Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

*|*

# 52010SC1430

**COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT BACKGROUND DOCUMENT TO THE REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL AND THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE#2009 ANNUAL REPORT ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE INSTRUMENT FOR PRE-ACCESSION ASSISTANCE (IPA)**

  

|| EUROPEAN COMMISSION

Brussels, 25.11.2010

SEC(2009) 1430 final

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT

BACKGROUND DOCUMENT TO THE REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL
AND THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE

2009 ANNUAL REPORT ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE INSTRUMENT FOR PRE-ACCESSION
ASSISTANCE (IPA)
COM(2010) 687

TABLE OF
CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION………………………………………………………………………………………………..............5

PART I: COUNTRY
SECTION………………………………………………………………………………….....9

1........... ALBANIA................................................................................................................... 9

1.1........ The year in review......................................................................................................... 9

1.2........ IPA programming and implementation in 2009......................................................... 10

1.2.1..... MIPD 2009-2011....................................................................................................... 10

1.2.2..... Programming exercise.............................................................................................. 11

1.2.3..... Implementation Modalities and Structures............................................................. 16

1.2.4..... Overview of IPA projects/contracts implemented in 2009.................................... 18

1.3........ Coherence, compatibility and coordination of aid..................................................... 21

1.4........ Monitoring.................................................................................................................. 22

2........... BOSNIA and HERZEGOVINA............................................................................... 23

2.1........ The year in review....................................................................................................... 23

2.2........ IPA programming and implementation in 2009......................................................... 23

2.2.1..... MIPD 2009 – 2011.................................................................................................... 23

2.2.2..... Programming exercise.............................................................................................. 25

2.2.3..... Implementation Modalities and Structures............................................................. 28

2.2.4..... Overview of IPA projects/contracts implemented in 2009.................................... 29

2.3........ Coherence, compatibility and coordination of aid..................................................... 31

2.4........ Monitoring.................................................................................................................. 31

3........... CROATIA.................................................................................................................. 32

3.1........ The year in review....................................................................................................... 32

3.2........ IPA programming and implementation in 2009......................................................... 32

3.2.1..... MIPD 2009-2011....................................................................................................... 32

3.2.2..... Programming exercise.............................................................................................. 33

3.2.3..... Implementation Modalities and Structures............................................................. 39

3.2.4..... Overview of IPA Implementation in 2009.............................................................. 40

3.3........ Coherence, compatibility and coordination of aid..................................................... 44

3.4........ Monitoring.................................................................................................................. 45

4........... THE FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA............................. 46

4.1........ The year in review....................................................................................................... 46

4.2........ IPA programming and implementation in 2009......................................................... 46

4.2.1..... MIPD 2009-2011....................................................................................................... 46

4.2.2..... Programming exercise.............................................................................................. 48

4.2.3..... Implementation Modalities and Structures............................................................. 55

4.2.4..... Overview of IPA projects/contracts implemented in 2009.................................... 55

4.3........ Coherence, compatibility and coordination of aid..................................................... 61

4.4........ Monitoring.................................................................................................................. 62

5........... KOSOVO (under UNSCR 1244/99)......................................................................... 63

5.1........ The year in review....................................................................................................... 63

5.2........ IPA programming and implementation in 2009......................................................... 63

5.2.1..... MIPD 2009-2011....................................................................................................... 63

5.2.2..... Programming exercise.............................................................................................. 64

5.2.3..... Implementation Modalities and Structures............................................................. 66

5.2.4..... Overview of IPA projects/contracts implemented in 2009.................................... 66

5.3........ Coherence, compatibility and coordination of aid..................................................... 69

5.4........ Monitoring.................................................................................................................. 69

6........... MONTENEGRO........................................................................................................ 71

6.1........ The year in review....................................................................................................... 71

6.2........ IPA programming and implementation in 2009......................................................... 71

6.2.1..... MIPD 2009-2011....................................................................................................... 71

6.2.2..... Programming exercise.............................................................................................. 73

6.2.3..... Implementation Modalities and Structures............................................................. 77

6.2.4..... Overview of IPA projects/contracts implemented in 2009.................................... 78

6.3........ Coherence, compatibility and coordination of aid..................................................... 82

6.4........ Monitoring.................................................................................................................. 83

7........... SERBIA..................................................................................................................... 84

7.1........ The year in review....................................................................................................... 84

7.2........ IPA programming and implementation in 2009......................................................... 84

7.2.1..... MIPD 2009-2011....................................................................................................... 84

7.2.2..... Programming exercise.............................................................................................. 85

7.2.3..... Implementation modalities and structures.............................................................. 89

7.2.4..... Overview of IPA projects/contracts implemented in 2009.................................... 89

7.3........ Coherence, compatibility and coordination of aid..................................................... 95

7.4........ Monitoring.................................................................................................................. 95

8........... TURKEY.................................................................................................................... 97

8.1........ The year in review....................................................................................................... 97

8.2........ IPA programming and implementation in 2009......................................................... 97

8.2.1..... MIPD 2009-2011....................................................................................................... 97

8.2.2..... Programming exercise.............................................................................................. 99

8.2.3..... Implementation Modalities and Structures........................................................... 104

8.2.4..... Overview of IPA projects/contracts implemented in 2009.................................. 106

8.3........ Coherence, compatibility and coordination of aid................................................... 111

8.4........ Monitoring................................................................................................................ 112

PART II: MULTIBENEFICIARY AND REGIONAL
PROGRAMMES………………………...114

9........... MULTI-BENEFICIARY......................................................................................... 114

9.1........ The year in review..................................................................................................... 114

9.2........ IPA programming and implementation in 2009....................................................... 114

9.2.1..... MIPD 2009-2011..................................................................................................... 114

9.2.2..... Programming exercise............................................................................................ 116

9.2.3..... Implementation Modalities and Structures........................................................... 119

9.2.4..... Overview of IPA projects/contracts implemented in 2009.................................. 119

9.3........ Coherence, compatibility and coordination of aid................................................... 134

9.4........ Monitoring................................................................................................................ 134

PART III: FINANCIAL DATA……………………………………………………….........................................136

INTRODUCTION

The IPA
instrument

Since 1 January
2007, EU pre-accession funding has been channelled through a single, unified
instrument, the Instrument for Pre-accession Assistance (IPA), designed to
deliver focused support to both candidate countries[1] and potential
candidates[2].
IPA (Council Regulation No 1085/2006 of 17 July 2006) is the successor to the
former pre–accession instruments PHARE[3], ISPA[4], SAPARD[5], the Turkish pre-accession
instrument[6]
as well as the financial instrument for the Western Balkans, i.e. CARDS[7].

In order to
achieve each country's objectives in the most efficient way, IPA is structured
in five different components:

I. Transition
Assistance and Institution Building, aimed at financing institution
building measures and associated investment;

II. Cross-Border
Co-operation (CBC), to support cross-border cooperation between candidate
countries/potential candidates and with EU Member States. It may also fund
relevant participation in trans-national co–operation programmes (Structural
Funds) and Sea Basin programmes (European Neighbourhood and Partnership
Instrument - ENPI);

III. Regional
Development, which finances investments and associated technical assistance
in areas such as transport, environment and economic cohesion;

IV. Human
Resources Development, to strengthen human capital and help combat
exclusion;

V. Rural
Development, which finances rural development-type measures and contributes
to the sustainable development of rural areas. It also provides assistance to
the restructuring of agriculture and its adaptation to EU standards in the
areas of environmental protection, public health, animal and plant health,
animal welfare.

Components I and
II are open to all beneficiaries. Components III, IV and V are open to
candidate countries only, and are designed to mirror Structural, Cohesion and
Rural Development Funds in order to prepare candidate countries for the
management of such EU funds upon accession. This requires beneficiary countries
to have adequate administrative capacity and structures to take responsibility
for the management of assistance. For potential candidates, regional-, human
resources- and rural development–type measures can be implemented through
Component I.

Within the
Commission, DG Enlargement (ELARG) manages component I and part of component
II. DG Regional Policy (REGIO) manages the part of component II under shared
management with Member States and is responsible for component III. DG Employment,
Social Affairs and Equal Opportunities (EMPL) is responsible for component IV
and DG Agriculture and Rural Development (AGRI) has responsibility for
component V. DG ELARG leads in the coordination of the instrument as a whole
and defines the overall Enlargement strategy (the Enlargement Strategy Paper
and the annual Progress Reports that constitute the so called ‘Enlargement
package’, published every autum).

As part of the
‘Enlargement package’, and in accordance with Article 5 of the IPA Regulation,
the Multiannual Indicative Financial Framework (MIFF) provides
the indicative breakdown of the overall IPA envelope by country and by
component for a three year rolling period. The MIFF acts as the link between
the political framework within the ‘Enlargement package’ and the budgetary
process.

Based on MIFF
allocations, and on the priorities identified within the political framework
defined by the accession strategy, Multi-annual Indicative Planning
documents (MIPDs) are established for each country and for the
multi-beneficiary programme. They give a three-year strategic perspective and
represent the Commission's view of major areas of interventions and main
priorities that beneficiary countries are expected to develop in detail in the
programming documents. The MIPDs are reviewed annually.

Annual or
multi-annual programmes are then designed in
accordance with the relevant MIPDs.

Component I
assistance is programmed by the Commission in the form of annual/national and
multi-beneficiary programmes, managed either by the Commission, directly or
indirectly, or by the beneficiary, or jointly with other donors, as
appropriate. Annual/national programmes consist of Financing Proposals prepared
by the Commission on the basis of Project Fiches submitted by the IPA beneficiaries,
or prepared by the Commission in the case of regional and horizontal
Multi-beneficiary programmes, following consultation with stakeholders and
donors and after the positive opinion of the IPA Management Committee.

IPA Component II
cross–border cooperation encompasses two strands: cross–border cooperation
between candidate countries/potential candidates and cross–border cooperation
between them and neighbouring EU Member States. Additionally, IPA Component II
may also support the participation of candidate countries and potential
candidates in Structural Funds' transnational cooperation programmes (financed
by the European Regional Development Fund – ERDF, in the context of the
European Territorial Cooperation objective) and in the European Neighbourhood
Policy Instrument (ENPI) Sea–Basin cooperation programmes.

Assistance to
cross–border cooperation under Component II is delivered on the basis of
multi–annual cross–border programmes currently covering the period 2007-2011,
jointly drawn up by the participating countries, and is granted through annual
financing decisions which are also subject to the positive opinion of the IPA
Management Committee. Concerning participation in the ERDF transnational
programmes or the ENPI Sea–Basin programmes, IPA assistance is granted through
annual Financing Decisions on a country–by–country basis.

Similarly to
Structural Funds, programming of Components III and IV is made through
multi-annual programmes, prepared initially for three years, but which can be
extended to cover additional years. On the basis of the Strategic Coherence
Frameworks and in consultation with relevant stakeholders, candidate countries
draft multi-annual operational programmes per component (Component IV) or per
theme (transport, environment, regional competitiveness - Component III) which
are then agreed with the Commission for formal adoption, following consultation
of the relevant Member States Committee: Coordination Committee for the funds
(COCOF) for Component III and COCOF and European Social Fund (ESF) Committee
for Component IV.

Based on the approach used for preparing the rural
development programmes for the Member States, Component V assistance is
programmed on a multi-annual basis covering the period 2007-2013. However, in
line with the MIPD, the financial envelope was initially specified for the
years 2007-2009 only and is subject to a yearly update in order to include
financial allocations for the subsequent years. After consultations with
stakeholders, the programmes as well as the modifications are adopted by the
Commission following consultation of the EU Member States in the Rural
Development Committee (RDC).

In view of the time necessary to set up the fully
decentralised implementation system on the basis of which assistance under
component V can be delivered, and based on related SAPARD[8] experience, financial allocations for Component V follow
normally a phasing-in approach with a back loading of IPA Rural Development
funds. Funding for the first four years of the implementation period (2007,
2008, 2009 and 2010) therefore represents a lower percentage of the full
Component V allocation, which is due to increase considerably in the following
years. Croatia represents the only exception to this rule as it was the only candidate
country which set up the SAPARD system to profit from SAPARD funds prior to the
implementation of the IPA Rural Development component.

Implementation
modalities

Pre-accession
assistance is implemented through a variety of management modes which take into
account the different levels of preparedness of the beneficiary countries. In
practice, by the end of the reporting period seven different kinds of
management modes could be distinguished:

o
Centralised direct – central:
funds are managed by the Commission services in Brussels (e.g. horizontal and multi-beneficiary
programmes such as Nuclear Safety and Tempus, parts of the
Multi-beneficiary-programme proper);

o
Centralised direct – de-concentrated:
funds are managed by the EU Delegations under the supervision of Commission
services in Brussels (e.g. most of Component I and Component II for Albania; Component
I for Serbia, Components I and II for Montenegro, Component I for Kosovo, Components
I and II of IPA 2007 and 2008 for Bosnia and Herzegovina);

o
Centralised indirect: management of funds
is delegated to third parties such as specialised EU bodies or national or
international public sector bodies (some projects under IPA 2008 Component I
for Albania and under IPA 2009 Component I for Bosnia and Herzegovina);

o
Decentralised with ex-ante
control: funds are managed by accredited national authorities of the
beneficiary , but procurement is subject to ex ante control by the EU
Delegation (Components I to IV in Croatia and Turkey and Components III and IV
in the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia);

o
Decentralised without ex-ante control:
funds are managed by accredited national authorities of the beneficiary and are not subject to ex-ante controls by the
EU Delegation (component V in Croatia[9], Turkey and in
the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia[10]);

o
Shared: funds are
managed by a managing authority located in participating Member States (Component
II CBCs with Member States);

o
Joint: funds are
jointly managed with International Organisations, such as the EBRD, Sigma, UN
agencies (e.g. part of the Multi-beneficiary-programme, infrastructure support
projects in Albania and in Bosnia and Herzegovina under Component I of IPA
2009, parts of Component I for Kosovo).

PART I: COUNTRY SECTION

1.
ALBANIA
1.1.
The year in review

Albania applied for EU
membership in April 2009. After the Council requested the Commission on 16
November 2009 to prepare an Opinion on Albania's application, a Questionnaire
was sent to Albania in December 2009. The Stabilisation and Association
Agreement (SAA) entered into force in April 2009 and up to the end of the
reporting period implementation was progressing smoothly on the whole. Albania
continued to make progress in addressing the political criteria in line with
the European Partnership. Parliamentary elections were held in June 2009, which
were assessed by the OSCE/ODIHR as meeting most international standards, but
further efforts were needed to address recommendations for future elections.
According to the OSCE/ODIHR report, tangible progress with regard to voter
identification, legal framework and voting took place, but the politicisation
of technical processes, such as the vote count, remained to be addressed. After
the elections, the opposition Socialist Party (SP) started a parliamentary
boycott, which by the end of the reporting period had not yet come to an end.
Political dialogue between the two main parties deteriorated and continued to
be a major source of concern.

The main issues in Albania
revolved around strengthening democracy and the rule of law, reforming the
judicial system, and continuing with efforts to fight corruption. The capacity
of the Albanian institutions in these areas remained to a large extent limited,
in particular as regarded the judiciary's independence, transparency and
efficiency, the implementation of public administration reform and the fight
against corruption and organised crime, even if an important work was done in
the framework of the visa liberalisation dialogue.

Some progress was registered
regarding human rights and the protection of minorities, for which the legal
framework was broadly in place. However, further efforts were needed in order
to improve the enforcement of legislation in a number of fields. Areas of
special concern were the situation of the Roma population and freedom of
expression. In relation to the latter, the joint EU-Council of Europe Action
plan on media reform aimed at improving the overall climate of media regulation
in Albania.

In addition, the
implementation of the SAA, which started after final ratification on 1 April
2009, demanded strong administrative capacities in almost all acquis
related areas in order to meet the requirements identified in the SAA.
Structural reforms were not yet fully implemented and more efforts were needed
in the economic area to improve the business environment.

The economy of Albania
maintained macroeconomic stability despite the global crisis. However, economic
growth slowed down in 2009 as a consequence of reduced exports, remittances and
credit growth. Nevertheless, Albanian growth rates exceeded those of regional
neighbours.

In their assessment of Albania’s
implementation of the roadmap for visa liberalisation in June 2009, Commission
services concluded that, despite the important progress made, Albania had not
yet fully met all the agreed benchmarks. The Commission continued to monitor
the implementation of benchmarks by the country, while intensifying cooperation
with the Albanian authorities. In this context, until the end of the year
Albania made good progress in meeting the criteria.

For more details on
developments in 2009 in Albania’s preparation for EU membership, please refer
to the Commission’s 2009 Progress Report on Albania[11].

1.2.
IPA programming and implementation in 2009
1.2.1.
MIPD 2009-2011

As a potential candidate
country, in 2009 Albania benefited from IPA Components I and II. The
Multi-annual Indicative Planning Document (MIPD) 2009-2011 was adopted on 31
July 2009.

The indicative allocations
to Albania under the Multi-annual Indicative Financial Framework (MIFF) for the
period 2009-2011 amounted to EUR 269.4 million, as specified in Table 1 below.
Assistance was in line with the recommendations of the 2008 Enlargement
Strategy[12] and Progress
Report as well as with the priorities stated in the European Partnership and
addressed the requirements under the SAA.

More specifically for the period 2009–2011, EU assistance to Albania
should address key issues such as public administration reform and rule of law
enforcement, in particular as regarded good governance and anti-corruption
measures. This emphasis was reflected in a further increase of funds allocated
to the area of political requirements for the IPA 2009 envelope compared to
previous programmes. Strengthening of the administrative capacity with a view
to the implementation of the SAA was given a high priority, to support the
Albanian authorities in fulfilling the requirements of that agreement. There
was also a need to further support structural reforms in the country and invest
in related infrastructure, in particular in the area of regional development
and acquis related infrastructure.

The strategic objectives identified in the MIPD 2009-2011 responded
to the European Partnership priorities, the 2008 Progress Report and the SAA
requirements. Assistance was supposed to support the implementation of
Albania’s 2007 National Strategy for Development and Integration, the 2007-2012
National Plan for the Approximation of the Legislation and the SAA, as well as
other relevant strategies in areas related to the EU integration process.

The 2009-2011 MIPD foresaw that IPA support under Component I for
the corresponding period, amounting to EUR 237.9 million (see Table 1 below),
should assist Albania in the following main areas:

Political criteria: Particular attention
was paid to assisting Albania in addressing fundamental issues such as good
governance and the rule of law. IPA support contributed primarily to improving
the political system so as to ensure better functioning of the executive,
legislative and judiciary, a more effective fight against corruption and
organised crime, strengthened public administration, financial control and
better involvement of civil society in the political process. The preparation
for decentralised management of EU assistance also required intensive support.

Economic criteria: To ensure
complementarity with other donors, EU support under this axis concentrated on
economic, fiscal and trade policies and the banking system, structural reforms
to support regional development (including cultural heritage activities),
social policies, education and employment and development.

Ability to assume the obligations of membership: priority was given to supporting Albania’s progressive alignment
with the acquis in the areas of internal market, agriculture and rural
development, food safety, veterinary and phytosanitary policy, environment,
energy, transport, integrated border management, visa and migration, fight
against organised crime with a focus on obligations under the SAA. Support was
provided for the establishment and capacity building of agencies and
institutions required for the implementation and enforcement of sectoral
policies.

Support programmes: these programmes
were foreseen to allow Albania to participate in EU agencies and institutions,
as well as in EU-funded  programmes.

With regard to support for Cross-Border Co-operation under IPA
Component II, amounting to EUR 31.5 million for the period 2009 – 2011, the
MIPD foresaw that it should address cross-border activities between Albania and
EU Member States as well as with adjacent candidate countries and potential
candidates.

Continuity was ensured
between the MIPD 2008-2010 and the MIPD 2009-2011, as developments in the
country did not justify a radical change. In line with the 2008 Enlargement
Strategy, continued focus was put on support for projects in the context of the
political criteria. More emphasis was laid on the protection of cultural
heritage, which were in line with demands from the European Parliament and the
so called "Ljubljana Process" initiated by the European Commission
and the Council of Europe. Furthermore, activities were introduced to help
soften the effects of the financial crisis. This included for example major
infrastructure projects (IPA 2009 included EUR 23 million for municipal water
and sewerage infrastructure).

Table 1: MIFF[13]
allocations per component, in million EUR

Component || 2009[14] || 2010 || 2011 || 2009-2011

I. Transition Assistance and Institution Building || 70.9 || 82.7 || 84.3 || 237.9

II. Cross-Border Cooperation || 10.3 || 10.5 || 10.7 || 31.5

TOTAL || 81.2 || 93.2 || 95.0 || 269.4

1.2.2.
Programming
exercise

The IPA 2009 national
programme for Albania focused on the objectives identified in the 2009-2011
MIPD. It encompassed 16 projects grouped under 4 strategic priority axes.
Experience with the so far limited implementation of IPA assistance in Albania
as well as   findings of evaluations conducted by DG Enlargement -
specifically, the evaluation on public administration reform[15]
- suggested that planning and programming of IPA assistance needed to consider
the following lessons:

Ø Ownership by the beneficiary was essential for the effective
targeting of assistance and for achieving expected results. As a result, in
2009 the Commission undertook significant efforts to involve Albania's
institutions in planning and programming of EU assistance. The Ministry for
European Integration (MEI) benefited from substantial institutional and
capacity-building support. The introduction of the function of Senior Programme
Officers (SPO) within the European Integration units in line ministries and the
leading role of the MEI in the programming process should help increase
ownership in the future.

Ø The absorption capacity of the authorities needed to be ensured.
This depended on project maturity in terms of adequate staffing in the relevant
institutions, mobilisation of civil society and a political consensus on key
reform activities.

Ø Timely planning of future assistance was essential to addressing key
areas. Past experience with delays in implementation of CARDS and IPA showed
the need to ensure that projects did not become obsolete because of late
implementation.

Ø The link between EU assistance and sectoral strategies and action
plans of the Albanian institutions needed to be ensured. The aim was to design
assistance in relation to Albanian strategic plans, which in turn should
address the requirements of the EU integration process.

Ø Particular attention needed to be paid to projects preparedness and
maturity.

The above mentioned points
were raised at several occasions with the beneficiary during the programming
meetings of IPA 2009 and were taken as much as possible into account in the
preparation of the IPA 2009 programme.

IPA 2009 addresses key
issues such as police reform and rule of law enforcement, in particular as
regards anti-money laundering, witness protection and further improvement of
the justice system. All in all, EUR 9.8 million are provided to support justice
and home affairs, which constitute about 14% of the overall programme amount.
At the same time, the national programme also meets the requirements to
continue preparation of the Albanian administration for decentralised
management as well as to assist with preparations for the population Census in
2011, support civil society and help with advancing on important acquis
related issues such as industrial property rights, food safety and data
protection.

Two large infrastructure projects are also included in the 2009
programme, one in the environment sector (water supply and sewerage) and one in
the transport sector (local roads). In consultation with the Albanian
government, it was agreed that the local road project and parts of the water
project shall be implemented via the municipal window of the Infrastructure
Project Facility (which at the end of 2009 was merged into the Western Balkan
Investment Framework – cf. Part II of this document) in cooperation with
International Financial Institutions. This should also be seen in the context
of Commission's efforts to respond to the need for measures to help Albania
soften the effects of the financial crisis.

In general, projects were chosen on the basis of their maturity or
readiness to be implemented. This means that a minimum of preparatory or design
work had to be available, in order to be able to start projects soon after the
signature of the Financing Agreement. At the same time, conditionalities were
systematically introduced in the project fiches regarding the sustainability of
interventions, once being finalised (e.g. maintenance plans).

There was a trend towards
less but bigger projects in programming of IPA assistance to Albania in 2009.
This was mainly due to the fact that IPA 2008 included a rather high number of
small projects. At the same time, under the pressure of the effects of the
financial crisis the European Commission decided to focus more on larger
infrastructure projects, in order to support the demand side of the public
sector for necessary works.

As regards the types of
contracts, Component I of the 2009 programme foresees altogether 5 action
grants in the areas of judicial reform, support to civil society and
improvement of industrial property rights. In addition, alongside with 7 work
contracts concerning boarder control, protecting cultural heritage, the Kukes
region and environmental infrastructure (water supply and sewerage system), the
programme also includes 7 supply contracts as well as an indicative number of
about 23 service contracts. Finally, 3 twinning projects are envisaged in the
area of anti-money laundering, fight against corruption and judicial reform.

The programming process
for IPA 2009 was carried out with close involvement of the beneficiary
institutions, in particular the Ministry of European Integration. There was a
moderately improved ownership on the Albanian side during the programming
exercise, in particular regarding preparation of project fiches. The quality of
the project fiches, which were produced by the beneficiary, was much better
than in previous years. The preliminary project list for IPA 2009 had been
presented to the Member States and their agencies in Tirana at the end of 2008.
Later, during the first half of 2009 the list was circulated amongst IFIs,
multi-lateral donors and civil society organisations. Finally, the programme
was presented to the IPA Committee on 25 September 2009 and adopted in December
of that year.

Table 2: Indicative financial allocations
for the year per component, in million EUR

ALBANIA || 2009

I. Transition Assistance and Institution Building || 71.36

Of which:                                                                                                     National Programme (Including Kukes region programme, i.e. funds transferred from IPA Component II to IPA Component I) || 69.86

                                                                          Nuclear Safety Programme\* || 0.50

                                                                                    Tempus Programme\* || 1.00

II. Cross-Border Cooperation || 9.83

Of which:                     ||

                                                                              CBC FYROM - Albania || 0.85

                                                                              CBC Montenegro – Albania || 0.85

                                                                              CBC Greece – Albania || 1.63

                                                                              CBC Adriatic || 5.90

                                                                   ERDF South-East Europe + MED || 0.60

TOTAL || 81.19

\* The Nuclear Safety Programme and Tempus Programme are
coordinated and implemented under the relevant Multi-beneficiary IPA 2009
programmes.

As for programming of IPA
2010, the exercise began in early 2009, in order to achieve an earlier adoption
than for the 2009 programme. A first programming mission took place in May
2009. However, due to the outcome of the elections of June 2009 and the
consequent changes in government, the outcome of this first mission had to be
substantially revised. By the end of the year a final project list was agreed
between the Beneficiary and the European Commission and presented also to other
donors.

1.2.2.1             Component I:
Transition Assistance and Institution Building

Component I aims at achieving the objectives listed in Art 2 of the
IPA regulation in line with the above enlisted priority areas. Within the
dimension of “strengthening democratic institutions”, support for enhancing
government's services to citizens and businesses will be provided through IPA
2009 by building an e-Government infrastructure that is in line with EU
Personal Data Protection standards. Furthermore, strengthening of European
Integration structures and preparation for Decentralised Management System of
IPA funds (DIS) shall give impetus to Public Administration reform.

In order to strengthen the rule of law, IPA 2009 continues to emphasise
support to horizontally important areas such as blue border management, anti-money
laundering and financial crime investigation structures as well as witness protection.
Activities in these fields are expected to further strengthen the fight against
organised crime and corruption. Furthermore, citizens' trust into the judiciary
is expected to further improve by supporting the strengthening of the
legislative and institutional justice system and the establishment of a
probation service and alternative measures to detention.

Component I of the 2009 programme aims also at supporting media
freedom and the media sector in developing an independent, high-quality public
service broadcasting system, including the digitalisation of broadcasting, and at
developing a regulatory environment in line with European standards. As a
result, an effective, transparent and predictable regulatory framework for the
media is expected to be in place, as well as improved performance of the
Broadcasting Authority. In this context, the joint EU-Council of Europe Action
plan on media reform aims at improving the overall climate of media regulation
in Albania.

IPA 2009 supports also civil society in order to create a genuine
partnership with the authorities for the democratic stabilisation and the
economic and social development of the country. As a result, it is expected
that dialogue between the authorities and civil society will improve. In
addition, it is envisaged that the independence and integrity of civil society
organisations will be further strengthened to fulfil a "watchdog"
function, and that transparent mechanisms for disbursement of local funds for
civil society organisations will be developed.

Concerning the protection of minorities and vulnerable groups
(including Roma, women, children, the handicapped and mentally ill) support is
provided through the civil society facility. Furthermore, sound data on minorities
will be gathered through the Census preparation project, which will be the
basis for developing policies to overcome their vulnerable and economically
fragile situation and protect them against discrimination.

Table 3: Indicative
financial allocations for the year 2009 under the National Programme, per
priority axis and per project, in million EUR

Priority Axis || Projects || Budget

Political Criteria || 21.8

|| Support for Blue Border Management || 4.0

|| Support/ Twinning for Anti-Money Laundering and Financial Crime Investigation Structures || 1.5

|| Technical Assistance/Twinning for the Justice System || 3.3

|| Fight against corruption and organised crime: Witness and Special Persons Protection || 1.0

|| Support for enhancing Decentralised Management System || 1.5

|| Support for the Population and Housing Census 2011 || 8.0

|| Project Preparation Facility || 1.0

|| Civil Society Facility || 1.5

Socio-economic Criteria || 14.46

|| Infrastructure: Secondary and local roads || 9.0

|| Support for Cultural heritage || 5.0

|| Kukes Region || 0.46

Ability to assume the obligations of membership || 31.6

|| Improvement of water supply and sewerage systems || 23.1

|| Improvement of industrial property rights || 1.0

|| Consolidation of the food safety system || 3.5

|| Building and e-government infrastructure that is in line with EU Personal Data Protection standards || 4.0

Participation in EU Programmes || 2.0

|| Support for participation to EU Programmes: in particular Competition and Innovation Framework Programme (CIP), Europe Citizens, 7th Research Framework Programme (FP 7) || 2.0

TOTAL || 69.86

1.2.2.2             Component II:
Cross-border Cooperation

The overall objective of
cross-border cooperation (CBC) programmes is to promote cooperation between
people, communities and institutions, aiming at sustainable development,
stability and prosperity of bordering areas.

The cross-border programme
for 2007-2009 between the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and Albania was
adopted by Commission Decision in December 2007. The Financing Proposal for the
year 2009 was adopted by Commission Decision in September 2009. The latter only
added the 2009 financial allocation for both countries and did not touch at the
substance of the programme. The overall objective of the programme is to
promote sustainable development in the cross-border area.

The cross-border programme between Albania and Montenegro 2007-2009
was adopted by Commission Decision in December 2007 and the Financing Proposal
for the year 2009 was adopted by Commission Decision in August 2009. No
programme revision was undertaken as the 2009 Financing Proposal only added the
yearly financial allocation to this programme.

Considering the status of Kosovo[16]
and since the conditions to have a fully fledged joint cross-border programme
between Albania and Kosovo were not met, IPA 2007, 2008 and 2009 funds were
allocated to the Albania national programme for unilateral projects in the
Kukes region bordering Kosovo. Although financed with IPA component II funds,
this programme was implemented under component I, exceptionally transferring
the funds from one IPA component to another. In October 2009, the Commission
recommended to progressively activate the IPA cross-border co-operation
component for Kosovo[17], notably with
Albania, under IPA 2010 programming.

The cross-border programme
between Greece and Albania 2007-2013 was jointly developed by the Albanian and
Greek authorities and adopted after revision in November 2008. The programme
builds on the 2000-2006 INTERREG programme between the two countries. The
Financing Proposal for the year 2009 was adopted by Commission Decision in
August 2009 and did not imply any programme revision. The overall objective of
the programme is to increase living standards by promoting sustainable local
development in the border area.

Since 2007, Albania is
part of the IPA Adriatic cross-border cooperation programme together with
Italy, Slovenia, Greece, Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Montenegro and, in
phasing-out, Serbia. This programme is a continuation of the 2004-2006
Italy-Adriatic INTERREG and Italy-Albania Neighbourhood programmes. The
Financing Decision for the year 2009 was adopted by the Commission in August
2009. The global objective of the programme is to strengthen sustainable
development of the Adriatic region.

Albania is also
participating in the ERDF transnational programme since, respectively, 2007 for
the "South-East Europe" part and 2009 for the "Mediterranean"
part, under the European Territorial Co-operation objective of the Structural
Funds 2007-2013. The Financing Decision for its participation for the year 2009
was adopted by the Commission in August 2009. The programme supports Albanian
participation to joint transnational co-operation activities with partners from
EU Member States and familiarises the country with territorial co-operation
programmes under EU Structural Funds.

1.2.3.
Implementation
Modalities and Structures

As in the previous
reporting year, in 2009 the majority of the projects under IPA 2007 and 2008
component I and II were implemented on a centralised (de-concentrated) basis by
the European Union Delegation to Albania in accordance with article 53(a) of
the Financial Regulation (FR)[18] and the
corresponding provisions of the implementing rules (IR)[19].
However, IPA 2008 foresees 5 projects to be implemented by indirect centralised
management with Deutsche Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit
(GTZ) and the Austrian Development Agency (ADA). As this represented a novelty for
the Commission as well as for the Member States’ agencies concerned in the
enlargement context, it took a relatively long time to negotiate the
corresponding delegation agreements, which were finally signed in June 2009.
This management mode allowed the Delegation to free human resources for project
implementation. At the same time, the chosen development agencies had a proven
track record in the field for which they signed delegation agreements with the
Commission. The selection was based on a transparent process, to which all
present and accredited agencies were invited.

Further exceptions to the
centralised (de-concentrated) management more are the infrastructure
support projects (rural roads and water infrastructure) in Part I of the 2009
IPA programme. As already mentioned, these projects will be implemented by
joint management with the Council of Europe Development Bank (CEB) in
cooperation with Kreditanstalt für Wiederaufbau (KfW). Joint management
with CEB/KfW was chosen on the basis of their broad experience in the water
sector in Albania and with a view to pooling different sources of finance in
order to allow implementation of large infrastructure projects, which represent
a priority for the beneficiary. This should be seen also in the context of the
European Commission's efforts to soften the impact of the financial crisis on
the countries of the Western Balkans.

Finally, as in the
previous reporting year,  the horizontal nuclear safety and education (Tempus)
programmes will be implemented on a centralised basis by the European
Commission in Brussels, in the framework of the Multi-Beneficiary Programme.

The process leading to
decentralised management of IPA funds is a challenging administrative
capacity-building exercise for the Albanian government on the road towards EU
integration and shall become one of its main medium-term priorities in the
years to come. In January 2009, a project funded under the IPA 2007 programme
started to support the Albanian administration in its decentralised management
process for IPA component I and helped in starting to set up the structures and
manuals for Albania's financial management and control system of IPA funds. A
European Commission fact-finding mission to Tirana took place in May 2009 and
provided guidance to the Ministry of Finance on the necessary steps for the
process. The mission made substantial recommendations with regard to Albania's
set-up of an Audit Authority and provided clarification about the competent
accrediting and national authorising officer functions. As a follow-up to the
Commission's recommendations, in the summer of 2009 the Albanian Ministry of
Finance revised its 2008 roadmap for the decentralised management of component
I; the DIS structure was approved by the Albanian Council of Minister in June
2009; key nominations were made in autumn 2009, Senior Programming Officers in
line ministries were nominated and the legal frame of the Audit Authority was
created in October 2009 and started to be staffed in December 2009; the staff
of the Albanian Central Financing and Contracting Unit was trained on
Commission's programming and contracting rules. By the end of 2009, Albania had
established most of the framework for the management and control system.

As for preparations for
the IPA Rural Development component (component V), in October 2009 a project
funded under the IPA 2008 programme started to support the Albanian Ministry of
Agriculture, Food and Consumer Protection to design and develop a rural
development strategy and relevant IPA Rural Development structures, building
upon current Albanian ones. By the end of 2009 Albania was able to present a
draft roadmap/concept paper for IPA Rural Development preparations.

