.800.00003.567.00000750.3941.537.6852.288.079Burkina Faso05.500.0005.200.000010.700.00003.476.5665.648.434218.1939.343.193Burundi04.000.000004.000.000002.756.902383.0983.140.000Cameroon04.000.000004.000.00003.364.355003.364.355Caribbean007.000.00007.000.000005.432.68405.432.684Central African Republic10.650.00013.800.0008.100.000032.550.000014.447.5653.815.6862.662.25820.925.509Central America Region01.400.000001.400.0000810.604450.04201.260.646Chad14.000.0008.000.0000022.000.00008.391.9487.339.452015.731.400Colombia05.000.00020.600.000025.600.00002.811.19510.093.9813.655.05916.560.235Congo (Democratic Republic of the)14.000.00004.000.000018.000.00001.030.7484.964.8873.609.2739.604.908Ethiopia0018.000.000018.000.0000014.286.193014.286.193Gabon000800.000800.00000000Gambia000500.000500.000000405.743405.743Georgia07.500.000007.500.000003.124.7842.329.3365.454.120Guatemala0001.250.0001.250.00000000Guinea (Conakry)03.900.000003.900.000002.875.23902.875.239Horn of Africa001.700.00001.700.00000000India01.600.0001.500.00003.100.00001.019.5751.370.09602.389.671Iraq6.000.00015.000.0005.800.0007.700.00034.500.0004.800.0003.362.31411.102.4433.228.80522.493.562Ivory Coast008.500.00008.500.00000000Jordan010.000.0005.280.000015.280.000004.990.7133.760.1928.750.904Kenya007.300.00007.300.0000001.000.0001.000.000Kosovo (under UNSCR 1244/99)01.560.000001.560.000001.404.54601.404.546Kyrgyzstan03.000.000003.000.0000150.0001.968.12864.1662.182.294Lebanon010.000.00022.000.000032.000.00006.811.8395.409.9452.470.44914.692.233Libya4.500.00010.500.00016.900.000031.900.00006.986.0535.957.7195.790.94018.734.712Mali012.000.0000012.000.0000400.0004.347.5905.717.28910.464.879Miscellaneous Countries82.255.22372.128.83165.593.0760219.977.13009.328.61642.408.56713.819.33565.556.518Mozambique001.200.00001.200.00000000Myanmar002.320.00002.320.000001.333.17301.333.173Nepal07.000.000007.000.000005.903.871600.0006.503.871Niger2.580.00015.500.000800.000018.880.00004.248.21110.669.496498.91815.416.625Nigeria09.000.00005.000.00014.000.00002.811.9573.627.295451.8966.891.148Pakistan07.300.00010.000.000017.300.000007.730.93007.730.930Philippines05.500.0001.092.1773.107.8239.700.00002.802.5311.712.5993.679.8428.194.972Region Eastern Europe and Central Asia01.500.000001.500.000001.280.08201.280.082Senegal02.000.000002.000.000001.489.529301.0591.790.588Somalia7.000.0006.500.000450.000013.950.00003.300.0007.613.446352.68811.266.134South Sudan10.000.00005.000.000015.000.0003.509.8722.614.385570.50406.694.761Sri Lanka01.200.0008.100.00009.300.00001.080.00005.913.6746.993.674Sudan13.500.00000013.500.0003.633.8144.874.0352.626.56545.30211.179.715Syria21.987.0337.200.00015.470.00010.000.00054.657.03307.310.89214.954.4185.246.49627.511.806Tanzania01.000.000001.000.0000799.4740175.284974.759Thailand0600.00000600.00000406.4130406.413Tunisia04.000.000004.000.000001.237.69601.237.696Turkey17.000.000028.500.000045.500.00008.917.62116.663.9311.043.94126.625.493Ukraine16.500.00030.506.00024.418.6423.000.00074.424.64210.332.09012.162.53123.572.15514.199.04260.265.818Uzbekistan02.500.000002.500.00002.000.000500.00002.500.000West