COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Accompanying the document REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL on the evaluation of the European Union's External Financing Instruments for the 2014 - 2020 and 2021 - 2027 Multiannual Financial Frameworks
Date: 2024-05-15
Institutions: Directorate-General for International Partnerships, European Commission
Subjects: EU financial instrument, European neighbourhood policy, Greenland, development aid, financial aid, international cooperation, multiannual financial framework, nuclear safety, overseas countries and territories, pre-accession aid

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 15.5.2024  SWD(2024) 133 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT    Accompanying the document REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL on the evaluation of the European Union's External Financing Instruments for the 2014 - 2020 and 2021 - 2027 Multiannual Financial Frameworks {COM(2024) 208 final}  
 
 
Contents 

1. 

INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................... 4 

2.  WHAT WAS THE EXPECTED OUTCOME OF THE INTERVENTION? ................. 9 

2.1 Description of the intervention and its objectives .......................................................... 9 

2.2 Points of comparison .................................................................................................... 16 

3.  HOW HAS THE SITUATION EVOLVED OVER THE EVALUATION PERIOD? . 26 

4.  EVALUATION FINDINGS .......................................................................................... 32 

4.1 To what extent was the intervention successful and why? ........................................... 32 

4.2 How did the EU intervention make a difference and to whom? .................................. 56 

4.3 Is the intervention still relevant? .................................................................................. 63 

5.  WHAT ARE THE CONCLUSIONS AND LESSONS LEARNED? ........................... 67 

ANNEX I: PROCEDURAL INFORMATION...................................................................... 72 

ANNEX II. METHODOLOGY AND ANALYTICAL MODELS USED............................ 76 

ANNEX  III.  EVALUATION  MATRIX  AND,  WHERE  RELEVANT,  DETAILS  ON 
ANSWERS TO THE EVALUATION QUESTIONS ........................................................... 78 

ANNEX IV. OVERVIEW OF BENEFITS AND COSTS .................................................... 82 

ANNEX V. STAKEHOLDERS CONSULTATION - SYNOPSIS REPORT .................... 119 

ANNEX VI. MONITORING, EVALUATION AND RESULTS ....................................... 129 

ANNEX VII FINANCIAL OVERVIEW ............................................................................ 137 

ANNEX VIII INTERVENTION LOGICS .......................................................................... 152 

ANNEX IX EXTERNAL STUDY ...................................................................................... 163 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Glossary 

Term or acronym 

Meaning or definition 

AAP 

ACP 

CBSD 

CFSP 

CIR 

DCI 

DFIs 

DOAG 

EAG 

EBRD 

EDF 

EEAS 

EFIs 

EFSD+ 

EFSD 

EIB 

EIDHR 

EIP 

ENI 

EPF 

Annual Action Plan 

Africa, Caribbean and Pacific 

Capacity Building of military actors in support of 
development 

Common Foreign and Security Policy 

Common Implementing Rules 

Development Cooperation Instrument 

Development Finance Institutions 

Decision on the Overseas Association, including 
Greenland 

External Action Guarantee 

European Bank for Reconstruction and Development 

European Development Fund 

European External Action Service 

External Financing Instruments 

European Fund for Sustainable Development + 

European Fund for Sustainable Development 

European Investment Bank 

European Instrument for Democracy and Human Rights 

Economic and Investment Plans 

European Neighbourhood Instrument 

European Peace Facility 

EUAM 

EU Advisory Mission 

 
 
GD 

HIC 

HR/VP 

HUMA 

IcSP 

INSC 

IPA III 

IPARD 

LDC 

MFA 

MFF 

MIP 

MSMEs 

MTR  

NAO/RAO 

NDICI 

NGOs 

OAD 

OCT 

ODA 

PI 

Greenland Decision  

High Income Countries 

EU High Representative of the Union for Foreign 
Affairs and Security Policy/Vice-President of the 
European Commission 

Humanitarian Aid 

Instrument contributing to Stability and Peace 

European Instrument for International Nuclear Safety 
Cooperation 

Instrument for Pre-Accession assistance 

IPA Rural Development programme 

Least Developed Countries 

Macro Financial Assistance 

Multiannual Financial Framework 

Multiannual Indicative Programme 

Micro- Small- and Medium-sized Enterprises 

Mid-term Review 

National/Regional Authorising Officer  

Neighbourhood, Development and International 
Cooperation Instrument – Global Europe 

Non-governmental organisations  

Overseas Association Decision 

Overseas Countries and Territories  

Official Development Assistance 

Partnership Instrument 

 
 
PIPs 

RRA 

SBC 

TEI 

TEU 

TFEU 

UMICs 

WBIF 

Proposed Investment Programmes 

Rapid Response Actions  

State Building Contract 

Team Europe Initiative 

Treaty on the European Union 

Treaty on the Functioning of the EU 

Upper Middle-Income Countries (UMICs) 

Western Balkans Investment Framework 

 
 
1. 

INTRODUCTION 

1.1 Purpose and scope of the evaluation 

This Staff Working Document (SWD) presents the mid-term evaluation of the EU’s External 
Financing Instruments (EFIs) of the 2021-2027 Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) and 
the final evaluation of the EFIs of the 2014-2020 MFF through their transition path.   

Since  2014,  the  EU  external  action  has  experienced  a  series  of  unprecedented  challenges, 
including  the  migration  crisis  and  exacerbating  effects  of  the  climate  change.  As  the 
geopolitical  tensions,  economic  and  social  inequalities  soared,  also  worsened  by  the 
consequences  of  COVID-19,  the  EU’s  external  cooperation  has  had  to  adapt  to  a  rapidly 
changing context.  

The  EU  responded  to  these  challenges  by  adopting  a  more  policy-driven  approach  in  its 
external  action  and  by  introducing  new  ways  of  working  with  partners  and  within  the  EU 
institutions. These changes have been incorporated into the 2021-2027 MFF and Regulations 
on EFIs, marking a transition path from the previous EFIs to the current ones.  

This evaluation has the overall objective to assess whether the current EFIs are better fit for 
purpose and  enable the  EU to  better  engage in  external  cooperation than  the previous ones. 
The  specific  objectives  are  to  assess  the  EFIs’  performance  in  terms  of  EU  added  value, 
effectiveness,  efficiency,  impact,  flexibility  and  ability  to  react  to  changing  political  and 
policy priorities, scope for simplification, coherence, synergies and the continued relevance of 
the  objectives  of  the  EFIs.  Furthermore,  the  use  and  the  functioning  of  the  External  Action 
Guarantee  (EAG),  including  its  maximum  amount,  is  also  assessed  in  terms  of  its 
additionality and contribution to the overall objectives and results.  

Temporal scope: 

The evaluation of the EFIs under the 2014-2020 MFF covers the period from 1 January 2014 
until  31 December 2020. As for the EFIs under  the 2021-2027 MFF, the evaluation  covers 
the period from 1 January 2021 until 31 December 2022. 

The evaluation covers the following EU’s external instruments:  

Multiannual Financial Framework 2021-2027 

•  The Neighbourhood, Development, and International Cooperation Instrument - Global 
Europe  (NDICI-Global  Europe)  established  by  EU  Regulation  2021/9471,  including 
its  EFSD+/EAG  component,  as  well  as  the  Commission  Delegated  Regulation 

1 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2021/947/oj 

4 

 
 
 
 
 
2021/1530  of  12  July  2021  supplementing  Regulation  (EU)  2021/947  (“Delegated 
Act”)2 

•  The Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance (IPA III) established by EU Regulation 
2021/15293 as well as the Commission Delegated Regulation 2021/2128 of 1 October 
2021  supplementing  Regulation  2021/1529  (“Delegated  Act”)4  and  Commission 
Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/2236 of 15 December 2021 on the specific rules 
for implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/1529 (“Implementing Act”)5 

•  The  European  Instrument  for  International  Nuclear  Safety  Cooperation  (INSC) 

established by Council Regulation 2021/948 of 27/05/20216 

•  The Decision on the Overseas Association, including Greenland (DOAG) established 

by the Council Decision 2021/1764 of 5 October 20217 

Multiannual Financial Framework 2014-2020  

•  The Development Cooperation Instrument (DCI) established by the Regulation (EU) 

233/2014 of 11 March 20148 

•  The European  Instrument  for Democracy  and human rights  (EIDHR)  established by 

the Regulation 235/2014 of 11 March 20149 

•  The  European  Neighbourhood  Instrument  (ENI)  established  by  the  Regulation 

232/2014 of 11 March 201410 

•  The  Instrument  contributing  to  Stability  and  Peace  (IcSP)  established  by  the 
Regulation  230/2014  of  11  March  2014  amended  by  Regulation  2017/2306  of  12 
December 201711 

•  The  Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance (IPA II) established by the Regulation 

231/2014 of 11 March 201412 

•  The  Partnership  Instrument  for  Cooperation  with  third  countries  (PI)  established  by 

the Regulation 234/2014 of 11 March 201413 

•  The  Overseas  Association  Decision  (OAD)  established  by  the  Council  Decision 
2013/755/EU of 25 November 2013 on the association of the overseas countries and 
territories with the European Union (financed under EDF)14 

2 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32021R1530 
3 Regulation - 2021/1529 - EN - EUR-Lex (europa.eu) 
4 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32021R2128 
5 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg_impl/2021/2236/oj 
6 Regulation - 2021/948 - EN - EUR-Lex (europa.eu) 
7 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/en/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32021D1764 
8 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex%3A32014R0233 
9 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32014R0235 
10 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32014R0232&from=EN 
11 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32014R0230&from=EN 
12 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex%3A32014R0231 
13 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32014R0234&from=EN 

5 

 
 
 
•  The  Greenland  Decision  (GD)  established  by  the  Council  Decision  2014/137/EU  of 
14  March  2014  on  relations  between  the  European  Union  on  the  one  hand,  and 
Greenland and the Kingdom of Denmark on the other hand15 

•  The  European  Fund  for  Sustainable  Development  (EFSD)  established  by  the 

Regulation 2017/1601 of 26 September 201716 

•  The  Common  Implementing  Regulation  laying  down  common  rules  and  procedures 
for the implementation of the Union's instruments for financing external action (CIR) 
established by the Regulation 236/2014 of 2 May 2014, which laid down the common 
provisions for the above-mentioned Instruments17 

•  The  11th  European  Development  Fund  (EDF)  which,  although  not  an  EU  budget 

instrument, will also be covered by the evaluation18 

This  evaluation  is  undertaken  in  compliance  with  Article  42(2)  NDICI  –  Global  Europe  as 
well  as  with  Article  13(6)  of  IPA  III,  Article  81  of  DOAG  and  Article  14(1)  INSC.  It 
encompasses  and  builds  upon  the  final  evaluation  of  the  EFIs  under  the  2014  –  2020 
Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) as listed below. 

Geographic scope: 

The  geographic  scope  of  the  evaluation  corresponds  to  that  referred  to  in  the  Regulations 
subject to the evaluation. 

1.2 Approach and limitations  

This  evaluation  focuses  on  the  EFIs,  supporting  EU’s  development,  neighbourhood  and 
enlargement policies.  

This  evaluation  focuses  on  the  objectives  and  principles  contained  in  the  relevant 
Regulations,  and the transition  from  past  to  current  EFIs.  It  does not  focus on programmes 
and actions supported with the EFIs, because they are covered by strategic evaluations on the 
EU’s  cooperation  with  specific  partner  countries,  sectors  or  specific  implementation 
modalities.  

The  selected  evaluation  approach  gives  an  overall  picture  on  the  EFIs  supporting  EU’s 
external cooperation, while taking into account the different objectives and over 100 partner 
countries  covered  by  the  EFIs.  The  evaluation  assesses  whether  the  instruments  are  fit  for 
purpose, following a major streamlining effort of the regulatory framework from the past to 
the  current  MFF,  particularly  regarding  the  NDICI-Global  Europe.  This  is  in  line  with  the 

14 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32013D0755 
15 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=uriserv%3AOJ.L_.2014.076.01.0001.01.ENG 
16 Regulation - 2017/1601 - EN - EUR-Lex (europa.eu) 
17 https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/43f92a44-af94-11e3-86f9-01aa75ed71a1/language-en 
18 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex%3A32015R0322 

6 

 
 
 
 
 
legal  requirement  in  Article  42(4)  NDICI-Global  Europe  which  provides  that  the  mid-term 
evaluation shall assess the added value of integrating previously separate instruments into one 
streamlined instrument.  

Given the focus of this evaluation on the transition from past to current EFIs, it was decided 
to  carry  out  one  single  evaluation  covering  the  final  evaluation  of  the  2014-20  EFIs  and  a 
mid-term evaluation of the 2021-27 EFIs. This approach was decided based on the experience 
with  the  2017  mid-term  evaluation  of  2014-20  EFIs19,  which  included  10  staff  working 
documents, all underpinned by a separate external  study and other  related evidence such as 
open  and  targeted  consultations.  Beside  creating  a  high  administrative  burden  for  the 
Commission  and  stakeholders  as  well  as  overlaps  among  individual  evaluations,  it  had  an 
impact on the overall conclusions.  

While mid-term evaluations of EFIs have not generally covered the assessment of results due 
to  the  time  lapse  between  financing  decisions,  starting  of  implementation,  production  of 
outputs and achievement of outcomes, this mid-term evaluation has been especially limited in 
this respect, given the delayed adoption of the 2021-27 EFI Regulations. 

The  selected  evaluation  approach  must  be  seen  in  the  broader  context  of  the  efforts  of  the 
European  Commission  to  strengthen  monitoring  and  reporting  on  implementation  of  EFIs. 
The  Commission  is  committed  to  the  results-based  management  in  external  cooperation,  to 
respond to the growing need for data to capture the results achieved with the EU funds. 

Various  monitoring  arrangements  (internal  and  external)  are  now  in  place,  focusing  on 
different  aspects  of  results-oriented  monitoring  such  as  implementation  progress  and 
achievement of objectives (see further in Annex VI). 

The  NDICI-Global  Europe  instrument  has  introduced  a  set  of  requirements  to  monitor  and 
report on progress towards its objectives throughout its implementation. The Global Europe 
Results Framework (GERF)20 is the main tool which has been specifically developed to meet 
these  monitoring  and  reporting  requirements.  The  GERF  includes  all  key  performance 
indicators contained in the Regulation establishing the instrument. They will be used together 
with data from other existing results reporting, external monitoring reviews and evaluations 
to assess the extent to which specific objectives have been achieved (see further in annex VI 
of this evaluation).21 

19 REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL Mid-
term review report of the External Financing Instruments - Publications Office of the EU (europa.eu) 
20 https://capacity4dev.europa.eu/resources/results-indicators/eu-rfi_en 
21  2023  Annual  report  on  the  implementation  of  the  European  Union's  external  action  instruments  in  2022  - 
Publications Office of the EU (europa.eu) 

7 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Reporting  requirements  cover  all  regions  and  modalities  established  by  the  NDICI-Global 
Europe instrument, including the European Fund for Sustainable Development (EFSD+).  

The  IPA  III  results  framework22 provides  a unified monitoring system  for the instrument.  It 
provides  a  uniform  set  of  indicators  that  need  to  be  used  in  programming,  monitoring  and 
reporting  and  evaluation,  to  ensure  that  the  results  can  be  aggregated,  and  the  impact  and 
outcomes of IPA III can be more clearly demonstrated for the entire instrument.  

In  2022,  the  European  Commission  reached  significant  milestones  in  the  transition  towards 
using the new IT platform OPSYS as a single tool to capture results for corporate reporting 
and management. OPSYS creates a digital repository of EU-funded operations, and provides a 
central access to all stakeholders involved, both inside and outside the European Commission. 
It  will  assume  a  pivotal  role  in  ensuring  that  the  European  Commission  can  deliver  on  the 
ambitious  reporting  obligations  as  set  for  the  implementation  of  the  NDICI-Global  Europe 
and IPA III instruments in the years to come. 

1.3 Methodology 

This document is largely based on an external study (presented in Annex  IX and referred to 
below  as  “the  external  study”)  carried  out  by  independent  consultants.  All  five  compulsory 
evaluation  criteria  (i.e.  effectiveness,  efficiency,  relevance,  coherence,  and  the  EU  added 
value) are assessed in this study. The evaluation criteria of impact and sustainability are also 
covered. The evaluation methods used include: (i) a review of documentation and analytical 
data; (ii) more than 340 interviews (iii) a series of targeted surveys; (iv) a series of targeted 
consultations with Member States experts, Civil Society and Local Authorities organisations, 
Practitioners  Network  and  Development  Financial  Institutions  (v)  an  Open  Public 
Consultation that ran from 31 March to 23 June 2023. This mix of qualitative and quantitative 
methods, using both  primary and secondary sources of  evidence,  provided a comprehensive 
evidence base for the evaluation. 

1.4 Reconstructed intervention logic  

This evaluation examines how the three levels: policy framework that guides the objectives to 
which  the  EFIs  are  expected  to  contribute,  institutional  changes  and  regulations,  have 
interacted in practice in the context of the transition from the 2014-2020 EFIs to current EFIs. 
It  also  examines  the  ability  of  the  EFIs  to  simultaneously  promote  the  EU’s  geopolitical 
interests and policy priorities while responding to the needs and priorities of partner countries 
and  regions,  thereby  solidifying  existing  partnerships  and  forming  new  ones.  It  also  covers 
interactions between stakeholders at European level, including the criteria of EU added value. 
The  analysis  focuses  on  what  the  EU  intended  to  change,  through  the  transition  from  the 

22 SWD_2022_445_1_EN_document_travail_service_part1_v2.pdf (europa.eu) 

8 

 
 
 
 
 
 
former to the present EFIs architecture. A simplified version of the Theory of Change used as 
an  overarching  analytical  framework  is  presented  below.  It  addresses  the  various  EFIs 
together, underpinning the intervention logic of the EU external action from inputs level, via 
outputs  and  outcomes  to  the  impact  level,  the  whole  result  chain,  highlighting  three  main 
assumptions that underpin this logic. 

2.  WHAT WAS THE EXPECTED OUTCOME OF THE INTERVENTION? 

2.1 Description of the intervention and its objectives 

The External Financing Instruments subject to this mid-term evaluation form a major part of 
the  2021-2027  Multiannual  Financial  Framework's  Heading  6  "Neighbourhood  and  the 
world" which provides the EU with the tools necessary to reinforce its geopolitical role on the 
world stage and to ensure that it realises its ambitions to promote its interests and universal 
values and principles in line with Article 21 of TEU.  

The  External  Financing  Instruments  subject  to  this  final  evaluation  were  under  the  former 
2014-2020 Multiannual Financial Framework's Heading 4 "Global Europe": 

•  The Development Cooperation Instrument (DCI) established by the Regulation (EU) 

233/2014 of 11 March 201423 

23 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex%3A32014R0233 

9 

 
 
 
 
 
 
•  The European  Instrument  for Democracy  and human rights  (EIDHR)  established by 

the Regulation 235/2014 of 11 March 201424 

•  The  European  Neighbourhood  Instrument  (ENI)  established  by  the  Regulation 

232/2014 of 11 March 201425 

•  The  Instrument  contributing  to  Stability  and  Peace  (IcSP)  established  by  the 
Regulation  230/2014  of  11  March  2014  amended  by  Regulation  2017/2306  of  12 
December 201726 

•  The  Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance (IPA II) established by the Regulation 

231/2014 of 11 March 201427 

•  The  Partnership  Instrument  for  Cooperation  with  third  countries  (PI)  established  by 

the Regulation 234/2014 of 11 March 201428 

•  The  Overseas  Association  Decision  (OAD)  established  by  the  Council  Decision 
2013/755/EU of 25 November 2013 on the association of the overseas countries and 
territories with the European Union (financed under EDF)29 

•  The  Greenland  Decision  (GD)  established  by  the  Council  Decision  2014/137/EU  of 
14  March  2014  on  relations  between  the  European  Union  on  the  one  hand,  and 
Greenland and the Kingdom of Denmark on the other hand30 

•  The  European  Fund  for  Sustainable  Development  (EFSD)  established  by  the 

Regulation 2017/1601 of 26 September 201731 

•  The  Common  Implementing  Regulation  laying  down  common  rules  and  procedures 
for the implementation of the Union's instruments for financing external action (CIR) 
established by the Regulation 236/2014 of 2 May 2014, which laid down the common 
provisions for the above-mentioned Instruments32 

•  The  11th  European  Development  Fund  (EDF)  which,  although  not  an  EU  budget 

instrument, will also be covered by the evaluation33 

24 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32014R0235 
25 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32014R0232&from=EN 
26 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32014R0230&from=EN 
27 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex%3A32014R0231 
28 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32014R0234&from=EN 
29 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32013D0755 
30 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=uriserv%3AOJ.L_.2014.076.01.0001.01.ENG 
31 Regulation - 2017/1601 - EN - EUR-Lex (europa.eu) 
32 https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/43f92a44-af94-11e3-86f9-01aa75ed71a1/language-en 
33 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex%3A32015R0322 

10 

 
 
 
 
The  main  instrument  in  Heading  6  of  the  2021  –  2027  MFF  is  the  NDICI-Global  Europe. 
Also subject to this evaluation are the European Instrument for International Nuclear Safety 
Cooperation (INSC),  the  Instrument  for  Pre-accession  Assistance  (IPA  III),  as  well  as 
the Decision on the Overseas Association, including Greenland (DOAG). Other instruments 
within  Heading  6,  namely Humanitarian  Assistance  (HUMA)  and  Common  Foreign  and 
Security Policy (CFSP), and the off-budget European Peace Facility (EPF) are not covered by 
this evaluation. 

Neighbourhood,  Development  and  International  Cooperation  Instrument  –  Global 
Europe (NDICI-Global Europe) 

NDICI-Global Europe was adopted on 9 June 2021 and was applicable retroactively from 1 
January 2021.  With a budget  of EUR 79.462 billion (in 2021 prices), its general  objectives 
are:  

- 

- 

- 

to  uphold  and  promote  the  Union’s  values,  principles  and  fundamental  interests 
worldwide,  in  order  to  pursue  the  objectives  and  principles  of  the  Union’s  external 
action,  thus  contributing  to  the  reduction  and,  in  the  long  term,  the  eradication  of 
poverty, to  consolidating,  supporting  and promoting democracy, the  rule  of law and 
respect  for  human  rights,  sustainable  development  and  the  fight  against  climate 
change  and  addressing  irregular  migration  and  forced  displacement,  including  their 
root causes; 
to contribute to the promotion of multilateralism, the achievement of the international 
commitments and objectives that the Union has agreed to, in particular the sustainable 
Development Goals (SDGs), the 2030 Agenda and the Paris Agreement; 
to  promote  stronger  partnerships  with  third  countries,  including  with  the  European 
Neighbourhood Policy countries based on mutual interests and ownership with a view 
to fostering stabilisation, good governance and building resilience. 

With its global coverage, it was designed to underpin a policy-first approach to EU’s external 
cooperation,  based  on  shared  interests  and  policy  priorities,  including  innovative  ways  of 
cooperation with Upper Middle-Income and High-Income Countries. It has a strong focus on 
investments  through  the  European  Fund  for  Sustainable  Development  Plus  (EFSD+), 
successor to a more limited EFSD (set up under the previous MFF).  

The NDICI-Global Europe is structured around three pillars: 1) a geographic pillar, to foster 
dialogue  and  cooperation  with  third  countries;  2)  a  thematic  pillar,  to  finance  support  to 
human  rights  and  democracy,  civil  society  organisations,  stability  and  peace,  and  global 
challenges, and 3) a rapid-response pillar, to allow the EU to intervene rapidly and effectively 
for conflict prevention, respond to situations of crisis or instability, strengthen the resilience 
of  states,  societies,  communities  and  individuals  and  address  EU  foreign  policy  needs  and 
priorities. 

11 

 
 
 
Moreover, an emerging challenges and priorities cushion can be used to flexibly address new 
needs  and  unforeseen  challenges  and  priorities  through  a  top-up  of  the  pillars  when  most 
needed and duly justified.  

The  below  table  illustrates  these  components  and  their  respective  envelopes,  with  a 
comparison to the previous MFF: 

NDICI-Global Europe envelopes 2021-2027 in million EUR (in current prices) 

Neighbourhood, Development and International 
Cooperation 

MFF 
2014-
2020 

MFF 2021-
2027 

% Difference 

Geographic programmes 

Neighbourhood 

58.099 

60.388 

17.859 

19.323 

Sub-Saharan Africa 

26.336 

29.181 

Asia and the Pacific 

9.909 

8.489 

Americas and the Caribbean 

3.995 

3.395 

Thematic programmes 

9.220 

6.358 

Human Rights and Democracy 

1.314 

1.362 

Civil Society Organisations 

1.427 

1.362 

Peace, stability and conflict prevention 

712 

908 

Global Challenges 

Rapid response 

5.767 

2.726 

3.439 

3.182 

Emerging challenges and priorities cushion 

p.m. 6.869 

9.534  

3,9 

8,2 

10,8 

-14,3 

-15,0 

-31,0 

3,7 

-4,5 

27,5 

-52,7 

-7,5 

TOTAL 

70.758 

79.462 

12,3 

NDICI-Global  Europe  includes  the  European  Fund  for  Sustainable  Development  Plus 
(EFSD+), a tool aimed at multiplying European funds, leveraging investments and supporting 
access  to  financing  in  partner  countries.  EFSD+  contributes  to  achieving  the  SDGs  by 
fostering sustainable  and inclusive economic and social development in  all  of EU’s partner 
countries. Special attention is given to  fragile or conflict-affected countries as well as Least 
Developed  Countries  (LDCs)  and  heavily  indebted  poor  countries  by  making  them  priority 
areas  that  partner  financial  institutions  must  consider  in  planning  their  investments.  Its 

12 

 
 
 
material  scope  covers  both  sovereign,  sub-sovereign  and  private  investment,  encompassing 
traditional tools such as grants and technical assistance (‘blended’ with repayable financing), 
as  well  as  novel  financial  instruments,  budgetary  guarantees  backed  by  the  EAG.  EFSD+ 
strives  to  maximise  additionality  of  funding,  address  market  failures  and  sub-optimal 
investment  situations,  deliver  innovative  products  and  ‘crowd-in’  private  sector  funds. 
Involvement of the private sector in the EU’s cooperation with partner countries through the 
EFSD+  should  yield  measurable  and  additional  development  impact  without  distorting  the 
market.  

In addition to covering the guarantee operations under EFSD+, the EAG covers also macro-
financial assistance and Euratom loans34. 

Under  the  NDICI-Global  Europe,  a  specific  emphasis  is  put  on  certain  priorities  through 
targets: 

•  At least 93% shall fulfil the criteria for Official Development Assistance (ODA) 
•  At least 30% shall contribute to step-up efforts on climate objectives. In addition, in 
her  State  of  the  Union  address  in  September  2021,  President  von  der  Leyen 
announced an additional EUR 4 billion for climate finance until 2027. 
Indicatively  10%  should  support  management  and  governance  of  migration  and 
forced  displacement,  as  well  as  address  the  root  causes  of  irregular  migration  and 
forced displacement. 

• 

•  At least 20% of the ODA spending should be dedicate to social inclusion and human 

development. 

•  At least 85% of new actions should have gender equality as principal or significant 
objective. At least 5% of these actions should have gender equality and women’s and 
girls’ rights and empowerment as a principal objective. 

•  NDICI-Global Europe should contribute to the ambition of providing 7,5% of annual 
spending under the multiannual financial framework to biodiversity objectives in the 
year 2024 and 10 % of annual spending under the multiannual financial framework to 
biodiversity  objectives  in  2026  and  2027,  while  considering  the  existing  overlaps 
between climate and biodiversity goals.  

The Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance (IPA III) 

The IPA III Regulation was adopted on 15 September 2021 and it is applicable retroactively 
from  1  January  2021.  With  its  EUR  14.162  billion  financial  envelope  for  2021-27,  IPA  III 
has  been  designed  to  provide  coherence  between  EU’s  political  priorities  and  financial 

34 To note that loans to third countries referred to in Article 10(2) of Regulation (Euratom) 2021/948 are 
financed from that Regulation. 

13 

 
 
 
 
assistance in supporting beneficiaries listed in Annex I of the IPA III Regulation in view of 
their future Union membership. 

IPA  III  aims  at  supporting  the  beneficiaries  in  adopting  and  implementing  the  political, 
institutional,  legal,  administrative,  social,  economic  and  environmental  reforms  required  by 
those  beneficiaries  to  comply  with  Union  values  and  to  progressively  align  to  Union  rules, 
standards, policies and practices (‘acquis’) with a view to future Union membership, thereby 
contributing to mutual stability, security, peace and prosperity. IPA III entails a policy-driven 
approach,  with  the  fundamental  requirements  for  EU  membership  at  the  core  of  the 
instrument.  By  focusing  EU  financial  assistance  on  key  priorities  in  line  with  the  new 
enlargement policy and methodology, IPA III aims at leveraging support to reforms fostering 
sustainable  socio-economic  development  and  bringing  the  partners  closer  to  the  Union’s 
values  and  standards.  IPA  III  is  designed  to  be  a  flexible  instrument  that  can  adapt  to  the 
evolving EU policy and the needs of IPA III beneficiaries. 

Compared to its predecessor instruments, IPA III is a policy-driven and thematic instrument. 
There are no country-specific strategies but one strategic document, the IPA III Programming 
Framework,  for  the  7-year  period.  There  are  no  pre-defined  financial  envelopes  for  each 
beneficiary  but  indicative  allocations  to  five  thematic  Windows,  which  reflect  the  new 
enlargement strategy / methodology and key EU priorities:  

Assistance under IPA III is expected to be based both on a performance-based approach and a 
fair  share  principle.  Assistance  should  be  differentiated  in  scope  and  intensity  according  to 
the  performance  of  the  beneficiaries,  in  particular  as  regards  their  commitment  to  and 
progress  in  implementing  reforms,  as  well  as  according  to  their  needs.  Particular  attention 
should  be  paid  to  the  efforts  made  in  the  fields  of  the  rule  of  law  and  fundamental  rights, 
democratic institutions, and public administration reform, as well as economic development 
and competitiveness. The fair share principle means that no IPA III beneficiary committed to 
the  objectives  of  the  instrument  should  receive  a  disproportionally  low  level  of  assistance 
compared to other beneficiaries. Assessment of performance and fair share are embedded in 
the annual bilateral programming process.  

14 

 
 
  
The IPA III Regulation also foresees a possibility for the Commission to modulate the scope 
and  intensity  of  IPA  III  assistance  in  case  of  a  significant  regression  or  persistent  lack  of 
progress in the fields of the rule of law and fundamental rights, democratic institutions and 
public  administration  reform,  as  well  as  economic  development  and  competitiveness.  A 
modulation  decision  should  be  substantiated  by  the  relevant  indicators  of  the  IPA  III 
Programming Framework. 

The following targets apply to IPA III: 

• 

IPA III should contribute to mainstreaming climate action in the Union’s policies and 
to  the  achievement  of  an  overall  target  of  30  %  of  Union  budget  expenditure 
supporting  climate  objectives  and  the  ambition  of  7,5  %  of  the  budget  reflecting 
biodiversity  expenditures  in  2024  and  10  %  in  2026  and  2027,  while  taking  into 
account the existing overlaps between climate and biodiversity goals.  

• 

•  Actions  under  IPA  III  are  expected  to  contribute  18  %  of  the  overall  financial 
envelope  of  IPA  III  to  climate  objectives,  with  the  objective  of  increasing  this 
percentage to 20 % by 2027. 
Implementation  of  IPA  III  is  guided  by  the  principles  of  gender  equality  and  the 
empowerment of women and girls and should seek to protect and promote women’s 
and  girls’  rights  in  line  with  the  EU  Gender  Action  Plans  and  relevant  Council 
conclusions  and  international  conventions,  including  the  Council  conclusions  on 
Women,  Peace  and  Security  of  10  December  2018.  Therefore,  at  least  85%  of  new 
actions should have gender equality as a principal or a significant objective. At least 
5%  of  these  actions  should  have  gender  equality  and  women's  and  girls'  rights  and 
empowerment as a principal objective. 

The Decision on the Overseas Association, including Greenland (DOAG) 

The DOAG Decision was adopted on 5 October 2021 and was applicable retroactively from 1 
January 2021. With a total envelope of EUR 500 million the DOAG aims at promoting the 
economic  and  social  development  of  the  Overseas  Countries  and  Territories  (OCTs)  and  at 
establishing close economic relations between them and the Union as a whole.  

The OCT instrument is  an Association Decision which builds on 3 pillars: the political and 
institutional, the trade (OCTs benefit from a duty and quota free access regime) and financial 
cooperation  (global  envelope  of  EUR  500  million)  between  the  Union  and  the  OCTs.  The 
DOAG includes specific provisions guiding the partnership with Greenland, where required.  

OCTs  remain  eligible  for  Union  programmes  as  a  matter  of  principle.  DOAG  further 
strengthens intra-regional cooperation, to allow the continued cooperation of OCTs with their 
non-OCT  neighbours,  such  as  EU  Outermost  regions,  through  a  dedicated  envelope. 
Investment  support  is  from  now  on  funded  through  the  InvestEU  instrument,  as  the  former 
European  Investment  Bank  (EIB)  Investment  OCTs  facility  ceased  to  exist.  OCTs  are  also 
eligible for the thematic programmes and rapid response actions of the NDICI-Global Europe 

15 

 
 
  
instrument. Unless otherwise specified, the DOAG makes a general referral clause to NDICI-
Global  Europe  concerning  implementation.  The  Decision  still  provides  for  a  specific  and 
simplified  programming  exercise  for  the  OCTs.  Contrary  to  NDICI-Global  Europe,  the 
DOAG does not have an end date. 

The European Instrument for International Nuclear Safety Cooperation (INSC) 

The  INSC  was  adopted  on  27  May  2021  and  was  applicable  retroactively  from  1  January 
2021. With a budget of EUR 300 million INSC complements the activities under the NDICI-
Global  Europe  with  the  objective  to  promote  a  high  level  of  nuclear  safety,  radiation 
protection,  radioactive  waste  management,  and  the  application  of  efficient  and  effective 
safeguards  of  nuclear  materials  in  third  countries,  building  on  the  activities  within  the 
European Atomic Energy Community (Euratom) and includes the provisioning for guarantees 
of  Euratom  loans  for  enhancing  nuclear  safety.  EU  Directives  and  the  high  standard  of 
nuclear safety and radioactive waste and spent fuel management implemented in the EU are 
examples to be used in order to encourage third countries to adopt similar high standards. The 
INSC is implemented using the same tools and processes as NDICI-Global Europe wherever 
possible.  

2.2 Points of comparison  

In terms of comparison, the broad aim of the evaluation is to examine the key features of the 
current  instruments  and  to  assess  what  has  changed,  what  works  better  with  the  new 
architecture and what could be further improved. The evaluation findings, (see section 4) are 
structured around the key guiding principles that accompanied the transition to the new MFF, 
based on the recommendations of the mid-term evaluation of the 2014-2020 instruments. 

2.2.1   2017 Mid-term review of the EFIs under MFF 2014-2020 

The 2017 Mid-term review report from the Commission - General conclusions 

The  external  financing  instruments  under  the  MFF  2014-2020  were  subject  to  mid-term 
reviews  (MTR)  which  assessed  whether  these  EFIs  were  fit  for  purpose  to  ensure  the 
effective  implementation  of  the  EU’s  external  cooperation.  The  Commission’s  2017  MTR 
report35 was based on the findings from a set of evaluation staff working documents (one per 
external financing instrument)36 which were themselves based on external evaluations of the 

35 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/en/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A52017DC0720 
36 Commission Staff Working Documents on 1) Development Cooperation Instrument: https://eur-
lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52017SC0600&rid=5; 2) 11th European Development 
Fund: https://international-partnerships.ec.europa.eu/system/files/2019-09/swd-mid-term-review-edf_en.pdf; 3) 
Instrument for Pre-accession Assistance https://eur-

16 

 
 
  
 
 
 
 
instruments.  The  2017  MTR  report  concluded that  the priorities and sectors of intervention 
defined  in  the  EFIs  were  broadly  relevant  and  functioning  well  in  terms  of  their  substance 
and  content.  It  also  concluded  that  there  was  no  need  to  amend  the  instruments  through 
legislative amendments or delegated acts.  

As a lesson-learnt, the 2017 MTR report stated that the next generation of instruments would 
need to consider the level of financial and other forms of flexibility required to allow the EU 
to respond, through its external action to world challenges. This flexibility needed to be built 
in  at  different  levels  –  starting  from  the  budget,  which  should  include  more  substantial 
reserves, to multi-annual programming and greater simplification at implementation level to 
increase efficiency and effectiveness.  

The  2017  MTR  report  further  noted  that  the  main  issues  to  be  addressed  by  the  next 
generation  of  EFIs  related  to  their  complex  and  fragmented  architecture  and  operational 
aspects.  In  particular,  the  number  of  instruments  under  the  2014-2020  MFF,  each  of  them 
having  different  and  at  times  overlapping,  scopes  and  rules,  had  created  obstacles  to  an 
efficient use of funds across regions and themes.  

Finally,  the  2017  MTR  report  noted  that  the  overall  effectiveness  of  the  instruments  in 
meeting  their  objectives  was  difficult  to  measure,  because  of  the  difficulty  in  defining 
appropriate monitoring and evaluation systems at instrument level. 

2.2.2 Final evaluation of the EFIs under MFF 2014-2020 

In this evaluation, the EFIs under MFF 2014-2020 are notably examined through the lens of 
the  transition,  to  gain  insight  into  the  concrete  improvements  and  possible  shortcomings  in 
moving from one set of instruments to another. However, it is important to recall that actions 
financed under the previous MFF are still being implemented, in parallel with those financed 
under the current MFF. 

The  annual  reports  on  each  of  the  EFIs  present  the  main  achievements  of  EU  cooperation, 
elaborating  on  selected  results  and  case  studies  from  EU-funded  interventions  as  well  as 
country-based  results  when  applicable,  based  on  the  EU  Results  Framework  indicators37. 

lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=SWD:2017:0463:FIN:EN:PDF; 4) Instrument for Nuclear Safety 
Cooperation https://eurlex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=SWD:2017:0605:FIN:EN:PDF; 5) 
European Instrument for Democracy and Human Rights https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:52017SC0604&from=SV; 6) European Neighbourhood Instrument 
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A52017SC0602; 7) Greenland Decision: 
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:52017SC0609&rid=10; 8) Instrument 
contributing to Stability and Peace: https://ec.europa.eu/transparency/documents-
register/detail?ref=SWD(2017)607&lang=en; 9) Partnership Instrument: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/?uri=SWD:2017:608:FIN 10) Common Implementing Regulation https://eur-
lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=SWD:2017:0463:FIN:EN:PDF 
37 Annual reports - European Commission (europa.eu) 

17 

 
 
 
 
Also,  the  strategic  evaluations  at  geographic,  thematic,  implementation  modality  or 
implementing  partners’  levels  assess  the  relevance,  efficiency,  effectiveness,  coherence, 
impact, sustainability and added value of the actions supported by the past EFIs. 

On a general level, the conclusions of the 2017 MTR of the EFIs under MFF 2014-2020, as 
referred to above, remained valid for the whole period of the past MFF and were scrutinised 
in the impact assessment for the instruments of the current MFF. In particular, the conclusion 
related  to  the  fragmentation  of  the  EFIs  architecture,  and  the  identified  lack  of  flexibility 
remained also valid in the last years of the 2014-2020 MFF. The validity of key 2017 MTR 
conclusions  for  the  full  cycle  of  the  past  MFF  is  discussed  below,  with  examples  per 
instrument.  

European Development Fund (EDF) 

The  2017  MTR  noted  that  the  11th  EDF  was  a  relevant  instrument  with  appreciated 
flexibility  features  at  instrument  level.  The  related  Staff  Working  Document  shared  the 
opinion of the external evaluation as to the challenges on how to improve the implementation 
of  the  11th  EDF  for  the  remaining  period  until  2020  and  on  the  future  external  financing 
instrument(s)  for  the  post-2020  period.  The  strategic  importance  of  the  EDF  performance 
reserve  persisted  from  2018  to  2020,  with  the  entire  budget  of  the  reserve  having  been 
committed by end 2020. This lesson-learnt was the basis for the design of the NDICI-Global 
Europe cushion for the 2021-2027 MFF. The 2017 MTR found evidence of overlaps between 
the 11th EDF and the thematic component of the Development Cooperation Instrument (DCI) 
as  both  programmes  had  overlapping  scopes  and  were  able  to  support  similar  types  of 
actions. This lack of coherence continued from 2018 to 2020, as exemplified by the fact that 
consultations  conducted  as  part  of  the  current  evaluation,  and  notably  EUD  surveys  and 
interviews, had noted a sharp increase in  coherence in the past three years. The  2017 MTR 
further  noted  that  the  National  or  Regional  Authorising  Officer  (NAO/RAO)  structures 
initially created to ensure the principles of ownership had not fully fulfilled that role and were 
even  hampering  effectiveness  and  efficiency.  This  remained  a  challenge  also  for  the  years 
2018-2020, on the basis of the evidence gathered in the current evaluation pointing to the fact 
that the termination of the NAO/RAO structures is  perceived as a benefit of NDICI-Global 
Europe which brought simplification also in terms of administrative burden. 

European Neighbourhood Instrument (ENI) 

The  MTR  concluded  that  ENI  remained  relevant  and  fit  for  purpose.  It  allowed  the  EU  to 
implement  the  reviewed  Neighbourhood  Policy.  The  implementation  of  the  principle  of 
differentiation,  which  was  still  paramount  in  2018-2020,  has  allowed  the  EU  to  adapt  its 
support to partner countries’ needs and ambitions.  

ENI proved to  be a  flexible instrument  by allowing EU to  react  to  multiple crises and new 
challenges  in  the  Neighbourhood.  However,  its  flexibility  was  stretched  to  its  limits  in 

18 

 
 
 
 
financial terms and the indicative allocations had to be modified beyond the 10% range set in 
the  multiannual  programmes.  This  constraint  remained  valid  from  2018  to  2020  and  was 
addressed via the introduction of flexibilities in NDICI-Global Europe.  

The MTR highlighted a mixed picture regarding the effectiveness of ENI in achieving results 
due  to  the  difficult  political  contexts.  However,  it  showed  that  policy  dialogue  and 
cooperation leveraged the implementation of agreed reforms in a number of countries (e.g., 
public  administration  reform  in  Ukraine).  This  leverage  was  stronger  when  budget  support 
was used as implementing modality, because of the greater depth of policy dialogue with the 
beneficiary throughout the life of the operation. 

Development Cooperation Instrument (DCI) 

The  2017  MTR  concluded  that  DCI  was  largely  on  track  to  deliver  on  its  objectives,  as 
countries receiving the bulk of DCI assistance were showing signs of poverty reduction.  

To measure the performance of the DCI in achieving its overall aim i.e. poverty reduction and 
its  specific  objectives  of  (1)  fostering  sustainable  economic,  social  and  environmental 
development and (2) supporting democracy, the rule of law, good governance, human rights 
and  the  relevant  principles  of  international  law,  the  Regulation  makes  reference  to  the 
indicators  of  the  Millennium  Development  Goals  and  Sustainable  Development  Goals. 
However, the Millennium Development Goal/Sustainable Development Goal indicators only 
show global progress towards development results (based on the actions of partner  countries 
and all donors). Therefore, these results cannot be directly attributable to the DCI.  

The 2017 MTR also concluded that the principles of differentiation and graduation left a gap 
in  the  EU's  ability  to  cooperate  with  Upper  Middle-Income  Countries  through  bilateral 
cooperation under DCI. This gap persisted as there was no cooperation with these countries 
under the DCI in the past MFF. 

Instrument contributing to Stability and Peace (IcSP) 

The mid-term evaluation carried out in 2017 covered the three components of the Instrument, 
namely: (1) response to situations of crisis or emerging crisis to prevent conflicts, (2) conflict 
prevention,  peacebuilding  and  crisis  preparedness  and  (3)  addressing  global  and  trans-
regional  threats  and  emerging  threats.  The  evaluation  found  that  the  IcSP  was  effective, 
delivering  on  its  objectives  and  commitments  in  a  politically  responsive  manner.  Findings 
also show that it successfully mainstreamed conflict prevention and conflict-sensitivity across 
EU  interventions.  The  IcSP  was  highly  appreciated  by  both  EU  actors  and  partners  for  its 
‘niche’ areas (namely its focus on crisis response, conflict prevention and peacebuilding), as a 
forerunner,  ‘gap  filler’  or  financing  bridge  to  interventions  by  other  EFIs.  Its  faster  and 
flexible management procedures, its ability to provide support in conflict and crisis situations 
at short notice when no other financing was available, to take risks, to engage with specific 

19 

 
 
 
 
stakeholders  beyond  third-country  governments,  enabled  the  EU  to  remain  responsive  to 
evolving contexts, while advancing EU’s values and priorities and respond to local needs.  

The  IcSP  was  seen  as  relevant  and  able  to  contribute  to  fill  gaps,  enhance  coherence  and 
creating synergies in priority EU actions. As such, the Instrument contributed to enhance the 
EU’s political leverage and enabled the EU to seize windows of opportunity for engagement 
and advance peace and stability  goals.  These characteristics were  confirmed over the 2018-
2020 implementation period. 

In 2017, an amendment to the IcSP Regulation was introduced to allow the Union to include 
military actors, under exceptional circumstances in the framework of assistance provided to 
security  sector  actors,  in  the  context  of  a  wider  security  sector  reform  process  or  capacity 
building in support of development and security for development in third countries (Capacity 
Building of military actors in support of development, CBSD).  

A mid-term evaluation of CBSD 38 concluded that it had a strong role to play as an enabler of 
dialogue between the EU and national military actors, both at strategic and at programming 
level. In terms of efficiency, while CBSD interventions tended to be over-ambitious in terms 
of  timeline,  given  the  18-month  lifespan  of  actions  under  IcSP  Article  3,  concrete  results 
were obtained and were useful for the EU to build strategic relations with partner countries 
and  military.  In  this  context,  CBSD  provided  a  clear  EU  added  value,  strengthening  EU’s 
capacity and legitimacy to engage in the security sector and start dialogue with military actors 
in fragile or crisis contexts. 

Partnership Instrument (PI) 

The creation of the Partnership Instrument, one of the major novelties in the 2014-2020 MFF, 
responded  to  an  evolving  international  context,  with  the  emergence  of  new  actors  and 
development  of  EU  partnerships  with  strategic  partners  and  third  countries.  The  external 
evaluation of the PI (June 2017) confirmed its relevance as a mechanism responding to EU 
and mutual interest cooperation, beyond the context of third country development needs. Its 
key  features  of  being  policy-driven  and  supporting  peer-to-peer  cooperation,  alongside  its 
promotion  of  the  external  dimension  of  EU  policies  and  its  linkages  with  EU  trade  policy 
were  identified  as  its  core  strengths  to  be  carried  over  into  the  next  MFF,  together  with  its 
flexible approach. The MTR also noted that the PI provided the means to flexibly pursue EU 
strategic interests globally, demonstrating clear EU added value through innovative responses 
to new and changing policy priorities, such as accompanying decarbonisation efforts in Latin 
American  economies  or  supporting  a  bottom-up  approach  to  energy  and  climate  action 
through the Global Covenant of Mayors. 

38 Capacity Building for Security and Development (CBSD) Initiative Evaluation Multi-Country 
EuropeAid/138778/DH/SER/Multi – SIEA 2018 - LOT 3: HUMAN RIGHTS, DEMOCRACY AND PEACE 
Specific Contract 2019/412021 

20 

 
 
 
 
High  external  and  internal  coherence  was  achieved  because  of  its  innovative  upstream 
consensus approach, where interventions were designed and implemented together with other 
EU services: this method allowed for a timely response to EU interests and strategic policy 
opportunities  in  a  wide  range  of  areas.  With  a  global  reach,  the  PI  supported  bilateral 
cooperation  in  areas  and  subjects  beyond  development  cooperation  and  created  a  positive 
environment  for a deepened relationship  39, particularly  in  the case of industrialised partner 
countries,  most  strategic  partners  and  graduated40  (middle  and  high  income)  countries, 
including providing support to the Canada-EU Trade Agreement (CETA) implementation and 
facilitating EU Chambers' coordination ahead of the agreement’s entry into force, to mention 
but  one  example.  The  PI  was  used  where  an  EU  strategic  interest  existed  and  where  the 
actions considered could not be funded by other instruments. 

European Instrument for Democracy and Human Rights (EIDHR) 

The  2017  MTR  confirmed  the  EIDHR  was  “fit  for  purpose”.  The  instrument's  worldwide 
mandate  and  broad  thematic  scope  reflected  the  universality  and  indivisibility  of  human 
rights. The EIDHR created space for political and democratic dialogue. Beyond contributing 
to the ability of civil society to advocate for reforms and change from within their societies, it 
also  provided Commission services, the  European External  Action Service (EEAS) and EU 
Delegations  with  considerable  input  into  their  political  and  other  dialogues  with  partner 
countries.  Its  flexible  procedures  allowed  it  to  address  human  rights  and  democracy 
challenges  in  the  most  difficult  environments.  Throughout  the  2014-20  MFF,  its  specific 
features and added value made it a "niche" instrument, able to operate where others could not 
and confirming its relevance for the political priorities of the EU. The specific features of the 
EIDHR were incorporated to the Human Rights and Democracy thematic programme.  

