COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 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) Accompanying the document REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL Midterm Review Report on the External Financing Instruments
Date: 2017-12-15
Institutions: Directorate-General for International Cooperation and Development, European Commission
Subjects: Denmark, EU financial instrument, Greenland, cooperation in the field of education, development aid, economic development, financial aid, overseas countries and territories, sustainable development

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 15.12.2017  SWD(2017) 609 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 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) Accompanying the document REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL Midterm Review Report on the External Financing Instruments {COM(2017) 720 final} - {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}  
 
 
Contents 

Executive Summary ............................................................................................................... 2 

1. Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 4 

Purpose of the evaluation ................................................................................................... 4 

Scope of the evaluation ...................................................................................................... 4 

2. Background to the initiative ............................................................................................... 5 

Description of the Greenland Decision and its objectives ................................................. 5 

Baseline .............................................................................................................................. 7 

3. Method ............................................................................................................................... 8 

4. Implementation state of play .............................................................................................. 9 

5. Responses to the evaluation questions ............................................................................. 13 

Relevance ......................................................................................................................... 13 

Effectiveness .................................................................................................................... 14 

Efficiency ......................................................................................................................... 15 

EU added value ................................................................................................................ 15 

Coherence ......................................................................................................................... 16 

Leverage ........................................................................................................................... 17 

6. Conclusions ...................................................................................................................... 19 

Annex 1. Evaluation Questions ............................................................................................ 20 

Annex 2. Procedural information ......................................................................................... 23 

Annex 3. Synopsis report of the stakeholders' consultation ................................................. 27 

Annex 4. Acronyms .............................................................................................................. 39 

Annex 5. Full list of programme indicators ......................................................................... 40 

Annex 6. Background information on Greenland ................................................................ 42 

Annex 7. External evaluators' report, including its annexes. ............................................... 45 

1 

 
 
 
 
Executive Summary 

This  evaluation  assesses  the  attainment  of  the  objectives  of  the  2014-2020  Greenland 
Decision at the mid-point of its implementation. It assesses all measures taken at instrument 
level from January 2014 to June 2017. This evaluation is partly informed by an independent 
external  evaluation  and  is  based  on  a  wide-ranging  consultation  process,  which  included  a 
three-month  online  Open  Public  Consultation,  technical  workshops,  and  interviews  with 
stakeholders across the board. 
A limitation of this evaluation is that the indicator data measuring achievement of instrument 
objectives  for  2016  were  not  available  at  the  time  of  writing  and  thus  could  not  be  used. 
Another  limitation  is  that  the  mid-term  Review  of  the  Education  Programme  will  not  be 
available  until  after  this  evaluation  is  concluded  and  its  results  can  also  not  feed  into  this 
evaluation. 

The general objective of the Greenland Decision is to preserve close and lasting links among 
the  partners  (Greenland,  Denmark  and  the  EU).  Its  two  specific  objectives  are  to  support 
Greenland  in  addressing  its  major  challenges  (especially  the  diversification  of  its  economy) 
and  to  contribute  to  the  capacity  of  its  administration  to  formulate  and  implement  national 
policies. 

Greenland's small population of about 56,000 inhabitants is scattered widely over a vast and 
remote territory, where Arctic climatic conditions present an enormous challenge in terms of 
infrastructure,  providing  for  a  very  particular  social  and  economic  situation.  Greenland's 
public sector mainly relies on an annual "block grant" from Denmark, which constitutes over 
50 % of the annual national budget. Greenland's overarching goal is to attain economic self-
sufficiency that would no longer require it to rely on the Danish block grant. 

The  Programming  Document  for  the  Sustainable  Development  of  Greenland  2014-2020 
focuses on a single sector of cooperation in line with Greenland's top priority: education. The 
reason for singling out education stems from the wide political consensus in Greenland that 
education  is  the  most  relevant  growth  parameter  for  any  future  prosperity  and  societal 
development  leading  towards  economic  self-sufficiency.  The  indicative  allocation  of  the 
2014-2020 programme is EUR 217.8 million. 

The  focus  on  education  in  the  programme  has  addressed  beneficiaries'  needs  and  is  fully 
consistent  with  EU  policy  priorities  regarding  the  role  of  education  in  development  as 
reflected in the Agenda for Change and Sustainable Development Goals. 

The  economic  objectives  of  the  Greenland  Decision  are  long-term  and  not  immediately 
visible, but continued progress evidenced by the achievement of the instrument indicators of 
the Greenland Decision shows promise in the long-term. 

In  addition,  as  the  framework  for  relations  and  dialogue  with  Greenland,  the  Greenland 
Decision  remains  relevant.  Informal  dialogue  on  e.g.  the  Arctic,  high-level  visits  and 
cooperation in several fora have helped create a mutual understanding between the partners – 
the EU has gained a better understanding of the conditions in the Arctic, enabling it to better 
formulate relevant actions and policies, while Greenland supports the EU's application for an 
observer seat in the Arctic Council. 

In terms of EU added value, the conditions attached to EU Budget Support have strengthened 
Greenland's Public Financial Management system and the ability of its administration to plan 

2 

 
 
 
and  implement  policies,  including  in  sectors  other  than  education  (several  ministries  have 
begun  to  make  10-year  plans).  This  conditionality  is  the  crucial  difference  compared  to  the 
Danish block grant, which does not impose performance indicators. 

As  Greenland  belongs  to  the  group  of  EU  Overseas  Countries  and  Territories  (OCTs),  the 
Greenland  Decision  is  fully  coherent  with  the  Overseas  Association  Decision,  whose 
objectives  are  to  enhance  the  OCTs'  competitiveness,  strengthen  their  resilience  and  reduce 
their  economic  vulnerability,  inter  alia.  There  are  limited  complementarities  with  other 
External Financing Instruments which target poverty reduction, democracy and human rights, 
and stability and peace, as Greenland lives up to the Human Rights Convention as part of the 
Kingdom of Denmark (Denmark being the signatory). Greenland's good rule of law is based 
on Danish standards and the judicial system is the responsibility of Denmark. 

The Greenland Decision has effectively contributed to sustainable development in Greenland, 
although  at  this  stage  there  are  no  significant  spill-over  effects  in  terms  of  diversifying  the 
economy. The Greenland Decision's goal to strengthen relations is pursued through the Policy 
Dialogue on education and informal dialogues on other issues of mutual interest such as the 
Arctic. 

The Greenland Decision (instrument) is fit for purpose to deliver on its objectives to preserve 
close  and  lasting  links  between  Greenland,  Denmark  and  the  EU,  and  in  supporting 
Greenland  in  addressing  its  major  challenges  and  contributing  to  the  capacity  of  its 
administration  to  formulate  and  implement  national  policies.  It  has  been  designed  to  cover 
and better deliver on the wider political aims of the partnership linking Greenland, Denmark 
and  the  EU.  The  partnership  has  continued  to  deepen  throughout  the  2014-2017  period, 
especially  considering  the  enhanced  importance  of  the  Arctic  –  and  further  initiatives  have 
been taken to continue this work towards 2020. 

The  conclusions  of  this  evaluation  will  feed  into  the  reflection  on  how  to  improve  the 
implementation  of  the  Greenland  Decision  for  the  remaining  period  until  2020,  and  on  the 
future of External Financing Instruments in general for the post-2020 period. 

3 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
1. Introduction 
This  Staff  Working  Document 1  presents  the  results  of  the  mid-term  evaluation  of  the 
Greenland Decision (instrument)2 at the mid-point of its implementation. It assesses whether 
the 2014-2020 Greenland Decision  is fit for purpose to  deliver on its objectives  to preserve 
close and lasting links between Greenland, Denmark and the EU, and over the long-term, in 
supporting Greenland in addressing its major challenges (especially the diversification of its 
economy)  and  contributing  to  the capacity of its administration to  formulate and implement 
national policies. It is partly informed by an independent evaluation by external evaluators 
provided in Annex 7 and the Open Public Consultation provided in Annex 3. 

Purpose of the evaluation 

This  evaluation  is  retrospective  and responds  to  Article  7  of  the  Greenland  Decision  on  the 
implementation of the Decision that requires a report at the latest by June 2018. Its purpose is 
to inform future work on the instrument and its actions. This evaluation takes place in 2017 so 
as to be aligned with and ensure consistency with the mid-term review3 of the EU's External 
Financing  Instruments 4  under  Heading  4  'Global  Europe' 5  of  the  2014-2020  Multiannual 
Financial Framework6. 

Scope of the evaluation 

The  evaluation  covers  the  period  from  1  January  2014  to  1  June  2017  and  assesses  the 
achievement of the objectives of the Greenland Decision. The focus of the evaluation is set 
at instrument level (Greenland Decision). In consequence it focuses, to the extent possible, 
on  the  information  contained  in  the  Regulation  on  the  implementation  of  the  Greenland 
Decision (e.g. on its principles, objectives, scope, flexibility and complementarity with other 
instruments) rather than on the programme level which has been put in place on the basis of 
the instrument. However, in order to best evaluate the implementation of the instrument, the 
evaluation  also  covers  some  aspects  of  the  programme:  the  2014-2020  Programming 
Document  for  the  Sustainable  Development  of  Greenland7 (PDSD),  which  concentrates  its 

1 Also called ‘evaluation’ throughout the text (to be distinguished from the ‘external evaluation report’ in Annex 

7 to this Staff Working Document). 

2 Decision (EU) No 137/2014 of 15 March 2014 on relations between the European Union on the one hand, and 
Greenland and the Kingdom of Denmark on the other, OJ L76, p. 1. 
3 As requested in Article 17 of the Common Implementing Regulation (CIR), Regulation (EU) No 236/2014 of 

the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2014, OJ L77, p. 95. 

4 The Development Cooperation Instrument, the 11th European Development Fund which is outside of the EU 
budget, the European Neighbourhood Instrument, the European Instrument for Democracy and Human 
Rights, the Greenland Decision, the Instrument contributing to Stability and Peace, the Instrument for Pre-
accession Assistance, the Instrument on Nuclear Safety Cooperation, the Overseas Countries and Territories 
Decision, the Partnership Instrument and the Common Implementing Regulation. For the purpose of this 
exercise, the evaluation of the Overseas Countries and Territories Decision is included within the evaluation 
of the 11th European Development Fund. 

5 The Multi-annual Financial Framework is divided into six broad groups of expenditure called "Headings". The 

external financing instruments make up the majority of Heading 4: Global Europe. 

6 Regulation (EU) No 1311/2013 of  2 December 2013 laying down the multiannual financial framework for the 

years 2014-2020, OJ L 347 of 20 December 2013: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:32013R1311&from=EN 

7https://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/sites/devco/files/signed_programming_document_for_sustainable_development_

of_greenland_2014-2020_colour.pdf  

4 

 
 
 
                                                 
support on the education sector in Greenland (see section 3 and 4 below), as the programme 
indicators also measure the achievement of instrument objectives. 

This evaluation does not cover the Fisheries Partnership Agreement with Greenland8, as it is 
outside the scope of the Greenland Decision, nor the Overseas Association Decision9. As an 
Overseas  Country  and  Territory  (OCT),  Greenland  is  covered  by  the  Overseas  Association 
Decision  which  will  be  evaluated  as  part  of  the  evaluation  of  the  European  Development 
Fund10 (and thus not covered in this evaluation). 

In  accordance  with  the  Better  Regulation  Guidelines  11  and  aligning  with  the  Common 
Implementing  Regulation 12  applicable  to  External  Financing  Instruments  under  the  EU 
Budget,  the  following  evaluation  criteria  are  used:  relevance,  effectiveness,  efficiency, 
coherence, EU added value and leverage. 

2. Background to the initiative 

The  External  Financing  Instruments  constitute  a  major  part  of  the  abovementioned 
Multiannual Financial Framework13 – Heading 4 Global Europe, which provides the EU with 
the tools necessary to fulfil its role on the world stage and to ensure that it is able to live up to 
its ambitions in promoting its interests and universal values such as democracy, human rights, 
peace, solidarity, stability and poverty reduction, and safeguarding global public goods. 

Adopted  in  early  2014,  the  External  Financing  Instruments  were  designed  to  facilitate  and 
support policy implementation, with the intention of remaining relevant for the entire duration 
of  the  2014-2020  Multiannual  Financial  Framework  and  therefore  enabling  the  EU  to 
implement external action policies as needed. 

Description of the Greenland Decision and its objectives 

Greenland  is  a  self-governing  territory  within  the  Kingdom  of  Denmark.  Greenland's  small 
population  of  about  56,000  inhabitants  is  scattered  widely  over  a  vast  and  remote  territory, 
where Arctic climatic conditions present an enormous challenge in terms of infrastructure  – 
towns are not connected by road but are only accessible by boat or plane – which provides for 
a very particular social and economic situation in Greenland. The public sector mainly relies 
on the block grant from Denmark, which constitutes more than 50  % of the annual national 
budget.  Greenland's  overarching  goal  is  to  attain  economic  self-sufficiency  that  would  no 

8 Regulation (EC) No 753/2007 of 28 June 2007 on the conclusion of the Fisheries Partnership Agreement 
between the European Community, the Government of Denmark and the Home Rule Government of Greenland, 
OJ L 172, 30.06.2007, p.1 
9 Decision (EU) No 755/2013 of 25 November 2013 on the association of the overseas countries and territories 
with the European Union, OJ L 344, 19.12.2013, p. 1. 
10 See footnote 4 
11 Communication 'Better regulation for better results - An EU agenda', COM (2015) 215 

http://ec.europa.eu/smart-regulation/better_regulation/documents/com_2015_215_en.pdf , and 'Better 
Regulation Guidelines' Commission Staff Working Document, SWD (2015) 111 http://ec.europa.eu/smart-
regulation/guidelines/docs/swd_br_guidelines_en.pdf. 

12 Regulation (EU) No 236/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2014, OJ L77, p. 

95.  