While by the end of the
reporting period progress seemed solid on component I and promising on
component V, the process leading to decentralised management of IPA funds was
still at a very early stage for components II, III and IV. Key challenges
remained, regarding: the establishment of a National Fund; drafting of roadmaps
towards decentralised management of component II; kicking-off preparations for
the structures' set-up for components II, III, IV, V; starting drafting the
Strategic Coherence Framework and Operational Programmes for components III and
IV and the IPA Rural Development programme for component V; the need for strong
coordination and ownership of the process at governmental level and regular
reporting to the Commission. In order to address these challenges, at the end
of 2009 the European Commission was preparing for a joint-mission to Tirana of
the four General Directorates responsible for the five IPA components, to
officially launch preparations for decentralised management of IPA II, III, IV
and V in early 2010. Furthermore, IPA 2009 programming included a project that
built upon the ongoing IPA 2007 DIS project and aimed at supporting further
preparation requirements for all IPA components.

1.2.4.
Overview of IPA
projects/contracts implemented in 2009

In 2009, IPA 2007 projects
were under implementation and IPA 2008 projects started to be contracted. For
the exact implementation figures, please see tables below.

1.2.4.1             Component I: Transition
Assistance and Institution Building

Tables 4: Status of implementation of IPA financial assistance
(Component I) as at 31st December 2009 (in
million EUR) per annual programme and distribution of total committed funds
(2007-2009 allocations) by priority axes

|| Committed || Contracted || RAC[20] || %Contracted || Paid || RAL[21] || %Paid

IPA 2007 || 49.27 || 23.48 || 25.79 || 47.66% || 6.61 || 42.66 || 13.42%

IPA 2008 || 64.04[22] || 26.49 || 37.55 || 41.36% || 8.06 || 55.98 || 12.59%

IPA 2009 || 69.86 || 0.00 || 69.86 || 0.00% || 0.00 || 69.86 || 0.00%

TOTAL || 183.17 || 49.97 || 133.20 || 27.28% || 14.67 || 168.49 || 8.01%

Priority Axes || % of 2007-2009 allocations

Political criteria || 31.29%

(of which civil society) || (0.82%)

Economic criteria || 20.20%

Ability to assume membership obligations || 46.71%

Support programmes || 1.80%

TOTAL || 100.00%

During
2009, some significant IPA projects started and/or were ongoing in Albania
under Component I, as follows:

IPA 2007 projects

The project 'Police Assistance Mission of the EU to Albania (PAMECA
III – EUR 5.5 million) started its activities in 2008. The project team was
composed of a group of experts drawn from 3 Member States (United Kingdom,
Austria and Sweden) and spams across the entire spectrum of activities of the
Albanian State Police, including organized crime, terrorism, integrated border
management, human, financial and material resources management, community
policing and others. In 2009 the team was fully completed and focused on
important areas, such as customs police, criminal intelligence and general
policing. Up to the end of the reporting period, the project proved successful
in highlighting areas needing further improvement towards building a credible
Police Force in Albania, and in identifying suitable strategic and tactical
actions to achieve that goal. The key principle of the project was to build
sustainable capacity and not to replace it.

The project of technical assistance to the preparation of the
Albanian Authorities for the EU Decentralised Implementation System (DIS)
started in January 2009 and foresaw EUR 1 million of IPA funds. The overall
objective of the project was to adequately prepare the Albanian Authorities for
absorbing EU financial assistance, putting into place efficient structures and
strengthening the capacities of key institutions for technical management of
decentralized programmes in order to ensure sound management of DIS. During the
reporting year, the project supported the Albanian authorities in revising the
DIS roadmap and in setting-up the main structures.

IPA 2008 projects

The "Project Against Corruption" in Albania (PACA) funded
under IPA 2008 and featuring a EUR 2 million contribution from the European
Commission was signed in July 2009 and implementation started in September of
that same year. The project is conducted by the Council of Europe and focuses
on assisting the Albanian government in enhancing the effectiveness of
implementation of the Cross Cutting Strategy against Corruption, a declared
Government priority in line with the European Partnership objectives. The
project aims at building the capacity of the Albanian administration (Line
Ministries, State Police) and independent institutions such as the General
Prosecutor's Office, the High Inspectorate for the Declaration of Assets and
the High Council of Justice to adopt, implement and monitor internal mechanisms
to counter and reduce corruption. The project also features a pilot component
on anti-corruption in the education sector, and has an implementation period of
30 months.

In October 2009, the EUR 2.2 million project "Supporting
Albanian SMEs to become more competitive on the EU-market" started its
implementation. This strategic project aims at supporting the Ministry of
Economy, Trade and Energy (METE) and Albinvest[23]
to develop SME policy and specific support measures in order to assist Albanian
SMEs to compete in the wider EU market. The overall objective of the project is
to maintain sustainable growth, increase the competitiveness of the private
sector and provide a healthy business environment for investment and
employment. This is of great importance as the Stabilisation and Association
Agreement in force between the EU and Albania gives Albanian SMEs an enormous
opportunity to expand their businesses into EU markets. The project should
strengthen the capacities of METE and Albinvest to develop, implement and
monitor Albanian SME policy in order to provide entrepreneurship and innovation
programmes to SMEs.

In order to assist the government in achieving the main goals of the
Rural Development Strategy for Albania (2007-2013), further support is provided
by IPA 2008 through the project "Capacity building for Rural Development
Strategy" (EUR 2 million), that started implementation in October 2009.
The project aims at establishing and strengthening institutional and
administrative capacities in the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Consumer
Protection to design, develop and implement the policies and the appropriate
supporting means for the development of agriculture and rural areas in the
framework of EU pre-accession assistance programs for IPA Rural Development.

The IPA 2008 project "Improving the consumer protection against
zoonotic diseases" (EUR 5.7 million) started its implementation in
December 2009. The main purpose of the project is to assist the Ministry of
Agriculture, Food and Consumer Protection to strengthen the administrative and
technical capacity of the veterinary service in order to plan and implement the
appropriate measures conducive to the eradication and controlling of animal
diseases such as brucellosis, tuberculosis, anthrax, classical swine fewer and
rabies.

In December 2009, the EU Delegation signed a works contract of EUR
6.6 million for the reconstruction of rural roads in Albania. These works
include reconstruction of four sections of secondary roads in Gjirokastra,
Lezha and Shkodra Districts, totalling 30.7 km. The funds are part of a EUR 8
million IPA 2008 project dedicated to rural roads infrastructure.

TAIEX, Twinning and SIGMA

Altogether, seven twinning
projects were launched for Albania during 2009, one of which funded by IPA 2007
and the remaining six by IPA 2008.  Finance was the most relevant sector
concerned by more than half of the projects launched. One project,
"Strengthening the institutional capacity of the Albanian Central
Bank", was successfully re-circulated in November 2009 after no proposals
were received at the first launch in June. The Member States selected for
leading the twinning projects were Austria, Italy, Poland and Germany. For one
twinning no partner was selected by the end of the reporting period. No
twinning contracts were signed in 2009. Altogether, 71 TAIEX experts assisted
Albania in 2009.

SIGMA activities in 2009
revolved around the following topics: public service and administrative
framework with focus on the law on administrative procedures and civil service
reform, public expenditure management and assistance to the development of the
public procurement system.

Regarding the evaluation
of these institution and capacity building instruments, i.e. the success of
twinnings vs. technical assistance, evaluation contracted by headquarters had
not started yet in 2009.

1.2.4.2             Component II:
Cross-border Cooperation

Tables 5: Status of implementation of IPA financial assistance
(Component II) as at 31st December 2009 (in
million EUR) per annual programme and distribution of total committed funds
(2007-2009 allocations) by priority axes

|| Committed || Contracted || RAC || %Contracted || Paid || RAL || %Paid

IPA 2007 || 6.68 || 0.68 || 6.00 || 10.18% || 0.62 || 6.06. || 9.28%

IPA 2008 || 8.58 || 0.00 || 8.58 || 0.00% || 0.00 || 8.58 || 0.00%

IPA 2009 || 9.83 || 0.00 || 9.83 || 0.00% || 0.00 || 9.83 || 0.00%

TOTAL || 25.09 || 0.68 || 24.41 || 2.71% || 0.62 || 24.47 || 2.47%

Priority Axes || % of 2007-2009 allocations

CBC with Member States || 73.48%

CBC within Western Balkans || 22.53%

Participation to ERDF Transnational Programmes || 3.99%

TOTAL || 100.00%

Implementation of the
2007–2009 Cross-border Cooperation Programmes with Albanian was ongoing in
2009.

For programmes at borders
between candidate countries/potential candidates, i.e. Albania-Montenegro and
Albania-the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, it took about one year from
the signature of first financing agreements (March/April 2008) for national
authorities to set up the programme management structures and prepare the first
calls for proposals, which were published for all programmes from June to July
2009. This timing is comparable to that of Member States for CBC at intra-EU
borders. The calls included IPA 2007 funds for the programmes between Albania
and Montenegro and between Albania and the former Yugoslav Republic of
Macedonia. Calls were closed in September-October 2009.

For the programme
Albania-Greece, one call for proposals encompassing IPA 2007, 2008 and 2009
funds altogether was prepared in 2009 for launching in 2010.

As regards Albanian participation to the ERDF “South-East Europe”
Transnational Programme, calls were open for project proposals in the following
areas: facilitation of innovation and entrepreneurship, protection and
improvement of the environment, improvement of the accessibility and development of transnational
synergies for sustainable growth areas, and three grant contracts
with Albanian beneficiaries were signed in winter 2009. The objectives of the
selected projects were the networking for the promotion of transport corridors,
the exchange of information and the protection of the environment. The quality
of the applications received was considered ‘average to good’ as beneficiaries
were requested to review in depth their action plan and their budget as per
project cycle management requirements.

CBC Programmes can make a
valuable contribution to reconciliation and good neighbourly relations, and the
beneficiaries have shown great expectations with regards to the results of the
programmes of this component, also in light of the fact that CBC's
'learning-by-doing' approach should significantly contribute to local
capacity-building. These great expectations were reflected in the large number
of applications submitted to the Calls for proposals, despite the almost
symbolic amount of available funds. The amount requested with all applications
received was, for Albania-Montenegro CBC programme, four times more and, for
Albania-former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia CBC programme, ten times more,
than the overall amounts available under these calls.

1.3.
Coherence, compatibility and coordination of aid

In order to increase
effectiveness and efficiency in the delivery of assistance through donor
coordination, the Commission and the Member States ensure coordination of their
respective assistance programmes. This coordination is extended also to the
IFIs and other non-EU donors. At local level, a consultation mechanism during
the different phases of the assistance cycle was established in 2007. It
provided for an early consultation on draft IPA planning (MIPDs) and
programming documents with Member State embassies, local offices of IFIs, UN
entities and non–EU donors.

At central level,
coordination meetings with IFIs as well as with EU and non–EU donors are
organised on a regular basis. They focus primarily on strategic orientations
and the regional dimension of IPA planning and programming. Additionally,
coordination between the Commission and Member States take place on a regular
basis in the context of the IPA Committee. Meetings with Member States
embassies and the local branches of the IFIs on the MIPD 2009-2011 and the IPA
2009 draft national programme were organised in December 2008.

Since November 2005, the
Government of Albania receives support to improve the process of donor coordination
through the Integrated Planning System (IPS), which aims at ensuring that core
policy and financial processes function in a coherent, efficient and integrated
manner. Assistance to this mechanism was foreseen under IPA 2007. Furthermore,
the Albanian Government has significantly improved donor coordination and
aligned international assistance with national priorities through the
Department of Strategy and Donor Coordination (DSDC). It was created in 2005
under the Deputy Prime Minister’s Office in the Council of Ministers of the
Albanian government and is responsible for national, sectoral and cross-cutting
development strategy coordination.

The Delegation of the
European Union has played a leading role in the past as head of the Donor
Technical Secretariat (DTS), which facilitates coordination and hosts project
data from all donors since 2003. This leading role is rotating between the main
donors such as European Union, OSCE, World Bank, UNDP and Member States.

To facilitate the
coordination among donors as well as between government and donors within each
sector, Sector Working Groups have been created. The government has the leading
role in calling the meetings of the Sector Working Groups, but donors can take
the initiative and call meetings each time they feel there is an important
issue to be discussed amongst them, or with the government. The 9 Sector Working
Groups for donor coordination are currently shared as follows: 1) environment,
land and agriculture; 2) infrastructure & energy; 3) economy & finance;
4) social policy sectors; 5) justice & home affairs; 6) government
modernisation; 7) decentralisation; 8) youth and culture, civil society and
media; 9) elections and civil registry.

Albania was selected in
January 2007 as a pilot country for the UN "delivering as one"
reform, which is financially supported (amongst others) by the EU. Furthermore,
the Division of Labour initiative in line with the Paris Declaration and the
Accra Agenda for Action is becoming more and more developed.

The Tirana Donor
Coordination Conference organised by the European Commission and the Albanian
Government in April 2009 was seen as a success by all participants as for the
first time it was  organised by the European Commission together with (and in)
a beneficiary country. According to figures presented at the last donors'
conference, the total amount of donors' committed funds to Albania for the
period 2007-2009 was EUR 2.7 billion.

However, with view to
donor presence in Albania, it was feared that due to the financial crisis some
bilateral donors could reduce their foreseen resources as in some donor
countries they are often linked to GDP.

1.4.
Monitoring

The monitoring of
IPA-funded projects in Albania started only in 2009. Three different projects
were monitored by Result Oriented Monitoring (ROM): 1) one on preparing the
Albanian authorities for decentralized management; 2) one on the police
assistance mission of the European Union to Albania (PAMECA III); 3) one on
fighting corruption in Albania. The exercise identified weaknesses and areas of
improvement that appeared to be prevalent in all three projects. In particular,
there was a need to improve the logical frameworks and produce results with
suitable indicators of achievement, alongside with better standards of
reporting (with emphasis on results and project purpose achievement); all
projects should review the risks assessment and establish a risk management
plan; more efforts were needed to ensure and increase EU visibility;
inter-institutional cooperation at the national level could be improved.

2.
BOSNIA and HERZEGOVINA
2.1.
The year in review

The conclusions of the
2009 Progress Report for Bosnia and Herzegovina[24]
confirmed that implementation of the Interim Agreement in 2009 was overall
satisfactory. However there was only very limited progress in addressing key
reforms. Bosnia and Herzegovina needed to reform its constitutional framework
to permit its institutions to function effectively and ensure a sustainable
progress towards EU integration. In particular, the country needed to be in a
position to adopt, implement and enforce the laws and the rules of the EU.

In 2009 Bosnia and
Herzegovina made very limited progress in addressing the political criteria.
Reform implementation was slow due to the lack of consensus and political will
and the complex institutional framework. The functioning of state-level
institutions and legislative bodies was deficient. While some progress was made
in the area of public administration, more efforts were needed on improving the
judicial system, in particular on the fight against corruption and organised
crime.

The European
Union Police Mission (EUPM) is part of the overall EU efforts in Bosnia and
Herzegovina. Since 2003 it contributes to the security and stability of the
country. IPA interventions, in particular in the sectors rule of law and law
enforcement are closely coordinated with the EUPM.

As regards the economic
criteria, during the reporting period Bosnia and Herzegovina made little
further progress towards a functioning market economy. The quality and
sustainability of public finances deteriorated further and considerable efforts
had to be pursued with determination to enable the country to cope with
competitive pressures and market forces within the Union over the long term.

Finally, Bosnia and
Herzegovina made limited progress in 2009 with regard to the alignment of its
legislation and policies with European standards. Some progress was made in
areas such as transport, customs, taxation, education and culture. Progress was
registered also in a number of justice, freedom and security related issues,
especially in fulfilling the conditions for visa liberalisation. However
particular efforts remained necessary as regards the movement of goods, persons
and services, social and employment policies, state aid, energy and
environment.

For more details on
developments in 2009 in Bosnia and Herzegovina’s preparation for EU membership,
please refer to the Commission’s 2009 Progress Report, abovementioned.

2.2.
IPA programming and implementation in 2009
2.2.1.
MIPD 2009 –
2011

As in previous Enlargement
Strategy papers and in line with findings in the 2009 Progress Report, the
Commission concluded in the 2009 Enlargement Strategy that Bosnia and
Herzegovina urgently needed to speed up key reforms and revise its
constitutional framework in order to increase its administrative capacity to be
in a position to adopt, implement and enforce EU acquis. While some
progress had been made in the area of public administration, more efforts were
needed on improving the judicial system, in particular the fight against
corruption and organised crime. Similarly to the other economies of the Western
Balkans, Bosnia and Herzegovina was severely hit by the economic crisis and the
strategy concluded that the EU would assist Bosnia and Herzegovina in
alleviating the impact of the crisis and paving the way for sound recovery, in
coordination with the International Financial Institutions (IFIs).

The Multi-Annual
Indicative Planning Document (MIPD) 2009 – 2011 for Bosnia and Herzegovina was
adopted on 1 July 2009. With regard to Component I, it reflected closely the
conclusions of the 2009 Strategy Paper by, as it concerned the political
criteria, prioritising assistance on strengthening the administrative capacity
and offering support to domestic efforts towards constitutional reform. Another
priority was to support the rule of law, in particular the police, the reform
of the judicial system and the implementation of an anti-corruption policy.
Further objectives of the 2009-2011 MIPD were supporting the return process,
minorities and vulnerable groups, civil society, the media, preservation of the
cultural heritage and de-mining of mine-contaminated areas.

With regard to the
economic criteria, the MIPD followed the enlargement strategy by setting
assistance priorities aimed at creating employment and softening the impact of
the financial and economic crisis. It foresaw support to the establishment of
regulatory capacity and the enhancement of entrepreneurial know-how. It contributed
to the development of the Small and Medium Enterprise (SME) sector, to
promoting trade policies and, in cooperation with IFIs, to foster economic
development through investing in infrastructure. Support to the education
reform and to development of the national strategy on research would promote
the development of the economy and society and active labour market measures
should assist in combating unemployment.

The MIPD strategy with
regard to Bosnia and Herzegovina's ability to assume the obligations of
membership (approximation to the EU acquis) was again in line with the
2009 Strategy conclusions on needed support to the rule of law and the economy
by addressing the internal market (quality infrastructure, institutional set-up
of key market actors, customs and taxation, development of a single financial
market), sectoral policies (agriculture and rural development, environment,
energy and transport, the information society and statistics) and justice,
freedom and security (integrated border management, visa, asylum and migration
policy, the fight against money laundering, drugs, organised crime and
terrorism).

Under Component II, IPA
assistance targeted Cross-Border Co-operation through joint projects at borders
with Croatia, Montenegro and Serbia and with EU Member States, through the IPA
CBC Adriatic Programme and by supporting Bosnia and Herzegovina’s participation
in joint projects under the European Regional Development Fund's (ERDF)
transnational programmes "South-East Europe" (SEE) and "Mediterranean"
(MED).

Table 1: MIFF[25]
allocations per component, in million EUR

Component || 2009 || 2010 || 2011 || 2009-2011

Transition Assistance and Institution Building || 83.9 || 100.7 || 102.7 || 287.3

Cross-border Co-operation || 5.2 || 5.3 || 5.4 || 15.9

TOTAL || 89.1 || 106.0 || 108.1 || 303.2

2.2.2.
Programming
exercise

The 2009 IPA programme was
divided into two parts in order to accelerate implementation of the assistance
addressed to alleviating the impact of the financial and economic crisis. Those
projects, in particular support to investments in the transport, energy and
environment infrastructure, support to SMEs and to the Deposit Insurance
Agency, were included in part I of the 2009 IPA National Programme. Part II of
that programme continued the ‘traditional’ pre-accession support. Part I was adopted
by the Commission on 11 August 2009, part II on 29 October 2009.

As concerns the political
criteria, in line with the MIPD priorities the 2009 programme pursued
the objectives to continue assisting the reform of the public administration.
In particular, IPA 2009 assistance aimed at strengthening the national planning
capacities and increasing the efficiency of the presidency, sustaining domestic
efforts on the reform of the constitution, supporting the preparation for
management of IPA Components III and IV, reinforcing the rule of law through
support to the judiciary and strengthening anti-corruption capacities.
Assistance was also provided to the promotion of civil society dialogue and to
the preservation of cultural heritage.

With regard to the economic
criteria, the programme assisted in the alleviation of the consequences of the
financial crisis by supporting investments in transport, energy and environment
infrastructure, in close cooperation with the IFIs, by contributing to SMEs
development and by improving the capacities of the workforce to comply with the
requirements of the labour market.

In relation to the ability
to assume the obligations of membership, the programme supported the
development and implementation of strategies and policies for approximation to
the EU acquis in the internal market (economic and fiscal policy,
quality infrastructure) and in sectoral policies such as statistics,
agriculture, veterinary and phytosanitary services.

Finally, the 2009
programme allocated funds also to co-finance Bosnia and Herzegovina’s
participation to EU programmes, in particular to the 7th Framework
Programme for Research and to the Culture Programme.

Programming of IPA
assistance in 2009 continued a trend towards less and bigger projects. In 2007,
IPA started with 46 projects with an average budget of EUR 1 million, while the
2009 programme included 19 projects with an average budget of EUR 4.2 million.

Programming of 2009 IPA
assistance took into account the experience gained in the planning and
implementation of previous EU assistance programmes in Bosnia and Herzegovina
as well as the findings of different evaluations of EU past pre-accession
programmes. The most common finding was that a number of assistance projects in
Bosnia and Herzegovina did not achieve the expected results because of
insufficient ownership on the side of the beneficiaries. Another important
element was that in Bosnia and Herzegovina IPA projects carried political risks
of various degrees, i.e. most of the projects foreseen for implementing the
European Partnership required reforms which were not necessarily endorsed by
all competent authorities.

One of the most important
lessons learned was that EU assistance should not only reflect European
Partnership priorities but, in the broader sense of the Paris Declaration, should
also be interlocked with Bosnia and Herzegovina's own development and action
plans. Therefore, the IPA 2009 national programme aimed at promoting ownership
by ensuring that projects were in line with Bosnia and Herzegovina's own reform
strategies and development plans, as well as by enhanced participation of
future beneficiaries in the programming process.

The programme was based on
project proposals made by Bosnia and Herzegovina's authorities, in particular
the Ministry of Finance and Treasury, the Directorate for European Integration
and the Senior Programming Officers of the involved line ministries. The
proposals had been elaborated together with the Commission services on the
basis of the enlargement strategy and MIPD priorities.

For Component II, the
cross-border programmes with Bosnia and Herzegovina’s neighbouring countries,
Croatia, Montenegro and Serbia, were adopted in 2007 covering the period
2007-2009. Therefore, the 2009 Financing Decisions allocated the 2009 budget
appropriations to the respective programmes without changing the content of the
programmes adopted in 2007.

Table 2: Indicative
financial allocations for the year per component, in million EUR

BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA || 2009

I. Transition Assistance and Institution Building || 83.90

Of which:                                                                                     ||

National Programme Part I || 39.00

National Programme Part II || 41.50

                                                                               Nuclear Safety Programme\* || 1.00

                                                                                          Tempus Programme\* || 2.40

II. Cross-Border Cooperation || 5.21

Of which:                    ||

                                                           CBC Bosnia and Herzegovina - Croatia || 1.00

                                                    CBC Bosnia and Herzegovina - Montenegro || 0.50

                                                             CBC Bosnia and Herzegovina - Serbia || 0.70

ERDF Bosnia and Herzegovina (South East Europe, Mediterranean) || 0.56

CBC Adriatic || 2.45

TOTAL || 89.11

\* The Nuclear Safety Programme and Tempus Programme are
coordinated and implemented under the relevant Multi-beneficiary IPA 2009
programmes.

2.2.2.1             Component I:
Transition Assistance and Institution Building

The IPA 2009 national programme
will support the strengthening of democratic institutions and the rule of law,
in particular through assistance to the judiciary for strengthening the
capacity of courts and prosecutors and through support to the constitutional
reform and to the anti-corruption agency, for strengthening its institutional
and administrative capacities. It will support reform of the administration through
i) assistance to develop and implement a road-map for the decentralisation of management
of assistance under the IPA components III and IV; ii) support to the national
planning process to create a comprehensive policy that fully reflects the
European integration requirements; iii) assistance to the Presidency to
increase its efficiency with the help of technological and organisational
changes. The 2009 IPA programme will encourage networks of civil society
organisations and will preserve the country's cultural heritage through the
reconstruction of key monuments destroyed in the 1990s war.

The 2009 IPA programme
will also contribute to the economic reform process by supporting SMEs to
introduce quality management systems in accordance with international quality
standards (ISO 9000), by implementing active labour market reforms to adapt the
capacity of the work force to adapt to the labour market, and by supporting
adult learning. The infrastructure investments, in particular in water supply
and sewage systems, will create employment and thereby contribute to the
alleviation of the consequences of the financial crisis.

Finally, all projects
selected under the European standards priority axis will directly or indirectly
support economic reforms. They will contribute to the improvement of the
economic and fiscal policy-making at all levels of government, to the
advancement of single market integration by improving the market surveillance
system, to the strengthening of agriculture and rural development by establishing
an agriculture market information system and the framework for a land parcel
identification system and to increasing the capacities of the veterinary and
phytosanitary services.

All projects in the 2009
programme follow closely the objectives of the MIPD 2009 – 2011. Noteworthy are
the support to the judiciary, where EUR 4 million are allocated to
strengthening the capacities of the courts and prosecutor offices to process
war crimes and civil enforcement cases, and the support to the anti-corruption
agency, where EUR 0.5 million are allocated to strengthening the agency's
institutional and administrative capacity. The ‘heavy weight’ of the 2009
programme is however the assistance to investments in infrastructure, worth EUR
36 million of grant contributions, along with EUR 262 million of IFI's loans
which will enable Bosnia and Herzegovina to carry out large infrastructure
projects.

The predominant part of
the assistance (EUR 44.5 million) will be spent on grant contracts, mainly in
the form of joint management and indirect centralised management agreements
with IFIs and as direct grants to the High Judicial and Prosecutorial Council
(HJPC) and to the Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO). Four twinning
projects and one twinning light project (EUR 3.1 million) will be implemented
with the assistance of EU Member States experts. The remaining part of the
programme will be implemented through service, works and supply contracts and,
in the case of the civil society support project, through calls for proposal.

It would be desirable to
decrease the number of service contracts and increase the number of twinning
contracts. However, experience shows that there is only a limited number of
institutions in Bosnia and Herzegovina who possess the administrative and human
ressources capacity to successfully absorb twinning support.

Table 3: Indicative
financial allocations for the year 2009 under the National Programme (parts I
and II), per priority axis and per project, in million EUR

Priority Axis || Projects || Budget

Political Criteria || 15.5

|| Judiciary || 4.0

|| Constitutional reform || 1.0

|| Preparations for IPA components III and IV || 1.0

|| Civil Society || 3.0

|| Cultural heritage || 4.0

|| Anti-corruption || 0.5

|| National planning and presidency || 2.0

Economic criteria || 47.5

|| Support to SME sector (TAM/BAS) and the Insurance Agency || 3.0

|| Improvement of regional transport infrastructure || 14.0

|| Construction of a small hydro power plant Cijevna || 5.5

|| Rehabilitation and construction of water supply and sewage collection infrastructure || 16.5

|| SME support || 3.5

|| Labour and education || 5.0

European Standards || 14.5

|| Economic and Fiscal Policy || 2.0

|| Single Market Integration || 3.9

|| Statistics - Census || 2.0

|| Agriculture and rural development || 3.4

|| Veterinary and phytosanitary services || 3.2

Supporting Programmes || 3.0

|| EU programmes || 3.0

TOTAL || 80.5

2.2.2.2.            Component II:
Cross-border Cooperation

The multi-annual
cross-border programmes between Bosnia and Herzegovina and Croatia, Montenegro
and Serbia aim at bringing together people, communities and economies of the
border regions to jointly develop a cooperative area, using their human,
cultural and economic resources. This will be achieved through joint projects
in the field of e.g. tourism, SME support, rural development, environmental protection,
social cohesion and cultural exchange.

The IPA Adriatic
cross-border programme, in which Bosnia and Herzegovina participates together
with Italy, Slovenia, Greece, Croatia, Albania, Montenegro and Serbia, aims at
strengthening the sustainable development of the Adriatic region.

The ERDF transnational
programmes "South East Europe" and "Mediterranean" allows
BiH to participate in joint transnational co-operation with EU Member States
and thus to prepare for territorial co-operation under the EU Structural Funds.

For more information on
these programmes, please refer to the 2008 IPA Annual Report.

2.2.3.
Implementation
Modalities and Structures

As in the previous
reporting year, also in 2009 the majority of projects under IPA 2007 and 2008
Components I and II were implemented on a centralised (de-concentrated) basis
by the EU Delegation to Bosnia and Herzegovina, in accordance with article
53(a) of the Financial Regulation (FR) and the corresponding provisions of the
Implementing Rules (IR). Exceptions are infrastructure support projects under
Part I of the 2009 IPA programme and the Multi-beneficiary nuclear safety and
education (Tempus) programmes. As already mentioned above, infrastructure
support projects will be implemented by joint management with the European Bank
for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) and the European Investment Bank
(EIB) in accordance with FR article 53(d) and corresponding IR provisions and
by indirect centralised management through a delegation agreement with the
Kreditanstalt für Wiederaufbau (KfW), in accordance with FR article 54(2)(c)
and corresponding IR provisions.

The horizontal nuclear
safety and education (Tempus) programmes were implemented on a centralised
basis by the European Commission in Brussels.

In 2009 there was no
progress in the preparation for the decentralised management of IPA. The
Decentralised Implementation System (DIS) Strategy of Bosnia and Herzegovina
was adopted in July 2008. However, up to the end of the reporting period no
nominations were made, except for the position of the National IPA Coordinator
(NIPAC), which was established in the Ministry of Finance and Treasury. The
Central Finance and Contracts Unit (CFCU) and the National Fund (NF) were also
placed within the Ministry of Finance and Treasury and were functional,
although not yet fully staffed.

2.2.4.
Overview of IPA
projects/contracts implemented in 2009

Up to the end of the
reporting period, progress in IPA implementation was barely measurable because
of delays due to the reasons indicated below. The 2007 National Programme was
adopted by the Commission in December 2007. Bosnia and Herzegovina ratified the
IPA Framework Agreement in July 2008. However the Commission could not start
implementing the 2007 Programme before January 2009, due to the fact that
Bosnia and Herzegovina adopted legislation to exempt all IPA funded goods,
services, works and grants from fees, custom duties and taxes (a prerequisite
of the IPA Framework Agreement) only in December 2008. In the meantime, by the
end of the reporting period, the 2008 and 2009 national programmes were also
adopted.

Implementation of IPA 2007
projects begun in the first half of 2009, while tendering and contracting of
IPA 2008 started mainly in the second half of 2009. Aggravating factors
explaining the delays were the time needed for Bosnia and Herzegovina to sign
IPA Financing Agreements (4 – 6 months) and the limited capacity of the EU
Delegation in Sarajevo to evaluate the high amount of tenders.

In 2009, 45 IPA contracts
were signed (32 from the IPA 2007 programme, 12 from the 2008 programme and 1
from the 2009 programme,) the majority of which (38) in the second half of the
year, and thereof 15 in the last quarter. This represented a clear improvement
compared to the previous year, during which only 6 IPA contracts were signed.

The 45 contracts
abovementioned consisted of 22 service contracts, 12 grants, 9 supply
contracts, 1 twinning light and 1 works contract.

2.2.4.1.            Component I:
Transition Assistance and Institution Building

Tables 4: Status of implementation of IPA financial assistance
(Component I) as at 31st December 2009 (in
million EUR) per annual programme and distribution of total committed funds
(2007-2009 allocations) by priority axes

|| Committed || Contracted || RAC[26] || %Contracted || Paid || RAL[27] || %Paid

IPA 2007 || 49.74 || 37.58 || 12.16 || 75.55% || 8.44 || 41.30 || 16.97%

IPA 2008 || 66.75 || 9.01 || 57.74 || 13.50% || 4.47 || 62.28 || 6.70%

IPA 2009 || 80.50 || 12.00 || 68.50 || 14.91% || 0.00 || 80.50 || 0.00%

TOTAL || 196.99 || 58.59 || 138.40 || 29.74% || 12.91 || 184.08 || 6.55%

Priority Axes || % of 2007-2009 allocations

Political criteria || 27.76%

(of which civil society) || (4.98%)

Economic criteria || 36.73%

Ability to assume membership obligations || 33.30%

Support programmes || 2.21%

TOTAL || 100.00%

Because of the abovementioned
implementation delays, no concrete results can be reported.

In 2009, four twinning
projects under the 2008 IPA programme were launched in different sectors:
internal market (pharmaceutical agency), finance (support to further EU acquis
alignment in the indirect taxation authority), justice and home affairs
(support to the implementation of the integrated border management strategy and
action plan) and transport (assistance in institution building of the civil
aviation authority). No IPA twinning projects were implemented in 2009.

Bosnia and Herzegovina
benefited from SIGMA assistance in 2009 to improve the administrative law
framework, to support the development of the Public Internal Financial Control
(PIFC) strategies, to support the public procurement and concessions reform and
to support the public administration reform.

The 2009 IPA programme
allocated EUR 3 million to assist the participation of Bosnia and Herzegovina
in EU programmes, in particular the 7th Framework Programme for
Research and the Culture Programme.

2.2.4.2.            Component II: Cross-border
Cooperation

Tables 5: Status of implementation of IPA financial assistance
(Component II) as at 31st December 2009 (in
million EUR) per annual programme and distribution of total committed funds
(2007-2009 allocations) by priority axes

|| Committed || Contracted || RAC || %Contracted || Paid || RAL || %Paid

IPA 2007 || 3.96 || 0.39 || 3.57 || 9.85% || 0.31 || 3.65 || 7.83%

IPA 2008 || 4.95 || 0.00 || 4.95 || 0.00% || 0.00 || 4.95 || 0.00%

IPA 2009 || 5.21 || 0.00 || 5.21 || 0.00% || 0.00 || 5.21 || 0.00%

TOTAL || 14.12 || 0.39 || 13.73 || 2.76% || 0.31 || 13.81 || 2.20%

Priority Axes || % of 2007-2009 allocations

CBC with Member States || 42.48%

CBC within Western Balkans || 46.75%

Participation to ERDF Transnational Programmes || 10.76%

TOTAL || 100.00%

Implementation of the 2007
– 2009 Cross-border Cooperation programmes was ongoing during the reporting
period. For programmes at borders between candidate countries/potential
candidates, it took about one year from the signature of the of first financing
agreements (March/April 2008) for national authorities to set up the programme
management structures and prepare first calls for proposals, which were
published for all programmes in June-July 2009. This timing is comparable to
that of Member States for CBC at intra-EU borders. The calls included 2007 and
2008 IPA funds. Calls were closed in September-October 2009.

CBC Programmes can make a
valuable contribution to reconciliation and good neighbourly relations, and the
beneficiaries have shown great expectations with regards to the results of the
programmes of this component, also in light of the fact that CBC's
'learning-by-doing' approach will significantly contribute to local
capacity-building. These great expectations were reflected in the large number
of applications submitted to the Calls for proposals, despite the almost
symbolic amount of available funds.

At borders with Member
States, the first Calls for proposals, which included 2007 – 2009 funds, were
launched between March and September 2009.

With regards to
participation in the ERDF transnational programme 'South-East Europe', the
selection of projects following the first call for proposals was completed in
2009 and grant contracts absorbing IPA 2007 funds were signed. As of 2008,
Bosnia and Herzegovina participates also in the 'Mediterranean' programme with
an annual allocation of EUR 100,000. The second call for proposals was launched
in the course of 2009.