The 2017 MTR also found that EU election observation missions were a pillar of EU support 
to the integrity of electoral processes and the engagement of civil society. The deployment of 
electoral missions (87 electoral missions were deployed between 2014 and 2017) was a key 
tool  not  only  in  supporting  democratic  governance  and  resilience,  but  also  contributing  to 
increased  quality  of  electoral  processes,  hence  promoting  human  rights  and  rule  of  law 
globally.  Election  observation  proved  effective  in  improving  the  reliability  of  electoral 
processes  with  the  presence  of  observers  on  the  ground  contributing  to  reducing  the 
possibility  of  election-related  violence  and  tampering  with  results.  Clear  evidence  of 
effectiveness  and  impact  were  identified  supported  by  relevant  data  for  periods  before  and 
after  the  MTR.  Space  for  policy  dialogue  on  electoral  reform  was  created  (Lebanon  and 

39 Recitals, Regulation (EU) 234/2014 
40 Countries that meet at least two of the three following criteria in two consecutive triennial reviews: (i) GNI 
per  capita:  $1,306  or  above/Income-only:  $3,918  or  above,  (ii)  Human  Assets  Index  (HAI)  66  or  above,  (iii) 
Economic Vulnerability Index (EVI) 32 or below. https://www.un.org/development/desa/dpad/least-developed-
country-category/ldc-graduation.html 

21 

 
 
 
 
Pakistan) while significant legislative and administrative changes were directly attributed to 
EOM recommendations (Cambodia and Honduras). 

Instrument for Pre-accession Assistance II (IPA II) 

The  evaluation  of  the  IPA  II  instrument  as  part  of  2017  MTR  reaffirmed  that  the  strategic 
relevance  of  the  EU  pre-accession  support  was  considerably  improved  under  IPA  II 
compared  to  the  first  IPA  instrument,  as  the  instrument  put  strong  emphasis  on  structural 
reforms  fuelling  the  accession  process.  It  was  nevertheless  also  noted  that  while  the 
introduction of the sector approach improved the strategic focus of IPA II, there was uneven 
uptake and implementation among beneficiaries. The 2017 MTR also acknowledged that the 
instrument demonstrated a high degree of flexibility and responsiveness in cases of pressing 
emerging needs, such as the 2014 floods in the Western Balkans and the 2015 refugee crisis. 
The capacity to react in a flexible manner to emerging crisis situations held valid during the 
period  2018-2020,  with  extensive  support  provided  to  especially  Western  Balkans 
beneficiaries  to  address  the  health  and  socio-economic  needs  caused  by  the  COVID-19 
pandemic.  The  2017  MTR  noted  weaknesses  in  reporting  on  results  but  considered  the 
monitoring and evaluation system embedded in the IPA II Regulation and the setting up of a 
performance  framework  promising.  However,  the  numerous  indicators  used  for  the 
monitoring  and  evaluation  systems  at  national  level,  especially  at  the  outcome  level,  were 
still considered weak.  

Instrument for Nuclear Safety Cooperation (INSC) 

The  Instrument  for  Nuclear  Safety  Cooperation  2014-2020  has  been  successful  in  its 
implementation. Specific achievements included the completion of the Chernobyl New Safe 
Confinement,  improved  arrangements  for  emergency  preparedness  and  response  in  several 
countries  and  regions;  and  improved  management  of  radioactive  waste,  particularly  in  pre-
accession and neighbourhood countries.41  

41.https://international-partnerships.ec.europa.eu/document/download/2327e980-2b14-45cc-a8f8-
c65d94012e3c_en?filename=evaluation-report-insc-2014-2020_en.pdf  

22 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Greenland Decision (GD) 

The 2017 MTR confirmed the continued relevance of the Greenland Decision as the basis for 
the  relations  between  Greenland,  Denmark  and  the  EU  and  confirmed  that  it  provides  a 
sufficiently wide platform for pursuing dialogue on emerging global issues of mutual interest. 
It furthermore confirmed that the partnership had been effective in contributing to sustainable 
development in Greenland.  

The 2017 MTR  also  concluded that the choice to focus  cooperation on  education had been 
appropriate  considering  that  this  sector  was  seen  in  Greenland  as  the  most  relevant  growth 
parameter for prosperity and societal  development,  with  the qualification that the economic 
impact  of  this  choice  was  necessarily  long-term  and  thus  not  immediately  visible.  It  was 
noted  that  the  partnership  had  continued  to  deepen  throughout  the  period  and  that  further 
initiatives had been taken to continue this work – e.g., further developing the policy dialogue 
on areas of mutual interest. 

European Fund for Sustainable Development (EFSD) 

The European Fund for Sustainable Development (EFSD) was launched in 2017 as one of the 
three  pillars  of  the  “External  Investment  Plan”  (EIP).  Built  on  the  model  of  the  “Juncker 
Plan”  for  Europe,  the  EIP  was  a  tool  aimed  at  encouraging  investment  in  the  EU  partner 
countries in Sub-Saharan Africa and the EU Neighbourhood regions. 

The EFSD enabled the signature of 18 guarantee agreements with thirteen partner DFIs for a 
total of EUR 1.54 billion – i.e., the ceiling allowed under the EFSD Regulation. With regard 
to the blending component of EFSD, during the period 2017-2020 the EU approved EUR 3.8 
billion of blending support, EUR 2.1 billion covering sub-Saharan Africa and EUR 1.7 billion 
the Neighbourhood region. 

On the basis of the independent assessment of the initial functioning of the EFSD (as carried 
out between July 2019 and January 2020), the Commission concluded in its 2020 report42 that 
the EFSD was very relevant to the investment needs of the targeted regions, as well as to the 
EU  priorities  and  commitments.  The  approach  fit  well  within  the  ‘new  Sustainable 
Development  Goals  (SDG)-led  global  development  finance  model’  given  the  EFSD’s 
catalytic  role,  risk  sharing  capabilities  and  ability  to  enhance  partnerships.  While  the 
implementation was in its initial phase, early-stage dialogue in country would ensure that the 
EFSD pipeline would be aligned with SDG priorities, which boded well for effectiveness and 
additionality  of  this  new  instrument.  With  regard  to  efficiency,  the  EFSD  governance 
structure was seen by the external independent assessment (mentioned above) as conducive to 
facilitating  transparency  and  coordination  with  all  involved  actors.  There  were  also 
indications  that  EFSD  had  positive  impact  on  overall  coherence,  as  it  encouraged  greater 
coordination and alignment between the EU and financial institutions, especially through the 

42 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52020DC0224&rid=5 

23 

 
 
 
 
new  tool,  the  EFSD  Guarantee,  where  efforts  have  been  made  to  engage  with  more 
development  finance  organisations.  An  “open  access  model”  and  portfolio  approach  have 
been  considered  important  innovations  for  increasing  flexibility.  High  demand  for  the  new 
EU budgetary guarantee was regarded in the external independent assessment as a sign of a 
long-term  sustainability  of  the  EFSD  as  an  approach.  This  has  been  reinforced  during  the 
roll-out phase by the potential of the EFSD (guarantees, in particular) to test and develop new 
financial products. 

2.2.3  Impact  assessment  for  the  EFIs  under  the  MFF  2021-2027  and  Explanatory 
memorandum for the proposal establishing NDICI-Global Europe 

NDICI – Global Europe  

Building  on  the  experiences  gained  with  the  past  instruments  and  the  lessons  learned  with 
their  mid-term  evaluation,  the  impact  assessment43  for  the  EFIs  under  the  MFF  2021-2027 
concluded  that  the  broad  areas  covered  by  previous  instruments  should  be  maintained.  The 
objective was  to  enable the EU  to  pursue its  foreign  policy objectives  with  more  flexibility 
and increased impact.  

The impact assessment stated that the EFIs needed to address the weaknesses in the previous 
instruments  by  ensuring  complementarity  of  thematic  programmes  with  geographic 
programmes and of rapid response actions with geographic and thematic programmes. Also, a 
strong  coordination  and  consistency  with  other  areas  of  external  action  and  with  other 
relevant  EU  internal  policies  would  need  to  be  ensured.  It  concluded  that  one  broad 
instrument would provide a more geographically and thematically comprehensive approach, 
facilitating  the  implementation  of  different  policies  in  a  trans-regional,  multi-sectoral  and 
global way.  

The impact assessment also stressed the need to focus more on the performance of the EFIs, 
to  respond  to  the  lessons  learned  from  the  2017  MTR  regarding  deficiencies  in  measuring 
effectiveness, monitoring of results and reporting and evaluation. Key performance indicators 
were therefore included in the legal basis proposal, allowing to measure results and success 
towards the specific objectives.  

The  explanatory  memorandum  of  the  Commission  proposal  for  the  Regulation  establishing 
the NDICI-Global Europe44 factored in the findings of the 2017 MTR report and the impact 
assessment, stressing that the lessons learned had to be considered together with the growing 
challenges  to  be  tackled  by  EU  external  action.  The  explanatory  memorandum  further 
described  the  enabling  nature  of  the  NDICI-Global  Europe  in  terms  of  consistency  with 

43 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=SWD:2018:0337:FIN:EN:PDF 
44 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=COM%3A2018%3A460%3AFIN 

24 

 
 
 
 
 
international  obligations  and  within  the  EU  policy  framework  for  external  action  and  other 
relevant  EU  policies.  It  explained  the  complementarity  with  IPA  III,  DOAG  as  well  as  the 
INSC, the CFSP as well as the future EPF.  

IPA III 

The  common  impact  assessment  of  EFIs  concluded  that  IPA  should  remain  a  self-standing 
instrument.  The  explanatory  memorandum  of  the  Commission  proposal  for  the  IPA  III 
Regulation highlighted that the IPA objectives remain substantially distinct from the general 
objectives of the Union’s external action, as IPA aims to prepare partners to and support their 
accession process. It was therefore essential to maintain a dedicated instrument in support of 
enlargement  policy,  while  ensuring  that  it  complements  the  general  objectives  of  Union’s 
external action and in particular those of the NDICI-Global Europe.  

The  explanatory  memorandum  outlined  that  under  IPA  III  assistance  would  continue  to  be 
targeted  and  adjusted  to  the  specific  situations  of  the  beneficiaries.  It  further  noted  that  the 
instrument  would  introduce  more  flexibility  by  not  establishing  pre-allocated  financial 
envelopes. Access to bilateral funds would be based on the performance-based approach and 
the  fair  share  principle,  and  the  selection  of  actions  would  be  based  on  their  relevance  and 
maturity.  In  contrast  to  IPA  II,  no  specific  performance-reward  mechanism  was  introduced 
under  IPA  III,  but  the  performance  assessment  was  embedded  in  the  annual  programming 
process. 

DOAG 

The  2013  Overseas  Association  Decision  and  the  2014  Greenland  Decision  could  not  be 
included  in  the  NDICI-Global  Europe  or  in  any  other  legal  act  subject  to  the  ordinary 
legislative  procedure  because  of  their  specific  adoption  procedure  (a  Council  Decision  by 
unanimity,  following  consultation  of  the  European  Parliament).  However,  to  streamline  the 
number  of  programmes  both  Decisions  were  merged  into  a  single  Decision  regrouping  all 
OCTs,  including  Greenland.  This  new  legislative  act  for  all  OCTs,  that  covers  the  political 
and legal framework and cooperation implementation, delivers unity of management - having 
all  the  OCTs  under  the  same  source  of  financing  (the  EU  budget)  and  creates  synergies  in 
programming and implementation. It gives a higher profile to the OCTs as a group. As both 
decisions  have  been  deemed  ‘fit  for  purpose’,  the  guiding  principle  was  to  preserve  what 
worked  well,  while  improving  what  hindered  the  partners’  ability  to  deliver  effectively  on 
their policies and priorities.  

The  Decision  offers  a  single  instrument  which  covers  both  the  political  aspects  and  the 
specific  relations  between  the  Union  and  the  OCTs.  It  includes  specific  provisions  where 
required, guiding the relationship with Greenland, the financial resources consolidated under 
one  heading  of  the  EU  budget  and  implementing  rules,  which  largely  follow  the  NDICI-
Global  Europe,  ensuring  coherence  and  simplification.  Where  necessary,  the  Decision 

25 

 
 
 
 
provides  for  specific,  simplified  rules  for  OCTs,  as  for  programming.  Thus,  the  Decision 
aims to simplify the management and oversight architecture of the former set of instruments. 

The OCTs have a special status, belonging to the territory of their Member States (France, the 
Netherlands or Denmark) but not to the EU, and only one of them is eligible to ODA (Wallis 
and Futuna). They are not bound by the ‘acquis communautaire’ but their legislation is in line 
with the principles of the EU. 

INSC 

NDICI-Global  Europe  Impact  Assessment  also  covered  INSC,  noting  that  some  nuclear 
activities fall under the competence of the Euratom Treaty, which provided the legal basis for 
the INSC (Article 203 of the Euratom Treaty). As the INSC could not be integrated into the 
NDICI-Global  Europe,  a  separate  instrument  was  maintained  based  on  the  Euratom  legal 
basis, to pursue the objectives of Euratom. However, efforts are made to ensure that actions 
carried out under the new INSC are more consistent with those of the NDICI-Global Europe. 

3.  HOW HAS THE SITUATION EVOLVED OVER THE EVALUATION PERIOD? 

This  section  looks  at  the  progress  made  in  implementing  the  EFIs  under  the  2021  –  2027 
MFF since 2021 and the introduction of monitoring systems used to measure progress. 

3.1  Neighbourhood,  Development  and  International  Cooperation  Instrument  –  Global 
Europe 

•  Geographic and thematic programmes 

The financial resources linked to the NDICI-Global Europe geographic and thematic pillars 
have been programmed through a comprehensive process resulting in a set of country, multi-
country, regional and thematic multiannual programming documents that define the priority 
areas for financing, specific objectives, expected results, indicators and indicative allocations. 
The programming exercise started in November 2020 and most of the multi-annual indicative 
programmes  (MIPs)  were  adopted  in  2021,  with  some  further  adoptions  in  2022  and  2023, 
considering the political context in partner countries.  

Through this process, the EU defined its priority areas and specific objectives for the period 
2021-2027 with each partner country and region. This process was inclusive, with dialogues 
with partner countries, EU Member States, civil society organisations including women and 
youth  organisations,  local  authorities,  private  sector,  the  UN  and  other  donors  and  key 
stakeholders, in line with the NDICI-Global Europe’s principles.  

26 

 
 
 
 
 
 
As  of  November  2023,  a  total  of  104  geographic  MIPs  were  adopted  as  a  result  of  the 
programming exercise with 10 country, 1 multi-country and 2 regional MIPs adopted in the 
Neighbourhood, 46 country and 1 regional MIPs in Sub-Saharan Africa, 23 country, 1 multi-
country  and  1  regional  MIPs  in  Asia  and  the  Pacific,  17  country  and  1  regional  MIPs  in 
Americas and the Caribbean and the MIP for Erasmus+45. 

Amongst the geographic MIPs, joint programming documents replacing MIPs were adopted 
for 7 countries: Djibouti, Ghana, Laos, Mali, Senegal, Togo and Palestine. 

NDICI-Global Europe introduced the obligation to undertake conflict assessments as part of 
the  geographic  programming  for  fragile  and  conflict  affected  countries  (one  of  the 
recommendations  of  the  2017  Mid-Term  Evaluation).  To  date,  48  country  conflict 
assessments and 2 regional conflict assessments have been conducted. Findings indicate that 
this  measure  can  help  to  mainstream  support  to  peace  and  security  more  coherently  and  to 
better focus on the needs of the partner country and the responses needed. 

Furthermore  4  thematic  MIPs  were  adopted  covering  Human  Rights  and  Democracy,  Civil 
Society Organisations, Peace, Stability and Conflict Prevention and Global Challenges.  

The European Court of Auditors in its special report 14/2023 published in June 2023 on the 
programming  of  NDICI-Global  Europe46  concluded  that  overall,  the  Commission  and  the 
EEAS  had  designed  comprehensive  geographical  multi-annual  indicative  programmes 
addressing a broad range of partner country needs and EU priorities. 

Furthermore,  in  line  with  the  policy  first  principle,  both  EIB  lending  operations  and  Open 
Architecture  operations  must  be  aligned  with  the  priority  areas  identified  in  the  relevant 
geographic programmes. 

In  this  context,  the  Guarantee  Agreement  for  EFSD+  Investment  Window  1  refers  to  the 
Economic and Investment Plans (EIPs) for the Western Balkans, the Neighbourhood East and 
South and to geographic strategic documents for Africa, Latin America, Caribbean and Asia 
and Pacific as well as relevant  Team  Europe  Initiatives (TEIs). The EIPs and TEIs  provide 
guidance  for  investments.  For  public  sector  investments,  the  Commission  has  established  a 
rigorous method of operational coordination with the EIB to ensure that all EIB loans backed 
by the EFSD+ Window 1 guarantee correspond to EU policy priorities. 

The  alignment  of  the  EFSD+  operations  under  the  Open  Architecture  with  the  policy  first 
principle  has  also  been  ensured  at  the  first  call  for  proposals  with  the  establishment  of  six 
investment  windows47  corresponding to  EU priorities. In  addition,  the Commission plans to 
further intensify the “pipeline coordination” processes under EFSD+, so that DFI loans and 

45 Financed by NDICI-Global Europe and IPA III. 
46 See Report | European Court of Auditors (europa.eu). 
47  Connectivity  –  Sustainable  Energy,  Transport,  Digital;  Micro,  Small  and  Medium  Enterprises  (MSMEs) 
Financing for Inclusive and Green Growth and Job Creation; Sustainable Agriculture, Biodiversity, Forests and 
Water – Natural Capital; Sustainable Cities; Human Development; Sustainable Finance. 

27 

 
 
 
private co-investment enabled by the EFSD+ become linked as much as possible with priority 
reforms agreed between the EU and the respective partner countries. 

The  “guarantee  component”  of  EFSD+  has  seen  a  major  increase  in  terms  of  available 
resources  compared  to  its  predecessor  (the  EFSD).  The  NDICI-Global  Europe  Regulation 
establishes  the  maximum  amount  of  operations  that  can  be  guaranteed  under  the  EAG  to 
EUR  53.449  billion.  The  ceiling  in  terms  of  provisioning  for  the  EAG  is  set  at  EUR  10 
billion. Owing to the leverage effect of guarantees and of blending contributions, the EFSD+ 
is estimated to have the potential to mobilise more than half a trillion euros in investments for 
2021-2027, largely from the private sector.  

The state of play by end 2023 of the implementation of the EFSD+ component of the EAG is 
as follows: 

A)  The Commission signed in April 2022 a EUR 26.7 billion guarantee agreement with 
the  European  Investment  Bank  (EIB)  to  cover  operations  with  sovereign  and  non-
commercial sub-sovereign counterparts48. Negotiations are ongoing with the EIB for a 
dedicated  window 
to  cover  also  operations  with  commercial  sub-sovereign 
counterparts49.  So  far  discussions  on  another  window  which  would  cover  operations 
for the “promotion of foreign direct investment, trade and the internationalisation of 
partner  countries’  economies,  providing  a  political  risk  cover  for  private  sector 
operations”50 have not started, partly because relevant opportunities exist for the EIB 
to  obtain  guarantee  cover  under  EFSD+  Open  Architecture.  For  all  three  EIB 
dedicated  investment  windows,  the  EIB  can  sign  operations  up  to  an  aggregate 
amount of EUR 26.7 billion.  

B)  To  step  up  investment  in  the  Africa,  Caribbean  and  Pacific  (ACP)  regions,  the 
Commission  and  the  EIB  have  signed  in  February  2023  a  dedicated  guarantee 
agreement  in  support  of  private  sector  lending51  –  worth  EUR  1  billion  in  terms  of 
operations as well as set up a high impact trust fund for the amount of EUR 1 billion 
to support riskier operations. 

C)  The  first  call  for  proposals  –  to  allocate  the  portion  of  EAG’s  amount  open  to  all 
Development Finance Institutions (DFIs)52 – was launched in April 2022 and attracted 
strong interest, with bids surpassing the available cover capacity by close to fourfold. 
Following  the  Commission’s  favourable  assessment  and  a  positive  opinion  by  EU 
Member States represented in the EFSD+ Operational Board, 51 Proposed Investment 
Programmes  (PIPs)  put  forward  by  20  DFIs  (some  as  joint  operations)  were 
considered to be in line with the requirements to receive EFSD+ support. In 2023, the 

48 This is the so called EIB’s “(exclusive) investment window 1”. 
49 This is the so called “investment window 2”. 
50 This is the so called “investment window 3”. 
51 This is the so called “investment window 4”. 
52 So called “open access” / “open architecture”, which functions on the basis of calls for proposals. 

28 

 
 
 
Commission started negotiating the terms of guarantee agreements on a priority set of 
PIPs.  

With  regard  to  macro-financial  assistance  (MFA),  by  end  2023  approximately  65%  of  the 
total MFA lending capacity under the EAG has been allocated for loans in Ukraine, Moldova, 
North Macedonia53. 

As  concerns  the  loans  foreseen  under  the  Euratom  Regulation  (2021/948),  by  end  2023  no 
loan has been issued yet under the EAG.  

•  Rapid Response 

Crisis Response 

Crisis response actions are meant to contribute to peace, stability and conflict prevention  in 
situations  of  crisis  and  urgency  world-wide.  Since  2021,  more  than  130  crisis  response 
actions  have  been  adopted  addressing  unforeseen  crisis  including  the  Taliban  take-over  in 
Afghanistan in 2021 (e.g. support for human security including mine action), the Russian war 
of aggression against Ukraine in 2022 (e.g., advancing accountability in Ukraine and support 
to  recovery  of  liberated  areas),  the  provision  of  much-needed  support  for  security  and 
resilience  needs  in  Syria  following  the  devastating  earthquake  of  February  2023  (e.g. 
delivering basic services and safer spaces for trauma-affected children and caregivers), and in 
Gaza following the terrorist attacks across Israel on 7 October 2023 and the related military 
escalation (e.g. support to  health infrastructure).  Apart from swift action  in  response to  on-
going  crises/conflicts  funds  are  also  used  to  reduce  the  risk  of  conflict  (such  as  the  risk  of 
spill-over  from  the  Sahel  to  West  African  coastal  countries,  to  mention  but  one  example) 
until programmable funds become available.   

All these actions have translated EU policy on conflict prevention, mediation and dialogue, 
confidence  building  and  post-conflict  peace  building  and  contributed  to  the  promotion  of 
effective global governance and multilateralism. 

The  budget  for  crisis  response  actions  is  an  average  EUR  242  million/year,  which  means 
actions need to be strictly prioritised and coordinated closely with other services to obtain the 
best possible impact. 

Resilience  

The resilience component of the rapid response actions pillar of NDICI-Global Europe aims 
at  strengthening  resilience  of  States,  societies,  communities  and  individuals  and  to  linking 

53  EUR  676.8  million  of  provisioning  (out  of  the  available  EUR  1.05  billion),  covering  loans  for  EUR  7.5 
billion. 

29 

 
 
 
 
 
 
humanitarian  aid  and  development  actions  when  they  cannot  be  swiftly  addressed  through 
geographic  and  thematic  programmes.  For  the  years  2021  to  2023  the  entire  budget  for 
resilience  was  allocated  to  finance  actions  in  support  of  Syrian  refugees  and  host 
communities in Türkiye. The actions focused on needs in the fields of health, education and 
socio-economic development of refugees and host communities, notably in terms of access to 
public  services  and  livelihood  opportunities,  and  municipal  infrastructure.  They  focused  on 
vulnerable  groups  and  included  a  gender  dimension  in  the  interventions,  e.g.,  protection  of 
women  and  girls  against  sexual  and  gender-based  violence  and  improving  access  to  sexual 
and reproductive health care. 

Foreign Policy Needs and Priorities 

The  Foreign  Policy  Needs  is  designed  to  support  EU  foreign  policy  needs  and  priorities 
globally across political, economic and security issues, by acting where there is an urgent or 
imperative foreign policy interest requiring a rapid reaction.  

As of 2021, the FPN has supported EU foreign policy interest in the following thematic areas 
(list  is  not  exhaustive):  public  and  cultural  diplomacy  (i.e.  Taiwan,  Japan,  UK,  Australia, 
New Zealand), connectivity (EU/Japan connectivity partnership), support to policy dialogues 
(i.e.  UK,  Taiwan,  Hong  Kong,  Brunei,  Australia,  New  Zealand,  Arctic),  mine  action 
(Ukraine),  climate  change  (Egypt-COP27),  climate  and  security  (Bangladesh),  strategic 
communication  (i.e.  engaging  with  Russian-speaking  audiences),  deforestation  in  the 
framework  of  the  new  EU  Regulation  on  deforestation  and  forest  degradation  (Colombia, 
Argentina and South East Asia), Digital Transition (future of Internet at global level, digital 
partnerships with South Korea, Japan and Singapore), disinformation (at global level, in Asia 
and  in  Latin  America),  economic  diversification  (Gulf  Cooperation  Council),  human  rights 
(in the Neighbourhood and in Asia), maritime security (Gulf of Guinea), media support (Asia, 
Latin  America  and  the  Neighbourhood),  energy  (Japan-Fukushima),  transport  (Moldova), 
sanctions (global), trade (US). 
By  accompanying  trade  negotiations,  mustering  support  for  climate  change  action,  and 
influencing  decision  making  on  standard  setting  world-wide,  FPN  actions  have  helped  to 
create a level playing field and contributed to the rules-based multilateral order. 

•  Emerging challenges and priorities cushion  

Since the beginning of its implementation, NDICI-Global Europe and its emerging challenges 
and priorities cushion had to respond to an unprecedented series of crisis. 79% of the seven-
years cushion budget has been earmarked in the first three years of implementation, notably 
to: 

•  Support Ukraine since February 2022; 
•  Support the EU response to challenges related to migration and forced displacement, 
notably  in  support  of  Syrian  refugees  in  neighbouring  countries  and  to  support 
migration-related actions in North Africa;  

30 

 
 
 
•  Provide  an  answer  to  COVID-19  pandemic  and  strengthening  the  health  systems  in 

partner countries; 

•  Reinforce  the  Global  challenges,  Human  rights  and  democracy,  and  civil  society 
organisations thematic programmes, as part of the top-ups embedded in recital 70 of 
the  NDICI-Global  Europe  Regulation,  as  well  as  supporting  human  development 
worldwide; 

•  Promote EU priorities, notably to support the Global Gateway strategy  by providing 
additional  guarantee  coverage  for  EIB’s  (sovereign)  operations  in  Asia  and  the 
Pacific, Latin America and the Caribbean.  

3.2 The Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance (IPA III) 

The Commission adopted the legal basis, the delegated and implementing acts, in 2021, and 
the Financial Framework Partnership Agreement model in March 2022. It provided the basis 
for conclusion of multi-annual framework agreements with all seven IPA III beneficiaries by 
the end of 2022. 

The IPA III assistance benefiting Western Balkans and Türkiye is programmed on the basis 
of a seven-year strategic document, the IPA III programming framework  and the Economic 
and Investment Plan for the Western Balkans, which articulates in more detail the thematic 
priorities laid out under Windows 3 and 4 of the IPA III programming framework.  

By the end of 2023, the Commission has adopted multi-annual and annual programmes worth 
over EUR 8.6 billion, including bilateral annual action plans for the Western Balkans partners 
and  Türkiye,  annual  and  multi-annual  multi-country  action  plans,  including  support  to  the 
Western  Balkans  Investment  Framework  (WBIF)  and  civil  society  and  media.  The 
Commission  also  adopted  2021-27  IPA  Rural  Development  (IPARD)  programmes  for 
Albania,  Montenegro,  North  Macedonia,  Serbia  and  Türkiye,  as  well  as  nine  cross-border 
cooperation  programmes  between  Western  Balkans  and  IPA  III  beneficiaries,  ten  cross-
border  cooperation  programmes  between  IPA  III  beneficiaries  and  Member  States,  one 
transnational cooperation programme and one interregional cooperation programme, which is 
also  available  for  Western  Balkan  partners.  Several  individual  measures  on  migration  and 
border management, refugee support or post-earthquake support in Türkiye as well as support 
measures  on  communication,  monitoring,  evaluation  and  audit  were  also  adopted  together 
with  allocation of funding to  the Erasmus+ programme.  The preparation of  annual  bilateral 
and  multi-country  programmes  for  seven  IPA  III  beneficiaries  has  followed  a  two-stage 
programming  process, focusing on policy  relevance of the strategic responses  submitted by 
IPA III beneficiaries in the first stage and on the technical maturity of proposed actions in the 
second stage. The respect of performance-based approach and the fair share principle of the 
IPA III Regulation have been equally taken into account during the programming process.  

31 

 
 
 
 
 
3.3 The European Instrument for International Nuclear Safety Cooperation (INSC) 

The financial resources linked to the INSC have been implemented through a comprehensive 
programming  process.  The  result  of  the  process  has  been  an  INSC  Multiannual  Indicative 
Programme  for  the  period  2021-2027  containing  the  priority  areas,  specific  objectives, 
expected  results,  performance  indicators,  indicative  financial  allocations  and  cooperation 
principles.  Commitments  through  the  INSC  Annual  Action  Plans  for  2021  and  2022  were 
broadly in line with the indicative allocations for 2021 and 2022 in the INSC MIP 2021-2027. 

3.4 The Decision on the Overseas Association, including Greenland (DOAG) 

The  financial  resources  linked  to  the  DOAG  have  been  implemented  through  an  ad-hoc 
comprehensive  programming  process.  The  result  of  the  process  has  been  a  set  of 
programming  documents  that  define  per  territorial/regional/intra-regional  programme:  the 
priority area for financing, the specific objectives, expected results, indicators and indicative 
allocations. 

As  of  October  2023,  the  programming  has  been  finalised,  with  16  Multi-annual  Indicative 
Programmes (MIP)  adopted, including: 1 MIP per OCT, 3 Regional MIP  (French Southern 
and Antarctic Lands, Caribbean, Pacific) and 1 intra-regional MIP. Each MIP defines only 1 
sector  priority  (except  for  Greenland  that  has  2).  There  is  also  only  one  Annual  or  multi-
annual action plans per OCT (except Greenland), and 19 AAP have been adopted until end 
2023 (territorial, regional, support measures). 

Given  the  specificity  of  the  cooperation  with  the  OCTs  (only  1  AAP  for  the  2021-2027 
period), no Mid-term review of programming is foreseen under the DOAG. 

4.  EVALUATION FINDINGS  

4.1 To what extent was the intervention successful and why?  

Effectiveness  

2014-2020 EFIs  

The  2017  MTR  report  noted  that  the  overall  effectiveness  of  the  external  financing 
instruments  under  the  2014-2020  MFF  in  meeting  their  objectives  was  challenging  to 
measure,  partly  because  of  the  difficulty  in  defining  appropriate  monitoring  and  evaluation 
systems at the instrument-level. The limitations as to measuring the effectiveness of the EU 
support is further explained in section 1. The approach to look at the past instruments from 
the transition angle is also highlighted in section 2.   

32 

 
 
 
 
 
 
The past instruments continue to deliver against their respective objectives, with a number of 
actions still ongoing and delivering results. Recent Annual Reports on the implementation of 
the EU external financing instruments confirm this trend.  

The  below  table  shows  the  latest  aggregated  results54  for  EU  Results  Framework  Level  2 
indicators  (on  the  indicators,  see  further  in  annex  VI  on  the  results,  evaluation  and 
monitoring).  The  data  was  compiled  from  completed  and  ongoing  EU-funded  interventions 
financed under MFF 2014-2020 by the DCI, the EDF, the ENI, the EIDHR, the IcSP and the 
PI.  A  substantial  number  of  these  interventions  are  still  ongoing  and  continue  to  produce 
results. 

EU Results Framework indicator 

Number of food-insecure people receiving EU assistance 

Number of women of reproductive age, adolescent girls and children under 
five reached by nutrition-related interventions supported by the EU 

2018-2022 

29 057 000 

22 337 000 

Number of smallholders reached with EU-supported interventions aimed to 
increase their sustainable production, access to markets and/or security of land 

21 402 000 

Agricultural and pastoral ecosystems where sustainable management practices 
have been introduced with EU support (ha) 

3 124 000 

Number of one-year-olds fully immunised with EU support  

Number of women of reproductive age using modern contraception methods 
with EU support 

Number of students enrolled in education with EU support: a) primary 
education 

Number of students enrolled in education with EU support: b) secondary 
education 

Number of individuals with access to improved drinking water source and/or 
sanitation facility with EU support 
Number of individuals accessing electricity with EU support through: a) new 
access, b) improved access 
Renewable energy generation capacity installed with EU support (MW) 
Number of jobs supported/sustained by the EU 
Number of countries supported by the EU to strengthen investment climate 
Number of beneficiaries with access to financial services with EU support: a) 

64 439 000 

31 009 000 

45 052 000 

8 887 000 

22 339 000 

38 065 000 

34 000 
798 000 
124 
828 000 

54  2023  Annual  report  on  the  implementation  of  the  European  Union's  external  action  instruments  in  2022  - 
Publications Office of the EU (europa.eu)  

33 

 
 
  
  
 
firms 
Number of beneficiaries with access to financial services with EU support: b) 
individuals 
Number of quality schemes adopted by economic operators with EU support 
Number of people who have benefited from institution- or workplace-based 
VET/skills development interventions supported by the EU 
Total length of road supported by the EU through: a) construction, b) 
rehabilitation, c) maintenance (km) 
Number of migrants, forcibly displaced people or individuals from host 
communities protected or assisted with EU support 
Number of migration management or forced displacement strategies or 
policies: a) developed/revised with EU support 
Number of migration management or forced displacement strategies or 
policies: b) under implementation with EU support 
Number of countries and cities with climate change and/or disaster risk 
reduction strategies: a) developed 
Number of countries and cities with climate change and/or disaster risk 
reduction strategies: b) under implementation with EU support 
Number of micro, small and medium enterprises applying sustainable 
consumption and production practices with EU support 
Greenhouse gas emissions avoided with EU support (tonnes CO2e) 
Marine areas under: a) protection with EU support (km2) 
Areas of terrestrial and freshwater ecosystems under: a) protection with EU 
support (ha) 
Areas of terrestrial and freshwater ecosystems under: b) sustainable 
management with EU support (ha) 
Number of countries supported by the EU to conduct elections and/or improve 
their electoral process 
Number of government policies developed or revised with civil society 
organisation participation through EU support 
Number of victims of human rights violations directly benefiting from 
assistance funded by the EU 
Number of people directly benefiting from legal aid interventions supported 
by the EU 
Number of individuals directly benefiting from EU-supported interventions 
that specifically aim to support civilian post-conflict peacebuilding and/or 
conflict prevention 
Number of state institutions and non-state actors supported on security, border 
management, countering violent extremism, conflict prevention, protection of 
civilian population and human rights 
Number of countries supported by the EU to strengthen revenue mobilisation, 
public financial management and/or budget transparency 
Number of people benefitting from EU-funded interventions to counter sexual 
and gender-based violence 

2 723 000 

34 000 
2 115 000 

80 000 

29 007 000 

235 

202 

294 

126 

29 000 

115 557 000 
966 000 
77 599 000 

70 637 000 

56 

2 000 

166 000 

6 649 000 

1 041 000 

14 000 

160 

17 341 000 

34 

 
 
 
2021-2027 EFIs are on track to deliver against their general objectives 

NDICI-Global Europe 

At  this  point  in  time,  NDICI-Global  Europe  is  on  track  to  effectively  deliver  against  the 
objectives  it  was  expected  to  fulfil  at  the  time  of  its  adoption.  While  the  first  operational 
results related to its financial execution are only starting to materialise and will be reported as 
of 2024, the evidence from the external study confirms that the programming documents are 
policy-driven and in line with the objectives and priorities set in the relevant regulations and 
EU  goals  in  the  relevant  geographical  regions.    It  also  confirms  that  non-programmable 
actions under NDICI-Global Europe rapid response pillar are being implemented in a manner 
that  will  yield  results  in  line  with  EU  policy  objectives  regarding  promoting  stability  in 
conflict-affected  regions  via  appropriate  crisis  response  actions.  The  external  study  also 
confirms that non-programmable actions under rapid response are on track to deliver results 
in  line  with  EU  policy  objectives  with  regard  to  supporting  stability  and  peace  in  conflict-
affected  regions  and  countries.  It  also  confirms  the  coherence  of  Crisis  Response  and 
Resilience with the Humanitarian-Development-Peace (HDP) nexus.   

The  programming  documents  indeed  substantiate  the  finding  that  the  general  objectives  as 
provided  for  in  Article  3  of  the  NDICI-Global  Europe  Regulation  (see  under  section  2.1) 
have been adequately translated into the programming. In particular: 

interests  worldwide,  emphasising 

1.  NDICI-Global Europe has strengthened the means for the EU to promote the Union's 
the 
values,  principles  and  fundamental 
promotion  of  shared  priorities  with  partner  countries.  The  Global  Gateway  strategy 
was adopted to enable the EU to deliver on these key objectives with more impact. In 
an  evolving  and  challenging  international  context,  the  strategy  aims  to  increase 
Union’s geopolitical  and geoeconomic influence,  providing a framework  for the EU 
external  action,  with  NDICI-Global  Europe  effectively  serving  as  its  main  tool  and 
catalyst.  In  this  setting,  while  NDICI-Global  Europe  places  a  stronger  emphasis  on 
policy reforms than did the former EFIs, much remains to be achieved in that regard. 

o  The EU’s actions funded under NDICI-Global Europe pursue the objective of 
poverty  eradication.  They  promote  inclusive  public  policies  in  partner 
countries, which leave no one behind. Data for 2022 show that a total of 170 
NDICI-Global  Europe  funded  actions  targeted  SDG  1  “No  poverty”  as  the 
main  SDG  with  EUR  4.99  billion  committed  in  2022,  whereas  SDG  1  was 
also  reported  as  a  significant  SDG  in  593  projects  where  other  SDGs  were 
marked  as  main  SDG  with  EUR  2.916  billion  in  terms  of  commitments.  In 
2021-2022,  99%  of  NDICI-Global  Europe  committed  funds  have  been 
allocated to development actions fulfilling the criteria for official development 

35 

 
 
 
aid (ODA), contributing to the at least 93% target for the entire 2021 – 2027 
period, which reaffirms the development aid nature of the instrument.55 

o  The  support  to  human  rights,  democracy  and  good  governance  is  further 
specified  in  a  dedicated  spending  target  of  15%  of  the  geographic 
programmes,  embedded  in  the  Delegated  Act.  The  cumulative  2021-22 
contribution  to  the  target  corresponds  to  21%  of  NDICI-Global  Europe 
funding under the geographic programmes.56  

o 

o  The  objective  to  fight  against  climate  change  set  under  Article  3  is  further 
specified  in  a  dedicated  spending  target  of  30%  of  NDICI-Global  Europe 
spending for climate objectives. In addition, in her State of the Union address 
in September 2021, President von der Leyen announced an additional EUR 4 
billion for climate finance until 2027. 
 At programming level,  climate priority features in all MIPs. The cumulative 
figure for 2021-2022 show a 22% contribution of NDICI-Global Europe total 
commitments to climate objectives. For the first two years of implementation, 
the  level  of  contribution  varies  greatly  between  the  different  NDICI-Global 
Europe components  and  among  regions, but  overall, the progressive increase 
of  2022  contribution  compared  to  2021  shows  a  positive  trend  towards 
reaching the target by 2027, even though further efforts will be required in the 
next years57. 

o  The  objective  to  address  irregular  migration  and  forced  displacement  is 
also  further  embedded  in  a  dedicated  spending  target  of  indicatively  10%  of 
NDICI-Global Europe financial envelope. Migration is covered by more than 
half of the MIPs. NDICI-Global Europe 2021-2022 cumulative figure shows a 
contribution to the migration and forced displacement spending target of 14% 
of total commitments.58  

2.  Engagement with  international  organisations  is  an EU priority and is  reflected in  its 
sustained  commitment  to  multilateralism  and  a  rules-based  multilateral  order.  The 
NDICI-Global  Europe  covers  the  global  and  multilateral  dimensions  of  the  EU’s 
action  to  implement  its  political  priorities  and  since  the  adoption  of  NDICI-Global 
Europe, the EU has taken action at political level to address the global trends in new 
policy frameworks that are directly linked to these global challenges. The EU sent a 
strong  political  message  with  the  Joint  Communication  on  strengthening  the  EU’s 
contribution  to  rules-based  multilateralism59.The  objective  to  support  the  2030 

55  2023  Annual  report  on  the  implementation  of  the  European  Union's  external  action  instruments  in  2022  - 
Publications Office of the EU (europa.eu)  
56 Idem  
57 Idem. 
58 Idem. 
59 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/en/ALL/?uri=CELEX%3A52021JC0003 

36 

 
 
 
 
into 

translated 

the 
implementation  of  the  SDGs  was 
Agenda  and  the 
implementation of the instrument. All MIPs include for each priority area the relevant 
SDGs  and  each  action  document  also  specifies  the  SDGs  it  aims  to  support,  in 
accordance with the NDICI-Global Europe provisions on addressing the interlinkages 
between  the  SDGs  to  promote  integrated  actions.  In  terms  of  monitoring  and 
reporting, the annual reports on the implementation of the European Union's external 
action instruments are structured around both Commission priorities and SDGs.  The 
contribution  of  the  NDICI-Global  Europe  to  the  SDGs  was  thoroughly  described  in 
the first ever EU Voluntary Review on the implementation of the SDGs60, which was 
presented  by  the  Commission  at  the  UN  High  Level  Political  Forum  on  sustainable 
development in July 2023. The NDICI-Global Europe’s support to climate objectives 
embedded in the Paris Agreement is illustrated in the previous point above. 

o  The  implementation  of  NDICI-Global  Europe  has  also  been  underpinned  by 
the  objective  of  promoting  stronger  partnerships  with  third  countries, 
which  is  exemplified  by  the  fact  that  NDICI-Global  Europe  programming 
documents  are  built  on  shared  priorities  among  the  EU  and  its  partner 
countries, largely based on national and regional development plans. Another 
example of this trend is the addition of a specific envelope for HICs within the 
geographic pillar, which is a recognition of the importance of and leverage to 
be  achieved  from  cooperation  with  like-minded  partners.  This  allocation 
allows  the  EU  to  pursue  the  development  of  its  soft  power  and  promote  its 
interests and values by engaging on key issues with identified target groups as 
part of regional cooperation with the Americas and East and Southeast Asia in 
particular. A good example is the launch of business cooperation actions with 
Japan  and  South  Korea  to  accompany  the  implementation  of  the  recently 
concluded  EU-Japan  Green  Alliance  and  the  EU–Korea  Green  Partnership, 
with  the  aim  to  enhance  business  to  business  partnerships  and  promote  EU 
green and clean technologies, as a means to support the green transition.  
o  In  addition  to  the  internal  coordination  among  Commission  services  and  the 
EEAS, an extensive consultation has been carried out with all relevant local, 
European  and  international  stakeholders.  Local  civil  society  organisations 
welcomed  the  efforts  made  and  reported  a  positive  evolution  of  the  EU’s 
dialogue with them. Cooperation with partner countries is thus guided by EU 
strategic  policy  objectives  while  anchored  in  strong  partnerships  established 
through  a  multi-stakeholder  dialogue  and  reflecting  shared  interests  and 
priorities. 

In addition, other priorities that are not part of the general objectives have been incorporated 
into  the  NDICI-Global  Europe  Regulation  and  Delegated  Act  through  the  definition  of 
targets: 

60 https://commission.europa.eu/system/files/2023-06/SDG-Report-WEB.pdf 

37 

 
 
 
•  Social  inclusion  and  Human  development:  At  least  20  %  of  the  ODA  funded  under 
the Instrument shall contribute to social inclusion and human development, including 
basic  social  services,  such  as  health,  education,  nutrition,  water,  sanitation  and 
hygiene,  and  social  protection,  particularly  to  the  most  marginalised.  Cumulative 
figure  2021-2022  shows  a  high  contribution  to  the  social  inclusion  and  human 
development  spending  target  of  32%  of  NDICI-Global  Europe  total  commitments, 
partly due to the COVID-19 related spending in the first years of the MFF. 

•  Gender  equality:  At  least  85  %  of  new  actions  implemented  under  the  Instrument 
should have gender equality as a principal or a significant objective. At least 5 % of 
those  actions  should  have  gender  equality  and  women’s  and  girls’  rights  and 
empowerment  as  a  principal  objective.  Cumulative  figure  2021-2022  shows  a 
contribution  to  the  gender  equality  target  of  71%  of  NDICI-Global  Europe  total 
actions,  of  which  6%  have  gender  equality  and  women’s  and  girls’  rights  and 
empowerment as a principal objective. 

•  Biodiversity: In addition to the climate target, the Instrument should contribute to the 
ambition  of  providing  7,5  %  of  annual  spending  under  the  MFF  to  biodiversity 
objectives  in  the  year  2024  and  10  %  in  2026  and  2027.  NDICI-Global  Europe’s 
spending for biodiversity in 2021-2022 was 5.6%. 
Inclusive and sustainable growth for human development: the Delegated Act contains 
a  spending  target  of  45%  of  the  geographic  programmes  to  an  inclusive  and 
sustainable growth for human development. The 2021-22 cumulative contribution to 
the  target  is  of  62%  of  NDICI-Global  Europe  commitments  under  the  geographic 
programmes. 

• 

A  number  of  NDICI-Global  Europe  objectives  have  been  translated  into  spending  targets, 
while  other  targets,  on  gender  equality  for  instance,  were  included  to  emphasise  their 
importance. The number of targets  in  NDICI-Global Europe has increased compared to  the 
previous  MFF.  The  introduction  of  a  considerable  number  of  targets  in  the  NDICI-Global 
Europe Regulation is positively perceived in particular by the Member States as it reflects EU 
priorities  contained  in  key  EU  policy  documents  and  frames  the  prioritisation  in 
implementing  the  instrument,  providing  structure  and  steer.  Nevertheless,  while  targets  are 
not  competing  among  themselves  as  actions  can  contribute  to  several  targets,  an  increased 
number of targets do constrain the flexibility of the instrument, limiting its adaptability and 
therefore its effectiveness, as highlighted by respondents in Commission Headquarters. Also, 
too great  a focus on compliance may deviate attention  from  the pursuit  of main objectives. 
All  implementing  modalities,  grants,  budget  support  as  well  as  blending  or  budgetary 
guarantees  under  EFSD+,  contribute  to  the  achievement  of  the  NDICI-Global  Europe 
objectives  and  targets.  By  applying  the  ‘policy  first  approach’,  EFSD+  aims  to  align  the 
operations of the Development Finance Institutions (DFIs) with EU priorities and objectives.  

38 

 
 
 
 
IPA III 

Overall, the progress made with Key Performance Indicators of the IPA III Regulation, and 
indicators of the IPA III programming framework, as evidenced by the annual assessment of 
the implementation of the IPA III programming framework61, indicate that the instrument is 
on  track  to  deliver  against  the  main  objectives  of  the  Regulation,  although  there  are  some 
limitations  as  well.  For  example,  the  Key  Performance  Indicator  on  the  acquis  alignment, 
which was substantially supported by IPA III, is close to reaching the target of 2027 both in 
the Western Balkans and Türkiye. Also, the Key Performance Indicator on political criteria in 
the  Western  Balkans  shows  slight  improvements  on  the  functioning  of  the  judiciary,  fight 
against corruption, fight against organised crime and freedom of expression indicators.   

IPA III represents a shift towards a more policy-driven and responsive approach compared to 
its  predecessors,  as  it  has  evolved  from  a  sector-based  instrument  to  a  more  holistic  policy 
first  instrument.  The  thematic  windows  largely  mirror  the  clusters  of  the  accession 
negotiating chapters/clusters as per the revised enlargement methodology. The assistance can 
be therefore better tailored to the specific needs and the state of play of the accession process 
of each beneficiary.  

Also, IPA III mirrors the EU priorities and policy developments in preparing beneficiaries 
for the future membership of the Union. In line with the new enlargement methodology, the 
democratic, rule of law, governance and economic reforms are at the core of the instrument. 
In  the  stakeholder  consultations  (e-surveys  and  the  Open  Public  Consultation)  57%  or 
respondents considered that IPA III assistance is strengthening beneficiaries’ capacity on rule 
of  law  and  fundamental  rights,  economic  governance,  democratic  institutions,  public 
administration  reform,  and  the  ability  of  beneficiaries  to  meet  membership  criteria,  while 
32%  remained  neutral  and  11%  did  not  consider  IPA  III  to  have  such  effect.  From  public 
authorities, 63% considered that IPA III assistance had positive impact on these areas, while 
35% of citizens considered it not to be the case. 

Substantial part of IPA III funding has been allocated to the implementation of the Economic 
and Investment Plans in the Western Balkans, to spur the long-term economic recovery of 
the  region,  support  a  green  and  digital  transition,  and  foster  regional  integration  and 
convergence  with  the  EU.  As  stated  in  the  2023  Enlargement  Package,  insufficient  socio-
economic  convergence  between  the  Western  Balkans  and  the  EU  has  been  a  long-standing 
issue, exacerbated by the economic impact of Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine and 
before that by the COVID-19 pandemic. The Western Balkans’ GDP growth accelerated only 
marginally from 1.6% to 1.7% in a year and the region’s economic convergence in terms of 
GDP per capita in purchasing power standards is at between 30% and 50% of the EU average 
and  is  not  progressing  fast  enough.  While  IPA  III  has  been  effective  in  leveraging  the 
necessary investments, there is a need to further accelerate convergence with the EU.  

61 Article 7(6) of the IPA III Regulation 

39 

 
 
 
The  external  study  highlights  the  challenges  linked  to  phasing  in  of  an  entirely  new 
bilateral programming process and the increased ownership and strategic planning capacity 
expected from IPA III beneficiaries. Given that the IPA III programming framework includes 
broad thematic priorities without any prioritisation or sequencing, the strategic responses of 
IPA  III  beneficiaries  are  expected  to  perform  a  function  of  multi-annual  strategic  planning 
documents with prioritised and sequenced reforms. So far, however, most strategic responses 
have not succeeded in this respect, as found by the external study. 

IPA III is designed to be a performance-based instrument with differentiation of assistance in 
scope and intensity according to the performance of the beneficiaries, in particular on their 
commitment  to  fundamental  reforms.  The  external  study  points  out  that  so  far  there  is  no 
evidence on systematic application of the performance-based approach. One challenge is that 
the  performance  assessment  embedded  in  the  bilateral  programming  process  needs  to  be 
balanced with the principle of fair share, which is not conclusively defined. Compared to IPA 
II,  there  are  no  significant  variations  of  yearly  allocations  for  bilateral  annual  action  plans 
among IPA III beneficiaries.  