13 Regulation (EU, EURATOM) No 1311/2013 of 2 December 2013 laying down the multiannual financial 

framework for the years 2014-2020, OJ L 347, p. 884. 

5 

 
 
 
                                                 
longer require it to rely on the Danish block grant14 and would thereby enable Greenland to 
achieve greater autonomy by taking over more areas of responsibility, as laid out in the Self-
Government  Act 15 .  Greenland  has  e.g.  created  a  commission  tasked  with  drafting  a 
constitution with future independence from Denmark in view16. 

Greenland joined the European Community (EC) as part of Denmark in 1973. After gaining 
home rule in 1979 and holding a referendum in 1982, Greenland withdrew from the EC, and 
the  Greenland  Treaty 17  came  into  force  in  1985.  Being  part  of  an  EU  Member  State, 
Greenland  was  thereafter  associated  to  the  EC  as  one  of  the  Overseas  Countries  and 
Territories  (OCTs) 18.  The  relations  between  the  EU  and  the  25  OCTs  linked  to  an  EU 
Member State are established by the Overseas Association Decision19. 

Additionally,  in  1985  the  EU  signed  a  fisheries  agreement  with  Greenland.  This  ensured 
continued  access  of  EU  Member  States  to  important  fisheries  resources  gained  while 
Greenland  was  still  part  of  the  EC.  Following  the  mid-term  review  of  the  Fourth  Fisheries 
Protocol  (2002),  the  European  Council  concluded  it  was  necessary  to  broaden  and 
strengthen  EU-Greenland  relations,  taking  into  account  the  importance  of  fisheries  and 
Greenland's  structural  development  problems 20 .  It  decided  that  a  new  instrument  should 
mitigate any negative impact of a new, more commercial fisheries agreement on Greenland's 
ability to address its structural problems, namely the need to diversify its economy from the 
traditional sectors, such as fisheries (89.4 % of total exports in 2015). 

This  resulted  in  the  2007  Fisheries  Partnership  Agreement21 and  the  Greenland  Decision22, 
which defines the framework for cooperation between the EU, Greenland and Denmark. 

The  initial  Greenland  Decision  (2007-2013)23,  which  expired  on  31  December  2013,  was 
followed  by  the  current  2014-2020  Greenland  Decision 24 ,  which  provides  for  financial 
cooperation between the EU and Greenland (excluding the fisheries aspect, which is covered 

14 Find more information on Greenland in Annex 6 
15 Act on Greenland Self-Government: 

http://naalakkersuisut.gl/~/media/Nanoq/Files/Attached%20Files/Engelske-
tekster/Act%20on%20Greenland.pdf 

16 Coalition Agreement 2016: 

http://naalakkersuisut.gl/~/media/Nanoq/Files/Attached%20Files/Naalakkersuisut/DK/Koalitionsaftaler/Koa
litionsaftale_S_IA_PN_eng.pdf  

17 Treaty amending, with regard to Greenland, the Treaties establishing the European Communities, OJ L 29, 
01.02.1985, p. 1 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=OJ:L:1985:029:FULL&from=EN 
18 Find full list of Overseas Countries and Territories in the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, OJ 

C 326, 26.10.2012, p. 47 - Annex II. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal 
content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:12012E/TXT&from=EN 

19 Decision (EU) No 755/2013, OJ L 344, 19.12.2013, p. 1. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32013D0755&from=EN 
20 Council conclusions of 24 February 2003.  
21 Regulation (EU) No 753/2007, OJ L 172, 30.06.2007, p.1. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/?qid=1461587826387&uri=CELEX:32007R0753 
22 Decision No 526/2006 of 17 July 2006 on relations between the European Community on the one hand and 
Greenland and the Kingdom of Denmark on the other, OJ L 208, 29.7.2006, p. 28. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/?qid=1502356761075&uri=CELEX:32006D0526  
23 Decision No 526/2006, OJ L 208, 29.7.2006,  p. 28  
24 Decision (EU) No 137/2014, OJ L 76, 15.03.2014, p. 1. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/HU/ALL/?uri=uriserv:OJ.L_.2014.076.01.0001.01.ENG 

6 

 
 
 
                                                 
by  the  Fisheries  Partnership  Agreement)  and  enhanced  dialogue  in  areas  of  mutual  interest. 
The  specific  arrangements  for  Greenland  are  based  on  Article  203  of  the  Treaty  on  the 
Functioning  of  the  EU  and  are  laid  down  in  the  Overseas  Association  Decision.  The 
Greenland Decision complements the Overseas Association Decision. 

Objectives of the Greenland Decision 

Echoing  the  Preamble  of  the  Greenland  Treaty 25,  the  general  objective  of  the  Greenland 
Decision is to preserve the close  and lasting  links between the partners, while supporting 
the sustainable development of Greenland26. The Decision has two specific objectives27: 

  To  support  and  to  cooperate  with  Greenland  in  addressing  its  major  challenges,  in 

particular the sustainable diversification of the economy. 

  To  contribute  to  the  capacity  of  the  administration  of  Greenland  to  formulate  and 
implement national policies, especially in areas of mutual interest identified in the 2014-
2020 Programming Document for the Sustainable Development of Greenland (PDSD). 

The  general  principles  of  the  Greenland  Decision 28  envisage  a  framework  for  policy 
dialogue  as  a  basis  for  broad  cooperation  on  issues  of  common  interest  such  as  energy, 
climate  change  and  environment,  natural  resources  (including  raw  materials),  maritime 
transport, research and innovation, and Arctic issues. 

The  2014-2020  EU  Multiannual  Financial  Framework 29  allocates  EUR  217.8  million  to 
cooperation  with  Greenland.  The  area  of  cooperation  chosen  by  Greenland  is  the 
education/training  sector,  which  is  established  as  the  single  focal  sector  in  the  PDSD.  The 
PDSD  uses  the  Budget  Support  modality,  in  line  with  the  Greenland  Decision30 and  given 
Greenland's sound macroeconomic policy and Public Financial Management. 

The  reason  for  singling  out  education/training  stems  from  the  wide  political  consensus  in 
Greenland that education is the most relevant growth parameter for any future prosperity of 
the  country,  diversification  of  its  economy  and  ultimately  economic  self-sufficiency. 
Greenland's education sector faces serious challenges given the country's particular climatic, 
infrastructural, social and economic circumstances. Greenland's goal is to improve access to 
education, decrease drop-out rates and increase the overall level of educational attainment. In 
phase I of its Education Programme (2007-2013) emphasis was put on vocational training. In 
phase II (2014-2020), covered by the PDSD, it is on pre- and elementary school systems, with 
continued support for vocational training and post-elementary education. 

Baseline 

As  this  is  a  mid-term  evaluation,  the  baseline  has  been  set  at  January  2014  when  the 
Greenland Decision was adopted. Therefore the evaluation compares, to the extent possible, 
the situation on 1 January 2014 with the situation in mid-2017. For evaluation criteria where 
availability  of  data  is  limited,  the  previous  instrument  period  (2007-2013)  has  been  used  to 

25 Treaty, OJ L 29, 01.02.1985, p. 1 
26Decision (EU) No 137/2014, OJ L 76, 15.03.2014, Article 1. 
27Decision (EU) No 137/2014, OJ L 76, 15.03.2014, Article 3. 
28Decision (EU) No 137/2014, OJ L 76, 15.03.2014, Article 2. 
29 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:32013R1311&from=EN 
30 See recital 15 of Decision (EU) No 137/2014, OJ L 76, 15.03.2014. 

7 

 
 
 
                                                 
detect the longer-term effects of EU support to Greenland (see section 4), considering that the 
main objectives of the instrument have not been changed compared to the former 2007-2013 
Greenland Decision. 

To measure the performance of the Greenland Decision in achieving its overall objective and 
in  particular  the  specific  objectives  as  outlined  above,  a  number  of  indicators  has  been 
developed on the basis of the Decision31. These indicators are presented with their baseline in 
table 4, section 5 – implementation state of play. However, the scope of these indicators is by 
definition  very  general  (economic  and  international  development)  and  there  is  no  certainty 
that their results can be directly attributed to the Greenland Decision. 

3. Method  

This evaluation follows the approach set out in the 2015 Greenland Decision Roadmap32. It is 
partly  informed  by  an  independent  external  evaluation,  which  is  based  on  a  wide-ranging 
consultation process33, including stakeholder sessions and an online Open Public Consultation 
accessible worldwide34. 

Balanced  attention  was  given  to  the  different  categories  of  stakeholders.  Consultations  took 
place  both  in  the  EU  and  in  Greenland,  in  addition  to  the  online  Open Public  Consultation. 
This  evaluation  relies  partly  on  data  collected  by  independent  consultants  for  the  external 
evaluation  but  also  uses  data  from  other  relevant  documentation  such  as  Aides-Memoire, 
Annual Implementation Reports and inputs from the Open Public Consultation. 

Limitations – Robustness of process and findings 

One limitation to measuring observable effects at instrument level is the short duration of the 
programme  period  under  review  (1  January  2014  -  1  June  2017).  The  programme  includes 
indicators  measuring  the  objectives  of  the  instrument  but  the  data  on  the  achievement  of 
indicators  for  2016  were  not  available  at  the  time  of  writing  because  Greenland  had  not 
finished calculating all the data for 2016 by 1 June 2017 – and therefore it could not be used 
in  this  evaluation.  The  available  data  on  achievement  of  the  instrument  indicators  has 
therefore been interpreted with the results of the previous programme (2007-2013) in mind in 
order to ensure a more solid basis, but as a general rule 2014 is the baseline. 

Another limitation is that the  mid-term review of the  education programme (PDSD)35 will 
not  be  conducted  until  after  this  evaluation  has  been  concluded.  Its  results  therefore  cannot 
feed  into  this  evaluation.  Furthermore,  it  is  a  limitation  that  this  evaluation  only  targets  the 
instrument  level,  as  the  Greenland  Decision  provides  a  framework  for  relations  with 
Greenland but most actions and their monitoring are undertaken under the PDSD rather than 
at  instrument  level.  This  entails  a  difficult  balance  of  analysing  programming  achievements 
related to the instrument objectives without losing sight of the instrument focus. 

31 Decision (EU) No 137/2014, OJ L 76, 15.03.2014, Article 3 
32 http://ec.europa.eu/smart-regulation/roadmaps/docs/2017_devco_005_evaluation_greenland_en.pdf 
33 See details in Annex 3 
34 https://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/public-consultation-external-financing-instruments-european-union_en. 
35 https://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/sites/devco/files/signed_programming_document_for_sustainable_development

_of_greenland_2014-2020_colour.pdf 

8 

 
 
 
                                                 
Notwithstanding  these  limitations,  the  evaluation  is  based  on  the  review  of  best  available 
quantitative  and  qualitative  evidence.  It  makes  use  of  stakeholders'  views,  the  external 
evaluation  and  extensive  public  consultation.  The  data  used,  such  as  programme 
documentation,  policy  papers,  studies  and  evaluations  have  been  robust  and  valid.  The 
Greenland Statistical Office provided reliable, comprehensive and up-to-date information on 
all aspects of the Greenlandic society and economy – including the instrument indicators. 

Review of the external evaluation 

The  external  evaluation 36  of  the  Greenland  Decision 37  was  commissioned  to  inform  this 
evaluation.  Commission  services  through  this  Staff  Working  Document  largely  support  the 
findings and conclusions of the external evaluation. There is a difference of opinion between 
the  consultants  and  the  Commission  services  regarding  the  scope  of  the  formal  Policy 
Dialogue beyond education, which is addressed under section 6. 

4. Implementation state of play 

This section presents the progress made in implementing the Greenland Decision38 since 2014 
and the monitoring systems used to measure progress. 

The Greenland Decision 

The background and objectives of the Greenland Decision are laid out in section 2 above. 

Preserving close and lasting links – Framework for policy dialogue 
One of the general objectives of the Greenland Decision is to preserve the close and lasting 
links between the EU and Greenland, inter alia by defining a framework for policy dialogue 
on issues of common interest for the partners. This ambition has further been underlined by 
the  Joint  Declaration39 signed  in  March  2015  by  the  President  of  the  Commission  and  the 
Prime  Ministers  of  both  Greenland  and  Denmark,  reaffirming  the  importance  of  relations 
established in the Greenland Decision. The ambition to  maintain  and  strengthen  relations 
and dialogue has been achieved through several initiatives besides education support. 

There is a bi-annual Policy Dialogue with Greenland, which has focused on education up to 
now.  As  the  support  to  the  education  sector  is  implemented  through  the  Budget  Support 
modality,  this  formal  framework  is  mandatory  due  to  Budget  Support  Guidelines  (see  more 
under monitoring). There have been attempts to expand this official policy dialogue to include 
areas of mutual interest  other  than  education, most recently during the Policy Dialogue in 
2016.40 But  with  the  parties  focusing  on  discussions  in  other  existing  fora,  this  has  not  yet 
been achieved. Meanwhile, even though a structured and formal dialogue is not mandated by 

36 External Evaluation to be found in Annex 7 
37 Decision (EU) No 137/2014, OJ L 76, p. 1. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/HU/ALL/?uri=uriserv:OJ.L_.2014.076.01.0001.01.ENG 

38 Decision (EU) No 137/2014, OJ L 76, p. 1. 
39 Joint  Declaration  by  the  European  Union,  on  the  one  hand,  and  the  Government  of  Greenland  and  the 
Government  of  Denmark,  on  the  other,  on  the  relations  between  the  European  Union  and  Greenland. 
https://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/sites/devco/files/signed-joint-declaration-eu-greenland-denmark_en.pdf  
40 Aide Memoire, Policy Dialogue on Education, March 2016.  