2.3.
Coherence, compatibility and coordination of aid

Donor coordination is
ensured throughout the entire project management cycle from project design to
implementation. In particular, in 2009 the European Commission as a core donor,
together with DFID, was involved in setting up an Aid Coordination Committee
together with the Ministry of Finance, the Directorate for European Integration
and the Directorate for Economic Planning. Monthly coordination meetings
continued to be held with EU Member States on programming and implementation of
assistance. The European Commission also participated to, and provided regular
updates on, the IPA programming process to a Donor Coordination Forum, which comprises
key bilateral and multi-lateral donors. Improved donor co-ordination has
resulted in a division of labour in certain areas where Member States or other
donors are carrying out projects which would otherwise have been considered for
Commission financing. Coordination with civil society has been performed under
the responsibility of the Directorate for European Integration.

2.4.
Monitoring

As described before, most
IPA projects started their implementation late in the year 2009 and the Result
Oriented Monitoring could assess the projects only in or shortly after the
inception phase. The monitors however assessed a predominant number of projects
as relevantly designed, efficient to date and with good prospects for
sustainability.

3.
CROATIA
3.1.
The year in review

In 2009 accession
negotiations with Croatia continued at a steady pace. Of the 35 negotiating
chapters, by the end of that year 29 were opened for negotiations, of which 6
in 2009. 10 chapters were provisionally closed during the reporting period, out
of a total of 17 that were provisionally closed by the end of that year.

As assessed in the Commission's Enlargement Strategy and Main
Challenges 2009-2010 [28] during the reporting period "Croatia
continues to make progress on key political reforms. Croatia continues to meet
the political criteria and made progress in most areas, including intensified
efforts in the field of rule of law. […] Croatia will need to step up reform
efforts in the area of judiciary and fundamental rights, in particular as
regards the independence and efficiency of the judiciary, the fight against
corruption and organised crime, minority rights, including refugee return, and
war crimes trials. Public administration reform requires particular attention
[…] Croatia needs to enhance efforts to establish required instruments for the
management and control of Community financial instruments".

For more details on developments in 2009 in Croatia's preparation
for EU membership, please refer to the Commission's 2009 Progress Report[29].

3.2.
IPA programming and implementation in 2009
3.2.1.
MIPD 2009-2011

The priorities set in the Commission's Enlargement Strategy and Main
Challenges 2009-2010[30] and in the 2009 Progress Report, including reinforced
support to the political criteria, were taken into account in the strategic
choices for IPA financial assistance made in the Multi-annual Indicative
Planning Document (MIPD) 2009-2011 for Croatia.[31]
This MIPD, amounting to EUR 462.6 million, was adopted on 9 July 2009,
following consultations conducted by the Commission with the National IPA
Coordinator (NIPAC) in Croatia. At the beginning of the drafting process, in
November 2008, a draft version of the MIPD was circulated to EU Member States,
as well as to local branches of International Financing Institutions (IFIs) and
civil society representatives. A revised version was presented to Member States
representatives in the IPA Management Committee on 24 April 2009. The Committee
delivered a positive opinion by written procedure on 8
May 2009.

In light of Croatia's advanced
stage in the EU accession process and in view of maximising the preparation of
its structures and systems, assistance was concentrated on institution building
and preparations for implementation of the EU common agricultural and cohesion
policies.

The 2009-2011 MIPD did not
significantly differ from the 2008-2010 MIPD adopted by the Commission on 18
September 2008, as the objectives under the five IPA Components remained
largely relevant, with amendments taking into account the Commission's Progress
Report and Enlargement Strategy of 5 November 2008.

In particular, stronger
emphasis was given, within the political criteria, to assistance needed
for the judicial reform, the fight against corruption and organised crime, and
the integration of the Serb minority. As regards the ability to take on the
obligation of membership, the
MIPD maintained sufficient flexibility in order to accompany the accession
negotiation process in the most optimal manner.

The 2009-2011 MIPD included
also updates on lessons learned from issues and remedial actions related to
absorption capacity and management and control systems put in place by the
Croatian authorities, as well as an overview on the conferral of management
powers processes under the five IPA Components.

Table 1: MIFF[32]
allocations per component, in million EUR

Component || 2009 || 2010 || 2011 || 2009-2011

I – Transition Assistance and Institution Building || 45.60 || 39.48 || 39.96 || 125.04

II – Cross-border cooperation || 15.90 || 16.22 || 16.54 || 48.66

III – Regional Development || 49.70 || 56.80 || 58.20 || 164.70

IV – Human Resources Development || 14.20 || 15.70 || 16.00 || 45.90

V – Rural Development || 25.80 || 26.00 || 26.50 || 78.30

TOTAL || 151.20 || 154.20 || 157.20 || 462.60

3.2.2.
Programming exercise

In 2009, the programming
of IPA 2009 Component I, initiated at the end of 2008, was finalised. Financing
Decisions under IPA Components II were also adopted in 2009, on the basis of
multi-annual programmes adopted by the Commission at the end of 2007 and beginning of 2008. As regards Components
III and IV, for which programming is done on a multiannual basis and
disbursements follow the “n+3 rule[33]”,
Financing Decisions were adopted at the end of 2007, with financial allocations
for 2007-2009.  Financing Decisions adopted in 2009 consisted in the addition
of the 2010 financial allocations, while revisions to the programmes content
were made only in limited cases detailed in the relevant sub-sections below.

The distribution of the
five IPA Components in the following table is consistent with the strategic
priorities for Croatia for 2009, as set out in the Enlargement Strategy
and the revised MIPD 2009-2011.

Table 2: Indicative financial allocations
for the year per component, in million EUR

CROATIA || 2009

I. Transition Assistance and Institution Building || 45.60

Of which: ||

                                                                                  National Programme Part I || 42.10

National Programme Part II (Lifelong Learning & Youth in Action)\*\* || 2.50

                                                                                  Nuclear Safety Programme\* || 1.00

II. Cross-Border Cooperation || 15.90

Of which:                    ||

                                                              CBC Croatia – Bosnia and Herzegovina || 1.00

                                                                                   CBC Croatia - Montenegro || 0.40

                                                                                            CBC Croatia - Serbia || 0.80

CBC Croatia - Slovenia || 3.21

CBC Croatia - Hungary || 2.62

CBC IPA Adriatic || 7.31

Croatia's participation in ERDF transnational programmes "South East Europe" and "Mediterranean" || 0.56

III. Regional Development || 49.70

Of which: ||

Transportation || 18.50

Environment || 18.50

Regional Competitiveness || 12.70

IV. Human Resources Development || 14.20

V. Rural Development || 25.80

TOTAL || 151.20

\* The Nuclear Safety Programme is
coordinated and implemented under the relevant Multi-beneficiary IPA 2009
programme.

\*\*Management of the
allocations for these two programmes was cross-delegated to DG Education and
Culture (EAC)

3.2.2.1             Component I:
Transition Assistance and Institution Building

The IPA 2009 Component I
programme for Croatia was adopted by the Commission on 1 December 2009, on the
basis of project proposals made by the National IPA Coordinator (NIPAC) in
Croatia at the end of 2008 and subsequent negotiations with the Commission. In
March 2009, a draft list of projects was circulated to EU Member States and
local branches of International Financing Institutions (IFIs). A revised draft
programme was presented to Member States representatives in the IPA Management
Committee on 25 September 2009. The Committee delivered
a positive opinion by written
procedure on 16 October 2009.

The 20 projects of the IPA
2009 programme were grouped under the four strategic priority axes defined in
the Multi-annual Indicative Planning Document (MIPD) 2009-2011 for Croatia: political
criteria, economic criteria, ability to assume the obligations of
membership, and supporting programmes. They were selected by taking
into account their compliance with the Accession Partnership adopted on 12
February 2008, the Strategy Paper and the Croatia 2008 Progress
Report adopted on 5 November 2008.

The projects proposals
were also assessed against the background of the 2009 National Plan for the
integration of the Republic of Croatia into the EU, the Croatian Strategic
Development Framework 2006-2013 as well as sectoral strategies wherever
appropriate.

As
in previous years, projects were also appraised according to the sequencing of
assistance in a given sector, the implementation capacity of the potential
beneficiary institution and the maturity of the project proposals. When
deciding on the priority of the projects proposed by the Croatian authorities, the
Commission paid particular attention to the sustainability and
"ownership" of the financial assistance, by ensuring that projects selected
were part of a wider national strategy. Programming by the Croatian authorities
has shown signs of improvement, with a reduction in the number of proposals
submitted to the Commission, but by the end of the reporting period there was still
room for introducing a more stringent screening of project proposals. The link
of project proposals with overall priorities, and considerations about the
proposed timing of implementation and how this fits with pre-accession needs,
should also be made more explicit.

Given Croatia’s advanced
stage in the EU accession process, the Component I of IPA 2009 focuses on
remaining assistance needs relevant for assuming membership obligations. The
institution building component accounts for the majority of financing (66%),
whereas investments amount to the remaining third of the IPA allocation.

Regarding institution
building, the twinning instrument continues to be the preferred
implementation modality for all transposition or legal approximation-related
projects where the relevant expertise lies within the Member States. The
relevance of twinning is set to further increase the
closer Croatia gets to the EU.

Investments are related to the growing importance of administrative
strengthening priorities and the increasing emphasis on post-accession
objectives over sheer alignment with the acquis. For example, in the
case of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Rural Development, the financing of supply and works reflects the need
for considerable investments for the setting up
veterinary and phyto-sanitary inspection facilities at border posts.

IPA
2009 focuses on support to the political criteria. Two twinning projects
in the area of judiciary reform aim at supporting the training of judicial
advisors, future judges and state attorneys, as well as the reduction of
case backlog. In the field of human rights, a twinning project will support
the Ministry of Interior in fighting sexual exploitation and the abuse of
children. Another twinning aims at strengthening the capacity of the Office of
the Ombudsman and of the Office for Human Rights in combating discrimination. In
the framework of the Multi-beneficiary Civil Society Facility, grant
schemes will support Civil Society Organisations in Croatia in the fields of
democratisation, human rights and refugee return, as well as promoting
innovative social service delivery programmes.

Complementarity with past
and ongoing projects was also carefully assessed to avoid any overlaps in the
delivery of financial assistance.  Most of IPA 2009 projects
are to varying degrees follow-up of previous initiatives (e.g. under CARDS and
PHARE) or precursors for new ones. Substantial projects clusters are noticeable
in the area of environment, statistics, border management, taxation.

In designing the IPA 2009 programme, careful account was
taken of the "lessons learned" from projects programmed in previous
years, notably as described in the thematic Public
Administration Reform[34] evaluation
and in the Country Programme Interim Evaluation[35]
carried out by the Commission in 2009.

In particular, issues that in the past affected the achievement of project
purposes were increasingly addressed under IPA, as compared to PHARE, namely:
i) more attention was paid to conditionality and sequencing since the
programming stage; ii) measures were deployed to improve the administrative
implementability of projects and compress the length of the preparatory phase; iii)
where required, measures were adopted to enhance the involvement of
decision-makers in the execution of projects, and to facilitate
inter-institutional coordination.

The Country
Programme Interim Evaluation assessed that IPA project fiches show a clear
progress compared to the previous PHARE instrument, but that there was still
room for improvement. The identification of the hierarchy of objectives was
largely correct, but problems persisted in the selection of indicators of
achievement, with a frequent confusion between various logical levels
(indicators of purpose, results and outputs). Improvements reflected the good
work done by the Central Office for Development Strategy and Coordination of EU
Funds (CODEF) in providing training to Programme Implementation Units (PIU).

Table
3: Indicative financial allocations for the year 2009 under the National
Programme, per priority axis and per project, in million EUR

Priority Axis || Projects || Budget

Political Criteria || 7.76

|| Capacity Building in the Field of Fight against Sexual Exploitation and Sexual Abuse of Children || 1.37

|| Establishing a comprehensive system for anti-discrimination protection || 0.74

|| Professional development of judicial advisors and future judges and state attorneys || 1.10

|| Further improvement of institutional capacity of all misdemeanour courts and development of ICMS compatible modules || 2.05

|| Enhancing the Sustainability and the Development of Civil Society Organizations (under the Civil Society Facility) || 2.50

Economic Criteria || 2.63

|| Reconstruction of Maškovića Han and Economic Revitalization of Vrana Settlement || 1.83

|| Technical assistance in business statistics || 0.80

Ability to assume the obligations of membership || 20.55

|| Preparations for eCTD and implementation of digital archival information system || 1.00

|| Strengthening the administrative capacity of competent authorities and implementation agencies for co-ordination of social security schemes || 0.95

|| Upgrading of four selected long-term veterinary and phytosanitary border inspection posts || 6.44

|| Reinforcement of the administrative and technical capacity of the Croatian Civil Aviation Agency and Accident Investigation Body || 1.30

|| Enhancement of the administrative capacity of CTA in the field of audit || 0.95

|| Modernization of State Border Control || 1.11

|| Supply of IT Equipment for police stations || 1.50

|| Capacity building for preparation of management plans and strengthening of nature protection inspection for proposed Natura 2000 sites || 1.70

|| Capacity building for implementation Directive on pollution caused by certain dangerous substances discharged into the aquatic environment and the Water Framework Directive || 1.00

|| Capacity building for the implementation of the environmental acquis in the areas of waste management, integrated pollution prevention and control and noise protection || 2.60

|| Strengthening the institutional capacity for blood, tissues and cell || 2.00

Supporting programmes || 13.66

|| Facility for Project Preparation & Reinforcement of Administrative Capacity || 5.86

|| Participation of Croatia in EU Programmes and Agencies || 5.30

|| Preparation for participation in "Youth in Action" and "LifeLong Learning" EU Programmes || 2.50

TOTAL || 44.60

At the end of 2009, the process of IPA 2010
programming was initiated by the Commission together with the Croatian
authorities.

3.2.2.2.            Component II:
Cross-Border Cooperation

Croatia
participates in cross-border cooperation (CBC) programmes with neighbouring IPA
countries: Bosnia and Herzegovina, Montenegro and Serbia. These programmes aim
at encouraging the creation of cross-border networks and partnerships and
developing joint cross-border actions with a view to revitalising the economy,
protecting the environment and increasing social cohesion in the programme
areas. They also include technical assistance. The financing decisions allowing
for the deployment of IPA 2009 funds, worth respectively EUR  2 million, EUR 
0.9 million and EUR 1.8 million (amounts covering both sides of the borders),
were adopted on 12 October, 14 October and 12 November 2009.

The
programme financing Croatia’s participation in the ERDF transnational
programmes "South-East Europe" and "Mediterranean" was
adopted on 14 October 2009 for an IPA allocation of EUR
560 202.  The ERDF "South–East Europe" and "Mediterranean"
programmes aim at the establishment and development of transnational
co–operation through the financing of networks and of actions conducive to
integrated territorial development, concentrating primarily on the areas of
"innovation", "environment", "accessibility" and "sustainable urban development".

Croatia
participates also in the following cross-border programmes with Member States: 
CBC Adriatic, CBC Hungary-Croatia and CBC Slovenia-Croatia, which had been
adopted over February-March 2008. Multi-annual Financing Decisions were
adopted already in 2008 and continued to be implemented in 2009.

The "IPA Adriatic
cross-border programme" between Greece, Italy, Slovenia, Albania, Bosnia
and Herzegovina, Croatia, Montenegro and Serbia contain priority axes on
"Economic, social and institutional cooperation", "Natural and
Cultural Resources and Risk Prevention", "Accessibility and
Networks" and "Technical assistance" for a total amount of EUR 36
909 920 under 2009 funding (including the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF)
contribution), the IPA contribution for the year amounting to EUR 17 604 391.

The Hungary-Croatia IPA
cross-border programme contains priority axes on "Sustainable Environment
and Tourism", "Co-operative Economy and Intercommunity Human Resources
Development" and "Technical
assistance", for a total amount (again including the ERDF contribution) of
EUR 7 879 498 under 2009 funding, the IPA contribution for the year
amounting to EUR 2 619 581.

The Slovenia – Croatia IPA
cross-border programme contains priority axes on "Economic and social
development", "Sustainable management of natural resources" and
"Technical assistance", for a total amount of EUR 6 417 370 under
2009 funding, of which IPA contributes EUR 3 208 685.

3.2.2.3             Components III and
IV: Strategic Coherence Framework

In accordance with the
provisions of the IPA Implementing Regulation, in 2007 Croatia established the
Strategic Coherence Framework (SCF) for 2007-2013 covering IPA Components III
(Regional Development) and IV (Human Resources Development).

Within the SCF, the
supporting socio-economic analysis and subsequent strategy identified the key
objectives and priorities to be implemented through four multi-annual
Operational Programmes (three in Component III and one in Component IV) with a
strong strategic focus. IPA, with its similarities to the European Regional
Development Fund and Cohesion fund, is a precursor of Structural Funds. The SCF
is also considered as "mini National Strategic Reference Framework.

The preparation of the SCF
in Croatia was coordinated by the Strategic Coordinator who consulted the Commission throughout the whole process. Commission services verified the content of the SCF and concluded
that it contained all the relevant elements.

3.2.2.3.1          Component
III: Regional Development

The strategy for financial
assistance under Component III foresaw concentration of resources in the
transport (Transportation Operational Programme - OP), environment
(Environmental OP) and regional competitiveness (Regional Competitiveness OP)
sectors. It covered acquis-related investments in environmental
protection (waste water, drinking water and waste management) and sustainable
transport (railways and inland waterways). Along with these efforts directed at
basic infrastructure, further assistance aimed at modernising and restructuring
the productive capacity of disadvantaged regions in particular by providing
services to enterprises, particularly small and medium-sized ones.

Moreover, under the three
Operational Programmes resources were utilised to introduce into the national
framework the strategic planning and management principles guiding the
implementation of EU structural instruments, also via a 'learning-by-doing'
process.

Within each of the OPs, a
separate priority on Technical Assistance was introduced to support the
national structures managing IPA as well as to ensure project preparation of
high standards. The comprehensive institutional set-up built for IPA (Operating
Structure consisting of specific bodies for each OP/priority) will continue
with some modifications under the Structural Funds regime.

The "Regional
Competitiveness" OP was adopted on 29 November 2007 for the period
2007-2009 and consisted of three priority axes: "Improving development
potential of the lagging behind regions", "Enhancing the
competitiveness of the Croatian economy", and Technical Assistance.

The
"Transportation" OP was adopted on 7 December 2007 for the period
2007-2009 and encompassed 3 priority axes: "Upgrading Croatia's rail
transport system", "Upgrading Croatia's inland waterway system",
and Technical Assistance.

The
"Environmental" OP was adopted on 29 November 2007 for the period
2007-2009 and consisted of 3 priority axes: "Developing Waste Management
Infrastructure for Establishing an Integrated Waste Management System in
Croatia", "Protecting Croatia's Water Resources Through Improved
Water Supply and Integrated Wastewater Management Systems", and Technical
Assistance.

All three programmes under
Component III were modified after the reporting period, to add the 2010-2011
allocations.

3.2.2.3.2
Component IV: Human Resources Development

The operational programme
"Human Resources Development" was adopted on 7 December 2007 for the
period 2007-2009 and consisted of 4 priority axes: "Enhancing access to
employment and sustainable inclusion in the labour market",
"Reinforcing social inclusion of people at a disadvantage",
"Enhancing human capital and employability", and Technical
Assistance.

3.2.2.4             Component V: Rural
Development

The "Programme for agriculture and rural development" (IPA
Rural Development) was adopted by the Commission on 25 February 2008 and
consisted of 3 priority axes: "Improving market efficiency and
implementation of EU standards", "Preparatory actions for implementation
of the agri-environmental measures and local rural development
strategies", and "Development of the rural economy".

The programme was
subsequently modified in October 2008 and September 2009. The amendments
to the programme were essentially of a technical nature and concerned mainly
the adaptation of the financial tables to take into account the new financial
allocation for 2011 according to the MIPD 2009-2011, the update of data
included in the programme and the correction of editorial inconsistencies and
mistakes.

3.2.3.
Implementation
Modalities and Structures

Overall, by the end of
the reporting period contracting and payment rates under the five IPA
Components were relatively low, as shown by the tables below. This is explained
by the fact that implementation of IPA programmes under Components I to IV
could effectively start only after decisions on conferral of management powers,
allowing for the so-called "decentralised management of assistance",
were adopted by the Commission at the end of 2008, as further detailed below.
Contracting and disbursement could therefore not start before 2009.

A country can take full
benefit of IPA only if it exercises decentralised implementation by a stable
institutional set-up, which will continue to exist after accession, as the new
national structures will be used for the EU Cohesion and Rural Policies.
Therefore, the time spent for putting them in place, i.e. the whole of 2007 and
2008 for Croatia, was well spent.

Indeed, Croatia took a number of important steps to address
weaknesses identified by the Commission in the decentralised management of
pre-accession aid. These steps led to the conferral on Croatia of
decentralised management powers (with ex ante controls by the EU
Delegation) on 28 October 2008 under IPA Component I, 14 November 2008 under
IPA Component II[36], 29 October
2008 as regards the environmental and regional competitiveness programmes and 3
November 2008 as regards the transportation programme under IPA Component III,
and 1 December 2008 under IPA Component IV.

Croatia needs to
ensure that the conditions set out in the aforementioned Commission Decisions
on conferral of management powers are met. Findings of follow-up audits carried
out in November 2009 for Components I and IV, December 2009 for Component II
and March 2010 for Component III will have to be thoroughly addressed.

Improvements
undertaken by the Croatian authorities in 2009 related notably to the
strengthening of the accredited system, such as the functioning of internal
audit and the strengthening of the Audit Authority and of control functions
within the Operating Structures. The good functioning of the irregularity
system was also stressed by the auditors as being vital.

Following extensive
discussions with the Commission, the National Authorising Officer in Croatia
submitted roadmaps to waive ex ante controls by the EU Delegation under
IPA Components I and III, respectively, in December and October 2009. Under IPA
Component IV, the Commission requested further improvements of the draft roadmap
in November 2009. These roadmaps provide a framework for
monitoring and assessing progress towards waiving of ex ante controls. A track record of improved implementation is needed and various
steps are described therein to strengthen the accredited system.

Regarding IPA Component II, the Central Finance and Contracting
Agency (CFCA) in Croatia was conferred management powers on 14 November 2008. The
Agency for Regional Development under the Ministry of Regional Development,
Forestry and Water Management was set up in the course of 2009 as a new
Implementing Agency and the conferral process needs to be completed before
planning the waiving of ex ante controls.

As regards IPA Component V, conferral of management powers requires more time as conferral is ensured
on the principle that the Commission does not operate any ex ante
controls on the transactions. Therefore this
requires an even higher level of preparedness on the side of beneficiary administrations.
The Commission conferred management powers on Croatia
for two measures (out of seven) on 30 November 2009, namely measure 101
'Investments in agriculture holdings to restructure and to upgrade to EU
standards' and measure 103 'Investments in the processing and marketing of
agricultural and fishery products to restructure these activities and to
upgrade them to EU standards'. For the remaining
measures, this process is expected to continue during 2010.

3.2.4.
Overview of IPA
Implementation in
2009

Table 4: Status of
implementation of IPA financial assistance (Components I to V) as at 31st
December 2009 (in million EUR)

|| Committed || Paid || RAL[37] || % Paid

IPA 2007-2008-2009 || 429.22 || 69.16 || 360.07 || 16.11%

3.2.4.1             Component I:
Transition Assistance and Institution Building

Tables 5: Status of implementation of IPA financial assistance
(Component I) as at 31st December 2009 (in
million EUR) per annual programme and distribution of total committed funds
(2007-2009 allocations) by priority axes

|| Committed || Contracted || RAC[38] || % Contracted || Paid || RAL || % Paid

IPA 2007 || 45.41 || 14.47 || 30.94 || 31.87% || 8.47 || 36.94 || 18.65%

IPA 2008 || 41.37 || 5.01 || 36.36 || 12.11% || 5.01 || 36.36 || 12.11%

IPA 2009 || 44.60 || 0.00 || 44.60 || 0.00% || 0.00 || 44.60 || 0.00%

TOTAL || 131.38 || 19.48 || 111.90 || 14.83% || 13.48 || 117.90 || 10.26%

Priority Axes || % of 2007-2009 allocations

Political criteria || 18.21%

(of which civil society) || (4.19%)

Economic criteria || 4.11%

Ability to assume membership obligations || 53.25%

Support programmes || 24.42%

TOTAL || 100.00%

Simultaneous
implementation of IPA 2007 and IPA 2008 programmes in 2009 was a challenge for
Croatia's absorption capacity, although there was an acceleration of
procurement by the Croatian authorities compared to the previous PHARE
instrument, notably due to the allocation of significant human resources to the
Implementing Agency (CFCA).

As already mentioned, given
Croatia's advanced stage in accession negotiations,
EU assistance has been moving from the sheer adoption of the acquis to
its concrete implementation and to more general administrative strengthening
with a view to post–accession priorities, such as the preparedness for EU
Structural Funds.

For instance, the
objective of the project "National Border Management Information System"
(IPA 2007), with an IPA allocation of EUR 4.4 million, was to establish greater
security at Croatia's future external borders according to Schengen standards
in the area of border management and improvement of efficiency of the Croatian
Border Police. This project is a continuation of earlier CARDS 2002
("Phase 1") and 2003 ("Phase 2") projects. The activities
under "Phase" 3 of this project assist in extending the National
Border Management Information System at 25 border crossing points into an
integrated mechanism based on the design and tests made in Phases 1 and 2.

Another
example is the support to the National Anti-Corruption Strategy. IPA 2007
twinning projects aimed at strengthening USKOK, the coordination body in charge
of drafting and implementing the anti-corruption strategy, and at improving
inter-agency cooperation, for an IPA amount of EUR 3.74 million.

Impacts
in the field of preparation for Structural Funds will be apparent only upon
implementation of such instruments. IPA 2008 funding provided support to
various Croatian institutions for the future implementation and management of
the Cohesion Policy in Croatia.

Under IPA 2009, EUR 5.3
million were also allocated to co-finance the
participation of Croatia in EU Programmes and Agencies.

In 2009 Croatia continued
to benefit from TAIEX and SIGMA institution building activities.

According to the 2009 Country
Programme Interim Evaluation, a precise measurement of the effectiveness of
pre-accession assistance was often hampered by the unavailability of indicators
but, in general, completed projects delivered the expected results and
prospects for almost completed ones were fairly positive. Prospects for
projects in the pipeline were also fairly positive, because various issues that
in the past affected the achievement of project purposes were being
increasingly addressed (e.g. more attention paid to conditionality and sequencing).

Prospects for impact were
generally positive, with some qualifications. Actions aimed at achieving
alignment with specific acquis requirements sometimes provided a
decisive contribution to the opening or closing of negotiations in certain
chapters. The impact of assistance aimed at strengthening the public
administration was instead more difficult to assess, because structural changes
took longer to generate results and it more often suffered from the lack of
systematic evidence.

3.2.4.2             Component II:
Cross-border Cooperation

Tables 6: Status of implementation of IPA financial assistance
(Component II) as at 31st December 2009 (in
million EUR) per annual programme and distribution of total committed funds
(2007-2009 allocations) by priority axes

|| Committed || Contracted || RAC || % Contracted || Paid || RAL || %Paid

IPA 2007 || 9.69 || 0.44 || 9.25 || 4.54% || 0.18 || 9.51 || 1.86%

IPA 2008 || 14.73 || 0.00 || 14.73 || 0.00% || 0.00 || 14.73 || 0.00%

IPA 2009 || 15.90 || 0.00 || 15.90 || 0.00% || 0.00 || 15.90 || 0.00%

TOTAL || 40.32 || 0.44 || 39.88 || 1.09% || 0.18 || 40.14 || 0.45%

Priority Axes || % of 2007-2009 allocations

CBC with Member States || 79.86%

CBC within Western Balkans || 16.37%

Participation to ERDF Transnational Programmes || 3.77%

TOTAL || 100.00%

For cross-border
programmes at borders between candidate countries and potential candidates,
calls for proposals were closed over September-November 2009.

At borders with Member
States, the first calls for proposals, which included 2007–2009 allocations,
were launched in 2008 and 2009 depending on the various programmes. Some grant
contracts were concluded at the end of 2009 (CBC Croatia-Slovenia).

With regards to the
participation in the ERDF transnational programmes 'South–East Europe' and
'Mediterranean', the selection of projects following the first calls for
proposals was completed in 2009 and the second call for proposal was launched.

CBC programmes can make a
valuable contribution to reconciliation and good neighbourly relations, and the
beneficiaries have shown great expectations with regards to the results of the
programmes, also in light of the fact that CBC's 'learning-by-doing' approach
will significantly contribute to local capacity-building. These great
expectations were reflected in the large number of applications submitted to
the calls for proposals, despite the almost symbolic amount of available funds.

3.2.4.3.            Component III:
Regional Development

Tables 7: Status of implementation of IPA financial assistance
(Component III) as at 31st December 2009 (in
million EUR) and distribution of total committed funds (2007-2009 allocations)
by priority axes

|| Committed || Paid || RAL || % Paid

IPA 2007-2008-2009 || 142.35 || 42.80 || 99.55 || 30.07%

Priority Axes || % of 2007-2009 allocations

Transport || 37.58%

Environment || 37.58%

Regional Competitiveness || 24.83%

TOTAL || 100.00%

As regards Component III,
though the three Operational Programmes were adopted in 2007, their
implementation could start only after the adoption of the Commission Decisions
conferring management powers relating to the respective Operational Programmes
and the signature of the Financing Agreements at the end of 2008.

Work carried out in 2009
concentrated on appraisal and approval of projects/operations.  Three new major
project applications were submitted to the Commission in 2009. The appraisal of
a major project submitted in 2008 was completed and five funding decisions for
major projects were adopted in 2009 (one in Transport, the “Zagreb Main Railway
Station Signalling and Interlocking System", for EUR 18 700 000, including
EUR 14 025 000 of IPA funds, and four in Environment, namely: i)  the “County
Waste Management Centre Mariscina", for EUR 11 473 200, including EUR 8
604 900 of IPA funds; ii) the "County Waste Management Centre
Kastijun", for EUR 6 197 752, including EUR 4 648 314 of IPA funds; iii)
the "Water supply and sewerage system with wastewater treatment plant for
Slavonski Brod", for EUR 20 459 900, including EUR 15 344 925 of IPA funds; 
iv) the "Water supply and sewerage improvements with wastewater treatment
plant in Knin", for EUR 11 722 503, including EUR 8 791 877 of IPA funds).
Moreover, an additional major project application in waste water was submitted
to the Commission in 2009. Finally, in the Regional Competitiveness Operational
Programme as well as in the technical assistance priority axes under the Environmental
and Transportation Operational Programmes, a significant number of non major
projects/operations were approved at the national level.

Tendering could start for
all the operations approved in 2009. At the end of 2009, the tendering rate was
26% for the Transport OP, 28% for the Environment OP and 37% for the Regional
Competitiveness OP. The contracting rates remained low, especially in the two
infrastructure programmes, where the tendering process is quite long due to the
complexity of the tender documentation.

In 2009 the first interim
payments for two Operational Programmes were made.

3.2.4.4             Component IV: Human
Resources Development

Tables 8: Status of implementation of IPA financial assistance
(Component IV) as at 31st December 2009 (in
million EUR) and distribution of total committed funds (2007-2009 allocations)
by priority axes

|| Committed || Paid || RAL || % Paid

IPA 2007-2008-2009 || 38.28 || 12.70 || 25.58 || 33.18%

Priority Axes || % of 2007-2009 allocations

Employment || 24.82%

Social inclusion || 23.51%

Human capital and employability || 41.67%

Technical assistance || 10.00%

TOTAL || 100.00%

In the course of 2009, implementation of Component IV started. As
described above, the conferral of management powers for implementation of the
Human Resources Development OP had been approved in December 2008 and the
Financing Agreement entered into force in March 2009, which
paved the way for the effective kicking-off of implementation activities.

In 2009, the key priority was the selection, approval and
implementation of operations and the absorption of the available funding. The
tenders for all 8 grant schemes were launched, which was an important step in
terms of preparations for the European Social Fund. A first payment
request of EUR 1.2 million was received before the end of 2009.

3.2.4.5             Component V: Rural
Development

Tables 9: Status of implementation of IPA financial assistance
(Component V) as at 31st December 2009 (in
million EUR) and distribution of total committed funds (2007-2009 allocations)
by priority axes

|| Committed || Paid || RAL || % Paid

IPA 2007-2008-2009 || 76.90 || 0.00[39] || 76.90 || 0.00%

Priority Axes || % of 2007-2009 allocations

Market efficiency and EU standards || 66.66%

Agri-environmental measures and Leader approach || 0.00%

Development of rural economy || 29.67%

Technical assistance || 3.67%

TOTAL || 100.00%

The
implementation of projects from the first two accredited measures under IPA
Rural Development, namely measure 101 'Investments
in agriculture holdings to restructure and to upgrade to EU standards' and
measure 103 'Investments in the processing and marketing of agricultural and
fishery products to restructure these activities and to upgrade them to EU
standards', was foreseen for after the reporting
period.

During
2009, the Croatian authorities were also strongly focused on the preparation of
procedures for conferral of management powers for all other programme measures.

Besides
the two conferred measures, some progress was made especially in the
preparation of public procurement rules, necessary for Rural Infrastructure and
Technical Assistance measures. Although progress in preparations could
be observed, the delays in implementation of the IPA
Rural Development Programme that were still persisting by the end of 2009 put
at risk the funds allocated for 2007 and 2008. According to the "n+3[40]" budgetary rule,
these funds will have to be de-committed if not spent by the end of 2011.
Therefore in the future all efforts shall be oriented towards further conferral
of management and calls for applications.

3.3.
Coherence, compatibility and coordination of aid

Donor coordination is of great importance to
avoid any overlap of assistance. In line with the
conferences on donor coordination in Tirana in April 2009 and in Brussels in
October 2009, the Commission continued to promote the establishment of more
formal co-ordination mechanisms by the Croatian government and its ownership of
the coordination process.

The
donor community, in particular the EU via its Delegation and the World Bank,
continued to play an active role in ensuring synergies and complementarities in
the common areas of intervention. At the local level,
the EU Delegation organised six meetings with the Member States in the course
of 2009.

Regarding IFIs, the "Joint
IFI Action Plan in support of banking systems and lending to the real economy
in Central and Eastern Europe" was agreed on 26 February 2009 by the
European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD), the European
Investment Bank (EIB) and the World Bank's Presidents. The objectives of the
Action Plan are to:

- deploy rapid and
sizeable financial assistance to strengthen banks and support lending to the
real economy, particularly to SMEs, in a coordinated manner and building on
each IFI's capabilities;

- engage other
stakeholders and mobilize financial resources for the region, using IFI financing as a catalyst;

- facilitate
coordination of national bank support packages and policy dialogue between key
private and public sector stakeholders in countries most affected by the
crisis.

In addition to support
from the IFIs, EU Member States (Austria, Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany,
Italy, the Netherlands, Spain, Sweden and the UK) and other donors were
actively supporting Croatia's accession process.

3.4.
Monitoring

The Commission monitors
the functioning of Croatia's decentralised implementation system and the impact
of IPA assistance. In 2009 it participated in all monitoring committees, namely
the bi-annual IPA Sectoral Monitoring Sub-Committees under each IPA Component
over the May-June and November-December periods, as well as the IPA Monitoring
Committee covering the five IPA Components on 6 July 2009.

These were high level
committees, co-chaired by the NIPAC and the Commission. The Central Office for
Development Strategy and Coordination of EU Funds (CODEF) acted as the
secretariat of the committees and was directly responsible for quality control
of monitoring reports prepared by beneficiaries and preparation of the various
committees, including coordination of follow-up actions.