With regard to spending targets, in view of the funds committed so far, IPA III is well on 
track  with  the  18%  climate  target  (20%  by  2027)  in  the  first  two  years  of  IPA  III 
implementation, while the IPA  III  contribution  to  the EU biodiversity  target is  still  at  early 
stages of implementation. As concerns the  gender equality  target,  IPA  III  has  increased the 
number of actions with gender equality as a principal or a significant objective in the first two 
years  of  implementation,  although  more  efforts  are  needed  to  meet  the  target.  Close 
monitoring of the spending targets will be required in the second part of the MFF. 

DOAG 

The general  objective of the DOAG is  to  promote the economic and social development  of 
the OCTs and to establish close economic relations between them and the Union as a whole. 
The  first  specific  objective  of  the  DOAG  is  to  foster  and  support  cooperation  with  OCTs, 
including  in  addressing  their  major  challenges  and  reaching  the  SDGs.  Its  second  specific 
objective  is  to  support  and  to  cooperate  with  Greenland  in  addressing  its  major  challenges 
such as the raising of education level and to contribute to the capacity of the administration of 
Greenland to formulate and implement national policies. 

DOAG  is  on  track  to  effectively  deliver  against  these  objectives.  The  OCTs  programming 
documents correctly reflect these objectives, through the priority sectors of the DOAG and in 
particular those identified after its adoption by the Commission (Green deal, climate change, 
digitalisation,  etc.).  With  Greenland,  the  EU  has  maintained  its  important  support  to  the 
Education sector  (90%).  The projects  under the  DOAG  also  fall under the Global Gateway 
agenda. 

40 

 
 
 
 
 
INSC 

INSC  is  on  track  to  deliver  against  its  objectives  at  the  time  of  its  adoption.  While  not 
foreseen at that time, it responded effectively and in a flexible manner to the Russian war of 
aggression  against  Ukraine  through  an  increased  country  allocation,  close  situation 
monitoring  and  accelerated  contracting.  New  INSC  interventions  delivered  initial  outputs 
contributing  to  its  main  goal  of  further  enhancing  nuclear  safety  and  aligning  partner 
countries with  best  European/international  standards and practice.  It  also  contributed to  EU 
cross-cutting  issues,  particularly  to  a  better  environment  and  sector  governance,  and  SDGs 
(particularly  SDG  16  through  stronger  institutions  and  SDG  11  through  disaster  risk 
reduction). 

Efficiency 

Simplification and streamlining: a less complex landscape for stakeholders  

By  integrating  previous  external  financing  instruments,  NDICI-Global  Europe  provides  a 
unified legal basis for a large share of the EU’s external interventions and makes EU external 
action  more  coherent  and  streamlined.  NDICI-Global  Europe  addressed  the  fragmented 
nature of the previous architecture, merging several EFIs of the previous MFF, namely DCI, 
EIDHR, ENI, IcSP, PI and the CIR, as well as the Guarantee Fund for External Action. It also 
integrated the financially most important EFI, the 11th EDF that covered Sub-Saharan Africa, 
Caribbean and Pacific countries and previously funded outside the EU budget. NDICI-Global 
Europe also covers Neighbourhood alongside other regions, while preserving its specificities. 
NDICI-Global  Europe  thus  addressed  the  need  to  improve  coherence  and  complementarity 
between  instruments,  in  line  with  the  conclusions  and  recommendations  of  the  2017  MTR. 
The  implementation  of  the  EFIs  under  the  2014-2020  MFF  was  in  some  respects  more 
focused on their separate objectives and processes than on delivering coherently on common 
policy  objectives  and  results.  The  design  of  NDICI-Global  Europe  aimed  to  remedy  this 
aspect. 

The integration of previously separate instruments into NDICI-Global Europe is overall very 
well perceived by all the consulted stakeholders and seen as an improvement allowing for a 
holistic view of the EU actions, which proves an efficiency gain for the EU and its partners.  

In particular, the respondents from the Delegations note that by integrating previous financial 
instruments  NDICI-Global  Europe  provides  a  unified  legal  basis  for  all  interventions  and 
makes EU external action more coherent and practical, with implementation benefitting from 
streamlined  processes.    The  respondents  from  Member  States  development  agencies 
(Practitioners’ Network), while welcoming the simplification that a single instrument brings, 
stressed that the interplay between geographic, global and thematic elements on the ground is 
not yet clear. They also held that different processes and contracts still coexisted on similar 

41 

 
 
 
 
issues  and  differences  in  programming  in  Sub  Saharan  Africa  and  North  Africa  notably  on 
issues like migration were still noticeable as well as the lack of coordination between national 
and regional actions (e.g. on Team Europe Initiatives or migration corridors). The feedback 
from  civil  society  organisations  was  positive  as  regards  the  streamlining  to  a  single 
instrument  but  noting  that  the  new  regulation  brings  extra  complexity  for  the  local  actors, 
including CSOs. When it comes to CSO funding, respondents noted the key need to consider 
local  contexts  as  mechanisms  to  operationalize  actions  depend  much  on  the  context, 
especially shrinking space for CSOs. The local authorities’ organisations also appreciate the 
simplification  brought  by  NDICI-Global  Europe  as  it  allows  the  Delegations  to  be  more 
responsive to partner countries priorities.  

The  external  study  confirms  that  the  simplification  of  the  EFIs’  structure  and  regulatory 
framework,  especially  through  the  establishment  of  NDICI-Global  Europe,  is  a  significant 
step forward in terms of efficiency and clarity. The external study further notes that under the 
previous MFF, the EU produced geographic and thematic programming documents that were 
not fully harmonised in terms of format, timing and content. Due to the existence of diverse 
instruments, these documents did not capture all initiatives in all countries. Under the current 
MFF, all countries, territories, and thematic programmes covered by  NDICI-Global  Europe 
go  through  their  programming  process  concomitantly,  using  a  unified  process  and  an 
identical MIP template.  

The  external  study  further  affirms  that  Delegations  and  Headquarters  have  welcomed  this 
change, because it makes the MIPs clearer for the partners. It points to several Delegations in 
sub-Saharan  Africa,  Asia  and  the  Neighbourhood  region  which  highlighted  the  increased 
transparency stemming from this unified process regarding the policy objectives covered and 
prioritised by the EU in partnership with stakeholders in a given country. The MIPs are also 
institutionally  more  useful  under  the  current  EFIs,  as  comparable  documents  that  facilitate 
coherent  planning,  monitoring  and  instrument-level  reporting,  including  on  the  coverage  of 
policy objectives.  

Efficiency in leveraging private investment 

Looking  at  the  efficiency  of  EU  resources,  the  EFSD+  allows  to  use  limited  EU  public 
financial resources as a leverage for other public and private investment. In light of the vastly 
insufficient  public  financial  resources  to  cover  all  development  needs,  the  private  sector 
should assume a greater role in the process, serving as a powerful engine for sustainable and 
inclusive growth.  

Building  on  the  experience  from  EFSD,  EFSD+  is  key  to  reap  the  full  potential  of  the 
budgetary guarantees being a complex and still relatively new modality in the EU toolbox. It 
should also enable to reduce the time needed for projects to hit the ground running.  

As  underlined  by  the  external  study,  looking  at  efficiency  from  the  point  of  view  of  the 
internal  organisation  and  working  methods,  the  introduction  of  EFSD+  has  been 

42 

 
 
 
accompanied  by  efforts  to  ensure  internal  capacity  of  the  staff  to  deal  with  such  new 
implementing  modality.  The  external  study  recognises  the  positive  steps  taken  in  terms  of 
recruitment  of  specialised  staff  and  delivery  of  training,  while  underlying  that  capacity 
development is still very much needed in this area.  

Flexibility:  NDICI-Global  Europe  proved  flexible  enough  to  adapt  to  an  ever  more 
complex geopolitical environment 

One of the main conclusions of the 2017 MTR was that the flexibility of external instruments 
should increase, taking as an example the flexibility allowed under the off-budget European 
Development Fund, allowing the EU to better respond to sudden and unforeseen changes in 
the  geopolitical  context.  This  conclusion  determined  the  inclusion  in  the  NDICI-Global 
Europe Regulation of some flexibility features, which proved even more relevant when two 
major crises arose in the very first years of implementation of the instrument: the COVID-19 
pandemic and the Russian war of aggression against Ukraine. 

The  EDF  had  a  multiannual  budget.  The  coverage  of  ACP  countries  under  NDICI-Global 
Europe in the 2021-2027 MFF implied a transition to an instrument financed through the EU 
budget,  subject  to  annual  budgetary  availability. The  subsequent  loss in  flexibility for ACP 
countries was partly mitigated by the provisions of Article 30 on budgetary flexibilities of the 
NDICI-Global  Europe  Regulation,  which  applies  to  all  partner  countries  eligible  under  the 
instrument.  This  has  been  widely  recognised  as  an  increase  in  flexibility  for  non-ACP 
countries  compared  to  the  previous  MFF,  since  the  2014-2020  instruments  under  the  EU 
budget  did  not  have that  flexibility. Budgetary  flexibilities and  the possibility to  carry-over 
funds to the following year, is a major flexibility gain, which has already demonstrated added 
value  in  the  first  years  of  implementation  of  the  instrument,  especially  considering  the 
challenging international context, in particular in the Neighbourhood region. 

Another  flexibility  feature  inspired  by  the  EDF  is  the  NDICI-Global  Europe’s  Emerging 
challenges  and  priorities  cushion.  It  is  composed  of  unallocated  funds  available  to  increase 
the  budgets  of  any  of  the  three  NDICI-Global  Europe  pillars,  namely  the  geographic 
programmes, thematic programmes and rapid response actions, in the circumstances referred 
to in Article 17 of the Regulation.  

In the first three years of implementation, the cushion proved to be a strategic tool, providing 
a  prompt  geopolitical  and  geoeconomic  response  to  crises,  unforeseen  events  and  Union 
priorities,  as  also  confirmed  by  the  external  study,  by  several  Member  States  through 
dedicated consultations and by several stakeholders through the OPC.  

For  example  (see  Annex  VII  -  table  8  for  the  list  of  the  mobilisations),  the  NDICI-Global 
Europe cushion allowed the EU to quickly and flexibly step up its support to partner countries 
facing  the  COVID-19  pandemic  and  health  systems  fragility,  also  supporting  capacity-
building in the production of vaccines in partner countries. It also allowed the swift provision 
of additional support to Ukraine following Russia’s war of aggression. It was instrumental in 

43 

 
 
 
covering  needs  linked  to  crisis  and  post-crisis  situations  or  migratory  pressure  and  forced 
displacement.  Furthermore,  in  line  with  the  top-ups  embedded  in  recital  70  of  the  NDICI-
Global Europe Regulation, the cushion has also been used to reinforce the Global challenges, 
Human rights and democracy, and Civil Society Organisations thematic programmes.  

The  unprecedented  series  of  crises  faced  since  2021  has  revealed  the  strategic  and  political 
added  value  of  the  cushion,  allowing  the  Union  to  provide  an  appropriate  response  to 
unforeseen  events  and  priorities,  which  was  widely  recognised  in  consultations  with 
stakeholders and in the external study. The main limitation related to the cushion related to its 
over-consumption in the first years of the MFF as, at the end of 2023, 79% of the 2021-2027 
budget had been earmarked. Moreover, as underlined in the external study, future reflection is 
needed  concerning  the  use  of  the  cushion  for  certain  actions  that  could  have  been 
programmed.  

The crisis response component of the Rapid Response Actions under NDICI-Global Europe 
contributed to the overall efficiency and flexibility of the instrument. As  also confirmed by 
the external  study, it  enabled the EU to  react  swiftly and flexibly  to  emerging  and existing 
crises,  and  increased  fragility  around  the  world.  For  the  financial  years  2021  and  2022, 
resources were allocated where they were most needed: Ukraine and Moldova (approx. EUR 
133.9  million),  as  well  as  Sub-Saharan  Africa,  (approx.  EUR  179  million)  and  the  Syrian 
crisis (EUR 46.25 million), amongst others. Identification of new measures started from the 
beginning of 2021, even before the adoption of the regulation, thanks to the retroactivity from 
1 January 2021 mentioned above (see 2.1.2). This allowed the EU to provide immediate and 
swift responses to international crises creating the platform for a more coherent EU political 
action.    

Another  example  of  flexibilities  available  under  NDICI-Global  Europe  is  related  to  its 
Foreign Policy Needs (FPN) component under Rapid Response Pillar that can be mobilised if 
there is an ‘urgent or imperative foreign policy interest, or a window of opportunity to achieve 
its objectives, requiring a rapid reaction and which are difficult to address by other means’. In 
practice,  FPN  interventions  pursue  innovative  responses  to  short-to-medium  term  needs, 
opportunities  and priorities, including  to  bridge potential future actions  under geographic or 
thematic  programmes  (bridging).  In  2023,  for  instance,  a  flagship  action  was  launched  to 
support  the  EU  to  manage  the  external  impacts  of  its  new  Regulation  on  deforestation  and 
forest degradation. Concretely, these interventions in Latin America and South-East Asia will 
mitigate  political  and  trade  irritants  and  wrongful  perceptions  linked  to  the  Regulation  by 
countering  the  negative  narratives  produced  by  the  affected  sectors  and  by  enhancing  the 
understanding  of  the  Regulation.  Ultimately,  these  actions  will  facilitate  an  inclusive 
transition  towards  deforestation-free  and  legal  supply  chains  to  the  EU,  and  thereby 
contributing to minimise the EU’s contribution to global deforestation and forest degradation 
- a key aim of the Regulation.  

NDICI-Global Europe’s flexibility is also exemplified by the broad and enabling nature of its 
scope.  For  example,  NDICI-Global  Europe  is  used  as  the  main  EU  tool  serving  Global 

44 

 
 
Gateway,  the  EU  offer  to  partner  countries  with  a  strong  focus  on  environment,  social  and 
sustainability  aspects.  Provisions  of  NDICI-Global  Europe  related  to  its  objectives, 
geographic  and  thematic  scope,  approach  to  programming,  implementation  modalities  and 
close cooperation with the Member States have been constructed to serve evolving EU policy 
objectives, strategies and priorities, which makes the Instrument fit for the implementation of 
the Global Gateway strategy, in line with all the objectives set in the NDICI-Global Europe 
Regulation, even though the strategy was adopted after the instrument. Global Gateway, by 
supporting smart investments in quality infrastructure, while respecting the highest social and 
environmental standards, is contributing to the objectives of the EU development policy and 
development objectives of the EU partner countries, also in line with the objectives its main 
EU vehicle, NDICI-Global Europe. 

According to the majority of respondents from Delegations, overall levels of flexibility have 
increased  compared  to  the  previous  MFF.  Regarding  responsiveness  of  current  EFIs  to  EU 
policy  and  political  priorities,  overall  responses  were  very  positive  on  the  flexibility  of  the 
instrument and slightly positive about its suitability for mainstreaming EU policy priorities. 
More than half of respondents agree that the current EFIs are flexible enough to respond to 
developments in the EU external action policy framework (e.g. Global Gateway).   

Overall,  the  Delegations  think  that  the  new  framework’s  simplification  made  it  clearer  and 
easier to understand for partners. There has been a positive contribution to streamlining and 
reducing the administrative processes required to programme and then implement. The mid-
term  review,  determining the allocation of funds for the second half of the MIP period can 
help foster policy dialogue. 

Evidence gathered during the consultation process shows that there is room for improvement 
in  terms  of  flexibility  when  it  comes  to  the  programming  process.  While  the  programming 
exercise  successfully  allowed  to  identify  shared  priorities  for  the  following  seven  years, 
based  on  inclusive  consultations,  it  turned  out  to  be  an  administratively  cumbersome  and 
lengthy process which to  a  certain extent hampered the flexibility  and the efficiency of the 
instrument. Indeed, the Delegations note that the programming process is heavier to manage 
than before with an increase in transaction costs especially for a small Delegations with small 
country envelopes. 

With  regard  to  the  investment  component  of  NDICI-Global  Europe,  most  stakeholders  and 
notably DFIs highlighted that EFSD and EFSD+ proved to  be flexible tools.  This  was  also 
recognised  (to  a  certain  extent)  by  the  external  study,  with  the  caveat  that  procedures  for 
prioritisation should be further developed. Indeed, both EFSD and EFSD+ investments could 
be  reoriented  to  quickly  respond  to  the  adverse  socio-economic  impact  of  the  Covid-19 
pandemic as well as to the fallout of the war of aggression against Ukraine. To address the 
all-encompassing  consequences  of  the  Covid-19  pandemic,  several  EFSD  guarantee 
agreements  and  blending  operations  were  revised  or  repurposed  to  steer  resources  towards 
urgent needs. This spanned not only the health sector, such as in the case of an existing EFSD 
guarantee agreement with the EIB (which was amended so as to guarantee the EIB’s loan to 

45 

 
 
the COVAX initiative promoting equitable access to Covid-19 vaccines); it also covered the 
real economy, where the changes targeted a more deliberate support for the most vulnerable 
economic  actors,  such  as  the  small  producers,  entrepreneurs  and  firms  hit  by  the  crisis. 
Similarly, at the outset of Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine, an existing European 
Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) programme guaranteed under the EFSD 
was  adapted  to  allow  immediate  support  to  Ukrenergo,  the  Ukrainian  energy  transmission 
company. DFIs have called for this flexibility to be used and further enhanced in the future, 
especially to allow them to respond faster in view of the evolving market needs. This will be 
assessed also taking into account the instrument’s risk limits. 

IPA III allows more flexibility and efficiency gains compared to its predecessors  

Building on the lessons learnt and the experience from previous instruments, IPA III has been 
efficient  in  deploying  a  mix  of  modalities  and  tools,  including  budget  support,  grants  and 
investments  generated  under  the  WBIF,  a  joint  initiative  of  the  EU,  international  financial 
institutions, bilateral donors and beneficiaries, pooling their financial resources together. This 
combination  of  modalities  has  ensured  that  various  dimensions  of  the  enlargement  process, 
including legislative alignment, institution-building, green and digital and sustainable socio-
economic development, have been addressed more holistically.  

The  external  study  confirmed  that  IPA  III  is  flexible  in  responding  to  exceptional  external 
events,  even  though  the  instrument  does  not  have  a  similar  cushion  as  the  NDICI-Global 
Europe  instrument.  The  absence  of  pre-set  country  financial  envelopes  has  provided  the 
required  flexibility  to  programme  assistance  according  to  urgent  and  evolving  needs. 
Following  Russia’s  war  of  aggression  against  Ukraine,  the  EU  addressed  efficiently  the 
impact  of  the  war  on  the  energy  security  and  the  post-COVID  19  recovery  in  the  Western 
Balkans.  Within  just  a  few  months,  the  Commission  was  able  to  redirect  the  ongoing 
programming  exercise  and  prepare  an  Energy  Support  Package  to  the  Western  Balkans, 
including approximately 500 million EUR in budget support, followed by another EUR 500 
million in investments through the WBIF, bringing about concrete achievements: 

• 

•  A total of 427 011 vulnerable households received financial support to overcome the 
price  increase  of  energy  bills  in  Bosnia  and  Herzegovina,  Serbia,  Kosovo*  and 
Montenegro. 
In North Macedonia, 374 (out of 474) schools, 57 (out of eligible 67) public utilities, 
and 32 (out of eligible 109) health care facilities benefitted from subsidised electricity 
prices. 244 (out of eligible 820) SMEs involved in the production of basic foods were 
supplied  energy  at  lower  than  the  market  price.  The  Government  adopted  the  Just 
Transition Action Plan in June 2023. Consequently, the Government mobilized EUR 

* This designation is without prejudice to positions on status, and is in line with UNSCR 1244/1999 and the ICJ 

Opinion on the Kosovo declaration of independence. 

46 

 
 
 
 
• 

85  million  through  the  Climate  Investment  Fund  for  implementation  of  the  key  de-
carbonisation projects identified in the Action Plan and announced during the COP28 
meeting in UAE. 
In Kosovo, 1937 households, of which 1152 living in single family houses, and 785 in 
28 multi-apartment social buildings benefited from gender sensitive energy efficiency 
measures  (thermal  insulation  of  external  walls  and  roof,  replacement  of  external 
windows and doors, replacement of heating systems, connection to district heating) in 
Kosovo.  In  addition,  15.030  households  benefited  from  energy-efficient  household 
appliances, heating equipment and solar energy systems. 

•  The Albanian Power Exchange (ALPEX) went live on 12 April 2023. The operation 
of  ALPEX  fulfilled  one  of  the  requirements  of  the  Third  Energy  Package  and 
integrated  the  Albania  and  Kosova  electricity  markets.  After  launching  ALPEX,  the 
Albanian energy market is connected with Kosovo. 
In  Montenegro,  Solari  5000+  project  is  fully  functional  and  effectively  facilitating 
energy efficiency and solar panel installation for individual consumers and SMEs.  

• 

The adoption of the unified monitoring and reporting system, the IPA III results framework, is 
expected  to  improve  programming,  monitoring,  reporting  and  evaluation  of  IPA  III.  With  a 
uniform  set  of  indicators  the  IPA  III  result  framework  ensures  the  consistency  and 
harmonisation of approaches followed by the different users and promotes reporting on results 
at  a  higher  level  (outcomes).  Therefore,  its  main  advantage  compared  to  the  previous 
monitoring  and  reporting  system  under  IPA  II  lays  on  the  comprehensiveness  and 
strengthened policy relevance of the indicators used, in line with the “policy first” principle. 
Furthermore, the IPA III results framework promotes the disaggregation of data by sex, age, 
disability, beneficiary and sector whenever possible and relevant, in line with Article 41(7) of 
the NDICI-Global Europe Regulation.  

There  have  been  some  efficiency  gains  with  having  fewer  and  larger  actions  with  bigger 
financial envelopes and longer duration, where feasible, under IPA III. However, while there 
increasingly  more  strategic  multi-annual  multi-country  programmes,  bilateral 
are 
programming  continues  to  be  done  annually,  as  has  been  the  case  since  the  first  IPA 
instrument.  According  to  external  study,  the  move  to  a  new  type  of  thematic  bilateral 
programming  approach  that  is  repeated  annually  has  resulted  in  increased  transaction  costs 
under  IPA  III both  for the Commission  and for the national  authorities. This  new approach 
resulted in a heavier process, with Strategic Responses including more project proposals from 
NIPACs that needed to be assessed in terms of relevance and maturity, which required more 
consultation and guidance.  

INSC proves agile enough to adapt to external challenges 

The INSC proved to be sufficiently broad, flexible and resilient to allow for an adaptation of 
its  support  to  new  external  challenges,  like  in  Ukraine  and  Armenia.  In  the  targeted 
consultations  the  Member  States  experts  found  that  the  EU  still  has  a  strong  comparative 

47 

 
 
  
advantage in working with partner countries in the area of nuclear safety. They acknowledged 
its useful mission in the current global context. Member States agreed that there is sufficient 
level of complementarity between INSC and NDICI-Global Europe as well as IPA III. 

DOAG 

In  the  targeted  consultations  the  Member  States  experts  agreed  that  the  coherence  of  EU 
cooperation with the OCTs under the DOAG has been strengthened after merging the former 
Greenland  and  OAD  decisions.  Member  States  considered  that  DOAG  has  proven  to  be 
sufficiently flexible in its objectives and sectors of cooperation to be able to respond to the 
challenges of all OCTs. 

Governance: improved and more conducive inter-institutional dynamics 

The  transition  from  the  EDF  to  NDICI-Global  Europe,  an  instrument  financed  through  the 
EU  budget  (the  so-called  “budgetisation”  of  the  EDF),  was  a  long-standing  request  of  the 
European  Parliament.  The  transition  to  the  NDICI-Global  Europe  increased  the  democratic 
scrutiny of the European Parliament, and improved its legislative and budgetary powers, by 
extending  them  to  cooperation  with  ACP  countries.  Mindful  of  the  European  Parliament’s 
role in the political steer of the Instrument, the Commission committed to conducting a high-
level  geopolitical  dialogue  between  the  two  institutions  on  the  implementation  of  NDICI-
Global Europe. The high-level geopolitical dialogue, which has been organised twice a year 
since  the  adoption  of  the  Instrument,  successfully  enhanced  the  involvement  of  the 
Parliament in the political steering of the Instrument and the dialogue between institutions. 

The involvement of the Council in the steering of the NDICI-Global Europe also increased. 
The Council issued a statement on the governance of NDICI-Global Europe on the adoption 
of the Regulation. The statement foresees inter alia regular follow up on the overall strategic 
choices for the programming, the use of the rapid response pillar and of the cushion, as well 
as  on  the  monitoring  of  the  targets  and  the  flexible  funding  mechanism  on  migration. 
Increased  dialogue  and  consultation  became  structural  through  the  newly  created  NDICI-
Global Europe sub-group of CODEV-PI, where the Council is kept closely informed on the 
implementation of the Instrument by the Commission. 

With regards to IPA III, the Commission and the European Parliament, mindful of the latter’s 
functions  of  political  control,  have  committed  to  conducting  a  high-level  geopolitical 
dialogue  between  both  institutions.  It  takes  place  twice  a  year,  focusing  on  general 
orientations  on  the  implementation  of  IPA  III.  The  high-level  geopolitical  dialogues  are 
preceded  and  prepared  in  Senior  Officials  Meetings.  After  each  high-level  geopolitical 
dialogue, the European Parliament issues recommendations for the Commission’s follow-up. 
Five  high-level  geopolitical  dialogues  have  been  successfully  organised.  The  Commission 
has also provided updates to the Council on the implementation of IPA III 

48 

 
 
 
 
In line with the IPA III Regulation, the Commission also provides to Member States in the 
IPA III Committee an annual assessment of the implementation of the IPA III programming 
framework  in  light  of  the  evolution  of  the  policy  framework  and  based  on  the  IPA  III 
programming framework indicators. The assessment shall also include the state of play of the 
allocations  committed  and  planned  for  the  beneficiaries  and  how  the  performance-based 
approach and the fair share principle referred to have been implemented.  

When  it  comes  to  DOAG,  the  Council  adapted  its  structures  to  the  Decision  and,  while 
Greenland file under the budget was covered previously by the COEST Committee, the entire 
OCT file is now under the responsibility of the sole ACP Council Working Party. OCTs have 
a dedicated budget chapter, in line with the European Parliament’s request. 

Coherence 

Geographisation and internal complementarity of NDICI-Global Europe 

Looking  back  at  the  EFIs  under  2014-2020,  the  specific  scope  of  geographic  instruments 
made  it  difficult  to  engage  coherently  with  some  partner  countries:  for  example,  three 
geographic  instruments  were  used  to  engage  with  Africa  (EDF,  DCI  and  ENI)  and  the 
cooperation  at  continental  level  was  funded  both  from  the  DCI  and  the  11th  EDF. 
Furthermore, other instruments with a thematic scope were also used, such as the EIDHR or 
the IcSP. This scattered EFI framework made it difficult for partners and local stakeholders to 
get a clear understanding of the EU cooperation tools. 

The principles of geographisation and internal complementarity that underpin NDICI-Global 
Europe  clarified  the  articulation  between  geographic,  thematic  and  rapid  response  actions, 
thus increasing coherence and addressing the issues stemming from the overlaps between the 
large number of instruments during 2014-2020.  

Indeed,  the  coherence  between  the  instruments  under  the  2014-2020  MFF  was  lacking 
because  of  the  multiplicity  of  programmes;  the  interplay  between  the  geographic  and 
thematic approaches resulted in sometimes overlapping responses at country level and taking 
advantage  of  complementarities  and  creating  synergies  between  instruments  proved 
challenging.  The  majority  of  respondents  in  Delegations  agreed  that  coherence  and 
complementarity  has  increased  with  NDICI-Global  Europe,  enhancing  EU’s  leverage  by 
combining  different  modalities  and  tools  to  promote  EU  external  priorities.  On  the  other 
hand, in  the targeted  consultations Member States  experts  pointed to  the differences within 
the  instrument  regarding  the  Neighbourhood  region  compared  to  other  regions  that  also 
translates into different approaches and working methods. 

In  line  with  the  principles  of  geographisation  and  internal  complementarity,  enshrined  in 
Article  6  of  the  NDICI-Global  Europe  Regulation,  NDICI-Global  Europe  actions  are 
implemented  primarily  through  country  and  regional  geographic  programmes  in  the 

49 

 
 
 
 
Neighbourhood,  Sub-Saharan  Africa,  Asia  and  the  Pacific,  and  the  Americas  and  the 
Caribbean. The budget has been distributed accordingly, with 76% of NDICI-Global Europe 
budget allocated to geographic programmes.  

The geographisation principle has contributed to better focus EU’s engagement with multiple 
actors at  country level under NDICI-Global Europe. The value of geographically structured 
instruments lies in the capacity to address the specific needs of partner countries in a tailored 
manner with country programmes focusing on fewer and more impactful joint priorities. This 
is crucial given the diversity of the challenges and needs across these countries and country 
programmes allow to maximise the impact of the EU cooperation. This is confirmed by the 
external  study  which  noted  the  improved  coherence  between  the  levels  of  EU  engagement 
(local, national, regional and global) and opportunities for stronger partnerships and a greater 
political weight of the EU.  

The  respondents  of  Member  States  development  agencies  welcomed  also  the  policy  first 
principle, highlighting the need to better link policy and implementation and to recognise the 
role of partner countries in that process to ensure ownership. 

The respondents to the consultation with UN organisations acknowledged that NDICI-Global 
Europe is  more agile, flexible and predictable with reduced administrative complexities and 
increased  synergies.  In  terms  of  geographisation,  they  stressed  that  change  happens  at  the 
country-level  and  its  impact  is  felt  differently  depending  on  the  country.  In  this  context, 
complementarity with the regional and thematic programmes is important. 

Regional  programmes  complement  the  country  programming  and  address  regional  issues, 
support  alliances  and  coalitions  or  pilot  new  approaches  and  initiatives.  They  include 
priorities  that  are  more  efficiently  addressed  at  sub-regional,  regional,  continental  or  trans-
regional  level.  Regional  programmes  also  cater  for  country  cooperation  with  high  income 
countries, which do not benefit from country financial allocations. In line with the principle 
of  policy  first,  implementing  geographisation  and  extending  cooperation  to  countries  non-
eligible  for  ODA  involves  a  more  flexible  and  innovative  understanding  of  regional 
configurations.  The  latter  are  not  exclusively  centred  on  regional  organisations,  as  was  the 
case  in  the  past  and  was  highlighted  in  the  different  consultations.  Regional  cooperation  is 
driven  by  sub-regional  needs,  geopolitical  dynamics,  common  interests  and  priorities  and 
channelled through the most appropriate groupings. Despite efforts to increase cross-regional 
coherence, breaking silos has not been easy and different operational practices exist hindering 
the  possibilities  for  pan-African  and  cross-regional  approaches,  or  multi-country  initiatives 
on both  sides of the Sahara or across the Neighbourhood  – although enabling these was an 
intention  of  the  Regulation.  In  the  targeted  consultations  while  Member  States  experts 
acknowledged  that  NDICI-Global  Europe  targets  and  ‘geographisation’  bring  value  in  this 
regard, they considered that sufficient resources should be provided for regional programmes 
as well. Member States development agencies also welcomed the geographisation principle, 
highlighting the need to strengthen interlinkages between global, regional and country-level 
actions.  

50 

 
 
Thematic programmes are complementary to geographic ones. In particular, thematic actions 
should focus on global and trans-regional initiatives that cannot be adequately accommodated 
by  geographic  programmes,  which  addresses  the  shortcomings  related  to  the  overlapping 
scopes of the instruments under the past MFF. This is true for the Global Challenges thematic 
programme that supports multilateral initiatives and priorities around four of the SDGs’ “Ps”: 
People,  Planet,  Prosperity  and  Partnerships.  The  Peace,  Stability  and  Conflict  Prevention 
thematic  programme  covers  the  fifth  SDG  “P”:  Peace,  with  actions  supporting  multilateral 
efforts,  alongside  structural  responses  to  prevent  conflict  and  build  peace.  The  thematic 
programme for Human rights and Democracy, along with that for Civil society organisations, 
have taken over the scope of the former EIDHR and the former thematic component of the 
DCI for CSOs and are building on the lessons learned of these instruments to deliver highly 
specific actions in these two priority fields of EU intervention. 

Rapid  response  actions  (RRA)  are  complementary  to  both  geographic  and  thematic 
programmes  and  are  financed  under  the  non-programmable  pillar  of  NDICI-Global  Europe. 
RRA  are  structured  in  three  components,  namely  crisis  response  and  conflict  prevention, 
resilience  and  foreign  policy  needs  with  the  actions  based  on  the  areas  of  intervention, 
detailed  respectively  in  Article  4(4)  and  Annex  IV  of  the  Regulation.  Crisis  response  and 
conflict  prevention  is  the  biggest  component  and  when  used  in  complementarity  with  the 
other NDICI-Global Europe pillars, has proven its added value, providing a prompt answer to 
needs and political priorities in the current context of increased crisis and instability. In 2023 
alone,  42  new  crisis  response  actions  were  adopted:  in  addition  to  maintaining  significant  
support for  the many needs in and around Ukraine as a consequence of the Russian war of 
aggression,  new  actions  were  also  swiftly  mobilised  to  address  new  crises  and  conflicts, 
including  the  January  earthquake  in  northwest  Syria;  the  outbreak  of  full  war  in  Sudan  in 
April; as well as the war on Gaza following the 7 October attack into Israel by Hamas.   

The resilience line has been entirely earmarked for 2021, 2022 and 2023 to contribute to the 
Syrian  refugees’  package,  for  Syrian  refugees  in  Türkiye.  Over  that  period,  the  resilience 
component  could  not  support  other  partner  countries  and  societies  recover  from  political, 
economic and societal pressures and shocks, as well as natural or man-made disasters.  

The  third  component  of  the  RRA  is  the  Foreign  Policy  Needs,  which  has  proved  useful  to 
support  EU  foreign  policy  objectives  at  large  and  globally,  by  acting  where  there  was  an 
“urgent  or  imperative  foreign  policy  interest”  requiring  a  “rapid  reaction”.  Actions  under 
Foreign Policy Needs provide opportunities to cooperate with like-minded partners and high-
income countries to promote EU interests and values through open dialogue and best practice 
learning  at  regional  and  multilateral  levels,  as  it  is  the  case  with  the  new  action  adopted  in 
2023 to operationalize the commitments of the 70 signatories of the Declaration for the Future 
of  the  Internet,  forming  an  integral  part  of  the  EU’s  strategic  digital  diplomacy  agenda, 
initiated and promoted by the EU and the US, setting out a shared and comprehensive vision 
for the future of the open Internet. 

51 

 
 
Thorough  review  of  programming  documents  and  action  documents  as  well  as  extensive 
consultations  confirm  a  great  degree  of  complementarity  and  coherence  among  the  three 
NDICI-Global  Europe  pillars.  The  integration  of  the  EFSD+  in  the  NDICI-Global  Europe 
helped streamline the instruments and increase the coherence of EU external action through a 
better  policy  alignment.  However,  the  length  and  complexity  of  EFSD+  provisions  and  the 
fact  that  those  are  presented  separately  from  other  implementing  modalities  leave  room  for 
further simplifying the relevant provisions.  

The external study finds that the geographisation has all in all contributed to better coherence 
with  EU  policies  at  country  level  in  the  Neighbourhood  region,  sub-Saharan  Africa,  Latin 
America, Asia and the Pacific by also requiring stronger dialogue and consultation as well as 
stronger emphasis on EU policy priorities. It also notes that the full programmatic impact of 
geographisation is difficult to assess yet. 

IPA III internal coherence and complementarity 

IPA III objectives are consistent with its predecessor instruments, given the specific purpose 
of  the  instrument  to  support  beneficiaries  in  their  progressive  alignment  with  EU  standards 
and policies with  a view to  EU membership.  The instrument  has  nevertheless evolved over 
time, reflecting also the changes in the EU enlargement policy, such as increased focus on the 
fundamental  reforms  and  the  internal  EU  policy  priorities,  such  as  the  green  and  digital 
agenda. 

IPA III continues to ensure strong  complementarity between different types of programmes 
supported  under  the  instrument.  This  is  especially  evident  for  bilateral  programmes  and 
multi-country  programmes.  The  responsibility  for  programming  of  bilateral  actions  is  with 
IPA III beneficiaries in close coordination with the Commission, while the responsibility for 
multi-country  programming  is  with  the  Commission  in  close  coordination  with  IPA  III 
beneficiaries.  The  multi-country  programmes  are  assessed  for  their  relevance  at  the  same 
time with the bilateral programmes, to ensure continued strategic focus and complementarity 
with bilateral actions.  

The external study found that strong efforts are made to foster IPA III internal coherence, and 
the strengthening of regional coherence is a priority. On the other hand, targeted consultations 
and the review of strategic responses suggested that internal coherence is highly dependent on 
the quality of the strategic responses submitted by the beneficiaries. 

Coherence of NDICI-Global Europe, IPA III, DOAG and INSC 

NDICI-Global Europe, IPA III, DOAG and INSC are coherent and complementary: 

• 

IPA  III,  DOAG  and  INSC  contain  referral  clauses  to  NDICI-Global  Europe 
concerning  implementation,  ensuring  that  a  common  set  of  implementing  rules  are 
applicable  to  these  four  external  financing  instruments,  with  specific  exceptions  for 

52 

 
 
 
 
each  instrument.  For  DOAG,  avenues  to  adapt  these  exceptions  to  the  smaller 
financial amounts and thresholds of actions under the Decision should be explored in 
the future. 
IPA III and DOAG beneficiaries are eligible to the NDICI-Global Europe’s thematic 
programmes as well as its Rapid response pillar, even though no OCT benefitted from 
thematic or rapid response actions so far.  
IPA III further refers to NDICI-Global Europe when it comes to the EFSD+, which is 
a shared investment component. IPA III contributes to the provisioning needs of the 
External Action Guarantee for what concerns operations in the IPA III beneficiaries. 
The  contribution  of  the  external  financing  instruments  in  support  of  the  external 
dimension  of  Erasmus  is  also  streamlined,  with  IPA  III  referring  to  NDICI-Global 
Europe.  
INSC contributes to the provisioning needs of the External Action Guarantee for what 
concerns EURATOM loans. 

• 

• 

• 

Three  new  Neighbourhood  countries,  Ukraine,  Moldova  and  Georgia,  have  become 
enlargement countries  in  2022. Given that  IPA  III  beneficiaries are defined in  the annex of 
the  IPA  III  Regulation,  Moldova  and  Georgia  will  continue  to  receive  support  to  their  EU 
accession  process  under  the  NDICI-Global  Europe  instrument,  and  Ukraine  under  a  new 
dedicated  financing  instrument.  As  the  enlargement  policy  will  be  the  primary  policy 
framework  for  these  three  countries,  the  coherence  of  IPA  III  and  the  assistance  provided 
under  the  instruments  from  which  they  receive  pre-accession  assistance  will  need  to  be 
continuously ensured.  

Strengthening synergies with other external instruments not covered by this evaluation 

The humanitarian-development-peace nexus approach is  a coordinated and coherent  way of 
working in order to build resilience, sustainable development and peace and thus ending the 
cycle of needs, essential in fragile and crisis-affected contexts. The nexus approach allows to 
maintain an engagement in case of escalation of tensions and conflict, maintain basic needs 
and  development  support  to  the  extent  possible.  During  the  recent  conflict  in  the  north  of 
Ethiopia  for  example,  three  sets  of  individual  measures  supported  the  triple  nexus  with  the 
aim of protecting vulnerable populations  and recovery strategies. They provided  systematic 
responses to  the food crisis, complementing  the already  existing  and planned humanitarian, 
crisis  response  and  peacebuilding  activities.  While  regular  and  constructive  exchanges  in 
support of the nexus are ensured among the relevant services, efforts are needed to strengthen 
synergies among instruments which have different legal bases, adopted in different times and 
contexts. The external study further elaborates on an evaluation on the Implementation of the 
humanitarian-development-peace nexus approach, based on country examples from Burkina 
Faso,  Central  African  Republic,  Chad,  Democratic  Republic  of  Congo,  Nigeria,  Sudan, 
Uganda, Iraq and Myanmar. The evaluation shows that the approach is valuable and of added 
value to the EU’s external action in protracted crises contexts. 

53 

 
 
 
The EU has played, and is still playing, an important role in support of peace, stability and 
conflict  prevention.  The  coverage  of  actions  previously  falling  under  the  IcSP  by  the 
Thematic  and  Rapid  Response  Pillars  of  the  NDICI-Global  Europe  is  broadly  seen  as  a 
positive step, that can lead to more coherence and a better linking of actions in the domain of 
peace  and  security,  also  with  other  external  cooperation  instruments  (e.g.,  CFSP, 
humanitarian action, EPF). For civilian CFSP missions, including those established before 1 
January  2021,  there  is  an  obligation  to  ensure  ‘Consistency  of  the  Union's  response  and 
coordination’62.  In  some  cases  (EUAM  Iraq)  the  need  to  ensure  coordination  is  explicitly 
cited  in  their  mandate.  The  external  study  cites  this  as  evidence  of  emerging  synergies 
between  civilian  CSDP  missions  and  NDICI-Global  Europe  actions,  informed  by  the 
influence of the CFSP Compact.  

The EPF is part of the Union’s integrated approach and makes the best use of synergies with 
other  actions  and  support  measures  of  the  Union  and  its  Member  States.  Its  purpose  is  to 
finance CFSP actions having military and defence implications whose operating expenditure 
cannot  be  charged  to  the  Union  budget.  Actions  in  support  of  third  states,  regional  and 
international organisation or supporting the military aspects of peace support are decided by 
the Council upon a Member State or the  EU High Representative of the Union for Foreign 
Affairs and Security Policy/Vice-President of the European Commission (HR/VP) initiative. 
The  relevant  Commission  services  are  consulted  in  the  course  of  their  preparation,  so  that 
consistency is ensured with actions funded by other EU instruments,  notably NDICI-Global 
Europe and in particular its component for capacity building of military actors in support of 
development and security for development. 

Enhanced coherence of EU internal and external policies  

In line with  Article 5, NDICI-Global  Europe  ensures consistency, coherence, synergies and 
complementarity in the external action, as well as with EU relevant policies and programmes 
which have an impact on sustainable development. To achieve it, good practices pertaining to 
upstream  information  and  consultation  flow  have  been  established  with  NDICI-Global 
Europe. Commission implementing services (DG INTPA, DG NEAR and FPI), together with 
the  EEAS,  closely  involved  Commission  services  in  charge  of  internal  policies  in  the 
programming  exercise,  allowing  an  enhanced  coherence  and  quality  of  EU  internal  and 
external policies, notably in the area of migration and climate in line with the objectives of 
the Instrument. Continuous exchanges among Commission services also allowed for a better 
definition and identification of straddling actions, avoiding overlaps and increasing synergies 
and complementarity.  

The  external  study  further  substantiates  the  above  points,  explaining  that  consultation 
between  external  action  services  and  line  DGs  has  intensified  since  the  start  of  the  current 

62 Council Decision on the EUAM in Iraq of October 2017, in line with Article 21 (3) TEU 

54 

 
 
 
 
MFF. According to line DGs, when this cooperation takes place at appropriate level and early 
on,  it  contributes  to  higher  quality  of  MIPs  and,  ultimately,  of  interventions.  Such 
collaboration is  labour-intensive and creates additional transaction costs which are likely  to 
decrease slightly in the long run, but they are positive, as they ensure mutual understanding 
and priorities and common approaches, in line with the Policy first approach. 

IPA  III  ensures  consistency,  synergies  and  complementarities  with  other  areas  of  external 
action,  as  well  as  with  relevant  policies  and  programmes,  and  policy  coherence  for 
development.  Notably,  IPA  III  supports  EU  territorial  cooperation  between  adjacent  land 
border regions of at least one Member State and one or more IPA III beneficiaries (Interreg 
VIA strand), as well as the participation of IPA III beneficiaries in transnational (Interreg VI-
B  strand)  and  interregional  cooperation  programmes  (Interreg  VI-C).  Interreg  VI-A,  VI-B 
and VI-C programmes are the responsibility of DG REGIO, with funding pooled together by 
IPA III and the European Regional Development Fund. Furthermore, through IPARD the EU 
provides to the eligible IPA III beneficiaries (Albania, Montenegro, North Macedonia, Serbia 
and  Türkiye)  financial  and  technical  support  to  their  farming,  food  production  and  rural 
development structures in a sustainable way, aligning their agricultural and rural development 
policies  with  the  EU's  common  agricultural  policy,  and  adapting  their  agriculture  and  food 
sector  with  the  EU  food,  hygiene  and  environmental  standards  as  well  as  in  line  with  the 
goals of the European Green Deal.  

Participation  of  third  countries  in  Union  programmes  can  be  beneficial  to  the  programmes 
and the policy objectives pursued and at the same time it is an important tool of the Union’s 
foreign policy and should be approached strategically. The association of IPA III and several 
Neighbourhood  beneficiaries  to  Union  programmes  fosters  the  implementation  of  concrete 
reforms  and  offers  the  citizens  clear  benefits,  as  well  as  a  bottom-up  boost  to  the  EU 
integration process. The participation of third countries from Africa, the Caribbean and South 
America  in  the  EU  Outermost  Regions  Interreg  programmes  and  the  possibility  of  joint 
actions funded with  ERDF and NDICI-Global Europe under these programmes, contributes 
to  the  regional  integration  between  Outermost  regions  and  their  neighbours  benefiting  the 
whole area. Encompassing most Community policies, these Union programmes are a major 
pre-accession  instrument  that  help  candidate  and  potential  candidates  and  their  citizens 
familiarising  themselves  with  the  European  Union  policies  and  working  methods. 
Participation  in  the  Union  programmes  encourages  the  active  involvement  of  public  and 
private  institutions,  non-governmental  organisations  (NGOs),  civil  society  institutions  and 
universities  to  benefit  from  the  EU  accession  process.  Participation  in  Union  programmes 
contributes  to  the  implementation  of  strategies  adopted  in  the  IPA  III  beneficiaries  for  the 
respective sectors targeted by individual programmes, to capacity building of institutions and 
sectorial progress in the European integration process, and in meeting the accession criteria. 

The  DOAG  seeks  coherence  and  complementarity  between  the  Union’s  external  financing 
instruments and allow for the combination of funding with other Union Programmes such as 
Interreg with outermost regions, as long as the contributions do not cover the same costs. In 
this context, an important modality of flexibility introduced by the DOAG is the possibility in 

55 

 
 
case  of  joint  projects  (intraregional,  EU  programs  and  other)  to  choose  the  modality  of 
implementation,  which  was  not  possible  under  the  EDF.  OCTs  are  also  eligible  under 
conditions to other EU instruments, such as LIFE, Horizon, Erasmus etc. 

In light of a renewed interest in nuclear energy as part of a more sustainable energy mix in 
several  partner  countries,  INSC  support  for  nuclear  safety  related  improvements  promoted 
stronger coherence and alignment with Euratom Acquis. 

The EU’s comprehensive response to Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine as an 
illustration of internal and external coherence of instruments 

Since the start of Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine, the total pledged support  in a 
Team Europe approach amounts to EUR 88.322 billion, covering all types of support such as 
humanitarian,  economic,  macro-financial  assistance,  military,  and  support  to  refugees. 
Support from the EU budget amounts to EUR 31.096 billion and includes:   

•  Humanitarian assistance: EUR 785 million 
•  Budget support and grants (NDICI-Global Europe): EUR 2.347 billion  
•  Loans: EUR 25.2 billion  
•  Other support (Connecting Europe Facility): EUR 202 million  
•  Support through EU guarantees: EUR 2.578 billion  
•  Nuclear safety: EUR 16 million 

4.2 How did the EU intervention make a difference and to whom? 

EU added value 

EU added value of NDICI-Global Europe towards partner countries 

Recent evaluations illustrate the added value and leverage potential of the use of EU public 
funds.  For  example,  the  Fast  Track  Assessment  of  the  EU  Initial  Response  to  COVID-19 
Crisis  in  Partner  Countries  and  Regions63  conducted  in  2020  concluded  that  massively 
mobilising budget support and macro-financial assistance was a relevant approach to support 
governments’ fiscal capacity for initial crisis response linked to COVID-19. In several cases, 
this helped countries to stabilise their macro-fiscal framework and to execute supplementary 
budgets placing COVID-19 measures at their core. It also offered a policy dialogue platform 
to monitor the implementation of the response to COVID-19.  

63 Fast-Track Assessment of the EU Initial Response to the COVID-19 Crisis in Partner Countries and Regions 
(2020) 

56 

 
 
 
 
 
 
In  the  same  vein,  the  evaluation  of  EU  State  Building  Contracts  (SBCs)  (2012-2018)64 
concluded  to  the  added  value  of  EU  cooperation.  These  budget  support  contracts  have, 
among  others,  improved  primary  school  enrolment,  including  girls.  The  improvement  of 
primary school enrolment was achieved through a conjunction of  factors. Through financial 
transfers and dialogue on the budget, SBCs contributed to this outcome by securing current 
public expenditure, essentially used to cover the wages of teaching staff. This is particularly 
the case in fragile countries with major financial constraints. In cases of reconstruction after a 
natural disaster, SBCs contributed more directly to the investment programme (Nepal) and to 
the  redeployment  of  infrastructure  to  maintain  services.  The  increase  in  primary  school 
enrolment  rates  was  coupled  with  improved  geographic  accessibility  in  several  countries 
(Nepal,  Ivory  Coast,  Madagascar  and  Sierra  Leone)  by  ensuring  a  better  distribution  of 
resources over the territory, SBCs were able to  contribute to  this important  outcome (Ivory 
Coast and Madagascar). 