9 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
the  Greenland  Decision  –  nor  is  it  in  general  mandated  by  other  EU  external  relations 
instruments, for that matter – dialogue is nonetheless ongoing: 

High-level visits 
There have been a number of high-level visits in the current instrument period, including41: 
2015: Greenland Premier and EU Commission President met to sign the Joint Declaration in 
Brussels;  2016:  EU  Council  President  visited  the  Premier  in  Greenland  and;  2017:  EU 
Commissioner for International Cooperation and Development met the Premier, the Minister 
for  Foreign  Affairs  and  the  Minister  for  Education,  Culture,  Research  and  Church  in 
Greenland. 

OCT Fora 
As  an  OCT,  Greenland  is  a  member  of  the  OCT  Association  (OCTA)  and  of  its  Executive 
Committee.  The  Overseas  Association  Decision  provides  for  the  following  instances  of 
dialogue between the OCTs, the EU Member States to which they are linked and the EU42: a 
yearly  high-level  EU-OCT  Forum,  a  minimum  of  four  Trilateral  Meetings  per  year,  and 
Partnership  Working  Parties  –  working  groups  of  which  Greenland  co-chairs  the  one  on 
Environment and Climate Change. 

Raw materials 
Two workshops on raw materials were held in 2012 and 2015 as follow-up on the Letter of 
Intent 43 signed  by  the  EU  and  Greenland  in  2012  and  Greenland  joining  the  Kimberley 
Process in 201444 (an initiative to stem the flow of conflict diamonds). Apart from the current 
discussions with the European Investment Bank for a loan concerning a mining project, this 
dialogue has not been active recently as the weaker prices of raw materials have reduced the 
interest of EU private investors. 

Arctic Policy 
Greenland is identified as an important partner in the 2016 EU Arctic Policy45. This is further 
evidenced by Greenland's support of the EU's application for an observer seat in the Arctic 
Council.  Greenland  has  been  invited  to  participate  in  discussions  in  various  fora,  including 
those  otherwise  reserved  for  EU  Member  States,  such  as  the  Arctic  Stakeholder  Forum. 
This  Forum was established following the adoption  of the EU Arctic Policy to  examine the 
possibilities for coordinating various channels of EU investment and research funding in the 
EU Arctic. In the near future, dialogue on the Arctic is expected to intensify. 

As evidenced above formal and informal dialogue is ongoing on several levels. Furthermore, 
during a February 2017 meeting between Denmark, Greenland and the EU, it was agreed that 
a  report  commissioned  by  the  Greenlandic  Parliament  on  EU-Greenland  relations  and  how 

41 See full list of indicative list of visits and dialogue in the External Evaluation – Annex 7, Volume II, Table 1 
42 Decision (EU) No 755/2013, OJ L 344, 19.12.2013, p. 1, Article 14 
43 Letter of Intent on co-operation in the area of mineral resources between the European Union and Greenland 
44 Decision (EU) No. 136/2014 of 20 February 2014 laying down rules and procedures to enable the participation 
of Greenland in the Kimberley Process certification scheme, OJ L 84, 20.03.2014, p. 99 
45 Joint Communication to the European Parliament and the Council – An integrated European Union policy for 
the Arctic. http://www.eeas.europa.eu/archives/docs/arctic_region/docs/160427_joint-communication-an-
integrated-european-union-policy-for-the-arctic_en.pdf   

10 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
these can be further developed within the current Greenland Decision framework, should be 
used to further develop dialogue on policy issues of mutual interest46. 

Programming Document for the Sustainable Development of Greenland 

The  2014-2020  Programming  Document  for  the  Sustainable  Development  of  Greenland 
(PDSD)47 was  developed  with  due  attention  to  the  objectives  of  the  instrument  (Greenland 
Decision) (see Section 2 above) and the lessons learnt during the 2007-2013 period. The EU 
cooperation  supports  Greenland's  education  policy  with  an  indicative  allocation  of 
EUR 217.8  million48,  of  which  EUR  216  million  is  provided  through  Budget  Support  and 
EUR 1.8 million covers administrative costs and technical assistance. 

In particular, the EU support of the education sector will help Greenland address the needs of 
its pre- and elementary school systems while continuing to support vocational education and 
training and the post-elementary school system in general. The aim is to create smart growth 
through investments in education and research, and inclusive growth through provision of 
qualifying  education  to  a  larger  part  of  the  population  in  order  to  secure  jobs,  reduce 
poverty and create a sustainable basis for economic growth – which supports the objectives of 
the  Greenland  Decision  (instrument)  regarding  support  for  sustainable  development  in 
Greenland. 

Financial funds and payments 
As the programme receives support through the EU budget, bi-annual Commission Decisions 
and annual Financing Agreements are adopted to implement PDSD actions. The payments are 
divided  into  two  tranches:  an  80  %  fixed  tranche  and  a  20  %  variable  performance 
tranche  (dependent  on  the  achievement  of  specific  indicators).  The  performance  tranche 
attainment was 93 % in 2014 and therefore 93 % of the variable tranche was paid that year. 

Table 1: Greenland Decision (GD) payments per 1 June 201749 

MFF - GD EUR 
217,800,000 
217,800,000 

Decided - EUR 
118,773,837 (55%) 
118,773,837 (55%) 

 Contracted - EUR 
87,143,837 (40%) 
87,143,837 (40%) 

 Paid - EUR 
78,605,478 (36%) 
78,605,478 (36%) 

Monitoring 
A bi-annual Policy Dialogue on education with Greenland takes place. During the meetings 
the implementation of the programme is planned via the Annual Work Plan and monitored 
via  the  Annual  Implementation  Report  with  the  Ministry  of  Education.  The  Macro-
Economic Developments, the Annual Budget as approved by the Parliament of Greenland and 
the progress in Public Financial Management are monitored with the Ministry of Finance. 

In  Greenland,  the  elementary  school  system  is  managed  by  the  municipalities.  This  has 
raised  some  logistical  challenges  in  data  collection  concerning  elementary  school  indicators 
used  in  measuring  the  programme's  progress.  The  municipalities  have  been  invited  to 

46 This report is due in the autumn of  2017. 
47 https://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/sites/devco/files/signed_programming_document_for_sustainable_development

_of_greenland_2014-2020_colour.pdf 

48 EUR 175 million during the previous period 2007-2013 
49 Payments per 1 June 2017 drawn from the Common Relex Information System (CRIS). 

11 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
participate  in  the  policy  dialogue  with  effect  from  2017,  which  has  ensured  improved 
cooperation. 

The achievement of the objectives of the Greenland Decision (instrument) is measured against 
four  specific  indicators  taken  directly  from  the  Decision50 as  well  as  against  14  educational 
statistical indicators of the PDSD51 – which measure the improvement of the education system 
and number of skilled workers. The indicators are developed together with the Government of 
Greenland. Thus, the PDSD also measures the achievements of the instrument. 

Table 2: Instrument level (GD) indicators and achievements 2014 -201552 

Indicator (no)53 

Baseline 2013 

Result 2014 

Result 2015 

0.1 Percentage of trade balance in GDP ** 

-16.1 % 

-13.7 % 

-9.4  % 

1.3 Percentage of the fisheries sector in total exports 

89.9 % 

91.0 % 

89.4 % 

2.1 Administrative staff completing training 

- 

1484* 

1467 

2.2 Long-term residents among civil servants 

87.2 % 

87.8 % 

88.0 % 

* Data lag one year. 
** Registration did not take place prior to 2014; the baseline is 2014.Data lag one year. 

The Greenland Decision's objective of supporting the diversification of the economy is long-
term and it is therefore too early to assess whether this objective has been achieved, especially 
as  the  only  results  available  so  far  are  those  regarding  the  achievement  of  the  instrument 
indicators from 2014 and 2015. Nevertheless it can be concluded that the continued progress 
in achievement of the instrument indicators might lead to results in the long-term. Fisheries 
are still the dominant sector, especially due to rising prices and quotas. However, new sectors 
are developing – e.g. a ruby and sapphire mine opened in May 2017 and the completion rate 
in education is rising54 – but these developments are not yet showing wider economic impact. 

50 Decision (EU) No 137/2014, OJ L 76, p. 1, Article 3 
51 See full list of indicators and achievement in Annex 5 
52 Annual Implementation Report 2015. 
http://naalakkersuisut.gl/~/media/Nanoq/Files/Attached%20Files/Uddannelse/Engelsk/Annual%20Implementati
on%20Report%202015%20final.pdf  
53 Order and indicator number as in the Annual Budget Statement.  
54 See details of indicators and their achievements in Annex 5 

12 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
5. Responses to the evaluation questions 

The evaluation questions are presented in detail in Annex 1. 

Relevance 

To  what  extent  do  the  overall  objectives  of  the  Greenland  Decision 55  and  the  PDSD 56 
correspond to past (2013) and current (2016/7) EU priorities and beneficiary needs? 

The  Greenland  Decision  instrument  responds  to  the  general  objectives  of  maintaining  close 
and  lasting  links  between  the  EU  and  Greenland  based  on  continued  interest  from  both 
parties. Therefore, as framework for relations and dialogue, the Greenland Decision remains 
highly  relevant.  Part  of  the  historical  rationale  for  the  EU  to  maintain  a  close  relationship 
was to preserve fishing rights in Greenlandic waters. This rationale continues – the Fisheries 
Partnership  Agreement  with  Greenland  is  one  of  the  most  significant  in  terms  of  economic 
value and enables the EU to swap fishing quotas with other partners in the North Atlantic. 

The ambition of the Greenland Decision to set up a framework for policy dialogue on issues 
of  common  interest  other  than  education  corresponds  with  both  EU  and  Greenlandic 
priorities57. As noted in Section 4, the EU and Greenland agreed in February 2017 to revisit 
discussions  on  how  to  deepen  the  partnership  based  on  Greenland's  forthcoming  report  on 
EU-Greenland relations. 

The programming of the instrument, including the choice of education as the focal sector for 
EU  support,  has  addressed  the  beneficiaries'  needs  –  as  evidenced  in  section  2;  Greenland 
finds  that  education  is  the  most  relevant  parameter  to  ensure  growth  and  a  diversified 
economy. Moreover, it is fully consistent with EU policy priorities as reflected in the Agenda 
for Change58, which identifies education as a key strategy to bring about a more sustainable 
and  inclusive  growth,  and  in  Sustainable  Development  Goal  459,  which  envisages  a  world 
with universal literacy and equitable, universal access to quality education at all levels. It is 
also  fully  in  line  with  provisions  contained  in  the  Overseas  Association  Decision60 and  the 
2015 Joint Declaration. 

55 Decision (EU) No 137/2014, OJ L 76, p. 1 
56 https://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/sites/devco/files/signed_programming_document_for_sustainable_development

_of_greenland_2014-2020_colour.pdf 

57 Greenland Education Programme II, see PDSD - 

https://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/sites/devco/files/signed_programming_document_for_sustainable_developme
nt_of_greenland_2014-2020_colour.pdf 

58  Communication  (2011)  Increasing  the  Impact  of  EU  Development  Policy:  an  Agenda  for  Change. 
https://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/policies/european-development-policy/agenda-change_en  
59 https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/?menu=1300  
60 Decision (EU) No 755/2013, OJ L 344, 19.12.2013, p. 1, Article 33 

13 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Effectiveness 

To  what  extent  do  the  Decision  and  the  PDSD  deliver  results  against  the  instrument  (GD) 
objectives?61 

The  Greenland  Decision  has  been  effective  in  achieving  its  main  objectives 62:  it  has 
contributed  to  sustainable  development  in  Greenland  by  improving  educational  attainment 
through  the  PDSD63.  At  this  stage  there  are  no  significant  immediate  impacts  in  terms  of 
diversifying  the  economy.  However,  sectors  other  than  fisheries  are  developing  –  which 
supports  the  Decision's  objective  of  diversifying  the  economy  (see  Greenland  Decision 
indicators in section 4). 

The  PDSD,  which  focuses  on  education,  reflects  the  principles  of  aid  effectiveness  as 
defined in the Agenda for Change64 to a high degree. Greenland exercises effective leadership 
over its education policy and the EU has bought into Greenland's already-existing education 
strategy  (the  Greenland  Education  Programme).  Through  financial  support  and  bi-annual 
policy dialogues, the EU contributes to strengthening Greenland's capacity to implement its 
own policies. This supports the objectives of the Greenland Decision65 . 

In addition, the EU support is provided as Budget Support, which entails specific conditions 
for  government  budget  and  accounting  mechanisms.  This  has  contributed  to  strengthening 
Public  Financial  Management  in  Greenland  through  the  Public  Expenditure  and  Financial 
Accountability  assessment 66 and  continuous  monitoring  of  progress.  For  example,  a  new 
Budget  and  Accounting  Act  has  been  implemented,  which  will  improve  financial 
management  and  enable  greater  transparency  with  regard  to  budget  formulation  (improved 
Public Financial Management is a condition for continued Budget Support and is monitored 
each  year  during  the  Policy  Dialogue).  In  turn,  this  further  enables  Greenland  to  formulate 
and implement strong national policies. 

In terms of the Greenland Decision's objective of preserving close links, the informal dialogue 
during  high-level  meetings  and  visits  has  assisted  in  creating  a  mutual  understanding 
between  the  partners67 –  the  EU  has  gained  a  better  understanding  of  the  conditions  in  the 
Arctic,  demonstrated  by  relevant  actions  and  policies  such  as  the  2016  EU  Arctic  Policy68, 
and  Greenland  supports  the  EU's  application  for  an  observer  seat  in  the  Arctic  Council,  as 
underlined by stakeholders in the Open Public Consultation contribution69. 