The
annual report on the implementation of IPA assistance under the five IPA
components was examined by the IPA Monitoring Committee of 6 July 2009 and
submitted by the NIPAC to the Commission by the 31 August 2009 deadline set in
the IPA Implementing Regulation. The report synthesised the different sectoral
annual reports and included information about:

- progress made in
implementing EU assistance in relation to the priorities set up in the
Multi-annual Indicative Planning Document (MIPD) and the different programmes;

- financial execution of
EU assistance.

According to the
aforementioned 2009 Country Programme Interim Evaluation, the new notion
of monitoring in Croatia has been gradually absorbed by the entities
responsible for projects implementation. The monitoring system is functioning
fairly smoothly, as witnessed by the high acceptance rate of monitoring reports
by Sectoral Monitoring Sub-Committees (SMSC). However, the configuration of
SMSC in 2009 became increasingly misaligned with the priorities of assistance
under IPA Component I and also resulted in an unbalanced distribution of
workload among the committees.  In addition, there appeared to be room for
improving the usefulness of monitoring reports that, due to an inadequate
template, remained excessively long and not sufficiently focused on the most
important issues. Those recommendations were subsequently addressed by the
Croatian authorities.

4.
THE FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA
4.1.
The year in review

In 2009 the former
Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia stepped up its efforts to prepare for accession
to the European Union. Considerable progress was made in a number of relevant
sectors like transport, customs, taxation and reform of the police. Thus the country managed to overcome
doubts about the respect of international standards for democratic elections
which had built up following some incidents linked to the 2008 parliamentary
elections[41].The
undisturbed presidential and municipal elections in April 2009 contributed to
strengthening the perception that the political criteria were being fulfilled.
The country was also successful in convincing the EU to lift visa requirements,
a much welcomed decision that came into force for Schengen – countries in
December 2009.

The overall positive
assessment was reflected in the Commission decision of 15 October 2009 to
suggest to the Council the opening of accession negotiations with the country,
which had received candidate status in December 2005. Due to the unresolved
name issue with Greece, the Council failed to set a starting date for accession
negotiations with the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia at its meeting on
16 December 2009.

For more details on
developments in 2009 in the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia’s preparation
for EU membership, please refer to the Commission’s 2009 Progress Report[42].

4.2.
IPA programming and implementation in 2009
4.2.1.
MIPD 2009-2011

The overall objective of
pre-accession assistance is to support the country's efforts to comply with the
Copenhagen accession criteria and to help prepare the country meet the
challenges of future EU membership. Against this background, pre-accession
assistance for the period 2009-2011 is concentrated on three strategic areas: i)
supporting institution building; ii) improving cross-border cooperation; iii) preparing
for participation in the EU cohesion and rural development policies.

The 2009-2011 MIPD for the
former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia[43], worth EUR 272.8
million, was adopted in June 2009. Donor coordination and Civil Society
consultation meetings were organised by DG ELARG and the EU Delegation in
Skopje and in Brussels (October 2008 and April 2009). Furthermore, Civil
Society Organisations (CSO), International Financial Institutions (IFIs) and
Member States as well as the beneficiary were given the opportunity to send
written comments on the draft MIPD to the Commission. Comments from Member
States, IFIs and the government were incorporated into the draft MIPD as
appropriate. There were no comments on the draft MIPD from the Civil Society
Organisations.

Building on past and
ongoing assistance[44] and drawing from
the Accession Partnership's recommendations, the MIPD identified priorities for
making the overall strategy operational, as follows:

Implementation of assistance faced challenges with regard to absorption
capacity, as national institutions were endowed with inadequate staff, both in
terms of quality and numbers. Therefore absorption capacity was taken into
account when drafting the 2009-2011 MIPD, targeting support to improve the
capacities of public administrations as part of the major areas of
intervention.

Underlining the fact that the level of ownership of EU assistance
was not very high, the MIPD foresaw to take into account the country's own
needs (e.g. as outlined in the relevant national strategic documents like the
National Programme for the Adoption of the Acquis - NPAA, the National
Development Plan - NDP, the Ohrid Framework Agreement and other sectoral
strategy documents) during programming and implementation. Co-financing
requirements would also contribute to increased ownership. Political will and
coherent decision-making on the part of the beneficiary were essential to
rectify shortcomings in the implementation of pre-accession assistance and
ensure sustainability.

The 2009-2011 MIPD reflected the need for strong horizontal
alignment at national level (across sectors and stakeholders), to be achieved
by improving coordination efforts among ministries and relevant
departments.

Overall, sound vertical
alignment of programme development (from design to implementation), together
with strong attention to the conditions for successful programme
implementation, were highlighted in the MIPD in order to decrease the risks
related to the difficulties described above.

Compared to the 2008-2010
MIPD, the main revisions to the planning document introduced in 2009 consisted
in putting greater focus on future assistance for the adoption and enforcement
of national legislation aligned with the EU acquis and further
transposition of the EU acquis in relevant areas, adding competition,
transport, justice, freedom and security to agriculture, the environment, the
internal market, etc. More focus was given to public administration,
particularly in terms of management of human resources and public finance.

Table 1: MIFF[45]
allocations per component, in million EUR

Component || 2009[46] || 2010 || 2011 || 2009-2011

I. Transition Assistance and Institution Building || 38.1 || 36.3 || 34.5 || 108.9

II. Cross-Border Cooperation || 5.6 || 5.7 || 5.8 || 17.1

III. Regional Development || 20.8 || 29.4 || 35.0 || 85.2

IV. Human Resources Development || 7.1 || 8.49.4 || 9.4 || 24.9

V. Rural Development || 10.2 || 12.5 || 14.0 || 36.7

TOTAL || 81.8 || 92.3 || 98.7 || 272.8

4.2.2.
Programming
exercise

The strategic reference of the 2009 National Programme was the
2009-2011 MIPD. As outlined therein, given the candidate status of the former
Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, pre-accession assistance was aimed at
supporting the country's efforts to comply with the Copenhagen Criteria. This
was reflected in the annual programming of IPA Component I and in the review of
the multi annual programming documents for IPA Components II to V.

Table 2: Indicative
financial allocations for the year per component, in million EUR

THE FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA || 2009

I. Transition Assistance and Institution Building || 39.31

Of which: ||

National Programme || 37.06

Nuclear Safety Programme\* || 0.50

Tempus Programme\* || 1.75

II. Cross-Border Cooperation || 4.37

Of which: ||

with Greece || 1.47

with Bulgaria || 1.34

with Albania || 1.00

South East Europe ERDF || 0.56

III. Regional Development Of which: || 20.80

Transport || 15.70

Environment || 3.90

TA || 1.20

IV. Human Resources Development || 7.10

V. Rural Development || 10.20

TOTAL || 81.78

\* The Nuclear Safety Programme and Tempus Programme are
coordinated and implemented under the relevant Multi-beneficiary IPA 2009
programmes.

4.2.2.1             Component I:
Transition Assistance and Institution Building

The IPA 2009 National
Programme for the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, which was adopted by
the Commission on 12 November 2009, was the first to be programmed based on decentralised
management (i.e. implementation managed by the beneficiary, with ex-ante
controls by the EU Delegation), as it was assumed that conferral of management
could be granted before the end of 2009. This assumption proved premature and
resulted in no Financing Agreement for this programme being signed in 2009.

The projects presented
under IPA 2009 were selected based on the following (equally important)
criteria: i) consistency with EU and national strategic priorities; ii) consistency
with the obligations deriving from the National Programme for the Adaptation of
the Acquis (NPAA); iii) level of “coverage” from previous IPA/CARDS
projects and previous bilateral assistance; iv) project maturity (how developed
was the project fiche and the project/tender documentation); v) project
lifespan (should be finite) and possibility of defining management boundaries
on an annual level; vi) scope for inter – ministerial cooperation and
communication; vii) involvement of other bodies and stakeholders.

Firstly, projects were
selected on the basis of the priorities identified in the MIPD. For example,
although the legal and institutional framework for human rights and the
protection of minorities was broadly in place, it was evident that additional
efforts were needed to improve implementation in a number of fields. Thus, IPA
2009 includes a project to develop the capacity to ensure full respect of human
rights by law enforcement agencies and investigative institutions, including
strengthening the effectiveness of investigations of allegations of torture and
of ill-treatment.

Secondly, the existence of
national (sectoral) strategies was taken into consideration. Thus,
interventions outlined in the IPA 2009 programme in most cases build on clearly
identified and well developed national strategies. For example, the objective
behind supporting the State Transport Inspectorate is to strengthen the administrative
and operational capacity for effective enforcement of the road transport
legislation. Therefore this project will not only contribute to achieving the
MIPD goal of alignment with the EU acquis in the transport sector, as
its purpose is also directly linked to the National Transport Strategy
(2007-2017), which aims at furthering approximation of the national legislation
with EU legislation as well as strengthening the capacity of the relevant
transport institutions. In some cases these national strategies will be updated
and improved through IPA assistance, as it will be the case with the project
aimed at assisting the Civil Servants Agency with their National System for
Training Coordination.

Thirdly, possible
follow-up on previous and ongoing projects (EU, bilateral and multilateral
assistance) was taken into consideration, such as in the case of the project on
Integrated Border Management (CARDS 2006 and IPA 2008), in order to assure
sustainability and avoid overlaps.

In addition, projects were
screened on their maturity (how developed was the project fiche and the
project/tender documentation; presence of key elements such as needs analysis,
feasibility studies and market studies and the intended beneficiaries’
preparedness to receive and manage the support provided by the programme).
Finally, they were screened against possible overlaps with ongoing assistance
in the country, inter-ministerial cooperation and communication and involvement
of other relevant bodies and stakeholders.

Regarding the involvement
of national beneficiaries, the NIPAC and the Secretariat for European Affairs must
have a coordination role in the programming, identification and formulation of
strategic priorities, enabling good guidelines and facilitating the process
that must result in the drafting of mature and ready to-go projects. The analysis of the strategic documents must provide a clear idea of
what are the medium-term priorities of the relevant institutions in the
country.

In the period June –
September 2008, based on those documents the Secretariat for European Affairs developed a first draft of a Summary Outline which pinpointed the
most relevant priorities for 2009 programming. In order
to maintain continuity of the reform processes deriving from the European
agenda of the country, the EU put the emphasis on a combined “top down” and
“bottom up” approach in the programming process, through i) setting a clear
action plan and time table for the 2009 programming; ii) creating a better
participatory approach by involving municipalities (through the Association of
Local Self Government Units (ZELS)) and civil society (through the Unit for
Civil Society in the General Secretariat) in the programming of Component I.

The detailed calendar for programming
of IPA 2009 Component I provided exact steps with a precise schedule. After
each milestone (e.g. elaboration of summary outline, project identification
sheets, project fiches, technical specifications, Terms of Reference and tender
dossiers, etc.), the EU Delegation and Commission services in Brussels were
consulted and their comments incorporated.

The first programming step
was the ‘summary outline’ provided by the NIPAC, containing project ideas.
Final beneficiaries were required to formulate projects ideas
(September-October 2008) in line with the set priorities and EU approximation objectives.
Ideas for projects and other actions were identified and screened for further
study. This involved consultation with the intended final beneficiaries, an
analysis of the problems they were facing and the identification of options to
address those problems. Only then a decision was made, based on the relevance
of each project idea (both for the intended beneficiaries and with respect to
the programming framework). The outcome of this phase was the identification of
projects to be covered by IPA 2009.

During the second stage,
final beneficiaries were required to draft project fiches and measures in line
with the Operational Programmes. At this stage it was necessary to ensure
consistency between programming and national budgetary requirements for
co-financing. In order to avoid overlapping, increase transparency and assure
complementarities, the 2009 programme was discussed with the international
community and civil society representatives on 27-28 October 2008 and on 6/8
April 2009, with the aim of avoiding overlapping with other donors’ assistance
and allow full participation of civil society in the creation of the project
proposals.

In order to increase
ownership of the programming process and reach better efficiency once
priorities were defined, final beneficiaries had sole responsibility for
drafting project fiches. However, as experience had shown that they had limited
capacities, the EU Delegation supported the process by creating working groups
on a project-fiche basis.

In addition, in order to
boost programming capacities in the country, in the period January-June 2009 a
team of two consultants was assigned to assist the Secretariat for EU Affairs
and line ministries with the preparation of the IPA 2009 National Programme.
The main purpose of the project "Technical Assistance to support the
SEA in drafting the National Annual Programme under IPA (Instrument for Pre
Accession) Component I – Transition Assistance and Institution Building for
2009” was to provide support in redrafting IPA Component I project fiches
for the 2009 programme, ensuring that these would be delivered in line with the
programming schedule.  In doing so the project team carried out quality
assurance of the draft project fiches and helped increase the capacity to
understand and create logical frameworks in order to help preparation of
project fiches for IPA.

Against this background,
and building on previous CARDS achievements, as well as more recent experience
from programming of IPA 2007 and 2008, the National Programme for Component I
in 2009 provides support to the following priority areas:

·
Political criteria (EUR 8.742 million)[47]- The
programme envisages strengthening the administrative capacity of the relevant
institutions at central and local level in order to ensure sound and efficient
management of EU funds, thus contributing to the decentralisation process.
Regarding the rule of law and good governance, the programme supports the
creation of an independent and efficient judicial system. It also provides
technical assistance to prioritised institutions, including the Ministries of
Justice, Interior, Local Self Government and the Civil Servants Agency.
Finally, the programme foresees assistance to foster civil society development
and dialogue, as well as to the Ministry of Culture for the revitalisation of
the tourist site 'St George – Staro Nagorichane', in line with the Ljubljana
Process.

·
Socio-Economic criteria (EUR 4.037 million) – Technical and material support is
foreseen to be given to the State Statistical Office, contributing to
harmonization with the EU acquis in this field. Furthermore, technical
support is provided to the Department for macro-economy of the Ministry of
Finance, the Commission for Protection of Competition and the National Bank.

·
Ability to assume the obligations of EU
membership (EUR 17.935
million)- The focus of 2009 assistance in this area is the adoption of the acquis,
including building institutional and administrative capacity for transposing,
implementing and enforcing it according to the priorities identified in the
Accession Partnership. The areas covered are transport, agriculture,
environment, energy, information society, integrated border management,
customs, veterinary and food safety.

·
Support to programming and participation in EU
Programmes and Agencies (EUR
6.345 million) - The IPA 2009 Project Preparation and Support Facility
proves crucial in helping prepare project documents of adequate quality for the
EU assistance, in a quick and effective manner.

Finally, the programme
supports participation of the country in a series of EU Programmes which were
deemed important for the country’s further cohesion process (i.e. the 7th
Framework Research programme, the CIP-Entrepreneurship and Innovation
Programme, Culture programme, Progress and Europe for Citizens), and funds are
allocated for the extension of preparatory measures for the Lifelong Learning
and Youth in Action programmes. Furthermore, funds are allocated to cover costs
for the country’s future participation as observer in activities of the
European Fundamental Rights Agency.

Following
the submission of the project fiches by the EU Delegation in April 2009, DG
Enlargement conducted its assessment and concluded that the proposed programme
was good and balanced, in line with the priorities of the country and EU
strategic documents, while shortcomings were identified regarding the quality
and maturity of project fiches.

The 23 fiches were
returned to the Secretariat for European Affairs via the Delegation and
additional revisions were undertaken on all of them.
The services on both sides were able to overcome the identified shortcomings in
June-July 2009 and present the programme for Inter-Service Consultation within
the Commission. The programme was finally adopted on 12 November 2009,
following a positive opinion by the IPA Committee on 25 September 2009.

During the programming
exercise, some progress was made in reducing the number of planned contracts
and increasing the average value (IPA contribution) of projects. The IPA 2009
programme has 86 contracts in total, compared to 93 for IPA 2008, including six
twinning in areas such as criminal law reforms, agriculture, macroeconomics,
competition policy and statistics.

The major part of the assistance under Component I of IPA 2009 will
be delivered through service contracts and there is a possibility to use the
Project Preparation Facility, where the budget allows for a maximum 33 framework
contracts. More specifically, 15 service, 7 supply, 2 works, 6 twinning and 33
framework contracts are programmed under IPA 2009, in addition to 5 direct
grant awards, 2 calls for proposals and 16 direct payments (CA and CP).

Projects in cooperation
with other international agencies and EU bodies are also foreseen, such as with
the Council of Europe in the area of human rights (Project Fiche 1.2 “Capacity Building of the Law Enforcement Agencies for
Appropriate Treatment of Detained and Sentenced Persons”), as well as with
the European Central Bank in the area of economic and monetary union (Project
Fiche 2.2 “Review of Legal, Organizational and
Resource Requirements for the National Bank”) – see table below.

Table 3: Indicative
financial allocations for the year 2009 under the annual National Programme,
per priority axis and per project, in million EUR

Priority Axis || Projects || Budget[48]

Political Criteria || 8.75

|| 1.1 Support in the Implementation of the Reform of the Criminal Justice System || 1.27

|| 1.2 Capacity Building of the Law Enforcement Agencies for Appropriate Treatment of Detained and Sentenced Persons || 1.80

|| 1.3 Support to the National Police and Criminal Law Reform || 1.03

|| 1.4 Support to Enhancement, Sustainability and Development of an Active Civil Society || 1.50

|| 1.5 Building effective and democratic local government || 0.99

|| 1.6 Technical Assistance to the Civil Servants Agency and Strengthening the Implementation of the National System for Training Coordination || 0.99

|| 1.7 Conservation and Revitalization of the Cultural – Tourist Site St.George – Staro Nagorichane || 1.17

 Economic Criteria || 4.04

|| 2.1 Strengthening the Capacity of the Ministry of Finance for Macroeconomic Analysis and Policy Formulation || 1.22

|| 2.2 Review of Legal, Organizational and Resource Requirements for the National Bank || 0.40

|| 2.3 Support to the State Statistical Office || 1.47

|| 2.4 Assistance to the Commission for Protection of Competition || 0.95

Acquis || 17.93

|| 3.1 Enhancing the Administrative Capacity of Telecom and Media Authorities || 0.81

|| 3.2 Institution Building of the Administrative Capacity for Agriculture and Rural Development || 2.60

|| 3.3 Capacity Building for the Authorities for Food Safety, Phytosanitary and Veterinary Policy || 1.74

|| 3.4 Strengthening the Capacity of the Transport Inspectorate || 0.72

|| 3.5 Strengthening the Capacity of the Energy Department in the Ministry of Economy and the Energy Agency || 1.70

|| 3.6 Strengthening the Capacity for Approximation and Implementation of Environmental Legislation || 2.98

|| 3.7 Strengthening the Capacity of the Customs Administration || 2.91

|| 3.8 Strengthening the Blood Safety System || 0.90

|| 3.9 Integrated Border Management || 3.57

Priority axis Supporting Programmes || 6.34

|| 4.1 Participation in EU Programmes and Agencies || 1.63

|| 4.1 Project Preparation and Support Facility || 2.71

|| 4.3 Preparatory measures for Life Long learning and Youth in Action || 2.00

TOTAL || 37.06

4.2.2.2             Component II:
Cross-border Cooperation

For Component II, the three
multi-annual bilateral programmes in which the country is involved (with
Albania, Bulgaria and Greece) were originally adopted by the Commission in 2007
- except with Greece, adopted in March 2008 -  with financial tables covering
the period 2007–2009. In accordance with the art 93 (1)(a) of the IPA
Implementing Regulation, the countries prepared a revision of the 2007-2013 programming
documents in order to add the financial allocations for 2010-2011.

The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia participates also in the
transnational South-East Europe programme. Besides,
during 2009 national authorities confirmed their readiness to start the
programming process for a new cross-border cooperation programme in the area bordering Kosovo[49].

The overall objective of IPA Cross-border cooperation (CBC) is to
promote sustainable economic and social development in the areas concerned. Joint actions implemented with the support of the programme should
have an impact on the socio-economic situation of the population, improve the
joint management of natural and cultural resources as well as strengthening the
image and cohesion of the cross-border area. All programmes contain a description of priorities and the measures chosen for
assistance in the period 2007-2013, as well as an indicative financing plan for the first years. CBC programmes are essentially implemented
through joint calls for proposals covering all the eligible territory. The
Financing decisions for the 2009 allocations were taken in August 2009[50].

Due to the late setting up
of joint structures, the first call for proposals concerning 2007 funds under the
CBC with Albania could only be launched in June 2009. The Financing Agreement
for 2008 funds related to the same programme was signed in December 2009. Also
the 2008 Financing Agreement on the CBC Programme with Greece was signed in
December 2009. Implementation of this programme was delayed because of the
difficulties encountered to clarify all technicalities for this cross-border
programme between a EU Member State and a candidate country, implemented
according to the transitional arrangements laid down in Art.99 of the IPA Implementing
Regulation[51].
Also, in view of the political relations between the two countries, it took
more time to bring the two partners together to agree on the different
implementation steps. As in the case with Albania, a joint launch of call for
proposals to absorb funds from IPA 2007 and 2008 was foreseen for after the
reporting period.

Under the transnational “South-East
Europe” programme, after the successful completion of the first call for proposals
with 2007 funds, 40 projects were selected, out of which 6 were from the former
Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. The second call was published in November 2009,
with the 2008 and 2009 financial allocations, and the great interest for this
programme shown during the first call was expected to be repeated.

4.2.2.3             Component III:
Regional Development

The multi-annual
Operational Programme Regional Development under IPA Component III, worth 40.5
million EUR for the period 2007-2009, was prepared by the national authorities
during 2007 in close cooperation with the Commission and was adopted by
Commission Decision on 29 November 2007.

Its overall objective is
to support the sustainable development of the country through the improvement
of transport and environment infrastructure. Assistance in the transport sector
focuses on continuing the development of the South-East Europe Core Regional
Transport Network (corridors VIII and X). Concerning assistance in the
environment sector, targeted investments will focus on waste water treatment
and solid waste management, where the impact on the population and natural
environment is the greatest. Within the operational programme a separate
priority on technical assistance has been introduced to support national
structures managing IPA, including ensuring projects of high standards for
current programmes and for the future programming periods.

As the revised
multi-annual planning documents for the periods 2008-2010 and 2009-2011
essentially maintained the priorities of the previous period, the strategy and
priorities expressed in the Operational Programme Regional Development adopted
in 2007 were maintained for the following two years.

In 2009, most of the
efforts under this component were put in obtaining conferral of management
powers (see section 4.2.3 below). The
Financing Agreement was signed and entered into force in September 2009. A
pre-financing for an amount of EUR 12.15 million was transferred to the
national authorities in October 2009.

4.2.2.4             Component IV: Human
Resources Development

The
multi-annual Operational Programme Human Resources Development (OPHRD) under Component
IV for the programming period 2007 – 2013, with financial allocations for
2007-2009 worth EUR 19.176 million (including the national contribution), was
prepared by the national authorities during 2007 in close cooperation with the
Commission and was adopted by Commission Decision on 7 December 2007. The OPHRD
concentrates its strategy on three priority axis (plus the priority axis for
technical assistance) covering the following fields: employment, education and
training and social inclusion.

Also under this component, most of the efforts in 2009 concentrated
on obtaining conferral of management powers (see section 4.2.3 below).  The Financing Agreement between the government and
the Commission concerning the OPHRD was signed on 26 November 2009. A pre-financing payment for an amount of EUR
4.89 million was made in December 2009.

4.2.2.5.            Component V: Rural
Development

The IPA Rural Development
programme 2007-2013, adopted in 2007 and first amended in 2008, consists of 3
priority axes: "Improving market efficiency and implementation of EU
standards", "Preparatory actions for implementation of the
agri-environmental measures and local rural development strategies" and
"Development of the rural economy". The year 2009 was used for final
preparations for implementation of this programme. In addition, a second
modification was made in order to include the 2010 financial allocation and to
make technical revisions in order to facilitate the accreditation of the
operating structure as well as implementation. More specifically, vocational
training on agriculture, rural infrastructure and preparation for Leader type
measures were introduced. This second modification received a positive opinion
from the Rural Development Committee in July 2009.

4.2.3.
Implementation
Modalities and Structures

2009 witnessed
developments on the roadmap to decentralised implementation of IPA assistance.

In February 2009 the
National Authorising Officer (NAO) in the Ministry of Finance submitted to the
Commission the Accreditation Packages for conferral of decentralised management
powers (with ex ante controls by the EU Delegation) for Components I and
III. The audit mission with representatives from DG ELARG and DG REGIO took
place in March 2009.

The final report of DG ELARG auditors for Component I was delivered in July 2009. The verification mission
identified a substantial number of 'high risks' within the services of the NAO,
National IPA Coordinator (NIPAC) and line ministries, namely shortage of staff
in key positions, insufficient capacity of the management and control systems
regarding IPA and lack of segregation of duties. Those
weaknesses and their respective risks levels did not provide the Commission
with sufficient assurance that the national system complied with the key
criteria for conferral of management powers[52] under Component I.

As concerns Component III,
the auditors of DG REGIO gave their final positive assessment which led the
Commission to grant national authorities the power to manage EU funds for this
component on July 24, 2009. By the end of the reporting period, a roadmap for
waiving of ex-ante controls under IPA Component III was submitted by the
National Authorising Officer to the Commission and was in consultation within
Commission services.

With regard to Components
IV and V, the Accreditation Packages were submitted to the Commission in March
and June 2009, respectively. Audit Missions by DG EMPL and DG AGRI took place
in May (Component IV) and September (Component V). Conferrals of management
powers (without ex-ante controls, as far as Component V was concerned)
were granted to the national authorities, respectively, in October and December
2009.

Component II-CBC was the
only one for which no application for conferral of management was submitted by
the NAO in 2009. The Ministry of Local Self Government (MoLSG), National
IPA-CBC Coordinator, is expected to further strengthen capacities, especially
staffing, and be in a position to send the request to the Commission by the end
of 2010 at the earliest.

4.2.4.
Overview of IPA
projects/contracts implemented in 2009

Following from the fact
that the Commission could not grant management powers for Component I to the
former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, in 2009 such component continued to be
implemented under centralised (de-concentrated) management, with the EU
Delegation acting as contracting authority.

All projects under the first Financing Agreement covering the 2007
allocations were tendered and contracted by the contracting deadline of 30
October 2009. For projects under the second Financing Agreement, for which the
contracting deadline falls after the reporting period, tendering and
contracting was on track.

Table 4: Status of
implementation of IPA financial assistance (Components I to V) as at 31st
December 2009 (in million EUR)

|| Committed || Paid || RAL[53] || % Paid

IPA 2007-2008-2009 || 197.53 || 27.89 || 169.64 || 14.12%

4.2.4.1             Component I: Transition Assistance and Institution
Building

Tables 5: Status of implementation of IPA financial assistance
(Component I) as at 31st December 2009 (in
million EUR) per annual programme and distribution of total committed funds
(2007-2009 allocations) by priority axes

|| Committed || Contracted || RAC[54] || % Contracted || Paid || RAL || %Paid

IPA 2007 || 34.94 || 21.88 || 13.06 || 62.62% || 10.80 || 24.14 || 30.91%

IPA 2008 || 37.12 || 0.10 || 37.02 || 0.27% || 0.05 || 37.07 || 0.13%

IPA 2009 || 37.06 || 0.00 || 37.06 || 0.00% || 0.00 || 37.06 || 0.00%

TOTAL || 109.12 ||  21.98 || 87.14 || 20.14% || 10.85 || 98.27 || 9.94%

Priority Axes || % of 2007-2009 allocations

Political criteria || 33.85%

(of which civil society) || (2.47%)

Economic criteria || 12.96%

Ability to assume membership obligations || 38.34%

Support programmes || 14.85%

TOTAL || 100.00%

Although project implementation was in its early stage in 2009, national
authorities made good use of the Project Preparation Facility in preparation of
project documents in various areas, mainly assisting beneficiary institutions
in drafting Terms of References, Twinning Fiches and complex Technical
Specifications for works and supply contracts. This assistance proved
effective, allowing for a timely preparation of Tender Dossiers of a good
quality and a gradual increase of beneficiaries’ capacity for preparing such
documents.

In the course of 2009 the
EU Delegation contracted 11 technical assistance contracts, 15 framework contracts,
4 negotiated contracts and 3 single tender contracts for services, 1 twinning,
1 twinning light and 2 works contracts, all funded by IPA 2007 allocations. In
addition, DG Education and Culture contracted two direct grant agreements for
preparatory measures for the Lifelong Learning and Youth in Action programmes
(financed under IPA 2007). The following IPA 2007 projects could be seen as showing
positive results during implementation:

·
"Support to the implementation of the
Police Reform Strategy" - EUR 9.4 million (IPA contribution EUR 9.0
million).

The main part of IPA
funding under this project went to the Police Development Assistance Project (EUR
7.73 million). The contract started on May 2008 and ended after the reporting
period, on May 2010. The overall objective of the proposed action was the
provision of advisory and material support to the Police Reform process to
ensure consistency and continuity of approach, consolidate progress already
made and maintain momentum. More specifically, support addressed directly the
three pillars of the National Police Reform Strategy (strategic, tactical, and
operational) at both central and local (regional) levels and provided feedback
function for recirculation of operational observations and assessments into the
reform process, the assimilation of such observations and, where feasible, the
specification and implementation of remedial actions to ensure continued
progress of the reform process. The project provided direct advisory support to
the Ministry of Interior (MoI) and its partner institutions, to assist with the
co-ordination and implementation of the strategic framework for reform.  In the
wider context, the objective is to support the development and consolidation of
an effective and publicly accountable police service in the former Yugoslav
Republic of Macedonia, to uphold the rule of law and operate in accordance with
the applicable National Strategies, implementing legislation and international
standards and best practices.

From 20 to 26 February
2009, the project provided training to the Police in relation to the upcoming presidential
and municipal elections. In addition, the project provided regular advice on a
human resources strategy and set up an action plan in line with European
standards to regulate the rights and duties of police officers, i.e.
recruitment, assignment, salary, promotion, discipline, etc. The project provided
also regular advice on training (a key benchmark for EU accession), on policing
the police structures of Skopje city, on the evolution of Alpha Unit and on
community policing/prevention/pilot sites.

The second part of the
project concerned the Reconstruction of Police Stations (EUR 1.67 million).

·
"Support to the implementation
of the Customs Reform Strategy" – EUR 3.2 million (EU contribution EUR 3.0
million).

The objective of the
project is to achieve further alignment with the acquis in the area of
customs and strengthen the administrative capacity of the national Customs
Administration (MCA) and its capacity to meet the EU requirements in this area.
The project purpose is to contribute to a professional customs administration
that is enabled to appropriately implement reforms, taking due account of EU
regulations and best practices.

The following contracts
within this project made good progress in 2009:

- Technical Assistance for
Improvement of the Customs IT System (EUR 688,000), started
in July 2009 and due to end in January 2011. The
purpose of this contract is to improve the customs IT system with the aim to
increase operational efficiency, decrease corruption and achieve full
compliance with the EU standards, in particular interconnectivity with EU Member
States administrations. The
project team prepared the technical specifications/tender dossier for the IT
supply contract to be funded under IPA 2007.

- Technical Assistance for
Reinforcement of Border Control (EUR 699.990), started on August 2009 and
due to end on February 2011. This contract aims at reinforcing customs
border control. This is to be achieved by implementing comprehensive,
systematic, simplified and efficient customs controls at border posts;
facilitating the legal crossing of passengers and goods; ensuring revenue
collection and public security; strengthening the MCA’s capacity to fight
against fraud and corruption. During the reporting period, the project team has developed technical
specifications for the border control equipment supply component. The review and report on the state of equipping border crossings with
modern border inspection and detection equipment was under way during the
reporting period. The supply tender for IT equipment
was launched in November 2009 and contracts for the two lots were due to be
signed after the reporting period.

By the end of 2009, the preparation of tender documents for IPA 2008
projects was finalised, following signature of the Financing Agreement in February
2009. Preparations of tender documents for IPA 2009 began in December 2009 in
order to assure a smooth transition from centralised to decentralised
implementation. The EU Delegation was monitoring preparatory activities,
participating in working groups with national authorities and providing advice
and hands-on assistance during the preparation of tender documents.

Referring to other Institution Building instruments such as TAIEX,
in the course of 2009 there were 2246 participants from line ministries and
other relevant institutions to 104 single-country and 105 multi-country events in
the areas of agriculture, infrastructure, internal market, justice and home
affairs, mobilising 1190 experts.

As for participation in EU Programmes,
in the course of 2009 reimbursement of the following entry tickets were
allocated to be paid at a later stage: Culture 2008; PROGRESS 2007, 2008, 2009;
Europe for Citizens 2009; CIP[55] – ICT 2009,
Fiscalis 2009, Customs 2009.

Following savings under the IPA
2007 project fiche for EU Programmes and Agencies, a request for additional
allocation was approved on mid December 2009 and the entry tickets for the FP7
2009 and CIP – EIP 2009 EU Programmes were reimbursed.

4.2.4.2             Component II:
Cross-border Cooperation

Tables 6: Status of implementation of IPA financial assistance
(Component II) as at 31st December 2009 (in
million EUR) per annual programme and distribution of total committed funds
(2007-2009 allocations) by priority axes

|| Committed || Contracted || RAC || % Contracted || Paid || RAL || %Paid

IPA 2007 || 4.16 || 0.13 || 4.03 || 3.12% || 0.00 || 4.16 || 0.00%

IPA 2008 ||  4.08 || 0.00 || 4.08 || 0.00% || 0.00 || 4.08 || 0.00%

IPA 2009 ||  4.37 || 0.00 || 4.37 || 0.00% || 0.00 || 4.37 || 0.00%

TOTAL ||  12.61 || 0.13 || 12.48 || 1.03% || 0.00 ||  12.61 || 0.00%

Priority Axes || % of 2007-2009 allocations

CBC with Member States || 54.64%

CBC within Western Balkans || 33.31%

Participation to ERDF Transnational Programmes || 12.05%

TOTAL || 100.00%

2009 was the starting year
for implementation of IPA-CBC programmes with the involvement of the former
Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. Fully fledged cross–border programmes in the
Western Balkans countries had never been implemented before. The national
authorities of all countries concerned required time to set up joint management
structures in compliance with the IPA regulatory framework (Operating
Structures, Joint Monitoring Committee, Joint Technical Secretariat - JTS), to
prepare and launch the joint calls for proposals and to perform the evaluation
of applications received.

Joint structures were established in 209: the JTS in Struga, for the
CBC programme with Albania, and the JTS Antenna in Strumica, for the CBC
programme with Bulgaria. The first call for proposals
under the CBC programme with Albania, for projects covering a wide range of
issues (from tourism and sustainable environmental
development to people-to-people and
institution-to-institution - such as schools, universities, research centres- operations),
was finally launched in June 2009. Funds requested under the 60 applications
were three times higher than funds available, a clear indication of the
interest generated by the programme.

The first call for proposals for the CBC programme with Bulgaria was
published in September 2009. Contracts with successful applicants were due to
be signed after the reporting period.

The CBC programme with
Greece did not start in 2009, but procedures were on-going to establish the JTS
in Thessalonica and its antenna in Bitola, and agree on the application package
for the first call for proposals to be launched in 2010. Finally, within the South-East
Europe transnational programme, after successful completion of the first call
with 2007 funds, 40 projects were selected out of which 6 were from the former Yugoslav
Republic of Macedonia. Two contracts were already
signed during the summer 2009 (one on drought-related damages and the other on
co-operation of innovation and finance agencies). The remaining contracts were
under preparation by the end of the reporting period. The second call for
proposal, with 2008 and 2009 financial allocations, was published in November
2009 and the great interest previously shown for this programme was expected to
be repeated.