The new architecture of EFIs equips the EU better to exert leverage as a development actor, a 
global  player  and  a  geopolitical  actor,  though  the  articulation  between  these  different  roles 
come with challenges. External study shows that the new EFIs have laid the foundations for 
the  EU  to  strengthen  the  EU’s  added  value  on  external  action.  In  particular,  NDICI-Global 
Europe brought significant added value by providing a more integrated, sizeable and coherent 
offer to  the world compared to the previous MFF,  improving partner  countries’ capacity to 
address joint priorities with the EU and tackle global challenges. The programming process 
was  conducted  through  multi-stakeholder  and  inclusive  consultations,  both  at  country  and 
Headquarters  level,  with  partner  countries’  authorities,  other  donors  and  actors,  including 
local  authorities, representatives of civil  society, including  women and youth  organisations, 
foundations  and  the  private  sector,  where  relevant,  in  order  to  facilitate  their  respective 
contributions, as appropriate, and to ensure they play a meaningful role in the programming 
process.  The  fact  that  the  NDICI-Global  Europe  now  allows  the  Union  to  engage  in 
geographic  cooperation  with  all  partners  under  one  common  instrument  enables  a  more 
coherent approach. With Upper Middle-Income Countries (UMICs) in particular, this enables 
a  more  strategic  and  tailor-made  approach,  as  illustrated  towards  China.  Leverage  is  also 
created  to  support  longer-term  cooperation  with  multilateral  partners  on  key  areas  of  EU 
policy interest including climate, trade and energy untied to any particular region or country. 
Engaging with UMICs also addresses the need to further align cooperation and partnerships 
with them to expand EU geopolitical ambitions.  

The  external  study  shows  a  mixed  picture  of  the  EU’s  ability  to  exert  leverage  through 
NDICI-Global  Europe.  In  the  case  of  the  Neighbourhood,  the  implementation  of  the 
incentive-based approach has proven insufficient to promote political and economic reforms 
due  to  the  limited  funding  available  (indicatively  10%  of  the  overall  Neighbourhood 
envelope) and the complexity of assessing  the progress  along  the  several  criteria set  out  by 

64 Evaluation of EU State Building Contracts (2012-2018) - European Commission (europa.eu) 

57 

 
 
 
the  NDICI-Global  Europe  regulation.  The  application  of  the  incentive-based  approach  was 
further complicated by the negative economic impact of Russia’s war of aggression against 
Ukraine and a democratic backsliding in several partner countries, in particular in the South 
Neighbourhood. A mixed assessment also emerged from  the consultation with  stakeholders 
whereby  only  one  third  of  respondents  replied  positively  on  the  effectiveness  of  the 
incentive-based  approach  to  promoting  policy  objective  and  priorities  in  the  EU’s 
neighbouring countries.    

EFIs as triggers and catalysers for Team Europe: joining forces for a greater impact  

The  current  EFIs  increased  the  collective  engagement  of  European  actors  in  EU  external 
cooperation in a Team Europe approach, sharing and building upon knowledge and expertise 
of EU Member States.  As confirmed during the consultations with Member States and also 
with  the  EU  Delegations,  NDICI-Global  Europe  makes  EU  external  cooperation  more 
coherent, and partner countries are increasingly recognising the EU as a single global actor, 
especially thanks to the Team Europe approach. At general level, one of key takeaways from 
the  targeted  consultations  with  stakeholders  is  that  the  Team  Europe  approach  is  seen  as 
improving joint implementation and allowing  Member States agencies to  align with the EU 
action.  On  the  other  hand,  the  respondents  from  Member  States  development  agencies 
(Practitioners’  Network)  stressed  the  need  to  strengthen  coordination  and  communication 
flow in particular at country level.  

Team  Europe  approach,  initially  put  in  place  to  ensure  a  co-ordinated  and  comprehensive 
response  between  the  EU  and  its  Member  States  to  the  COVID-19  pandemic  and  its 
consequences,  means  joining  forces  so  that  the  EU  and  its  Member  States  external  action, 
with the support of European financing institutions, becomes more than the sum of its parts. 
By working together and pooling resources and expertise, the EU delivers more  effectively, 
giving  effect  to  Article  210  of  the  TFEU  in  a  more  coordinated  and  committed  way.  The 
scale of the initiatives, with  more than 150 TEIs being  developed  and rolled out  across the 
world, is also unprecedented. The NDICI-Global Europe is the main EU tool used in a Team 
Europe approach and Team Europe Initiatives have become a key component of the NDICI-
Global  Europe  programming.  The  Team  Europe  approach  started  to  be  undertaken  at  the 
same time as the NDICI-Global Europe Regulation was adopted and although not mentioned 
as such in the Regulation, it builds on the principles enshrined therein, in particular ‘working 
better  together’  as  well  as  inclusiveness,  collaboration  and,  whenever  appropriate,  joint 
implementation with Member States in the implementation of the Instrument. In light of the 
above,  the  Regulation  encourages  joint  programming,  which  is  promoted  while  being  kept 
voluntary,  flexible,  inclusive  and  tailored  to  the  country  context  and  allows  for  the 
replacement  of  EU  and  Member  States’  programming  documents  with  Union  joint 
programming  documents.  The  external  study  indicates  that  the  new  EFIs  have  successfully 
promoted  closer  collaborations  between  the  Commission  services,  EEAS,  and  the  EU 
Member States.  

58 

 
 
 
EU added value of IPA III 

The added value of  IPA III stems  from  its distinct  objective to  prepare beneficiaries for the 
future membership of the Union based on the European values.  The external study found that 
the  ability  to  create  EU  added  value  is  reinforced  with  the  alignment  with  the  acquis  –  a 
keystone for the accession. However, the beneficiaries’ commitment to EU values should not 
be  taken  for  granted.  The  Commission  Annual  Enlargement  reports  and  European  Court  of 
Auditors’ report65 have observed the standstill and blockage of certain fundamental reforms, 
such  as  constitutional  reforms  in  Bosnia  and  Herzegovina  and  justice  reform  in  various 
beneficiaries.  

With nearly EUR 14.2 billion of IPA III funding for the period 2021-27, the EU is the largest 
donor in the enlargement region. As the external study showed, the EU has a distinct added 
value  in  terms  of  not  only  the  volume  of  funding  but  also  of  the  thematic  coverage,  as 
demonstrated by the IPA III Programming Framework. 

The  IPA  III  instrument  continues  to  promote  the  established  close  and  long-lasting 
partnerships  between  IPA  beneficiaries,  the  Commission  and  the  EU  Member  States, 
international  financial  institutions  (IFIs),  international  and  regional  organisations  as  well  as 
civil  society  organisations  and  regional  and  local  government  authorities  and  private  sector 
actors. These partnerships are among the key added value of the instrument, as they ensure 
continuity of EU financial assistance.  

As  reaffirmed  by  the  external  study,  the  Team  Europe  approach  is  particularly  visible  with 
IFIs in the EU-coordinated WBIF. During the evaluation period the WBIF contributed to the 
enhancement  of  the  harmonisation  and  cooperation  in  investments  for  the  socio-economic 
development  of  the  region  and  for  its  integration  in  the  EU.  In  December  2022  –  January 
2023,  17  new  EFSD+  guarantees  (EUR  877  million)  were  endorsed,  to  support  the 
implementation  of the EIP flagship investment  priorities, notably on competitiveness  of the 
private  sector,  clean  energy,  environment  and  climate,  and  digital  future.  Similarly  in 
Türkiye,  the  Türkiye  Investment  Platform  established  in  2022  under  the  EFSD+  is  another 
example  of  a  Team  Europe  approach.  The  Operational  Board  of  the  Türkiye  Investment 
Platform has endorsed 14 guarantees (EUR 317 million). This funding is for investments to 
support  Micro-  Small-  and  Medium-sized  Enterprises  (MSMEs)  on  energy  efficiency, 
renewable  energy,  green  bonds,  sustainable  urban  development  and  agriculture,  transport 
decarbonisation and new climate technologies. 

EFSD+ as a catalyser for investment  

With regard to the guarantee component of EFSD+ and taking into account the caveat on the 
timing  of  this  evaluation  compared  to  the  longer  implementation  period  of  budgetary 
guarantees, the very high interest to benefit from EU guarantee coverage both from the EIB 

65 https://www.eca.europa.eu/en/publications/SR22_01  

59 

 
 
 
 
under  the  dedicated  windows  and  from  the  EIB  and  other  DFIs  for  the  open  architecture 
indicates that the maximum amount set out in NDICI-Global Europe is relevant. 

Compared  to  the  past  experience  under  the  External  Lending  Mandate  (where  the  EU  was 
working on the basis of guarantees exclusively with the EIB), with the EFSD and the EFSD+ 
the EU has expanded its financial cooperation through the provision of budgetary guarantees 
to all DFIs. This allows the EU to draw on the strengths and capacities of each DFI. At the 
same time, the synergies of acting together at scale increase the collective firepower of EU’s 
development assistance. 

In addition to guarantees, the EFSD+ supports blending operations, where grants are used to 
mobilise  investments  with  a  clear  development  added  value,  but  which  might  not  be 
financially  viable.  The  EU  grant  allows  to  get  projects  off  the  ground  when  budgetary 
guarantees alone would not be sufficient in de-risking the project. In other cases, EU support 
under blending provides technical assistance or investment grants to align a project with EU 
standards, to increase its reach or to green the project.  

Overall,  blending  under  EFSD+  is  crucial  to  enhance  sustainability,  climate-proofing  and 
development impact in EU partner countries, in particular in countries with under-developed 
financial markets or which are politically less stable.  

On the basis of the available analysis, it can be concluded that the use of the EAG, and of the 
EFSD+ in general is on track to contribute to the overall objectives of NDICI-Global Europe. 
This is in line with the overall positive feedback by Member States and DFIs, which perceive 
favourably the tool’s relevance, usefulness, and their initial experience with EFSD+.  

While it is too early to assess the capacity of EFSD+ to attract private sector investment on a 
large  scale  due  to  the  longer  implementation  process  of  financial  instruments  (as  also 
recognised by the external  study), its  added value in  terms  of mobilising additional  finance 
and  expertise  of  a  number  of  multilateral  financial  institutions  and  development  finance 
institutions, including  national  development  banks  and regional institutions,  is  substantiated 
by  the  large  oversubscription  of  the  first  call  for  proposals  under  the  EFSD+  open 
architecture. This will have to be confirmed in the subsequent  implementation phase by the 
number and policy-relevance of inclusion notices related to concrete investments under each 
guarantee agreement. Overall, however, it is a sign that DFIs are keen to collaborate through 
new and innovative tools, and notably make use of EU budgetary guarantees to share the risk 
of investing in less developed markets.  

The EU triggered a positive emulation among  public and private financial organisations by 
opening up its cooperation to a variety of development finance counterparts. In this respect, 
the EFSD+ governance structures – where stakeholders can discuss EFSD+ proposals (both 
guarantees and blending) – facilitates regular peer to peer review and offers a good platform 
for enhanced coordination. In particular, this  fosters collaboration  among  DFIs, allows new 
ideas  to  flow  and  innovative  transactions  to  take  place,  thereby  pushing  the  boundaries  of 
what a “bankable” project is. 

60 

 
 
The  strengthened  framework  has  also  given  rise  to  new  partnerships  among  DFIs.  For 
instance, the Global Green Bond Initiative (GGBI), launched by the European Commission, 
received the backing of a consortium of European Development Finance Institutions66 as well 
as  the  Green  Climate  Fund  (GCF),  all  together  forming  the  Global  Green  Bond  Initiative 
Coalition.  

Another  example  is  a  joint  initiative  of  the  EU,  EBRD  and  the  emerging-market  asset 
manager ILX Management, which was launched in May 2023 to boost private-sector finance 
in  eastern  Europe,  the  Caucasus,  the  Western  Balkans, Türkiye,  the  southern  and  eastern 
Mediterranean and Central Asia. 

The  Team  Europe  approach  and  the  Team  Europe  Initiatives  have  further  espoused  closer 
cooperation  among  the  European  development  actors,  including  via  the  EFSD+  tools.  The 
TEI  “Investing  in  Young  Businesses  in  Africa”  is  one  such  example,  where  the  European 
Commission has joined forces with EIB, EBRD and ten EU Member States, bringing together 
public and private funding to develop and support the new and early-stage business actors by 
facilitating their access to technical and financial means. 

Similarly,  EFSD+  has  allowed  the  EU  to  extend  its  cooperation  with  new  implementing 
partners,  such  as  the  work  with  Gavi  for  the  production  of  safe  and  affordable  Covid-19 
vaccines or the cooperation established under the Global Green Bond Initiative with the Inter-
American Development Bank and the IDB Invest. 

With regard to the deployment of EFSD+ tools in all EU partner countries, the NDICI-Global 
Europe  highlights  that  LDCs  and  heavily  indebted  poor  countries,  as  well  as  fragile  or 
conflict-affected countries should be given special attention under EFSD+. The external study 
and  the  stakeholders  of  the  targeted  consultations  reported  concerns  regarding  how  EFSD+ 
funding, especially with the use of guarantees, can be directed towards difficult contexts and 
non-traditional  lending  policy  areas.  While  it  is  too  early  to  assess  the  effectiveness  of 
EFSD+  in  those  countries,  it  is  worth  noting  that  the  NDICI-Global  Europe  Regulation 
introduces  a  possibility  of  partially  subsidising  the  remuneration  of  the  guarantee  (the  so 
called “guarantee fee”) in order to give more concessional terms in these duly justified cases; 
this is possible through so called “policy discounts”. In such difficult contexts blending may 
also be a possible modality of support – to be combined with guarantees where feasible. 

At the operational level, the strong focus on investments, reinforced by the Global Gateway 
narrative,  resulted  in  a  sharp  increase  in  the  number  of  actions  implemented  by  partners 
(indirect management by partner countries or pillar-assessed entities), which are in charge of 
the related procurement award procedures. This has led to discussions around eligibility rules 

66 Participating institutions are: European Investment Bank (EIB), Cassa Depositi e Prestiti (“CDP”),  Agencia 
Española de Cooperación Internacional para el  Desarrollo (“AECID”), European Bank for Reconstruction and 
Development  ("EBRD”),  Kreditanstalt  für  Wiederaufbau  (“KfW"),  Société  de  Promotion  et  de  participation 
pour  la  coopération  économique  (“PROPARCO”)  for  the  whole  Agence  Française  de  Development  (“AFD”) 
Group.  

61 

 
 
 
(defined  in  the  regulations)  and  the  use  of  quality  standards  in  public  procurements 
procedures  to  ensure  high  economic,  social  and  environmental  standards,  which  are  a  key 
dimension of the Global Gateway approach. 

While  the  benefits  of  a  comprehensive  investment  platform,  initiated  with  the  EFSD  and 
further  built  on  through  the  EFSD+,  are  widely  recognised,  the  new  structures  and  tools 
require  accepting  and  adapting  to  a  new  project  management  logic.  The  external  study 
highlighted  that  the  long-term  view  of  EFSD+  creates  de  facto  uncertainty  for  geographic 
programme  staff.  Working  with  DFIs  and  the  private  sector  on  investment  operations 
typically  assumes  faster  decision-making  procedures,  but  longer  execution  timeframes 
compared to more traditional implementation modalities. 

DOAG 

OCTs are not part of the EU but are part of the European family. Their citizens are European. 
The DOAG is an Association instrument which provides beyond the classical EU cooperation 
support  a  special  political  framework  and  a  commercial  regime  (duty-free  and  quota-free 
access  to  the  EU  market).  The  EU-OCT  partnership  is  politically  sensitive  and  complex 
because of the specific sovereign interests of the three Member States concerned. Therefore, 
the  OCTs  are  also  very  important  for  the  EU  to  promote  its  values  and  standards  and  are 
often  considered  as  “outposts”  of  the  EU.  Particularly  specific  is  the  partnership  with 
Greenland  notably  because  of  the  fisheries  agreements  and  because  of  the  growing 
geostrategic interest in the Arctic - connectivity, climate change impact and natural resources 
(critical  raw  materials  necessary  for  the  green  transition).  The  DOAG  has  enlarged  the 
political  dialogue  to  all  the  Member  States  not  only  to  the  3  to  which  OCTs  are  linked 
constitutionally.  The  inclusion  of  Greenland  into  the  DOAG  has  allowed  a  more  inclusive 
interest of Member States to the OCT matters. Moreover, the presence of the EU outermost 
regions in  the Caribbean and the  Indian Ocean is an asset  for this partnership. Cooperation 
between  EU  outermost  regions  and  OCTs  is  encouraged  through  synergies  between  the 
DOAG and the EU outermost regions Interreg programmes.  

INSC 

As a result of its experience in the field of nuclear safety, the EU is well positioned to engage 
in  international  cooperation  to  ensure  that  nuclear  activities  are  conducted  safely,  based  on 
the  transfer  of  EU  standards  and  best  practices.  INSC  fosters  unique  EU  added  value  to 
engagement in nuclear safety cooperation with third countries, well beyond the capacities of 
individual Member States and other donors. The institutional framework allows the EU to act 
at a global level on nuclear safety cooperation with consultations with the G7/8, and features: 
specialised know-how and expertise, high nuclear safety standards and exclusive EU powers 
to address nuclear safeguards; and a relatively substantial financial provision and continuity 
for nuclear safety cooperation with a track record of over a quarter of a century. While INSC 

62 

 
 
 
 
remains  primarily  a  technical  instrument,  it  is  highly  valued  by  partner  countries,  thereby 
facilitating and supporting political and policy dialogue. INSC continues to have a strong EU 
added value through EU knowledge transfer in a Team Europe format to partner countries. 

4.3 Is the intervention still relevant? 

Relevance 

The 2021-2027 instruments’ objectives are still fit for purpose  

The objectives and the sectors of intervention of the various EFIs under the MFF 2014-2020 
enabled the EU to address the priorities and needs identified in their respective legal basis at 
that time and proved to be highly relevant given the overall geopolitical context. Building on 
their  relevance,  these  objectives  have  been  broadly  taken  over  by  the  2021-2027  EFIs’ 
objectives.  This  is  particularly  true  for  INSC  that  is  largely  built  on  a  continuation  of  the 
previous  programme.  This  is  also  the  case  for  IPA  III,  that  has  substantially  changed  in  its 
implementation approach as detailed below but has largely kept the same objectives as IPA 
II. Regarding NDICI-Global Europe, its general and specific objectives have been designed 
based on the large set of objectives of the instruments that have been subsumed by NDICI-
Global Europe in the current MFF. 

The  external  study  also  concludes  that  the  new  instruments  adequately  responded  to  the 
lessons  learned  during  the  previous  MFF,  with  a  combination  of  old  and  new  flexibility 
features. It further notes that during the first half of the MFF, these features allowed strong 
and  quick  reaction  to  high  priority  issues  and  crises,  while  testing  the  limits  of  the  EFIs: 
COVID-19, the Russian war of aggression, and the migration crisis. 

NDICI-Global Europe 

Looking at the NDICI-Global Europe general objectives at the time of adoption and placing 
them in the current complex and challenging geopolitical context, these objectives appear as 
even more important and relevant today: 

•  COVID-19  and  Russia’s  invasion  of  Ukraine  are  just  the  latest  manifestations  of  a 
broader  trend  of  geopolitical  and  geoeconomic  challenges.  These  are  a  mixture  of 
short-term  and  long-term  shocks  and  include  rising  powers  (e.g.,  China)  asserting 
themselves  in  a  multipolar  world,  a  crisis  of  multilateralism,  with  challenges  to  the 
UN  system  and  Bretton  Woods  institutions  that  have  long  formed  the  bedrock  of 
international  relations.  Long-term  challenges 
include  climate  change,  digital 
transitions  and  demographic  change.  The  links  and  interplay  between  these  various 
challenges  create  complex  and  potentially  volatile  conditions  for  humanity.  In  this 

63 

 
 
 
 
 
context, the EU must find a balance between preserving cooperation and partnerships 
while promoting its values, principles and fundamental interests. 

•  For almost 25 years, poverty has steadily declined, and the poverty rate halved in the 
Union’s partner countries on average67. EU cooperation has helped achieve this result, 
but progress towards eradicating poverty has suffered a setback with the COVID-19 
crisis. The pandemic crisis has had particularly devastating consequences for the most 
vulnerable  people,  resulting  in  an  unprecedented  increase  in  global  poverty.  The 
World  Bank  estimates  that  over  100  million  people  have  been  pushed  into  extreme 
poverty and around 118 million more people have faced chronic hunger, making the 
economic  and  social  consequences  of  the  COVID-19  crisis  more  serious  than  the 
virus  itself.  The  spillover  effects  of  the  Russian  war  of  aggression  against  Ukraine 
have further exacerbated an already dire situation worldwide. 

•  Consolidating,  supporting  and  promoting  human  rights,  democracy  and  the  rule  of 
law,  in  line  with  EU  values,  is  a  necessary  precondition  for  boosting  economic  and 
social  development  in  the  EU  partner  countries.  Moreover,  in  a  global  context  of 
continued  shrinking  civic  and  democratic  space  and  multiple  attacks  on  the 
universality  of human rights,  the EU  has  reaffirmed its unconditional support to  the 
protection and promotion of human rights, including gender equality and democracy 
worldwide.  

•  Climate  action  is  more  relevant  than  ever,  as  the  COP28  Climate  Action  Summit 
confirmed. The EU remains committed to achieving SDG 13 on climate action within 
the EU and is supporting partner countries with their implementation goals68 through 
external  cooperation.  NDICI-Global  Europe  objective  related  to  climate  change  is  a 
key  priority  of  the  EU’s  external  action  and  a  central  theme  of  the  European  Green 
Deal now reinforced by the Global Gateway promoting inter alia the green and digital 
transitions.  The  implementation  of  the  Paris  Agreement  remains  high  on  the  EU 
geopolitical agenda and the EU and its Member States continue to lead global efforts 
to tackle climate change and environmental challenges, remaining the world’s largest 
contributor of public international climate finance with EUR 23.04 billion in 2021 and 
EUR 28.47 billion in 2022 respectively69. Expectations of developing countries with 

67 2023 Annual report on the implementation of the European Union's external action instruments in 2022 - 
Publications Office of the EU (europa.eu)  
68  As  an  example,  the  EU,  through  the  Foreign  Policy  Needs  component  of  the  Rapid  Response  pillar,  is 
supporting the ”Green Partnership“ with South Korea , whereas both parties commit to keep global temperature 
rise below 1.5°C and reach climate neutrality by 2050. 
69 These figures include climate finance sources from public budgets and other development financial 
institutions of the member states, the EU budget, the European Development Fund and the European Investment 
Bank. 

64 

 
 
 
regards to climate finance remain very high, not least because of the increasing impact 
of climate change and the estimated cost of the transition70.  

•  The  first  years  of  implementation  of  the  NDICI-Global  Europe  were  marked  by 
increased migration on most routes towards the EU, notably the Central and Eastern 
Mediterranean  and  the  Western  Balkan  routes.  At  the  same  time,  forcibly  displaced 
people  globally  reached  the  staggering  number  of  100  million  for  the  first  time71. 
Russia’s  unprovoked  war  of  aggression  against  Ukraine  and  the  exacerbated  global 
food crisis resulted in further displacements.  

•  Commitment  to  the  promotion  of  multilateralism  has  proven  to  be  crucial  in  the 
current  complex  geopolitical  landscape.  Therefore,  this  objective  of  NDICI-Global 
Europe  is  even  more  relevant  as  engagement  with  partners  in  international 
organisations remains an EU priority and is reflected in its sustained commitment to 
the rules-based multilateral order. 

•  The  EU  is  committed  to  supporting  the  accelerated  implementation  of  the  SDGs  at 
global level, including in relation with partner countries and at multilateral level and 
NDICI-Global Europe includes priorities that encompass the whole 2030 Agenda and 
its principles, in particular leaving no one behind. 

•  Stronger  partnerships  with  third  countries  are  still  crucial  for  EU’s  open  strategic 
autonomy,  as  well  as  to  design  a  new  growth  and  investment  model,  to  support 
reforms,  to accompany a green and digital transition  and  to ensure access to  critical 
raw materials and value chains. 

Therefore,  the  NDICI-Global  Europe’s  objectives  were  fit  for  purpose  at  the  time  of  the 
adoption and continue to be relevant in the current context.  

At the same time, as illustrated by the Commission’s proposal  on the revision of the 2021-
2027 MFF72, there is a mismatch between EU ambitions and the funds available to meet the 
challenges  in  the  different  regions  and  globally,  or  respond  to  the  multiplicity  of  crises, 
notably in the Neighbourhood and Enlargement regions. In both regions increased migratory 
pressures had to be addressed in the absence of adequate funding also due to the ending of the 
relevant EU regional Trust Funds. 

IPA III 

The overall objective of  IPA III  continues to be relevant, as the instrument aims  to support 
beneficiaries  in  adopting  and  implementing  the  political,  institutional,  legal,  administrative, 

70 In its COP28 report, the Independent High Level Expert Group on Climate Finance highlight a demand for 
around US$2.4 trillion annually by 2030 in emerging markets and developing countries to address key areas like 
energy transition, adaptation, resilience, loss and damage, and conservation. 
71 2023 Annual report on the implementation of the European Union's external action instruments in 2022 - 
Publications Office of the EU (europa.eu)  
72 IMMC.COM%282023%29336%20final.ENG.xhtml.1_EN_ACT_part1_v6.docx (europa.eu) 

65 

 
 
 
 
social and economic reforms required to comply with Union values and to progressively align 
to Union rules, standards, policies and practices with a view to Union membership, thereby 
contributing  to  their stability,  security and prosperity. The overall relevance of  IPA  III was 
also confirmed during targeted consultations. 

IPA  III  has  also  been  effective  in  promoting  socio-economic  development  and  leveraging 
necessary  investments  under  the  Economic  and  Investment  Plan,  while  there  is  a  need  to 
further accelerate convergence towards the EU, as also pointed out by the external evaluation 
and 
therefore  proposed  a 
complementary  financing  instrument,  the  Reform  and  Growth  Facility  for  the  Western 
Balkans  in  November  2023.  This  new  instrument  aims  to  further  accelerate  fundamental 
socio-economic reforms with new type of funding and ex ante payment conditionalities. 

the  2023  Enlargement  Package.  The  Commission  has 

IPA III continues to be relevant in supporting democracy, human rights, and the engagement 
of civil society organisations and local authorities as an integral part of the fundamentals first 
approach. For civil society alone, EUR 218.5 million support has been programmed under the 
2021-2023  EU  Civil  Society  Facility  and  Media  Programme  for  the  Western  Balkans  and 
Türkiye. 

The external  study  states that  IPA  III is  closely  aligned with  internal  EU  priorities. IPA  III 
contributes to the EU horizontal policies, such as mainstreaming climate action and achieving 
an overall target of 30% of EU budget expenditure supporting climate objectives. IPA III also 
pledges to contribute to addressing sustainable development, in addition to its core mandate. 

The IPA III instrument is not the only instrument supporting enlargement policy objectives. 
The  two  new  enlargement  countries,  Moldova  and  Georgia,  will  receive  support  from  the 
NDICI-Global  Europe  instrument,  as  they  are  not  eligible  for  IPA  III  support,  and  Ukraine 
has a separate financing instrument, the Ukraine Facility, to support both the reconstruction 
and the enlargement process. While multiplication of financing instruments risks  increasing 
transaction costs in  short-term, it also  provides a unique opportunity  to  assess  what  type of 
financing instrument would be best suited to support enlargement objectives under the next 
MFF.  

DOAG 

The  EU-OCT  relations  date  back  to  the  Treaty  of  Rome  (1957)  and  are  enshrined  in  the 
Treaty of the Functioning of the EU. While OCTs are not part of the EU they are considered 
as  part  of  the  EU  family.  Furthermore,  OCTs  are  EU  outposts  in  strategic  regions  of  the 
world (Caribbean, Pacific and Arctic regions). The Association decision, the DOAG, remains 
relevant  as  it  provides  a  clear  political,  commercial  and  financial  response  to  OCTs 
challenges. 

66 

 
 
 
 
 
INSC 

The objectives of INSC are well aligned with EU policies and priorities and were relevant to 
partners’ needs and priorities. The promotion of the highest standards of radiation and nuclear 
safety (i.e., compliance with the EU’s Directives on radiation protection, nuclear safety and 
management  of  radioactive  waste  and  spent  fuel),  supporting  the  establishment  of  strong, 
independent  and  sustainable  regulatory  authorities,  environmental  remediation  (e.g., 
restoration of radioactive waste legacy sites), and seeking continuing improvement are at the 
core of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. 

The programme is demand led and is responsive to the needs of partner countries. Requests 
for cooperation, from either a new or existing partner, are carefully scrutinised and the nature 
and form of cooperation tailored to best achieve their objectives. Examples of the responsive 
nature of the programme to emerging needs is best illustrated by: the significant increase in 
support given to Emergency Preparedness and Response reflecting the major improvements 
made  both  nationally  and  globally  following  the  accident  at  Fukushima  Daiichi  Nuclear 
Power  Plant;  the  support  provided  for  conducting,  and  responding  to  the  outcomes  of  the 
‘stress tests’; and the significant cooperation with Iran following the agreement of the  Joint 
Comprehensive  Plan  of  Action.  Further  consideration  could,  perhaps,  be  given  to  whether 
there  should  be  a  role  for  cooperation  with  those  responsible  for  design,  construction  and 
operation  of  nuclear  installations  in  achieving  the  Instrument’s  objective  of  promoting  an 
effective  nuclear  safety  culture.  In  addition,  the  relevance  of  implemented  cooperation 
projects could be further improved either through greater alignment of the timescales of the 
needs and priorities of partner countries with the timescales over which the implementation is 
likely to take place, given the typical ‘time to contract’, or through significant reductions in 
the ‘time to contract’. 

5.  WHAT ARE THE CONCLUSIONS AND LESSONS LEARNED? 

The conclusions of the 2017 MTR report covering EFIs under the MFF 2014 - 2020 remained 
valid for the whole period of that past MFF and they have been largely factored in the design 
of the current set of instruments. 

NDICI-Global Europe 

•  NDICI-Global  Europe  has  overall  shown  to  be  fit  for  purpose.  Its  current  state  of 

implementation  indicates  that  it  is  on  track  to  deliver  against  the  objectives  it  was 

expected  to  fulfil  at  the  time  of  its  adoption  and  these  objectives  continue  to  be 

relevant. 

67 

 
 
 
 
 
• 

In the evolving geopolitical context, NDICI-Global Europe also effectively serves as a 

key  tool  to  roll  out  the  Global  Gateway  strategy,  including  the  Economic  and 

Investment Plans for the Eastern Partnership and Southern Neighbourhood. 

•  NDICI-Global  Europe  has  also  enabled  the  EU  to  promote  its  internal  policies  and 

priorities  in  a  more  coherent  manner  towards  the  external  world.  To  enhance  the 

coherence between internal and external action objectives, it needs to better contribute 

to an integrated approach balancing EU interests, partnerships and values. 

• 

In terms of simplification gains, NDICI-Global Europe provides a unified legal basis 

for a large share of the EU’s external interventions and their implementing modalities.  

•  By superseding  a large  number of the EFIs of the past  MFF, NDICI-Global  Europe 

has brought about a major increase in coherence and complementarity as regards the 

geographic, thematic and rapid response actions and other EFIs.  

•  Even  though  the  implementation  of  the  EFSD+  is  at  an  early  stage,  it  has  already 

demonstrated  its  catalytic  effect  to  leverage  additional  finance  and  expertise 

contributing to sustainable development and growth and implementation of the Global 

Gateway, 

including 

through 

the  Economic  and 

Investment  Plans 

in 

the 

Neighbourhood. 

•  The contribution of private sector via EFSD+ is key for an efficient use of EU budget 

to  support  sustainable  growth  in  partner  countries.  Placing  EFSD+  in  the  NDICI-

Global Europe has contributed to the streamlining of all implementing modalities. 

•  Various flexibility features in the NDICI-Global Europe have proved their relevance 

to  pursue EU priorities  as well  as to  provide support to  partner  countries notably in 

the  context  of  the  COVID-19  pandemic,  the  Russian  war  of  aggression  against 

Ukraine and the migratory pressures, notably in the Neighbourhood. However, three 

years  into  implementation  the  NDICI-Global  Europe  cushion  has  almost  been 

depleted  showing  a  mismatch  between  available  funds  and  actual  needs.  Moreover, 

NDICI-Global  Europe  was  not  designed  to  support  countries  at  war  at  the  scale 

needed by Ukraine. Therefore, a new financing instrument, the Ukraine Facility was 

adopted for period 2024-27, to support Ukraine both in the face of Russia’s ongoing 

war of aggression and on Ukraine’s path towards EU membership. 

•  On  the  one  hand,  NDICI-Global  Europe  is  generally  on  track  to  meet  the  spending 

targets,  even  though  further  efforts  will  be  required  in  the  next  years  for  some  of 

68 

 
 
them, such as climate. On the other hand, their high number has also constrained the 

flexibility of the instrument. 

•  The programming exercise has successfully allowed to identify shared priorities with 

partner  countries.  As  programming  documents  cover  a  broad  range  of  objectives, 

further  prioritisation  is  needed  downstream.  Programming  remains  a  heavy  process, 

which in turn contributes to delays at the start of the implementation phase. 

•  The  inclusion  of  a  non-programmable  Rapid  Response  Pillar,  axed  around  three 

components,  of  which  two  are  new  (Resilience  and  Foreign  Policy  Needs),  has 

endowed  the  EU  with  a  wider  toolbox  to  quickly  address  urgent  unforeseen  and 

emerging political priorities that cannot be tackled through the programming exercise, 

as  well  as  to  implement  the  humanitarian-peace-development  nexus.  Greater  efforts 

are required to make the overall approach more effective and to improve coordination 

between relevant funding instruments, particularly in engaging with conflict-affected 

countries and other fragile contexts. 

•  NDICI-Global Europe brings significant added value to partner countries in providing 

a  more  sizeable  and  coherent  offer.  More  efforts  are  required  when  it  comes  to 

bridging short-term rapid response actions with long-term actions. 

•  To  facilitate  learning,  improvements  to  monitoring  and  evaluation  need  to  focus  on 

maximising the use of qualitative analysis of results. 

•  To realise greater EU added value and a ‘whole of the EU approach’, more time and 

collaboration  across  services  and  with  Member  States  will  be  required.  To  better 

exploit  windows  of  opportunity  and  maximise  scope  for  EU  leverage,  differentiated 

response strategies may be required.  

IPA III 

• 

IPA III has demonstrated its general effectiveness as a pre-accession instrument and is 

on  track  to  deliver  its  main  objectives.  The  instrument  is  aligned  with  the  new 

enlargement methodology with  the fundamentals of the EU  accession process  at  the 

forefront. It also mirrors the EU policy priorities and developments, such as the focus 

on  green,  digital  and  economic  priorities,  as  demonstrated  by  the  emphasis  on 

implementation the Economic and Investment Plans in the Western Balkans. 

69 

 
 
 
• 

IPA III has been effective in promoting socio-economic development and leveraging 

necessary investments under the Economic and Investment Plan, while there is a need 

to further accelerate convergence with the EU. 

• 

IPA III is a more challenging instrument for the beneficiaries than its predecessors as 

it  requires  strong  ownership  and  strategic  planning  capacity  by  them  on  bilateral 

programming. More efforts will be needed in the second part of the MFF to transform 

beneficiaries’ strategic responses into multi-annual strategic planning documents with 

prioritised and sequenced reforms and actions. 

•  While IPA III is designed as a performance-based instrument both in terms of scope 

and intensity of assistance, balancing the performance assessment with the fair share 

principle has limited the financial reward to well-performing beneficiaries. 

• 

IPA  III  has  been  particularly  efficient  in  deploying  a  mix  of  modalities  and  tools, 

including  budget  support,  grants  and  investments.  Efficiency  gains  have  also  been 

achieved  with  fewer  and  larger  actions,  but  there  is  further  room  to  streamline  and 

consider multi-annual programming for bilateral programming. 

•  The  new  unified  monitoring  and  reporting  system,  the  IPA  III  results  framework, 

presents  a considerable improvement  compared to the results framework used under 

IPA II. It is expected to improve programming, monitoring, reporting and evaluation 

of IPA III. 

• 

IPA III has been flexible in responding to exceptional external events despite the lack 

of a similar cushion as in the NDICI-Global Europe instrument. The absence of pre-

set  country  financial  envelopes  has  provided  the  required  flexibility  to  programme 

assistance according to urgent and evolving needs. 

• 

IPA  III  ensures  consistency  with  its  predecessor  instruments  and  complementarity 

between different types of programmes it supports. It is also coherent with other areas 

of external action and EU internal policies. Given that Ukraine, Moldova and Georgia 

have  now  become  enlargement  countries,  but  remain  funded  outside  of  IPA  III, 

coherence  between  IPA  III  and  the  instruments  from  which  they  receive  EU 

assistance will need to be consistently ensured.  

•  With IPA III, the EU is the largest donor in the enlargement region. The EU’s added 

value  is  multiplied  by  long-standing  partnerships  especially  with  international 

organisations, international financial institutions and Member States. 

70 

 
 
•  The overall objectives of IPA III to prepare beneficiaries for future membership of the 

Union by increasing alignment of national legislation and public administration to the 

EU acquis and EU standards remain relevant. IPA III will be complemented by a new 

financing instrument, the Reform and Growth Facility for the Western Balkans, which 

aims  to  further  accelerate  fundamental  socio-economic  reforms  with  new  type  of 

funding and ex-ante payment conditionalities. 

DOAG 

•  The DOAG has proved its worth. By merging the Greenland Decision and the former 

OAD, this association instrument has provided a single legal basis for all 13 Overseas 

Countries  and  Territories  (OCTs),  including  Greenland,  with  a  dedicated  budget 

chapter, as was requested by the European Parliament. 

•  By including a referral clause to the NDICI-Global Europe for the implementation of 

cooperation  (cf.  Article  81  DOAG),  it  has  significantly  increased  coherence  with 

other  EFIs.  However,  the  thresholds  applicable  to  comitology  contained  in  NDICI-

Global Europe and referred to in DOAG could be adapted to the latter’s needs.  

•  The  OCTs  no  longer  benefit  from  a  dedicated  envelope  under  the  European 

Investment  Bank  Investment  OCTs  facility  funded  under  11th  EDF.  They  have  now 

access  to  InvestEU  programme  on  a  competitive  basis,  however  it  is  too  early  to 

assess its impact on the private sector in the OCTs.  

INSC 

• 

INSC is a unique instrument which  complements NDICI -Global Europe in the area 

of  nuclear  cooperation,  under  the  Euratom  legal  base.  It  is  well  suited  to  address 

challenges in the areas of nuclear safety, radioactive waste management and nuclear 

safeguards. 

• 

INSC planning was sufficiently flexible to respond to the challenges created by the 

Russian war of aggression against Ukraine.

71 

 
 
 
 
ANNEX I: PROCEDURAL INFORMATION 

Lead service: DG for International Partnerships (INTPA) 

Co-lead  services:  DG  for  Neighbourhood  and  Enlargement  Negotiations,  Service  for  Foreign  Policy 
Instruments, the European External Action Service  

DECIDE reference: PLAN/2022/1365 

Organisation and Timing  

This evaluation was initiated in 2022 with the evaluation Call for Evidence73 published in August 
2022.  An  Interservice  Steering  Group  (ISG),  composed  of  representatives  from  the  European 
Commission and the European External Action Service, was constituted to steer the evaluation. 

The evaluation is largely informed by an external study conducted by independent consultants. The 
external  study  started  on  3  January  2023.  The  Final  report  was  received  on  18  January  2024,  on 
schedule.  The  evaluation  process,  led  by  the  ISG,  was  conducted  in  four  phases:  (i)  an  inception 
phase;  (ii)  an  interim  phase;  (iii)  a  synthesis  phase;  and  (vi)  a  dissemination  phase.  Figure  below 
provides additional information on each of the four phases. 

Figure: 

Process overview and quality assessment 

The external study was commissioned to provide the main evidence and information for this Staff 
Working Document. The evaluation was carried out fully in line with the indications provided in the 
above-mentioned  Call  for  Evidence.  The  evidence  base  consisted  of  both  primary  sources  and 
secondary  sources.  Primary  sources  of  data  included  extensive  interviews  with  key  internal  and 
external stakeholders, two online surveys, targeted consultations and an Open Public Consultation, 
whilst secondary sources included in-depth document and data review.  

During the external study, seven meetings of the ISG were held. The objectives of these meetings 
were to: provide an initial briefing on the evaluation, review and provide feedback on the various 
deliverables  (including  inception,  interim,  preliminary  conclusions  and  draft  reports)  and  provide 
guidance  and input to  the work of the consultants. There were also  regular meetings between the 
consultants  and  the  Commission’s  Evaluation  Managers  and  co-lead  Units  to  promote  an 

73  Financing  for  European  action  outside  EU  borders  –  evaluation  of  the  instruments  (2014-2020  &  2021-2027) 
(europa.eu) 

72 

 
 
 
 
understanding  of  the  evaluation’s  themes  and  to  exchange  on  complementarities  and  synergies 
within and between the instruments.  

The  ISG  also  quality  assessed  the  external  study  as  satisfactory  at  their  meeting  of  15  December 
2023.  The  robustness  and  reliability  of  the  data  used  by  the  external  evaluators  was  found  to  be 
high.  The  quality  of  the  data  can  easily  be  verified  through  the  sources  that  are  systematically 
referenced. In case of information emanating exclusively from EU sources, the evaluators attempted 
as  much  as  possible  to  triangulate  with  external  sources  of  information  to  alleviate  any  possible 
bias. In addition, information was collected through interviews with both key internal and external 
interlocutors. A number of previous evaluations were reviewed and used as sources of evidence; as 
these  were  commissioned  by  Commission  services,  they  are  quality  assured.  The  quantity  of 
information analyses also appears satisfactory. 

Regulatory Scrutiny Board 

This  evaluation  has  been  selected  for  scrutiny  by  the  Regulatory  Scrutiny  Board  (RSB).  The 
evaluation took place on 14 February 2024. The RSB provided a negative opinion with a number of 
recommendations. For reasons of time constraint, it has been decided not to resubmit the evaluation 
but to address directly the RSB’s recommendations. The table below enlists the recommendations 
of the Regulatory Scrutiny Board in its opinion, indicating how they have been integrated into the 
evaluation. 

 Recommendations in the RSB opinion 

and 

scales, 

1.The  report  should  be  explicit  upfront  on  the 
scope  and  limitations  of  the  evaluation.  Given 
that  the  instruments  covered  are  of  widely 
differing 
purposes, 
scopes 
meaningful collective evaluation is challenging. 
The  report  should  therefore  explain  upfront 
how  such  single  approach  ensures  that  the 
fundamental  requirements  for  an  evaluation  as 
set  out  in  the  better  regulation  guidelines  are 
fulfilled, 
of 
effectiveness,  efficiency,  coherence,  relevance 
and EU added value of both the instruments in 
the  preceding  period  (final  evaluation)  and  of 
the current one (mid-term evaluation). 

assessment 

including 

the 

Integration of the RSB’s recommendations 
into the evaluation report 
The  revised  evaluation  SWD  explains  more  in 
detail  reasons  for  the  choice  of  covering  the 
past  and  current  instruments  in  one  single 
evaluation. 
the  advantages 
following this choice but also clearly elaborates 
on its limitations, concluding that the synergies 
inherent in the chosen approach prevail, also in 
the  light  of  the  experience  with  the  2017  mid-
term  evaluation  of  the  instruments  under  the 
past MFF.   

It  points 

to 

The limitations and the challenges of the chosen 
approach  are  discussed  upfront,  as  it  is  noted 
that  concrete  implementation  of  the  spending 
programmes 
in  partner  countries  or  any 
intervention-level data and related outcomes are 
not evaluated as such in this evaluation.  

2.The report should present the full intervention 
logic  of  the  various  instruments  and  use  it  to 
structure the analysis. While the report appears 
to  focus  on  the  change  in  architecture  and 
structure  in  the  new  programmes  compared  to 

The  revised  SWD  contains  the  intervention 
logic  reconstructed  as  part  of  the  independent 
study, which covers all the instruments. 

73 

 
 
  
     
 
it 

is  not  sufficient 

is  self-standing,  presenting 

the previous ones, the report should ensure that 
this  is  not  to  the  detriment  of  addressing  all 
required elements of the evaluation. 
3.  The  report  should  fully  comply  with  the 
Better Regulation standards for evaluations and 
the 
ensure 
evidence,  the  methodology  and  the  analysis 
clearly  in  order  to  support  the  findings  and 
to  make 
conclusions.  It 
references to supporting studies, annual reports 
and  strategic  evaluations,  without  explicitly 
pointing  to  the  evidence  therein  and  showing 
how it feeds into the analysis. 
4.The report should present the extent to which 
the  specific  objectives  were  achieved  in  the 
previous programming period, and to the extent 
possible, whether the specific objectives of the 
current  programming  period  are  on  track  to 
being  achieved.  In  doing  so  it  should  provide 
clear points of comparison. 

the  final  evaluation  of 

5.  In 
the  former 
instruments,  some  examples  are  provided  as 
well  as  a  table  with  indicators  covering  the 
period  2018-2022,  but  not  all  instruments  are 
covered,  and 
these  outcomes  are  neither 
presented  comprehensively  nor  sufficiently 
analysed.  The  report  should  evaluate 
the 
performance  of  programmes 
terms  of 
outputs, results and impacts. 

in 

The  evaluation  SWD  was  revised  to  present 
upfront the detailed methodology underpinning 
the  evaluation.  It  ties  the  analysis  presented  to 
the  evidence  gathered,  explaining  the  latter 
more  in  detail,  based  on  the  annual  reports, 
strategic  evaluations  and  in  particular,  the 
evidence  collected  from  the  consultations  with 
various stakeholders and the external study. 

regards 

As 
the  achievement  of  specific 
objectives  under  the  past  MFF,  the  revised 
SWD  explains  upfront  the  limitations  inherent 
in  evaluating  the  concrete  development  impact 
of  the  EU  support  in  partner  countries,  also 
given the broadness of both general and specific 
objectives in the external financing instruments.  

Moreover,  as  regards  the  recommendation  to 
present  whether  the  objectives  of  the  current 
instrument  are  on  track  to  being  achieved,  the 
revised  SWD  explains  the  links  between  the 
general  and 
the  specific  objectives  and 
thoroughly  assesses  how  they  are  reflected  in 
the programming and financial execution. 
In  the  section  related  to  limitations  of  this 
evaluation  it  is  explained  why  the  evaluation 
does  not  focus  on  elements  related  to  the 
specific  outcomes  areas  but  instead  is  focused  
on assessing the extent to which the instruments 
deliver against their objectives.  

6.  As  regards  the  mid-term  evaluation  of  the 
current instruments, any limitations due e.g., to 
recent  onset  of  instruments  or  lack  of  data 
should  be  acknowledged  upfront,  including 
their implication for the assessment of outputs, 
results and impacts. 

These  limitations  are  now  clearly  recognised 
upfront.  They  have  been  added 
the 
introduction  of  the  revised  SWD  and  reflected 
in the analytical part of the SWD. 

in 

Reference is also made to the continuous efforts 
to  enhance  the  monitoring  and  reporting,  as 
provided  notably  in  the  NDICI-Global  Europe, 
and to the progress made so far. 

7.In  providing  an  assessment  of  effectiveness 
with the supporting evidence, the report should 

The  revised  SWD  goes  into  more  details  into 
the  different  stakeholders’  perception  of  the 

74 

 
  
 
  
  
  
 
  
also  discuss  more  thoroughly  the  experience 
with setting spending targets and the budgetary 
flexibility  to  respond  to  new  challenges  and 
emergencies. The report should also assess how 
much 
in 
achieving the related objectives. 

targets  helps 

spending 

setting 

efficiency 

assessment 

8. The report should identify clearly the specific 
objectives  of  current  instruments  and  discuss 
whether  these  remain  relevant  in  light  of  the 
changing  global  geopolitical  landscape  during 
the period under assessment. The report should 
provide  insights  on  how  the  stated  specific 
objectives  contribute  to  address  the  current 
challenges. 
should  be 
9.The 
comprehensive  and 
include  evidence  and 
analysis  on  costs  and  benefits  to  the  extent 
possible. It is not sufficiently clear what lessons 
the 
were 
instruments  during  the  pandemic  and  in  the 
context  of  Russia’s  war  of  aggression  against 
Ukraine. The report should present evidence to 
support  the  finding  that  the  programme  has 
been  flexible  enough  and  performed  in  this 
sense.  It  should  explain  and  substantiate  what 
lessons  could  be  learned  on  potential  areas  for 
improvement. 

actions  under 

learned 

from 

10.The  conclusions  of  the  report  should  be 
more  specific  and  build  on  the  analysis  of  a 
more  complete  and  robust  evidence  basis.  The 
limitations  of  the  evidence  basis  should  be 
clearly  reflected  in  the  conclusions  that  are 
drawn. The report should then present in a very 
concise manner the lessons learned to inform on 
future actions. 
11.  The  report  should  present  an  overview  of 
the 
stakeholders’ 
contributions and show how this input has been 
used  in  the  analysis.  It  should  clarify  when 

various 

groups 

of 

spending  targets  and  their  functioning  and 
tracking. 

This  evaluation  precisely  focuses  on  assessing 
progress towards the general objectives as well 
as  reflect  on  their  continuous  relevance  to 
respond to the changing geopolitical landscape. 
This  is  clearly  presented  and  detailed  in  the 
SWD  (see  also  above  under  recommendation 
4). 