The  external  evaluation  concludes  that  a  framework  for  a  structured  dialogue  on  issues  of 
mutual  interest  other  than  education  should  have  already  been  put  into  place  since  the 

61 Greenland Decision objectives listed in section 2 
62 Decision (EU) No 137/2014, OJ L 76, p. 1, Article 2 and 3 
63 See Annex 5 – Full list of programme indicators and achievements 2014-2015 
64 Agenda for Change - https://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/policies/european-development-policy/agenda-change_en 
65 Decision (EU) No 137/2014, OJ L 76, p. 1, Article 3. 
66 https://pefa.org/sites/default/files/assements/comments/GL-Aug14-PFMPR-Public_0.pdf  
67 Government of Greenland's contribution to the Open Public Consultation, see Annex 3 
68 Joint Communication to the European Parliament and the Council – An integrated European Union policy for 
the Arctic. http://www.eeas.europa.eu/archives/docs/arctic_region/docs/160427_joint-communication-an-
integrated-european-union-policy-for-the-arctic_en.pdf  

69 See consultation summary in Annex 3 

14 

 
 
 
                                                 
Greenland  Decision  entered  into  force70.  It  further  concludes  that  policy  dialogue  beyond 
education has been ad hoc and without systematic monitoring and follow-up71. 

Commission  services  through  this  Staff  Working  Document  disagree  with  the  above 
conclusion  considering  that  policy  dialogue  is  not  an  objective  but  a  tool.  Structured  and 
formal dialogue is not mandated by the Greenland Decision, nor is it in general mandated by 
other  EU  external  relations  instruments  and  the  EU  does  not  monitor  nor  have  systematic 
follow-up  on  policy  dialogues  with  external  partners.  This  is  done  in  dialogues  on 
programming and projects, but not in policy dialogues. It should be noted that, on this specific 
point,  the  EU  view  is  shared  by  Greenland  and  Denmark  as  the  main  stakeholders  of  the 
Greenland Decision72. 

As already mentioned, the absence of formality does not preclude policy dialogue from taking 
place  to  the  mutual  satisfaction  of  the  parties  involved,  as  underlined  by  Greenland  in  the 
consultation73. 

Efficiency 

To  what  extent  are  the  Greenland  Decision  and  its  PDSD  delivering  efficiently,  comparing 
both programming periods (2007-2013 and 2014-2020)? 

Efficiency is ensured by the use of a single sector of concentration and of an appropriate and 
efficient  modality  (Budget  Support),  combined  with  the  implementation  of  lessons  learnt  in 
the  previous  Greenland  Decision  and  programme  (2007-2013)  and  adjusting  reporting 
requirements  in  the  PDSD  to  Greenland's  particular  context.  Efficiency  in  reporting  has 
especially benefited both the EU and Greenland, as the required annual reports and annexes 
are  shorter,  the  same  reports  are  sent  to  the  EU  and  the  Education  Committee  in  the 
Greenlandic Parliament, and the Ministry of Finance can translate reports from the Greenland 
Economic Council and the Economic Political Statement instead of producing separate reports 
for the EU. 

EU added value 

To what extent does the Greenland programme add value compared to the annual block grant 
provided from the Government of Denmark to Greenland? 

The  EU  continues  to  add  value  through  the  Greenland  Decision  because  the  conditions 
attached  to  EU  Budget  Support  have  played  a  positive  role  in  strengthening  Greenland's 
Public  Financial  Management  system74 and  the  ability  of  the  Greenlandic  administration  to 
plan  and  implement  policies75,  including  in  sectors  other  than  education  (several  ministries 
have begun to make 10-year plans) due to the conditions of Budget Support and the continued 
demand  for  progress  within  these  conditions.  This  conditionality  of  EU  support  is  the  main 

70 See External Evaluation, Annex 7,  p. 12 
71 See e.g. External Evaluation – Annex 7, p. 12  
72 See  Consultation summary in Annex 3 
73 See Consultation summary in Annex 3 
74 https://pefa.org/sites/default/files/assements/comments/GL-Aug14-PFMPR-Public_0.pdf 
75 External Evaluation, Annex 7, p. 20 

15 

 
 
 
                                                 
and  crucial  difference  compared  to  the  Danish  block  grant76,  which  does  not  impose  any 
preconditions or performance indicators other than the grant's use in the dedicated sectors, in 
which the Government of Greenland has autonomy (health, fisheries, education etc.)77. 

Having  a  variety  of  partners  is  important  for  Greenland  as  it  gradually  works  towards 
economic  self-sufficiency.  A  strong  relationship  with  the  EU  is  thus  a  priority,  as  the 
partnership  and  cooperation  with  the  EU  enables  Greenland  to  increase  capacity-building, 
develop  governing  and  financial  systems,  strengthen  its  education  system  and  thereby  its 
workforce, and develop new sectors and policies for its sustainable development78. 

The association to the EU as an OCT has added further value for Greenland through special 
benefits  for  OCTs,  such  as  duty-free  and  quota-free  access  to  the  EU  market  (including  for 
fish products, which are highly relevant for Greenland), free movement for Greenlanders (as 
Danish citizens) and access to EU programmes (e.g.  Voluntary scheme for Biodiversity and 
Ecosystem services in Territories of European Overseas – BEST 2.079) and to fora otherwise 
reserved for EU Member States (e.g. the Arctic Stakeholder Forum80). 

for  education 

EU  support  has  shielded  the  education  sector  from  budget  cuts  through  the  programme 
implementation period, as one of the PDSD indicators81 requires that 25 % of public spending 
go to education. EU Budget Support constitutes approximately 10 % of the annual national 
budget 
in  2015  was 
EUR 326 million). The Danish block grant represents more than 50 % of the annual national 
budget across all sectors (total national expenditure budget in 2015 was EUR 1.217 million). 
This further underlines the need for Greenland to diversify its economy and to work towards 
increasing economic self-sufficiency. Currently, the economy is mainly based on the Danish 
block grant, Budget Support from the EU and fisheries. 

(the  national  annual  expenditure  budget 

Coherence  

To  what  extent  does 
facilitate  coherence,  consistency, 
complementarity  and  synergies,  both  internally  and  vis-à-vis  other  External  Financing 
Instruments and other EU policies? 

the  Greenland  Decision 

The  Greenland  Decision  is  a  good  example  of  policy  coherence  with  the  main  related 
instruments: the Overseas Association Decision and the Fisheries Partnership Agreement. The 
objectives  of  the  Overseas  Association  Decision  are  to  enhance  the  OCTs'  competitiveness, 
strengthen  their  resilience,  reduce  their  economic  and  environmental  vulnerability,  and 
promote cooperation between them and other partners82. The Greenland Decision's objective 

76 Greenland in Figures 2017, p.7 - 

http://www.stat.gl/publ/en/GF/2017/pdf/Greenland%20in%20Figures%202017.pdf  

77 See Annex 6 for replantation on the division of responsibilities between Greenland and Denmark 
78 Decision (EU) No 137/2014, OJ L 76, p. 1, Article 3 
79 Voluntary scheme for Biodiversity and Ecosystem services in Territories of European Overseas - aims to 
support the conservation of biodiversity and sustainable use of ecosystem services including ecosystem-
based approaches to climate change adaptation and mitigation in the EU Outermost Regions (ORs) and 
Overseas Countries and Territories (OCTs). https://ec.europa.eu/research/fp7/index_en.cfm 

80 A  Forum,  where  stakeholders  and  representatives  from  the  European  Arctic  have  met  during  2016-2017  to 
assess whether the EU Programmes in the Arctic fulfil the needs, overlap and have synergies. A report will 
be submitted by the end of the 2017 with recommendations for improvements. 

81 Full list of programme indicators in Annex 5 
82 Decision (EU) No 755/2013, OJ L 344, 19.12.2013, p. 1,  Article 3 

16 

 
 
 
                                                 
to  reduce  the  vulnerability  of  Greenland's  economy  by  promoting  its  diversification  is 
coherent with the Overseas Association Decision's focus on reducing the vulnerability of the 
economy  of  OCTs.  The  choice  of  education  as  the  sector  of  collaboration  is  further  in  line 
with  the  Overseas  Association  Decision,  as  education  is  one  of  the  areas  of  cooperation 
between the EU and OCTs83. The Fisheries Partnership Agreement is coherent and compatible 
with the Greenland Decision, and rooted in the same base – the Greenland Treaty. The current 
2016-2020 Fisheries Protocol84 has for example been aligned to the Greenland Decision and 
will  also  expire  on  31 December  2020.  The  sectoral  support  provided through  the Fisheries 
Protocol85 also covers the training and upskilling of officials, and there are annual reports on 
measuring  the  achievement  of  indicators  and  actions  planned  in  the coming  year,  similar  to 
the  ones  produced  on  education.  Additionally,  conditions  such  as  visibility,  transparency, 
human rights and EU added value also apply. 

There is general coordination and information/observation flow between Commission services 
on the Greenland Decision and the Fisheries Partnership Agreement, e.g. sharing of minutes 
and participation in meetings – this ensures full overview of the cooperation with Greenland. 
The European Development Fund86, from which other OCTs receive their territorial support, 
provides  a  general  thematic  envelope  for  all  OCTs.  The  OCTs  have  agreed  that  the 
programme  for  the  period  2014-2020,  which  is  under  formulation,  will  support  projects  on 
sustainable  use  of  natural  resources.  Greenland  can  access  this  programme  and  participates 
actively in its development inter alia through its position as OCT co-chair of the Partnership 
Working Party on Environment and Climate Change (see section 4). 

However, there are limited complementarities and synergies with the other External Financing 
Instruments. Even though an OCT, Greenland is not viewed as a developing country and lives 
up to the Human Rights Convention as part of the Kingdom of Denmark (Denmark being the 
signatory); Greenland's good rule of law is based on Danish standards and the judicial system 
is  the  responsibility  of  Denmark 87 .  Therefore,  there  is  limited  interface  with  External 
Financing  Instruments  which  target  poverty  reduction,  democracy  and  human  rights,  and 
stability and peace.  

Leverage 

To what extent and how have the Greenland Decision and the PDSD leveraged further funds 
and/or political or policy engagement? 

As an OCT, Greenland can benefit from several horizontal EU programmes via Annex II F of 
the Overseas Association Decision88. Greenland has benefitted from the following 2014-2017 
EU  programmes:  Erasmus+ 89 ,  the  Northern  Periphery  Programme 90 ,  the  Interregional 

83 Decision (EU) No 755/2013, OJ L 344, 19.12.2013, p. 1, Article 33 
84 Council Decision (EU) No 2103/2015 of 16 November 2015, OJ L305, 21.11.2015 - http://eur-
lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:22015A1121(01)&from=EN 

85 Decision (EU) No 2103/2015, OJ L305, 21.11.2015,  Article 5 
86https://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/funding/funding-instruments-programming/funding-instruments/european-
development-fund_en  
87 See Annex 6 on the division of responsibilities between Greenland and Denmark 
88 Decision (EU) No 755, OJ L 344, 19.12.2013, p. 1, Article 94 
89 http://ec.europa.eu/programmes/erasmus-plus/node_en  
90 http://www.northernperiphery.eu/en/home/  

17 

 
 
 
                                                 
Northern Periphery and Arctic Programme91, the EU Programme on Communicative Barriers 
(COMBAR) 92 ,  the  Seventh  Framework  Programme 93  and  the  Voluntary  scheme  for 
Biodiversity and Ecosystem services in Territories of European Overseas (BEST 2.0)94. 

The  possibility  for  Greenland  to  access  these  programmes  provides  know-how  and 
strengthens  capabilities  in  Greenland  –  e.g.  a  BEST  2.0  project  for  Protecting  Biodiversity 
and Creating Multiple Benefits for Local Communities in Greenland ran from 2013 to 2016 – 
establishing a national community-based observation system that provides an opportunity for 
indigenous and local community members' insights and knowledge on the environment to be 
used  in  the  effective  protection  and  sustainable  use  of  Greenland's  rich  biodiversity  and 
ecosystem services. 

In  addition,  Greenland  has  access  to  the  OCT-European  Development  Fund  thematic 
envelope, which covers all OCTs and which is still under formulation (see Coherence above). 
Greenland  also  has  access  to  the  OCT  funds  in  the  European  Investment  Bank  and  has  in 
2016 initiated a dialogue concerning a loan for a mining project, which further supports the 
Greenland Decision objective of diversification of the economy. 

Policy Dialogue with the EU on education is well-managed and monitored, taking place on a 
bi-annual basis. Informal dialogue is held in various fora on issues of common interest such 
as the EU-OCT Forum, Partnership Working Parties and high-level visits95 which have given 
the parties a better mutual understanding. An increased interest in relations with Greenland, 
especially  concerning  Arctic  issues,  has  been  reflected  in  closer  cooperation,  for  example 
through the Arctic Stakeholder Forum. 

In  addition,  there  is  bilateral  collaboration  between  institutions  in  Greenland  and  in  EU 
Member States. For example, technical colleges collaborate closely with Danish universities 
and  have  started  discussions  with  institutions  in  other  Member  States,  such  as  the  Freiberg 
University  of  Mining  and  Technology  in  Germany.  This  has  increased  know-how  and 
improved  capabilities  in  the  Greenlandic  institutions.  However,  institutions  in  Greenland 
often  refrain  from  applying  for  EU  projects  or  funds  because  they  find  extensive  EU 
application  forms  and  monitoring  and  reporting  requirements  very  resource  demanding  for 
their small and strained administrations96. 

91 http://www.interreg-npa.eu/ 
92 COMBAR created tools to overcome barriers, such as geographical remoteness, in vocational education 
training. A second phase of this Programme is now being funded through the Leonardo da Vinci programme. - 
http://eacea.ec.europa.eu/LLP/leonardo/leonardo_da_vinci_en.php 
93 https://ec.europa.eu/research/fp7/index_en.cfm  
94 https://ec.europa.eu/research/fp7/index_en.cfm  
95 See full list of meetings and visits in the External Evaluation, Volume II, table 1 Annex 7, p. 76 
96 See consultation replies in Annex 3 and External Evaluation Report, vol II in Annex 7 

18 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
6. Conclusions 
The Greenland Decision is a specific, dedicated External Financing Instrument which has to 
be  understood  in  the  context  of  the  close  historical,  political  and  economic  connections 
between  the  EU  and  Greenland  and  the  evolving  interests  of  the  parties  –  as  well  as 
Greenland's  status  as  an  OCT.  This  evaluation  confirms  the  continued  relevance  of  the 
Greenland  Decision  as  the  basis  for  the  relations  between  Greenland,  Denmark  and  the  EU 
and confirms that it provides a sufficiently wide platform for pursuing dialogue on emerging 
global issues of mutual interest. 