4.2.4.3.            Component III:
Regional Development

Tables 7: Status of implementation of IPA financial assistance
(Component III) as at 31st December 2009 (in
million EUR) and distribution of total committed funds (2007-2009 allocations)
by priority axes

|| Committed || Paid || RAL || % Paid

IPA 2007-2008-2009 || 40.50 || 12.15 || 28.35 || 30.00%

Priority Axes || % of 2007-2009 allocations

Transport || 78.20%

Environment || 21.80%

Competitiveness || 0.00%

TOTAL || 100.00%

The start of actual
implementation of the operational programme became possible only after
conferral of management powers was granted and the Financing Agreement entered
into force, in the second half of 2009. Preparation of the two major projects (“Corridor
X”, with EUR 45 million of IPA contribution and “Waste water treatment project in
Prilep”,  EUR 19 million) and other planned operations under the programme (“Upgrading
and modernisation of the transport infrastructure”; “Establishment of an integrated
waste management system”; “Technical assistance for administration of
Operational Programmes, information, evaluation, monitoring and control
activities”; “Preparation of investment projects and programmes”) were ongoing
by the end of the reporting period. The pre-financing, amounting at to 30 % of
the EU contribution for 2007-2009, was paid in October 2009.

The fourth Sectoral
Monitoring Committee was held on 24 June 2009 and the fifth one, the first
official one after the entry into force of the Financing Agreement, on 26
November 2009. The work plan of the Operating Structure, the state of play of
preparation of major projects and other operations and the proposal for a
modification of the Operational Programme were discussed at the two meetings,
among other issues.

The efficiency of the
technical expertise of line ministries as part of the Operating Structure is
still far from sufficient and Programme implementation is delayed.  A strong
message was repeatedly passed to the national authorities for taking immediate
actions that should result with tangible progress at the earliest time.

In order to facilitate the
preparation of the Waste water treatment project in Prilep, a technical
assistance contract was signed under Component I of IPA 2007 to allow proper
scope of the investment project and prepare tender documents.

4.2.4.4             Component IV: Human
Resources Development

Tables 8: Status of implementation of IPA financial assistance
(Component IV) as at 31st December 2009 (in
million EUR) and distribution of total committed funds (2007-2009 allocations)
by priority axes

|| Committed || Paid || RAL || % Paid

IPA 2007-2008-2009 || 16.30 || 4.89 || 11.41 || 30.00%

Priority Axes || % of overall 2007-2009 allocations

Employment || 42.00%

Education and training || 30.00%

Social inclusion || 20.00%

Administrative capacity || 8.00%

TOTAL || 100.00%

Following consultations
and preparatory work, a first draft of the Operation Identification Sheets
(OIS) was submitted to the EU Delegation for comments in May 2009. By the end
of the reporting period, 4 out of
15 OIS were approved. Comments on the pending OIS were sent to the Operating
Structure.

In the meantime, in June 2009 the need for
reallocation of funds between measures became evident. The reallocation was
approved at the first SMC meeting held in December 2009 triggering, together
with other specific implementation risks, the need for further improvements to some OIS.

As of July 2009 the Operating Structure started to develop tender
documentation (Terms of References and twinning fiches). By the end of the
reporting period, 10 sets of tender documents where under preparation.

The first and second twinning fiches were sent for circulation in, respectively,
October and December 2009.

4.2.4.5.            Component V: Rural
Development

Tables 9: Status of implementation of IPA financial assistance
(Component V) as at 31st December 2009 (in
million EUR) and distribution of total committed funds (2007-2009 allocations)
by priority axes

|| Committed || Paid || RAL || % Paid

IPA 2007-2008-2009 || 19.00 || 0.00 || 19.00 || 0.00%

Priority Axes || % of overall 2007-2009 allocations

Improving market efficiency || 78.00%

Preparation of agri-environmental measures and local rural development strategies || 0.00%

Development of rural economy || 18.00%

Technical assistance || 4.00%

TOTAL || 100.00%

In 2009 the IPA Rural Development management and control system was finally
set up in accordance with the requirements of the Framework and Sectoral
Agreement and national accreditation was granted by the National Authorized Officer
(NAO) in March 2009. In view of the preparation for
conferral of management without ex-ante controls, the audit team from
the DG AGRI completed two fact-finding missions to the former Yugoslav Republic
of Macedonia and one Conferral Mission on verification of the IPA Rural
Development structures was held in September 2009. As already mentioned, conferral
of management powers was granted by the Commission in December 2009[56].

After conferral of
management the IPA Rural Development operational structure - the Managing
Authority and the IPA Rural Development Agency - implementation of the IPA
Rural Development Programme started in December 2009. The Programme contains 4
measures (out of 9 available under IPA Rural Development), of which by the end of
the reporting period only three (M101"Investment in agricultural
holding", M103"Investment in processing and marketing" and
M302"Diversification of rural economy") were subject to conferral of
management.

IPA
2007-2009 allocations under the programme amounted to EUR 19 million and were covered
by the corresponding Multi-annual Financing Agreement, which by the end of the
reporting period was not yet into force.

4.3.
Coherence, compatibility and coordination of aid

Coordination with donors
was intensified as from December 2008 when the NIPAC decided to re-vitalize
activities which had been left aside for about two years. Beyond the exchange
of information among donors which continued at various steps of the programming
process, the donor community and the beneficiary embanked  on discussions on
the preparation of a Programme Based Approach (PBA) with the analysis of
sectors potentially suitable for testing this concept. With a view to increasing
the impact and efficiency of assistance, the country took a much more prominent
role in this process.

Following the discussions in June 2009 held by participants to the
High Level Working Group (Austria, Sweden, Switzerland, the Netherlands, the US,
the World Bank and the EU), the Programme Based Approach was accepted by the government
in order to ensure greater aid effectiveness, reflect national development
priorities and increase ownership over development goals and ongoing reforms. The
Conference on effective support for enlargement, organised by DG ELARG and the
then Swedish EU Presidency, confirmed once again the new direction towards a programme
based approach in programming of Components I, III, IV and V of IPA.

During the reporting period, concrete efforts towards the
introduction of the new approach to programming led to the following
achievements: i) the institutional set-up was in place and functional; ii) the
action plans and guiding documents for the actual work of the five programme
area working groups were developed and being followed; iii) assessments of the
programme areas run according to plans; iv) there was continuous productive
dialogue between the Government and international partners.

The programme area working groups were carrying the actual
assessments and definition of proposals on priority areas for the introduction
of a Programme Based Approach. Through coordination meetings with teams of
focal points from these working groups, the High Level Government -
International Partners Working Group ensured that programme-level work remained
on track. At the end of September 2009, the five working groups presented their
findings and final proposals, which represented the basis for further
development of action plans for implementation of the concept in each area.

The country continued to
pursue the Programme Based Approach gradually in 2009 following the activities
prescribed within the Action Plan and EU recommendations to adopt a sector
based approach in the relevant planning documents for IPA assistance. The commitment
demonstrated by donors and national actors is a prerequisite for success. Meanwhile
the dialogue and learning mechanism will continue: the working groups will
complete the assessment of programme areas and will prepare implementation
plans, the High Level Government-International Partners Working Group will
ensure oversight of the process and high level donor coordination meetings will
be held to set the milestones on a higher policy level.

The Programme Based
Approach should be best put to use to facilitate the EU agenda and improve both
bilateral and multilateral assistance given to the country. Achieving better
results through better planning and implementation of financial assistance, by
putting in use local systems for programme design and implementation, financial
management, monitoring and evaluation, is a target of the EU Delegation.

4.4.
Monitoring

Regarding monitoring
activities under centralised management, in addition to the creation of a
‘shadow’[57] Sectoral
Monitoring Committee for Component I and consequently a ‘shadow’ JMC, the
Commission may undertake any actions it deems necessary to monitor the
programmes concerned.

During the reporting
period, the EU Delegation conducted monitoring of the ongoing projects on a regular
quarterly basis in the form of Project Review meetings, where different
operational and financial issues were discussed. Besides the monitoring done by
the competent sectoral sub-committees and the Joint Monitoring Committee, a
number of projects under Component I of IPA 2007 stated to be included in the
Result Oriented Monitoring (ROM) which operated on a multi-country basis. This
tool complemented the internal monitoring activities carried out by the EUD
under various forms (regular reporting, steering committee meetings, project
implementation reviews).

In addition, following
Articles 60, 83 and 84 of the IPA Implementing Regulation, progress with
monitoring the IPA Operational Programmes was attained by larger involvement of
the national structures. All sectoral monitoring sub-committees for all five
IPA components were organised regularly, in addition to the IPA Joint
Monitoring Committee held on 25 November 2009. Further support to the NIPAC and
the Central Finance and Contract Directorate (CFCD) was needed to produce
Annual Implementation Reports, but good progress in this areas was achieved
with help from the EU Delegation.

5.
KOSOVO (under UNSCR 1244/99)[58]
5.1.
The year in review

The conclusions of the
2009 Progress Report[59] for Kosovo[60] confirmed
that Kosovo faced major challenges. By the end of the reporting period, Kosovo
had to make further progress in establishing and consolidating the rule of law
and needed to improve the functioning and independence of its judiciary. It
needed to establish a track record in the fight against corruption, money
laundering and organised crime, demonstrating concrete results. Kosovo also
needed to strengthen the capacity, independence and professionalism of its
public administration and improve its business environment, including
regulation, supervision and corporate governance. It had to ensure full
transparency in senior public appointments and make sure that public
procurement complied with criteria of independence, objectivity and
transparency. In addition, it also needed to establish a sustainable
macro-economic and fiscal policy.

In October 2009, the
Commission adopted a communication to the European Parliament and the Council
entitled "Kosovo – Fulfilling its European Perspective"[61]. The purpose
of the communication was to take stock of developments, identify the challenges
on Kosovo's road to Europe, confirm the measures it should take to address those
challenges and propose EU instruments to help Kosovo further its political and
socio-economic development. The measures proposed by the Commission to take the
EU-Kosovo relationship forward included starting to work towards visa
liberalisation, preparing a trade agreement, enabling Kosovo to participate in
EU programmes on Research, Culture and Europe for Citizens and associating it
with EU initiatives in areas such as employment, enterprise and education. It
also proposed the EU to upgrade its political dialogue with Kosovo and widen
the scope of EU financial assistance to it, to include Cross-border Cooperation
(CBC). In its conclusions of 8 December 2009, the General Affairs Council
invited the Commission 'to take the necessary measures to support Kosovo
progress towards the EU in line with the European perspective of the region',
attaching particular importance to 'measures related to trade and visa,
without prejudice to Member States' positions on status'.

The European
Union Rule of Law Mission (EULEX) is part of the overall EU efforts in Kosovo
and contributes to security and stability. IPA interventions, in particular in
the areas of rule of law and law enforcement, are closely coordinated with
EULEX.

For more details on
developments in 2009 in Kosovo’s preparation for EU membership, please refer to
the Commission’s 2009 Progress Report.

5.2.
IPA programming and implementation in 2009
5.2.1.
MIPD 2009-2011

The Multi-annual Indicative Planning Document 2009-2011 for Kosovo[62], which
identifies the main areas and priorities of the Instrument for Pre-accession
Assistance for that period, was adopted in July 2009. Over EUR 103 million were
allocated in the IPA Annual Programme for 2009. Following the overall EU
strategy and priorities for Kosovo's clear European perspective, in line with
the European perspective of the region, the Commission continued to support the
strengthening of the rule of law, public administration reform, communities,
culture and youth, wider socio-economic issues including trade and regional
development, education and employment, agriculture and environment as well as
infrastructure.

More specifically, in 2009
(and for the two subsequent years, subject to possible revisions in light of
relevant developments in Kosovo, the region, the EU or elsewhere) IPA
assistance focused on transition assistance and institution building in the
following priority areas:

Political criteria: EU assistance complemented the comprehensive EU intervention in
Kosovo, including the objectives of the  European Union Special Representative
(EUSR) and the  European Union Rule of Law Mission in Kosovo (EULEX). It
focused in particular on the rule of law, public administration reform, the
development of civil society, the protection of Serb and other minorities
including their cultural heritage.

Economic criteria: EU assistance furthermore supported the development of Kosovo’s
economy and the socio-economic environment of all communities. This included
measures that catalyse investment by the international financial institutions
(IFIs) and the private sector, notably infrastructure projects. Assistance
supported employment, education and regional development.

European standards: EU assistance continued to support Kosovo's European vocation and
its integration into the Western Balkans region as a whole, focusing on a
gradual approximation with the EU acquis in sectors including internal
market, customs, agriculture and rural development, transport and energy.

Table 1: MIFF[63]
allocations per component, in million EUR

Component || 2009[64] || 2010 || 2011 || 2009-2011

I. Transition Assistance and Institution Building || 103.3 || 64.5 || 65.8 ||  233.6

II. Cross-Border Cooperation || 2.8 || 2.8 || 2.9 || 8.5

TOTAL || 106.1 || 67.3 || 68.7 || 242.10

5.2.2.
Programming exercise

The completed IPA 2009
package, for which programming had started in autumn 2008, was presented to the
Member States in the IPA Committee in April 2009 and the annual programme for Kosovo
was adopted by the Commission on 31 July 2009.

The programming process
for the 2010 Annual Programme was launched in September 2009 when the Kosovo
authorities communicated their initial project ideas. Initial workshops were
organised in November to define tentative project priorities. Thereafter, the
European Commission Liaison Office in Kosovo held a series of bilateral
meetings with Kosovo authorities, Member States and other donors, including
IFIs, and civil society.

The programming process was
carried out with close involvement of the beneficiary institutions, especially
the Agency for Development Coordination and European Integration under the
Office of the Prime Minister, line ministries and in particular the Ministry of
Finance. The preparation of the IPA programme, especially in the rule of law
sector, was also undertaken in close co-ordination with EULEX and
EUSR/International Civilian Office (ICO), to ensure complementarities of
activities. As compared to previous programming exercises, the Kosovo
beneficiaries have shown an increased involvement. They presented a much
greater number of project proposals, which showed higher interest. However,
this also hinted at a lack of prioritisation and filtering of proposals.

Project selection was
primarily based on improved planning, prioritisation and sequencing in line
with political priorities as identified in the strategic documents, including
the Multi-annual Indicative Planning Document, Progress Report 2009 and Kosovo
communication, and better coordination with other donors.

Lessons learned from
experience with CARDS are that donor coordination should be supported and links
to the budget and the Medium-Term Expenditure Framework (MTEF) should be ensured, that development of sectoral strategies
in key sectors will help identify needs and secure relevance of projects, and
that careful planning and sequencing of IPA assistance will be important to
ensure sustainability and ownership.

In November 2009, an
amendment to the 2007 Annual Programme was adopted. The main purpose of this
amendment was to re-allocate EUR 5 million of unspent funds from other
activities to new activities to facilitate a peaceful and sustainable
resettlement and reintegration of displaced Roma families, which would
subsequently contribute to the closure of the Osterode and Cesmin Lug camps in
North Mitrovica, which have high levels of lead contamination.

Table 2: Indicative
financial allocations for the year per component, in million EUR

KOSOVO || 2009

I. Transition Assistance and Institution Building || 106.10

Of which:                                                                          ||

Annual Programme || 103.60

                                                                              Nuclear Safety Programme\* || 0.30

                                                                                       Tempus Programme\* || 2.20

II. Cross-Border Cooperation || 0.00

TOTAL || 106.10

\* The Nuclear Safety Programme and Tempus Programme are
coordinated and implemented under the relevant Multi-beneficiary IPA 2009
programmes.

5.2.2.1             Component I:
Transition Assistance and Institution Building

The total annual
allocation for Kosovo under the IPA programme in 2009 was EUR 106.1 million.
This was divided into EUR103.6 million for the annual programme and another EUR
2.5 million in contributions for two multi-beneficiary programmes (TEMPUS &
Nuclear Safety). The annual programme for Kosovo was adopted by the Commission
on 31 July 2009.

The 2009 IPA annual
programme for Kosovo continued to address issues highlighted in the European
Partnership and the Progress Report 2008. Priorities include the rule of law,
public administration reform, communities, cultural heritage, civil society,
rural development, socio-economic development, employment and education and EU
approximation in selected areas. Projects were selected on the basis of
relevance, impact, sustainability and maturity. A limited number of contracts are
foreseen. Projects build on and complement actions financed under IPA 2007 and
2008 by means of careful sequencing. The EUR 40 million that are added to the
original allocation of EUR 66 million were absorbed by a limited number of
sizeable works projects so as to ensure a manageable workload for the Liaison
Office.

In line with the percentage
ranges foreseen in the MIPD, 41% of the budget was allocated to political
criteria, 30% to the economic criteria and 19% to European standards, the
remainder to cover the cost of preparatory action directly necessary to
implement and attain the objectives of other action already defined in this
programme.

Table 3: Indicative financial allocations
for the year 2009 under the Annual Programme, per priority axis and per
project, in million EUR

Priority Axis || Projects || Budget

Political criteria || 42.68

|| Strengthening the rule of law || 12.05

Strengthening the human resources and the institutional capacity of the Kosovo local public administration || 6.50

Support to communities || 3.13

Support to the cultural sector || 3.00

Support to the media sector || 4.00

Support to culture, youth and sport || 14.00

Economic criteria || 30.80

|| Trade and regional development || 7.80

Support to employment and education || 10.30

Improvement of IT system in the taxation administration || 5.00

Further support to the agriculture sector || 7.70

European standards || 19.80

|| Support to the environment sector || 4.80

Support to transport and energy || 15.00

Support measures || 10.32

|| Support measures and technical assistance facility || 10.32

TOTAL || 103.60

5.2.2.2             Component II:
Cross-border Cooperation

Just as in 2007 and 2008,
the conditions for programmes under Component II in Kosovo were not met for the
2009 programming exercise. The funds for Component II were therefore
transferred to Component I.

5.2.3.
Implementation Modalities and Structures

The IPA programme in
Kosovo is implemented under centralised deconcentrated management by the
European Commission Liaison Office (ECLO) in Kosovo. Some projects are
implemented by joint management with international organisations. As any other
IPA beneficiary, Kosovo needs to establish a roadmap for the decentralisation
of management of EU funds, initially with ex ante controls by the
Commission. In 2009 Kosovo was still at a very early stage of this process. In
April 2009, the government appointed the chief executive of the Agency for the
Coordination of Development and European Integration as Kosovo's IPA
coordinator. The European Commission encourages and supports the Kosovo
authorities to take more ownership of the IPA programming process.

5.2.4.
Overview of IPA
projects/contracts implemented in 2009

Under direct management by the European Commission Liaison Office in
Pristina, in 2009 Kosovo made good progress in IPA implementation. The Liaison
Office took appropriate action to ensure an effective implementation of IPA 2007
and 2008 and met its very ambitious contracting target for 2009 (for
contracting and disbursement details, see the table below).

External monitoring has generally rated impact, or impact prospects
of projects where impact to date could not yet be measured, as 'good'. Kosovo
needs to build on this. IPA assistance needs to be targeted on a limited number
of key priorities, which need to be closely aligned with Kosovo's European
reform agenda and reflect costed sector strategies. Project selection should reflect
improved planning, prioritisation and sequencing, and better coordination with
other donors. The possibility to associate other donors to IPA management in
areas where these have a comparative advantage will be explored. Following the
donors' conference in Brussels in July 2008, Kosovo's ownership of IPA projects
should continue to be strengthened.

5.2.4.1             Component I:
Transition Assistance and Institution Building

Tables 4: Status of implementation of
IPA financial assistance (Component I) as at 31st December 2009 (in million EUR) per annual programme and distribution of
total committed funds (2007-2009 allocations) by priority axes

|| Committed || Contracted || RAC[65] || %Contracted || Paid || RAL[66] || %Paid

IPA 2007 || 62.00 || 53.53 || 8.47 || 86.34% || 22.96 || 39.04 || 37.03%

IPA 2008 || 182.70 || 96.42 || 86.28 || 52.78% || 36.06 || 146.64 || 19.74%

IPA 2009 || 103.60 || 0.00 || 103.60 || 0.00% || 0.00 || 103.6 || 0.00%

TOTAL || 348.30 || 149.95 || 198.35 || 43.05% || 59.02 || 289.28 || 16.95%

Priority Axes || % of 2007-2009 allocations

Political criteria || 34.63%

(of which civil society) || (4.67%)

Economic criteria || 47.72%

European standards || 10.38%

Support activities || 7.27%

TOTAL || 100.00%

2009 was the second year of IPA implementation in Kosovo. In
addition to projects that were launched, a number of other projects already
showed positive results, as outlined below:

Ø
In December 2009 the European Commission Liaison
Office launched a EUR 5.0 million project ‘Mitrovica RAE Support Initiative’
under the IPA 2007 annual programme, in support of the Roma, Ashkali and
Egyptian (RAE) communities living in lead contaminated North Mitrovica camps,
Cesmin Lug and Osterode. The project aims to facilitate the peaceful and
sustainable resettlement and reintegration of up to 90 RAE families into Roma
Mahalla or other locations, and contribute to the closure of Osterode and
Cesmin Lug camps. The resettled families will be provided comprehensive
assistance including housing, medical screening and treatment, economic
development and livelihood initiatives to support a more durable reintegration.
This EU-funded initiative will also improve access to basic social services
such as education, civil registration and legal assistance and community
development activities to facilitate sustained, peaceful reintegration and
reconciliation between returnees and the receiving community.

Ø
In December 2009 in Istog/Istok the Liaison
Office, together with the Deputy Minister of Communities and Return and the
deputy mayor of Istog/Istok Haki Rugova, handed over the keys to 35 houses in
the Istog/Istok municipality to minority returnee families. Foundation stones
for the houses, which were reconstructed or built in the area of Istog/Istok
were laid in July 2009 as part of the project ‘Return and Reintegration in
Kosovo’ (EUR 4.8 million), which is being implemented in four municipalities:
Gjilan/Gnjilane, Istog/Istok, Fushë Kosovë/Kosovo Polje, and Peja/Peć. Its
aim is to support the sustainable return of refugees and internally displaced
persons, with considerable involvement of the Ministry for Communities and
Return and local municipal authorities in Kosovo. Altogether around 180
internally displaced and refugee families are expected to return to four
selected municipalities.

Ø
In July 2009 the EUR 3.4 million project
"Support to Local Government" started with the signature of a Memorandum
of Understanding (MoU) between the European Commission Liaison Office to
Kosovo, the Ministry of Local Governance and 10 municipalities:
Gjakovë/Đakovica, Gjilan/Gnjilane, Mitrovicë/Mitrovica,
Obiliq/Obilić, Podujevë/Podujevo, Skenderaj/Srbica, Viti/Vitina, Junik,
Han i Elezit/Ðeneral Janković, and Mamushë/Mamuša. This project aims to
advance reform and capacity building in the context of the ongoing
decentralisation process, including the improvement of managerial competencies,
service delivery and dialogue with citizens at the local level, in line with
European standards.

Ø
In order to increase efforts to support public
administration in Kosovo, the European Commission supported another group of 44
Kosovo students to pursue postgraduate studies at selected EU universities. The
2009 Young Cell Scheme scholarship recipients will be trained in
sector-specific topics such as agriculture, environment, statistics, energy and
corporate government. This scholarship scheme has been successfully implemented
since its establishment in 2004. Approximately 140 students and civil servants
have benefited from the programme. After completion of their post-graduate
studies, students return to work in Kosovo’s public service bringing back their
expertise.

Ø
In June 2009 the European Commission Liaison
Office signed operating grant contracts with five Regional Development Agencies
(RDAs) in support of their operational and running costs over a one year
period. The grants are part of a EUR 6 million project under the IPA 2009 "Regional
Economic Development". The five RDAs are located in Pristina, Mitrovica,
Prizren, Gjilan/Gnjilane and Peja/Pec. The main tasks of the RDAs are to
support local institutions in their socio-economic development efforts, bring
Kosovo closer to Europe and facilitate ethnic reconciliation by creating more
cooperation opportunities for citizens and businesses of different communities
in Kosovo.

Ø
In September 2009, EU-funded sports and
playground facilities were opened in the four municipalities of Mitrovica,
Pristina, Peja/Pec, and Prizren. The facilities include playgrounds, football,
basketball and tennis courts which will provide opportunities for socialising
and promote social cohesion among the resident population and notably the
youth. The sports activities will furthermore have a positive impact on the
well-being of the local population, as well as generate income for the local
business and create jobs for the operation and maintenance of the facilities.

There is no framework
agreement concerning participation of Kosovo in EU programmes. Kosovo did not
participate in EU Programmes in 2009.

Generally, IPA
implementation in 2009 was advancing very well.

5.2.4.2
            Component II: Cross-border Cooperation

N/A

5.3.
Coherence, compatibility and coordination of aid

In an effort to address aid effectiveness and donor coordination
following the Tirana Donor Coordination Conference organised by the European
Commission in April 2009, an "Aid Management Platform" has been put
into operation in Kosovo. This platform, which is being funded by the EU and
United States Agency for International Development, has the full support of the
Kosovo authorities and the donor community. This initiative will ease the
sharing of information on ongoing and planned projects across the donor
community. Furthermore, five donor sector groups have been established. These
share plans and priorities, and agree a common line vis-à-vis the Kosovo
authorities. They cover the following sectors: (1) Public Administration Reform
(led by Department for International Development and the European Commission),
(2) Local/Municipality Capacity Building (led by the USA), (3) Water sector
(led by Switzerland), (4) Education (led by Sweden) and (5) Health (led by
Luxembourg). The main problems experienced in donor coordination relate to the
large number of donors present in Kosovo, lack of resources at government
level, as well as lack of a comprehensive system for sharing tentative plans
and priorities. The development of an Aid Development Platform addresses these
issues.

As regards progress towards developing sector strategies, the
Medium-Term Expenditure Framework has been strengthened. A sector strategy for
agriculture has been developed. Strategic planning at sectoral level supported
by donors and by the country has become visible inter alia in the education and
health sectors. The Kosovo authorities have established government coordination
meetings and have embarked on a more structured approach to donor coordination
and sectoral approach to planning assistance.

The European Commission Liaison Office in Kosovo plays an important
role in ensuring donor coordination and aid effectiveness on the ground. It
organises and chairs monthly meetings of the main donors at which the Kosovo
authorities participate. The European Commission supports Kosovo's ownership of
donor coordination and works towards a programme based approach by funding the
development of an "Aid Management Platform" which will enable the
Kosovo authorities, notably the Agency for the
Coordination of Development and European Integration
(ACDEI), and donors to track development assistance. Furthermore, it aims at
providing a complete picture of Kosovo's aid portfolio. The project contains a
substantial training component to ensure the full use of the system foreseen
and its sustainability.

5.4.
Monitoring

Kosovo is included in the
target area of the Results Oriented Monitoring (ROM) project managed centrally
by the European Commission's Directorate General for Enlargement (Regional
Programmes unit). All contracts with a value of more than EUR 1 million are
subject to ROM, which enables the Commission to gather an independent opinion
on the efficiency of project implementation, sustainability and impact or
impact prospects. The ROM contractor has worked closely with the Commission's
Liaison Office during 2009 to ensure that the planned monitoring missions would
be implemented as per the monitoring plan. The decision to open a local office
of the ROM contractor in Kosovo was taken in May 2009 and this office has been
fully operational since November 2009. In 2009 a total of 50 projects were
monitored of which 36 implemented under the Kosovo IPA envelope and 14
components of regional projects. The total EU budget covered by ROM in 2009 was
EUR 93.3 million, of which EUR 53 million out of the Kosovo envelope.

Furthermore, the Commission decided to establish regular IPA Monitoring Meetings
in Kosovo to monitor and review the ongoing financial assistance, fulfill its
supervising obligations in the context of the regular management report and
prepare the ground for the future setting-up of IPA Monitoring Committees. On
15-16 June 2009, the first such Joint Monitoring Committee (JMC) meeting was
held in Kosovo. The main issues discussed were the
implementation and programming of IPA assistance. The
external JMC meeting which was held together with the Kosovo authorities on 16
June 2009 allowed for an exchange of views between the Commission and Kosovo
authorities, namely the Agency for the Coordination of Development and European
Integration and the line ministries, represented by the Senior Programming
Officers (SPOs). Their role in the context of EU financial assistance was the
focus of the meeting, notably as regarded the next round of programming the IPA
2010 funds. The Commission's main messages to the beneficiary was that Kosovo
needs to be an active implementing partner who appreciates the ownership of
assistance, and needs to step up its capacity and involvement in the processes.
This increasing role of the Agency, with the coordinating function over the
line ministries, is to be seen in the framework of early preparation of the
eventual conferral of management.

6.
MONTENEGRO
6.1.
The year in review

Montenegro submitted its
application for EU membership on 15 December 2008. On 23 April 2009 the Council
decided to invite the Commission to prepare an Opinion on Montenegro's
application. The Commission's Questionnaire was handed over to the Montenegrin
government in July 2009 in Podgorica, and Montenegro's replies to the questionnaire
were delivered on 9 December 2009 in Brussels. In
addition, and in light of the country's progress in meeting the relevant
benchmarks, visa liberalisation entered into force on 19 December 2009.

Montenegro is
participating in the Stabilisation and Association Process (SAP) and
implementation of the Interim Agreement (IA) continued during 2009. The EU is
providing guidance to the Montenegrin authorities on reform priorities as part
of the European Partnership[67]. Dialogue on
European integration issues also continued in 2009 in the enhanced permanent
dialogue and in the bodies provided for by the Interim Agreement.

In 2009 Montenegro made
progress in aligning with European standards, specifically in areas such as the
internal market, research, justice, freedom and security. The last Progress
Report on Montenegro[68] took note of
the progress made, but noted also that strengthening the administrative
capacity and consolidating the rule of law remained major challenges. The
capacity to implement EU acquis related legislation remained weak and
needed to be enhanced. Despite some progress, greater political will was still
needed in the fight against corruption and organised crime, which remained big
challenges. As regards freedom of expression, disproportionate fines in
defamation cases and some intimidations reported against investigative
journalists continued to be a concern. Shortcomings in the rule of law as well
as inadequate infrastructure persisted as key challenges for Montenegro's
economic development.

For more details on
developments in 2009 in Montenegro’s preparation for EU membership, please
refer to the Commission’s 2009 Progress Report, abovementioned.

6.2.
IPA programming and implementation in 2009
6.2.1.
MIPD 2009-2011

From early 2007, the
Montenegrin national authorities have shown interest in participating to the
preparation of the Multi-Annual Indicative Planning Document (MIPD). They have,
each year, circulated the draft document within the government and provided
comments. In 2009, for the MIPD 2009-2011, as well as for its review,
consultations in the country took place with on-going and potential
beneficiaries, with the NGOs as well as with EU Member States and other donors.
Due to frequent consultations and contacts with stakeholders, these documents
did not raise many comments nor requested extensive changes.

IPA national programmes
always focus on the objectives set out in the Multi-Annual Indicative Planning
Document (MIPD) 2009-2011, which reflects the key priorities of the European
Partnership and the next steps in the Stabilisation and Association Process.
The 2009-2011 MIPD was prepared taking into account what was financed under
CARDS and IPA, on-going and planned 2007 and 2008 projects, as well as
future priorities coming up in the overall European integration process
(including the “Enhanced Permanent Dialogue” and sub-Committees), in addition
to the recommendations of the Montenegro Progress Report for 2008. It also
considered the National Programme for Integration (NPI) 2008-2012.

The MIPD set clear
indicators of results which are to be measured at a later stage, when projects
are finalised. Growing importance was given to cross-cutting issues, namely:
involvement of civil society; environmental considerations; equal opportunities
and non-discrimination, which are considered as from the early stage of
programming and throughout the process; human rights, with special attention to
minorities, vulnerable groups and good governance. Attention was also given to
the underdeveloped mountainous areas in the north of Montenegro.

For 2009 until 2011, the
MIPD foresees that assistance under Component I should focus on the following
strategic priorities:

Ø
Consolidation of democratic institutions, reform
of the judiciary, public administration reform, fight against corruption and
organised crime, human rights and protection of minorities,
anti-discrimination, as well as the media. Civil society development and
promotion of dialogue are being given special attention. Small grants are
foreseen to assist NGOs dealing with the environment, good governance,
anti-discrimination, gender equality, social inclusion, health, and business
advocacy and consumer protection[69] (‘political
criteria’ axis).

Ø
Pursuing economic reforms, strengthening
competitiveness, developing an appropriate business
environment and social dialogue; increasing research capacity and fostering
human resources development, employment, education; culture; promoting social
inclusion; promoting health and providing access to health care; improving infrastructure
in areas such as transport, energy, and environment (‘economic criteria’ axis).

Ø
Continuing the alignment with the acquis
i.e. transposition and enforcement of legislation including internal market,
rural development and food safety, environment, transport, energy, statistics,
security (integrated border management, visa and migration policy); introducing
a decentralised implementation system to manage EU funds, including for the
future components III and IV (‘ability to assume the obligations of membership’
axis).

Ø
Allowing Montenegro to participate in EU
programmes and access the Project Preparation and Technical Assistance
facility, as well as facilitating the financing of special measures needed in
the course of the implementation of the programmes (support programmes).

Due to the early stage of
IPA implementation on the ground, no evaluation took place yet. However, most
of the lessons learned from the evaluation of CARDS projects were taken into
account. They consisted in strategic and operational recommendations such as:
the need to better target project objectives; improve the sequenced planning of
operations; increase awareness on sustainability; conduct functional needs
assessments; improve donor coordination; improve project design; involve civil
society, not only for social matters; increase monitoring; ensure cross-cutting
issues are a reality.

As regards IPA Component
II, the MIPD 2009-2011 supports cross-border cooperation activities
between Montenegro and EU Member States as well as with adjacent candidate countries
and potential candidates, in complementarily with the above priority axes,
along the programmes already approved for 2007-2011. Montenegro
benefits from (i) four Cross Border Cooperation (CBC) programmes within the Western
Balkans (Albania-Montenegro; Bosnia and Herzegovina-Montenegro;
Croatia-Montenegro, Serbia-Montenegro); (ii) an ERDF CBC (including "Mediterranean"
and "South East Europe" transnational programmes), as well as (iii)
participation in the Adriatic regional programme. The two latter are managed by
DG REGIO.

Table 1: MIFF[70]
allocations per component, in million EUR

Component || 2009 || 2010 || 2011 || 2009-2011

I. Transition Assistance and Institution Building || 28.63 || 29.24 || 29.84 || 87.71

II. Cross-Border Cooperation || 4.67 || 4.76 || 4.86 || 14.29

TOTAL || 33.30 || 34.00 || 34.70 || 102.00

6.2.2.
Programming exercise

Assistance to EU accession
should be seen and analysed in a long time frame, and not solely based on
individual annual programme. Year after year, programmes reflect the needs
towards accession and represent ‘additional pieces of a large puzzle’. For
example, IPA 2008 focused on local government, developing sustainable solutions
for refugees and displaced persons and support to the media; improving the
environment and enabling private sector development; rural development and food
safety, animal disease control, financial market and customs, integrated border
management and migration. Implementation of this programme will continue well
into 2010/2011. Therefore, the IPA 2009 national programme represented the ‘next
phase’ of the MIPD implementation. During 2009, the programme was finalised and
adopted in August 2009, and the IPA 2010 national programme was prepared in the
same spirit.

The programming exercise for IPA 2009 consisted of a series of
missions from the Commission’s headquarters to Montenegro, which started in
2008, to (i) agree on a first list of needs, selected with in mind the lessons
learned from evaluations of past assistance, abovementioned; (ii) discuss in
more detail the content of future projects, also through a series of individual
meetings with potential final beneficiaries; (iii) consult donors, EU Member
States and NGOs. In between these missions, beneficiaries prepared the project
fiches with the assistance of training and workshops funded by IPA. Important
progress was seen in the quality of the draft project fiches. An important step
during the programming process was ensuring complementarily and collaboration
with donors present in the country and discussing possible joint management,
contribution agreements or direct grants. Conditionalities were also discussed,
consisting mainly on co-financing to be secured, land ownership and acquisition
for infrastructure projects.