The  part  on  limitations  also  touches  upon  the 
challenges  related  to  the  efficiency  assessment 
of  cost  and  benefits  of  the  EU  support  to 
partner  countries.    Annex  IV  elaborates  this 
the  programme 
point  on 
performance statements in the annual budgets. 

the  basis  of 

On  the  lessons  learned  from  actions  under  the 
instruments  during  the  pandemic  and  in  the 
context  of  Russia’s  war  of  aggression  against 
Ukraine, one of the key issues in the evaluation 
is  to  look  at  whether  the  instruments  were 
enabling  enough  to  address  these  challenges. 
Details  on  the  internal  and  external  coherence 
of  instruments  in  the  EU  response  to  Russia’s 
war  of  aggression  against  Ukraine  have  been 
added. 

The flexibility to respond to new challenges 
and emergencies – and the limits to this 
flexibility – is reflected upon, notably as 
regards the cushion for emerging challenges.  

On the evidence basis, see below under replies 
to recommendations 1 and 3.  

Conclusions  and  lessons  learned  are  identified 
in the revised SWD. 

The  revised  SWD  presents  an  overview  of  the 
various  groups  of  stakeholders’  contributions 
into 
and  details  how 
consideration in the analysis. 

these  are 

taken 

75 

 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
  
to 

it  refers 

stakeholders’  views,  which 
to  and  how 

referring 
stakeholder  groups 
representative such views are. 
12.The 
report  should  present  a  detailed 
description  and  analysis  of  the  administrative 
burden  related  to  the  implementation  of  the 
instruments.  

The  report  should  indicate  the  evidence  that 
finds  certain  aspects  to  be  cumbersome  or  too 
complex  and 
for 
simplification and burden reduction. 

identify  any  potential 

See reply to recommendation 1). 

Complexities  notably  related  to  the  various 
spending  and  other 
further 
explained.  Also,  the  evaluation  SWD  also 
points 
to 
various 
programming which remain heavy.  

targets  are 

aspects 

related 

to 

ANNEX II. METHODOLOGY AND ANALYTICAL MODELS USED 

This evaluation follows the approach set out in the Call for Evidence74. This evaluation is supported 
by  an  external  study  carried  out  from  January  2023  to  January  2024.  The  external  study  was 
monitored by the ISG as described in Annex I. The external study was designed as a theory-based 
evaluation  and  based  on  a  mixed  methods  approach  combining  qualitative  and  quantitative  data 
collected at global, regional and country levels. The evaluation included the following phases and 
key deliverables:  

•  Inception  Phase  during  which  the  consultants  refined  the  evaluation  approach,  structured 
the evaluation questions, developed an evidence matrix (with the detailed judgment criteria 
and  indicators),  and  constructed  the  intervention  logic  of  the  evaluation.  This  phase 
culminated in an inception report, which explained how the evaluation design would deliver 
the information required.  

•  Interim  Phase  which  included  the  collection  of  primary  data  (including  semi-structured 
interviews with EU internal and external stakeholders; two surveys (one to EU delegations/ 
EU staff at the Commission Headquarters and one to in-country stakeholders) covering all 
instruments; an Open Public Consultation75 on all the EFIs which comprised of a 12 week 
online  survey;  targeted  consultation  meetings  with  Member  States,  Practitioners  Network, 
Policy Forum for Development, Development Financial Institutions and UN in the spring of 
2023) and secondary data through an in-depth document and data reviews. No country visits 
were  conducted,  but  a  sample  of  countries  was  selected  for  in-depth  review  and  both 
primary  and  secondary  data  sources  from  these  countries  were  collected  and  analysed  to 
provide  country  level  evidence.  Initial  analysis  and  triangulation  of  data  were  then 
conducted, and an Interim Report was produced, which identified preliminary answers to the 
Evaluation Questions as well as gaps and areas for further data collection. 

74  Financing  for  European  action  outside  EU  borders  –  evaluation  of  the  instruments  (2014-2020  &  2021-2027) 
(europa.eu) 
75  Financing  for  European  action  outside  EU  borders  –  evaluation  of  the  instruments  (2014-2020  &  2021-2027) 
(europa.eu) 

76 

 
 
  
  
  
  
  
 
 
•  Synthesis  Phase  during  which  the  evaluators  triangulated  all  sources  of  evidence  and 
ensured  the  validity  of  the  findings.  The  evaluators  then  produced  the  Final  Report  which 
included answers to all the Evaluation Questions as well as conclusions and lesson learned 
from the evaluation. 

Overall, the quality of the collected evidence (data, documentation, interviews and survey results) 
for  this  evaluation  has  been  assessed  as  good,  within  the  limitations  mentioned  below.  The 
Commission  services  also  conducted  ongoing  quality  assurance  by  providing  comments  and 
revisions to the various deliverables produced by the external evaluators in order to address some 
shortcomings, notably related to the understanding of the policy framework and articulation of the 
different  external  financing  instruments.  Quality  was  also  ensured  through  the  ISG  meetings  and 
their review of all the key deliverables. 

This Staff Working Document relies on and concurs with the findings and conclusions of the 
external study unless mentioned otherwise. 

Limitations: 

The process of this evaluation is robust and the strength of the evidence has been assessed as good. 
However, the external study faced several limitations, including: 

•  The evaluation was set at instrument level meaning that project level data was not the focus. 
The  instrument  level  focus  also  means  that  the  policies,  including  development, 
neighbourhood  and  enlargement  policies,  which  are  set  outside  the  Instruments,  but  upon 
which the Instruments are based, were not analysed.  

•  The  implementation  of  EFIs  2021-2027  was  in  its  early  stages  when  the  collection  of 
evidence was made. This was particularly the case for some of the tools such as EFSD+ and 
notably its guarantee component. To mitigate this, evidence for the evaluation of 2021-2027 
EFIs has also been based on the 2014-2020 EFIs and for EFSD+ the analysis has built on the 
lessons from the predecessor’s investment framework (EFSD). 

•  When addressing the question of the added value of the EFSD+,  it is important to flag the 
constraints with regard to the timing of this evaluation. Compared to the majority of other 
implementing modalities under NDICI-Global Europe and other instruments under review in 
this evaluation, financial instruments in support of investment activities, such as the EFSD 
and  the  EFSD+,  and  in  particular  their  guarantee  components,  have  longer  execution 
timelines both in terms of the contractual negotiations and of the actual implementation of 
the  programmes/projects.  Negotiation  of  the  terms  of  guarantee  agreements,  which  are  all 
bespoke,  are  comparatively  lengthy.  Once  the  guarantee  agreement  is  signed,  pipeline 
generation  also  takes  time  (the  period  of  investment,  so  called  “inclusion  notice  phase” 
stretches between 3-5 years), can be volatile and subject to attrition. In terms of assessment 
of  the  impact,  the  delay  is  even  longer  –  as  the  socio-economic  results  might  only  fully 
manifest  themselves  in  10-15  years,  especially  in  the  case  of  infrastructure  investments. 
Earlier results might be available for SME access to finance projects.  

77 

 
 
•  Consequently, while an effort has been made to analyse the main features and the early signs 
regarding the performance of this new and innovative tool, it would be premature to draw 
any firm conclusion on the impacts and results of the EFSD+. 

•  The very broad nature of the EFIs, objectives and the partner countries where interventions 
take place (over 100 countries) made generalisations, aggregation and comparisons between 
data difficult. 

•  When  evaluating  the  instruments,  it  must  be  taken  into  consideration  that  the  support  can 

only be seen as a contributing factor towards any results achieved, for example: 

o  The fight  to  reduce and  in  the long-term  eradicate poverty in  partner countries is  a 
highly  ambitious  agenda.  Many  factors,  both  internal  and  external,  affect  the 
development of those countries. An important number of official aid providers play 
an active role, together with an increasing number of private donors.  

o  In addition, it is for the partner countries’ governments to adopt and implement the 
necessary reforms and policies that are the driving force behind these achievements. 

ANNEX  III.  EVALUATION  MATRIX  AND,  WHERE  RELEVANT,  DETAILS  ON  ANSWERS  TO  THE 
EVALUATION QUESTIONS  

EQ 1 - To what extent have the EFIs been, and are at present,  reflecting and responding to 
the  evolution  of  EU  political  and  policy  priorities  and  the  priorities  and  needs  of  partner 
countries? 

Evaluation criteria: relevance 

Information sought in this question includes among others: 

•  The  extent  to  which  the  objectives  of  the  EFIs  responded  to  the  EU  political  and  policy 
priorities  and  partners’  needs  and  priorities  identified  at  the  time  when  the  EFIs  were 
adopted. 

•  The extent to  which the  overall support provided under the  relevant  EFIs has been in  line 

with the priorities of the EFIs. 

•  The extent to which the EFIs have been (and are still being) flexible enough to respond to 
changing  needs  (e.g.,  changed  EU  political  and  policy  priorities,  changed  contexts),  given 
the evolving challenges and priorities in the international and EU contexts.  

•  The extent to which EFIs have enabled policy dialogue and/or capacity building that led, or 

paved the way, to greater alignment between partners’ and EU policy priorities. 

EQ 2 - To what extent has the overall support provided under the EFIs been delivering lasting 
results and impact against the instruments' objectives? 

Evaluation criteria: relevance, effectiveness, sustainability 

Information sought in this question includes, among others:  

78 

 
 
 
•  The  extent  to  which  the  overall  support  provided  under  EFIs  has  been  contributing  to  the 

achievement of different objectives of the EFIs. 

•  What were the provisions of EFIs regulations and other factors that facilitated or hampered 

the contribution of the EFIs to the results achieved? 

•  What is the impact globally and on the ground in the partner countries (taking into account 
the  stage  of  implementation  of  the  overall  support  funded  under  the  EFIs)  and  are  there 
signs of sustainability? 

•  The  extent  to  which  appropriate  monitoring  processes  and  performance  measurement 
indicators  are  in  place  and  functioning  to  demonstrate  impact.  Performance  reward 
elements, where relevant, are also to be covered. 

•  The extent to which the EU has ensured an appropriate and complementary mix of financing 
sources (geographic, thematic, rapid response) to achieve its objectives in different contexts 
and levels (global, regional, multi-country, country, local).  

•  The extent to which the financing sources used, and their combination with EU engagement 
in policy and political dialogue, have facilitated the attainment of the intended objectives. 

EQ 3 - To what extent has/is the overall support provided under the various EFIs and their 
combinations been / being efficient, flexible, and appropriate to provide effective EU support 
to partners? 

Evaluation criteria: effectiveness, efficiency, impact 

Information sought in this question includes among others:  

•  To  what  extent  the  provisions  of  the  EFIs  have  allowed  /  are  allowing  for  efficient  and 

effective EU support to stakeholders, in particular partner countries? 

•  The extent to which the different  EFIs have been allowing for appropriate EU response in 

case of crises (country crisis or impact of international crisis on partner countries).  

•  The  extent  to  which  EFIs  programming  approach  and  implementation  procedures 

contributed to the achievement of their objectives. 

•  The  extent  to  which  the  administrative/management  procedures  used  have  facilitated  the 
attainment  of  the  intended  objectives  while  promoting  ownership  of  stakeholders,  in 
particular partner countries. 

•  Has integration of previously separate instruments into one streamlined instrument (INDICI-

Global Europe) brought added value? Has it led to any unexpected challenges? 
Is there scope for further simplification and efficiency for the EFIs? 

• 

EQ 4 - To what extent has the overall support implemented under the individual EFIs been 
adding value to interventions by Member States (incl. EU IFIs) or other key donors?  

Evaluation criteria: EU added value 

Information sought in this question includes among others:  

•  Does EU support offer added value in terms of size of engagement, critical mass, particular 

expertise, and/or particular weight in advocacy? 

79 

 
 
 
•  The  extent  to  which  the  EFIs  facilitated/incentivised  the  emerging  of  synergies  between 

supports from different donors. 

•  The extent to which the support provided under the EU EFIs complements support from EU 

Member States. 

•  The  extent  to  which  EFIs  have  facilitated/incentivised  synergies  for  European  (i.e.,  EU  + 
Member  States  (incl.  EU  IFIs))  actors  to  establish  and/or  effectively  implement  joint 
initiatives such as Team Europe Initiatives 

•  The  extent  to  which  the  support  provided  under  the  EU  EFIs  complements  support  from 

other key donors or facilitated synergies. 

EQ  5  -  To  what  extent  have  the  individual  EFIs  been  facilitating  coherence,  consistency, 
complementarity,  and  synergies  both  internally  between  their  own  set  of  objectives  and 
actions and vis-à-vis other EFIs and ‘internal’ EU policies and programmes? 

Evaluation criteria: coherence 

Information sought in this question includes among others:  

•  The extent to which the EFIs under current MFF are coherent, consistent, complementary, 
and foster synergies among and within themselves and also in comparison to the past MFF. 

•  The  extent 

to  which  EFIs  under  current  MFF  facilitate  coherence,  consistency, 
complementarity, and synergies with other areas of EU external action, (including Common 
Foreign  and  Security  Policy,  humanitarian  action  and  humanitarian  development-peace 
nexus), and also in comparison to the past MFF. 

•  The  extent  to  which  the  overall  support  funded  under  the  relevant  EFIs  has  been  creating 
synergies and complementarity with the external dimension of the internal EU policies and 
programmes. 

EQ 6 – To what extent the overall EU support under EFIs has been mainstreaming the cross 
cutting and other issues identified in their respective legal bases? 

Evaluation criteria: impact 

Information sought in this question includes among others: 

•  The extent to  which the  overall support implemented under individual EFIs mainstreamed 

issues defined in their respective legal bases. 

•  The extent to which the spending targets set under individual EFIs have informed the design 

of the overall support implemented under those EFIs. 

80 

 
 
 
Evaluation criteria – mapping  

EQ 1 

EQ 2 

EQ 3 

EQ 4 

      EQ 5 

 EQ 6 

Relevance 

Coherence 

Effectiveness 

Efficiency 

value 

EU 
added  

Impact 

Sustainability 

81 

 
 
 
  
 
 
  
  
  
  
 
  
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
  
  
 
 
 
  
  
  
  
 
 
 
 
  
  
  
 
 
 
  
  
 
 
  
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
ANNEX IV. OVERVIEW OF BENEFITS AND COSTS  

Main support costs in implementing NDICI-Global Europe, IPA, DOAG and INSC  

The main support costs in implementing the external financing instruments are described below, on 
the  basis  of  the  Union’s  annual  budget  with  the  corresponding  tables  on  the  commitment  and 
payment appropriations for 2021 and 2022. 

Chapter  14  01  -  SUPPORT  ADMINISTRATIVE  EXPENDITURE  OF  THE  ‘EXTERNAL 
ACTION’ CLUSTER 

In accordance with Article 2, point (64) and Article 47(4), point (d), of the Financial Regulation, the 
appropriations  under  this  chapter  are  intended  to  cover  expenditure  on  external  personnel  and 
technical  assistance  directly  linked  to  the  implementation  of  programmes.  Technical  assistance 
includes support and capacity building activities necessary for the implementation of a programme 
or  an  action,  in  particular  preparatory,  management,  monitoring,  evaluation,  audit  and  control 
activities.  

The  main  support  costs in  implementing NDICI-Global  Europe,  IPA,  DOAG  and  INSC  are 
presented below for each instrument.  

14  01  01  Support  expenditure  for  the  Neighbourhood,  Development  and  International 
Cooperation Instrument — Global Europe 

Besides  the  expenditure  described  in  this  chapter  this  appropriation  is  also  and  more  specifically 
intended  to  cover  support  expenditure  for  the  implementation  of  the  Instrument  and  for  the 
achievement  of  its  objectives,  including  administrative  support  associated  with  the  preparation, 
follow-up,  monitoring,  control,  audit  and  evaluation  activities  necessary  for  such  implementation, 
as  well  as  expenditure  at  headquarters  and  Union  delegations  for  the  administrative  and 
coordination  support  needed  for  the  programme,  and  to  manage  operations  financed  under  this 
Regulation,  including  information  and  communication  actions,  and  corporate  information 
technology systems. 

82 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
14  01  01  01  Support  expenditure  for  the  Neighbourhood,  Development  and  International 
Cooperation Instrument — Global Europe 

Non-Differentiated Appropriations 

2021 

2022 

Committed m 
EUR 

Committed m 
EUR 

Total Committed m EUR 

301.348.856,02   320.528.968,18                        621.877.824,20  

301.348.856,02   299.551.605,78  

600.900.461,80  

20.977.362,40  

20.977.362,40  

Budget line 

14 01 01 01 - Support 
expenditure for the 
Neighbourhood, 
Development and 
International 
Cooperation Instrument - 
Global Europe 

C1 

C2 

Besides the expenditure described in this chapter, this appropriation is more specifically intended to 
cover:  —  expenditure  on  external  personnel  at  headquarters  (contract  staff,  seconded  national 
experts or agency staff) intended to take over the tasks previously conferred on phased-out technical 
assistance offices or carried out under the European Development Fund; this covers remuneration of 
the staff concerned and the additional cost of training, meetings, missions, information technology, 
telecommunications and other costs relating to the external personnel financed under this item, — 
expenditure  on  external  personnel  in  Union  delegations  (contract  staff,  local  staff  or  seconded 
national  experts)  for  the  purposes  of  devolved  programme  management  in  Union  delegations  in 
third  countries,  including  tasks  previously  conferred  on  phased-out  technical  assistance  offices 
and/or  carried  out  under  the  European  Development  Fund;  this  covers  remuneration  of  the  staff 
concerned  and  the  additional  cost  of  training,  meetings,  missions,  information  technology, 
telecommunications  and  other  costs  directly  relating  to  the  presence  in  delegations  of  external 
personnel  financed under this item, including logistical and infrastructure costs e.g. the renting of 
accommodation.  

83 

 
 
  
  
  
  
          
 
 
 
 
14  01  01  75  European  Education  and  Culture  Executive  Agency  —  Contribution  from  the 
Neighbourhood, Development and International Cooperation Instrument — Global Europe  

Non-Differentiated Appropriations 

2021 

2022 

Committed 
m EUR 

Committed m EUR 

Total Committed m EUR 

229.000,00                 6.144.641,00  

                         6.373.641,00  

Budget line 

14 01 01 75 - 
European Education 
and Culture 
Executive Agency - 
Contribution from 
the Neighbourhood, 
Development and 
International 
Cooperation 
Instrument - Global 
Europe 

C1 

229.000,00                 6.144.641,00  

                         6.373.641,00  

This appropriation is intended to cover the operating costs of the European Education and Culture 
Executive Agency incurred as a result of the implementation of the international dimension of the 
Erasmus+ programme financed through the NDICI — Global Europe (Heading 6) entrusted to the 
Agency and the completion of its predecessor programmes.  

14 01 04 00 Support expenditure for overseas countries and territories  

Non-Differentiated Appropriations 

2021 

2022 

Budget line 

Committed m EUR 

Committed m EUR 

Total Committed m EUR 

14 01 04 00 - Support 
expenditure for overseas 
countries and territories 

C1 

C2 

                 756.420,78                 1.184.301,03  

           1.940.721,81  

756.420,78  

611.373,03  

           1.367.793,81  

572.928,00  

               572.928,00  

Besides  the  expenditure  described  in  this  chapter,  this  appropriation  is  also  and  more  specifically 
intended  to  cover:  —  expenditure  on  external  personnel  at  headquarters  (contract  staff,  seconded 
national  experts  or  agency  staff)  intended  to  take  over  the  tasks  previously  carried  out  under  the 
European  Development  Fund;  this  covers  remuneration  of  the  staff  concerned  and  the  additional 
cost  of  training,  meetings,  missions,  information  technology,  telecommunications  and  other  costs 

84 

 
 
  
  
  
                   
 
 
  
  
  
  
 
 
relating to the external personnel financed under this article, — expenditure on external personnel 
in  Union  delegations  and  Commission  offices  established  in  overseas  countries  and  territories 
(contract  staff,  local  staff  or  seconded  national  experts)  for  the  purposes  of  devolved  programme 
management in Union delegations or Commission offices in third countries previously carried out 
under  the  European  Development  Fund;  this  covers  remuneration  of  the  staff  concerned  and  the 
additional  cost  of  training,  meetings,  missions,  information  technology,  telecommunications  and 
other costs directly relating to the presence in Union delegations or Commission offices of external 
personnel financed under this article, including logistical and infrastructure costs, e.g. the renting of 
accommodation, — the preparation, follow-up, monitoring, control, audit and evaluation activities 
necessary  for  such  implementation,  as  well  as  expenditure  at  headquarters  and  Union  delegations 
for the administrative support needed for the programme, including information and communication 
actions and corporate information and technology systems.  

14  01  05  00  -  Support  expenditure  for  the  European  Instrument  for  International  Nuclear 
Safety Cooperation (INSC) 

Non-Differentiated Appropriations 

2021 

2022 

Budget line 

Committed m EUR  Committed m EUR 

Total Committed m EUR 

14 01 05 00 - Support 
expenditure for the 
European Instrument for 
International Nuclear Safety 
Cooperation (INSC) 

C1 

C2 

1.502.026,50  

              1.460.359,35  

   2.962.385,85  

1.502.026,50  

              1.457.585,85  

   2.959.612,35  

2.773,50  

  2.773,50  

Besides the expenditure described in this chapter, this appropriation is more specifically intended to 
cover:  —  expenditure  on  external  personnel  at  headquarters  (contract  staff,  seconded  national 
experts or agency staff) intended to take over the tasks previously conferred on dismantled technical 
assistance  offices;  this  covers  remuneration  of  the  staff  concerned  and  the  additional  cost  of 
training, meetings, missions, information  technology, telecommunications and other  costs relating 
to  the  external  personnel  financed  under  this  article,  —  studies,  meetings,  information  systems, 
awareness-raising,  training,  preparation  and  exchange  of  lessons  learnt  and  best  practices, 
publication activities and any other administrative or technical assistance expenditure necessary for 
the  programming  and  management  of  actions,  including  remunerated  external  experts,  — 
expenditure  related  to  the  provision  of  information  and  communication  actions,  —  IT-related 
expenditure including corporate information technology.  

85 

 
 
 
 
 
  
  
  
              
 
                      
  
 
 
 CHAPTER 15 01 — SUPPORT ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENDITURE OF THE ‘PRE-ACCESSION 
ASSISTANCE’ CLUSTER 
In accordance with Article 2, point (64), and Article 47(4), point (d), of the Financial Regulation, 
appropriations  under  this  chapter  are  intended  to  cover  expenditure  on  external  personnel  and 
technical assistance directly linked to the implementation of programmes under this title. Technical 
assistance  includes  support  and  capacity  building  activities  necessary  for  the  implementation  of  a 
programme or an action, in particular preparatory, management, monitoring, evaluation, audit and 
control activities.  

15 01 01 Support expenditure for the Instrument for Pre-accession Assistance (IPA)  

Besides the expenditure described at the level of this chapter, support measures may cover technical 
and administrative assistance for the implementation of the Instrument for Pre-accession Assistance 
(IPA), such as preparatory, monitoring, control, audit and evaluation activities, including corporate 
information  technology  systems  and  any  activities  related  to  the  preparation  of  the  successor 
programme  for  pre-accession  assistance,  in  accordance  with  Article  19  of  Regulation  (EU) 
2021/1529 (IPA III), i.e.: — studies, meetings, information, awareness-raising, training, preparation 
and exchange of lessons learnt and best practices, publication activities and any other administrative 
or  technical  assistance  expenditure  necessary  for  the  programming  and  management  of  actions, 
including remunerated external experts, — research activities and studies on relevant issues and the 
dissemination  thereof,  —  expenditure  related  to  the  provision  of  information  and  communication 
actions.  

15  01 01 01 - Support expenditure for IPA  

Non-Differentiated Appropriations 

2021 

2022 

Budget line 

Committed m EUR  Committed m EUR 

Total Committed m EUR 

15 01 01 01 - Support expenditure for 
IPA 

C1 

C2 

41.559.183,13              46.962.200,92  

                       88.521.384,05  

41.559.183,13              43.132.174,19  

84.691.357,32  

3.830.026,73  

                         3.830.026,73  

Besides  the  expenditure  described  in  this  chapter,  this  appropriation  is  also  and  more  specifically 
intended to cover: 

o  expenditure  on  external  personnel  at  headquarters  (contract  staff,  seconded 
national experts or agency staff). This covers remuneration of the staff concerned 
and  the  additional  cost  of  training,  meetings,  missions,  information  technology 
and  telecommunications  and  other  costs  relating  to  the  external  personnel 
financed from this item, 
o  expenditure  on  external  personnel  in  Union  delegations  (contract  staff,  local 
staff  or  seconded  national  experts)  for  the  purposes  of  devolved  programme 
management  in  Union  delegations  in  third  countries  including  tasks  previously 

86 

 
 
 
 
 
  
  
  
           
 
 
conferred  on  phased-out  technical  assistance  offices,  as  well  as  in  Commission 
Post-Accession  Transitions  Teams  remaining  in  new  Member  States  during  the 
phasing-out period (contract staff, agency staff) working on tasks directly related 
to  completion  of  accession  programmes.  This  covers  remuneration  of  the  staff 
concerned  and  the  additional  cost  of  training,  meetings,  missions,  information 
technology, telecommunications and other costs directly relating to the presence 
in delegations of external personnel financed under this item, including logistical 
and infrastructure costs, e.g., the renting of accommodation. 

 15  01  01  75  -  European  Education  and  Culture  Executive  Agency  —  Contribution 

from IPA  

Non-Differentiated Appropriations 

2021 

Committed 2022 

Total Committed m EUR 

15 01 01 75 - European Education and 
Culture Executive Agency - 
contribution from IPA 

C1 

1.399.424,00  

1.399.424,00  

 1.399.424,00  

1.399.424,00  

This appropriation is intended to cover the operating costs of the European Education and Culture 
Executive Agency incurred as a result of the implementation of the international dimension of the 
Erasmus+  programme  financed  through  the  IPA  (Heading  6)  entrusted  to  the  Agency  under  this 
chapter and the completion of its predecessor programmes.  

Main support costs in implementing  EFIs under MFF 2014-2020 

The main support costs in implementing the external financing instruments76 are described below: 

DCI 
624,56 

EIDHR 
71,67 

Greenland 
1,400 

IcSP 
66,65 

INSC 
9,88 

PI 
34,90 

IPA 
319 

ENI 
243 

 In m EUR 
Support 
Expenditure 
(BA Lines) 
2014-2020 

Support expenditure for the Development Cooperation Instrument (DCI) is intended to cover: 
—  expenditure  on  technical  and  administrative  assistance  not  involving  public  authority  tasks 
outsourced  by  the  Commission  under  ad  hoc  service  contracts  for  the  mutual  benefit  of  the 
Commission and beneficiaries, — expenditure on external personnel at headquarters (contract staff, 
seconded national experts or agency staff) intended to take over the tasks previously conferred on 

76 SEC03.pdf (europa.eu) 

87 

 
 
 
  
 
  
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
dismantled technical assistance offices; expenditure on external personnel at headquarters is limited 
to EUR 7 549 714. This estimate is based on a provisional annual unit cost per man-year of which 
93  %  is  accounted  for  by  remuneration  for  the  staff  concerned  and  7  %  by  the  additional  cost  of 
training,  meetings,  missions,  information  technology  (IT)  and  telecommunications  relating  to  the 
external  personnel  financed  under  this  item,  —  expenditure  on  external  personnel  in  Union 
delegations  (contract  staff,  local  staff  or  seconded  national  experts)  for  the  purposes  of  devolved 
programme  management  in  Union  delegations  in  third  countries  or  for  internalisation  of  tasks  of 
phased-out technical assistance offices, as well as the additional logistical and infrastructure costs, 
such  as  the  cost  of  training,  meetings,  missions  and  renting  of  accommodation  directly  resulting 
from the presence in delegations of external personnel remunerated from the appropriations entered 
against this item, — expenditure on studies, meetings of experts, information systems, awareness-
raising,  training,  preparation  and  exchange  of  lessons  learnt  and  best  practices,  as  well  as 
publications  activities  and  any  other  administrative  or  technical  assistance  directly  linked  to  the 
achievement  of  the  objective  of  the  programme,  —  research  activities  on  relevant  issues  and  the 
dissemination  thereof,  —  expenditure  related  to  the  provision  of  information  and  communication 
actions,  including  the  development  of  communication  strategies  and  corporate  communication  of 
the political priorities of the Union. 
Support  expenditure  for  the  European  Instrument  for  Democracy  and  Human  Rights 
(EIDHR)  is  intended  to  cover:  —  expenditure  on  technical  and  administrative  assistance  not 
involving public authority tasks outsourced by the Commission under ad hoc service contracts for 
the  mutual  benefit  of  the  Commission  and  beneficiaries,  —  expenditure  on  external  personnel  at 
headquarters  (contract  staff,  seconded  national  experts  or  agency  staff)  intended  to  take  over  the 
tasks  previously  conferred  on  dismantled  technical  assistance  offices.  Expenditure  on  external 
personnel  at  headquarters  is  limited  to  EUR  1  613  273.  This  estimate  is  based  on  a  provisional 
annual  unit  cost  per  man-year,  of  which  95  %  is  accounted  for  by  remuneration  for  the  staff 
concerned and 5 % by the additional cost of training, meetings, missions, information technology 
(IT)  and  telecommunications  relating  to  the  external  personnel  financed  under  this  item,  — 
expenditure  on  external  personnel  in  Union  delegations  (contract  staff,  local  staff  or  seconded 
national  experts)  for  the  purposes  of  devolved  programme  management  in  Union  delegations  in 
third countries  or for internalisation of tasks of phased-out  technical  assistance offices, as well as 
the additional logistical and infrastructure costs, such as the cost of training, meetings, missions and 
renting of accommodation directly resulting from the presence in delegations of external personnel 
remunerated from the appropriations entered against this item, — expenditure on studies, meetings 
of  experts,  information  systems,  awareness-raising,  training,  preparation  and  exchange  of  lessons 
learnt and best practices, as well as publications activities and any other administrative or technical 
assistance  directly  linked  to  the  achievement  of  the  objective  of  the  programme,  —  research 
activities on relevant issues and the dissemination thereof, — expenditure related to the provision of 
information  and  communication  actions,  including  the  development  of  communication  strategies 
and corporate communication of the political priorities of the Union. 
Support expenditure for the Instrument contributing to Stability and Peace (IcSP) is intended 
to  cover: — expenditure on technical  and administrative assistance not  involving  public authority 
tasks  outsourced  by  the  Commission  under  ad  hoc  service  contracts  for  the  mutual  benefit  of  the 
Commission and beneficiaries, — expenditure on external personnel in Union delegations (contract 
staff, local staff or seconded national experts) for the purposes of devolved programme management 
in  the  Union  delegations  in  third  countries  or  for  internalisation  of  tasks  of  phased  out  technical 
assistance  offices,  as  well  as  the  additional  logistical  and  infrastructure  cost,  such  as  the  cost  of 

88 

 
training,  meetings,  missions,  information  technology  and  telecommunications,  and  renting  of 
accommodation  directly  resulting  from  the  presence  in  delegations  of  the  external  personnel 
remunerated  from  the  appropriations  against  this  item  —  expenditure  on  studies,  evaluations  and 
audits,  meetings  of  experts,  information  systems,  awareness-raising,  training,  preparation  and 
exchange  of  lessons  learnt  and  best  practices,  as  well  as  publications  activities  and  any  other 
administrative  or  technical  assistance  directly  linked  to  the  achievement  of  the  objective  of  the 
programme, — research activities on relevant issues and the dissemination thereof, — expenditure 
related  to  the  provision  of  information  and  communication  actions,  including  the  development  of 
communication strategies and corporate communication of the political priorities of the Union. 
Support expenditure for the Instrument for Nuclear Safety Cooperation (INSC) is intended to 
cover:  —  expenditure  on  technical  and  administrative  assistance  not  involving  public  authority 
tasks  outsourced  by  the  Commission  under  ad  hoc  service  contracts  for  the  mutual  benefit  of  the 
Commission and beneficiaries, — expenditure on external personnel at headquarters (contract staff, 
seconded national experts or agency staff) intended to take over the tasks previously conferred on 
dismantled technical assistance offices. Expenditure on external personnel at headquarters is limited 
to EUR 968 300. This estimate is based on a provisional annual unit cost per man-year, of which 93 
%  is  accounted  for  by  remuneration  for  the  staff  concerned  and  7  %  by  the  additional  cost  of 
training,  meetings,  missions,  information  technology  and  telecommunications  relating  to  the 
external  personnel  financed  under  this  item,  —  expenditure  on  studies,  meetings  of  experts, 
information  systems  and  publications  directly  linked  to  the  achievement  of  the  objective  of  the 
programme. 
Support expenditure for the European Union-Greenland partnership is intended to cover: — 
expenditure  on  technical  and  administrative  assistance  not  involving  public  authority  tasks 
outsourced  by  the  Commission  under  ad  hoc  service  contracts  for  the  mutual  benefit  of  the 
Commission and beneficiaries, — expenditure on studies, meetings of experts, information systems 
and publications directly linked to the achievement of the objective of the programme. 
Support  expenditure  for  the  Partnership  Instrument:  This  appropriation  is  intended  cover 
expenditure for the implementation of the Instruments and for the achievement of their objectives, 
including administrative support associated with the preparation, follow-up, monitoring, audit and 
evaluation  activities  directly  necessary  for  such  implementation,  as  well  as  expenditure  at  Union 
Delegations  on  the  administrative  support  needed  to  manage  operations  financed  under  the 
Instruments.  Provided  that  the  activities  are  related  to  the  general  objectives  of  the  applicable 
Instrument  implemented  through  the  action,  Union  financing  may  cover  (a)  studies,  meetings, 
information,  awareness-raising,  training,  publication  activities  and  any  other  administrative  or 
technical assistance expenditure necessary for the management of the actions, (b) research activities 
and  studies  on  relevant  issues  and  the  dissemination  thereof,  (c)  expenditures  related  to  the 
provision  of  information  and  communication  actions,  including  corporate  communication  of  the 
political priorities of the Union. 
Support  expenditure  for  the  Instrument  for  Pre-Accession  Assistance:  This  appropriation  is 
intended  to  cover  administrative  costs  directly  linked  to  the  implementation  of  the  Instrument  for 
Pre-Accession  Assistance  (IPA),  the  phasing  out  of  pre-accession  assistance  and  TAIEX,  in 
particular: — expenditure on technical and administrative assistance not involving public authority 
tasks  outsourced  by  the  Commission  under  ad  hoc  service  contracts  for  the  mutual  benefit  of  the 
Commission and beneficiaries, — expenditure on external personnel at headquarters (contract staff, 
seconded national experts or agency staff), limited to EUR 5 146 149. This estimate is based on a 
provisional  annual  unit  cost  per  man-year,  of  which  an  estimated  95  %  is  accounted  for  by  the 

89 

 
remuneration  of  the  personnel  concerned  and  5  %  by  the  additional  cost  of  training,  meetings, 
missions,  information  technology  (IT)  and  telecommunications  relating  to  the  external  personnel 
financed  from  this  appropriation,  —  expenditure  on  external  personnel  in  Union  delegations 
(contract  staff,  local  staff  or  seconded  national  experts)  for  the  purposes  of  devolved  programme 
management  in  Union  delegations  in  third  countries  or  for  internalisation  of  tasks  of  phased-out 
technical assistance offices, as well as in Commission Post-Accession Transitions Teams remaining 
in new Member States during the phasing-out period (contract staff, agency staff) working on tasks 
directly  related  to  completion  of  accession  programmes.  In  both  cases,  it  also  covers  additional 
logistical  and  infrastructure  costs,  such  as  the  cost  of  training,  meetings,  missions  and  renting  of 
accommodation  directly  resulting  from  the  presence  in  Union  delegation  of  external  personnel 
remunerated from the appropriations entered against this item, — expenditure on studies, meetings 
of  experts,  information  systems,  awareness-raising,  training,  preparation  and  exchange  of  lessons 
learnt and best practices, as well as publications activities and any other administrative or technical 
assistance  directly  linked  to  the  achievement  of  the  objective  of  the  programme,  —  research 
activities on relevant issues and the dissemination thereof, — expenditure related to the provision of 
information  and  communication  actions,  including  the  development  of  communication  strategies 
and corporate communication of the political priorities of the Union. 
Any  income  additional  financial  contributions  from  Member  States  and  contributions  from  third 
countries or from bodies other than those set up under the TFEU or the Euratom Treaty, to certain 
external  aid  actions  or  programmes  financed  by  the  Union  and  managed  by  the  Commission  may 
give rise to the provision of additional appropriations. Such contributions under Article 6 3 3 of the 
statement of revenue constitute assigned revenue under points (a)(ii) and (e) of Article 21(2) of the 
Financial Regulation. The amounts entered on the line for administrative support expenditure will be 
determined,  without  prejudice  to  Article  235(5)  of  the  Financial  Regulation,  by  the  contribution 
agreement for each operational programme with an average not exceeding 4 % of the contributions 
for the corresponding programme for each chapter. Other assigned revenue received under Articles 
5  7  0,  5  7  3,  5  9  0  and  Item  6  6  0  0  of  the  statement  of  revenue  may  give  rise  to  additional 
appropriations under this  Item,  in  accordance with Article 22(1) of the  Financial Regulation.  This 
appropriation covers expenditure on administrative management under Chapter 22 02. 
Support expenditure for European Neighbourhood Instrument: This appropriation is intended 
to  cover:  —  expenditure  on  technical  and  administrative  assistance  not  involving  public  authority 
tasks  outsourced  by  the  Commission  under  ad  hoc  service  contracts  for  the  mutual  benefit  of  the 
Commission and beneficiaries, — expenditure on external personnel at headquarters (contract staff, 
seconded national experts or agency staff) intended to take over the tasks previously conferred on 
dismantled technical assistance offices. Expenditure on external personnel at headquarters is limited 
to EUR 4 846 907. This estimate is based on a provisional annual unit cost per man-year, of which 
93  %  is  accounted  for  by  remuneration  for  the  staff  concerned  and  7  %  by  the  additional  cost  of 
training, meetings, missions, information technology (IT) and telecommunications relating to those 
staff members, — expenditure on external personnel in Union delegations (contract staff, local staff 
or  seconded  national  experts)  for  the  purposes  of  devolved  programme  management  in  Union 
delegations  in  third  countries  or  for  internalisation  of  tasks  of  phased-out  technical  assistance 
offices,  as  well  as  the  additional  logistical  and  infrastructure  costs,  such  as  the  cost  of  training, 
meetings,  missions  and  renting  of  accommodation  directly  resulting  from  the  presence  in 
delegations of external personnel remunerated from the appropriations entered against this item, — 
expenditure  on  studies,  meetings  of  experts,  information  systems,  awareness-raising,  training, 
preparation and exchange of lessons learnt and best practices, as well as publications activities and 

90 

 
any other administrative or technical assistance directly linked to the achievement of the objective of 
the  programme,  —  research  activities  on  relevant  issues  and  the  dissemination  thereof,  — 
expenditure  related  to  the  provision  of  information  and  communication  actions,  including  the 
development of communication strategies and corporate communication of the political priorities of 
the  Union.  Any  income  from  additional  financial  contributions  from  Member  States  and 
contributions  from  third  countries  or  from  bodies  other  than  those  set  up  under  the  TFEU  or  the 
Euratom Treaty, to certain external aid actions or programmes financed by the Union and managed 
by the Commission may give rise to the provision of additional appropriations. Such contributions 
under Article 6 3 3 of the statement of revenue constitute assigned revenue under points (a)(ii) and 
(e) of Article 235(5) of the Financial Regulation. The amounts entered on the line for administrative 
support  expenditure  will  be  determined,  without  prejudice  to  Article  187(7)  of  the  Financial 
Regulation,  by  the  contribution  agreement  for  each  operational  programme  with  an  average  not 
exceeding  4  %  of  the  contributions  for  the  corresponding  programme  for  each  chapter.  Other 
assigned revenue received under Articles 5 7 0, 5 7 3, 5 9 0 and Item 6 6 0 0 of the statement of 
revenue may give rise to additional appropriations under this Item, in accordance with Article 22(1) 
of the Financial Regulation. 

Overview on the benefits of the EFIs  

At development impact level:  

•  As  explained  in  Annex  II  (on  methodology  and  analytical  models  used),  when 
evaluating  the  EFIs  it  must  be  taken  into  consideration  that  the  support  provided  can 
only  be  seen  as  a  contributing  factor  towards  any  results  and  benefits  to  be  achieved, 
given the very broad nature of the EFIs, the objectives and the political priorities of over 
100 partner countries where interventions take place.  

•  Level  1  of  the  Global  Europe  Results  Framework  (GERF,  see  further  in  annex  VI) 
monitors development  progress  and impact  in  partner countries, the medium/long  term 
international cooperation and development impact achieved in collaboration with partner 
governments,  donors  and  other  international  cooperation  and  development  actors 
including  the  private  sector  and  civil  society.  Such  progress  is,  by  nature,  slow  and 
impact  reported  at  this  level  is  not  intended  to  directly  assess  the  performance  of  EU 
international cooperation, but rather give the context in which EU external assistance is 
provided,  including  the  implementation  of  the  SDGs.  While  level  1  indicators  present 
the results at such a high level that they are too far removed from the intervention to be 
able to claim any sort of direct contribution, they are important as they serve to describe 
the  context  in  which  an  intervention  is  being  implemented  and  to  communicate  the 
ultimate  objective  of  that  intervention.  These  indicators  are  prominent  international 
indicators  for  which  data  collection  is  ensured  by  a  third  party  (for  example,  SDG 
indicators)77.  

•  Therefore, to discuss benefits of the support provided under the EFIs, for example by 
comparing  it  with  a  ‘no  EU  intervention  scenario’  would  not  be  realistic  in  external 

77Commission Staff Working Document - Launching of the Global Europe Performance Monitoring System containing 
a revised Global Europe Results Framework https://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-5697-2022-INIT/en/pdf 

91 

 
  
  
 
 
 
cooperation.  As  mentioned  above,  given  the  broad  scope  of  the  instruments,  ranging 
from conflict affected countries, least developed countries to high-income countries, the 
very  diverse  conditions  for  interventions,  the  number  of  external  factors  affecting  the 
benefits  of  an  EU  intervention  is  such  that  a  counterfactual  presentation  of  what  the 
situation would be without this intervention is not feasible.  

Contribution of NDICI-Global Europe to horizontal priorities  

The  Programme  Performance  Statements  as  annexed  to  the  draft  budget  proposals78  illustrate  the 
contribution  from  NDICI-Global  Europe  in  the financing  of horizontal policy priorities in the  EU 
budget  and  provide  information  at  EU  budget  level  on  the  financing  of  initiatives  relating  to 
climate, biodiversity, gender equality, and sustainable development goals (SDGs) objectives.  

Contribution to green budgeting priorities (million EUR):  

Implementation 

Estimates 

2021 

2022 

2023 

2024 

2025 

2026 

2027 

Total 
contribution 

% of the 
2021–2027 
budget 
28% 

Climate 
mainstreaming 
Biodiversity 
mainstreaming 
Clean air 

1426.1 

2902.4 

3 626.5 

3 626.5  3 626.5  3 626.5  3 626.5 

22461.0 

529.7 
0.0 

924.3 
0.0 

837.4 
0.0 

952.8 
0.0 

1 173.9  1 150.2 

0.0 

0.0 

1 057.5 
0.0 

6 625.8 
0.0 

8% 

0% 

A  higher  climate  spending  target  (30%)  has  been  set  by  the  co-legislators  for  NDICI –  Global 
Europe for 2021-2027 compared to the previous programming period (20% for 2014-2020). Ursula 
von der Leyen, the President of the European Commission, pledged an additional EUR 4 billion in 
her 2021 State of the Union address.  
As indicated in the table, 2021 data showed a performance level in the order of 18%. However, it 
must be considered that the target is intended to be achieved over the course of the entire 2021-2027 
period.  With  2021  being  the  first  year  of  the  multiannual  financial  framework,  contributions  to 
targets tend to be in line with the historical performance, as in many cases, initiatives identified at 
the very end of the previous  multiannual  financial framework are then  adopted in  the new one to 
ensure the continuation of ongoing initiatives. In order to ensure the delivery of the climate target, a 
number of initiatives are currently being put in place, including the following: 
(a) Significant outreach to EU delegations to strengthen climate and biodiversity mainstreaming in 

the formulation of new EU-funded actions.  

(b)  Operationalisation  of  the  Green  Knowledge  Hub  comprising  several  technical  assistance 
facilities in support of climate and biodiversity actions. In the course of 2021 and 2022, as part 
of  the  implementation  of  the  global  gateway,  a  number  of  important  initiatives  were  set  up. 
These included the Team Europe initiative on adaptation and resilience in sub-Saharan Africa, 

78 https://commission.europa.eu/strategy-and-policy/eu-budget/performance-and-reporting/programme-performance-
statements/neighbourhood-development-and-international-cooperation-instrument-global-europe-performance_en) 

92 

 
  
 
  
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
the EU’s contribution to the Adaptation Fund, the Green and Blue Alliance for the Pacific, the 
science technology and innovation regional programme in sub-Saharan Africa focusing on early 
warning  systems  and  the  Euroclima  programme  in  the  Americas  and  the  Caribbean.  The 
adoption  of  the  NaturAfrica  flagship  programme,  covering  key  biodiversity  landscapes,  is  a 
major initiative for the biodiversity objectives.  

Regarding biodiversity more specifically, the figures for 2021 and preliminary estimates for 2022 
are  consistent  with  the  pathway  provided  for  in  the  2023  NDICI –  Global  Europe  programme 
statement. In 2021, NDICI – Global Europe contributed 4.9% to biodiversity. Preliminary estimates 
for 2022 are around 6.7%, showing a positive trajectory (2021 was in many ways a transition year). 
Spending under NDICI – Global Europe is already very close to the 7.5% target for 2024 defined 
for  the  whole  multiannual  financial  framework  (which  does  not  define  any  annual  targets).  Of 
course,  these  efforts  have  to  be  sustained  in  the  coming  years  with  a  view  to  meeting  the 
Commission’s  political  ambitions  for  biodiversity.  A  comprehensive  approach  that  combines  the 
development  of  a  substantial  portfolio  of  biodiversity-related  actions  and  the  mainstreaming  of 
biodiversity into relevant sectors and actions has been put in place. More than EUR 1 billion will be 
allocated to biodiversity projects in Africa between 2021 and 2024 under the NaturAfrica initiative 
alone.  

 Contribution to gender equality (million EUR) (*):  
Gender score  

              2021  

             2022  

Score 0:  
Score O*  
Score 1:  
Score 2:  

2 028.0  
4.5  
8 185.8  
462.4  

2 027.5  
6.1  
10 175.7  
181.1  

               Total  

4 055.5  
10.6  
18 361.4  
643.5  

(*)  Based  on  the  applied  gender  contribution  methodology,  the  following  scores  are  attributed  at  the  most  granular  level  of 

intervention possible:  

1.  2: interventions the principal objective of which is to improve gender equality;  
2.  1: interventions that have gender equality as an important and deliberate objective but 
not as the main reason for the intervention;  
3.  0: non-targeted interventions (interventions that are expected to have no significant 
bearing on gender equality);  
4.  0*: score to be assigned to interventions with a likely but not yet clear positive impact 
on gender equality.  

1.  NB: Numbers provided for 2022 are provisional and subject to quality review.  
2.  According to the NDICI – Global Europe regulation, at least 85% of new initiatives 
implemented  should  have  gender  equality  as  a  principal  or  a  significant  objective,  as 
defined by the gender equality policy marker of the Development Assistance Committee 
of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. At least 5% of these 
actions should have gender equality and women’s and girls’ rights and empowerment as 
a principal objective. On 25 November 2020, the gender action plan III (2021-2025), a 
joint communication from the Commission and the High Representative of the Union for 
Foreign  Affairs  and  Security  Policy,  was  adopted  with  the  same  objective  of  85% 
towards the total  number of adopted initiatives, following  the Development  Assistance 
Committee’s methodology.  

93 

 
  
  
3.  The Commission’s gender expenditure tracking methodology for the EU budget is in 
line  with  the  Development  Assistance  Committee’s  gender  equality  policy  marker 
methodology. Score 2 equals G2 and implies that gender equality is principal objective; 
score 1  equals  G1  and  implies  that  gender  equality  is  a  significant  objective;  score 0 
equals G0 and means that gender equality is not targeted.  
4.  For  2021,  under  NDICI –  Global  Europe,  23  actions  were  marked  as  score 2,  236 
actions were marked as score 1 and 67 were marked score 0, which gives a percentage of 
79.5% of actions marked as score 1 or 2, of which 8.8% were marked as score 2. Data 
for 2022 had not yet been stabilised when this report was drafted.  