The main objective of the Greenland Decision has been to contribute to preserving the close 
and lasting links between the parties while supporting sustainable development in Greenland. 
This  has  been  and  is  being achieved through the close  cooperation on education and Public 
Financial Management and through political dialogue which has triggered positive dynamics 
between  Greenland  and  the  EU,  inter  alia  ensuring  that  Greenland  is  receptive  to  the  EU 
playing a more prominent role in the Arctic. 

The choice to focus cooperation on education has been appropriate considering that this sector 
is  seen  in  Greenland  as  the  most  relevant  growth  parameter  for  prosperity  and  societal 
development and is furthermore an EU priority. Even if the economic impact of this choice is 
necessarily long-term and thus not immediately visible, this partnership has been effective 
in contributing to sustainable development in Greenland (a Greenland Decision objective) 
due  to  the  country's  strong  political  drive  (coupled  with  its  relatively  strong  but  small 
administrative  system),  but  also  due  to  the  Commission's  flexibility  in  implementing  this 
cooperation by taking into account the particular specificities of Greenland. 

The  strong  partnership  and  cooperation  with  the  EU  has  enabled  Greenland  to  increase 
capacity-building, develop stronger governing and financial systems, strengthen its education 
system  and  thereby  its  workforce,  all  of  which  support  the  achievement  of  the  Greenland 
Decision's  objectives,  which  are  long-term  but  have  still  shown  progress  in  the  2014-2017 
period. The partnership has continued to deepen throughout this period and further initiatives 
have been taken to continue this work – e.g. further developing the policy dialogue on areas 
of mutual interest based on the Government of Greenland report. 

The Greenland Decision instrument has been designed in such a way as to cover and better 
deliver on the wider political aims of this partnership  – and as such the Greenland Decision 
remains fit for purpose to continue to deliver on its objectives towards 2020. 

The  conclusions  of  this  Staff  Working  Document  will  feed  into  the  reflection  on  how  to 
improve the implementation of the Greenland Decision for the remaining period until 2020, 
and on the future set of External Financing Instruments for the post-2020 period. 

19 

 
 
 
 
 
Annex 1. Evaluation Questions 

In  line  both  with  the  Better  Regulation  guidelines  on  evaluations  introduced  by  the 
Commission in 2015, and the requirements of the Commen Implementation Regulation (CIR), 
the main assessment criteria are: relevance, EU added value, coherence and complementarity, 
effectiveness, efficiency, sustainability, leverage and impact of the instrument. 

Relevance 

  To  what  extent  do  the  overall  objectives  of  the  Greenland  Decision  and  the  PDSD 

correspond to: 

i. 

EU  priorities  and  beneficiary  needs  identified    at  the  time  the  instrument 
was adopted (2013)? 

ii.  Current  EU  priorities  and  beneficiary  needs,  given  recent  evolving 

challenges and priorities in the international context (2017)? 

iii.  How do the objectives of the Decision and the PDSD correspond to  each 

other? 

Effectiveness, impact, sustainability 

  To what extent do the Decision and the PDSD deliver results against the instrument's 

objectives? 

  To  what  extent  has  the  Greenland  Decision  contributed  to  the  European  Union's 

priorities for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth? 

  To what extent are the following in place and functioning 

i. 

ii. 

appropriate monitoring   processes and  indicators    for  measurement  of  the 
performance of the Decision and PDSD 

relevant strategic and operational indicators  to measure results achieved by 
the Decision? 

  Has the programming process reflected the principles of aid effectiveness (outlined in 
article  5), 
identification  and  formulation  reflected  ownership, 
partnership,  coordination,  harmonisation,  alignment  to  national  systems,  mutual 
accountability and results orientation? 

including  for 

  Have lessons been applied in programming and implementation? 

  Have  civil  society,  local  authorities  and  other  stakeholders  been  sufficiently 

consulted? 

  To  what  extent  is  the  Greenland  Decision  flexible  enough  to  respond  to  changing 

needs (e.g. changed policy priorities, changed contexts)? 

20 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Efficiency 

  To  what  extent  are  the  Greenland  Decision  and  its  PDSD  delivering  efficiently  – 

comparing both programing periods?97 

i.  Cost effectiveness of the action? 

ii.  What is the ratio of administrative cost to overall budget? 

iii.  How efficient is budget execution in terms of time taken from 

commitments to payments? 

iv.  Have the changes made to PDSD  2014 – 2020 from the previous PDSD 

2007 – 2013 brought efficiency gains ? 

v.  Are the implementing rules – and recent changes therein – conducive to the 

efficient implementation of the action? 

vi.  Are there areas, such as administrative/management procedures, where the 

implementation of the Greenland Decision can be simplified to eliminate 
unnecessary burden? 

vii.  Can more flexibile or more effective implementation arrangements be 

envisaged? 

  To what extent is the Greenland Decision in line with the implementing rules of the 

CIR ? Specifically in terms of : 

i. 

Implementation 

  Subject matter and principles 
  Adoption  of  action  programmes,  individual  measures  and  special 

measures 

  Support measures 

ii. 

Provisions on the Financing Methods 
  General financing provisions 
  Taxes duties and charges 
  Specific financing provisions 
  Protection of the financial interests of the Union 

iii.  Rules  on  nationality  and  origin  for  public  procurement,  grant  and  other 

award procedures 

iv.  Climate action and biodiversity expenditure 
v. 
vi.  Common rules 

Involvement of stakeholders of beneficiary countries 

  Eligibility under the Greenland Decision 

97 Evaluations  will  need  to  compare,  where  possible,  information  from  the  current  2014-2020  period  with  the 
previous 2007-2013 period. 

21 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
vii.  Monitoring and evaluation of actions 

  To what extent are the following in place and functioning: 

i. 

ii. 

appropriate monitoring   processes and  indicators    for  measurement  of  the 
performance of the Greenland Decision? 
relevant strategic and operational indicators  to measure results achieved by 
the Greenland Decision? 

Added value 

The Government of Denmark provides an annual block grant to Greenland; 

  To what extent does the Greenland  programme add value compared to interventions 

by the Kingdom of Denmark? 

Coherence, consistency, complementarity and synergies 

  To  what  extent  does  the  Greenland  Decision  facilitate  coherence,  consistency, 
complementarity and synergies both internally between its own set of objectives and 
programmes and vis-à-vis other External Financing Instruments? 

Leverage 

  To what extent and how have the Greenland Decision and the PDSD leveraged further 

funds and/or political or policy engagement? 

  How  could  this  aspect  be  enhanced  to  achieve  its  policy  objectives  more  effectively 

and efficiently? 

  How can programming and implementation of assistance be enhanced to improve the 

impact and sustainability of financial assistance? 

22 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Annex 2. Procedural information 

Lead DG: International Cooperation and Development (DEVCO) 

DECIDE reference: Greenland – 2017/DEVCO/005 

The  evaluation  of  the  Greenland  Decision  is  one  of  a  set  of  ten  evaluations  covering  most 
External Financing Instruments 98 under Heading 4 of the Multiannual Financial Framework 
2014-2020. The Common Implementing Regulation (CIR) 99 (Article 17) calls for a mid-Term 
Review (MTR)  Report of the six  External Financing Instruments (DCI, ENI, EIDHR, IcSP, 
IPA II, PI) and the CIR itself, to be submitted to the European Parliament and the Council by 
the  end  of  2017.  However,  as  the  INSC  instrument  and  Greenland  Decision  also  require  a 
similar  report,  and  the  EDF  required  a  Performance  Review  it  was  decided  that  all  the  ten 
instruments will be covered by the MTR Report. 

See Figure 1 for a visual representation of the instruments and how they fit together. In view 
of  ensuring  consistent  EU  external  policies,  all  the  evaluations  have  been  carried  out 
simultaneously and are interlinked. 

Figure 1: Geographic, thematic and horizontal instruments under Heading IV 

Instrument for Democracy & Human Rights 
Instrument contributing for Stability and Peace 
Instrument for Nuclear Safety 

EDF 
(outside budget) 

Greenland  

Development 
Cooperation 
instrument 

European 
Partnership 
Instrument 

Pre-Accession 
Instrument 

Partnership  
Instrument 

DCI Thematic programme Global Public Goods and  Challenges 

DCI Thematic programme Civil Society Organisations &  Local Authorities 

DCI Pan-African Programme 

HUMA, CFSP, MACRO, EVHAC, CPFI, GUARANTEE FUND, AGENCIES, MARGIN 

Other instruments under Heading IV 

Common Implementing Regulation 

98 Development  Cooperation  Instrument,  11th  European  Development  Fund  (EDF),  European  Neighbourhood 
Instrument,  European  Instrument  for  Democracy  and  Human  Rights,  Greenland  Decision,    Instrument 
contributing  to  Stability  and  Peace,  Instrument  for  Pre-Accession,  Instrument  on  Nuclear  Safety  Cooperation, 
Overseas Countries and Territories Decision, Partnership Instrument and the Common Implementing Regulation. 
For the purpose of this exercise, the evaluation of the Overseas Countries and Territories Decision is included 
within the evaluation of the 11th EDF. 
99 Regulation (EU) No 236/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2014 laying down 
common rules and procedures for the implementation of the Union's instruments for financing external action, 
OJ L77, p. 95. 

23 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
Whilst  recognizing  that  each  External  Financing  Instruments  has  its  own  specificities, 
information pertaining to the collective set of External Fincing Instruments is also needed for 
the MTR Report. To facilitate comparison and overview of the External Financing Instrument 
evaluations  it  is  therefore  important  that  the  set  of  evaluations  are  broadly  consistent  with 
each other in terms of objectives, key evaluation questions, methods, evaluation process, and 
deliverables.  Co-ordination  across  the  evaluations,  led  by  the  Global  Inter-Service  Group 
(ISG) and the 'Chapeau'100 External Financing Instruments contract is built into the evaluation 
process. 

Organisation and Timing 
The  evaluation  is  partly  informed  by  an  external  evaluation  conducted  by  independent 
consultants. The external evaluation started on June 1 2016. The Final report was received on 
June  26  2017,  on  schedule.    The  evaluation  process  was  lead  by  an  ISG  specific  for  the 
instrument and it was conducted in three phases: 

1.  The  Desk  phase:  including  the  Inception  phase;  kick-off  meeting  and  initial 
consultations  with  stakeholders,  and  idenfying  and  gathering  information  at  the 
indicator  level.  Review  of  documentation  and consultations  through  interviews  with 
stakeholders to verify information, obtain leads for data/interviewees and discuss the 
Intervention Logic (IL) – conducting the first steps of the IL. 

2.  The  Validation  phase:  interviews  with  ISG  members  and  stakeholders  in  order  to 
verify  and  validate  information  and  data.  Field  mission  to  Greenland  for  further 
validation of data through stakholder interviews and a workshop. Drafting a separate 
CIR report. 

3.  Synthesis  phase:  preparing  the  draft  final  evaluation  report,  together  with 
conclusions  and  recommendations  and  the  implementation  of  the  Open  Public 
Consultation, whose results feed into the final report. 

Figure 2: Evaluation process 

100  The Chapeau contract is a single contract which covers DCI, GD, CIR (drawing from all the separate EFI 
evaluations) and a Coherence Report and co-ordination across all the EFI evaluations. 

24 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Process overview and Quality assessment 

The external evaluation of the GD was commissioned to provide the main information for this 
Staff  Working  Document.  A  Greenland  Decision  Evaluation  ISG  provided  oversight  of  the 
external  evaluation,  comprised  DG  DEVCO,  DG  MARE,  DG  GROW,  DG  BUDG,  DG 
CLIMA, SG, EEAS, DG Trade, DG TAXUD (11 members). There were 7 ISG meetings over 
the  course  of  the  Greenland  Decision  external  evaluation  to  cover  initial  briefing,  provide 
feedback  on  inception,  desk,  key  messages,  draft  Final,  and  Final  reports.  There  were  also 
four meetings (2 in September 2016, 1 in December 2016 and 1 end of March 2017) among 
all the consultants and all the evaluation managers to promote understanding and exchange on 
complementarity and synergy between instruments. 

The  ISG  quality  assessed  the  external  evaluation  as  satisfactory  at their  meeting  of  22  May 
2017. 

In  addition,  the  Greenland  Decision  ISG  met  to  assess  this  Staff  Working  Document  and 
afterwards, it was assessed by the global ISG, with specific focus on coherence between the 
ten  Staff  Working  Documents.  Conclusively,  the  Staff  Working  Documents  have  also  been 
through an Inter-service Consultation in the Commission. 

Analytical models used 

This  evaluation  is  based  on  a  wide-ranging  consultation  process.  It  included  a  three-month 
online Open Public Consultation accessible to anybody word-wide; technical workshops  for 
EU Member States, MEPs and OCTs; in addition, the consultants held targeted individual or 
group  interviews  with  stakeholders,  Commission  staff,  civil  society,  private  sector, 
Government of Greenland and EU Member States, structured around the evaluation questions. 
The  evaluation  is  guided  by  Evaluation  Questions  covering  EU  evaluation  criteria 
(relevance;  effectiveness,  impact  and  sustainability;  efficiency;  added  value;  coherence, 
consistency, complementarity and synergies; and leverage) 

The  external  evaluation  used  non-experimental  methodology.  This  was  based  on  the 
reconstructed Intervention Logic for the Greenland Decision, and testing the extent to which 
in practice this has worked as intended (see figure 1 below). 