Unlike usual development assistance, which is based on sector
strategies, for potential candidates needs are identified throughout the year
as an outcome of the political meetings and sub-committees of the Stabilisation
and Association process. Beneficiaries, who participate actively in those meetings,
are aware of their needs towards fulfilling the required Copenhagen criteria.
Therefore projects are proposed and selected within a given accession
framework, depending on line ministries. For example, Commission DGs advise
line ministries on their duties to implement the acquis, on secondary
legislation, on the timeframe to achieve precise needs. An example among many
others is the need to eradicate rabies and swine fever throughout Europe,
following which DG SANCO required vaccination campaigns which had to be in line
with the rest of Europe. Referring to the consultation exercise, it is worth
mentioning the example with civil society and NGOs: the EU Delegation organised
a workshop with representatives of all civil society sectors to elaborate the
logical framework of the project fiche, which was eventually prepared by participants.
This fiche included the needs identified by the NGOs themselves, as reported in
the questionnaire provided by the EU Delegation.

Globally, the main focus areas of the 2009 National Programme stem
from the weaknesses identified in the 2008 progress report: "Montenegro
still needs to enhance its efforts to implement reforms. Particular efforts are
needed to complete the judicial reform. Despite some progress, the fight against
corruption and organised crime remains a major challenge. Political consensus
remains strong on EU-related issues, but needs to be broadened on other areas
of state-building. Administrative capacity needs to be enhanced."
Therefore, the main project areas selected for 2009 were support to the rule of
law and administrative capacity. In addition, and due to the financial crisis,
infrastructure projects were selected to support employment. Another urgent
need for improvement was the environmental context for tourism development, the
second source of income for the country.

Related to Component II
programming, not much had to be done, as the multi-annual programme adopted in
2007 covered also 2009. Only limited revisions were needed in addition to
earmarking the new financial allocation.

Table 2: Indicative
financial allocation for the year 2009 per component, in million EUR

MONTENEGRO || 2009

I. Transition Assistance and Institution Building || 28.63

Of which: ||

National Programme || 27.23

                 Nuclear Safety Programme\* || 0.20

                 Tempus Programme\* || 1.20

I. Part II (out of OBNOVA funds) || 1.20

||

II. Cross-Border Cooperation || 4.67

Of which: ||

CBC with Adriatic Programme || 1.36

CBC with Albania || 0.60

CBC with Croatia || 0.50

CBC with Bosnia and Herzegovina || 0.60

CBC with Serbia || 0.60

Participation in ERDF transnational programmes (SEE and MED) || 1.01

||

TOTAL Part I || 33.30

TOTAL Part I and Part II || 34.50

\* The Nuclear Safety Programme and Tempus Programme are
coordinated and implemented under the relevant Multi-beneficiary IPA 2009
programmes.

As mentioned above, the programming exercise for IPA 2010 started in
2009. It is worth noting that the Ministry of European Affairs integrated the
process and was proactively organising this exercise. While in the first years
of IPA the focus was on the political criteria, also due to the financial
crisis it is progressively shifting, in terms of financial allocation, towards
the economic criteria. As the country approaches accession, in the coming years
the focus of IPA assistance will continue to evolve towards adoption and
enforcement of the acquis. The next sub-chapter
describes the IPA 2009 National Programme in more details.

6.2.2.1             Component I:
Transition Assistance and Institution Building

The objectives of IPA, as
stated in its Regulation, are continuously and progressively been achieved,
year after year. Indeed, a careful assessment is carried out annually during
the programming phase, in order to (i) ensure continuity between projects in
the same areas; (ii) ensure complementarity between donors; (iii) avoid
duplication of projects for the same beneficiary; (iv) ensure consistency with
the National Plan for Integration 2007-2011, the European Partnership and the
SAA, as well as with the MIPD; (v) identify "new" areas for support
stemming from the political dialogue.

In 2009, the size of
projects in Montenegro was given special attention. The administration is
proportional to the size of the country and its absorption capacity is limited.
Therefore projects should be adjusted to the size of the administration, i.e.
small institution building (IB) projects, not highly demanding in human
resources. Large infrastructure projects allow for easier and faster absorption
of funds, as they require less human resources. However they cannot replace
institution-building projects which are highly needed for the implementation of
the acquis.

Under the political criteria (axis 1), especially in the rule of law
area, three projects were approved as a follow-up of twinning projects funded
under the IPA 2007 National Programme: (i) support to the implementation of the
new criminal procedural code (CPC); (ii) strengthening the capacity of the
police administration; (iii) implementation of a data protection strategy. In
addition, a large project was earmarked for civil society.

Under the economic criteria
(axis 2), in addition to some assistance to prepare for the National
Development Plan and Strategy of Montenegro (2010-2015), two highly needed
infrastructure projects were approved: (i) a major rehabilitation of the main
rail line Bar-Vrbnica (at the border with Serbia) and (ii) for environmental
alignment and solid waste management.

In order to assist the
country in developing its ability to assume membership obligations (axis 3),
the programme included several projects aimed at strengthening
management and control systems for EU financial
assistance; the state audit
institution; labour inspection and safety at work;
marine fisheries; digitalisation of the public broadcasting;
access to the internal market.

Under the last priority
axis, the programme foresaw projects aimed at supporting Montenegro's
participation in EU programmes, inter alia Culture, Entrepreneurship and
Innovation (CIP), the 7th Framework Programme for Research as well
as support measures for project preparation, technical assistance, and other
support activities.

After approval of Component I
of the 2009 National Programme, an additional Financing Decision was adopted on
24 November 2009 for an equivalent amount of the OBNOVA funds remaining from
CARDS, i.e. EUR 1.2 million, which were earmarked for a rural roads maintenance
project. The types of
assistance selected (e.g. procurement contracts, grants, etc.), among those
foreseen by the IPA Implementing Regulation, are adapted to each type of
activity and carefully selected together with the beneficiaries in order to
match needs.

The following table
summarises the projects that make up the IPA 2009 National Programme:

Table 3: Indicative
financial allocations for the year 2009 under the National Programme, per
priority axis and per project, in million EUR

Priority axis || Projects || Budget

Political Criteria || 6.35

|| Support to Implementation of the new Criminal Procedure Code (CPC) || 1.00

|| Strengthening the capacities of police administration || 2.00

|| Support to the Reception Centre for Asylum Seekers || 0.45

|| Implementation of Personal Data Protection strategy || 0.70

|| Civil society development || 2.20

Economic Criteria || 10.80

|| Development Strategy of Montenegro (2010-2015) and National Development Plan || 1.00

|| Major rehabilitation of the main rail line Bar-Vrbnica (border with Serbia) || 5.00

|| Environmental Alignment and Solid Waste Management ||      4.80

Ability to assume the obligations of membership || 7.78

|| Strengthening the management and control systems for EU financial assistance in Montenegro || 2.00

|| Strengthening the State Audit Institution || 0.80

|| Harmonization and implementation of the regulations on Labour Inspection and Safety at work || 1.18

|| Sustainable Management of Marine Fisheries || 1.00

|| Support to the Digitalisation of the Montenegrin Public Broadcasting || 1.60

|| Accession to Internal Market || 1.20

EU Programmes and support activities || 2.30

|| Support for participation in EU programmes || 0.15

|| Technical Assistance and Project Preparation Facility (TA&PPF) || 1.53

|| Support Measures Facility (SMF) || 0.62

TOTAL || 27.23

Economic Criteria (Part II) || Rural Roads projects || 1.20

TOTAL (I + II) || 28.43

In terms of distribution
by priority axis, the economic criteria was allocated the highest share (39.7%)
of assistance under the 2009 National Programme (Part I), followed by the
ability to assume membership obligations (28.6%) and the political criteria
(23.3%). Support activities and EU Programmes were allocated, respectively,
7.9% and 0.5%. The additional assistance under Part II of the programme was
100% allocated to the economic criterion.

6.2.2.2             Component II:
Cross-border Cooperation

CBC programmes make a valuable contribution to reconciliation and
good neighbourly relations and beneficiaries have shown great expectations with
regards to the results of the programmes of this component, also in light of
the fact that CBCs 'learning-by-doing' approach will significantly contribute
to local capacity-building. These great expectations were reflected in the
large number of applications submitted to the calls for proposals, despite the
low amount of available funds.

The expected results of the
CBC programmes between Western Balkans countries are to
foster: (1) tourism, agriculture, SMEs, networks in business, research and
education; (2) natural resources; awareness raising campaigns in environment;
(3) networks between people in education, health care, culture and sports.

The IPA Adriatic cross
border cooperation focuses on: (1) networks between entrepreneurial, academic,
training and research sectors; competitiveness and innovative capacity; (2)
natural and cultural resources, risk prevention of the sea and coastal
environment ; renewable energy; quality of tourism; (3) accessibility and
networks: port and airport; transport services; communication and information.

Cooperation within the ERDF
"South East Europe" and "Mediterranean" programmes is
concentrating on (1) innovation: scientific and technological networks; (2)
environment: water management, energy efficiency, risk prevention for fire,
droughts and floods; maritime security; natural heritage protection; (3)
accessibility: transport and telecommunication services; investments in
trans-European networks; interoperability; (4) urban development: networks and
urban-rural links; cultural heritage; integration of development zones on a
transnational basis.

6.2.3.
Implementation Modalities and Structures

2009, IPA assistance to
Montenegro (Components I and II) was managed by the EU Delegation on behalf of
the Montenegrin authorities (centralised management).

During the reporting
period, progress towards decentralised management of IPA assistance was under
way for Components I and II, with the ‘gap assessment’ mission being conducted
at the end of 2009. On the other hand, the process was at the initial stage for
Components III, IV and V. The main implementing bodies for these components
were identified by the end of the reporting period (including those that will
be responsible for strategic coordinator for Components III and IV), but other
key challenges were still not met, namely the definition of roadmaps for each
component, strong coordination at government level, regular reporting to the
Commission and donors coordination.

One remaining question is
whether the Montenegrin government will be able to achieve sufficient and
necessary progress to be able to benefit from IPA Components III, IV and V
under the current EU financial perspective 2007-2013. However, regular
reporting from the Montenegrin authorities as of 2010 will allow the European
Commission to provide the necessary responses and adjustments.

Overall, at the end of
2009 the administrative capacity of the Montenegrin authorities remained
weak (both in terms of number and skills of available staff), representing a
major constraint not only for conferral of management, but also for the daily
implementation of IPA programmes under centralised management (low absorption
capacity). Quarterly reports from the EU Delegation on programme and projects implementation
highlight the shortcomings and addressing them is part of the very programme
itself. However, low wages of public staff, impacting on ‘brain-drain’, can not
be addressed under IPA projects. The monitoring capacity shown by Montenegro is
also insufficient to guarantee an effective delivery of aid.

With regard to Component
II, for cross-border-cooperation programmes within the Western Balkans it took
about one year from the signature of the first financing agreements (March/April
2008) for national authorities to set up the programme management structures
and prepare the first calls for proposals. This timing is comparable to that of
EU Member States for CBC at intra–EU borders.

6.2.4.
Overview of IPA
projects/contracts implemented in 2009

Most of IPA 2007 Component I projects were contracted by the end of
2009. The same applied to almost half of IPA 2008 Component I funds, while
tenders were under way for the remaining part.

In 2009, 60 tender
evaluations were carried out. 47 contracts were concluded under IPA 2007 and
2008 national programmes and CBCs. Works represented the highest share in value
(38.7%) and services the second highest (31.7%).

6.2.4.1             Component I:
Transition Assistance and Institution Building

Tables 4: Status of implementation of IPA financial assistance
(Component I) as at 31st December 2009 (in
million EUR) per annual programme and distribution of total committed funds
(2007-2009 allocations) by priority axes

|| Committed || Contracted || RAC[71] || %Contracted || Paid || RAL[72] || %Paid

IPA 2007 || 23.87 || 19.82 || 4.05 || 83.03% || 5.81 || 18.06 || 24.34%

IPA 2008 || 26.80 || 12.92 || 13.88 || 48.21% || 2.93 || 23.87 || 10.93%

IPA 2009\* || 28.43 || 0.00 || 28.43 || 0.00% || 0.00 || 28.43 || 0.00%

TOTAL || 79.10 || 32.74 || 46.36 || 41.39% || 8.74 || 70.36 || 11.05% ||

\* Including Part II

Priority Axes || % of 2007-2009 allocations

Political criteria || 24.53%

(of which civil society) || (4.05%)

Economic criteria || 36.28%

Ability to assume membership obligations || 32.72%

Support programmes || 6.48%

TOTAL || 100.00%

The IPA 2007 projects
still ongoing in 2009 that were most significant in value terms and with regard
to the political criteria were the following:

·
 "Fighting against organised crime and
corruption", with a total budget of EUR 3.0 million and implemented through
a twinning contract with the UK police administration, a supply and works
contract. The project includes training, elaboration of procedures, definition
of a strategy for anti-corruption and money laundering, construction of the
police academy and supply of specialised equipment for police investigations.

The following results were
notably achieved by the twinning project: i) improved inter-agency cooperation against organised crime, corruption and money laundering; ii) surveillance
system established and surveillance operations being implemented to obtain evidence
against organised crime organisations; iii) intelligence-led policing model
developed and under implementation to enhance policing efficiency and
effectiveness in the investigation of crimes; development of an anti-corruption
campaign in close cooperation with Universities.

·
 "Justice reform", with a budget of
EUR 2.0 million. Through a twinning with the Austrian Federal Ministry of
Justice and the Austrian Centre of Legal Competence, the project provides know
how and facilitates reforms along the path towards a more independent
judiciary. Introduction of a juvenile justice code is also supported through a
direct grant agreement with UNICEF. The following results were achieved by the
twinning project: i) enhanced independence of the judiciary;
ii) enhanced efficiency of the judiciary;
iii) strengthened international judicial cooperation.

·
The action grant 'Juvenile Justice System
Reform', with a budget of EUR 0.5 million implemented by UNICEF. The main
results achieved are the following: i) juvenile justice law in line with EU and
international standards prepared and under implementation and juvenile justice
database improved; ii) baseline assessment report of the juvenile justice system
prepared; iii) administrative capacity of social workers and psychologists to
work with families and children at risk enhanced; iv) increased awareness of
the rights of children in conflict with the law; v) awareness-raising play on
domestic violence and youth delinquency matters prepared by children placed at
the Centre for Children and Youth “Ljubovic”.

·
 "National Qualification Framework and
Quality Assurance in Education", with a budget of EUR 1.5 million,
introduces policy and institutional reforms in education and training as part
of Montenegro's efforts to engage with the wider education developments in the
EU.

·
 "Development of the transport
sector", with a total budget of EUR 6.2 million, includes the construction
of the Podgorica mini by-pass, preparation of a detail design for railway
infrastructure investments as well as technical assistance for the transport
sector. The aim of the technical assistance is legal harmonisation of relevant
transport legislation with the acquis and to improve the capacity
of the beneficiary country’s administrations to implement legislative,
institutional and budgetary reforms that will improve standards in the field of
rail and civil aviation. The relevant laws and bylaws which will be
approximated during project implementation shall be defined in accordance with
the work plan of the government for 2010 and 2011.

Other important actions
that started during the reporting period, also funded by IPA 2007, included:
the harmonisation of the public procurement system (EUR 1.25 million); a
twinning with the Slovenian Government Office of European Affair (GOEA) for
supporting the Montenegrin efforts in legal harmonisation (EUR 1.1 million); an
animal identification and registration project (EUR 1.4 million); continuing
the approximation of the statistical system (EUR 0.8 million); strengthening of
the tax administration (EUR 0.9 million).

Within the framework
of the IPA 2007 Civil Society Programme (with financial resources of more than
EUR 1 million) the EU Delegation published a call for proposals in early March
2009. The 8 projects selected under the programme deal with Roma issues, social
care for elderly people and social policy at national and local levels, tourism
development and traditional architecture. These projects were implemented
according to schedule and by the end of the reporting period most of them were
promising in terms of achievements.

During 2009,
implementation started also for important projects under IPA 2008 component I.
The following are worth mentioning:

·
 "Durable solutions for refugees and
displaced persons in Montenegro", a EUR 1.5 million grant to the German
NGO ‘HELP’ (HILFE ZUR SELBSTHILFE EV) for supporting refugees and internally
displaced persons with housing, self-employment measures and return when
possible.

·
 "Support to the transformation of radio
television of Montenegro into a public service broadcaster", with a budget
of EUR 1.25 million. The project aims at improving the production of the national
TV ‘RTCG’ and supplying quality news and other programs
to better serve public interest by providing a modern computerised
newsroom and enhancing the knowledge and skills of RTCG staff to
effectively use the new digital workflow technology in television programmes
production.

In addition, EUR 146.500 were
allocated in 2009 to support Montenegro’s participation to EU Programmes by
means of reimbursing parts of the annual contribution to be paid by the country
as entry ticket in the following programmes: i) the 7th Framework Programme for
Research; ii) the Entrepreneurship and Innovation specific Programme (EIP) of the
Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme (2007 to 2013); iii) the Culture
programme (2007 to 2013). Commission services in charge of the above mentioned
programmes are closely following Montenegro’s implementation of these
programmes.

Finally, in 2009 Montenegro
benefited from several IPA Multi-beneficiary programmes including TAIEX, with 144
events organised in 2009 and 60 NGOs participating to 15 seminars, most of them
in Brussels.

SIGMA activities in 2009
revolved around the following topics: public service and administrative
framework, with focus on the law on administrative procedures and civil service
reform, public expenditure management and anti-corruption.

As for Twinning,
altogether five such contracts were under implementation during 2009, as
follows:

q
Justice Reform (CLC) - Specific objectives: (1) support the development and implementation
of the judiciary reform strategy/action plan, including the drafting of
legislation and Code of Ethics for magistrates; (2) strengthen the independence
of the judiciary by revising the laws and regulations for the appointment and
career development of judges and prosecutors, length of their
mandate; (3) strengthen the courts budgeting process, thus enhancing
efficiency. The Judiciary in the beneficiary.

q
Fight against organised crime and corruption
(NICO) (see above, paragraph on Justice reform) - Specific
objectives: (1) strengthen the intelligence and investigation service of the
Criminal Police Directorate and enhance undercover investigation; (2) improve
the operational capacity of the Administration for the prevention of money
laundering; (3) strengthen the operational capacity of the Directorate for
Anticorruption Initiative. The beneficiaries are the Police Directorate, the Police
Academy, the Ministry of Interior, the Administration for the prevention of
Money Laundering and the Directorate for the Anticorruption Initiative.

q
Legal harmonisation (Republika Slovenia) - The general objective of the Twinning Project is to assist
Montenegro in strengthening the institutional capacity for approximating and
harmonizing with the acquis and in particular to strengthen the efficiency
of the legal approximation process as well as the capacity of the
administration and Parliament to operate more closely to the EU standards, thus
allowing smoother implementation, increased democratic control, citizens’
confidence in the overall system as well as improved cooperation with EU.

q
Strengthening the regulatory and supervisory
capacity of financial regulators (Bulgaria National Bank) – The overall objective of this twinning project is to create
conditions for long term economic stability and growth by strengthening the
regulatory and supervisory framework of the capital and financial markets. The
project purpose is to improve institutional and regulatory capacity of the
financial sector regulators to supervise financial markets and institutions in
line with the EU acquis.

q
Labour Market Reform and Workforce
Development (EURO-MEDITERRANEAN NETWORKS SPRL) - The
overall objective relates to Montenegro’s policy and institutional readiness to
meet EU employment and life-long learning policies as part of its wider
preparations for EU accession.  The specific objective relates to supporting
institution and capacity building of the labour and education administration
(the MLSW and EAM) for developing active labour market measures (especially
community based partnerships) and  a framework for life-long career guidance
and counselling services in Montenegro.

6.2.4.2             Component II:
Cross-border Cooperation

Tables 5: Status of implementation of IPA financial assistance
(Component II) as at 31st December 2009 (in
million EUR) per annual programme and distribution of total committed funds
(2007-2009 allocations) by priority axes

|| Committed || Contracted || RAC || %Contracted || Paid || RAL || %Paid

IPA 2007 || 3.91 || 0.58 || 3.33 || 14.83% || 0.25 || 3.66 || 6.39%

IPA 2008 || 4.49 || 0,00 || 4.49 || 0.00% || 0,00 || 4.49 || 0.00%

IPA 2009 || 4.67 || 0,00 || 4.67 || 0.00% || 0.00 || 4.67 || 0.00%

TOTAL || 13.07 || 0.58 || 12.49 || 4.44% || 0.25 || 12.82 || 1.91%

Priority Axes || % of 2007-2009 allocations

CBC with Member States || 25.42%

CBC within Western Balkans || 52.81%

Participation to ERDF Transnational Programmes || 21.76%

TOTAL || 100.00%

For programmes at borders
with candidate countries and potential candidates, for which Financing
Agreements were signed in March 2008, during the reporting period the
Montenegrin Operating Structures focused on setting up the programme management
structures and discussed the application packages for the first four calls for
proposals (Albania-Montenegro, Bosnia and Herzegovina-Montenegro,
Croatia-Montenegro and  Serbia-Montenegro). These calls were finally published
between June and August 2009. With the exception of the programme with Albania,
which encompassed 2007 funds only, the other three calls were launched
including 2007 and 2008 allocations. The calls were closed between September
and November 2009. The evaluation and the resulting contract signature were
expected to be concluded after the reporting period. It is worth mentioning
that, out of the first call, a remarkable number of high quality applications
will not be funded due to the shortage of funds allocated to these programmes.

In terms of objectives,
the above CBC programmes seek to achieve the following:

·
Albania – Montenegro: the
programme seeks to promote cooperation between people, communities and
institutions on the bordering areas, aiming at sustainable development,
stability and prosperity in the mutual interest of the citizens of the two
countries. It targets specifically the promotion of economic development
through the improvement of tourism and cultural potentials; advancement in the
protection, promotion and management of sensitive ecosystems and sustainable
environmental development; furthering of citizens’ cooperation and partnership
building across the border.

·
Bosnia & Herzegovina – Montenegro: the main priority of this programme consists of fostering the sustainable development of the cross-border
area as well as its economic, cultural, natural and human resources potentials
by strengthening the local capacities and create common institutional networks
among local communities and other relevant actors.

·
Croatia – Montenegro: The overall objective of this programme is to improve the quality of
life in the cross-border area by (a) establishing cooperation between
institutions in charge of environment and cultural heritage protection; (b)
creating recognizable tourist products based on the natural and cultural assets
of the programme area and re-establishing social and cultural connections; (c)
enhancing cooperation between institutions, citizens and civic organizations in
order to boost community development and improve neighbourhood relations.

·
Serbia – Montenegro: This programme revolves around five main priorities, namely: (a)
strengthening the incentives for SME development in the border areas; (b)
developing tourism as a key sector of the border economy; (c) promoting
cross-border business cooperation and accessibility to markets; (d) preserving
the high quality of the border area environment as an economic resource; (e)
strengthening cross-border ‘people-to-people’ interaction to reinforce ethnic,
educational, cultural and sporting links.

·
IPA Adriatic Cross-border programme: This programme includes maritime areas in three EU Member States
(Spain, Italy and Slovenia) and several IPA countries (Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina,
Montenegro and Albania) and seeks to strengthen the sustainable development
capabilities of the Adriatic region through a concerted strategy of action
between the partners of the eligible territories emphasising research and
innovation, promotion and protection of natural and cultural resources, and the
integration and extension of the existing infrastructure networks.

·
ERDFS “South East Europe”
and “Mediterranean”: these two transnational programmes enable the
participation of Montenegrin partners with partners from many EU Member States
in joint transnational cooperation activities. The main areas of cooperation
are innovation, environment, accessibility and sustainable urban/rural
development.

6.3.
Coherence, compatibility and coordination of aid

Overall donor coordination
meetings are led by the Prime Minister and the first and only such meeting was held
in December 2008. A second meeting was expected to be arranged after the
reporting period. In the last quarter of 2009 responsibility for donor
coordination was assigned to the Deputy-Prime Minister in charge of
international and economic cooperation and Minister of Finance. From the
beginning of 2009 sectoral coordination meetings with the relevant sector
Ministries, donors, IFI's and agencies were organized by the EU Delegation on a
quarterly basis. Coordination was working well in areas such as the environment,
justice, anti-corruption, education and police. Overall coordination was also gradually
improving, due to the size of the country which facilitated donors’ contacts
and information sharing and allowed for efficient coordination meetings. Nevertheless,
by the end of the reporting period donor coordination in the country was still
in need of strong support from senior level officials, as well as leadership
and ownership of coordination activities by the government.

Coordination efforts in 2009 have led donors to exchange information
on respective projects and understand respective leadership in given fields
(e.g. KfW with energy). However, there was still room for improvement, to avoid
situations where large seminars may be organized by a donor without informing
or inviting the EU in spite of it having projects closely linked or very
similar to the subject of the event. Ideally, donor coordination should lead to
a donor stepping out of a planned project if another donor has developed a more
advanced project in the same field.

By adopting a sector approach in planning and programming of future IPA
assistance, coordination efforts should be more easily facilitated. This is
crucial for the development of best proposals, the adoption
of suitable aid-delivery methods and to help avoid duplicating efforts in key
sectors.

6.4.
Monitoring

Monitoring of IPA funded
projects in Montenegro started in 2009. Monitoring conducted by the EU
Delegation as the Contracting Authority included on-the-spot checks, site
visits, steering committee meetings and ad hoc meetings with beneficiaries and
contractors.

14 national projects (9
IPA and 5 CARDS) were subject to external Result Oriented Monitoring (ROM)
during the last part of 2009. The overall performance score (2.99) was above
the minimum target of 2.50 and above the average performance in the Western
Balkans and Turkey (2.85). The average project size was smaller than in the Western
Balkans and Turkey (EUR 1.2 million versus EUR 1.6 million). 86% of the
projects were assessed as performing well, while problems were identified in 2
projects (14%).

A success story
worth mentioning is the IPA 2007 "National Qualification Framework and
Quality Assurance in Education in Montenegro", monitored at the end of its
inception phase. This project showed an appropriate design, high level of
stakeholders' involvement, well calibrated inputs and time span for
implementation, timely provision of inputs, recognised quality of first outputs
and excellent communication among all stakeholders.

7.
SERBIA
7.1.
The year in review

Serbia made progress in meeting the political criteria and
addressing key European Partnership priorities. The government demonstrated its
commitment to bringing the country closer to the EU by undertaking a number of
initiatives including the unilateral implementation of the provisions of the
Interim Agreement in February 2009 and the EU membership application on
December 22, 2009. By the end of 2009 Serbia achieved visa free travel for its
citizens and unblocking of the Interim Agreement by the European Union.
Cooperation with the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia
(ICTY) improved further and in his report to the UNSC in December 2009 Chief
Prosecutor Brammertz assessed Serbia's cooperation as "satisfactory".
However, ICTY indictees Mladić
and Hadžić still remained at large.

For more details on
developments in 2009 in Serbia’s preparation for EU membership, please refer to
the Commission’s 2009 Progress Report on Serbia[73].

7.2.
IPA programming and implementation in 2009
7.2.1.
MIPD 2009-2011

From early 2007, the
Serbian national authorities have been actively participating in the
preparation of the Multi-Annual Indicative Planning Document (MIPD). They have,
each year, circulated the draft document within the government and provided
comments. In 2009, for the 2009-2011 MIPD, as well as for its review,
consultations in the country took place with on-going and potential
beneficiaries, with the NGOs as well as with Member States and other donors.
Due to frequent consultations and contacts with stakeholders, these documents
did not raise many comments nor required extensive changes.

The Multi-Annual
Indicative Planning Document (MIPD) 2009-2011 reflected the key priorities of
the European Partnership and the next steps in the Stabilisation and Association
Process. It was prepared taking into account previous and ongoing pre-accession
assistance  as well as future priorities coming up in the overall European
integration process (including the “Enhanced Permanent Dialogue” and sub-committees),
in addition to the recommendations of the Serbia Progress Report for 2008. It
also considered the Serbian National Programme for Integration (NPI).

The MIPD set clear
indicators of results which are to be measured at a later stage, when projects
are finalised. As it was the case also for other IPA beneficiaries, growing
importance was given to cross-cutting issues, namely: involvement of civil
society; environmental considerations; equal opportunities and
non-discrimination, to be considered as from the early stages of programming
and throughout the process; human rights, with special attention to minorities,
vulnerable groups; good governance, as a way to contribute to the fight against
corruption and to enhance civic responsibility.

Also in Serbia’s case, no
evaluation of IPA projects took place in 2009 due to the early stage of IPA
implementation on the ground. However, also in this case the 2009-2011 MIPD
took into account the lessons learned from the evaluation of previous
pre-accession assistance (CARDS) in the fields of institutional strengthening
of local/ municipal government, economic development and justice and home
affairs. As already mentioned in other  sections of this background document, strategic
and operational recommendations resulting form such evaluations included the
need to better target project objectives; improve the sequenced planning of
operations; increase the awareness on sustainability; conduct functional needs
assessments; improve donor coordination; improve project design; involve civil society,
not only for social matters; increase the monitoring; ensure that cross-cutting
are a reality.

Table 1: MIFF[74]
allocations per component, in million EUR

Component || 2009 || 2010 || 2011 || 2009-2011

I - Transition Assistance and Institution Building || 182.55 || 186.21 || 189.96 || 558.72

II - Cross-border Co-operation || 12.25 || 12.49 || 12.74 || 37.48

TOTAL || 194.80 || 198.70 || 202.70 || 596.20

7.2.2.
Programming
exercise

The IPA 2009 National
Programme for Serbia focused on the objectives set out in the Multi-Annual
Indicative Planning Document (MIPD) 2009-2011. In the first half of 2009 the EU
Delegation held a series of bilateral meetings with the Serbian authorities, in
particular with the National IPA Coordinator's (NIPAC) Technical Secretariat
and the line ministries, while EU Member States and other donors, including
IFIs, as well as civil society were consulted in May. During these
consultations, which were organized either through meetings or by written
procedure, all actors involved provided constructive comments which were taken
into consideration while revising the programming documents. In July 2009 the
draft Project Fiches, prepared by the Commission in close coordination with the
Serbian beneficiaries and in consultation with civil society, were discussed
within the Commission (inter-service consultation). The completed IPA 2009
package was presented to EU Member States in the IPA Management Committee in
September 2009 and the 2009 annual programme for Serbia was adopted by the
Commission on 12 November 2009.

The programming process
was carried out with close involvement of the beneficiary institutions,
especially the Sector for Programming and Management of EU funds and
Development Assistance (DACU), the line ministries and in particular the
Ministry of Finance. DACU has been a reliable partner throughout the process, with
high commitment to the production of good quality programming documents.

Similarly to the strategic
planning of IPA 2009-2011 assistance, also programming of IPA 2009 funds took
into account relevant lessons learned from previous CARDS and PHARE assistance,
as well as from the IPA 2007 and 2008 programming exercises. Those lessons
included the need for the following:

—          increased
ownership of national bodies responsible for the EU programming process. In
this respect, the NIPAC and its technical secretariat DACU demonstrated high
commitment;

—          increased
coordination between central and local government bodies and stronger
absorption capacity on their side. This was addressed particularly in the projects
related to regional development the development of the municipal
infrastructure;

—          projects
readiness and maturity as relevant criteria for their selection. As a result, projects
were assessed by both national authorities and Commission services in order to
avoid implementation delays due to issues such as lack of feasibility or
prefeasibility studies, untimely establishment of beneficiary institutions or
complicated implementation arrangements;

—          select
projects also in light of the beneficiary organisation’s absorption capacity
and record of past achievements. In this respect, previous performance and
workload of on-going CARDS and IPA projects of beneficiary institutions was
assessed in order to avoid having low or late absorption of future assistance.

Concerning IPA Component
II, the first multiannual Cross Border Cooperation (CBC) programmes covering
2007-2009 were adopted in 2007. These multiannual CBC programmes were revised
in the second half 2009 in order to cover the years 2010 and 2011. The revision
entailed only an update of the financial tables while the priorities of the
programmes remained the same. A possible adjustment of priorities and measures
will be considered in the framework of the last revision of the CBC programmes
covering 2012-2013, based on the experience and lessons learned in
implementation during the previous years.

During the programming
exercise an effort was made to ensure complementarity and avoid overlaps
between the on going projects under the two components.

Table 2: Indicative
financial allocations for the year per component, in million EUR:

SERBIA || 2009

I. Transition Assistance and Institution Building || 182.55

Of which: National Programme || 70.55

Budget support || 100.00

Nuclear Safety Programme\* || 5.00

Tempus Programme\* || 7.00

II. Cross-Border Cooperation || 12.25

Of which:                    ||

CBC Serbia and Bulgaria || 2.36

CBC Serbia and Romania || 2.94

CBC Serbia and Hungary || 2.49

CBC Adriatic Programme || 0.60

CBC Serbia and Croatia || 1.00

CBC Serbia and Bosnia and Herzegovina                                                           || 1.10

CBC Serbia and Montenegro || 0.50

 CBC Participation in ERDF South East Europe Programme                                                           || 1.26

TOTAL || 194.80

\* The Nuclear Safety
Programme and Tempus Programme are coordinated and implemented under the
relevant Multi-beneficiary IPA 2009 programmes.

7.2.2.1             Component I:
Transition Assistance and Institution Building

Component I of the IPA
2009 National Programme was split in two parts in order to take into account
the ongoing economic and financial crisis. The first part included a general
budget support programme with an amount of EUR 100 million, in order to avoid
that during the crisis relevant structural reforms would be postponed to a later
date. According to the Financing Agreement, disbursement of budget support funds
was conditional on satisfactory progress towards achieving the intended objectives
in terms of impact and results. More concretely, this implied the following: i)
a sustainable macroeconomic and fiscal framework supported by the IFIs, notably
through a disbursing IMF programme (general condition); ii) administrative and
financial circuits establishing a sound fiduciary environment (general
condition); iii) elaboration of disbursement conditions in the areas of public
finance management and on enlargement reform priorities (specific conditions).

Other conditions for
disbursement included sound public financial management and strengthening of the
administrative capacity, i.e. a commitment to maintain and develop the
administrative capacity of relevant institutions and bodies and to exclude
personnel working with priority areas for EU integration from the recruitment
restrictions introduced in March 2009, in accordance with the human resources
plan of the Government of Serbia for 2009.

Up to the end of the reporting
period, when the first tranche was disbursed, the following results were achieved:
i) submission of the new budget system Law to Parliament; ii) adoption by
the Government of the public internal financial control strategy paper.

Apart from the EUR 100
million allocated as budget support, the National Programme provided EUR 70.55
million for specific projects for Transition Assistance and Institutional
Building.

Under the political
criteria priority axis, more than EUR 17 million were allocated to address
political aspects of Serbia’s European integration by i) providing assistance
to civil society, mainly NGOs, encouraging active intercultural dialogue and
exchange of ideas between NGOs in Serbia and the EU and helping to build
greater tolerance and cultural diversity across Serbia; ii) by supporting the
access of refugees and internally displaced persons to rights, employment and
livelihood enhancement; iii) by supporting capacity building of the Directorate
for confiscated property and improving the system of criminal assets
confiscation, a very important issue to address reforms in the justice sector.