Contribution to the digital transition (million EUR)  

           2021   

            2022   

         Total  

% of the total 2021-2022 
implementation   

Digital contribution  

1 951.0  

2 981.2  

4 932.0  

19%  

1.  NB: Numbers provided for 2022 are provisional and subject to quality review.  
2.  In 2021, the Commission continued to boost digitalisation and digital transformation 
in  partner  countries.  The  African  Union–EU  data  flagship  project  was  launched  as  a 
cooperation  framework.  Work  continued  on  improving  digital  skills,  in  particular  by 
publishing a toolkit on digital and data technologies  and by proposing  e-learning tools 
and  courses  on  space  technologies,  cybersecurity  and  digitalisation.  Support  for  EU 
delegations  and  partner  countries  was  strengthened  in  2022  by  means  of  various 
technical  assistance  facilities  and  the  maturing  of  multi-stakeholder  operations, 
memberships  and  outreach  within  the  Digital  for  Development  Hub.  Digital  for 
Development Hub regional branches for the Americas and the Caribbean region and the 
Asia and Pacific region were launched in 2021 and 2022 respectively (in addition to the 
sub-Saharan  Africa  branch,  which  was  launched  in  2020).  Relations  with  key 
multilateral  organisations  (such  as  the  International  Telecommunication  Union)  were 
strengthened,  and  exchanges  with  other  important  stakeholders  (such  as  Smart  Africa) 
multiplied.  Specific  exchange  formats  have  been  created  with  the  United  Nations,  but 
also  with  civil  society  and 
the  private  sector.  The  first  African  Union–EU 
Multistakeholder Forum was organised in March 2022 with support from the Digital for 
Development Hub.  
3.  2022 saw a move towards the concrete implementation of actions. Examples of global 
gateway  flagship  actions  include  the  Team  Europe  initiative  on  data  governance,  the 
EurAfrica gateway, regional fibre optic backbones in Africa, the extension of the Bella 
project, including the launch of Copernicus data centres in Panama and Chile, the Team 
Europe  initiative  on  digital  connectivity  in  central  Asia  and  the  Earth  observation 
flagship project with Africa. The Commission is also ready to start operationalising the 
Africa–Europe  digital  innovation  bridge.  Moreover,  the  Commission  further  supported 
cyber capacity building, especially in African states, to enable a more efficient response 
to cyber threats, in addition to cybersecurity being mainstreamed across digital flagship 
projects.  
4.  EU policies were further strengthened in 2022 by developing internal digital policies 
and  strategies  in  certain  areas  (such  as  work  on  the  connectivity  masterplan,  the 
guidelines on education and skills and internal work with regard to data centres) and by 

94 

 
  
   
  
strategically  supporting  such  policies  while  working  with  partners.  This  was  done,  for 
example, by working with multilateral organisations on  strategic topics covered by EU 
policy (such as digital rights and principles and artificial intelligence). The Commission 
is also stepping up its efforts to mainstream the digital domain across various thematic 
sectors, for instance by supporting the Africa Union in developing strategies on digital 
health,  digital  education  (finalised  in  2022)  and  digital  agriculture  (to  be  finalised  in 
spring  2023).  Moreover,  interlinkages  between  the  digital  and  green  transitions  have 
been  strengthened  through  the  work  of  the  Digital  for  Development  Hub  thematic 
working group on digital and green.  
5.  Last  but  not  least,  a  positive  trend  is  expected  with  the  establishment  of  digital 
economy  packages  for  a  specific  list  of  countries,  taking  into  account  the  regional 
influence of a partner country and the intensity and variety of EU digital interventions. 
In 2023, high-level political announcements will be made both in the selected countries 
and  at  the  regional  level,  such  as  on  the  EU–Latin  America  and  the  Caribbean  Digital 
Alliance. This will further boost the political visibility of the EU’s digital initiatives and 
the  capacity  to  link  investments,  including  through  European  Fund  for  Sustainable 
Development Plus guarantees and blending, and through governance considerations.  

Contribution of NDICI-Global Europe to the sustainable development goals  

•  The  objective  to  support  the  implementation  of  the  sustainable  development  goals 
(SDGs) is explicit across the NDICI-Global Europe and is included in programming of 
NDICI-Global  Europe.  The  outcome  of  the  effort  to  integrate  SDGs  is  shown  in  the 
various reports produced by the Commission and notably: 

o  in the Annual Reports on the implementation of the European Union's external 
action  instruments,  which  are  structured  combining  the  Commission  priorities 
and SDGs. They show in an innovative manner how the EU policies and support 
contribute to several SDGs at once, given interlinkages among SDGs. 
o  in  the 2023 EU Voluntary Review on the implementation  of the SDG where 
the  roll-out  of  the  NDICI-Global  Europe  in  support  to  the  SDGs  is  thoroughly 
described.  Taking  further  the  approach  already  laid  down  in  the  2017  New 
Consensus  for  Development  and  NDICI-Global  Europe,  one  central  element  of 
the Review in  relation  to  international  partnerships  is  the emphasis  put  on how 
the deployment of Global Gateway contributes to the achievement of the SDGs. 

95 

 
    
1. 

The Programme Performance Statements as annexed to the 2024 budget further elaborate on 
the contribution of NDICI-Global Europe to each of the SDGs with illustrative examples:79  

SDGs the programme contributes to 

Example 

SDG1 

Yes 

The  enhancing  rural  resilience  in  Yemen  programme  aims  to  reduce  vulnerability  and 
strengthen  resilience  of  crisis-affected  communities  in  Yemen  through  the  creation  of 
sustainable  livelihoods,  improved  food  security,  economic  recovery,  access  to  basic 
services, climate risk reduction and community conflict mitigation. 

SDG2 

Yes 

The  programme  is  implemented  by  a  consortium  of  United  Nations  agencies  under  the 
lead  of  UNDP  and  comprising  WFP,  ILO  and  FAO.  The  main  local  partner  for  the 
implementation in Yemen is the Social Fund for Development, a local non-governmental 
organisation with public-sector competences in basic service delivery and small business 
support.  Example  activities  include  the  creation  of  sustainable  livelihoods  opportunities 
through  improved  farming  practices,  support  to  micro,  small  and  medium-sized 
enterprises 
to  stimulate  employment  opportunities,  community  assets  restoration 
(communal  marketplaces,  water  infrastructure),  agricultural  value  chains,  supporting 
women’s  economic  empowerment  (targeted  training  and  business  skills  support)  as  well 
as  access  to  renewable  energy  (provision  of  solar  power  to  public  buildings  and 
businesses).  The  programme’s  third  phase  is  expected  to  reach  close  to  850  000 
beneficiaries across Yemen. 

The EU contribution to the third phase of this programme, which lasts from 2022 to 2025, 
is EUR 35 million, with an additional contribution of EUR 1 million from Sweden. The 
overall investment of the EU in all three phases of the enhancing rural resilience in Yemen 
programme amounts to EUR 105 million since 2016. 

In the framework of the Budget Support for the Development of Uzbekistan's Agri-food 
Sector  and  Resilient  Rural  Livelihoods,  the  EU  contributes  with  EUR  27  million  to  the 
development  of  a  sustainable  market  oriented  and  inclusive  agri-food  systems  that  will 
increase farm income, expand rural livelihood opportunities and enhance food security. In 
particular,  the  action  aims  at  promoting  a  healthy,  environmentally  sustainable  and  fair 
food  system  that  takes  into  consideration  climate  change  and  biodiversity,  and  supports 
the  livelihoods,  market  inclusion  and  competitiveness  of  smallholder  farmers,  and  in 
particular, women, youth, and the most vulnerable. According to the expected results, the 
average annual income of smallholder farmers will be increased by 20% by the end of the 
budget  support  contract.  It  contributes  to  the  implementation  of  Uzbekistan’s  agri-food 
development strategy, whose outputs will notably reinforce government’s actions aimed at 
improving  food  security  and  nutrition  and  at  creating  a  demand  responsive  agricultural 
innovation that promotes climate smart, and digital solutions. The action further includes a 
capacity-building  component  and  promotes  private-public  dialogue  as  well  as  the 
involvement in the sector governance of the civil society and farmer associations. Notably, 
by the end of the budget support, at least 50 persons should have been trained to conduct 
food and nutrition surveys including diet diversity for women. The implementation period 
of the action is of 72 months. 

79 Neighbourhood, Development and International Cooperation Instrument – Global Europe - Performance (europa.eu) 

96 

 
 
 
 
SDG3 

Yes 

SDG4 

Yes 

SDG5 

Yes 

The project ‘Enhanced access to rights, essential services, and livelihoods for vulnerable 
Afghans  and  host  communities  in  Iran  in  the  context  of  COVID-19  recovery’  aims  at 
enhancing resilience and self-reliance of vulnerable Afghans and their host communities 
in Iran. This is done in a way that they may live together peacefully, have access to social 
services and develop economic ties to build sustainable livelihoods, and thus foster social 
cohesion  and  stability.  One  of  the  specific  objectives  of  the  project  is  to  facilitate 
improved access to health services through improved health facilities, capacity building of 
medical  staff,  cash  assistance  to  facilitate  access  to  health care  services  and  activities  to 
increase health awareness among target populations.  

In this action has an EU contribution of EUR 14 million and will have a duration of 36 
months. It is implemented by NRC, which partners with INTERSOS and CESVI in order 
to  leverage  their  specialist  technical  expertise.  ICRI  contributes  to  the  project  as  an 
affiliated entity. In addition, the local non-governmental organisations SRS and PDA are 
included  as  co-applicants  to  reflect  the  growing  involvement  of  local  civil  society  in 
responding to the needs of Afghans and vulnerable Iranians. 

The Education Access and Quality Improvement Program in Somalia aims at supporting 
the strong commitment of the Government of Somalia to Education. The EU contributes 
with EUR 25 million to improve the educational attainment and employability of relevant 
target  groups.  The  specific  objective  of  this  action  is  that  the  governance,  quality, 
relevance and inclusiveness of education and training sector are improved. The expected 
results  are  to  increase  access  to  equitable  quality  education  at  primary  and  secondary 
levels,  to  increase  participation  of  youth  and  adults  in  quality  technical  and  vocational 
education;  training  linked  to  employment  and  economic  opportunities  as  well  as  to 
enhance capacity of public institutions to lead, monitor, and manage the education system. 

The  quantifiable results  expected  at  the  end  of  the  action include  the  following: 50 new 
schools and 200 new classrooms will have been built; at least 50% of existing universities 
will  have  been  assessed  and accredited  based on  established  standards  and  guidelines;  a 
10% increase in the number of children completing primary and secondary education and 
a 10% decrease in the youth unemployment rate in each of the established categories (age, 
sex, sector). 

All projects and programs marked as G1 (gender equality is a significant objective) or G2 
(gender  equality  is  the  main  objective)  as  per  the  gender  equality  policy  marker  of  the 
Organisation  for  Economic  Co-operation  and  Development’s  Development  Assistance 
Committee contribute to SDG5. According to the NDICI  – Global Europe  regulation, at 
least  85%  of  new  actions  implemented  should  have  gender  equality  as  a  principal  or  a 
significant objective, as defined by the aforementioned gender equality policy marker. At 
least 5% of these actions should have gender equality and women’s and girls’ rights and 
empowerment as a principal objective. On 25 November 2020, the gender action plan III 
(2021-2025), a joint communication from the Commission and the High Representative of 
the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, was adopted with the same objective of 
85% towards the total number of adopted actions, following the Development Assistance 
Committee’s  methodology.  In  2021,  over  303  committed  projects  and  programmes,  236 
were  marked  G1  or  G2.  Examples  are  provided  above,  when  presenting  the  regulation 
contribution to gender equality. 

In  Morocco,  since  2018, 
the  EU  supports  a  EUR  35  million  programme 
(Egalite/Moussawat) in the framework of the implementation of the action plan on gender 
equality.  This  program  contributes,  through  the  human  rights-based  approach,  to  gender 
equality  in  Morocco  with  the  specific  objectives  of  strengthening  the  empowerment  of 
women and the enjoyment of their rights. 

97 

 
SDG6 

Yes 

SDG7 

Yes 

SDG8 

Yes 

SDG9 

Yes 

The European Union is currently supporting Moldova bilaterally with EUR 53 million in 
the area of water supply and sanitation. The EU has also used its contribution to leverage 
an  additional  EUR  69  million  in  loans  and  grants  from  the  EBRD,  EIB  and  Member 
States, bringing the total investments in ongoing water supply and sanitation initiatives to 
EUR  122  million.  In  addition,  other  EU-funded  initiatives  of  EUR  45  million,  out  of 
which  EU  contributed  EUR  22.5  million  and  leveraged  EUR  22.5  million  from  other 
donors,  have  recently  been  completed.  Together  with  key  partners  such  as  the  Austrian 
Development  Agency,  German  Agency  for  International  Cooperation,  Kreditanstalt  für 
Wiederaufbau, the EU has provided more than 170 000 inhabitants with improved water 
supply and sanitation services. An additional 1 million inhabitants are projected to benefit 
from the ongoing programmes in the next few years. 

to  water,  sanitation  and  hygiene 

The  project  ‘AguaNorte:  access 
in  Northern 
Mozambique’ will contribute to improve the living conditions of the population through 
increased  access  to  basic  services,  reduction  of  inequalities,  economic  recovery  and 
peacebuilding. It aims to increase access to sustainable safe water and sanitation services 
for  approximately  60  000  people  from  selected  towns  in  three  northern  provinces  of 
Mozambique.  It  encompasses  the  construction,  rehabilitation,  and/or  expansion  of  water 
supply systems, the creation of demand and local market development for sanitation and 
hygiene services and products. The action will include the construction of gender sensitive 
WASH  infrastructures  in  schools  and  healthcare  facilities,  as  well  as  support  the 
establishment of management modalities for sustainable WASH services. 

The  Action  has  an  EU  contribution  of  EUR  20  million  and  will  have  a  duration  of  48 
months, ending in 2026. The implementing partner, UNICEF, will also contribute to the 
action with EUR 2 million. 

The Green for Growth Fund founded in 2009 is an ongoing initiative designed to advance 
energy  and  resource  efficiency,  as  well  as  renewable  energy  in  19  markets  across 
Southeast Europe, Turkey, the European Eastern Neighbourhood Region, and the Middle 
East  and  North  Africa.  It  provides  refinancing  to  financial  institutions  to  enhance  their 
participation  in  these  sectors,  and  also  invests  directly  into  energy  efficiency  and 
renewable energy projects. Over the course of 2021, the fund recorded its strongest ever 
net  growth  in  its  outstanding  portfolio,  facilitating  EUR  1.3  billion  in  impactful  green 
loans to over  42 000 end borrowers. These were complemented by the  fund’s Technical 
Assistance  Facility  initiatives,  totalling  EUR  19  million  across  a  record  number  of 
projects.  Also  the  Eastern  Europe  Energy  Efficiency  and  Environment  Partnership,  to 
which  the  EU  is  the  largest  donor,  supports  many  projects  designed  to  improve  energy 
efficiency. 

In  Armenia,  the  EU  has  supported  socioeconomic  recovery  and  built  resilience  with  a 
budget support programme ‘COVID-19 Resilience Contract for Armenia’ (2020-2022) of 
EUR  30  million.  The  programme  provided  much  needed  financial  assistance  through 
available Government schemes to over 2 million vulnerable individuals, as well as support 
in grants or loans to almost 20 000 small and medium-sized enterprises. 

The Medusa submarine optical fibre cable will install 7100 km state-of-the-art submarine 
optical  fibre  cable  in  the  Mediterranean  and  connect  Northern  African  countries  with 
Cyprus,  France,  Italy,  Portugal,  and  Spain  with  the  aim  of  increasing  by  200  times  the 
speed  of  internet  in  Northern  Africa  universities.  This  investment  will  integrate  500 
universities  and  research  centres  from  Algeria,  Egypt,  Morocco  and  Tunisia,  into  ‘EU 
essential terabit network of research and development’. They will receive a 200 Giga bits 
per  second  connectivity  for  the  next  20  years.  Small  and  medium-sized  enterprises  will 
also benefit from this enhanced connectivity. 

The  Team  Europe  Initiative  on  human-centred  digitalisation  in  Kenya  seeks  to  lift 

98 

 
synergies  to  boost  digitalisation  that  is  inclusive,  human-centric,  gender-responsive,  and 
rights-based, and that includes youth, women, marginalised groups and remote areas. 

The project pursues three areas of intervention, namely digital connectivity, jobs and skills 
and  digital  governance.  Working  modalities  include  a  combination  of  grants,  blended 
financial instruments and services, and support to the policy and regulatory environment 
through dialogue, technical assistance, and other facilities as required.  

The project lasts from 2021 to 2024. The EU will contribute EUR 28 million in EU grants 
to leverage another EUR 165 million of investment. The project supports Kenya’s digital 
agenda and the EU’s ‘Partnership with Africa on the transition to a digital age’. 

Yes 

SDG 

10 

The  action  ‘Support  to  formalisation  of  the  economy  including  social  protection  and 
support  to  public  finance  management’  in  Angola  aims  at  addressing  inequalities,  by 
reducing  the  informality  of  the  Angolan  economy,  providing  social  protection  and 
promoting decent jobs, focusing on the most vulnerable.  

Yes 

SDG 

11 

With  an  estimated  budget  of  EUR  62.6  million  for  a  5-year  period,  the  Action  seeks  to 
expand access to social protection, digital financial services and business-related trainings 
for informal vulnerable workers and businesses, in particular women. The EU will provide 
financial  transfers  and  technical  assistance  as  well  as  conduct  inclusive  and  gender-
responsive  policy  dialogue  towards  defining  a  government  plan  to  ensure  continuous 
progress  in  accelerating  the  formalisation  process,  along  with  social  benefits  (access  to 
social  protection)  and  digital  financial  inclusion,  and  effective  social  dialogue.  Through 
this  Action,  the  EU  will  also  support  Public  Finance  Management  reforms,  an  effective 
tool to address inequalities. 

The  action  ‘green  and  smart  cities’  in  Tanzania  aims  at  contributing  to  sustainable  and 
inclusive  urban  development  for  the  benefit  of  local  urban  communities  and  businesses. 
This includes promoting green cities for the  benefit of their communities and businesses, 
enhancing employability and entrepreneurship through skills development, contributing to 
poverty  reduction  and  economic  empowerment  through  financial  inclusion  and  social 
protection,  fostering  the  creation  of  green  jobs  through  the  development  of  small  and 
medium-sized  enterprises  and  providing  them  with  access  to  finance,  supporting 
government systems’ ability to deliver effective policy development and implementation 
and  rendering  the  business  environment  more  conducive  to  private-sector  growth  and 
increase investment and trade. 

Expected results of the programme include 10 green infrastructures developed through EU 
resources  in  selected  cities  ,  a  reduction  down  to  20%  of  leakage  on  the  water  pipe 
networks until 2025 (from 30% in 2021) and 10 online  trainings provided, data  analysis 
done, and digital applications developed with EU resources to strengthen the planning in 
urban resilience in selected cities using digital skills and technology. The EU contribution 
to this action, which is a Team Europe Initiative and will last 48 months, amounts to EUR 
75 million. 

Yes 

SDG 

12 

In  the  Eastern  Neighbourhood,  the  EU4Environment  programme  is  contributing  to 
sustainable  consumption  and  production.  It  has  helped  both  public  and  private  actors  to 
adopt  circular  economy  principles  and  practices.  Due  to  the  programme,  legislation  was 
aligned with the EU acquis in areas such as, for example, green procurement (in Georgia 
and Moldova) and waste management (in Armenia, Georgia, the Republic of Moldova and 
Ukraine). Industrial waste mapping pilots were implemented in Azerbaijan, Georgia, and 
Ukraine.  Enterprises  across  the  region  received  expert  advice  to  improve  resource  and 
energy  efficiency  and  adopt  eco-innovation.  An  awareness  campaign  on  sustainable 
lifestyles  was  conducted  in  Moldova  and  will  be  implemented  in  several  other  partner 

99 

 
Yes 

SDG 

13 

Yes 

SDG 

14 

SDG 
15 

Yes 

Yes 

SDG 

16 

countries. 

The  Covenant  of  Mayors  East  is  an  EU-funded  project  aimed  at  introducing  the  EU 
climate  and  energy  initiative  to  the  Eastern  Partnership  countries.  It  supports  local 
authorities in implementing sustainable energy policies, improving the security of energy 
supply, and facilities their contribution to climate change mitigation and adaptation. The 
overall objective is to enable local authorities in Eastern Partnership countries to develop 
and implement sustainable energy and climate actions, therefore significantly contributing 
to  the  reduction  of  greenhouse  gas  emissions  and  energy  consumption,  increasing 
generation of renewable energy, and adaptation to climate change. The signatories to the 
Covenant  of  Mayors  East,  which  joined  the  Covenant  of  Mayors  before  October  2016, 
undertook  to  reduce  their  CO2  emissions  by  at  least  20%  by  2020.  New  signatories 
commit to reducing СО2 emissions by 30% by 2030. 

for 

The EU works closely with its neighbours in the Black Sea in the context of the Common 
Maritime  Agenda 
the  Black  Sea.  An  environmental  monitoring  project 
(EU4EMBLAS) continued its activities. In 2022, the project worked to identify needs for 
improving  laboratory  capacity  to  monitor  marine  environment  in  Georgia.  Several 
awareness raising campaigns were carried out in Ukraine and support has been provided 
to children affected by the Russian war of aggression to recover through art and science, 
as part of an initiative called ‘Black Sea diaries’. 

Capitalising on previous EU support to mangrove protection and management in Guyana, 
the  action  financed  with  EUR  4.68  million  from  NDICI  –  Global  Europe  will  further 
continue  the  progress  made  in  this  area  by  supporting  institutional  inter-agency 
coordination  and  the  development  of  regulations  to  conserve  and  protect  mangroves. 
These measures will lead to an integrated coastal protection plan focussed on mangroves, 
while shoreline communities will be assisted with development of value chains for such 
mangrove products (e.g., honey, shellfish, charcoal and eco-tourism). Under the expected 
results, a regulation to enforce the protection of mangroves will be drafted and adopted by 
2025. Since mangroves have a very high carbon sequestration potential, forest carbon also 
has  potential  as  a  revenue  stream.  Furthermore,  the  strengthening  of  the  natural  coastal 
defence will contribute to the establishment of a biodiversity habitat, restoring the natural 
protection  towards  climate  change  related  disasters  and  natural  hazards.  By  2025,  the 
percentage of mangroves in green-grey sea defences is expected to stand at 30% compared 
to 25% in 2018 and at least 100 persons are expected to be trained by 2025 in in mangrove 
livelihood opportunities. 

The  programme  is  scheduled  to  run  from  2023-2025  through  budget  support  in  close 
coordination with the Government, permitting policy dialogue on cross-cutting issues, as 
well as broader topics of mutual interest. 

Within  the  framework  of  the  EuroMed  justice  programme  (2020-2023),  Southern 
Neighbourhood  countries  contributed  to  the  preparation  of  action  plans  on  judicial 
cooperation for countering trafficking in human beings and smuggling of migrants, and on 
confiscation of crime proceeds and asset recovery. The overall objective is to contribute to 
protecting  the  EU neighbouring  countries’  citizens  against  criminal  activities,  respecting 
the rule of law and fundamental human rights. The programme builds sustainable cross-
regional  mechanisms  of  cooperation,  strengthens  regional  judicial  training  platforms, 
develops  practical  tools.  Partner  countries  are  Algeria,  Egypt,  Israel,  Jordan,  Lebanon, 
Libya, Morocco, Palestine and Tunisia. 

SDG 

Yes 

The  Technical  Assistance  Information  Exchange  instrument  and  twinning  international 
partnerships  have  been  supporting  the  public  administrations  in  partner  countries  in 
strengthening  their  national  development  policies  and  achieving  the  SDGs  since  2019. 

100 

 
17 

Both instruments have supported the needs of countries in Africa, Americas, Asia and the 
Caribbean in wide ranging policy areas, such as e-governance, anti-corruption, sustainable 
finance and food safety. The Technical Assistance Information Exchange instrument and 
twinning  international  partnerships  strengthen  the  capacities  of  beneficiary  institutions, 
underpinning  their  ownership  over  their  national  legal  and  institutional  processes  and 
reforms.  The  focus  on  peer-to-peer  exchanges  in  the  public  sector  has  the  potential  to 
create trust and build long-term institutional partnerships with the EU. The budget under 
the NDICI in 2022 amounted to EUR 3 million. 

101 

 
  
Contribution to horizontal priorities IPA III 

Green budgeting 

Contribution to green budgeting priorities (million EUR): 

Implementation 

Estimates 

2021 

2022 

2023 

2024 

2025 

2026 

2027 

Total 
contribution 

% of the 2021–
2027 budget 

697.0 

555.0 

549.0 

560.0 

566.0 

568.0 

569.0 

4 064.0 

28% 

Climate 
mainstreaming 
Biodiversity 
mainstreaming 

33.1 

67.9 

94.0 

96.0 

96.0 

97.0 

102.0 

586.0 

Clean air 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

4% 

0% 

 Climate mainstreaming 

− 

− 

It is estimated that IPA III measures will contribute EUR 4 billion to climate mainstreaming in 
2021-2027, and that IPA III contributed EUR 555 million in 2022 (subject to quality review). 
IPA  III  contributes  to  mainstreaming  climate  action  in  the  EU’s  policies  and  to  achieving  an 
overall target of 30% of EU budget expenditure supporting climate objectives. Measures under 
IPA  III are expected to  contribute 18% of the overall financial  envelope of the programme to 
climate objectives, with the objective of increasing this percentage to 20% by 2027. 

−  Estimates reflect the reporting methodology of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and 
Development’s  Development  Assistance  Committee  for  the  Rio  markers  on  climate  change 
mitigation  and  climate  change  adaptation.  The  budget  of  interventions  contributing  to  climate 
change  is  weighted  at  100%  if  mitigation  or  adaptation  is  the  ‘principal  objective’  of  the 
measure and 40% if it is a ‘significant objective’. 

− 

−  The partial results for 2021-2022 suggests that IPA III is in the early stages of implementation, 
while  the  evolution  of  this  marker  is  on  track.  The  quality  review  of  2022  data  will  be 
performed during 2023. The Commission is committed to stepping up its efforts to achieve the 
climate target by the end of the multiannual financial framework. 
In  2022,  three  measures  with  climate  adaptation  or  mitigation  as  a  principal  objective  were 
adopted, namely the annual action plan in favour of Türkiye (environment and climate change, 
along  with  sustainable  urban  and  reliable  transport)  and  the  annual  action  plan  in  favour  of 
Bosnia and Herzegovina (EU for environment and climate change). 
IPA  III  supports  the  beneficiaries  in  their  efforts  to  align  themselves  with  the  climate  change 
and energy package and in the implementation of the external dimension of the European Green 
Deal.  In  particular,  the  measures  support  the  implementation  of  several  priorities  of  the 
economic  and investment  plan for the  western Balkans (clean energy, environment, transport) 
and  the  green  agenda  for  the  Western  Balkans,  especially  under  thematic  window  3  (green 
agenda  and  sustainable  connectivity)  of  the  IPA  III  programming  framework.  A  great  deal  of 
the support in the area of clean energy and smart transport is channelled to the beneficiaries via 
the  WBIF,  the  European  Fund  for  Sustainable  Development  Plus  and  the  Green  for  Growth 
Fund. In Türkiye, the establishment of the Turkey Investment Platform in 2022 will ensure that 

− 

102 

 
 
 
  
  
  
 
the country can take advantage of the European Fund for Sustainable Development Plus and that 
investment is channelled to support the implementation of the Turkish Green Deal. 

Biodiversity mainstreaming 

− 

It  is  estimated  that  IPA  III  measures  will  contribute  EUR  586  million  to  biodiversity 
mainstreaming  in  the  2021-2027  period,  and  that  they  contributed  EUR  67.9  million  in  2022 
(subject to quality review). 

−  Estimates reflect the reporting methodology of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and 
Development’s  Development  Assistance  Committee  for  the  Rio  marker  on  biodiversity.  The 
budget of interventions contributing to climate change is weighted at 100% if biodiversity is the 
‘principal objective’ of the measure and 40% if it is a ‘significant objective’. 

−  The partial results for 2021-2022 suggest that IPA III is in the early stages of implementation, 
while  the  evolution  of  this  marker  is  on  track.  The  quality  review  of  2022  data  will  be 
performed during 2023. The Commission is committed to stepping up its efforts to achieve the 
biodiversity target by the end of the multiannual financial framework. 

−  Moreover,  under  the  IPARD  III  programmes,  the  beneficiaries  are  supported  with  agri-
environment-climate  operations  aimed  at  improving  the  status  of  biodiversity,  extensively 
managed ecosystems and genetic resources that are at risk of being lost. 
In 2022, one initiative with biodiversity as a principal objective was adopted, namely the annual 
action plan in favour of Türkiye (environment and climate change). 

− 

−  Biodiversity, ecosystem protection and ecosystem restoration are key pillars of the green agenda 
for the western Balkans. The thematic window ‘Green agenda and sustainable connectivity’ will 
be  the  primary  entry  point  for  supporting  action  in  the  area  of  ecosystems  and  biodiversity. 
However, measures under other thematic windows of the IPA III programming framework, such 
as  the  ‘Competitiveness  and  inclusive  growth’  window,  including  the  agriculture  and  rural 
development  priority,  will  also  contribute  to  biodiversity  protection  and  the  management  of 
natural  resources,  in  line  with  the  goals  of  the  European  Green  Deal.  The  EU  biodiversity 
strategy for 2030 requires that all EU neighbourhood countries be on board, particularly those 
aspiring  to  EU  membership.  Biodiversity  and  ecosystem  conservation  and  restoration  enjoy 
high-level  political  support in  the western Balkans and Türkiye.  In those countries, which  are 
biodiversity  hotspots,  specific  support  is  provided  to  further  align  legislation  with  the  EU’s 
acquis, notably the EU birds and habitats directive, and to prepare for the designation of Natura 
2000 sites. Technical assistance is targeted at, among other things, supporting the management 
of protected areas and forestry management. Considerable progress has been made in terms of 
acquis alignment, but  challenges remain in  ensuring  its effective implementation,  for instance 
with respect to illegal logging and the use of environmental impact assessments. 

103 

 
 
 
Gender 

Contribution to gender equality (million EUR) (*): 

Gender score 
0 
1 
2 

2021 
1 024.9 
498.4 
42.8 

2022 

865.6 
11.0 

Total 
2 129.6 
1 364.0 
53.8 

(*) Based on the applied gender contribution methodology, the following scores are attributed at the most granular level of intervention possible: 
 - 2: interventions the principal objective of which is to improve gender equality; 
 - 1: interventions that have gender equality as an important and deliberate objective but not as the main reason for the intervention; 
 - 0: non-targeted interventions (interventions that are expected to have no significant bearing on gender equality); 
 - 0*: score to be assigned to interventions with a likely but not yet clear positive impact on gender equality. 

In 2021, the IPA III contribution to gender mainstreaming was EUR 42.8 million through measures 
with gender equality as a principal objective (2) and EUR 498.4 million as a significant objective 
(1). 

In 2022, the initially estimated IPA III contribution to gender mainstreaming was EUR 11 million 
through  measures  with  gender  equality  as  a  principal  objective  (2)  and  EUR  865.6  million  as  a 
significant  objective  (1).  Moreover,  on  top  of  the  figures  presented  in  the  table  above,  IPA  III 
contributed  EUR  350.5  million  through  measures,  financed  from  carried-over  appropriations  and 
recoveries, with gender equality as a significant objective. 

The  attribution  of  the  above  scores  is  also  in  line  with  the  gender  equality  policy  marker  and 
methodology  of  the  Organisation  for  Economic  Co-operation  and  Development’s  Development 
Assistance  Committee.  This  is  also  aligned  with  the  2021-2025  EU  gender  action  plan  III  for 
external relations, adopted in November 2020. 

The Commission is committed to implementing the new gender action plan and promoting gender 
equality and women’s empowerment in international forums and agendas. 2021 was the first year of 
implementation of this action plan. The assessment of the plan’s performance against its indicators 
will be a feature of the midterm review, which is currently underway and is expected to be finalised 
by the end of 2023. 

In 2022, one initiative with gender equality as a principal objective was adopted, namely the annual 
action  plan  in  favour  of  North  Macedonia  (EU  for  improved  health,  social  protection  and  gender 
equality). 

This measure is focused on promoting gender equality and mainstreaming by: 

−  developing services to prevent and protect against gender-based violence; 
− 

improving the state response to the country’s most significant health threats, in particular in the 
field of maternal and neonatal healthcare (improving the prevention and control of oncological 
diseases  by  developing  a  national  cancer  control  strategy  and  an  implementation  and  quality 
control  plan  for  national  population-based  screening  programmes  for  breast,  cervical  and 
colorectal cancer); 
improving social services. 

− 

104 

 
 
  
Digital 

Contribution to digital transition (million EUR): 

Digital 
contribution 

2021 

306.4 

2022 

385.0 

Total 

691.5 

% of the total 
2021-2027 
implementation 

18% 

−  The Commission committed EUR 306.4  million in  2021 and EUR 385 million in 2022 as the 

IPA III contribution to the digital transition. 

−  Digitalisation  is  an  indicator  of  the  global  Europe  results  framework  level  3  (indicator  3.2), 
andreported as such in the annual report on EU external action. The marker has been operational 
since  late  2020,  therefore  the  commitments  and  payments  for  2021  correspond  to  a  complete 
year. The marker exists for the whole of heading 6 of the budget, including IPA III. 

−  The  budget  of  interventions  contributing  to  digital  transformation  is  weighted  at  100%  if 
measures  are  marked  as  a  ‘principal  objective’  or  40%  if  they  are  marked  as  ‘significant 
objective’. No quality review has yet been performed. In order for an action to be considered to 
relate to digitalisation, the following general considerations must be taken into account. 

o  An  analysis  of  the  digitalisation  context  must  be  conducted  to  inform  future  steps 

and facilitate the identification of the measure’s digital component. 

o  After  the  analysis,  the  existence  of  a  digitalisation-situation  specific  objective  or 
result should be identified. It is important to make sure that this objective is backed 
by at least one indicator from the sector indicator guidance on digitalisation. 

o  It should be kept in mind that the data and indicators found in the action document 
should  be  disaggregated  by  sex,  age,  socioeconomic  status  and  region,  where 
appropriate and applicable. 

− 

− 

− 

In  2021  and  2022,  the  Commission  concentrated  its  main  efforts  on  reducing  data  roaming 
prices  within  the  western  Balkans  and  the  EU.  In  this  context,  the  following  two  main 
milestones were achieved: (1) the voluntary gradual reduction of roaming charges between the 
EU and the western Balkans as of 1 October 2023, as agreed at the last EU–Western Balkans 
Summit  in  December;  and  (2)  the  removal  of  data  roaming  within  the  western  Balkans  since 
July 2021. In 2022, the Commission approved two digital infrastructure projects with a value of 
EUR 45 million in IPA funding within the WBIF. This concerns the roll-out of rural broadband 
in Serbia and the establishment of smart labs in the Albanian education system. 
In  addition,  concerning  the  western  Balkans,  the  Commission  is  preparing  an  IPA  regional 
digital  programme  for  adoption  in  2024  (EU4Digital).  This  programme  will  accelerate  the 
digital transition for the whole region, focusing on four main strands: (1) secure and sustainable 
digital and telecom infrastructure across the region; (2) enhancing the interoperability of public 
services; (3) digitalising businesses; and (4) developing digital skills. 
In 2022, five measures with digital transformation as principal objective were adopted: 

o 

the annual action plan in favour of Türkiye (employment, education, social policies 
and health action); 

105 

 
 
  
o 

o 

the annual action plan in favour of North Macedonia (EU for improved border and 
migration  management,  EU  for  modern  public  administration,  EU  for  improved 
health, social protection and gender equality); 
the  annual  action  plan  in  favour  of  Bosnia  and  Herzegovina  (EU4  public 
administration  reform  increased  administrative  capacity,  EU4  public  finance 
management). 

−  Digitalisation  and  the  digital  transition  are  an  important  part  of  the  common  regional  market 
action plan, which aims to create a regional digital area focusing on roaming, digital skills, the 
digital  economy,  the  recognition  of  electronic  signatures  and  other  forms  of  electronic 
identification, and the protection of data. This was the most important part of IPA III’s digital 
contribution  in  2021  and  2022.  Digital  has  also  been  recognised  as  an  enabler  and  has  been 
integrated as a component in measures across different sectors. 

DOAG - Contribution to horizontal priorities 

Contribution to green budgeting priorities (million EUR): 

Implementation 

Estimates 

2021 

2022 

2023 

2024 

2025 

2026 

2027 

Total 
contri
bution 

% of the 
2021–2027 
budget 

0.0 

50.3 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

50.3 

10% 

0.0 

0.0 

2.1 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

2.1 

0.4% 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0% 

Climate 
mainstream
ing  

Biodiversity 
mainstreami
ng  

Clean air  

–  The  Green  Deal  is  pivotal  to  the  new  EU–OCT  cooperation.  The  DOAG,  with  its 
EUR 500 million  envelope  for  2021-2027,  sets  specific  targets  on  priority  areas  of  mutual 
interest, such as climate change and biodiversity. Spending targets for climate action (25%) and 
biodiversity (7.5% in 2024, 10% in 2026-2027) are therefore included. 

–  Given  the  vulnerabilities  of  the  OCTs  as  islands,  the  major  sectors  of  intervention  under  the 
11th European Development Fund for the 2014-2020 period included the environment, climate 
change  and  sustainable  energy.  For  2021-2027,  the  Green  Deal  has  even  emerged  as  a  key 
priority  of  EU–OCT  cooperation.  Most  (9  out  of  12)  bilateral  multiannual  indicative 
programmes have a strong Green Deal focus (Bonaire, Curaçao, French Polynesia, Greenland, 
New  Caledonia,  Saba,  Saint  Barthélemy,  Sint  Eustatius,  Sint  Maarten),  along  with  the  three 
regional  multiannual  indicative  programmes  (Indian  Ocean,  Pacific  and  Caribbean).  Around 
40% of the overall resources will be mobilised for Green Deal cooperation, such as renewable 
energy, water, disaster risk reduction, sustainable agriculture and green growth. 

–  In 2021, the Greenland annual action programme and support initiatives were committed. They 
did  not  include  markers  on  biodiversity  or  climate  change.  In  2022,  seven  initiatives  were 
committed with positive climate coefficients. 

106 

 
 
 
 
 
 
–  The  2022  implementing  initiatives  for  French  Polynesia,  New  Caledonia,  Saba,  Saint 
Barthélemy,  Sint  Eustatius  and  Saint  Pierre  and  Miquelon  will  contribute  to  the  climate  and 
biodiversity targets.  

–  In French Polynesia, the programme (EUR 31.1 million) aims, among other things, to preserve 
and  restore  ecosystems  and  biodiversity  and  to  better  monitor,  report  on  and  prevent  water 
pollution.  The  initiative  will  contribute  to  protecting  the  environment  and  biodiversity  and  to 
adapting to climate change through the more efficient use of water. 

–  In  Greenland,  the  multiannual  indicative  programme’s  second  priority  area –  green  growth 
(EUR 22.5 million) – will support in particular the extension of a renewable energy supply, to 
ensure  that  the  economic  development  of  the  island  is  sustainable  and  as  carbon  neutral  as 
possible. Also in line with the Green Deal and climate adaptation goals is its second goal, the 
protection  of  biodiversity,  as  Greenland’s  flora  and  fauna  is  particularly  affected  by  climate 
change in the Arctic region, and is heating up more quickly than the rest of the planet. Lastly, as 
Greenland is an important territory in which to study climate dynamics, the support for research 
coordination also provided for in this priority area will contribute to a better understanding of 
challenges.
the 

related 

–  In New Caledonia, the programme (EUR 30.9 million) aims to green the mining sector, develop 
decarbonised mobility and develop the sustainability and resilience of the territory. Therefore, 
the  direct  and  indirect  results  of  the  programme  will  contribute  to  the  fight  against  climate 
change and will foster environmental protection. 

–  A clean-energy transition with climate mitigation as the principal objective will be the focus of 
the  2021-2027 
(EUR 4.1 million,  budget  support, 
implementation  will  start  in  2023),  and  the  multiannual  programme  for  Sint  Maarten 
(EUR 7.7 million) also focuses on the renewable energy transition. 

territorial  cooperation  with  Saba 

–  Saint Barthélemy’s budget support programme for disaster risk management (EUR 2.5 million), 
is  interlinked  with  climate  adaptation.  The  EU’s  support  in  this  sector  will  contribute  to 
developing integrated risk reduction management in Saint Barthélemy, but also, more broadly, 
to the island asserting its role as a leader and main trusted partner in the fight against climate 
change in the Caribbean region, one of the region’s most vulnerable to its impacts. 

–  In  Saint  Pierre  and  Miquelon,  the  programme  (EUR 27 million)  aims  to  support  the 
development  of  sustainable  tourism.  Several  planned  initiatives  with  a  contribution  to  green 
priorities,  to  be  carried  out  by  the  territorial  collectivity,  are  in  hand.  The  forest  management 
plan  provides  for  the  protection  of  natural  areas  and  remarkable  sites.  Furthermore,  the 
territorial collectivity has developed a planning document for the sustainable development of the 
territory.  This  document  is  intended  to  both  address  the  risks  to  the  territory  and  protect  the 
biodiversity of the coastal zone. 

–  For  the  first  time,  sustainable  agriculture  was  selected  in  an  OCT,  in  Sint  Eustatius 
(EUR 2.9 million, budget support, implementation will start in 2023), instigated by the current 
disruptions in food supplies and the need to boost food security and increase the resilience of the 
island’s own food production (the Caribbean OCTs are highly dependent on food imports). The 
initiative will enhance food security in the face of climate change and biodiversity loss, reduce 
the island’s environmental and climate footprint and provide opportunities for local operators in 
the different segments of the food value chain. The action is fully aligned with the Green Deal 
(under the farm-to-fork strategy). 

107 

 
Contribution to gender equality (million EUR) (*): 

Gender score 

Score 2: 

Score 1: 

Score 0: 

Score 0*  

2021 

0.0 

60.0 

3.3 

0.0 

2022 

0.0 

67.6 

0.6 

0.0 

Total 

0.0 

127.6 

3.9 

0.0 

(*)  Based on the applied gender contribution methodology, the following scores are attributed at the most granular level of 

intervention possible: 

   2: interventions the principal objective of which is to improve gender equality; 

   1: interventions that have gender equality as an important and deliberate objective but not as the main reason for 

the intervention; 

   0: non-targeted interventions (interventions that are expected to have no significant bearing on gender equality); 
–  0*: score to be assigned to interventions with a likely but not yet clear positive impact on gender equality.While 
there  was  no  specific  target  set  for  the  2014-2020  EU–OCT  cooperation  concerning  gender 
equality,  care  will  continue  to  be  taken  to  ensure  that  all  cooperation  programmes  include  a 
focus  on gender  equality.  Indeed, the DOAG programme explicitly  states that gender equality 
should be mainstreamed into all initiatives as a key contribution to the successful achievement 
of the SDGs. Consequently, all new initiatives aim to ensure that gender aspects are considered 
to the best extent possible, notably through sex-disaggregated data. 

–  OCTs  being  Member  State  territory,  they  are  subject  to  the  respective  national  legislation, 
which includes the progressive application of EU legislation in this matter even though OCTs 
are not bound by the EU acquis. Therefore, no initiatives target gender equality specifically, but 
gender equality is mainstreamed in all new cooperation initiatives as a significant objective (G1 
marker), while there are no initiatives with gender equality as a main target (G2). 

–  French Polynesia (G1). Action regarding equitable access  to  water and to appropriate hygiene 
conditions responds to a crucial issue for the health of women and children. However, gender-
disaggregated data on access to water in French Polynesia does not yet exist. The gender issue 
in  connection  with  the  sustainable  management  of  water  will  mainly  be  raised  within  the 
framework  of  the  policy  dialogue.  The  action  will  also  support  the  production  of  sex-
disaggregated data. 

–  Greenland (G1). Cooperation on education has several indicators disaggregated by gender, and 
one of its specific objectives is increased equality in the education system, including on gender. 
Female  students  perform  particularly  well  in  upper  secondary  and  higher  education.  Young 
people  in  Greenland  face  the  specific  challenges  of  underperformance  by  male  students  and 
socio-psychological issues, along with gender-based violence. 

–  New Caledonia (G1). The energy sector is influenced by a set of persistent gender inequalities, 
which  can  be  summarised  as  gender  gaps  in  energy  access,  in  the  energy  labour  market,  in 
energy-related education and in decision-making in the energy sector. The EU initiative and the 
policy dialogue will help the policies arising from the programme to address these inequalities. 
Moreover, the initiative will also support the production of sex-disaggregated data. 

–  Saba (G1). Action on energy transition will support a more affordable, sustainable and reliable 
energy supply, and will foster gender equality (better access to energy by women). It also has a 

108 

 
gender-sensitive  indicator,  with  a  specific  strategy  for  the  sector  to  be  drafted  by  2025 
(supported by technical assistance). 

–  Saint  Barthélemy  (G1).  Cooperation  on  risk  management  has  a  gender-related  goal  (public 

policy documents taking gender into consideration). 

–  Saint  Eustatius  (G1).  Cooperation  in  the  field  of  sustainable  agriculture,  promoting  a  gender-
sensitive  agricultural-sector  policy  framework  and  minimum  gender  targets  for  the  funding 
scheme. Infrastructure outputs require a gender-sensitive analysis. 

–  Saint-Pierre  and  Miquelon  (G1).  The  territorial  government  is  committed  to  implementing 
several  initiatives  for  the  careers  of  young  women  and  men  in  the  territory,  in  particular  e-
training  courses.  This  training  contributes  to  the  better  integration  of  women  into  the  labour 
market. Moreover, the EU initiative will support the production of sex-disaggregated data and 
gender analysis relating  to the sector. It will also seek to build the capacity of stakeholders in 
relation to the gender and human-rights approach. 

–  Support initiatives are driven by demand, therefore they do not specifically target gender issues 

and are scored at 0 in the above table. 

Contribution to the digital transition (million EUR): 

Digital contribution 

2021  

0.0 

2022  

11.8 

Total 

11.8 

% of the total 
2021-2022 
implementation 

9% 

–  During  the  2014-2020  period,  important  work  was  carried  out  on  digital  connectivity  with 

Wallis and Futuna (EUR 19.6 million) and Saint Helena (EUR 21.5 million).  

–  Under the DOAG programme, cooperation with  Aruba in  2021-2027 will prioritise the digital 
transformation  (e-government,  EUR 14.2 million).  Though  programming  is  finished,  the 
formulation of the implementing measure will take place in 2023, and implementation will only 
begin in 2024. The ongoing cooperation on education with Greenland includes the provision to 
extend  and  improve  the  use  of  digital  technologies  in  education,  for  instance  to  battle  the 
chronic  lack  of  qualified  teaching  staff  in  remote  locations.  The  government  launched  the 
evaluation of the information technology strategy in education in 2022, and is currently drafting 
in  2023. 
a  new  action  plan 

for  digital  and  distance 

learning, 

finalised 

to  be 

109 

 
 
 
Contribution of DOAG to the sustainable development goals 

SDG 

SDG1 

Does the programme 
contribute to the goal? 

yes 

SDG2 

yes 

SDG3 

yes 

Example 

With the COVID-19 pandemic and, more recently, high inflation 
and the global impact of the war in Ukraine on food supplies and 
food  security,  global  poverty  has  increased,  and  this  is  also  the 
case in the OCTs. As part of the EU’s global response to COVID-
19,  OCTs  benefited  from  reorientations  of  ongoing  programmes 
and  the  front-loading  of  budget  support  operations,  as  well  as 
mobilising all remaining funds from the B-envelope (emergency 
assistance),  to  the  total  amount  of  EUR 111 million.  This 
highlights  the  importance  for  the  EU–OCT  partnership  to 
continue the fight against inequalities and poverty (see also below 
on SDG 10). 

OCTs  share  particular  vulnerabilities,  resulting  in  a complex  set 
of food security and nutrition challenges. For 2021-2027, the EU 
will support sustainable agriculture, food security and nutrition in 
the  Pacific  region  (regional  multiannual  indicative  programme, 
(regional  multiannual 
EUR 36 million),  Caribbean  OCTs 
indicative  programme,  EUR 21 million)  and  in  Sint  Eustatius 
(EUR 2.9 million).  

The populations in the OCTs are highly dependent on the quality 
of resources and natural environments. Indeed, the latter provide 
a  large  part  of  the  population  with  essential  services  such  as 
means  of  subsistence  and  a  vector  of  well-being.  The  regional 
Pacific  multiannual  indicative  programme  (EUR 36 million)  is 
expected  to  promote  sustainable  and  healthy  food  consumption, 
and  to  ensure  that  citizens  are  better  informed  to  make  healthy 
and sustainable choices. It is planned that the regional Caribbean 
multiannual 
(EUR 21 million)  will 
strengthen food and nutrition security through the development of 
sustainable and resilient local food value chains. 

indicative  programme 

Over  60%  of  the  population  of  Wallis  and  Futuna  suffer  from 
obesity and  other related  health  conditions  (diabetes, gout,  etc.). 
However,  the  local  offer  of  treatments  is  limited.  People  with 
serious conditions often need to go to New Caledonia, Australia, 
or even France for consultations and treatments. The EU budget 
support  under 
the  11th  European  Development  Fund  of 
EUR 19.6 million  (with  a  EUR 0.56 million  top-up  for  COVID-
19  support)  helped  to  finance  the  territory’s  connection  to  the 
TUISAMOA  digital  cable  and  to  introduce  broadband.  This 
‘digital  revolution’  enabled  the  Health  Agency  to  develop  its 
telemedicine  capabilities  aiming  at  improving  prevention,  early 
detection and treatment of many diseases. 

110 

 
 
SDG4 

yes 

Access  to  quality  education  fosters  equality  and  is  an  essential 
pre-condition  for  achieving  sustainable  growth  and  jobs.  This  is 
the  rationale  of  one  of  the  two  priority  areas  of  EU  cooperation 
with  Greenland  2021-2027.  EUR 202.5 million  is  earmarked  for 
education  cooperation  in  Greenland.  This  will  contribute  to 
increase  the  quality,  the  access  and  the  efficiency  of  the 
territory’s  education  system,  which  is  facing  a  number  of 
complex  challenges  (lack  of  skilled  staff,  geography,  social 
issues). For instance, the rate of students staying in education, and 
the completion rates have recently shown a positive trend, and a 
number of institutional and policy changes are making progress. 

individuals,  and 

facilitating  mobility  of 

Through  the  Erasmus+  programme,  the  EU  also  supports  OCTs 
in 
reinforcing 
intercultural  dialogue  and  understanding.  OCT  participation  has 
more than doubled since 2018, in the number of both projects and 
beneficiaries.  From  87  projects  with  41  beneficiaries  (total 
EUR 3.2 million) in 2018, participation grew to 177 projects and 
95 beneficiaries (EUR 5.5 million) in 2020. 