Baselines  used  were  those  of  January  2014,  when  the  GD  was  adopted.  Therefore  the 
evaluation  compares,  to  the  extent  possible,  the  situation  in  January  2014  with  the  current 
situation  in  2017.  For  some  evaluation  criteria,  where  availability  of  data  is  limited,  the 
previous instrument period 2007-2013 has been used to detect, when possible, the longer-term 
effects of EU-support to Greenland. 

25 

 
 
 
 
 
Limitations, challenges and appreciation of data 
A  number  of  limitations  need  to  be  recognised  for  this  evaluation.  One  is  that  the  MTR  of 
education  sector  support  will  not  be  finalised  in  time  to  feed  into  this  evaluation.  Another 
limitation is that the programme period under review is short (1 January 2014 to 1 June 2017). 
As a general rule, 2014 is taken as the baseline. However, to overcome the challenges posed 
because of the shortness of the period under evaluation, the results have been interpreted with 
the  figures  from  the  previous  programming  period  of  2007-2013  in  mind.  This  has  also 
enabled the evaluation team to detect, when possible, the longer-term effects of EU support to 
the education sector in Greenland. 

The  Greenlandic  Statistical  Office  provides  reliable,  comprehensive  and  up-to-date 
information  on  all  aspects  of  Greenland’s  society,  economy  and  labour  market.  It  also 
provides  reliable  statistical  data  for  the  programme  implementation  reports  (e.g.  Annual 
Implementation  Report).  Programme  documentation  and  other  information,  such  as  policy 
papers, studies and evaluations, are also readily available. Information from ad hoc and more 
informal  policy  dialogue  between  the  EU  and  Greenland  has  been  more  difficult  to  obtain, 
and data triangulation is also a challenge in this regard. 

26 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Annex 3. Synopsis report of the stakeholders' consultation 

The stakeholder consultation for the evaluation of the Greenland Decision began in late 2015 
and came to an end in May 2017. The majority of the consultation activities took place during 
the  Open  Public  Consultation  at  the  beginning  of  2017.  As  highlighted  in  the  evaluation 
Roadmap 101 ,  the  consultation  approach  involved  colleting  input  from  a  wide  range  of 
stakeholders on the Greenland Decision at its mid-point. 

1.  Evaluation Roadmap 

The consultation process began with the publication of the evaluation Roadmap, which was 
published  on  the  European  Commission  website  November  2015.  As  per  the  Better 
Regulation  guidelines102,  the  aim  of  the  Roadmap  was  to  give  stakeholders  and  the  general 
public an early opportunity to provide feedback on the evaluation and its approach. However, 
no feedback was received. 

2.  Interviews  

The approach of the external evaluation was to consult as broadly and as deeply as possible. 
As  the  stakeholders  for  the  Greenland  Decision  are  relatively  few,  it  was  possible  for  the 
external consultants to cover a broad scope of key people either face to face or by phone – as 
well as through a Technical workshop arranged as part of the Open Public Consultation. 

All key stakeholder groups were reached. The objectives of the interviews were to (i) address 
gaps in the documentation reviewed, (ii) better understand realities on the ground, especially 
during the field visit, and (iii) triangulate findings especially when the evidence collected was 
based on internal EU documentation and sources. 

In  addition  to  a  range  of  interviews  with  Danish  and  Greenlandic  stakeholders  in  Denmark 
and  Brussels,  the  consultants  went  on  a  seven-day  field  mission  to  Greenland  in  order  to 
consult  relevant  ministries  and  stakeholders,  which  included  a  stakeholder  workshop. 
European  Commission  staff  whose  work  relates  to  Greenland  was  further  interviewed.  See 
full list below: 

101 http://ec.europa.eu/smart-regulation/roadmaps/docs/2017_devco_005_evaluation_greenland_en.pdf  
102 http://ec.europa.eu/smart-regulation/guidelines/toc_tool_en.htm  

27 

 
 
 
                                                 
28 

 
 
 
 
 
 
3.  Open Public Consultation – 7 February to 3 May 2017 

The  Open  Public  Consultation  (OPC)  on  the  draft  evaluation  report  took  place  during  12 
weeks and closed on 3 May 2017; the OPC consisted of an online survey open for the entire 
public  on  and  a  technical  workshop  with  Member  States,  Members  of  the  European 
Parliament (MEPs) and Overseas Countries and Territories (OCTs) during 27 and 28 March 
2017. 

The objective of the OPC on the External Financing Instruments 103, including the Greenland 
Decision, was two-fold: 

 

 

to gather feedback from the broadest possible range of stakeholders, including those in 
beneficiary countries and in the EU Member States, on the emerging conclusions from 
the evaluations. 

to  gather  preliminary  ideas  on  the  future  External  Financing  Instruments  after  the 
current ones have expired by 31 December 2020. 

This  annex  focuses  on  the  retrospective  aspects  that  were  covered  under  the  Open  Public 
Consultation. However,  there was also a forward-looking element to  the consultation which 
aimed  to  gather  preliminary  ideas  on  the  future  External  Financing  Instruments  after  the 
current ones have expired by 31 December 2020. 

The  Consultation  took  the  shape  of  (i)  an  online  consultation  which  included  some  guiding 
questions  to  facilitate  providing  feedback  and  (ii)  face  to  face  meetings  organised  with  key 
stakeholders.  In  that  respect,  a  technical  workshop  with  representatives  of  Council  working 
groups, together with representatives of the European Parliament and, Overseas Countries and 
Territories (OCTs) took place during 27 and 28 March 2017. 

a.  OPC online contributions 

The OPC evaluation for the Greenland Decision was available in English and Greenlandic in 
order  to  ensure  full  access  for  the  Greenlandic  public,  stakeholders  and  civil  society 
organisations.  The  consultation  included  some  guiding  questions  to  fuel  the  feedback.  The 
guiding questions for the Greenland Decision (also in Greenlandic) were the following: 

  How well do you think the Greenland Decision has addressed its objectives? The main 
assessment  criteria  for  the  evaluation  are:  relevance;  effectiveness,  impact  and 
sustainability;  efficiency;  EU  added  value;  coherence,  consistency,  complementarity 
and  synergies;  and  leverage.  Feel  free  to  comment  on  the  findings,  conclusions  or 
recommendations for any/all of the criteria. 

  To  what  extent  do  the  Greenland  Decision  and  the  partnership  with  Greenland 

contribute to the EU playing a more influential role in the Arctic region? 

103 Development  Cooperation  Instrument,  11th  European  Development  Fund  (EDF),  European  Neighbourhood 
Instrument,  European  Instrument  for  Democracy  and  Human  Rights,  Greenland  Decision,    Instrument 
contributing  to  Stability  and  Peace,  Instrument  for  Pre-Accession,  Instrument  on  Nuclear  Safety  Cooperation, 
Overseas Countries and Territories Decision, Partnership Instrument and the Common Implementing Regulation. 
For the purpose of this exercise, the evaluation of the Overseas Countries and Territories Decision is included 
within the evaluation of the 11th EDF. 

29 

 
 
 
                                                 
 

If you have any other views on the Greenland Decision you would like to share, they 
are welcome here. 

In  total,  41  people,  Member  States,  MEPs  or  organisations  provided  feedback  through  the 
online  OPC 
https://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/public-consultation-external-financing-
instruments-european-union_en.  Most  did  not  know  the  instrument  beforehand  and  did 
thereby not have any specific GD feedback but more general feedback on External Financing 
Instruments. Below you can find a summary of the contributions. 

on 

b.  Summary of OPC contributions 

Question 1: How well do you think the Greenland Decision has addressed its objectives? The 
main  assessment  criteria  for  the  evaluation  are:  relevance;  effectiveness,  impact  and 
sustainability;  efficiency;  EU  added  value;  coherence,  consistency,  complementarity  and 
synergies;  and 
findings,  conclusions  or 
recommendations for any/all of the criteria. 

to  comment  on 

leverage.  Feel 

free 

the 

In total, 6 relevant contributions were received through the web consultation and in writing. 
In addition, relevant comments were made during the technical workshop sessions. 

 

Industry,  business  or  workers'  organisation  from  non-EU  Member  State  (website 
comment): ‘Activities could be better’ 

  Public authority from EU Member State (website comment): ‘Looking ahead to the goals 
set  out  in  the  regulations  of  the  Greenland  Decision,  it  appears  that  all  objectives  are 
pursued as intended. We agree with the assessment indicating the need for greater focus 
on political dialogue and on issues resulting from this, and not only on cooperation in the 
field of education’10. 

  Public authority  from EU Member State (website  comment):  This Member State was of 
the  opinion  that  ‘the  Greenland  Decision  (GD)  has  proved  relevant  and  effective  in 
pursuing and fulfilling the general and specific objectives set out in the Decision as well 
as reflecting the general principles of the GD concerning facilitation of policy dialogue on 
global and Arctic issues’. The stakeholder considered that the draft evaluation report ‘puts 
a  decisive  emphasis  on  the  question  of  the  creation  of  formal  structures  for  policy 
dialogue  on  global  issues  and  thereby  drawing  several  conclusions  (conclusions  3,  4,  5 
and 6) that are inconsistent and unfounded. Especially conclusion 5 claiming that the very 
raison  d’être  of  the  GD  is  yet  to  be  proven  is  problematic  as  it  ignores  the  actual 
objectives of the GD and thereby also contradicts conclusions 1  and 2 […] it is […] not 
meaningful, nor in conformity with the stated objectives of the GD, to seek to isolate this 
main  area  of  cooperation  from  the  overall  evaluation  of  the  GD.  Furthermore,  the  draft 
mid-term evaluation report seems to ignore the extent to which the GD has indeed been 
conducive to the important policy dialogue that does in fact take place – both within and 
outside  the  framework  of  the  programming  and  implementation  set-up  (cf.  below 
mentioned examples)’. The same Member State ‘is of the opinion that the GD has proved 
to be a suitable institutional set-up for maintaining and enforcing the strong ties between 
the EU and Greenland/Denmark since Greenland left the EU in 1985. Preserving the close 
and  lasting  links  between  the  partners  –  the  Union  on  the  one  hand  and  Greenland  and 
Denmark on the other – while supporting the sustainable development of Greenland is the 
general objective of the Council Decision. Since 1985 many changes have occurred. […] 

30 

 
 
 
 
 
 
But common dedication to the sustainable development in Greenland, and the recognition 
of the geostrategic location of the Arctic  also contribute to establishing and maintaining 
the  relation  as  a  genuine  partnership’.  It  then  concluded  that  ‘it  is  both  suitable  and 
appropriate to maintain a dedicated external financial instrument for Greenland’ in virtue 
of its special  status  and geostrategic position compared to  other  Overseas  Countries and 
Territories (OCTs).The Joint Communication to the European Parliament and the Council 
on an integrated European Union Policy for the Arctic as well as the EU Global Strategy 
demonstrates  EU’s  acknowledgement  of  the  importance  of  a  well-functioning  and 
prosperous Arctic and EU’s strategic interest in being an actively engaged partner herein. 
The  GD  is  a  showcase  for  the  EU’s  strong  and  continuous  efforts  in  this  regard. 
Maintaining  and  developing  the  partnership  between  EU  and  Greenland/Denmark  in  the 
current institutional setup (GD, OCT Association and Fisheries Agreement) will increase 
in  the coming  years as the  importance  of the Arctic region to the EU is  not  expected to 
diminish, as illustrated by the recent communication on an integrated policy for the Arctic. 
The GD thus remains highly relevant. 
The programming of the partnership is currently focused on one strategic sector in 
Greenland  –  namely  strengthening  the  educational  sector.  As  is  also  emphasized  in  the 
draft evaluation report the education sector is an appropriate choice from a development 
point  of  view.  […]  Education  and  training  is  of  vital  importance  with  regards  to  the 
objective of sustainable diversification of the Greenlandic economy. Furthermore, the fact 
that  the  sector  has  been  chosen  by  the  Greenlandic  Government  ensures  strong  support 
and ownership.’ 

  Research/academia  institution  from  EU  Member  State  (website  comment):  ‘The 
Greenland Decision has contributed to sustainable development in Greenland in education 
and administration. Added value is represented for the EU and Greenland on top of links 
with Denmark.’ 