To support the socio-economic
criteria priority axis, more than EUR 40 million were allocated to i)
co-finance the rebuilding of the Žeželj bridge, a project of major importance
for the city of Novi Sad, but also for the whole of Serbia, given its
importance for the future economic development of the country and for connections
with other European countries, as part of  corridor X; ii) implement the
national screening programme for colorectal, cervical and breast cancer (by
implementing this project, Serbia’s health care system will develop an
organised system for early detection of cancer, accessible to all citizens,
thereby reducing inequalities in this field); iii) improve preschool education
conditions, especially  for vulnerable groups, through improvements in the
quality of preschool programmes and expansion of the capacities of preschool
institutions. Among other things, this will contribute to fulfilling the national
Millennium Development Goals adopted by the Government of the Republic of
Serbia in 2006.

Concerning the
ability to assume EU membership obligations, over EUR 11 million were 
allocated for supporting reforms aimed at approximating the Serbian legal
system and standards with those of the EU, for example in the areas of consumer
protection (strengthening of their  rights), hazardous waste management (providing technical assistance for the
analysis, planning and preparation for the construction of a national hazardous
waste management facility in Serbia) and animal health  (control and eradication of  rabies and swine
fever).

Part II of the 2009 IPA
Programme, which consists of 24 tenders (7 for services, 5 for supplies and 2
for works), 3 calls of proposals and 1 contribution agreement, is less complex
than previous years IPA programmes due to its limited budget.

Finally,
Serbia’s participation to EU funded programmes, in particular the 7th Framework
programme for Research and the Culture programme, was supported in 2009 by
allocations under IPA 2007 (EUR 2 million) and IPA 2008 (EUR 5 million) national
programmes.

Table
3: Indicative financial allocations for the year 2009 under the National
Programme, per priority axis and per project, in million EUR

Priority Axis || Projects || Budget

Political criteria || 17.15

|| 1- Capacity building of the Directorate for confiscated property and improving the system of criminal asset confiscation || 2.50

2 - Supporting access to rights, employment and livelihood enhancement of refugees and IDPs || 12.65

3 - Support to civil society || 2.00

Economic criteria || 40.35

|| 4 - Žeželj bridge – Rebuilding Serbian infrastructure || 30.00

5 - Implementation of the National screening programme for colorectal, cervical and breast cancer || 6.60

6 - Improvement of the preschool education in Serbia (IMPRES project) || 3.75

European standards || 11.50

|| 7 - Support for the control/eradication of classical swine fever and rabies in Serbia || 6.00

8 - Technical assistance to hazardous waste treatment facility || 3.00

9 - Strengthening consumer protection in Serbia || 2.50

Support measures || 1.55

|| 10 - Project preparation facility || 1.55

TOTAL || 70.55

7.2.2.2             Component II:
Cross-border Cooperation

Serbia benefits from 3 Cross
Border Cooperation (CBC) programmes with Member States (Bulgaria, Hungary and Romania) as well as 3 CBCs at "internal borders" within Western Balkans (Croatia, Bosnia
and Herzegovina, Montenegro).

Under this component, the
priorities remain: cross-border infrastructure, flood prevention, economic
co-operation, environmental problems, administrative cooperation, cultural
exchanges and people-to-people actions, activities in education, research, job
creation, security and crime prevention, among others. Implementation
is done mainly through activities involving local communities.

Although not being
territorially eligible for the Programme (lack of costal area), but taking into
account its previous eligibility in the 2004–2006 Italy–Adriatic Programme,
Serbia has been granted a phasing-out participation in the IPA Adriatic
Cross-Border Cooperation Programme until 2012 included. This transitional and
specific support allows the participation of Serbian partners in institutional
co–operation activities between universities, cultural institutions and
research institutes.

Component II is also
financing the participation of Serbia in the ERDF territorial co-operation
transnational programme "South–East Europe".

Both, the Adriatic
Programme and the ERDF-SEE Programme are managed by DG REGIO.

The first multiannual CBC
programmes covering 2007-2009 were adopted in 2007. They were revised in the
second half 2009 in order to cover the years 2010 and 2011. The revision
entailed only an update of the financial tables while the priorities of the
programmes remained the same. A possible adjustment of priorities and measures
will be considered in the framework of the last revision of the CBC programmes
covering 2012-2013, based on the experience and lessons learned in
implementation during the previous years.

7.2.3.
Implementation
modalities and structures

The Serbian authorities
adopted a roadmap for a Decentralised Implementation System (DIS) in January
2008, last up-dated in March 2009, while a strategy for the preparation of DIS
accreditation was submitted to the Commission in April of that same year. All
key DIS stakeholders on the side of the Serbian administration were appointed
by the end of the reporting period. Those were the Competent Authorizing
Officer (CAO), the National Authorizing Officer (NAO), the Programme
Authorizing Officer (PAO), the head of the National Fund and the Senior
Programme Officers (SPO) in the line Ministries. However, despite the
commitment of the Serbian government to the programming and implementation of
IPA, staff numbers in the public administration, especially in the European
integration structures, remained an issue of concern, mainly due to budget
restrictions in the context of the financial crisis.

During the reporting
period, the EU Delegation in Belgrade continued to carry out implementation of
IPA Component I as the contracting authority on behalf of the Serbian authorities.

IPA Component II
programmes in Serbia are implemented under two different management modes:
centralised and shared management. CBC programmes at internal borders (those
with Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina and Montenegro) are implemented on a centralised basis, where the
EU Delegation is the contracting authority. However, differently from other
grant schemes run in centralised management (where selection of project
proposals is a direct responsibility of the EU Delegation), the selection of applicants
is carried out under the responsibility of a joint body established by the
operating structures in the two participating countries.

The programmes with
Members States and the Adriatic programme are implemented under shared
management. In this case implementation of the entire programme is under the
responsibility of a single managing authority located in the participating
Member State.

7.2.4.
Overview of IPA
projects/contracts implemented in 2009

In 2009, about 190
contracts under IPA 2007, 2008 and 2009 (budget support) were signed, and several
tenders under IPA 2008 and 2009 were prepared. As the Financing Agreement for
Part II of the 2009 National programme could not be signed in 2009, due to
procedural issues, contracting of IPA 2009 projects had not started by the end
of the reporting period, except for the commitment and disbursement of budget
support funds.

7.2.4.1             Component I:
Transition Assistance and Institution Building

In total, under Component
I (National Programmes 2007, 2008 and 2009, including Budget Support) EUR 242.80
million and EUR 83.50 million were contracted and disbursed, respectively, by
the end of the reporting period. The funds remaining to be contracted from IPA
2007 (allocation EUR 164.84 million) amounted to EUR 60.76 million, while for
IPA 2008 (allocation EUR 168.64 million) the corresponding figure equalled EUR
129.92 million.

As for IPA 2009 Budget
Support, EUR 100 million were contracted and EUR 50 million (1st
tranche) disbursed by the end of 2009.

Tables 4: Status of implementation of IPA financial assistance
(Component I) as at 31st December 2009 (in
million EUR) per annual programme and distribution of total committed funds
(2007-2009 allocations) by priority axes.

|| Committed || Contracted || RAC[75] || %Contracted || Paid || RAL[76] || %Paid

IPA 2007 || 164.84 || 104.08 || 60.76 || 63.14% || 30.90 || 133.94 || 18.75%

IPA 2008 || 168.64 || 38.72 || 129.92 || 22.96% || 2.60 || 166.04 || 1.54%

IPA 2009 || 170.55 || 100.00 || 70.55 || 58.63% || 50.00 || 120.55 || 29.32%

TOTAL || 504.83 || 242.80 || 261.23 || 48.17% || 83.50 || 420.53 || 16.57%

Priority Axes || % of 2007-2009 allocations

Political criteria || 32.87%

(of which civil society) || (1.29%)

Economic criteria || 27.94%

Ability to assume membership obligations || 17.47%

Support programmes || 1.88%

Budget Support || 19.84%

TOTAL || 100.00%

Below is an overview of
IPA Component I implementation by sector:

Health

During 2009, a total of
252 equipped emergency medical vehicles funded by the IPA 2007 programme were
fully delivered to health institutions throughout Serbia. The value of this
contract was EUR 8.7 million. A relevant technical assistance project was
implemented in parallel, providing standardized training for emergency service
employees, particularly drivers.

The technical assistance
project in support to the implementation of the National Strategy to fight
against drugs (demand reduction component) assisted the Ministry of Health
(MoH) in drafting the Law on psychoactive substances, which was then posted for
public debate to enter parliamentary adoption procedure in 2010. A national
campaign was supported by the project for awareness-raising to fight drug abuse
in schools.

The IPA 2007 funded
project to support the “Establishment of the public agency for accreditation and continuous quality improvement of healthcare in
Serbia” assisted the Ministry of Health to draft the “bylaw on accreditation of
healthcare institutions” which was published in the Official Gazette of the
Republic of Serbia (no.112/2009). The project increased awareness amongst key
stakeholders concerning quality and accreditation during a project conference
and workshop attended by over 400 healthcare providers. Additionally, 11
courses in quality and accreditation for external surveyors were developed
jointly by the project with the agency and the Belgrade school of
medicine/school of public health which subsequently received CME credits
approved by the National health council. These activities are in full
compliance with the National Strategy for quality assurance in health care.

Municipal support
programmes

A project to strengthening
local self-government in Serbia started in May 2009 through a EUR 2 million
direct grant to the Council of Europe. It aims at supporting Serbian efforts in
developing the legal framework for decentralisation and capacity building for
local government through the consolidation of the legal and institutional
framework. A number of laws adopted in 2007 will need to be assessed after
their first year of implementation and then amended if required. The project
will build on the appraisal made by the Council of Europe of the four laws
adopted in December 2007 and cooperate with the Ministry of Public
administration and local self-government with a view to drafting the amendments.

In particular, regarding
the Law on local elections, as suggested by the Venice Commission, a number of
issues may be reviewed, including the role of the Republic Electoral Commission,
the allocations of all seats to the candidates and the issue of “imperative
mandate”. On the Law on territorial organisation, the main issues concern the
procedure for the establishment (by splitting or merging) and abolishment of
municipalities and the reshuffling of municipal boundaries. Regarding the Law
on local self-government, the division of executive and managerial power
between several persons/bodies, the status of the administration, the issue of
local budget and its implementation are areas which could be looked into.
Lastly, regarding the Law on the capital city, an important issue relates to
the regulation of the relationship between the capital city and inner city
municipalities. In addition, the drawing up of bylaws is indispensable for the
implementation of laws currently under preparation and expected to be adopted.
The bylaws, which are directly connected to the implementation of the Law on
local self-government staff, will regulate the methodology of determination of
the number of staff, the recruitment procedures, the classification of the
positions and the training of staff.

The project aims also at
strengthening the financial arrangements for local government and supporting
fiscal decentralisation. This component of the project will be addressed at a
latter stage and therefore there were no concrete results achieved during 2009.

Energy

The Serbian Energy Agency
was supported to implement the requirements of the roadmaps/ action plans for
the Energy Community Treaty,[77] including
favouring wider penetration of producers using renewable energy sources.
Improved electricity and market monitoring and enhanced price/tariff regulation
should give proper incentives to improve the efficiency of the utilities and
the use of renewable energy sources. In 2009 energy projects were in the inception
phase, therefore no concrete results can be reported.

Regional Socio-Economic Development Programme

Two new operating grants
were awarded through a direct award procedure to the Regional Development Agency
“Branicevo-Podunavlje” in the Branicevo and Podunavlje districts in
North-East Serbia and to the Regional Development Agency “Moravicki and Raski” in the Moravicki and Raski districts in South
West Serbia, in order to cover the operating costs of these newly established
regional development agencies and support them in developing into sustainable
independent institutions that serve the needs of regional development.

Also, a service contract
for technical assistance to the regional development agencies with a budget of
around EUR 5 million was awarded and started in June 2009 and will have a
duration of 36 months. This project aims at improving the capacity of the
Regional Development Agencies (RDAs) and other local stakeholders for regional
development planning and implementation. The results expected are (i) an increased
efficiency of RDAs in managing local development resources; (ii) an increased
participation/advocacy of RDAs in the national regional development policy
planning; (iii) improved skills in Project Cycle Management and financial
management; (iv) an efficient management of the grant scheme for regional
development. During 2009, the project was in inception phase and no concrete
results can be reported.

Statistics

The Serbian Statistical
Office was supported by technical assistance in view of approximation of the
Serbian statistical system to the European statistical system’s requirements.
The Serbian Parliament adopted four new laws important to statistics
development in late 2009. They were the Law on the 2011 population, households
and dwellings census, the Law on the 2011 agricultural census, the Law on
official statistics and the Law on the new NACE classification Rev. 2. The
adoption of NACE Rev. 2, PRODCOM and CPA 2008 is ongoing. The new
classifications will be in use as from 2011.

The statistical office has
produced pilot supply and use tables for 2007-2008 at current prices and at
constant prices for 2008. A special unit was established which is responsible
for the continuous development work.

A pilot agricultural
census was conducted in December 2009. The preparatory work for the conduct of
the full-scale agricultural census in 2011 was fully underway during the
reporting period.

Refugees
and Internally Displaced Persons

The Support for refugees and internally displaced persons (IDPs)
project, with an IPA budget of EUR 6 million, addressed an issue of major
importance for Serbia. One call for proposals supported the provision of
housing solutions for refugees, enhancement of their housing conditions and
support to starting up or expanding income-generating activities. Six operating
grants were awarded to different implementing agencies, namely UNHCR, DRC, IOM,
European Perspectives, INTERSOS, ASB, in order to support their efforts to support integration of refugees and IDPs through the development of
accommodation solutions, employment and income generation activities. The Legal
assistance programme under Cards 2006 came to an end on December 2009 and the
new legal aid project under IPA 2007 was also awarded on December 2009. The
programme aims at providing legal aid/assistance and the timely and accurate
information necessary for enforcement of the rights of IDPs and refugees in
Serbia.

Trade

By the end of the
reporting period, an IPA 2007 project aiming to assist the Ministry of
Trade and Services, Market Inspectorate in the area of market surveillance was close
to completion. The project involved a study on the status in the area, also
providing recommendations for future development in order to facilitate the
establishment of an appropriate market surveillance structure in line with EU
legislation.

The following findings and
recommendations were being identified: there was more than one authority
performing market surveillance in Serbia; stakeholders generally accepted that
there was an acute need for coordination of various market surveillance
authorities and that the Market Inspectorate should take over a leading role; the
horizontal legal framework in place, regulating “inspection surveillance
authorities”, “market surveillance authorities” and “state inspectors” status
and powers, was outdated, fragmentary, non-transparent and non-coherent; a “new”
horizontal legal framework should correct the existing inadequacies by removing
fragmentary approaches/unnecessary duplications and introducing a clear
division between “inspection surveillance” and “market surveillance” (as a
sub-category); new “Quality Infrastructure” legislation was in place; by-laws were
not renovated, the existing ones lacked detailed provisions needed for
enforcement; “Quality” and “Safety” should  be clearly delineated in the future
legislation; there was a significant amount of experience concerning the
surveillance of safety of products. The EU “post-market approach” was a novelty
that needed training. Competence for risk assessment was central.

In addition, the following
main threats to the system were being identified: prolonged
economic crisis in the region, relegating safety to second class priority; insufficient
resources; decreasing number of inspectors; inadequate location of competencies;
inadequate educational profile of inspectors and unequal treatment of economic
operators.

Environment

During 2009, significant
progress was made with putting into operation the majority of IPA 2007 and IPA
2008 projects in the environment sector. Both IPA 2007 environment twinnings on
air quality protection and nature protection were signed and started
implementation. Assistance started also for the design of a Serbian
Environmental Observation and Information Network – EIONET (May 2009), the
development on an approximation strategy for environment (signed in November
2009), and the development of a sewerage and wastewater strategic master plan
for the West Morava river basin (signed in December 2009). The design of
the Serbian Eionet IT infrastructure was developed and agreed with the 26 core
and non core data providers. The system will largely automate data collection,
validation and processing and once procured and commissioned significantly
enhance reliability and speed of environmental reporting. It will moreover make
redundant much of the manual work previously associated with the process and
thus free scarce resources.

Education

The project on modernisation of the Vocational Education and
Training (VET) system in Serbia (EUR 4 million) is supporting the VET
reform in Serbia through further capacity building of the Ministry of Education
and its institutes. The project started in October 2009 and by the end of 2009 was in its
inception phase.

Twinning projects and
TAIEX activities

In 2009, ten twinning
fiches were circulated to the Member States, concerning projects in the
following sectors: environment, agriculture and rural development, justice and
home affairs, public finance and transport. More specifically, the twinning fiches
concerned the following: strengthening administrative
capacities of the Ministry of Environment for i) implementation of an air quality management system and ii) to
protect natural areas; iii) strengthening the
capacities of the Republic of Serbia for the absorption of EU rural development
funds in the pre-accession period; iv) harmonisation of national legislation
with EU legislation for placing on the market and control of plant protection
products and implementation of new legal provisions; v) strengthening
institutional capacity in hazardous waste management; vi) assistance in the
implementation of a chemicals management system in Serbia; vii) police reform:
internal affairs; viii) strengthening the Serbian public procurement system;
ix) harmonization of the Serbian customs enforcement
division with the standards, organization and operational methodology of EU
enforcement agencies: Component 3 – Risk analysis and risk management and post
clearance audit; x) harmonization with the acquis
in the field of transport – phase II.

Furthermore, three
contracts for IPA twinning projects were approved by the Commission Steering
Committee and notified in 2009 (notification of a twinning contract is related to
the start of its legal duration). The three approved twinning contracts were
the following: Implementation of IBM strategy (Austria and Hungary); Support to
the establishment of the Ombudsman office (Greece and the Netherlands); Strengthening of the administrative capacities for implementation of
an air quality management system (Czech Republic and Germany).

The absorption capacity of the Serbian government for twinning projects
seemed to have increased, but judging on the basis of only three IPA projects
that started activities in 2009 would be premature. On the other hand, twinning
coordination did improve much on all levels, especially between the EU
Delegation and the Serbian NCP for twinning located in the Serbian European
Integration Office. This resulted in a number of activities to promote twinning
among potential beneficiaries as well as to explain more closely twinning
procedures. The improved quality could be already noticed at selection
meetings.

Requests and delivery of
TAIEX assistance registered significant increases in 2009. The number of
requests from the Serbian authorities went from 89 in 2008 (4.64 % of the
total) to 143 in 2009 (6.93 %). During 2009, 70 events were organised in Serbia
(41 in 2008) and 188 in other countries with Serbia as a beneficiary (141 in
2008). Participation of Serbians increased from 1,915 in 2008 (5.44% of the
total) to 3,241 in 2009 (8.57% of the total).[78]

7.2.4.2             Component II:
Cross-border Cooperation

Tables 5: Status of implementation of IPA financial assistance
(Component II) as at 31st December 2009 (in
million EUR) per annual programme and distribution of total committed funds
(2007-2009 allocations) by priority axes.

|| Committed || Contracted || RAC || %Contracted || Paid || RAL || %Paid

IPA 2007 || 8.20 || 1.25 || 6.95 || 15.24% || 0.69 || 7.51 || 8.41%

IPA 2008 || 11.46 || 0.59 || 10.87 || 5.15% || 0.19 || 11.27 || 1.66%

IPA 2009 || 12.25 || 0.00 || 12.25 || 0.00% || 0.00 || 12.25 || 0.00%

TOTAL || 31.91 || 1.84 || 30.07 || 5.77% || 0.88 || 31.03 || 2.76%

Priority Axes || % of 2007-2009 allocations

CBC with Member States || 65.01%

CBC within Western Balkans || 24.44%

Participation to ERDF Transnational Programmes || 10.55%

TOTAL || 100.00%

The first calls for proposals for all IPA CBC programmes were
launched during 2009. The calls for the programmes with Bosnia and Herzegovina,
Croatia, Montenegro, Romania and Bulgaria covered the 2007 and 2008 IPA CBC
allocations while the programme with Hungary and the IPA Adriatic programme
covered the 2007, 2008 and 2009 allocations.

By the end of 2009 the first calls under all the programmes, except
the second call under the South-East Europe Programme (SEE), were at different stages
of the evaluation process. Applications received under such calls varied in
number between 282 for the IPA Adriatic Programme (for EUR
63.7 million available under the call), 170 for the CBC with Hungary (EUR 16.6 million overall available), 166 for the
CBC with Romania (worth EUR 10.34 million), 110 each for the CBCs with Croatia (EUR 3.24 million) and
with Bulgaria (EUR 7.2 million), 74 and 57 for the CBCs with Bosnia and Herzegovina (EUR 3.24 million) and with
Montenegro (EUR 2.98 million), respectively.

The first call for proposal of the ERDF-IPA funded South-East Europe
Programme (SEE) was launched in 2008 and a total of 17 contracts were signed in
the last quarter of 2009. The second call (worth EUR 1.26 million) was launched
in November 2009. The first step of the call – submission of the Expression of
interest – was closed on 21 December 2009, with more than 600 valid
applications received.

7.3.
Coherence, compatibility and coordination of aid

The responsibility for
donor coordination within the Serbian administration lies with the Sector for
Programming and Management of EU funds and Development Assistance (DACU) and
the Technical Secretariat of the National IPA Coordinator (NIPAC) at the
Ministry of Finance. Apart from being the EU’s and other donors’ main
counterpart for the planning and programming of international assistance, DACU
is in charge of coordinating the annual preparation of a report on the “Needs
of the Republic of Serbia for International Assistance” over the following
three-year period. DACU has a leading role in this process by steering the IPA
programming process with the line ministries. Sectoral working groups have been
established to discuss the needs in each sector with the active involvement of
the beneficiary institutions. DACU is also presenting the report of the needs
assessment by indicating possible involvement of bilateral donors with future
projects.

The EU Delegation in Belgrade holds regular sector donor
coordination meetings with EU Member States representatives. On a two-monthly
basis it also co-chairs (together with the World Bank) an informal donor group
including international organisations and non-EU bilateral donors.
Additionally, representatives of the Delegation participate in sector
coordination groups convened at the initiative of line ministries and/or other
donors. Close working relations are also maintained with IFIs (IMF, EIB, EBRD,
World Bank, KfW). In general terms, donor coordination improved during 2009 and
helped substantially to increase effectiveness and efficiency of external assistance
by avoiding duplication and ensuring complementarity between IPA and bilateral
assistance. Leading donors were identified in each sector groups to play the
role of focal points with beneficiary institutions. Opportunities were also
explored for combining IPA funds and funds provided by IFIs in future
programmes.

7.4.
Monitoring

In 2009 Serbia was already
included in the target area of the Results Oriented Monitoring (ROM) project
managed centrally by the European Commission's Directorate General Enlargement
(Regional Programmes unit). Accordingly all contracts with a value of more than
EUR 1 million were subject to ROM, which enables the Commission to gather an
independent opinion on the efficiency of project implementation, the
sustainability of the actions funded and actual or prospective impact of IPA
aid.

ROM is defined as the
systematic collecting, analysing and using of information for the purpose of
management and decision-making. Through a consistent approach, with
standardised outputs, ROM highlights strengths and weaknesses in the
implementation of EU external assistance projects, by assessing their relevance
and quality of design, efficiency, effectiveness, impact and sustainability.

During 2009 the ROM contractor
worked closely with the EU Delegation in order to ensure that the planned
monitoring missions would be implemented as per the monitoring plan. According
to this plan, 11 operations were visited and 12 reports produced in the areas of
economic and development policy/planning, health policy and administrative
management, medical services, health education, water transport, business
support services and institutions and rural development. The results of these
visits could be summarized as follows: improvements were
clearly visible in the performance of the projects in relation to all five ROM
criteria (relevance/quality of design, efficiency, effectiveness, impact
and sustainability). This was due, on one hand, to the fact that, as the
projects’ implementation proceeded, activities were better stabilized and
outputs and results started to be delivered and were accessed by the
beneficiaries, thus increasing effectiveness and impact prospects. On the other
hand, it was hoped that the ROM conclusions and recommendations had an added
value and were adopted by the projects’ relevant stakeholders.

Furthermore, the IPA
Monitoring Committee continued its regular meetings, with a second meeting
during June 2009 in order to monitor and review the ongoing financial assistance,
to fulfil its supervising obligations in the context of the regular management
report and to prepare the ground for the future set-up of IPA Monitoring
Committees after DIS. This meeting allowed for an exchange of views between the
Commission and the Serbian authorities. The main issues discussed were: the current
state of play in implementation of CARDS/IPA (achievements and problems); a problem-oriented
review of implementation of particular projects/sectors; DIS preparations;
Serbian Needs Assessment 2009 – 2011.

The main conclusions of
the meeting were as follows: deadlines of the Serbian DIS Roadmap needed to be
respected by all involved parties in order to ensure timely conferral of
management powers. A high level working group for DIS should be organized by the
end of 2009; IPA procurement should be strictly monitored and NIPAC committed
himself to facilitate solutions in case problems appeared. In this respect,
regular meetings to discuss bottlenecks should be organized between the EU
Delegation and the Serbian authorities.

Since no
projects were contracted, no monitoring activity was carried out during 2009
for IPA Component II.

8.
TURKEY
8.1.
The year in review

As addressed in the
Commission’s 2009 Progress Report, in 2009 Turkey continued to
sufficiently fulfil the political criteria and continued to express its
commitment to the EU accession process.[79]
Free and fair local elections were held. Positive steps were taken in the areas
of the judiciary, civil-military relations and cultural rights. In particular,
a judiciary reform strategy and action plan were adopted; Parliament amended
legislation to allow civilian courts to try military personnel in peace time;
the government opened a wide-ranging public debate with a view to addressing
the Kurdish issue and the public television started operating a channel which
broadcasts entirely in the Kurdish language.

Turkey was affected by the
economic crisis but its impact was mitigated by a resilient banking sector and
anti-crisis measures. Regarding accession negotiations, additional chapters
were opened (chapters 16 and 27). Turkey adopted a National Programme for the
Adoption of the acquis. In general, the EU accession process continued
to provide a strong incentive for Turkey to pursue reforms, strengthen
democracy and human rights and further modernise the country. Concerns remained
in a number of areas, including freedom of expression, press freedom, freedom
of religion, trade union rights, civilian oversight of the military and women's
rights and gender equality.

For more details on
developments in 2009 in Turkey’s preparation for EU membership, please refer to
the Commission’s 2009 Progress Report, abovementioned.

8.2.
IPA programming and implementation in 2009
8.2.1.
MIPD 2009-2011

The Multi-annual
Indicative Planning Document (MIPD) for 2009-2011 is based on an indicative
financial envelope of EUR 2002 million. As in previous years, in 2009 Turkey
continued to benefit from all five components of the Instrument for
Pre-Accession Assistance (IPA). In particular, Component I (Transition
Assistance and Institution Building) supports Turkey's progress towards fully
meeting the Copenhagen political criteria, efforts to harmonise legislation
with the EU acquis and promotion of EU-Turkey Civil Society Dialogue;
Component II (Cross-Border Cooperation) prepares Turkey for implementation of
the Territorial Cooperation objective of the EU Structural Funds. Supports
bilateral cross-border programmes with EU Member States as well as Turkey's
participation in the European Neighbourhood Policy Instrument (ENPI) Black Sea
Basins programme; Component III (Regional Development) supports three
Operational Programmes: environment, transport and regional competitiveness;
Component IV (Human Resources) addresses three major areas of intervention
under the Operational Programme: employment, education and social inclusion;
Component V (Rural Development) sets out three priority axes: adaptation of the
agricultural sector and implementation of EU standards, preparatory actions for
agri-environment measures and Leader-type of actions and development of the
rural economy.

The revised MIPD 2009-2011
that was adopted on 29 June 2009[80] built on
experience with the preparation and implementation of the previous MIPDs,
annual programming of Component I in 2007 and 2008 as well as multi-annual
programming of Components II, III, IV and V in 2007. For instance, enhanced focus/specification was introduced on reform of
judiciary and public administration under the Component I objectives, to take
account of recent legislative developments (Law on Foundations, further
strengthened gender equality and civil society framework), as pointed out in
the 2008 Progress Report.[81] The
draft revised MIPD was consulted with the Turkish authorities, EU Member
States, international financial institutions (IFIs), bilateral and
international organisations and Turkish civil society organisations active in a
variety of areas and comments received were taken into account.

The European Court of Auditors (ECA) concluded in its Special Report
on 'The European Commission's management of pre-accession assistance to Turkey'
that there had been an insufficient direction and lack of specific criteria to
determine the priorities of EU assistance, an insufficient compliance of
pre-accession assistance with accession criteria and insufficient measurability
of achievements of assistance given to Turkey between 2002 and 2006 under the
Turkish Pre-Accession instrument.[82] At the same
time the Court found that projects audited had achieved their intended outputs
and that results were likely to be sustained in the future.

The Commission welcomed the ECA Special report and recognised that
there had been a number of weaknesses in the early phases of pre-accession
support to Turkey. The provision of EU assistance was a learning process for
both sides identifying the right priorities and delivery mechanisms, just as it
had been with the management of financial assistance for previous candidate
countries that are now EU Member States. Since then a lot of progress was made,
for instance with the introduction of IPA from 2007 onwards and with the
decentralisation of management of assistance to the Turkish authorities since
2008, which has gradually resulted in more ownership and improved project
design.

Under IPA the intervention logic has improved, and the Multi-Annual
Indicative Planning Document (MIPD) together with the Accession Partnerships
now provide strategic orientations and priorities with the sole aim of helping
Turkey meet the accession criteria. Further improvements already under way
(mostly after the reporting period) include the following:

o
DG Enlargement is aiming to complement
programming with a more sectoral approach where appropriate, with sector
strategies aiming at both improved ownership and impact;

o
Steps will be taken to follow up the
recommendations of the 2009 IPA conference and the December 2009 Council
conclusions on IPA, to better link financial assistance to political priorities;

o
Future projects will have clearer objectives
that will result in an improved intervention logic through more relevant and
measurable indicators and benchmarks;

o
Clearly defined conditions will be used when
necessary to ensure that Turkish beneficiaries implement commitments necessary
for financial assistance to achieve results and impacts;

o
Monitoring systems will be further improved
together with the Turkish authorities, to increase the focus on results and
impact of projects under implementation;

o
Further action will be taken to address
outstanding recommendations to strengthen the management and control systems
for DIS (decentralised implementation) that will improve the supervision and
control of funds;

o
Additional specific audits, evaluations and
close monitoring will ensure that improvements are effective and further
adjustments to the system are made if necessary.

An evaluation on the
intervention logic for programming pre-accession assistance to Turkey under IPA
was also completed in September 2009: Ad Hoc Evaluation of the European
Commission’s intervention logic for Financial Assistance in candidate countries
and key lessons for MIPD 2010-2012 revision A case study – Turkey.[83] The
evaluation concluded that IPA programming under Component I was focused too
much at project level. While most projects were relevant, a comprehensive
multi-annual programming was not in place. The MIPDs should preferably be a
first step in the direction of establishing a more strategic programming
framework and could be further improved to allow for more efficient project
selection and sequencing. These recommendations constitute useful lessons learned
and provide a good basis for the revised MIPD for 2011-2013, to be developed in
2010.

Table 1: MIFF[84]
allocations per component, in million EUR

Component || 2009[85] || 2010 || 2011 || 2009-2011

I. Transition Assistance and Institution Building || 233.2 || 211.3 || 230.6 || 675.1

II. Cross-Border Cooperation || 9.4 || 9.6 || 9.8 || 28.8

III. Regional Development || 182.7 || 238.1 || 291.4 || 712.2

IV. Human Resources Development || 55.6 || 63.4 || 77.6 || 196.6

V. Rural Development || 85.5 || 131.3 || 172.5 || 389.3

TOTAL || 566.4 || 653.7 || 781.9 || 2002.0

8.2.2.
Programming exercise

Assistance to Turkey is
provided under annual programmes (Component I) or multi-annual Programmes (Components
II-V). Programming under Components II-V was done in 2007 through negotiations
between Turkey and the Commission on the objectives to be included in the Operational
Programmes covering activities funded with the 2007-2009 allocations (Components
II-IV) or for the period 2007-2013 (Component V). No budget support was
provided under IPA 2009 for Turkey.

Table 2: Indicative financial allocations
for the year per component, in million EUR

TURKEY || 2009

I. Transition Assistance and Institution Building || 239.55

Of which:                                                                                      ||

National Programme || 204.55

Energy Efficiency Multi-Beneficiary Crisis Response Facility – Turkey window || 35.00

II. Cross-Border Cooperation || 3.05

Of which:                    ||

CBC programme Turkey-Bulgaria || 2.05

ENPI BLACK Sea Basin programme || 1.00

III. Regional Development || 182.70

Of which ||

Regional Competitiveness Programme || 54.80

Transport Programme || 60.30

Environment Programme || 67.60

IV. Human Resources Development || 55.60

V. Rural Development || 85.50

TOTAL || 566.40

8.2.2.1             Component I:
Transition Assistance and Institution Building

The 2009 programming
exercise under Component I started in the summer 2008, when the Turkish
National IPA Coordinator (NIPAC) invited potential beneficiaries to submit
project ideas. The programming exercise was based on a “Programming Process
Document” (PPD) agreed between the Commission and the Turkish authorities which
defined the different steps, criteria to be used and deadlines for the
programming. Based on this PPD, a preliminary list of projects was screened during
a programming discussion between the Commission and the Turkish authorities in
November 2008. Approximately 60 of the total 115 proposals submitted were
accepted for further development into fully-fledged project fiches, according
to the priorities identified in the Accession Partnership and accession
negotiations,  a relatively low number compared to the 2008 programming round,
when approximately 170 proposals were initially submitted. This caused a
certain concern and the Commission encouraged NIPAC’s pro-active involvement and
support to project development efforts by less experienced beneficiary
Ministries.

At this project
identification stage, the focus for the selection of projects was to ensure
that the objectives and scope of the proposed projects addressed priorities as
identified in the Accession Partnership, the Progress Report, the Multi-Annual
Indicative Planning Document and the related gap assessment with regard to the
2007-2009 MIPD, and were in line with existing sector strategies. Moreover, the
projects needs and priorities had to be adequately identified and the projects
had to directly address these needs. All relevant stakeholders for project
development and implementation had to be identified.

At this stage the overall quality
of the proposals received was still rather weak and the NIPAC services appeared
to be influenced by legal and administrative uncertainty, as their legal status
was undergoing clarification during the preparation of the adoption of the law
on the organisation and duties of the Secretariat General for the European
Union (EUSG), completed in July 2009. In order
to obtain the necessary improvements within a short timeframe, it was decided
to set up working groups with the participation of EUSG and EC Delegation
sector experts to assist beneficiaries in their drafting efforts and to
finalise the required documentation.

In fully designing and developing the projects for the IPA 2009
National Programme, careful account was taken of the results of projects programmed
in previous years and lessons learned from past interventions. First and
foremost, more attention was paid to project design. Moreover, project
readiness requirements were systematically verified for project selection and
those lacking key elements (such as needs analyses, feasibility studies and
market studies) were deferred to subsequent years. Other key elements
for projects to be approved were the capacity of the beneficiary, the likely
sustainability of results, adequate impact and visibility, coordination with
other linked activities as well as underlying risks, assumptions and
commitments required for the project to go ahead.

As already mentioned, in
future programming those criteria are going to be complemented by the gradual
introduction of a more sectoral approach where appropriate, with sector
strategies aiming at both improved ownership and impact and clearer links
between financial assistance and political priorities. The intervention logic is
going to be repeatedly reviewed in order to establish more relevant and
measurable indicators and benchmarks, and efforts will be put to improving the monitoring
systems together with the Turkish authorities, to increase the focus on results
and impact of projects under implementation.

After intensive discussions and several rounds of corrections and
quality checks, the final project fiches were transmitted to the Commission in
May 2009 by the NIPAC. The draft National Programme for Turkey 2009 was
consulted with EU Member States, international financing institutions (IFIs)
and a selection of NGOs in Turkey in June 2009. The latter were selected based
on a civil society survey conducted by the EU Delegation in Ankara and a
representative sample of cooperation partners in the past, however no substantial
comments were provided on the draft project fiches.