SDG5 

yes 

Gender equality is a cross cutting issue of EU OCT cooperation. 
All  new  initiatives  include  gender-sensitive  indicators  and  sex-
disaggregated  data  whenever  possible.  Climate  resilience, 
renewable  energy  development,  water  and  sanitation  are  all 
crucial for gender equality.  

equality. 

translating 

In  2022, 

fostered  equality, 

The  education  programme  in  Greenland  is  a  good  example  on 
including  on  gender. 
how  EU  action 
Greenland’s education policy, which the EU supports since 2007, 
aims  to  create  a  more  equal  and  inclusive  society,  advancing 
gender 
the  Commission  disbursed 
to  EUR 12 million  for  gender 
EUR 30 million, 
equality in a G1 action (gender equality as an important, but not 
principal  objective).  In  fact,  female  students  and  pupils  tend  to 
outperform  their  male  counterparts  (e.g.  having  an  eleven 
percentage  points  higher  transition  rate  to  upper  secondary 
education). Educational attainment and participation of girls and 
women  has  been  consistently  high,  with  65%  and  64%  of 
enrolments  and  completions  in  upper  secondary  education. 
Women outperform men even more in higher education (72% of 
completions  for  all  diplomas,  all  numbers  for  2020).  Enrolment 
and  completion  of  vocational  education  are  more  equally 
distributed between genders (49% and 50% respectively in 2020). 

111 

 
SDG6 

yes 

SDG7 

yes 

As  part  of  the  broader  EU  support  for  access  to  water  and 
sanitation,  interventions  relating  to  the  construction  of  water 
collection  systems  and  of  treatment  facilities  contribute  to 
delivery on SDG 6. This will be the focus of the new cooperation 
Bonaire 
(EUR 31.1 million), 
with 
(EUR 4.6 million) and Curaçao (EUR 18.6 million).  

Polynesia 

French 

In  French  Polynesia,  the  programme  will  contribute  to  the 
achievement  of  sustainable  development  objectives  aiming  at 
guaranteeing  access  to  drinking  water  and  sanitation  while 
ensuring an integrated management of water resources in the face 
of climate change constraints. 

In  Bonaire  and  Curaçao,  the  population  and  economic  growth 
(notably linked to the tourism sector) led to increased production 
of wastewater and solid waste and more pressure on ecosystems. 
improve  water 
The  programmes  will 
management and increase access to sustainable sanitation.  

therefore  aim 

to 

energy 

 Sustainable 
Caledonia 
transition 
(EUR 30.9 million),  Saba  (EUR 4.1 million)  and  Sint  Maarten 
(EUR 7.7 million).  

in  New 

In  New  Caledonia,  the  programme  will  contribute  to  the 
decarbonisation of the mining industry, which is the lungs of the 
economy  and responsible for  77%  of  the territory’s  total  energy 
consumption.  Furthermore,  New  Caledonia  aims  at  energy 
autonomy  for  the  territory,  based  on  reliable,  decarbonised, 
resilient and affordable energy. 

The  programme  in  Saba  will  accelerate  the  transition  to  a  low 
carbon economy building on in the 11th European Development 
Fund action which substantially improved the energy mix of Saba 
with 40% of renewable energy produced. More action is needed 
to  increase  the  share  of  renewable  energy  in  the  global  energy 
mix (objective of 60% production by 2025) and energy efficiency 
(with  the  launch  of  a  programme  to  promote  the  use  of  LED 
technologies and solar water heaters).  

In Greenland the cooperation aims at increasing the percentage of 
renewable energy in the public electricity provision to 90%, and 
there are initiatives to reduce the carbon footprint of current and 
future economic developments.  

112 

 
SDG8 

yes 

SDG9 

yes 

The  EU  envisaged  support  2021-2027  to  sustainable  tourism 
(Saint  Pierre  and  Miquelon,  EUR 27 million),  green  growth 
(Greenland,  EUR 22.5 million),  sustainable  agriculture  (Sint 
Eustatius,  EUR 2.9 million) 
(Aruba, 
towards  sustained 
EUR 14.2 million)  will  drive  progress 
economic growth, full employment and decent work.  

e-government 

and 

In  Saint  Pierre  and  Miquelon,  the  programme  will  contribute  to 
the  sustainable  economic  diversification  of  the  territory,  relying 
on the potential and multiplier effect for sustainable growth of the 
tourism sector. It will reinforce the attractiveness of the territory 
bringing  decent  jobs  and  new  opportunities,  including  for  local 
youth and women.  

organisation, 

For 2021-2027 the EU will team up with Aruba to implement its 
the  building  of  an  e-
e-government-strategy.  This  entails 
and 
development 
an 
government 
implementation,  national  cyber  security  development  and  the 
creation  and  implementation  the  national  digital  payments 
infrastructure.  Aruba’s  digital  transformation  will  contribute  to 
secure the digital access to government services and unlock new 
economic opportunities for all, including women and youth. 

e-ID 

In  Greenland,  the  EU  is  supporting  initiatives  to  make  the 
territory’s  natural  riches  more  accessible  to  foreign  tourists  in  a 
manner 
the  unique 
is  sustainable  and  respectful  of 
environment, while supporting local populations.  

that 

Since  2019  the  EU  is  boosting  through  a  EUR 13.05 million 
programme  (11th  European  Development  Fund)  the  capacity  of 
the  University  of  Aruba.  To  this  end,  the  EU  also  collaborated 
with the University of Leuven. The focus of the programme was 
put  on  science,  technology,  engineering  and  mathematics  to 
enhance teaching (at bachelor’s and master’s levels) and research 
(at PhD level). A new faculty has been set up, including research 
facilities  and  laboratories  that  comply  with  the  European 
Qualifications  Framework.  This  action  will  contribute  to  boost 
innovation skills and partnerships between research and industries 
in Aruba.  

In  Greenland,  the  ongoing  programme  for  education  includes  a 
goal  of  including  more  innovative  skills  in  the  curriculum, 
formulation of which is under way. 

113 

 
SDG10 

yes 

SDG11 

yes 

SDG12 

yes 

the 

The  focus  of  our  past  territorial  cooperation  (9th  and  10th 
European  Development  Fund)  was  on  urban  infrastructures 
(mainly  street 
lighting,  paved  streets  as  well  as  sewage 
infrastructures) in the most deprived neighbourhoods of Curaçao. 
These  programmes  were  very  well  received  with  a  strong 
ownership  of 
local  neighbourhood 
inhabitants  and 
organisations. Our joint cooperation has resulted in important and 
sustainable  impacts  by  strongly  improving  the  quality  lives  of 
poor  inhabitants,  which  represent  1/3  of  the  population  of  the 
island.  The  ongoing  11th  European  Development  Fund 
programme on resilient infrastructures of EUR 16.95 million and 
the  new  programme  for  2021-2027  on  water  and  sanitation  of 
EUR 18.6 million  will  continue  to  eliminate  the  inequalities  in 
access basic infrastructure notably for clean water and sanitation. 

In  Greenland,  inequality  is  tackled  with  the  improved  access  of 
all  children  to  pre-school  education,  which  lays  the  ground  for 
future economic security independent of starting conditions. 

to  growing  up 

An  important  part  of  Bonaire’s  young  population  faces  social 
in  vulnerable  single-parent 
hardship  due 
households.  For this reason,  the  EU  joined  hands  to build  better 
social  and  developmental  prospects  for  children  in  this  Dutch 
Overseas  Country  and  Territory  in  the  Caribbean.  Youth 
empowerment  is  at  the  heart  of  the  EU-  Bonaire  partnership 
agenda.  The  11th  European  Development  Fund  budget  support 
programme of EUR 3.95 million advanced well with the setting-
regulation  and  comprehensive  child 
up  of  a  childcare 
development centres. 

the  circular  economy 

The EU envisaged support 2021-2027 to Bonaire and Curaçao on 
water  management  and  sanitation  will  aim  to  expand  the 
application  of 
resources 
management,  as  a  mechanism  to  achieve  greater  environmental 
and  health  protection  (via  increased  sanitation  coverage  and 
greater  wastewater  treatment  capacities  as  well  as  reuse  of 
wastewater resources). 

in  water 

114 

 
SDG13 

yes 

The  OCTs  are  especially  vulnerable  to  climate  change  and 
environmental  degradation  due  to  their  geographical  locations 
and  characteristics.  The  ongoing  all-OCT  thematic  programme 
green  overseas  and  the  Caribbean,  Indian  Ocean  and  Pacific 
regional  programmes  (for  a  total  of  EUR 97.8 million)  from  the 
11th  European  Development  Fund  are  all  dedicated  to  ensuring 
the  sustainable  use  of  natural  resources,  protecting  biodiversity 
and  supporting  climate  initiatives  and  resilience,  showing  the 
vital  importance  of  these  areas  to  all  OCTs.  The  regional 
initiatives  under  the  DOAG  (EUR 36 million  for  the  Pacific 
OCTs,  EUR 21 million 
and 
EUR 4 million for the French Southern and Antarctic Lands) will 
build on these achievements.  

the  Caribbean  OCTs 

for 

EU support to protect biodiversity will continue to be the priority 
area  for  cooperation  with  the  French  Southern  and  Antarctic 
Lands  in  2021-2027  (EUR 4 million).  This  will  build  on  the 
ongoing  Indian  Ocean  regional  programme  (EUR 4 million) 
which  aims  at  improving  the  surveillance  and  observation  of 
terrestrial  and  marine  ecosystems  in  the  French  Southern  and 
Antarctic  Lands,  restoring  ecosystems  and  reinforcing  impact 
prevention  mechanisms.  The  programme  2021-2027  for  Saint-
Barthélemy  (EUR 2.5 million)  will  also  support  disaster  risk 
management and climate adaptation. 

In  addition,  the  on-going  BEST  Initiative  has  helped  OCTs  to 
promote  the  EU’s  environmental  standards  and  provided  an 
incentive  for  local  actors  to  engage  in  environmental  initiatives. 
The  new  LIFE  programme  2021-2027  will  continue  to  scale  up 
the  initiatives  in  OCTs  on  biodiversity  and  nature  conservation. 
All these programmes focus therefore on translating SDG 13, 14 
and  15  into  effective  results  on  the  ground  and  will  prepare  the 
work for the future.  

SDG14 

SDG15 

yes 

yes 

Same as SDG13 

Same as SDG13 

115 

 
SDG16 

yes 

SDG17 

yes 

All  EU-funded  initiatives  in  the  OCTs  intend  to  reinforce  the 
capacity, the accountability and inclusiveness of their institutions. 

Budget support is generally a preferred implementation modality 
for  OCTs’  territorial  allocations.  It  is  an  efficient  way  of 
addressing long-term and structural challenges, of improving the 
performance and accountability of administrations while focusing 
on the  effective achievement of results of territorial policies and 
of  maintaining  a  constructive  policy  dialogue.  Practice  confirms 
that this modality provides satisfactory results in OCTs through a 
high  level  of  appropriation  from  local  authorities.  This  is  also 
supported  via  a  specific  instrument,  the  Technical  Cooperation 
Facility, that OCTs have access to. 

As  an  example,  the  territory  of  Saint  Pierre  and  Miquelon 
benefited from a public finance management assessment, funded 
by  the  facility,  which,  was  finalised  in  2022.  As  a  result  of  the 
assessment,  a  plan  for  the  improvement  and  modernisation  of 
public  finances  for  the  2023-2026  period  has  been  prepared  by 
the  local  authorities.  This  document  serves  as  a  basis  for 
assessing the Territorial Authority’s progress.  

The  special  relationship  between  the  EU and  the  OCTs  is  based 
on the association of the OCTs with the EU, which constitutes a 
partnership.  This  principle  of  partnership  is  embedded  in  the 
DOAG  programme,  which  is  the  framework  for  political  and 
policy dialogue and cooperation on issues of common interest.  

Recently, the partnership has been further reinforced by including 
dedicated cooperation on youth engagement. A new initiative of 
over  EUR 560 000  funded  by  the  OCT  Technical  Facility,  the 
OCT Youth Network, was launched in July 2022 by the EU with 
the  aim  of  increasing  the  ties  between  young  people  living  in 
OCTs  and  the  EU,  and  of  enhancing  the  knowledge  and 
involvement of young people in the EU–OCT partnership. 

116 

 
 
 
Contribution of INSC to horizontal priorities 

Contribution to green budgeting priorities (million EUR): 

Implementation 

Estimates 

2021 

2022 

2023 

2024 

2025 

2026 

2027 

Total 
contri
bution 

% of the 
2021–2027 
budget 

0.0 

3.7 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

3.7 

1% 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0% 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0% 

Climate 
mainstream
ing  

Biodiversity 
mainstreami
ng  

Clean air  

–  The amount committed under climate mainstreaming relates to the environmental remediation 
programme in central Asia (Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan), aiming at cleaning up and restoring former 
uranium legacy sites. 

Contribution to gender equality (million EUR) (*): 

Gender score 

Score 1 

Score 0:  

2021 

34.3 

3.3 

2022 

35.9 

2.6 

Total 

70.2 

5.9 

(*)  Based on the applied gender contribution methodology, the following scores are attributed at the most granular level of 

intervention possible: 

   2: interventions the principal objective of which is to improve gender equality; 

   1: interventions that have gender equality as an important and deliberate objective but not as the main reason for 

the intervention; 

   0: non-targeted interventions (interventions that are expected to have no significant bearing on gender equality); 

   0*: score to be assigned to interventions with a likely but not yet clear positive impact on gender equality. 

–  The INSC continues to promote gender equality through its training, tutoring and education programme, 
where  the  participation  of  partner  countries  is  conditional  upon  the  gender-balanced  registration  of 
students. 

– 

In 2022, 22 students followed the master’s course in European leadership for safety education financed 
by the INSC, 11 of whom were women, and 26 followed the master’s course in nuclear safeguards, 12 of 
women.
were 
whom 

Contribution to the digital transition (million EUR): N/A 

117 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Contribution of INSC to sustainable development goals 

SDG 

SDG1 

SDG2 

SDG3 

SDG4 

SDG5 

SDG6 

SDG7 

SDG8 

SDG9 

SDG10 

SDG11 

SDG12 

SDG13 

SDG14 

SDG15 

SDG16 

SDG17 

Does the programme 
contribute to the goal? 

Example 

No 

No 

No 

No 

Yes 

No 

No 

No 

No 

No 

Yes 

No 

No 

No 

No 

Yes 

No 

Almost half of the students benefitting from training and 
education are women (EUR 1.6 million). 

Environmental remediation in central Asia provides a safer 
environment to the local population (EUR 4.8 million). 

Regulatory authorities are strengthened in beneficiary 
countries (EUR 11 million). 

118 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX V. STAKEHOLDERS CONSULTATION - SYNOPSIS REPORT  

The stakeholder consultation for the evaluation of the EFIs began in August 2022 and came to an 
end  in  September  2023.  The  majority  of  the  consultation  activities  took  place  during  the  Open 
Public Consultation in the 1st half of 2023. As highlighted in the Call for Evidence and in line with 
the  consultation  strategy  endorsed  by  the  Interservice  Steering  Group,  the  consultation  approach 
involved collecting input from a wide range of stakeholders on the EFIs. 

1.  Call for Evidence 

The consultation process began with the publication of the evaluation Call for Evidence, which was 
published on the European Commission “Have Your Say” website in  August 2022 under the title 
“Financing for European action outside EU borders”. As per the Better Regulation guidelines, the 
aim of the Call for Evidence 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  on  the 
Call for Evidence. 

2.  Open Public Consultations 

The objective of the public consultation, which took place from 31 March to 23 June 2023 (open for 
12  weeks),  was  to  gather  stakeholders’  views  and  experience  on  the  EU’s  External  Financing 
Instruments for the 2014-2020 and 2021-2027 multiannual financial  frameworks in the context of 
their ongoing evaluation. The open public consultation targeted all types of stakeholders, including 
citizens. The questionnaire was divided into two parts: the first and more general part was intended 
for  the  general  public  and  the  second  and  more  technical  ‘expert’  part  was  aimed  at  stakeholders 
with specific knowledge of EU external cooperation (e.g., development agencies, non-governmental 
organisations and public authorities). The public consultation questionnaire consisted  of 8 general 
questions and 14 expert questions. The questions were available in five languages (English, French, 
German, Portuguese,  and Spanish) and replies could have been  provided in  any of the 24 official 
EU languages. Respondents could also upload a document if they wished to develop their replies in 
detail. The summary report on the results of the consultation has been published on the “Have Your 
Say” website and it provides an overview of the received contributions. 

3.  Targeted Consultations 

Targeted consultations took place April and May 2023 through various dedicated meetings aimed at 
gathering  the  views  of  specific  types  of  stakeholders  on  the  EFIs.  In  the  context  of  targeted 
consultations,  EU  Member  States  experts,  development  agencies  of  the  EU  Member  States,  civil 
society  (CSO)  and  local  authorities  (LA)  networks  and  platforms,  Development  Financial 
Institutions, and the United Nations were consulted through dedicated meetings. 

The views of relevant stakeholders are summarised below.  

Consultation with Member States experts  

•  NDICI-Global Europe 

Member States agreed that having one instrument is an improvement in providing more predictable 
and holistic view of the EU external cooperation.  

119 

 
 
Member  States  agreed  also  that  the  coherence  of  the  EU  external  financing  instruments  has 
improved under the  current  multiannual  financial framework (MFF) thanks to  the streamlining of 
separate  instruments  into  NDICI-Global  Europe.  However,  they  also  pointed  to  the  differences 
within  the  instrument  regarding  the  Neighbourhood  region  in  comparison  to  the  other  regions 
covered  by  NDICI-Global  Europe  that  also  translates  into  different  approaches  and  working 
methods. They called for a closer involvement of Council and in particular the NDICI sub-group of 
CODEV-PI, in order to provide thorough strategic steer. 

Member States also shared their views on whether NDICI-Global Europe has proven to be flexible 
enough  to  respond  to  crisis  and  changing  geopolitical  context.  They  acknowledged  increased 
flexibility,  notably  thanks  to  the  emerging  challenges  and  priorities  cushion,  however  shared 
concerns regarding its relatively quick depletion. 

Finally, Member States acknowledged that NDICI-Global Europe is a policy-driven instrument and 
that targets and ‘geographisation’ bring value in this regard, however sufficient resources should be 
provided for regional programmes as well. They consider that targets are a good way to balance the 
geographisation  and  ensure  thematic  steering.  Targets  also  put  into  perspective  the  commitments 
achieved, however they must be monitored in real time.  

Member  States  considered  that  the  instrument  has  proven  to  be  adequate  and  useful  despite  such 
challenges as COVID-19 and the Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine.   

•  Decision on the Overseas Association, including Greenland (DOAG) 

Member States agreed that the coherence of EU cooperation with the OCTs under the DOAG has 
been  strengthened  after  merging  the  former  Greenland  and  OAD  decisions.  Member  States 
considered  that  DOAG  has  proven  to  be  sufficiently  flexible  in  its  objectives  and  sectors  of 
cooperation to be able to respond to the challenges of all OCTs.  

•  European Instrument for International Nuclear Safety Cooperation (INSC) 

Member States found that the EU still has a strong comparative advantage in working with partner 
countries  in  the  area  of  nuclear  safety.  They  confirmed  their  commitment  to  this  instrument  and 
acknowledged its useful mission in the current global context. Member States agreed that there is 
sufficient level of complementarity between INSC, NDICI-Global Europe and IPA III. 

•  European Fund for Sustainable Development Plus (EFSD+) 

Member States agreed that, despite its early stage, EFSD+ can be used to catalyse cooperation with 
development  financial  institutions  and  boost  financial  flows  towards  investment  in  EU’s  partner 
countries.  Member  States  considered  EFSD+  as  a  policy  driven  modality  and  agreed  that  it  must 
follow  the  objectives,  priorities  and  targets  of  NDICI  –  GE  and  contribute  to  other  geopolitical 
initiatives such as Global Gateway or Team Europe Initiatives. Member States agreed that EFSD+ 
could  improve  the  capacity  of  the  EU  to  attract  and  support  investment  in  partner  countries, 
however shared concerns about functioning of EFSD+ in difficult contexts, especially in LDCs. 

•  Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance (IPA III) 

Member States  welcomed the instrument’s thematic approach  while noting that it was  early in  its 
implementation.  Member  States  also  pointed  out  to  the  bottlenecks  caused  by  the  weak 

120 

 
administrative and absorption capacities of the beneficiaries. They called for a deeper discussion on 
the operationalisation of the conditionality mechanism foreseen in the instrument and stressed the 
importance  of  involving  CSOs.  Member  States  agreed  that  IPA  III  should  not  include  new 
candidate and potential candidate countries at this stage. 

Consultation with Member States development agencies (Practitioners’ Network) 

NDICI-Global Europe 

•  Streamlining of instruments into NDICI-Global Europe: 

Member  States  agencies  welcomed  simplification  that  single  instrument  has  brought,  however 
stressed that the interplay between geographic, global and thematic elements on the ground is not 
always clear. Also, different processes still coexist on similar issues. There are also differences on 
programming in Africa (Sub Saharan Africa vs. North Africa) notably on issues like migration and 
there  is  lack  of  coordination  between  national  and  regional  actions  (e.g.  on  TEIs  or  migration 
corridors). 

•  Geographisation and policy first: 

Member States agencies welcomed geographisation principle, however they highlighted the need to 
strengthen interlinkages between global, regional and country-level actions. Member State agencies 
welcomed also policy first principle, highlighting the need to better link policy and implementation 
and  to  recognise  role  of  partner  countries  in  that  process  to  ensure  ownership.  When  it  comes  to 
policy  first  in  the  EFSD+  context,  Member  States  agencies  concluded  that  it  is  still  too  early  to 
provide comments.  

•  Team Europe and Global Gateway: 

Team Europe approach is largely seen as a step towards improving joint implementation approach 
as  it  allows  Member  States  agencies  to  align  with  the  EU  action.  However,  there  is  a  need  to 
strengthen  coordination  and  communication  flow  in  particular  at  country  level.  Member  States 
agencies also called for operationalisation of joint intervention logics by joint teams to avoid having 
multiple contracts as this would help cutting transaction costs. 

•  Flexibility  

Emerging  challenges  and  priorities  cushion  was  also  brought  up  in  the  discussion  and  Member 
States  agencies  called  for  closer  dialogues  between  the  Commission  and  the  Council.  They  also 
recalled the flexibility of trust funds under the previous MFF where agencies could propose actions 
which were quickly approved and stressed that currently the level of flexibility is not the same. 

 IPA II and IPA III 

Member  States  agencies  welcomed  the  new  approach  in  IPA  III.  The  new  IPA  III  instrument 
contributes  to  more  flexibility  and  efficiency,  noting,  however,  programming  under  the  new 
approach  is  less  predictable  and  more  dependent  on  political  factors.  At  the  same  time,  the  new 
approach  puts  a  healthy  pressure  on  the  beneficiaries’  governments  to  show  political  and  policy 
commitment. 

121 

 
 Consultation  with  civil  society  and  local  authorities’  organisations  (Policy  Forum  for 
Development) 

Feedback from civil society organisations 

NDICI-Global Europe 

Streamlining and geographisation 
CSOs welcome  the broad  instrument  but  the new regulation  brings extra complexity for the local 
actors, including  CSOs. Geographisation is  appreciated since it allows to  tailor responses to  local 
contexts  and  may  lead  to  more  meaningful  dialogue  between  the  EU  Delegations  and  CSOs. 
However, in practice access to geographic funds at country level is limited as call for proposals at 
country level are cumbersome and it seems there is a preference for indirect management, by which 
the  EU  delegates  management  of  funds  to  international  organisations  or  bilateral  development 
agencies from EU Member States. 

Funding for CSOs 

When  it  comes  to  CSOs  funding,  it  is  key  to  consider  local  contexts  to  operationalise  actions, 
especially  taking  into  account  shrinking  space  for  CSOs.  It  has  been  recalled  that  CSOs  are 
important for oversight and representation of citizens, therefore EU funding mechanisms for CSOs 
should capitalize on, and defend these roles of the CSOs. CSOs called also for closer and more open 
dialogue with the Delegations. 

IPA III 

The  IPA  III  programming  framework  and  its  articulation  with  NIPACs  that  submit  strategic 
responses  was  not  fully  clear  initially,  with  not  much  involvement  of  CSOs  early  on.  While 
programming  documents  should  be  co-drafted  with  the  beneficiaries,  local  authorities  should  be 
more  involved.    The  DG  NEAR  Guidelines for  EU  Support  to Civil  Society in  the  Enlargement 
Region  were  considered  an  important  document,  but  awareness  raising  is  needed,  especially  on 
monitoring of implementation. 

Feedback from local authorities’ organisations 

NDICI-Global Europe 

•  Geographisation and simplification 

Geographisation principle is bringing challenges to local authorities since the budgetary decisions 
have been decentralised and the decision makers at country level are not easily accessible to them. 
Simplification that NDICI-Global Europe has brought is appreciated since it allows the Delegations 
to  be  more  responsive  to  partner  countries’  priorities.  This  simplification  should  be  taken  further 
downstream to the modalities used to work with partners at country level. 

122 

 
  
 
 
•  Funding for local authorities 

There are concerns among local authorities organisations regarding the disappearance of dedicated 
budget line which should have been compensated by mainstreaming in the geographic programmes. 
However, there is a perceived lack of strategic priority setting by the Delegations, so this approach 
seems not to be properly implemented in practice and should be followed up by proper monitoring 
and tracking of geographic programmes.  

•  Team Europe and Global Gateway 

Local authorities recalled that they have a role to play in the consultation processes to support the 
Commission and wish to engage constructively in the rollout of Team Europe Initiatives and Global 
Gateway. Global Gateway is a great opportunity to channel infrastructural investment to the local 
level, in particular city level, however consultations have not yet reached local authorities’ level.   

Consultation with the UN organisations 

NDICI-Global Europe 

•  Geographisation 

UN  acknowledged  that  NDICI-Global  Europe  is  now  more  agile,  flexible  and  predictable  with 
reduced  administrative  complexities  and  increased  synergies.  In  terms  of  geographisation,  the 
change happens at the country-level and its impact is felt differently depending on the country. In 
this  context,  complementarity  with  the  regional  and  thematic  programmes  is  important,  even  if 
these  two  elements  have  decreased  in  size.  UN  highlighted  that,  as  a  highly  decentralised 
organisation,  they  understand  the  need  to  respond  to  local  priorities,  but  good  balance  should  be 
maintained  when  it  comes  also  to  responses  at  global  level.  With  too  much  country-level 
implementation,  global  issues,  e.g.  migration,  pandemics  and  climate  change  should  not  be  left 
behind.  

•  Migration 

On migration issues, UN stressed that the EU should strengthen a holistic approach to root-causes 
of  migration  and  to  labour  mobility  schemes.  In  particular,  there  is  a  need  for  balancing  the 
comprehensive  migration  policy  with  development  policy.  Evidence-based  approach  with  solid 
migration data is needed in order to make development cooperation more coherent and effective. 

•  Team Europe 

Team  Europe  approach  may  present  challenges  for  the  UN  as  being  seen  as  even  more  external 
partner.  Coordination  between  EU  and  Member  States  absorbs  way  more  attention  than 
coordination  with  other  partners.  Even  if  UN  can  be  a  better  implementing  partner  in  a  given 
context, the temptation and political pressure to engage with Member States will be high.  

IPA III 

UN  acknowledged  that  the  new  approach  under  IPA  III  is  the  most  significant  change  since  IPA 
instrument was first created. However, since the rollout of the IPA III was still at a very early stage, 

123 

 
 
more time was needed to evaluate the impact and provide meaningful comments. UN appreciated 
the  consultative  process  at  national  level  during  programming  and  is  keen  to  continue  such 
exchanges and the overall very good collaboration.  

Consultation with Development Financial Institutions (DFIs) 

•  Design of operations 

While DFIs acknowledged that the financial instruments in support of investment, i.e. blending of 
grants  and  loans  and  budgetary  guarantees  under  EFSD+,  have  manifested  the  added  potential  in 
opening policy dialogue in more difficult environments, they also noted a lack of flexibility in the 
design  of  operations.  Impactful  tailor-made  projects  would  require  more  targeted  funding.  It  has 
been argued that a full coverage of guarantees was necessary, especially in view of the limited risk 
appetite  in  fragile  /  less-developed  countries  (LDCs).  DFIs  also  called  for  more  clarity  on  the 
priority countries and sectors. Some DFIs emphasised the importance of local currency solutions to 
address policy priorities. On the type of instruments, the importance of blending (and hence grants) 
has been recalled as more suitable to certain contexts, compared to guarantees. 

•  Sovereign lending 

On  sovereign  lending,  DFIs  pleaded  for  a  broader  access  to  Investment  Window  1,  currently 
available exclusively to EIB, considering that involvement at state level is essential to deliver on the 
Global Gateway.  

•  Technical assistance 

Regarding  the  implementation  aspects,  DFIs  stressed  the  importance  of  technical  assistance  and 
called  for  greater  volume  to  cover  costs  beyond  the  implementation  period  as  shrinking  TA 
contributions  are  not  at  a  par  with  increasing  fees  and  policy  complexity.  They  also  asked  for  an 
increase in management fees.  

•  Contracting, monitoring and reporting 

DFIs  raised  the  issue  of  complexities  in  negotiating  contracts,  implementing  setbacks  and  the 
burden of reporting. Some suggested greater reliance on pillar assessments and proposed to approve 
operations at a programme level instead of on a transaction-by-transaction basis. DFIs also called 
for greater contribution in favour of joint facilities due to increased coordination needs. They also 
welcomed a common results monitoring framework, but emphasised that it was difficult to gauge 
the  impact  of  deploying  the  new  instruments  given  the  short  timescale,  and  argued  that  some 
reporting requirements are extremely heavy, particularly on small businesses. 

•  Team Europe  

On  policy  steering,  DFIs  mentioned  that  Team  Europe  Initiatives  (TEIs)  are  time  consuming  and 
requested a further streamlining of the approach. It has also been proposed to make a better use of 
the  EFSD+  tools  to  implement  concrete  and  compact  projects  with  a  view  to  contributing  to  the 
achievement  of  Sustainable  Development  Goals  (SDGs).  Some  DFIs  stressed  that  pushing  for 
operations with multiple lenders may be inadequate in certain contexts and even counterproductive 
vis-à-vis the achievement of policy objectives (notably higher risk markets or LDCs) as it adds too 
much complexity.  

124 

 
•  Pricing 

On pricing and risk, DFIs call for greater transparency, including through getting access to a pricing 
simulation model.  

•  Coordination and role of Delegations 

DFIs noted that there is a learning curve to take into account with the new financial instruments and 
that  greater  awareness  and  stronger  capacity  was  needed,  crucially  also  in  the  EU  Delegations 
(EUDELs).  DFIs  suggested  to  involve  EUDELs  early  in  the  process  to  provide  input  in  the 
origination  of  operations.  And  proposed  holding  quarterly  partnership  dialogues.  Some  DFIs  also 
raised concerns about  the time-consuming  and at  times incoherent  processing  by the Commission 
and suggested to revert to a central INTPA-NEAR blending and guarantee secretariat. DFIs noted 
that  Western  Balkan  Investment  Framework  (WBIF)  should  be  considered  as  a  good  practice, 
however acknowledged that it might not be a suitable model to apply on a global level. 

4.  Interviews 

Whilst the evaluation approach used by the external study maximised the use of available secondary 
information, great importance was given to collecting primary data through interviews. The external 
study report mentions that "the interviews were a critical source of evidence for the evaluation". 

The  external  evaluators  proceeded  to  a  stakeholders'  analysis  under  the  guidance  of  the  Inter-
Service  Steering  Group  that  steered  their  work.  Sampling  techniques  were  applied  to  ensure  a 
selective  approach  amongst  each  stakeholder  group,  given  the  many  thousands  of  stakeholders 
directly involved. 

The objectives of the interviews were to (i) address gaps in the documentation reviewed, (ii) better 
understand realities on the ground, especially through consultations with EUDs, and (iii) triangulate 
findings  especially  when  the  evidence  collected  was  based  on  internal  EU  documentation  and 
sources. 

The  external  study  team  conducted  over  340  semi-structured  interviews  with  more  than  350 
informants.  These  interviews  were  undertaken  progressively,  throughout  the  evaluation  phases 
leading to the draft evaluation report. 

All interview notes were included in an interview compendium. These notes and compendium have 
been treated as confidential by the external evaluators. The European Commission services have not 
had access to them. However, it is possible to assert that the external study has included numerous 
elements from those interviews in the report as sources quote Meeting Notes with the abbreviation 
MN. 

5.  Surveys 

One call for contributions and two surveys were conducted by the external study. 

EU Delegations/Offices – Call for contributions 
Call for contributions took place from 20 June to 11 July 2023 (open for 3 weeks) and targeted all 
EU  Delegations  and  Offices  in  EU  partner  countries.  The  aim  was  to  gather  EU  Delegations  and 

125 

 
 
 
Offices views and  experience on the EU’s External  Financing  Instruments  for the 2014-2020 and 
2021-2027 multiannual financial frameworks. The questionnaire consisted of six questions and was 
available in English. Replies from 64 EU Delegations and Offices were received. 

a)  Feedback from the EU Delegations 

Streamlining into one instrument 

•  Overall having one instrument is appreciated. Introduction of a single instrument simplifies 
the  working  environment  in  terms  of  systems,  processes  and  reporting  requirements. 
Further, the harmonisation of rules and procedures and reduces scope  for error and delays. 
These benefits will be more pronounced once EDF and EUTF programmes are phased out.  
•  Budgetisation  of  EDF  brings  more  coherence  in  all  external  financing  instruments,  and 

simplification of budgetary procedures. 

•  With one Instrument it is easier to have better overview at field level of all activities funded 

by EU. 

•  From an external communication point of view a single financing instrument is much easier 
to explain. It is also easier to communicate about strategic priorities in a coherent manner. 
•  Having  all  under  a  single  instrument  ensures  greater  coherence  of  interventions  across 

sectors and areas of cooperation. 

Disappearance of NAO  

•  A  perceived  benefit  of  NDICI-Global  Europe  is  the  end  of  the  NAO  system  which  was  a 
time-consuming fiction, since all the effective contractual and financial checks anyway were 
done at the Delegations level.  

•  Abandonment  of  the  NAO  function  has  brought  simplification  since  engagement  with 
national  authorities  goes  beyond  and  above  the  NAO  to  direct  exchanges  with  line 
ministries, and now is free of EDF administrative burden. 

•  Delinking  from  co-management  with  partner  countries  in  a  post-Cotonou  environment  is 
seen  as  positive  change.  Management  of  the  cooperation  concentrated  at  the  Delegation 
level  is  seen  as  an  advantage  since  in  many  cases  administrative  capacities  of  partner 
counties are weak and co-management was complicated and was often leading to delays.  
In  many  countries  authorities  are  used  to  having  NAO  which  have  lost  the  “gatekeeper 
position”  within  government.  In  some  countries  new  cells  are  created  to  ensure  higher 
political steer and enhanced inter-ministerial coordination. 

• 

Ownership and EU interests 

•  New  Instrument  has  brought  freedom  to  engage  in  promotion  of  EU  interests.  However, 
under NDCI-GE, cooperation offer tends to be more unilateral. While this meets the trend to 
give more importance to EU interest, reduced ownership can be a trap if it negatively affects 
implementation and policy dialogue.  

126 

 
 
 
  
•  NDICI-Global  Europe  allows  cooperation  to  better  respond  to  the  EU  priorities  in  the 
external  action,  among  other  via  leading  role  of  the  EU  in  the  programming  and 
implementation of the cooperation.  

Geographisation 

•  Having less thematic envelopes has facilitated a country-based approach. Complementarity 
of the three main pillars of the NDICI-Global Europe has been more evident and effective 
with the new instrument whereas in the past several instruments were used sometimes in a 
silos modus operandi (when not in competition). 
Integration of thematic instruments with geographic ones under a broad instrument allowed 
for  better  overview  at  Delegations 
level,  ensuring  more  complementarity,  easier 
coordination and follow-up of implementation. 

• 

•  The  opportunities  to  access  demand-driven  thematic  budget  lines  for  actions  in  sectors  of 
high  political  relevance  such  as  environment,  food  security,  local  authorities  are  however 
reduced. 

•  Geographic focus of thematic actions: the fact that work is done under a  broad instrument 
promotes the channelling of cooperation in through the Delegations, increasing their ability 
to leverage from actions that are being financed. 

Annuality 

•  Several Delegations flagged annuality as an issue making large size projects impossible to 
commit  in  one  go.  There  is  a  need  to  commit  funds  in  annual  tranches,  which  poses 
problems  of  continuity.  The  latter  can  be  smoothened  by  multiannual  action  plans.  The 
amounts finally committed depend on the budget voted every year.  

EFSD+ 

•  EFSD+  remains  largely  driven  by  DFIs  and  HQ.  EU  Delegations  are  consulted  on  the 
alignment of submitted PIPs with  their interest and priorities but insufficiently involved in 
the design, implementation and monitoring.  

•  Guarantees remain largely sub-utilized. Blending grants are still the favoured modality (by 

IFIs).  

•  EFSD+ is very work intensive and has big risks for EU visibility and for monitoring of use 

of EU funds. Role of Delegations is unclear and changes quickly.  

•  The  practice  of  taking  “haircuts”  from  bilateral  MIPs  to  replenish  the  EFSD+  is 
controversial  for  two  reasons:  it  is  misleading  vis-à-vis  partner  countries  and  their 
expectations about  available funds; it does not  provide any guarantee that the EFSD+ will 
support  EU  strategic  priorities  and  interests  in  the  country,  despite  the  best  efforts  of 
Delegations. 

Targets  

•  There  is  a  clear  vision  for  cross-cutting  priorities  such  as  migration,  climate  change, 
digitalisation,  inequality,  etc.  and  it  is  oriented  for  a  more  integrated  and  comprehensive 
programming process and strategic intervention within the priorities of the partner countries. 
•  However,  after  a  first  attempt  at  «  rationalisation  »  to  enhance  focus,  the  pressure  from 

various spendings targets could lead to fragmentation. 

127 

 
 
Programming 

•  Overall,  the  new  framework  has  positively  changed  the  programming  process,  especially 
due to the simplification of the instruments that make it clearer and easier to understand for 
partners.  There  has  been  a  positive  contribution  to  streamlining  and  reducing  the 
administrative processes required to programme and then implement. 

•  A more performance-based approach, with the mid-term review determining the allocation 
of  funds  for  the  second  half  of  the  MIP  period  is  welcome  and  can  help  foster  policy 
dialogue. 

•  The  programming  process  and  principles  of  “co-creation”  are  clear,  but  it  is  heavier  than 
before  to  manage  and  transaction  costs  have  increased  especially  for  a  small  Delegations 
with a small bilateral envelopes.   

NDICI-DOAG vs. EDF 

•  The  separation  between  NDICI  (covering  the  13  Pacific  Island  Countries)  and  DOAG 
(covering  the  French  OCTs)  has  made  it  more  difficult  to  develop  regional  programmes 
covering  the  entire  region.  This  is  particularly  true  in  the  areas  of  ocean  governance  and 
fisheries, both of which are of primordial interest in the Pacific. This problem did not occur 
in the past, when both groups of countries/territories were covered by the EDF. 

Foreign policy needs and priorities 

•  The addition of the Foreign Policy Needs as part of the Rapid Response Action is a positive 
development  as  in  the  previous  MFF  we  missed  a  tool  fully  devoted  to  supporting  EU 
foreign policy priorities in the short to medium term outside the context of CSDP, election 
observation and crisis response. 

Team Europe 

•  Cooperation in a Team Europe approach occurs at project level, contributing to the TEI, but 
also in some sectors outside of the TEI’s (gender, education and research as example). The 
guidelines  for  the  MIP  were  conducive  in  this  regard.  As  a  next  step,  MS  need  to  give  a 
strategic  importance  to  joint  strategizing  –  this  is  key  to  take  advantage  of  the  EU’s 
geostrategic potential, however implemented only to nascent degree. 
If EFSD+ could help in mobilizing EU private sector and technical knowledge, this would 
strengthen the TEI and GGs, but so far the approach seems rather about funding of general 
(guarantee) schemes, where it remains very unclear how this will be rolled out on the ground 
without strong in-country presence and know how. 

• 

•  Messaging related to Global Gateway (GG) and the Team Europe Initiatives (TEIs) vis-à-vis 

the governments and other development partners remains challenging. 

EU Delegations/Offices – Validation survey 

The objective of the EU Delegations, EU Offices and HQ survey, which took place from 11 August 
to  10  September  2023  (open  for  4  weeks),  was  to  validate  and  generalise  some  of  the  emerging 
findings on the EU’s External Financing Instruments for the MFF 2014-2020 and MFF 2021-2027.  

The survey targeted all EU Delegations and EU Offices and the HQ staff who had been interviewed 
during  the  evaluation.  In  total,  around  240  persons  were  contacted  to  reply  to  the  e-survey  –  91 

128 

 
 
 
from  EU HQ and around 130 from  EU Delegations  and EU Offices.  EU Delegations and Offices 
and HQ Units contacted were asked to provide at least one response per Delegation/Office/Unit.  

The questionnaire was structured around 5 subjects: i) EU cooperation priorities; ii) Efficiency; iii) 
Flexibility; iv) Team Europe and EU added value; and v) EU’s leverage. Respondents were asked to 
express  to  what  extent  they  agreed  with  some  statements  around  the  subjects,  formulated  on  the 
basis  of  the  information  previously  collected  by  the  team.  The  questionnaire  was  available  in 
English. 

Results of the survey were used to validate findings of the external study on which this evaluation is 
largely based. 

•  In-country stakeholder – Data Collection survey 

The  objective  of  the  partner  country  stakeholder  survey,  which  took  place  from  19  July  to  6 
September 2023 (open for 7 weeks), was to gather stakeholders’ views and experience on the EU’s 
External  Financing  Instruments  for 
the  2014-2020  and  2021-2027  multiannual  financial 
frameworks.  The  questionnaire  consisted  of  3  thematic  sections  with  a  total  of  10  questions.  The 
questionnaire  was  available  in  English.  In  total,  336  persons  in  the  17  sample  countries  were 
contacted  to  reply  to  the  e-survey.  92  stakeholders  responded  to  the  questionnaire  from  16 
countries. 

ANNEX VI. MONITORING, EVALUATION AND RESULTS  

1.  EU International Cooperation and Development Results Framework  

The EU International Cooperation and Development Results Framework (EURF) was introduced in 
2015.  It  aims  to  promote  accountability  by  collecting,  measuring  and  aggregating  key  results 
achieved at corporate level by interventions funded using the external financing instruments of EU 
international cooperation80. It aimed and still aims to: (i) be a communication tool for reporting on 
results;  (ii)  improve  practice  in  implementing  the  EU  development  policy;  and  (iii)  increase 
accountability and transparency. The list of indicators was structured around three levels of results. 

•  Level 1 corresponded to development progress of partner countries (impact level).  
•  Level  2  corresponded  to  outcomes  and  outputs  of  EU-funded  interventions  illustrating  the 

EU contribution to development progress in partner countries.  

•  Level  3  related  to  the  organisational  performance  of  the  Directorate-General  for 

International Partnerships (DG INTPA).  

80 A Revised EU International Cooperation and Development Results Framework in line with the Sustainable 
Development Goals of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and the New European Consensus on 
Development, SWD(2018) 444 final, page 3. 

129 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The EURF was revised in 2018 to align the framework with the developing context of international 
cooperation  at  EU  and  international  level.  The  aim  was  to  ensure  the  framework’s  continued 
relevance  in  supporting  effectiveness  and  efficiency  of  EU  international  development  assistance. 
Therefore,  the  2030  Agenda  for  Sustainable  Development  was  integrated,  using  Sustainable 
Development Goal (SDG) indicators to measure development results at country level. By doing so, 
progress was made towards a common approach to measuring and communicating the results of the 
EU  development  policy  and  that  of  its  Member  States.  The  revised  framework  incorporated  the 
objectives  of  communication,  management,  and  learning81.  The  EURF  should  also  facilitate  the 
pursuit  of  common  approaches  to  measuring  and  communicating  results  in  joint  programming. 
Moreover,  the  SDGs  provide  a  better  context  to  align  EU  action  with  that  of  other  stakeholders, 
including  not  only  Member  States  but  also  other  international  donors.  This  would  help  increase 
development effectiveness. The approach aimed to strengthen the role of the results framework as 
an  essential  aspect  of  the  architecture  that  supports  the  effective  implementation  and  consistent 
communication of the EU’s role towards achieving the SDGs in partner countries. 

The 2018 revised EURF maintained the broad three-level results structure of the 2015 framework: 
levels  1  and  2  were  not  changed  and  from  2018  onwards,  level  3  focuses  on  policy  priority 
mainstreaming  as  measured  by  budgetary  commitments  directed  towards  specific  priorities  (e.g., 
human development, gender, nutrition).  

2.  Results frameworks for external financing instruments 

NDICI-Global Europe  

Global Europe Results Framework 

Further changes to the EURF were needed to align it with: 

• 

• 

the  2020-2024  strategic  plans  of  Directorate  General  for  International  Partnerships  (DG 
INTPA),  the  Directorate-General  for  Neighbourhood  and  Enlargement  Negotiations  (DG 
NEAR) and the Service for Foreign Policy Instruments (FPI), drawn up under the political 
priority of ‘A stronger Europe in the world’ of the von der Leyen Commission; and 
the 2021-2027 multiannual financial framework (MFF), which includes the Neighbourhood, 
Development  and  International  Cooperation  Instrument  –  Global  Europe  (NDICI-Global 
Europe)82. 

The NDICI-Global Europe Regulation83 calls for ‘reinforced monitoring and reporting with a focus 
on results, covering outputs, outcomes and impacts in partner countries benefiting from the Union’s 

81 Launching the Global Europe Performance Monitoring System containing a Revised Global Europe Results 
Framework, SWD(2022) 22 final, page 5. 
82 Launching the Global Europe Performance Monitoring System containing a Revised Global Europe Results 
Framework, SWD(2022) 22 final, page 2. 
83 OJ L 209, 14.6.2021, pages 1–78. 

130 

 
 
 
 
 
 
external  financial  assistance’  (recital  17).  It  is  applicable  to  all  NDICI-Global  Europe  pillars 
(geographic  programmes,  thematic  programmes  and  rapid  response  actions)  and  implementation 
arrangements, including the European Fund for Sustainable Development Plus (EFSD+), as well as 
to all services involved (DG INTPA, DG NEAR and FPI). 

The revised EURF, now Global Europe Results Framework (GERF), is a key tool to ensure annual 
monitoring  and  reporting  of  progress  towards  results.  It  continues  to  comprise  three  levels  of 
corporate indicators. These include all results indicators in Annex VI to the NDICI-Global Europe 
Regulation, as well as key financial indicators to monitor the Regulation’s spending targets as well 
as that on gender equality and education. Data will be collected from completed and ongoing EU-
funded  interventions,  as  reported  by  EU  implementing  partners.  The  monitoring  and  evaluation 
(M&E)  system  builds  on  existing  practice  from  previous  external  aid  financial  instruments  under 
the previous MFF and is a continuous process organised around the reporting requirements. 

Out  of  the  39  GERF  level  2  indicators,  11  are  also  incorporated  into  the  Results  Measurement 
Framework  (ReMF)  for  the  EFSD+.  The  EFSD+  ReMF  is  composed  of  a  ‘menu’  of  results  and 
related indicators, structured around sectors/areas reflecting the EFSD+ overarching priorities. The 
indicators  of  the  EFSD+  ReMF  include  built-in  alignment  with  the  GERF,  the  performance 
framework of the Instrument for Pre-accession Assistance, as well as the SDGs. The EFSD+ ReMF 
is  to  be  used  for  all  interventions  funded  with  the  EFSD+  tools,  including  budgetary  guarantees, 
blending  and  other  financial  assistance  (including  the  dedicated  windows  of  the  EIB).  Hence,  the 
EFSD+ ReMF will make it possible to aggregate data provided by partner financial institutions that 
have used the EFSD+ ReMF indicators to report on the progress of their EFSD+ interventions. 

Learning from experience 

The  division  of  the  EURF  indicators  into  three  levels  of  results  was  welcomed  by  the  Council84. 
The  revised  EURF  aimed  both  to  serve  as  a  communication  tool  for  reporting  on  results  and  to 
improve practice in implementing the EU development policy. As regards level 3, the indicators on 
overall  organisational  performance  included  in  the  first  version  of  the  EURF  were  not  easily 
understandable by the public and were already reported on regularly and published as part of a more 
comprehensive set of key performance indicators in DG INTPA’s annual activity report85. To avoid 
duplication  and  partial  reporting,  level  3  was  revised  to  focus  on  the  mainstreaming  of  policy 
priorities  only.  Following  the  introduction  of  the  EURF,  the  availability  of  data  from  partner 
systems has improved.  

Experience  with  the  2018  EURF  has  shown  that  most  indicators  cannot  be  used  for  all  four 
to  structural 
purposes  of  accountability,  communication,  management  and 

learning  due 

84 A Revised EU International Cooperation and Development Results Framework in line with the Sustainable 
Development Goals of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and the New European Consensus on 
Development, SWD(2018) 444 final, page 3. 
85 A Revised EU International Cooperation and Development Results Framework in line with the Sustainable 
Development Goals of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and the New European Consensus on 
Development, SWD(2018) 444 final, pages 6 and 7. 

131 

 
 
 
incompatibilities  (or  competing  priorities)86.  Examples  of  these  incompatibilities  would  be  the 
indicator selection for the 2021-2027 MFF and the 2020-2024 strategic plans, which had to respond 
to  technical  measurement  requirements  as  well  as  political  considerations.  The  resulting 
compromise included indicators that are of limited use to management. Additionally, indicators that 
are  selected  to  serve  the  accountability  (and  communication)  needs  of  certain  stakeholders  might 
not  serve  management  or  learning  needs.  Therefore,  the  performance  measurement  framework 
should  include  a  clear  separation  between  the  indicators  to  be  used  for  accountability  purposes 
(primarily) and those to be used for other purposes. Meeting the communication, management and 
learning  needs  of  all  relevant  stakeholders  required  further  tools  necessarily  involving  more 
indicators. More indicators were also  needed to  improve the coverage of results generated by EU 
interventions.  Adding  the  thematic  indicators  considerably  extended  the  list  of  indicators  to  be 
monitored. Additionally, the relationship between the GERF and SDG indicators has been mapped 
in  greater  detail  than  before,  in  a  manner  that  highlights  the  inevitable  interlinkages  between  the 
international cooperation and development results that underpin the SDG framework. 