  Public authority from EU Member State (additional written comment): (…) At midterm, 
we can draw up the following partial results of the Greenland Education Policy:  - a real 
budgetary  effort  has  been  made  by  the  Greenland  government  in  the  education  sector; 
education represents 25.9% (323 M €) of public expenditure in 2016 against 14% in 2004. 
Specific objectives include: i) a downward trend in the share of Greenland youth (16-18 
years) outside the education system (61% in 2013, 59% in 2015); this number still seems 
far too high and the target of 40% in 2020 set by the GEP seems difficult to attain; ii) a 
rate of success in the lycée (51% in 2013, 49% in 2015, 65% in 2020); iii) results at the 
7th  Grade  test  that  do  not  progress  with  significant  gaps  in  Danish  and  English;  iv)  a 
vocational  training  policy  (Phase  I)  which  has  not  yet  led  to  a  diversification  of  the 
Greenlandic economy, which is still dependent on exports of seafood (90%). For example, 
the survey of mining companies by the Fraser Institute in 2016 indicates that only 14 per 
cent believe that the level of labour force training available in Greenland is conducive to 
investment.  Suggestions  for  the  reorientation  of  objectives:  From  a  structural  point  of 
view,  the  difficulty  of  the  objectives  of  the  GEP  is  to  try  to  reconcile  quantitative 
objectives  (access  to  education,  reduction  in  the  number  of  young  people  outside  the 
school  system,  etc.)  and  qualitative  Grade  test,  etc.).  Only  better  teacher  training  seems 
likely to meet these objectives. 
The Danish Evaluation Institute, EVA, had highlighted, in a report published on 8 April 
2016, the Deficiencies in the training proposed by the Ilinniarfissuaq, which trains 85% of 
the  Greenlandic  teachers  since  1845,  as  well  as  deficiencies  in  its  functioning.  Teacher 

31 

 
 
 
 
training  is  considered  to  be  "inefficient  and  partly  responsible  for  the  weakness  of  the 
Greenlandic education system". The report stresses in particular that many Ilinniarfissuaq 
graduates have insufficient academic qualifications to teach in secondary school (notably 
in English and mathematics) and do not receive appropriate teacher training in the proper 
direction of a class. Due to the recent publication of this EVA report, no mention is made 
of  this  issue  in  the  document  submitted  to  the  Member  States.  The  annual  work 
programme  2015  of  the  Ministry  of  Education,  Culture,  Research  and  Church  of 
Greenland  specifies  "only  half  of  the  teachers'  posts  in  isolated  villages  are  filled 
(settlements in the original text)". This phenomenon can be explained by the shortage of 
qualified teachers in Greenland who mostly prefer to practice in the biggest cities of the 
island (Nuuk, Ilulissat, Tasilaaq, Sisimiut, Qaqortoq, etc.). Although incentives are being 
introduced  to  encourage  the  installation  and  practice  of  qualified  teachers  throughout 
Greenland  (a  premium  of  €  80  per  month  and  preferential  accommodation  rates  are 
granted to teachers working in isolated coastal villages), these seem insufficient to ensure 
equal  access  to  education.  It  therefore  seems  appropriate  to  suggest  that  a  structural 
reform of teacher training and a more egalitarian distribution of teachers on the territory 
should be placed among the priorities of the Greenland Education Program in the years to 
come. 

  Government of Greenland (GoG) (additional written comment): ‘If you look at the overall 
objective  of  the  GD,  which  is;  “The  partnership  aims  to  preserve  the  close  and  lasting 
links between the partners, while supporting the sustainable development of Greenland”, 
then the GoG certainly believes that the GD has addressed its objectives by focusing on 
education.  The  GoG  most  emphasise  that  this  is  the  most  important  area  to  focus  on  in 
order  for  Greenland  to  achieve  sustainable  development.  The  objective  of  the  GD  is 
certainly  relevant  for  the  EU’s  agenda  and  the  EU  priorities,  especially  considering  the 
EU’s  hope  to  gain  more  influence  in  the  Arctic  region.  The  good  cooperation  with 
Greenland  is  very  beneficial  for  the  EU’s  understanding  of  the  Arctic  region  and 
instrumental in the process to try to gain more influence in the Arctic. In paragraph (9) in 
Council  Decision  2014/137/EU  -  the  GD,  the  following  is  stated:  “The  Union  needs  to 
build  comprehensive  partnerships  with  new  actors  on  the  international  scene  in  order  to 
promote  stable  and  inclusive  international  order,  to  pursue  common  global  goals  and  to 
defend  core  Union  interests,  as  well  as  to  increase  knowledge  of  the  Union  in  third 
countries  and  OCTs.”  GoG  remark:  The  GD  is  working  in  accordance  with  these 
objectives, as political meetings take place several times a year, besides the more formal 
policy  dialogues  under  the  GD.  This  strengthens  mutual  understanding.  Financial 
standards  influenced  by  the  EU  are  also  through  the  GD  being  transmitted  over  to 
Greenland, and thus increases stability.’ 

Question 2: To what extent does the Greenland Decision and the partnership with Greenland 
contribute to the EU playing a more influential role in the Arctic region? 

In  total,  5  relevant  contributions  were  received  through  the  web  consultation.  In  addition, 
relevant comments were made during the technical workshop by 1 Member State in particular 
and by the Greenlandic Mission to the EU. 

  Public  authority  from  EU  Member  State  (website  comment):  ‘In  our  opinion,  the 
Greenland Decision affects underlying EU interest in the Arctic region but does not affect 

32 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
its  stronger  role  and  being  perceived  as  a  significant  player  in  the  region.  Greenland 
enjoys  EU  aid  in  terms  of  education  and  does  not  seem  to  be  interested  in  increasing 
cooperation in other areas, also in order to prevent the EU influence in the Arctic. It is not 
until the end of the favourable position from EU point of view. 

  Public authority from EU Member State (website comment): ‘Denmark has noted that the 
draft midterm evaluation report attaches great attention to whether the GD has facilitated 
“policy  dialogue  on  global  issues”.  In  this  regard  Denmark  would  like  to  point  out  that 
consultations  and  policy  dialogue  do  not  constitute  the  objectives  of  the  GD.  Policy 
dialogue  on  global  issues  is  a  general  principle  of  the  partnership.  Policy  dialogue  on 
global  issues  should  therefore  not  be  evaluated  as  an  objective  on  equal  footing  as  the 
general and specific objectives of the GD. Denmark strongly urges a more proper balance 
to  be  established  in  the  final  mid-term  evaluation.  Although  policy  dialogue  is  not 
amongst the actual objectives of the GD, Denmark acknowledges that policy dialogue is 
of great importance to the partnership between EU and Greenland/Denmark. Therefore it 
is also important to note that policy dialogue does take place – both within and outside the 
programming and implementation set-up. Section 26 contains examples of the latter. The 
claimed lack of policy dialogue on global issues is addressed in conclusions 3, 4 and 5 of 
the draft evaluation report. It is the view of Denmark that this is not accurate and is in any 
event  given  an  unbalanced  weight  in  the  overall  report.  Contrary  to  the  assertion  put 
forward  in  the  draft  evaluation,  we  would  argue  that  focus  on  the  education  sector  – 
chosen by the Government of Greenland in agreement with the Commission – has indeed 
been  conducive  to  a  wider  policy  dialogue.  The  acknowledgement  and  respect  of  the 
Commission  of  Greenland’s  own  priorities  has  enabled  a  Greenlandic  perception  of  the 
EU as a credible, legitimate partner, also on broader issues beyond the education sector. 
The  GD  as  such  constitutes  a  framework  for  dialogue  on  broader  aspects.  Denmark 
strongly  disagrees  with  conclusion  no.  5.  We  believe  the  assertion  of  conclusion  5  runs 
contrary  to  conclusions  1  and  2.  The  GD  reflects  political  goals  and  evolving  interests. 
Interests for fisheries rights. And interests for influence in the increasingly geopolitically 
and geostrategically important  region of the Arctic. The GD is  a showcase for the EU’s 
strong  and  continuous  efforts  to  be  an  engaged,  committed,  legitimate  partner  in  the 
Arctic. The GD has therefore to a large extent proven its raison d’être. 
If the parties consider that even further dialogue on broader issues is relevant and timely 
the GD as such constitutes a well suited instrument in this regard. Denmark does not see a 
need for changing the incentive structures of the instrument. Its current characteristics as a 
true  partnership  between  the  EU  on  the  one  hand  and  Greenland/Denmark  on  the  other 
contribute to facilitating true reciprocal dialogue on issues of relevance for the parties. 
Contrary to the assertion put forward in the draft evaluation, we would argue that focus on 
the  education  sector  –  chosen  by  the  Government  of  Greenland  in  agreement  with  the 
Commission – has been conducive to a wider policy dialogue. The acknowledgement and 
respect of the Commission of Greenland’s own priorities has enabled a perception of the 
EU as a credible, legitimate partner, also on broader issues beyond the education sector. 
This could be assessed to be a contributing factor to Greenland/Denmark’s support for a 
stronger role for the EU in the Arctic, including through support to EU’s wish of a formal 
observership  to  the  Arctic  Council  and  support  to  EU’s  engagement  in  the  negotiations 
towards  an  agreement  to  prevent  unregulated  high  seas  fisheries  in  the  Central  Arctic 
Ocean. 

33 

 
 
 
 
Recent  years’  dialogue  between  the  EU  and  Greenland/Denmark  on  eg.  Arctic  issues 
indicate  that  the  EU  is  moving  towards  a  greater  understanding  of  the  Arctic  and 
Greenlandic reality, including the importance of keeping the inhabitants of the region in 
focus. Denmark/Greenland has  continuously argued to  ensure a more diverse perception 
of  the  Arctic  –  away  from  the  one-sided  calls  for  bans  on  human  activities  towards  a 
balanced view which takes into account the needs of the Arctic inhabitants for sustainable 
development with due regard to the environment. The recent Joint Communication on an 
integrated  European  Union  Policy  for  the  Arctic  indicates  some  movement  towards  this 
balanced 
that  dialogue  between  EU  actors  and 
Greenland/Denmark  has  contributed  to  such  possible  movement  in  perception.  And  that 
such  dialogue  has  been  facilitated  by  the  existence  of  a  partnership  between  EU  and 
Greenland/Denmark as specified in the GD. 
Greenland  is  with  its  current  institutional  setup  a  part  of  the  EU  family.  The  EU  has  a 
strong interest in maintaining close and lasting ties with a stable, prosperous, democratic 
Greenland  both  for  historic  and  cultural  reasons  but  also  from  a  geopolitical  and 
geostrategic point of view.’ 

It  may  be  argued 

focus. 

  Research/academia  institution  from  EU  Member  State  (website  comment):  ‘With  this 
partnership the EU can have an influence in fishing rights in Greenland waters. Greenland 
has  a more important role in the Arctic with  this Greenland Decision. With  more future 
collaboration with Greenland it may have importance in regard to climate change.’ 

  Public authority from EU Member States (additional written comment): The influence of 
the European Union in the Arctic region could be strengthened at two levels through the 
decision. On the one hand, by the adhesion of the Greenlandic indigenous population, and 
on  the  other  hand,  to  actors  outside  Greenland,  provided  that  proportionate  visibility  to 
financing is ensured. However, the visibility of European funding for education is rather 
low  outside  the  sectors  directly  concerned  (the  Greenlandic  and,  to  a  lesser  extent,  the 
Danish Government). Bilateral relations are most often seen by the Greenland press and 
public opinion through the lens of fisheries agreements or legislation on the importation of 
seal products. 

  GoG: ‘Up until a few years ago the EU has been criticized by many Arctic countries for 
lacking  the  understanding  of  the  circumstances  of  the  Arctic  peoples  and  the  need  to 
balance between sustainable development and protection of the environment. Greenland is 
right  in  the  middle  of  many  of  these  important  Arctic  developments.  The  GoG  believes 
due  to  the  focus  on  sustainable  development  in  the  GD  that  the  EU  gets  a  better 
understanding of the importance of sustainable development for the peoples of the Arctic. 
Sustainable development policies founded in Europe are not necessarily applicable to the 
Arctic region. Smaller populations in the Arctic, economy of scale factors, infrastructural 
challenges,  climatic,  geographic,  educational  and  cultural  differences,  etc.,  make  it 
necessary  to  keep  up  a  dialogue,  in  order  to  develop  a  better  understanding  of  living 
conditions in the Arctic – including for the EU to understand the Arctic better in general.  
Without a solid and proper understanding of the Arctic and its societies and peoples, the 
EU will not play a more influential role in the Arctic, because without understanding, the 
policies  will  not  be  qualified.  If  policies  are  not  adequate  and  qualified  this  will 
continuously  be  recognized  by  Arctic  actors.  The  GD  is  an  important  backdrop  for  the 
many  contacts  between  EU  actors  and  the  GoG.  The  political  dialogues  on  numerous 
subject  areas  that  follow  from  these  contacts,  increase  the  EU’s  understanding  of  the 

34 

 
 
 
 
 
Arctic, but also increase an important Arctic actor, namely Greenland’s understanding of 
the  EU.  Along  this  line  the  EU  has  acknowledged  that  it  is  the  GoG  who  knows  most 
intimately how to best allocate resources to ensure sustainable development in Greenland. 
This  shows  that  the  EU  has  acknowledged  that  there  are  challenging  conditions  in 
Greenland best known by the people situated there, but it is also an important recognition 
of  the  competences  of  the  GoG,  and  indirectly  of  legitimate  democratic  governance 
structures in the Arctic. Good and proper  understanding based on knowledge  will likely 
have the effect that the Arctic peoples are more open toward including the EU in the work 
regarding the future of the Arctic. 

Question 3: If you have any other views on the Greenland Decision you would like to share, 
they are welcome here. 

In  total,  5  relevant  contributions  were  received  through  the  web  consultation,  of  which  1 
clarification,  2  suggestions  and  1  list  of  detailed  comments  on  the  report.  All  the  relevant 
comments made during the technical workshop have already been captured under Q 1 and 2. 

  Public  authority  from  EU  Member  State  (website  comment):  ‘Enhancing  the  role  of  the 
EU in the Arctic is strongly desirable. Since there is a financial instrument that will help to 
improve the living conditions of some, it is worth being used to expand cooperation and 
(financial) support at other issues, which will translate into an increase in Greenland, and 
further strengthening the EU’s role on the High North. 

  Public  authority  from  EU  Member  State  (website  comment):  14  Examples  of  policy 

dialogue on broader issues that happen or are going to happen 2015-2017. 

  Public  authority  from  non-EU  Member  State  (website  comment):  ‘The  procedures  for 
programming and implementing financial assistance to Greenland (in the form of budget 
support) could usefully be compared with the EDF procedures available to other OCTs in 
the context of discussions on assistance Financial support for the OCTs. 

  Public  authority  from  EU  Member  State  (written  comment):  The  procedures  for 
programming and implementing financial assistance to Greenland (in the form of budget 
support)  could  usefully  be  compared  with  the  EDF  procedures  available  to  other  OCTs, 
with a view to considering financial assistance Post 2020. 

  One public authority has made detailed comments on specific sections of the report. 