Africa Region16.500.00000016.500.000012.417.276468.689451.88813.337.852West Bank and Gaza Strip11.000.0008.000.0002.000.000021.000.00008.532.9554.803.7445.272.60418.609.303Yemen3.000.0000003.000.0000209.0641.817.87702.026.941TOTAL270.239.256323.194.831334.630.75931.360.449959.425.29423.615.533141.905.551262.018.50097.819.461525.359.046Committed AmountPaid AmountPartnership InstrumentBenefitting Zone2014201520162017TOTAL2014201520162017TOTALAll Countries102.058.73098.210.000101.952.00083.550.000385.770.730012.839.87633.408.43222.559.31368.807.620Miscellaneous Countries1.000.0001.000.000002.000.0000216.748558.13791.003865.888Strategic partners3.500.0000-39.74403.460.25602.422.179028.1692.450.348Non-country allocated9.369.25915.555.36622.796.6147.259.13854.980.378221.42711.383.78418.747.16211.515.77141.868.144TOTAL115.927.989114.765.366124.708.87090.809.138446.211.364221.42726.862.58652.713.73034.194.255113.992.000Committed AmountPaid AmountIPA 2Benefitting Zone2014201520162017TOTAL2014201520162017TOTALAlbania68.700.000         88.900.000         82.440.000         240.040.000      -                        1.355.521           34.375.410         5.624.164           41.355.096         Bosnia and Herzegovina65.700.000         39.700.000         50.000.000         2.896.631           158.296.631      2.825.982           10.107.113         8.938.529           8.012.136           29.883.760         Facility for Refugees in Turkey 37.000.000         110.390.000      147.390.000      -                        Kosovo (under UNSCR 1244/99)66.050.000         82.100.000         73.860.000         222.010.000      -                        1.515.322           10.772.576         12.371.492         24.659.390         Montenegro39.505.000         36.385.000         35.398.000         111.288.000      -                        665.349               9.036.878           12.579.549         22.281.776         IPA Regional, horizontal and other multi-country programmes348.010.000      364.200.000      418.620.000      105.513.464      1.236.343.464   3.715.636           98.359.312         151.432.286      81.171.933         334.679.167      Serbia179.010.000      216.100.000      189.400.000      584.510.000      -                        7.906.665           35.528.210         4.465.242           47.900.117         The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia81.700.000         67.200.000         64.500.000         213.400.000      -                        -                        11.752.773         7.887.256           19.640.029         Turkey620.380.000      626.710.000      631.140.000      1.878.230.000   -                        100.839.124      105.806.235      12.775.640         219.421.000      TOTAL Enlargement countries1.469.055.000   1.521.295.000   1.582.358.000   218.800.095      4.791.508.095   6.541.618           220.748.405      367.642.898      144.887.413      739.820.335      Committed AmountPaid Amount 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 2 Contributions to Facility for Refugees in Turkey in '000 EUR 