A  further  challenge  during  the  implementation  of  the  EURF  concerned  the  integration  of  the 
indicators into the logical framework matrices (logframes). The relevant EURF indicators were not 
always  included  in  the  logframes  at  intervention  level,  which  means  that  certain  results  go 
unreported. Consequently, even if results are generated, they might not be measured if the indicator 
has not been included in the logframe. This was changed with the adoption of the GERF, and GERF 
indicators are included in the logframes if they are relevant. 

Experience  with  the  EURF  has  confirmed  its  utility  in  ensuring  accountability  but  has  exposed 
certain  limitations  in  fulfilling  the  remaining  ambitions  of  communication,  management  and 
learning. Thus, the GERF is supplemented by: 

•  a  comprehensive  set  of  sector-specific  results  chains  containing  quality-assured  thematic 
indicators  that  have  been  developed  in  collaboration  with  DG  INTPA’s  thematic  units  to 
serve the other needs of communication, management and learning and to provide improved 
coverage of the results generated in the field; 

•  an  intervention  performance  measurement  system  that  uses  monitoring  data  to  calculate 
performance scores at intervention level and key performance indicators at corporate level; 
and 

•  a new set of indicators that measure the quality of results data collected, e.g., how the data 
collection for the indicators is organised, if the logframe is designed in a way that enables 
results to be measured easily, or if all logframe indicators are reported on. 

This broader performance monitoring system is called the Global Europe Performance Monitoring 
System (GEPMS)87. 

86 Launching the Global Europe Performance Monitoring System containing a Revised Global Europe Results 
Framework, SWD(2022) 22 final, pages 3-6. 
87 Launching the Global Europe Performance Monitoring System containing a Revised Global Europe Results 
Framework, SWD(2022) 22 final, pages 3-6. 

132 

 
 
 
Additionally, an IT platform (OPSYS) has been set up to facilitate logframe management as well as 
results data collection and assessment at corporate level, including a results dashboard to aggregate 
and display results.  

Monitoring and evaluation 

Evaluations  supplement  the  ongoing  internal  monitoring  processes  described  above.  The 
Commission  performs  two  main  types  of  evaluations  in  relation  to  the  external  financing 
instruments:  (i)  intervention-level  evaluations,  which  assess  the  results  of  interventions;  and  (ii) 
strategic evaluations,  which assess the degree to  which the objectives of  EU external  cooperation 
strategies and plans are achieved, their overall contribution to EU priorities and the SDGs, and their 
impact in partner countries and globally. 

Strategic  evaluations  include:  (i)  geographic  evaluations  related  to  EU  cooperation  with  partner 
countries  and  regions;  and  (ii)  thematic  evaluations  related  to  specific  sectors,  themes, 
implementing arrangements, instruments, and partners. These evaluations rely heavily on data from 
monitoring and evaluation carried out at intervention (project) level, as well as increasingly on the 
existing results frameworks. The present evaluation of external financing instruments supplements 
and  builds  on  a  significant  body  of  evidence  collected  and  presented  in  the  strategic-level 
evaluations 88of the EU’s external cooperation that have been conducted since 2014. 

Important features of the GERF are the ability of the indicators to be aggregated and to be used for 
assessing  implied causal linkages in  EU key policies. The system  helps  to improve the quality  of 
evaluations  and  to  gradually  introduce  impact  evaluations.  By  using  tools  early  on  and 
appropriately, the GERF will lead to  improved EU external  cooperation monitoring and reporting 
practice.  

Already during strategic programming (multiannual indicative programmes, MIPs), the focus is put 
on  results  and  performance.  This  approach  continues  throughout  all  phases  of  the  intervention 
cycle:  programming,  design,  implementation  and  closure.  In  addition,  performance  scores  at 
intervention  level  and  key  performance  indicators  at  corporate  level  are  reported  in  the  internal 
External Action Management Report. 

Global  Europe  Monitoring  and  Evaluation  arrangements  are  based  on  predefined,  transparent, 
country-specific  and  measurable  indicators,  adapted  to  the  specificities  and  objectives  of  the 
instrument and the intervention. The arrangements promote using corporate indicators and a system 
of  sector-specific  results  chains  containing  predefined  thematic  indicators.  This  should  provide 
inspiration and coordination on a broader set of indicators to monitor performance at intervention 
level.  

The  GERF  leads  to  increased  cooperation  with  Member  States  and  the  implementing  partners  in 
various  areas  of  results-based  management.  For  Team  Europe  Initiatives  (TEIs),  the  monitoring, 
reporting and evaluation (MORE) framework has been launched to aggregate results at TEI level. 
This framework enables partners to use the GERF. Noting that more than 50% of the funding under 

88 Strategic Evaluation Reports (europa.eu) 

133 

 
 
 
the MIPs is allocated to TEIs, a specific marker will make it possible to track results in relation to 
the EU component of the TEIs. 

The tools in place will not only serve the purpose of complying with the accountability and learning 
functions,  but  also  of  communicating  clearly  and  transparently  on  the  performance  and 
achievements of EU interventions to strengthen the role of the EU as a global player. Focus will be 
put  on  providing  results  data  on  EU  achievements  and  the  EU’s  role  in  delivering  on  the  2030 
Agenda and the SDGs that support a stronger narrative at both global and partner country- levels. 
The results  dashboard will  be continuously improved. This  will lead to  better information  on  and 
understanding, reporting and communication of EU financing and investment operations covered by 
various implementation arrangements (including details and assessment of the results achieved by 
each  arrangement,  aggregation  by  geographical  area,  by  Official  Development  Assistance  (ODA) 
purpose code, and by implementing service or partner, by policy priority, by spending target). By 
communicating both externally and internally, results can be highlighted, and colleagues can learn 
from experience and practice. 

IPA III 

Building on key messages from external evaluations that called for improvements in the monitoring 
and  evaluation  systems,  DG  NEAR  during  the  current  MFF  embarked  on  strengthening  its 
monitoring  and  evaluation  potential.  The  novelty  derives  from  promoting  a  corporate  result 
framework that is less activity-driven and more outcome-oriented. 

At  the  beginning  of  2023,  the  Commission  adopted  the  IPA  III  Results  Framework89  in  order  to 
support  Commission  staff,  IPA  III  beneficiaries  and  external  experts  who  are  involved  in 
programming,  monitoring  and  reporting  and  evaluation  of  IPA  III  actions.  The  IPA  III  Results 
Framework  provided  a  comprehensive  and  uniform  set  of  indicators  that  need  to  be  used  in  all 
relevant interventions, to ensure that the results can be aggregated, and the impact and outcomes of 
IPA III can be more clearly identified and demonstrated. 

The basis for the IPA III Results Framework is the key performance indicators included in Annex 
IV  of  the  IPA  III  Regulation,  indicators  included  in  the  overarching  European  Commission’s 
strategic document for the use of IPA III funds over the period 2021-27 – the IPA III Programming 
Framework - and in the IPA Performance Framework. 

It is structured according to the five Windows of the IPA III Programming Framework: Window 1 
(Rule  of  Law,  Fundamental  Rights  and  Democracy),  Window  2  (Good  Governance,  EU  Acquis 
Alignment, Good Neighbourly Relations and Strategic Communication), Window 3 (Green Agenda 
and Sustainable Connectivity), Window 4 (Competitiveness and Inclusive Growth) and Window 5 
(Territorial and cross-border cooperation). 

Three levels  of indicators for  each Window/Thematic Priority are included in  the  IPA  III Results 
Framework in order to capture the whole result chain. 

89 pdf (europa.eu) 

134 

 
 
 
 
•  Level 1 indicators are impact level indicators, monitoring the long-term changes in a given 
Window  and  a  Thematic  Priority  as  an  indirect  result  of  the  outcomes  of  the  European 
Commission interventions (measured by Level 2 indicators).  

•  Level 2 indicators are indicators measuring the outputs and outcomes to which EU funded 

interventions have contributed in collaboration with partners and beneficiaries. 

•  Level 3 indicators are indicators tracking the resources directed towards specific priorities, 
measured  either  in  terms  of  budgetary  commitments  or  numbers  of  interventions.  Level  1 
and  Level  2  indicators  are  presented  jointly  in  Annex  1  while  Level  3  indicators  are 
presented in Annex 2 

Therefore, reporting on results on IPA III encapsulates the following key elements: 

−  Alignment with the IPA III Regulations objectives, in line with “policy first” principle, and in 

particular with the IPA III Programming framework and its five windows. 

−  Encompassing  the  three  levels  of  “Results”  including  outputs,  outcomes,  and  impact  as 
measured by indicators; but a predominance is given to the outcome level, since this is the level 
that best expresses changes directly influenced by IPA III interventions 
including  indicators  that  allow  for  aggregation  of  values  for  estimated  and  actual  results  in  a 
given area and over different beneficiaries. 

− 

−  Allowing  disaggregation  of  data  by  gender,  age,  disability,  country  and  sector  whenever 

possible and relevant. 

The use of the IPA III Results Framework transcends different streams of exercises and notably the 
programming,  monitoring  and  reporting  and  evaluation.  The  increased  focus  on  results-based 
monitoring  of  interventions  and  programmes  is  also  accompanied  by  the  corporate  investment  on 
the information  system  OPSYS.  The deployment  of OPSYS  results module allows to  encode  and 
consolidate results data as reported by each intervention. Ongoing interventions record their latest 
results data at least once a year until the end of implementation. The data collected is also used to 
report  against  the  indicators  at  corporate  level  (the  IPA  III  Results  Framework  being  the  main 
corporate tool for IPA III beneficiaries, in addition to the EFSD+ Results Measurement Framework 
and the WBIF), and in turn feeds into institutional reporting and communications products. 

Programming, Monitoring and Evaluation and Reporting 

The use of indicators of the IPA III Results Framework is promoted for the Commission staff, IPA 
III  beneficiaries  and  the  implementing  partners  preparing  the  IPA  III  programming  documents, 
including  annual  and  multi-annual  and  individual  measure  action  documents  and  operational 
programmes. It is also promoted for the IPA III beneficiaries to embed the relevant IPA III Results 
Framework indicators into their own strategic documents, including strategic responses, to reinforce 
and  streamline  programming,  monitoring  and  reporting  and  evaluation  practices.  In  this  way  the 
measurement of results across countries  and the  entire  IPA instrument  is ensured.  The legal  basis 
for  monitoring,  reporting  and  evaluation  of  all  interventions  funded  under  IPA  III  is  provided  in 
IPA  III  Regulation.  It  calls  for  a  reinforced  monitoring  and  reporting  with  a  focus  on  results, 
covering  outputs,  outcomes  and  impacts,  with  the  aim  of  both  providing  effective  accountability 

135 

 
 
 
 
 
and transparency in implementing the Union budget and ensuring effective assessment of progress 
towards the achievement of the objectives of the Instrument. 
The  IPA  III  Results  Framework  is  used  as  one  of  the  sources  of  evidence  that  will  benefit  the 
evaluation  work  and  contribute  to  the  quality  of  the  evaluations.  The  framework  has  been  built 
around the IPA III instrument and by design it is meant to be measuring its performance anchoring 
on the overall intervention logic. Evaluation work can benefit from IPA III Results Framework data 
as a valid source of secondary evidence. Furthermore, other sources of evidence (studies, surveys, 
interviews,  statistics,  etc)  are  also  deployed  for  ensuring  a  robust  and  triangulated  evidence  base. 
This combined source of evidence is serving for boosting accountability and at the same time play a 
significant role in responding to corporate needs for communication and learning.  

The  IPA  III  Results  Framework  also  feeds  three  annual  reporting  obligations:  the  Programme 
Performance  Statements  (PPS);  the  Report  stemming  from  the  article  16  of  the  Interinstitutional 
Agreement  (IIA) accompanying  the 2021-2027  Multiannual  Financial  Framework  (MFF);  Annual 
report  on  the  implementation  of  the  European  Union's  External  Action  instruments;  IPA  III 
Programming Framework Annual Assessment 

•  DOAG 

The design of actions under the DOAG follows the same process as for NDICI-Global Europe and 
uses  the  same  templates,  identifying  an  intervention  logic  and  defining  indicators  in  a  logistical 
framework to measure progress. Monitoring during implementation is done at an operational level 
and  like  for  NDICI-Global  Europe  actions  the  reporting  on  DOAG  programmes  contributes  to 
reports such as the AMPR through the Annual Results Reporting Exercise, linking indicators to the 
Global Europe Results Framework. 

•  INSC 

As  the  GERF  does  not  contain  indicators  related  to  nuclear  safety,  the  INSC  MIP  2021-2027 
contains  an  annex  with  performance  indicators  at  three  levels:  programme  impact  indicators, 
programme implementation  indicators and project-specific indicators. For the latter, each contract 
includes a dedicated indicative logical framework matrix with key performance indicators, which is 
reviewed and reported on at a regular interval by the INSC implementing partners. 

3.  Annual Reports 

Annual Reports outline on annual basis key aspects of the EU’s financial support for international 
cooperation  and  development,  European  neighbourhood  policy,  humanitarian  aid  and  civil 
protection, EU enlargement  policy, peace, security and defence, crisis  response and preparedness, 
human rights and democracy, gender equality and support to EU foreign policy objectives. Annual 
Reports provide many positive examples of EU-funded interventions in Europe and across the globe 
that illustrate our continuing efforts to deliver results.  

Annual Reports can be found here: Annual reports (europa.eu) 

136 

 
 
 
 
ANNEX VII FINANCIAL OVERVIEW 

Table 1 

Externally assigned revenues for 2021-2022 in million EUR 

Instrument 

NDICI-Global Europe  

IPA III 

Table 2 

Distribution of Commitments by instrument for 2021-2022 

Instrument 

NDICI-Global Europe Pillar 1: Geographic programmes 
NDICI-Global Europe Pillar 2: Thematic programmes 
NDICI-Global Europe Pillar 3: Rapid response actions 
Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance (IPA III) 
Decision on the Overseas Association including Greenland (DOAG) 
European Instrument for International Nuclear Safety Cooperation (INSC) 
European Fund for Sustainable Development + (EFSD+)* 
Other 

Total 

137 

2021 

2,316 

5,659 

2022 

15,613 

7,778 

Commitments  
(in EUR million) 
13,312 
3,889 
1,755 
3,891 
135 
74 
3,393 
920 

27,369 

Percentage 

48.6 % 
14.2 % 
6.4 % 
14.2 % 
0.5 % 
0.3 % 
12.4 % 
3.4 % 

100 % 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 3 

Overview of Commitments and Payments per instrument (2017-2020) 

Instrument 
11th  European  Development 
Fund  (EDF),  incl.  'envelope 
B’ 
European 
Instrument (ENI) 

Neighbourhood 

Development  Cooperation 
Instrument 
– 
geographic programmes 

(DCI) 

Instrument for Pre-Accession 
Assistance (IPA II) 

Development  Cooperation 
Instrument  (DCI)  –  thematic 
programmes 

Instrument  contributing 
Stability and Peace (IcSP) 

to 

European 
Democracy 
Rights (EIDHR) 

Instrument 

for 
and  Human 

for  Nuclear 

Partnership Instrument (PI) 
Instrument 
Safety Cooperation (INSC) 
Instrument 
(GD) 
Development  Cooperation 
Instrument (DCI) – other 

for  Greenland 

2017 

2018 

2019 

2020 

Commitments  Payments 

Commitments 

Payments  Commitments 

Payments 

Commitments 

Payments 

5,137 

3,412 

4,602 

3,585 

2,856 

3,471 

3,432 

4,249 

2,428 

1,946 

2,451 

2,062 

2,697 

1,997 

2,816 

2,486 

1,713 

1,442 

1,752 

1,481 

1,865 

1,450 

1,936 

1,623 

2,031 

1,517 

2,015 

1,345 

2,912 

1,496 

1,727 

1,853 

1,373 

996 

1,166 

1,109 

1,307 

1,072 

1,258 

1,198 

259 

176 

134 

53 

32 

-3 

247 

145 

77 

71 

30 

109 

333 

172 

143 

32 

32 

0 

321 

173 

114 

38 

30 

0 

138 

364 

164 

149 

32 

33 

0 

308 

141 

128 

34 

29 

0 

400 

164 

161 

31 

33 

0 

367 

138 

125 

13 

33 

10 

 
 
 
 
Table 4 

Overview of Commitments and Payments per instrument (2021-2022) 

Budget position 
14.010101  –  Support  expenditure  for  the  Neighbourhood,  Development  and  International 
Cooperation Instrument 
14.010165  –  European  Education  and  Culture  Executive  Agency  –  Contribution  from  the 
Neighbourhood,  Development  and  International  Cooperation  Instrument  for  the  completion  of 
previous programmes 
14.010175  –  European  Education  and  Culture  Executive  Agency  –  Contribution  from  the 
Neighbourhood, Development and International Cooperation Instrument – Global Europe 
14.020110 – Neighbourhood South region 
14.020111 – Neighbourhood East region 
14.020112 – Neighbourhood – Territorial and cross-border cooperation and supporting measures 
14.020120 – West Africa 
14.020121 – East and Central Africa 
14.020122 – Southern Africa and Indian Ocean 
14.020130 – Middle East and Central Asia 
14.020131 – South and East Asia 
14.020132 – The Pacific 
14.020140 – The Americas 
14.020141 – The Caribbean 
14.020150 – Erasmus+ – NDICI – Global Europe contribution 
14.020160 – European Development Fund – ACP Investment Facility reflows 
14.020170 – NDICI Global Europe – Provisioning of the common provisioning fund 
14.020210 – Election observation missions – Human Rights and Democracy 
14.020211 – Fundamental rights and freedoms – Human Rights and Democracy 
14.020220 – Civil Society Organisations 
14.020230 – Peace, Stability and Conflict Prevention 

2021 

2022 

Commitments  Payments  Commitments  Payments 

301 

244 

300 

261 

4 

0 

1,052 
296 
4 
1,689 
1,313 
193 
376 
388 
61 
258 
112 
20 
0 
1,595 
50 
150 
200 
134 

4 

0 

90 
101 
0 
10 
5 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
6 
9 
13 
0 
8 

0 

6 

1,694 
1,121 
56 
951 
1,271 
1,063 
366 
551 
120 
272 
106 
289 
0 
1,950 
27 
266 
358 
138 

0 

6 

542 
910 
0 
280 
348 
44 
79 
37 
4 
30 
8 
154 
0 
1,391 
16 
69 
40 
33 

139 

 
 
Budget position 

14.020240 – People – Global Challenges 
14.020241 – Planet – Global Challenges 
14.020242 – Prosperity – Global Challenges 
14.020243 – Partnerships – Global Challenges 
14.020310 – Crisis response 
14.020320 – Resilience 
14.020330 – Foreign policy needs 
14.05 Decision on the Overseas Association including Greenland (DOAG) 
14.06 European Instrument for International Nuclear Safety Cooperation (INSC) 
15.02 Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance (IPA III) 

2021 

2022 

Commitments  Payments  Commitments  Payments 

1,612 
76 
130 
15 
261 
530 
13 
63 
38 
1,494 

697 
0 
0 
0 
88 
0 
0 
1 
1 
7 

410 
134 
132 
58 
268 
634 
49 
72 
36 
2,397 

0 
28 
16 
10 
257 
192 
18 
30 
4 
435 

Table 5 

Breakdown by recipient countries / region of Commitments by the European Commission from 2017 to 2022 

Countries 
Part I: Developing Countries and Territories 
(Official Development Assistance) 
Bilateral 
Europe 
Albania 
Belarus 
Bosnia-Herzegovina 
Europe, regional 
Kosovo 
Moldova 

2017 

16,445 

15,996 
6,887 
80 
30 
77 
509 
171 
74 

2019 

15,432 

15,166 
4,606 
93 
31 
127 
897 
153 
25 

2020 

15,053 

14,815 
3,071 
258 
32 
136 
963 
175 
59 

2021 

14,617 

91 
2,923 
68 
16 
84 
1,084 
119 
75 

2022 

19,149 

19,146 
4,989 
107 
28 
58 
1,719 
126 
235 

2018 

15,151 

14,946 
2,680 
110 
30 
91 
688 
176 
51 

140 

 
 
 
 
Countries 
Montenegro 
North Macedonia 
Serbia 
States Ex-Yugoslavia 
Türkiye 
Ukraine 
Africa 
Africa, regional 
Africa (North of Sahara) 
Algeria 
Egypt 
Libya 
Morocco 
North of Sahara, regional 
Tunisia 
Africa (South of Sahara) 
Angola 
Benin 
Botswana 
Burkina Faso 
Burundi 
Cabo Verde 
Cameroon 
Central African Republic 
Chad 
Comoros 

2017 
41 
82 
177 
23 
1,918 
263 
6,213 
411 
752 
30 
45 
72 
116 
189 
300 
5,050 
65 
100 
0 
63 
104 
12 
130 
79 
22 
1 

2018 
46 
102 
224 
0 
947 
215 
5,470 
852 
655 
46 
56 
78 
202 
56 
217 
3,962 
22 
47 
3 
44 
15 
10 
45 
214 
31 
0 

141 

2019 
44 
114 
223 
0 
2,656 
243 
4,126 
369 
719 
35 
55 
40 
225 
84 
280 
3,038 
23 
0 
7 
37 
74 
17 
79 
28 
105 
12 

2020 
31 
133 
237 
15 
775 
257 
4,753 
559 
810 
40 
110 
44 
223 
27 
366 
3,384 
25 
7 
0 
103 
20 
0 
15 
118 
12 
7 

2021 
35 
93 
126 
2 
1,027 
194 
6,324 
1,743 
745 
25 
7 
114 
240 
206 
153 
3,836 
0 
25 
0 
200 
90 
21 
44 
38 
103 
0 

2022 
50 
95 
232 
2 
1,312 
1,025 
6,970 
2,222 
800 
45 
183 
49 
354 
63 
106 
3,948 
83 
35 
13 
0 
12 
0 
48 
66 
50 
31 

 
Countries 
Congo 
Democratic Republic of the Congo 
Djibouti 
Eastern Africa, regional 
Eritrea 
Eswatini 
Ethiopia 
Gabon 
Gambia 
Ghana 
Guinea 
Guinea-Bissau 
Ivory Coast 
Kenya 
Lesotho 
Liberia 
Madagascar 
Malawi 
Mali 
Mauritania 
Mauritius 
Middle Africa, regional 
Mozambique 
Namibia 
Niger 
Nigeria 

2017 
0 
107 
60 
0 
84 
0 
67 
1 
113 
189 
145 
0 
11 
62 
6 
52 
168 
165 
91 
59 
3 
0 
48 
0 
83 
286 

2018 
39 
145 
30 
0 
0 
3 
300 
0 
96 
13 
45 
58 
39 
45 
42 
15 
85 
22 
262 
33 
8 
0 
211 
0 
134 
58 

142 

2019 
33 
73 
8 
0 
181 
22 
125 
5 
50 
40 
9 
8 
31 
139 
42 
58 
60 
55 
79 
24 
0 
0 
160 
4 
66 
20 

2020 
2 
91 
37 
355 
0 
9 
181 
1 
15 
95 
37 
2 
18 
110 
20 
3 
29 
102 
101 
16 
12 
0 
338 
0 
139 
17 

2021 
40 
227 
32 
344 
0 
0 
21 
0 
0 
0 
0 
13 
62 
87 
0 
0 
0 
0 
224 
48 
0 
0 
3 
0 
331 
120 

2022 
5 
141 
5 
440 
0 
0 
173 
7 
18 
80 
39 
38 
34 
121 
29 
0 
161 
125 
26 
40 
2 
28 
214 
24 
72 
63 

 
Countries 
Rwanda 
Sao Tome and Principe 
Senegal 
Sierra Leone 
Somalia 
South Africa 
South of Sahara, regional 
South Sudan 
Southern Africa, regional 
St. Helena 
Sudan 
Tanzania 
Togo 
Uganda 
Western Africa, regional 
Zambia 
Zimbabwe 
America 
America, regional 
America (North & Central America) 
Antigua And Barbuda 
Belize 
Caribbean, regional 
Central America, regional 
Costa Rica 
Cuba 

2017 
4 
0 
53 
105 
323 
60 
1,716 
26 
0 
0 
73 
55 
12 
143 
0 
82 
24 
684 
94 
451 
3 
12 
0 
0 
2 
24 

2018 
5 
0 
143 
35 
126 
20 
1,093 
5 
0 
22 
105 
100 
20 
65 
0 
99 
13 
791 
109 
520 
5 
14 
0 
0 
0 
10 

143 

2019 
15 
7 
28 
62 
81 
27 
804 
2 
0 
0 
13 
3 
37 
154 
0 
65 
66 
659 
216 
280 
0 
0 
0 
0 
1 
43 

2020 
42 
7 
121 
18 
79 
19 
528 
21 
18 
1 
172 
135 
17 
5 
106 
25 
33 
749 
230 
304 
0 
0 
20 
11 
0 
2 

2021 
88 
0 
107 
0 
63 
12 
1,163 
57 
0 
0 
12 
180 
50 
27 
4 
0 
0 
539 
259 
212 
0 
1 
120 
28 
0 
0 

2022 
94 
8 
72 
56 
161 
30 
630 
22 
88 
0 
53 
166 
50 
19 
78 
151 
47 
519 
235 
210 
0 
0 
47 
27 
0 
9 

 
Countries 
Dominica 
Dominican Republic 
El Salvador 
Grenada 
Guatemala 
Haiti 
Honduras 
Jamaica 
Mexico 
Montserrat 
Nicaragua 
North & Central America, regional 
Panama 
St. Lucia 
St.Vincent & Grenadines 
West Indies, regional 
America (South America) 
Argentina 
Bolivia 
Brazil 
Colombia 
Ecuador 
Guyana 
Paraguay 
Peru 
South America, regional 

2017 
1 
10 
20 
0 
16 
224 
16 
20 
1 
0 
20 
44 
0 
2 
7 
29 
139 
0 
51 
0 
48 
6 
0 
2 
23 
9 

2018 
14 
34 
35 
0 
17 
9 
68 
0 
0 
19 
71 
30 
0 
0 
0 
196 
161 
0 
3 
5 
5 
48 
0 
12 
0 
18 

144 

2019 
9 
8 
1 
0 
66 
30 
37 
20 
0 
0 
0 
5 
0 
0 
0 
60 
163 
0 
36 
0 
52 
0 
0 
53 
4 
13 

2020 
0 
0 
33 
1 
15 
163 
23 
5 
4 
0 
17 
4 
0 
6 
0 
0 
215 
0 
56 
0 
24 
3 
3 
42 
25 
61 

2021 
0 
0 
0 
0 
20 
10 
18 
2 
0 
0 
13 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
68 
0 
0 
0 
2 
0 
0 
0 
0 
65 

2022 
0 
13 
9 
0 
49 
30 
0 
10 
0 
0 
16 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
74 
0 
14 
0 
11 
5 
5 
12 
18 
0 

 
Countries 
Suriname 
Venezuela 
Asia 
Asia, regional 
Asia (Far East Asia) 
Cambodia 
China 
Democratic People's Republic of Korea 
Far East Asia, regional 
Indonesia 
Laos 
Malaysia 
Mongolia 
Philippines 
Thailand 
Timor-Leste 
Viet Nam 
Asia (Middle East Asia) 
Iran 
Iraq 
Jordan 
Lebanon 
Middle East, regional 
Syria 
West Bank and Gaza Strip 
Yemen 

2017 
0 
0 
2,697 
139 
223 
158 
0 
0 
15 
10 
4 
0 
5 
4 
1 
0 
26 
1,175 
10 
191 
95 
49 
20 
481 
241 
89 

2018 
2 
69 
2,826 
21 
260 
114 
1 
0 
3 
3 
73 
0 
0 
29 
6 
18 
13 
1,313 
24 
163 
78 
86 
6 
496 
314 
146 

145 

2019 
5 
0 
3,058 
177 
240 
3 
0 
0 
10 
0 
50 
3 
51 
98 
4 
20 
1 
1,431 
21 
219 
105 
40 
62 
515 
252 
217 

2020 
0 
1 
3,167 
422 
276 
10 
0 
0 
33 
3 
5 
0 
0 
49 
14 
2 
160 
1,579 
5 
253 
84 
106 
25 
655 
263 
188 

2021 
0 
1 
2,032 
514 
66 
0 
0 
0 
30 
12 
0 
6 
0 
0 
18 
0 
0 
945 
26 
129 
99 
138 
230 
67 
43 
213 

2022 
1 
8 
2,944 
414 
183 
31 
22 
0 
0 
0 
44 
4 
4 
62 
4 
12 
0 
1,532 
0 
78 
195 
229 
249 
67 
522 
192 

 
Countries 
Asia (South & Central Asia) 
Afghanistan 
Armenia 
Azerbaijan 
Bangladesh 
Bhutan 
Central Asia, regional 
Georgia 
India 
Kazakhstan 
Kyrgyz Republic 
Maldives 
Myanmar 
Nepal 
Pakistan 
South Asia, regional 
South & Central Asia, regional 
Sri Lanka 
Tajikistan 
Turkmenistan 
Uzbekistan 
Oceania 
Fiji 
Kiribati 
Marshall Islands 
Micronesia, Fed. States 

2017 
1,160 
371 
41 
14 
183 
4 
85 
120 
0 
0 
8 
0 
40 
43 
185 
3 
0 
40 
0 
6 
16 
104 
2 
2 
0 
0 

2018 
1,233 
240 
36 
14 
267 
0 
104 
112 
2 
0 
12 
5 
288 
9 
68 
0 
11 
41 
0 
0 
25 
202 
3 
0 
0 
0 

146 

2019 
1,210 
248 
53 
13 
21 
7 
166 
152 
0 
0 
31 
2 
144 
56 
93 
75 
2 
41 
84 
0 
22 
139 
0 
21 
0 
14 

2020 
890 
227 
69 
14 
48 
2 
51 
110 
0 
0 
34 
0 
25 
20 
60 
55 
4 
17 
112 
0 
42 
108 
20 
0 
0 
4 

2021 
507 
76 
0 
14 
140 
15 
21 
16 
1 
0 
33 
0 
72 
31 
0 
0 
52 
13 
23 
0 
0 
54 
0 
3 
0 
0 

2022 
815 
162 
77 
20 
28 
9 
10 
145 
5 
1 
3 
5 
60 
74 
99 
0 
3 
17 
44 
6 
47 
85 
0 
5 
0 
0 

 
Countries 
Nauru 
Oceania, regional 
Palau 
Papua New Guinea 
Samoa 
Solomon Islands 
Tonga 
Tuvalu 
Vanuatu 
Wallis & Futuna 
Developing countries, unspecified 
Bilateral, core contributions to NGOs and other 
private bodies / PPPs 
Multilateral (inflows) 
United Nations agency, fund or commission (UN) 
FAO 
OHCHR 
UNEP 
UNFCCC 
UNRWA 
Other multilateral institution 
Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunisation 
Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and 
Malaria 
Other multilateral institutions 
Triangular co-operation 

2017 
0 
90 
0 
0 
1 
0 
1 
7 
0 
0 
2,854 

9 

440 
103 
0 
0 
1 
0 
102 
336 
50 

285 

1 
0 

2018 
0 
66 
2 
85 
0 
0 
2 
0 
25 
20 
2,977 

5 

201 
107 
0 
4 
0 
0 
102 
94 
0 

90 

4 
0 

147 

2019 
0 
104 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
2,566 

5 

262 
103 
0 
0 
0 
0 
103 
158 
90 

68 

0 
0 

2020 
0 
26 
0 
38 
0 
8 
0 
0 
11 
1 
2,975 

5 

6 
91 
0 
0 
1 
3 
87 
143 
130 

13 

0 
0 

2021 
0 
19 
0 
0 
14 
8 
10 
0 
0 
0 
2,743 

1 

5 
5 
2 
0 
1 
2 
0 
0 
0 

0 

0 
0 

2022 
0 
13 
0 
67 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
3,643 

0 

3 
2 
2 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 

0 

0 
0 

 
Countries 
Part II: Countries and Territories in Transition 
(NON-ODA eligible countries) 
Croatia 
Cyprus 
Greenland 
Russia 
Seychelles 
Anguilla 
Aruba 
Bahamas 
Barbados 
British Virgin Islands 
Curaçao 
Netherlands Antilles 
Saint Pierre And Miquelon 
Sint Maarten 
St. Kitts-Nevis 
Trinidad And Tobago 
Turks & Caicos Islands 
Chile 
Falkland Islands 
Uruguay 
Hong Kong, China 
Korea 
Taiwan 
Israel 

2017 

261 

2018 

265 

2019 

275 

2020 

277 

0 
35 
32 
0 
0 
14 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
6 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
6 
0 
0 
0 
0 
2 

0 
34 
32 
0 
10 
3 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
5 
4 
3 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
2 

148 

0 
35 
33 
0 
0 
0 
13 
0 
0 
2 
0 
4 
0 
7 
0 
8 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
2 

0 
37 
33 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
4 
0 
0 
17 
1 
7 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
2 

2021 

91 

0 
0 
60 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
1 
0 
0 
2 

2022 

126 

0 
0 
0 
0 
2 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
28 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
4 
0 
2 

 
Countries 
Saudi Arabia 
United Arab Emirates 
Cook Islands 
French Polynesia 
New Caledonia 
Pitcairn Islands 
MADCT Unallocated 
Part II: Other Unallocated 
ODA Countries Other Flows 
NON-ODA Countries Other Flows 
Administrative Costs Ex-BA lines – Heading 4 
Administrative Costs – Heading 5 
Administrative Costs Ex-BA lines Heading 6 
Administrative Costs Heading 7 

2017 
0 
0 
1 
0 
30 
0 
126 
11 
524 
0 
228 
311 
0 
0 

2018 
0 
0 
0 
30 
0 
2 
134 
21 
243 
0 
232 
312 
0 
0 

2019 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
171 
16 
905 
0 
239 
320 
0 
0 

2020 
0 
0 
0 
1 
1 
0 
174 
0 
153 
0 
240 
331 
0 
0 

2021 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
28 
5 
156 
0 
0 
0 
370 
507 

2022 
0 
3 
0 
2 
31 
0 
54 
182 
153 
12 
0 
0 
397 
544 

Table 6 

Breakdown by aid mechanism of Commitments by the European Commission from 2017 to 2022 

Aid Mechanisms 

Project-type interventions (grants incl. 
blending) 
Sector budget support 
General budget support 
Other mechanisms 

Total 

2017 
12,391 

1,321 
517 
2,743 
16,972 

2019 

12,192 

1,164 
418 
2,203 

2020 

11,146 

988 
883 
2,595 

2021 

12,515 

575 
591 
1,810 

2022 

15,303 

945 
1,032 
2,816 

15,977 

15,612 

15,491 

20,096 

2018 
11,680 

917 
677 
2,408 
15,682 

149 

 
 
 
 
Table 7 

Overview of Commitments and Payments through Trust Funds (2014-2020) 

Trust Funds 

Trust Fund Africa 
Trust Fund Bêkou 
Trust Fund Colombia 
Trust Fund Madad 

Total 

Commitments 
5,186 
314 
123 
2,282 

7,905 

Payments 
3,091 
197 
66 
1,515 

4,869 

150 

 
 
 
Table 8 

Overview of emerging challenges and priorities cushion mobilisations as of January 2024 

NDICI-Global Europe's cushion - multiannual planning (EUR million) 

2021 

2022 

2023 

2024 

2025 

2026 

2027 

1.324 

1.249  1.170  1.226 

1.538 
163 
100 
150 

1.395 
269 
100 
50 

1.408 
168 

400 
450 

370 

20 

Amounts available 
Top-up Global challenges thematic programme 
Top-up Human Rights and Democracy thematic programme 
Top-up Civil Society Organisations thematic programme 
COVAX 
Support to vaccination and global health (SOTEU announcement) 
Support roll-out of vaccines (from budget 2022 conciliation) 
Initiative on vaccines production in Africa (SOTEU announcement) 
GFATM seventh replenishment 
Global Partnership for Education 
Syrian refugees package - Türkiye 
Syrian refugees package - Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, Iraq 
Migration - North Africa 
Ukraine pledge 5/5/22 
Ukraine pledge 8/4/22 
Ukraine pledge - Fast recovery - 2/3/23 
Ukraine - Interest rate subsidy MFA1+MFA2  6 billion MFA loan 
Ukraine - Provisioning EIB repurposed loans 1,59 billion 
Global Gateway - EIB provisioning 
Union secure connectivity programme 
Total amount  

Remaining amount 

75 

469 
50 
30 
200 
301 

134 

225 
82 
130 

305 
100 

266 

130 

195 

1.538 
1.408 
100%  100% 

0 

0 

1.395 
100% 
0 

591 
45% 
732 

151 

Year 
tbd 

65 

Total 

9.310 
600 
200 
200 
400 
450 
75 
400 
65 
225 
921 
310 
50 
200 
301 
305 
819 
967 
750 
150 
7.388 
79% 
1.922 

174 
322 
250 
50 
797 
64% 
452 

174 
322 
250 
50 
797 
68% 
373 

174 
322 
250 
50 
797 
65% 
430 

65 

-65 

 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
ANNEX VIII INTERVENTION LOGICS 

MFF 2021 – 2027 

1.  NDICI-GE 

152 

 
 
 
 
2.  IPA III 

153 

WINDOW1: RULEOFLAW, FUNDAMENTALRIGHTSANDDEMOCRACY… WITHTHECONTRIBUTIONOFTHEEU ASASTRONGERGLOBALACTOROVERALLINTERVENTIONLOGICOFTHEIPA III INSTRUMENTINTERMEDIATEOUTCOMESOFTHEPOLICY/AREASUPPORTEDBYEU EXTERNALACTIONINTERMEDIATEIMPACTSHORT-TERMOUTCOMESOFTHEPOLICY/AREASUPPORTEDBYEU EXTERNALACTIONLONG-TERMIMPACTSHORT-TERM(SELECTEDOUTPUTSSUPPORTEDBYEU EXTERNALACTION)OUTPUTSOFTHERECIPIENTS’ POLICY& AGENDAMEDIUM–TERM(SELECTEDOUTPUTSSUPPORTEDBYEU EXTERNALACTION)Overall obj. (Impact)Specific obj.(Outcomes)Outputs≤INTEGRATIONINTOTHEWORLD& REGIONALECONOMY(CONNECTIVITY) & IPA BENEFICIARIES’ FULLADVANTAGEOFSTABILISATIONANDASSOCIATIONAGREEMENTSAREREINFORCEDSECURITYISREINFORCEDDEMOCRACYANDRESPECTOFINTERNATIONALLAW& FUNDAMENTALRIGHTSAREREINFORCEDTHERULEOFLAWISREINFORCEDPEACEANDGOODNEIGHBOURLYRELATIONSINTHEWB AREPRESERVEDEU MEMBERSHIPISACHIEVED& FULFILMENTOFRELATEDOBLIGATIONSISSOUNDLYENSUREDANDPRESERVEDBYNEWEU MEMBERSTATESACTIVITIESINPUTSPOLITICALINPUTSTECHNICALINPUTSFINANCIALINPUTSFORPOLICY& STRATEGYIMPLEMENTATIONEC STRATEGICPROGRAMMING(IPA PROGRAMMINGFRAMEWORK) CHOICESATWINDOWLEVELIMPLEMENTATION(INCL. MONITORING, REPORTING& EVALUATION, ANDCONSIDERINGSTRATEGICCOMMUNICATION& EU VISIBILITY)CONTEXT/ OPPORTUNITYFRAMEWORK(ENABLINGANDHINDERINGFACTORS)ANNUAL& MULTI-ANNUALACTIONPLANS(INCL. ALLACTIONSATCOUNTRYLEVEL)SMART, SUSTAINABLE& INCLUSIVEGROWTHISACHIEVEDGOODGOVERNANCEATALLLEVELSISREINFORCEDIRREGULARMIGRATIONISPREVENTED/ REDUCEDRECONCILIATIONANDGOODNEIGHBOURLYRELATIONS, ANDSHAREDPROSPERITYANDSOCIO-ECONOMICDEVELOPMENTAREENHANCEDIPA BENEFICIARIES’ ALIGNMENTTOEU RULES, STANDARDS, POLICIESANDPRACTICES(INCL. BUTNOTLIMITEDTOACQUIS& NEGOTIATIONCHAPTERS) ISREINFORCEDIMPLEMENTATIONASABOVE, ALSOINTHEFRAMEWORKOFEU PROGRAMMES: ERASMUS+, HORIZONEUROPE, DIGITALEUROPE, SMARTGROWTH, ETC.IPA BENEFICIARIESSTRATEGICPROGRAMMINGCHOICESATCOUNTRYLEVEL(IPA STRATEGICAPPLICATIONS)ANNUAL& MULTI-ANNUALSTRATEGICPROGRAMMING(INCL. •IDENTIFICATIONFROMIPA BENEFICIARIESOFPRIORITYSECTORSANDPOTENTIALACTIONSAND•IDENTIFICATIONOFMULTI-COUNTRYPRIORITIESFROMEC)COUNTRYLEVELFINANCINGAGREEMENTSENVIRONMENTALPROTECTION& RESILIENCETOCLIMATECHANGE, ANDTOSHIFTTOWARDSARESOURCE-EFFICIENT, SAFEANDSUSTAINABLELOW-CARBONANDDIGITALECONOMYAREREINFORCEDAFUNCTIONINGMARKETECONOMYEXITSANDTHECAPACITYTOCOPEWITHCOMPETITIVEPRESSUREANDMARKETFORCESWITHINTHEUNIONISENSUREDDEMOCRACY, THERULEOFLAW, HUMANRIGHTSANDRESPECTFORANDPROTECTIONOFMINORITIESAREENSUREDEU VISIBILITYISSTRENGTHENEDBENEFICIARIESCOMPLYWITHUNIONVALUESPEACE, DEMOCRACYANDSTABILITYINEUROPEISSTRENGTHENEDANDALLOWSTHEUNIONTOBEBETTERPOSITIONEDTOADDRESSGLOBALCHALLENGESAPPLICANTS’ RESPECTTHEUNION’SVALUESANDUNDERTAKEREFORMSNECESSARYTOALIGNITSPOLITICAL, INSTITUTIONAL, LEGAL, ADMINISTRATIVEANDECONOMICSYSTEMSWITHTHERULES, STANDARDS, POLICIESANDPRACTICESINTHEUNIONPEOPLETOPEOPLECONTACTSAREREINFORCEDSPHERE OF WINDOW2: GOODGOVERNANCE, EU ACQUISALIGNMENT, GOODNEIGHBORLYRELATIONSANDSTRATEGICCOMMUNICATIONWINDOW3: GREENAGENDAANDSUSTAINABLECONNECTIVITYWINDOW4: COMPETITIVENESSANDINCLUSIVEGROWTHWINDOW5: TERRITORIAL& CROSS-BORDERCOOPERATIONSTRENGTHENEDINSTITUTIONAL, LEGALANDADMINISTRATIVEREFORMPROCESSESRELATEDTOJUDICIARY, PARLIAMENTANDOTHEROVERSIGHTBODIES, ANTI-CORRUPTION& FIGHTAGAINSTORGANISEDCRIME, ETC. BYADDRESSINGNEEDSOF: STATEACTORS(CENTRAL& DECENTRALISEDLEVELS), NON-STATEACTORS(INCL. NGOS, PRIVATESECTOR..))STRENGTHENED/ PROMOTEDIPA BENEFICIARIESKEYSTAKEHOLDERS’ CAPACITIESTOPROMOTEANDACTUPONTHEHIGHESTFUNDAMENTALRIGHTSSTANDARDS(INCL. CSO’SDEMOCRATICWATCHDOGFUNCTION)STRENGTHENED/ PROMOTEDSECURITY, LAWENFORCEMENT, COUNTER-TERRORISMANDRADICALISATIONCOOPERATIONSTRENGTHENED/ CREATEDCONDITIONSFORTHEBETTERORGANISATIONOFLEGALMIGRATIONANDWELL-MANAGEDMOBILITYSTRENGTHENEDINSTITUTIONAL, LEGALANDADMINISTRATIVEREFORMPROCESSESATALLLEVELSRELATEDTOPUBLICADMINISTRATIONREFORM(INCL. DIGITALTRANSFORMATIONANDPUBLICFINANCIALMANAGEMENT), ECONOMICGOVERNANCE, EDUCATION, HEALTH, EMPLOYMENTBYADDRESSINGNEEDSOF: STATEACTORS(CENTRAL& DECENTRALISEDLEVELS), NON-STATEACTORS(INCL. NGOS, PRIVATESECTOR, ETC.)STRENGTHENED/ PROMOTEDRECONCILIATION, PEACE-BUILDING, ANDCONFIDENCE-BUILDINGMEASURESBYADDRESSINGSOCIALNEEDSOF: CITIZENSINDIFFERENTAREAS(PEOPLETOPEOPLECONTACTS, ETC.) STRENGTHENEDSOCIALINFRASTRUCTUREBYADDRESSINGSOCIALNEEDSOF: CITIZENSINDIFFERENTAREAS(EDUCATION, CULTURE, SPORTS, EMPLOYMENT, SOCIALPROTECTIONANDINCLUSION...) STRENGTHENEDECONOMICINFRASTRUCTURERELATEDTOPRIVATESECTORDEVELOPMENT, TRADE, RESEARCHANDINNOVATION, AGRICULTURE, RURALDEVELOPMENT, FISHERIESBYADDRESSINGNEEDSOF: MSMES,  FINANCIALSECTORSTRENGTHENED/ PROMOTEDREGULATORYEQUIVALENCEANDCONVERGENCEINRELATIONTOEU’SINTERNALPOLICIESSTRENGTHENED/ PROMOTEDEU, EU MSS& IPA BENEFICIARIESSTRATEGICCOMMUNICATIONSTRENGTHENED/ PROMOTEDINSTITUTIONALABSORPTIONCAPACITYOFFUTURESTRUCTURALFUNDSDirect link to the upper levelIndirect/direct link within the same level or to the upper levelLEGEND:MACROECONOMIC& FINANCIALSTABILITYAREREINFORCED, ANDGROWTH-ENHANCINGPUBLICINVESTMENTSANDSTRUCTURALREFORMSAREPURSUEDSTRENGTHENEDINSTITUTIONAL, LEGALANDADMINISTRATIVEREFORMPROCESSESATALLLEVELSRELATEDTOENVIRONMENTALPROTECTIONANDCLIMATECHANGE, TRANSPORT, DIGITALECONOMYANDSOCIETY, ANDENERGYPRINCIPLES FOR ACTION 
 
 
MFF 2014 – 2020  

3.  DCI 

154 

 
4.  EDF 

155 

 
 
5.  ENI 

156 

 
 
6.  IPA II 

157 

 
 
 
 
 
7.  IcSP 

158 

 
 
 
8.  PI 

159 

 
 
 
9.  EIDHR 

160 

 
 
 
10. INSC 

161 

 
 
 
11. CIR 

CONTEXT 

* EU external action is 
supported by 8 distinct EU 
Budget EFIs (+ EDF outside 
EU budget) governed by 
separate Regulations; 
* Financial Regulation and 
Comitology Regulation 
followed by all EFIs; 
* Implementing rules under the 
2007-2013 Regulations diverse 
with inconsistency-risks; 
* Increasing emphasis on 
partner Country ownership and 
results oriented management; 
* Strengthened emphasis on EU 
policy priorities and principles; 

2012 Financial 
Regulation 
2011 Comitology 
Regulation 
2007-2013 
Regulations Diverse 
implementing rules:  
DCI 
EIDHR 
ENI 
IPA 
IFS 

INSC 

GD 

EDF 
Outside EU budget 

EXPECTED OUTCOMES 

EXPECTED IMPACT 

* Unified adoption of action 
programmes and measures 
(Comitology); 
* Common financing 
provisions; 
* Specific financing 
provisions for DCI, ENI, IPA 
II, INSC and EIDHR;  
* Common rules for 
monitoring and evaluation;  
* Enhanced EU visibility;  
* Tracking of expenditure on 
climate action and 
biodiversity; 
* Linking budget support to 
democracy, human rights and 
fundamental freedoms;  

* Efficient use of resources 
for optimal impact of EU 
external action; 
* Improved delivery of the 
objectives of the EFIs 
(effectiveness);  
* Enhanced coherence, 
complementarity, synergies 
and added value between 
and across EFIs;  
* Efficiency gains: more 
timely, cost efficient and 
coordinated forms of 
working;  
* Increased leverage of 
EFIs to raise financial, 
political or policy 
engagement;  

2014-2020 Common 
Implementing Rules 
(CIR) 
DCI 
EIDHR 
ENI 
IPA II 
IcSP 
PI 
2014-2020 INSC, art. 
8 with ref. to CIR 
2014-2020 GD, art. 
5&6 with ref. to CIR   
2014-2020 EDF, 
outside EU budget,  
with own 
Implementing rules  

* For historical and political reasons EU external action 
has been organised through distinct EFIs; 
* EFI Regulations are conceptualised and negotiated 
through separate processes (compartimentalisation); 
* Risk of diversity and lack of consistency in 
implementing rules;  

Creating CIR to 
achieve harmonisation 
and simplification of 
implementing rules 
for 8 EFIs which 
continue to be 
distinct;  

* A common transversal Regulation has the ability (fitness 
for purpose) to harmonise and simplify implementing rules 
for optimal impact, while allowing for a sufficient degree of 
flexibility, despite continued compartmentalisation of EFIs; 
* Common implementing rules have the ability to contribute 
to enhanced coherence, complementarity and synergies 
between EFIs; 

162 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX IX EXTERNAL STUDY 

https://international-partnerships.ec.europa.eu/publications/evaluation-european-unions-external-financing-
instruments-2014-2020-and-2021-2027_en 

163