4.  Face-to-face meetings 

During the Open Public Consultation phase, a series of face-to-face meetings were organised 
as follows: 

  Technical workshop with representatives of the European Parliament (Secretariats of 

the Committees and assistants to MEPs), and Council working groups; 

35 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  Civil  society  and  Local  Authorities  representatives  gathered  in  the  Policy  Forum  on 

Development104; 

  OCTs  representatives  and  representatives  of  the  Member  States  to  which  they  are 

linked. 

All  the  above-mentioned  meetings  provided  an  opportunity  for  the  external  consultants  to 
present their preliminary results and engage in a discussion with some of the key stakeholders 
as  well  as  creating  an  opportunity  for  the  stakeholders  to  give  input  and  ask  clarifying 
questions before submitting their final feedback. 

The gathering of the Policy Forum for Development105 with Civil Society Organisations and 
Local Authorities did not directly result in changes into the external evaluation report as no 
questions or comments were made on the evaluation of the Greenland Decision. 

Eight Member States and three MEPs participated in the targeted session on the evaluation of 
the  Greenland  Decision  as  part  of  the  technical  workshop  on  28  March  2017  arranged  for 
Member  States  and  MEPs.  In  the  targeted  session  for  the  OCTs  and  the  Member  States  to 
which they are linked, two Member States and three OCTs participated. 

During the Technical workshop sessions the discussion was mainly centred on the issues of 
policy dialogue and ownership and relevance to keep a dedicated instrument. The following 
points were raised: 

 

Importance  and  relevance  of  the  GD:  The  Greenland  Decision  is  considered  a  valuable 
instrument to maintain and to reinforce the strong ties between Greenland and the EU. The 
political  aspects  of  the  relationship  have  very  much  evolved  over  the  years.  The  geo-
strategic  importance  of  Greenland  was  emphasised  as  well  as  the  importance  of 
maintaining a dedicated EFI for Greenland. 

  Ownership  of  the  support:  Education  and  vocational  training  is  considered  of  vital 
importance  for  sustainable  diversification  of  the  economy  which  is  highly  supported  by 
the Greenland Government, which is considered as a sign of ownership. 

  Policy dialogue 

o  Principle vs. objective: Policy Dialogue is the general principle but not an objective. 
The  emphasis  on  Policy  Dialogue  seems  to  be  unfounded.  The  principles  could  be 
relevant,  but  the  balancing  of  the  principles  and  objectives  does  not  seem  adequate 
looking  at  the  Greenland  Decision.  Thus,  the  conclusion  on  questioning  the  raison 
d’être of the instrument contradicts the first conclusion where the report states that the 
GD had a positive impact. 

104 The Policy Forum on Development  brings together Civil Society Organisations and Local Authorities from 
the  European  Union  and  partner  countries  with  European  Institutions  and  bodies  to  exchange  about 
development cooperation. 

105 The Policy Forum on Development  brings together Civil Society Organisations and Local Authorities from 
the  European  Union  and  partner  countries  with  European  Institutions  and  bodies  to  exchange  about 
development cooperation. 

36 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
o 

 Incentive  based  dialogue:  High  level  visits  from  the  European  Commission  side  to 
Greenland have taken place. Many examples of concrete and demand driven dialogues 
exist.  From  Greenland  colleagues,  it  is  understood  that  they  are  open  to  further 
dialogue. 

o  Framework for policy dialogue: Resources should be used efficiently, thus building up 
a  heavy  machinery  to  conduct  policy  dialogue  is  questioned.  Moreover,  one 
participant made the following remarks: 

a)  It  was  recognised  that  there  had  not  been  structured  and  results-oriented  policy 
dialogue. However the Greenland Decision should not be blamed for the fact that 
two  parties  did  not  do  an  effort  to  have  policy  dialogue  (beyond  education). 
Greenland  underlines  that  it  is  willing  to  take  up  intensified  policy  dialogue  on 
issues such as raw materials and climate change if the EC should show a renewed 
and concrete interest. 

b)  There are clear opportunities to have mutually beneficial dialogue with the EU in a 
number  of  areas  such  as:  mineral  resources,  climate  change,  research  and 
infrastructure. He suggested a Platform for dialogue be created under the GD. This 
should be a light thing not a heavy machinery and be continued only if we see that 
constructive  ideas  and  cooperation  emerge.  He  said  it  is  difficult  to  know  right 
now if such dialogue will lead to concrete results but we can only know if people 
start taking to each other. 

c)  There  is  no  need  to  allocate  money  under  other  priority  areas  to  enable  such 
dialogue, since this should be about mutual interest. It is a question of political will 
to start such dialogue. People are already paid by their respective employers. They 
don't need additional fees to take part in such dialogue. 

d)  Suggested  this  platform  could  be  managed  by  other  actors  (e.g.  EEAS)  not 
necessarily  DEVCO,  but  that  cooperation  with  DEVCO  on  education  is  very 
fruitful and Greenland would like to continue with this. Greenland would also like 
to continue the current cooperation with OCTs as well. 

e)  Suggested that as it is today the dialogue between EU and Greenland in other areas 
is  seen  as  an  appendix  to  the  dialogue  on  education  which  does  not  help  to 
promote dialogue on other themes. 

f)  The  partnership  with  the  EU  is  highly  valued  as  the  EU  is  clearly  perceived  by 

Greenland as a neutral partner. 

37 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Annex 4. Acronyms 

BEST 2.0 

Voluntary  scheme  for  Biodiversity  and  Ecosystems  services  in  Territories  of 
European Overseas 

CIR 

Common Implementing Regulation 

COMBAR 

EU Programme on Communicative Barriers 

DCI 

Development Cooperation Instrument 

DG CLIMA 

Directorate-General for Climate Action 

DG DEVCO 

Directorate-General for International Cooperation and Development 

DG GROWTH  Directorate-General for Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs 

DG MARE 

Directorate-General for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries 

DG NEAR 

Directorate-General for Neighbourhood and Enlargement Negotiations 

DG REGIO 

Directorate-General for Regional and Urban Policy 

DG TAXUD 

Directorate-General for Taxation and Customs Union 

EEAS 

European External Action Service 

EIB 

EU 

EUR 

FPA 

GDP 

IL 

ISG 

MFF 

OCT 

OCTA 

OPC 

PDSD 

PI 

SDG 

European Investment Bank 

European Union 

Euro 

Fisheries Partnership Agreement 

Gross Domestic Product 

Intervention Logic 

Inter-Service Group 

Multiannual Financial Framework 

Overseas Country and Territory 

OCT Association 

Open Public Consultation 

Programming Document for Sustainable Development 

Partnership Instrument 

Sustainable Development Goal 

38 

 
 
 
 
Annex 5. Full list of programme indicators  

39 

 
 
 
 
 
40 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Annex 6. Background information on Greenland 

Greenland at a glance: 

Population size: 55,847 (2016) – 88 % is of Inuit origin 

Land  area:  2.166  million  km²  (410,000  km² 
1.756,000 km² ice-covered) 

ice-free, 

Constitutional status: parliamentary democracy 

Head of State: Queen Margrethe II of Denmark 
Premier (Naalakkersuisut Siulittaasuat): Kim Kielsen 
(Siumut) (since 2014) 
Government of Greenland: Naalakkersuisut 
Parliament: Inatsisartut – 31 members 
GDP, annual % growth: 4.6 % (2016) 

Greenland is a self-governing territory within the Kingdom of Denmark with a population of 
55,984 (January 2015), of whom the majority are indigenous peoples (88 % is of Inuit origin) 
-  living  in  largely  Arctic  climatic  conditions  and  remote  from  markets.  With  some  2.166 
million km², Greenland is the world's largest island. It is located between the North Atlantic 
and Arctic Oceans and most of the island is covered by the world's second largest ice-sheet 
(after Antarctica). Greenland is very thinly populated with a density rate of 0.14/km² ice free 
area.  Greenland  does  not  have  any  land  based  infrastructure  which  allows  for  commuting 
between towns and settlements; this is done via boats or aircraft. 

The  Act  of  Greenland  Self-Government  of  2009  determines  the  constitutional  status  of 
Greenland  within  the  Kingdom  of  Denmark  and  inter  alia  defines  the  natural  resources  of 
Greenland  as  being  the  property  of  the  Greenlandic  people.  The  2009  Self-Governance  Act 
also  recognises  the  Greenlanders  as  a  separate  people  with  the  right  to  self-determination 
under international law. Greenland is a parliamentary democracy with Queen Margrethe II of 
Denmark as its Head of State. She is represented by the High Commissioner, who functions as 
the link between the Government of Greenland and the Kingdom of Denmark. 

The Self-Governance Act changed the constitutional status for Greenland from home-rule to 
self-government.  Greenland  has  since  the  Home-rule  Act  of  1979  taken  over  more  areas  of 
responsibility  from  Denmark.  In  areas  where  the  Government  has  full  competence  (such  as 
fisheries,  hunting,  health  and  raw  materials),  it  is  authorised  to  negotiate  and  conclude,  on 
behalf of the Kingdom of Denmark, international agreements with states and organisations, to 
the  extent  that  such  agreements  exclusively  concern  Greenland.  Denmark  is  responsible  for 
defence, foreign affairs, internal security, the judicial system and monetary policy. 

Greenland’s  economy  is  characterised  by  a  very  large  and  predominant  public  sector. 
Fisheries  and  fishing  industries  dominate  exports.  The  public  finances are  highly  dependent 
on the block grant allocated by Denmark as well as the association of Greenland with the EU 

41 

 
 
 
 
 
(collectively  the  grants  account  for  more  than  50  %  of  the  national  budget).  In  2014,  the 
labour force stood at 26 764, whereas unemployment stood at 10.3%. 

The  public  sector,  including  publicly  owned  enterprises  and  the  municipalities,  plays  the 
dominant  role  in  Greenland's  economy.  It  represents  44%  of  employment.  Tourism  has 
economic  potential  but  remains  rather  limited  due  to  a  short  season  and  high  costs.  The 
fisheries  sector  is  the  most  important  accounting  for  88%  of  Greenland's  export  volumes, 
mainly  shrimp  (65%)  and  halibut  (19%).  Fisheries  are  not  only  important  to  Greenlandic 
society because of its economic weight, but also because, like seal hunting and whaling, it is 
an activity closely associated to the Inuit way of living. 

Greenland disposes of a number of natural resources: zinc, lead, iron ore, coal, gold, platinum, 
rare  earth  elements,  uranium,  molybdenum,  hydropower,  and  possibly  oil  and  gas.  The 
Government  of  Greenland  sees  the  mineral  extraction  and  hydrocarbon  sectors  as  possible 
levers for the territory's socio-economic development. Following the Act on Self Rule of 2009 
and the subsequent  Raw  Materials Act of the Government of Greenland of 1 January  2010, 
the Government of Greenland is fully competent to explore and exploit the natural resources 
of its underground. 

Relations with the European Union 

Greenland entered the European Community (EC) as part of Denmark in 1973. After gaining 
home rule in 1979 and holding a referendum in 1982, Greenland withdrew from the EC and 
the  Greenland  Treaty 106  came  into  force  in  1985.  Being  part  of  an  EU  Member  State, 
Greenland  was  thereafter  associated  to  the  EC  as  one  of  the  Overseas  Countries  and 
Territories  (OCTs).  The  relations  between  the  EU  and  the  OCTs  are  established  by  the 
OAD107, which also covers 24 other territories linked to an EU Member State. 

Simultaneously  with  the  Greenland  Treaty,  the  EU  signed  a  fisheries  agreement  with 
Denmark and Greenland. This  ensured continued access of  EU Member States  to  important 
fisheries resources gained while Greenland was still part of the EC. Following the mid-term 
review  of  the  Fourth  Fisheries  Protocol  (2002),  the  European  Council  concluded  it  was 
necessary  to  broaden  and  strengthen  EU-Greenland  relations,  taking  into  account  the 
importance of fisheries and Greenland's structural development problems108. It decided that a 
new  instrument  should  mitigate  any  negative  impact  of  a  new  fisheries  agreement  on 
Greenland's  ability  to  address  its  structural  problems,  namely  the  need  to  diversify  its 
economy from the traditional sectors, such as fisheries (89.4 % of total exports in 2015). 

This  resulted  in  the  Fisheries  Partnership  Agreement  (FPA)109 and  the  Greenland  Decision 
(GD)110, defining the framework for cooperation between the EU, Greenland and Denmark. 

The  GD  2007-2013  was  followed  by  the  current  GD  2014-2020111,  which  lays  down  rules 
concerning the relations between the partners (excluding the fisheries aspect, which is covered 

106 OJ L 29, 01.02.1985, p. 1 
107 OJ L 344, 19.12.2013, p. 1 
108 Council conclusions of 24 February 2003. 
109 OJ L 172, 30.06.2007, p.1 
110 OJ L208, p. 28 

42 

 
 
 
                                                 
by  the  FPA).  The  GD  2014-2020  aims  to  preserve  the  close  and  lasting  links  between  the 
partners, while supporting the sustainable development of Greenland and enhanced dialogue 
in areas of mutual interest. The specific arrangements for Greenland are based on Article 203 
of  the  Treaty  on  the  Functioning  of  the  EU  and  are  also  laid  down  in  the  OAD.  The  GD 
complements the OAD. 

Fisheries  partnership  agreement  (FPA):  Greenland  has  a  large  FPA,  amounting  to  over 
EUR 16  million per  year,  providing access to mainly  prawns and Greenland halibut for EU 
fleets. The current Protocol 2016-2020 includes almost EUR 3 million per year in support of 
the local fisheries policy, management, control and biological research. 

A Joint Declaration was signed by the Prime Ministers of Greenland and Denmark, and the 
President of the Commission in March 2015. This essentially reconfirms the strong relations, 
emphasising the need for continued dialogue and cooperation. 

111 Decision (EU) No. 137/2014, OJ L 76, p.1 

43 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                         
Annex 7. External evaluators' report, including its annexes. 

The external evaluation can be found here: https://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/public-consultation-
external-financing-instruments-european-union_en 

44