25 

Neighbourhood Instrument (ENI)Benefitting Zone2014201520162017TOTAL2014201520162017TOTALAlgeria26.300.000          25.000.000          30.000.000          10.000.000          91.300.000          -                         433.577                4.862.317            1.588.917            6.884.811            Armenia34.000.000          30.000.000          25.000.000          -                         89.000.000          -                         268.358                7.773.279            3.524.643            11.566.280          Azerbaijan16.730.053          14.500.000          13.500.000          -                         44.730.053          -                         249.258                2.225.533            515.288                2.990.079            Belarus19.000.000          14.500.000          29.000.000          -                         62.500.000          -                         100.627                3.884.818            2.543.170            6.528.614            ENI East Regional and other multi-country programmes (RAP, TAIEX, NIF, SIGMA)152.385.359       150.096.000       181.301.565       5.000.000            488.782.924       800.000                19.289.981          113.793.460       33.829.957          167.713.398       Egypt115.000.000       105.000.000       100.000.000       -                         320.000.000       -                         657.835                14.377.596          2.053.864            17.089.295          Facility for Refugees in Turkey 18.000.000          18.000.000          -                         Georgia131.000.000       100.000.000       109.500.000       -                         340.500.000       -                         10.759.548          45.657.152          9.622.524            66.039.224          Israel-                         2.000.000            1.800.000            3.800.000            -                         37.909                  1.803.479            1.657.522            3.498.910            Jordan174.500.000       100.000.000       140.000.000       30.000.000          444.500.000       -                         27.636.252          98.853.118          23.272.779          149.762.149       Lebanon140.575.452       40.000.000          40.000.000          -                         220.575.452       -                         46.107.057          21.084.350          3.401.692            70.593.099          Libya8.000.000            3.000.000            10.000.000          1.500.000            22.500.000          -                         -                         2.750.632            2.859.972            5.610.604            ENI South Regional and other multi-country programmes (RAP, TAIEX, NIF, SIGMA)229.116.262       196.046.490       181.633.000       5.000.000            611.795.752       -                         23.107.176          139.994.624       99.246.637          262.348.437       EU Regional Trust Fund in Response to the Syrian Crisis20.000.000          361.000.000       142.500.000       -                         523.500.000       -                         -                         -                         -                         -                         EU Emergency Trust Fund for Africa (North Africa Window)-                         -                         55.000.000          120.000.000       175.000.000       -                         -                         -                         -                         -                         Moldova131.000.000       90.000.000          89.000.000          -                         310.000.000       16.000.000          8.720.777            27.843.267          10.196.274          62.760.319          Morocco218.000.000       210.000.000       165.000.000       -                         593.000.000       -                         389.549                89.813.171          15.720.067          105.922.787       ENI Cross-border cooperation (CBC) and Erasmus+106.987.000       172.080.771       180.448.300       200.000.000       659.516.071       1.636.260            57.124.902          93.650.438          70.299.705          222.711.306       Syria41.250.000          48.000.000          59.965.435          10.000.000          159.215.435       -                         18.979.829          74.005.096          4.810.665            97.795.590          Tunisia141.886.586       155.800.000       213.500.000       -                         511.186.586       -                         76.179.613          58.226.141          9.187.142            143.592.897       Ukraine242.000.000       200.000.000       200.000.000       37.000.000          679.000.000       127.000.000       2.066.207            95.077.306          20.886.160          245.029.672       West Bank and Gaza Strip307.000.000       320.000.000       310.100.000       220.000.000       1.157.100.000    250.750.000       285.880.239       279.301.973       87.905.507          903.837.718       TOTAL ENI2.254.730.712    2.337.023.261    2.295.248.300    638.500.000       7.525.502.273    396.186.260       577.988.695       1.174.977.747    403.122.485       2.552.275.188    Committed AmountPaid Amount 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 3 Contributions to Trust Funds (disbursements from contributors / in EUR 
millions) 100 

100 Source: European Commission Service for International Cooperation and Development, July 2017. Figures as 
of 30 September 2017 based on the reporting package: Overview of all EU Trust Funds published by DG 
Budget 

26 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
27 

 
 
 
 
 
 
List of acronyms 

ACP 

DAC 

DCI 

Africa, Caribbean, Pacific 

OECD Development Assistance Committee 

Development Cooperation Instrument 

DG DEVCO 

Commission service for international cooperation and development 

DG NEAR 

Commission 
Negotiations 

service 

for  Neighbourhood  and  Enlargement 

EDF 

EIDHR 

EFI 

ENI 

EU 

FPI 

GD 

IPA 

INSC 

IcSP 

MTR 

OCTs 

OECD 

PI 

European Development Fund 

European Instrument for Democracy and Human Rights 

External Financing Instrument 

European Neighbourhood Instrument 

European Union 

Commission service for Foreign Policy Instruments 

Greenland Decision 

Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance 

Instrument for Nuclear Safety and Cooperation 

Instrument contributing to Stability and Peace 

Mid-Term Review 

Overseas Countries and Territories 

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development 

Partnership Instrument 

28