On 25 September the programme was presented by the Commission to the
IPA Management Committee, who gave its approval. After adoption by the
Commission on 20 November 2009, a first Financing Agreement covering Turkey's
participation in EU Programmes 2010 was signed on 14 December 2009.

In the context of the economic crisis, in May 2009 it was agreed with
the Turkish authorities that EUR 35 million from the total 2009 allocation for
this component would be transferred to an energy efficiency facility under the
multi-beneficiary crisis response package. An exceptional contribution to
finance Turkey's participation in EU Programmes in 2010 was also made through a
specific project within the National Programme, with a view to alleviate
budgetary pressures (IPA support amounted to EUR 88 million, representing 58%
of Turkey's participation fees for 2010, which totalled EUR 151 million).

The 2009 National
Programme for Turkey under Component I[86]
included in total 34 projects (see table below) selected in line with the
strategic priorities set out in the 2009-2011 MIPD. The total number of
contracts foreseen was 50, a slight reduction from the 2008 National Programme,
which contained 59 contracts in total, but a notable decrease compared to the
2007 National Programme, which included 140 contracts. Contracts in the 2009
National Programme were of the following types:

o
12 twinning contracts (same as in 2008): 3 in
the environment sector, 2 in customs, 2 related to the political criteria, 1 in
the field of free movement of goods, 1 in the agriculture field, 1 in transport,
1 in justice, freedom and security and 1 in the field of financial control;

o
7 direct grant agreements (same as in 2008), 5
of which to be signed with the Council of Europe (CoE), due to its broad
project experience in sensitive fields related to human rights;.

o
5 grant schemes (sale as in 2008); 15 service
contracts (compared to18 in 2008); 11 supply contracts (compared to 14 in 2008).

86 % of the IPA funding
was given as institution building, 14 % as investments (where the respective
figures in the National Programme 2008 were 63 % and 27 %).

For example, the project
"Improved efficiency of the Turkish Criminal Justice system" (EUR
3.4 million of EU contribution), the implementation of which is planned to
start in 2011, aims at improving the application of human rights standards and
strengthen the efficiency of, and confidence in, the criminal justice system in
Turkey by strengthening the capacity
of the judiciary and prosecution service. Through a comprehensive training
programme for public prosecutors and penal judges by the Council of Europe, the
project envisages to reduce the number of judgments of the European Court of
Human Rights against Turkey, decrease the average duration of prosecutions and
strengthen the justice academy. As such, the project will contribute directly
to the MIPD objectives for the judiciary under the political criteria
priority axis, formulated as "Comprehensive training for the consistent
interpretation of legal provisions related to human rights and fundamental
freedoms; Strengthening the independence, impartiality and efficiency of the
judiciary".

The second objective in
the 2009-2011 MIPD supports adoption and implementation of the EU acquis
and identifies agriculture, environment, justice, freedom and security as
well obligations stemming from the Customs Union as key priorities for IPA
Component I funding. These priorities were supported through a number of
projects in the 2009 National Programme, such as "Extending the Pilot Farm Accountancy Data Network Project and Ensure Sustainability", "Strengthening
Capacity against Cybercrime",
"Capacity Building on Water Quality Monitoring", and "Modernisation of Turkish Customs
Administration VI" (enforcement and risk assessment). Implementation
of these projects is expected to start in 2011.

The final percentage
distribution within IPA 2009 Component I by priority axis was the following:
15.1% Political criteria, 33.7% acquis harmonisation, 48.7% Civil
Society Dialogue and 2.5% Supporting activities. Such distribution diverge
somewhat from the indicative allocations in the 2009-2011 MIPD (Political
criteria 15-25%, acquis harmonisation 45-65%, Civil Society Dialogue
20-35% and Supporting activities 3-5%). However, this approach was agreed with
Turkey and approved by EU Member States, as it was found justified by the
circumstances caused by the economic crisis. The deviation from the MIPD
2009-2011 allocations stemmed from the additional contribution given to supporting
Turkey's participation in EU Programmes.

Table 3: Indicative financial allocations
for the year 2009 under the annual National Programme, per priority axis and
per project, in million EUR

Priority Axis || Projects || Budget

Progress towards fully meeting the Copenhagen political criteria || 30.92

|| Democratic Citizenship and Human Rights Education Women's Shelters for Combating Domestic Violence Mental Health care and Drug Addiction treatment services in prisons Improved Efficiency of Turkish Criminal Justice System Consolidating Ethics in the Public Sector Strengthening Coordination of Anti-corruption policies and practices Implementation Capacity of Turkish Police to Prevent Disproportionate Use of Force Improved Capacity of Civil Enforcement Offices Improved Integration of Disabled Persons into Society || 7.65 9.14 1.35 3.40 1.20 1.36 1.90 1.70 3.22

Adoption and implementation of the acquis communautaire || 68.90

|| Quality Control Tests for Human Vaccines and Sera Supply of chemical metrology equipment to TUBITAK UME Extending the Pilot FADN Project and Ensure Sustainability Weight and Dimension Controls of Commercial Vehicles Strengthening Intermodal transport in Turkey Structure and Capacity Improvement of Turkey Electricity Transmission Corporation (TEIAS) Upgrading Statistical System of Turkey Programme Phase III Strengthening Administrative Capacity of Ministry of Industry and Trade (MIT) in Industrial Strategy Capacity Improvement in the Economical and Social Cohesion (ESC) policy Phase II Strengthening Capacity against Cybercrime Aligning Higher Education with the European Higher Education Area (EHEA) Control of Industrial Volatile Organic Compound Emissions Capacity Building on Water Quality Monitoring Implementation Capacity of Environmental Noise Directive Implementation Capacity of Seveso II Directive Strengthening Institutional Capacity on CITES Implementations Alignment in Organ Donation (ALOD) Alignment in Human Tissues and Cells Modernisation of Turkish Customs Administration VI (enforcement) Modernisation of Turkish Customs Administration VI (risk management) Strengthening Institutional capacity of Inspection boards within Public Financial Management Control (PFMC) system || 3.26 2.55 1.38 9.91 0.95 1.80 2.70 1.12 1.80 1.33 4.25 2.63 3.65 5.56 2.70 1.32 3.33 2.70 13.34 0.95 1.67

Promotion of an EU-Turkey Civil Society Dialogue || 99,60

|| Continuation of the Jean Monnet Scholarship Programme Civil Society Dialogue – EU-Turkey Chamber Forum II Participation in EU Programmes || 6.88 4.50 88.22

Support Activities || 5.13

|| TR2009/0740.01 Support Activities to Strengthen the European Integration Process || 5.13

TOTAL || 204.55

During
the spring of 2009 the Commission and the EU Delegation in Ankara conducted an
internal review to draw lessons from the programming experiences in 2007-2009.
These conclusions were introduced in the revised Programming Process Document
presented for agreement to the Turkish institutions involved in programming.
The lack of coherent sector strategies to guide programming was raised, as well
as the positive experiences with sectoral working groups to convene relevant
stakeholders throughout the programming cycle. The importance of ownership on
the Turkish side was also underlined, and it was believed this would improve as
soon as the awaited new law on the
organisation and duties of the Secretariat General for the European Union
(EUSG) would be adopted by the Turkish parliament.

These
concerns as well as suggested solutions were presented to the Turkish side in
the summer of 2009, when the 2010 programming round took off. The need for
early preparations was a shared ambition and the NIPAC services agreed in
principle with the idea of more regular working groups to steer the programming
process when needed. The project ideas were submitted to the Commission in
October 2009, and the first 2010 programming meeting took place in Ankara on 12
November. Similar to the previous programming round, approximately 60 out of
the 110 proposals were retained for development into full project fiches.
Discussions on how to make programming more strategic and better linked to
political priorities were held, but no concrete measures were agreed. The
Turkish authorities pointed to the importance of keeping flexibility on sectors
supported, based on upcoming needs, as well as the incitement brought to the
different Ministries to maintain the EU reform process through the annual
project development phase.

A Country Programme
Interim Evaluation of EU assistance to Turkey between 2005 and 2008 was
launched in September 2009. The preliminary conclusions presented in the final
phase of the field work in December 2009 supported previous analysis on the
need for a more comprehensive review of the 2009-2011 MIPD and of the Sectoral
Monitoring Sub-Committee system, as well as for reinforcing the capacity of the
key Turkish institutions involved in programming, implementation and monitoring
of EU assistance.

8.2.2.2             Component II:
Cross-border Cooperation (CBC)

Turkey's participation in
the European Neighbourhood Policy Instrument (ENPI) Black Sea Basin programme
2007-2013[87] for 2009 was
funded with EUR 1 million, as in previous years. The programme supports
stronger and sustainable economic and social development of the regions of the
Black Sea basin and enhanced mutual understanding through regional
partnerships. Local, people-to-people type actions are promoted, by supporting
cultural and educational initiatives for the establishment of a common cultural
environment in the basin. The Commission adopted the annual programme for
Turkey’s participation on 9 October 2009.

The 2007-2009 Turkey –
Bulgaria CBC programme was adopted by the Commission on 21 December
2007[88]. It aimed at
helping the border region between Turkey and Bulgaria to overcome development
problems resulting from its relative isolation and supporting the development
of co-operative networks on both sides of the border.

8.2.2.3             Components III, IV
and V

The
four relevant multi-annual operational programmes (OPs) under Component III and
IV were prepared by the Turkish authorities and adopted by the Commission in
2007.[89] As regards
Component V a multi-annual rural development programme for 2007-2013 was
prepared by Turkey and adopted by the Commission in 2008.[90]
The second of the yearly modifications of the Turkish IPA Rural Development
Programme was approved by the Member States in the Rural Development Committee
on 22 July 2009 and was subsequently adopted by the Commission on 29 October
2009.[91] For further
details, see the IPA Report 2008.[92]

8.2.3.
Implementation Modalities and Structures

Decentralised
implementation, aimed at preparing the candidate countries for managing EU
funds as future Member States, is the standard implementation mode for the
Instrument of Pre-Accession according to the IPA Regulation. Such implementation
mode places ownership and responsibility for the management of funds into the
hands of the national authorities. The system is accredited ("conferral of
management") once the Commission has assured itself through audits and
assessments that the systems set up by the beneficiary country are adequate for
the management of funds. Following the conferral of management to the systems,
the Commission verifies through further audits and supervision that these
systems function properly and where weaknesses are detected, corrective
measures are taken to ensure the sound management of EU funds.

In 2009, assistance under
IPA component I-IV in Turkey was implemented primarily through decentralised
management with ex-ante controls by the EU Delegation[93].
Exceptions related to the Turkey-Bulgaria CBC programme under Component II,
which was implemented by shared management with the participating EU Member
State; one project under the National Programme 2008, which due to its nature was
implemented by centralised management through an administrative arrangement
between the EU Delegation and the Joint Research Center (the Institute for
Reference Materials and Measurements); the multi-beneficiary Energy Efficiency
Crisis response facility, implemented centralised by the Regional Programmes
Unit in DG Enlargement through contribution agreements with the European
Investment Bank and the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development.

Turkey was conferred
decentralised management powers (with ex-ante controls) for the
operational programmes under Component III and IV in July and August 2009. Four
Financing Agreements under these two components (one per operational programme)
were subsequently signed between the Commission and Turkey between July and
November 2009, thus enabling implementation to commence. By the end of 2009
Turkey had prepared roadmaps for full decentralisation of management of EU
funds without ex-ante controls. These roadmaps will be reviewed in 2010 and
will set benchmarks and target rates for full decentralisation.

Following some
difficulties in the performance of the EU Secretariat General (EUSG) in
handling programming, monitoring and project management functions under
Component I, a new law was adopted in July 2009 providing the basis for
strengthening that institution, including staffing levels. During the reporting
period, the National Authorising Officer (NAO), the National Fund and the
Central Finance and Contracts Unit (CFCU) all made progress in establishing adequate
procedures and organisational structures as part of an improved supervision
under the decentralised implementation system (DIS), even though some
weaknesses in the management and control systems remained to be addressed in
2010. The Turkish authorities prepared plans to address them, for example,
through a substantial increase of staffing at the CFCU and EUSG, although at
the end of 2009 this had not yet materialised into recruitments being started
in practice.

During a transition period
running from 2007 to 2010, the operating structures for implementing the
operational programmes under Component III and IV (Ministry of Environment and
Forestry, Ministry of Transport, Ministry of Industry and Trade and Ministry of
Labour and Social Security) delegated certain functions related to tendering
and contracting of projects to the CFCU, to give themselves time to prepare for
these tasks. Since the CFCU had previous experience from tendering and
contracting under the Turkish Pre-Accession Instrument between 2002 and 2006,
this was agreed to be the best solution while the relevant Ministries completed
the necessary accreditation processes. At the same time this stretched further
the capacity of the CFCU in handling the tendering procedures under Components
I-IV, with a substantial number of contracts to be handled.

The year 2009 did not see
positive developments with regard to implementation of IPA Component V. In all
IPA beneficiary countries, the IPA Rural Development programme is to be
implemented by directly conferring decentralised management powers without ex-ante
controls. Despite continued efforts of all IPA Rural Development-related
structures in Turkey and intensive support by the Commission in 2009, delays in
the timetable for national accreditation and consequently for the Commission
decision to confer management powers to Turkey continued to accumulate. Reasons
for this included the complicated and lengthy procedures necessary to put the
legal system in place and the complex structure of the IPA Rural Development
Programme, with many measures and sub-measures and a varied geographic scope,
as preferred by the Turkish authorities. A high-level political commitment and
support for the process were not ensured, which could have possibly mitigated
the problems encountered.

A revised Action Plan was
prepared in April 2009 and national accreditation was expected to be completed after
the reporting period. Conferral of management by the Commission could then be
expected in 2011. This situation delays the start of implementation under IPA
Component V and puts at risk the funds allocated for 2007 and 2008.

As mentioned above, the
Bulgaria – Turkey Cross-Border cooperation programme under Component II is
implemented under shared management and the Managing Authority is the Ministry
of Regional Development and Public Works in Bulgaria. There was only slow
progress in 2009 in developing the Management and Control System and improving
the administrative capacity on the Turkish side.

Turkey informed about its
intention to transfer the management responsibility for Component II from the
Turkish International Cooperation and Development Agency (TIKA) to the EUSG.

In summary, Turkey has
made progress in 2009 in setting up the management and control systems for
managing the five components of IPA. However, progress was uneven and there
were frequent delays and capacity limitations. If not addressed decisively in
2010, this could threaten the full absorption of funds allocated. In addition,
outstanding concerns were on-the-spot monitoring of projects, management and
follow-up of irregularities and the still high rejection rates of dossiers
submitted to the EU Delegation for ex-ante control. These weaknesses
were recognised by the Turkish administration and credible plans have been put
in place to address them in 2010. The actual outcome will depend on plans being
implemented, which will be closely monitored by the Commission.

8.2.4.
Overview of IPA
projects/contracts implemented in 2009

As mentioned in the
background document to the 2008 IPA Annual Report[94]
the implementation of IPA in Turkey could only start in 2009, due to the late
ratification of the IPA Framework Agreement (notified to the European
Commission on 24 December 2008). This created a substantial back-log of tendering
and contracting files which could only be tackled as from the beginning of
2009, inflicting a major administrative burden on the Turkish institutions
involved in the implementation of IPA funds. Further capacity increases of key
institutions have been agreed with the Turkish authorities to reduce this
back-log and move towards timelier implementation.

Table 4: Status of
implementation of IPA financial assistance (Components I to V) as at 31st
December 2009 (in million EUR)

|| Committed || Paid || RAL[95] || % Paid

IPA 2007-2008-2009 || 1566.8 || 432.61 || 1134.19 || 27.61%

8.2.4.1             Component I: Transition Assistance and Institution
Building

Tables 5: Status of implementation of IPA financial assistance
(Component I) as at 31st December 2009 (in
million EUR) per annual programme and distribution of total committed funds
(2007-2009 allocations) by priority axes

|| Committed || Contracted || RAC[96] || % Contracted || Paid || RAL || %Paid

IPA 2007 || 256.20 || 91.68 || 164.52 || 35.78% || 72.90 || 183.31 || 28.45%

IPA 2008 || 256.13 || 67.99 || 188.14 || 26.54% || 66.73 || 189.39 || 26.05%

IPA 2009 || 204.55 || 88.13 || 116.42 || 43.08% || 88.13 || 116.42 || 43.08%

TOTAL || 716.88 || 247.80 || 469.08 || 34.57% || 227.75 || 489.12 || 31.77%

Priority Axes || % of 2007-2009 allocations

Political criteria || 14.72%

Civil society development || 5.61%

Civil society dialogue || 29.67%

Ability to assume membership obligations || 46.64%

Support programmes || 3.37%

TOTAL || 100.00%

Two financing agreements
(due to different management modes, decentralised/centralised) for
implementation of the 2008 National Programme were signed in March and April
2009 amounting to a total of EUR 256 million. Twenty contracts were
signed in 2009 under the 2007 National Programme, consisting of: i) 9 twinning
contracts amounting to EUR 12.5 million in total, with Germany (4), the United
Kingdom (3), the Netherlands (1), and Austria (1) as lead partners,
implementation periods of between 15 and 39 months and covering the acquis
fields of justice and home affairs, environment, internal market, agriculture
and fisheries; ii) 8 supply contracts amounting to EUR 0.7 million in total and
3 direct agreements totalling EUR 10 million (IPA contributions only).

The remaining funds
contracted in the year refer to Turkey's participation in EU Programmes and
Agencies, a number of small framework contracts under Support Activities to
Strengthen the European Integration Process project and individual grants
given under the Continuation of the Jean Monnet Scholarship Programme.   As the implementation of most of the 2007 projects only
started in late 2009, concrete results were not yet available by the end of the
reporting period.

The first twinning
contract from the 2007 programme to be concluded was for Development of Work
with Juveniles and Victims by the Turkish Probation Service with a total
budget of EUR 1.79 million, where the beneficiary is the Ministry of Justice.
The contract was signed with the United Kingdom in January 2009 and has an
implementation period of 24 months. Experts from the Netherlands and Hungary
are also taking part and in total there will be over 900 days of EU Member
States expert time spent on the project. The objective is to rehabilitate
victims of crime and prevent re-offending of children through improving the
institutional capacity of probation services in connection with victims of
crime and juvenile studies. The project has therefore two main components: work
with juveniles and work with victims, with an additional component on
communication and publicity. Study visits have been made by the Turkish
probation teams to England, Northern Ireland, Austria, Hungary, France and
Germany to study best practices in these fields. A wide range of experts from
Member States have now visited Turkey on working missions, taking place
practically every week, making a variety of presentations on juveniles and
victims work and undertaking missions to prepare project materials.

Project implementation has
proceeded smoothly, all planned activities have taken place and the mandatory
results of increasing victim referrals and reducing re-offending of juveniles
are on target. More than 20 strategic reference documents including programme and
training manuals, policies, inter-agency handbooks and national standards have
been prepared, such as National standards for victims and juveniles and Policies
for work with victims and juveniles. These are being piloted during 6
months in 30 probation service branches before a full country-wide roll out of the training programmes is
planned. Communication experts have also advised on appropriate materials to
publicise the progress of the project. Other key agencies in Turkey working
with juveniles and victims are closely associated to the project and high level
seminars have taken place with judges, prosecutors and chief officers from
other related agencies, as well as inter-agency meetings across Turkey, in
Istanbul and 25 other cities.

Overall the project has
made significant progress during and after the reporting period and will
constitute an important contribution to protect children’s rights in line with
EU and international standards as well as to the continued efforts to tackle
the problem of street children, both being short-term priorities in the
Accession Partnership for Turkey as from 2006. The project also responded to
the aim of establishing new national institution for
supervising offenders and overseeing their re-socialization, as outlined in
Turkey's National Programme for the Adoption of the Acquis
from 2006.

One
contract was concluded in 2009 under IPA 2008, a direct agreement signed on 13
November with the Association of Civil Society Development Center (STGM) worth
EUR 2.2 million, under the project Civil Society Facility-Civil Society Development for Active Participation.

Turkey's participation in EU
Programmes and Agencies is supported through IPA Component I funds each year,
this cooperation being considered an important building
block in EU-Turkey relations by enhancing mutual understanding on both sides.
In 2009 Turkey's participation fees in the following programs/agencies for 2010
were partly supported through IPA (EU support in percentages within
parenthesis): Lifelong Learning (62 %) and Youth in Action (62 %); Culture 2007 (75
%); European Environment Agency (35 %); PROGRESS (20 %); Competitiveness and Innovation Programme
(Entrepreneurship and Innovation as well as the Information
and Communication Technologies Policy Support, both 30 %); Customs 2013 (37 %) and Seventh
EU Research Framework Programme (62 %).

Turkey's participation in
the Lifelong Learning and Youth in Action programmes in 2009 was
successful, and the number of applications continued to increase. Turkey's
entry ticket to the programmes in 2009 amounted to EUR
75.7 million in total (out of which IPA contributed to
the tune of EUR 47.7 million from the 2008 National Programme). In addition, Turkey
provided additional funds from its national budget (EUR 3.6 million) as a supplement to support more beneficiaries. Overall
the number of beneficiaries in 2009 was estimated at around 35 000.
Participation in both programmes is a significant factor to enhance mutual
knowledge and understanding between Turkey and the EU, encourage civil society
networks, and is of great importance for Turkey's overall accession process.
Not the least, it gives many Turkish beneficiaries a first hand experience of
living in an EU country. Erasmus (part of Lifelong Learning programme) helps also to create a ‘European Higher Education Area’
through supporting higher education institutions in Turkey to work together
with similar institutions in the EU through intensive programmes, networks and
multilateral projects.

Turkey's participation in
the Seventh EU Research Framework Programme (FP7) continued to increase
and the possibility to engage in research cooperation between the EU and Turkey
contributed to strengthening Turkish research capacity. Turkey's entry ticket
to the programme in 2009 amounted to EUR 45.5 million
in total, out of which IPA contributed with EUR 13.1
million from the 2008 National Programme. Turkey also took measures to
strengthen its research capacity at national level in line with EU research
policy and has contributed towards the creation of the European Research Area.
Through strengthening the research capacity and cooperating under the FP7,
Turkey's compliance with EU acquis is facilitated and economic growth
and sustainable employment are promoted.

8.2.4.2             Component II:
Cross-border Cooperation

Tables 6: Status of implementation of IPA financial assistance
(Component II) as at 31st December 2009 (in
million EUR) per annual programme and distribution of total committed funds
(2007-2009 allocations) by priority axes

|| Committed || Contracted || RAC || % Contracted || Paid || RAL || %Paid

IPA 2007 || 2.10 || 0.06 || 2.04 || 2.63% || 0.04 || 2.05 || 2.11%

IPA 2008 || 2.87 || 0.00 || 2.87 || 0.00% || 0.00 || 2.87 || 0.00%

IPA 2009 || 3.05 || 0.00 || 3.05 || 0.00% || 0.00 || 3.05 || 0.00%

TOTAL || 8.02 || 0.06 || 7.96 || 0.69% || 0.04 || 7.98 || 0.55%

Priority Axes || % of 2007-2009 allocations

CBC with Member States || 62.60%

Participation to ENPI (Black Sea basin) Transnational Programme || 37.40%

TOTAL || 100.00%

In 2009, implementation of, and Turkey's participation in, the ENPI
Black Sea Basin programme was at an early stage. The Joint Management Authority
of the programme, which is based in Romania, prepared the first call for
proposal which was expected to result in contracts to be concluded after the reporting
period.

The first call for proposals under the Bulgaria – Turkey
cross-border cooperation programme was launched by the Bulgarian Managing
Authority on 28 September 2009. 111 applications were received by the closing
deadline of 28 December 2009, a higher number than expected, which
showed wide interest in this type of actions. The assessment of the
applications was delayed due to a belated assessor nomination process in
Turkey. Overall, both sides showed good
cooperation spirit, but start of implementation was delayed due to lengthy
administrative procedures and decision making processes, mainly on the Turkish
side. The transfer of competence in
Turkey from TIKA to EUSG should help resolve many of the issues.

8.2.4.3             Components III-V

8.2.4.3.1          Component III:
Regional development

Tables 7: Status of implementation of IPA financial assistance
(Component III) as at 31st December 2009 (in
million EUR) and distribution of total committed funds (2007-2009 allocations)
by priority axes

|| Committed || Paid || RAL || % Paid

IPA 2007-2008-2009 || 524.00 || 157.20 || 366.80 || 30.00%

Priority Axes || % of 2007-2009 allocations

Transport || 34.29%

Environment || 38.95%

Regional Competitiveness || 26.76%

TOTAL || 100.00%

After
the signature of the financing agreements for the three operational programmes
in September and November 2009, pre-financing was paid and implementation could
formally take off. The relevant Ministries designated as operating structures
prepared a pipeline of projects through launching calls for applications
that were later approved by the Commission. The response in all three operational programmes was massive. For instance,
under the Regional competitiveness operational programme, 532 applications
amounting to EUR 1.3 billion in total were received, compared to ‘only’ EUR 76
million allocated for this package (of which EUR 57 million from IPA).
Subsequently 42 projects were selected to be prepared for EU assistance,
however only few contracts could be signed before the end of 2009.

Under the transport
operational programme a first major rail project (Ankara Istanbul
High Speed train – Köseköy/Gebze section project) of EUR 160 million was approved by the
Commission in December 2009 and project implementation could start after the
reporting period. Under the environment operational programme the Ordu
wastewater treatment plant project was approved by the Commission in April
2009 and the bilateral project agreement was signed in November 2009, with
implementation starting thereafter. There was a growing concern about delays in
preparation and publication of tender documents which was critical for a smooth
implementation of projects and absorption of funds.

8.2.4.3.2          Component IV: Human
Resources Development

Tables 8: Status of implementation of IPA financial assistance (Component
IV) as at 31st December 2009 (in million EUR)
and distribution of total committed funds (2007-2009 allocations) by priority
axes

|| Committed || Paid || RAL || % Paid

IPA 2007-2008-2009 || 158.70 || 47.61 || 111.09 || 30.00%

Priority Axes || % of 2007-2009 allocations

Employment || 44.00%

Education || 19.29%

Adaptability || 10.71%

Social inclusion || 20.00%

Technical assistance || 6.00%

TOTAL || 100.00%

The Ministry of Labour and
Social Security, appointed as the operating structure for the Human Resources
Development operational programme, launched the first operations in early 2009,
including the publication of three calls for proposals in February and two more
in June. As an example, one call for proposals launched
on 19 June aimed at improving access for girls to secondary education and
Vocational Education and Training (VET), and increasing awareness about the
importance of girls' education.

A large number of applications, almost 3 600 for the five calls for
proposals together, were received by the corresponding deadlines (between May
and October 2009). It represented a challenge for the Turkish authorities to
accomplish a smooth management of the evaluation
processes of the calls. No contracts were signed by the end of 2009.

8.2.4.3.3          Component V: Rural
Development

Tables 9: Status of
implementation of IPA financial assistance (Component V) as at 31st December 2009 (in million EUR) and distribution of total committed funds
(2007-2009 allocations) by priority axes

|| Committed || Paid || RAL || % Paid

IPA 2007-2008-2009 || 159.20 || 0.00 || 159.20 || 0.00%

Priority Axes || % of overall 2007-2009 allocations

Improving market efficiency || 73.00%

Preparation of agri-environmental measures and local rural development strategies || 0.00%

Development of rural economy || 25.00%

Technical Assistance || 2.00%

TOTAL || 100.00%

Programme implementation under the rural
development component could not start in 2009 due to the delays in national
accreditation of the necessary structures. Therefore, no funds were spent under
this component by the end of 2009. However, the Commission put a lot of effort to support the
Turkish authorities through a number of counselling and clarification meetings
organised on various levels and provision of financial assistance for capacity
building projects within the scope of IPA component I. A number of fact-finding
audit missions were also organised in order to periodically assess the level of
preparation of the Turkish authorities.

8.3.
Coherence, compatibility and coordination of aid

With a number of different
donors present in Turkey, efficient donor coordination
and cooperation is important to make best use of limited resources, create
synergies, and avoid overlapping of assistance. There are good examples of
coordination of EU pre-accession assistance programmes in 2009, notably with
various United Nations organisations and the Council of Europe that are
currently implementing several EU funded projects in Turkey through direct agreements.
As regards cooperation with IFIs present in Turkey (the World Bank, the Islamic
Development Bank, KfW, the EIB and, since recently, also the EBRD) and EU Member
States, there was a high level of information sharing between donors, but few
concrete examples of joint cooperation programmes/projects until the end of
2009.

Since the introduction of
IPA in 2007, consultation mechanisms of strategic documents (such as the MIPD)
and programming documents (such as project lists and national programmes) have
been strengthened and enhanced, among other things by including EU Member
States, local offices of IFIs and civil society representatives in
consultations conducted by the EU Delegation. However, in concrete terms by the
end of the reporting period there were only limited results, with few
substantial comments received through the various consultations conducted. Further
efforts are needed to improve the ownership on the Turkish side, where the key
institutions have so far not shown sufficient commitment to take over the
coordination initiatives launched by the EU Delegation. With additional
initiatives in this area planned by the Commission, improvements in the
cooperation mechanisms are expected for 2010.

High-level conferences
related to pre-accession assistance were held in Tirana in April 2009 and in
Brussels in October 2009, where the Commission and EU Member States, together
with IFIs and non-EU donors, agreed on an active and affirmative approach
concerning the need for enhanced donor coordination and more effective
management of funds. For the future, these initiatives will contribute to make
aid and assistance to Turkey more coherent. This aim is also concretely
followed up at the level of each project intervention programmed, where
compatibility with linked activities by the Commission, other donors and IFIs
is screened.

8.4.
Monitoring

Due to IPA implementation having
only just begun in 2009, monitoring was only gradually receiving a higher level
of attention. Discussions in monitoring committees were still focused on
programming related issues and the setting up of adequate management and
control systems, with only limited scope for discussions on on-spot monitoring
of ongoing projects. This is expected to change in the coming years as more
projects get under way.

The IPA Monitoring
Committee for all five components took place on 16 October 2009 in Ankara, discussing
progress and concerns in implementation. The Commission raised its concerns
about the delayed accreditation process for the Rural Development programme and
it was agreed that all efforts should now be pooled to achieve rapid progress
and possibly catch up with some of the delays. The Annual Implementation Report
of the IPA assistance under 2008 submitted by Turkey was approved by the
Commission on that occasion, even though it was recognised that it was still
rather descriptive and not yet a fully appropriate monitoring tool identifying
key weaknesses and proposing corrective actions.

Sector Monitoring Sub-Committees (SMSCs) for Component I were held
in 2009 for the following sectors: Civil Society Dialogue, Public Finance,
Statistics & Accession Process Support, Cross Border Cooperation, Human
Resources Development, Internal Market, Customs Union, Energy, Rural
Development, Regional Development & Transport, Environment, Justice,
Liberty and Security and Political Criteria. Plans exist for future SMSCs to
better link sector policy priorities to concrete project discussion, thereby
establishing closer linkages between the progress of projects and higher-level
strategic considerations within a certain sector. Furthermore, a better and
more active involvement of beneficiaries in the monitoring discussions remains
desirable.

Transition Assistance and
Institutional Building Sectoral Committees were held on 28 January and 16
October 2009, combined with the meetings concerning the programme financing
Turkey's participation to the ENPI Black Sea basin programme under Component
II. The January Committee agreed that the monitoring system should be
strengthened through the introduction of results oriented monitoring (ROM)[97] to assist in
particular the EUSG, but also the CFCU in carrying out monitoring of the
intensity needed. The October Committee referred positively to the new law on EUSG
adopted in July 2009 as providing the basis for increasing its staffing levels,
and the Commission expressed its optimism for improved performance both as
regarded programming and monitoring under IPA Component I. A more strategic
programming approach through the establishment of sectoral working groups was
proposed by the Commission. Despite signs of improvements, the Commission
underlined that the Turkish institutions should step up their monitoring
efforts. This could partly be achieved through increased staffing at the EUSG
as planned for 2010, but also through simplified Monitoring Report templates to
be provided by the Commission.

No IPA Joint Monitoring
Committee on Bulgaria-Turkey IPA CBC Programme under Component II was held in
2009, but a technical meeting took place on 20 February 2009 where the transfer
of management responsibility from the Turkish International Cooperation and
Development Agency (TIKA) to the EUSG was discussed.

The IPA Regional
Development (Component III) Sectoral Committees for the operational programmes
were organised as follows for the three operational programmes: on Environment
on 22 January and 20 November 2009, on Transport on 21 January and 20 November
2009, and on Regional Competitiveness on 22 January and 19 November 2009.

As no actual
implementation on the ground had taken place in 2009 the Sectoral Monitoring
Committees (SMCs) under Component III discussed the state of play of the
preparations for programme implementation, adoption of the decision on conferral
of management powers, signature of Financing Agreements and capacity building
in the Operating Structures. Furthermore, the SMCs discussed and approved the
work plans, technical assistance plans and monitoring tools, as well as the Annual
Implementation Report for 2008 for each of the programmes. The committees were
informed on and discussed the on-going preparations of projects and IPA payment
forecasts, as well as the “n+3” risks[98]
associated with the delays with the preparation and publication of tender
documents under each operational programme.

Human
Resource Development (Component IV) Sectoral Committees were held on 29 June
and 23 November 2009. Among other things, the Committee was informed about, and
commented upon, implementation issues and the completion of the legal requirements for the implementation of the operational programme,
and approved the mandate for the evaluation sub-committee. It was also informed
about other issues such as the identification of new operations
implementing the programme and future actions envisaged for 2010, such as the
revision of the operational programme and its mid-term (interim) evaluation.

Rural
Development Sectoral Committees (Component V) were held on 11 June and 3
December 2009. The Rules of procedure for the work of
the Committee were officially approved in June. They were designed to ensure
active involvement of Turkish NGOs in the process of monitoring programme
implementation, by foreseeing that governmental and non-governmental members of
the Committee are equally represented. In the June Monitoring Committee meeting
the second proposal for a modification of the IPA Rural Development programme,
adding another financial year but without changing the programme objectives,
was also discussed and approved. In the December meeting a Communication and
Publicity Action Plan and a Technical Assistance Action Plan were approved.

PART II: MULTI-BENEFICIARY AND REGIONAL PROGRAMMES

9.
MULTI-BENEFICIARY
9.1.
The year in review

In 2009 the Western Balkans have moved closer to EU membership, as
the region made progress, albeit unevenly, in reforms and in meeting
established criteria and conditions.

A thorough assessment of each Beneficiary's progress in implementing
the obligations under the Stabilisation and Association Agreements, including
trade-related provisions, remains part and parcel of the careful steering
process of candidate countries and potential candidates towards the EU. Each
beneficiary's commitment to regional cooperation initiatives and its relations
with other enlargement countries is also being assessed in the regular Progress
Reports.

During the reporting period, the rule of law, in particular the
fight against corruption and organised crime, remained a problem throughout the
region. Law enforcement agencies will have to become more effective and work
together in order to tackle the problems caused by international criminal
organisations operating cross-borders. In its Enlargement Strategy and Progress
Reports for 2009 the Commission pinpointed these challenges and the needs that
will have to be addressed in the near future and the Multi-beneficiary
programme for 2010 was  accordingly drafted to match these requirements.

The global economic crisis has affected the economies of the Western
Balkans and Turkey to a different degree but a number of features are common to
all: economic activity has contracted; unemployment is growing and the fiscal
position is deteriorating in all beneficiaries.

Regional cooperation in South–East Europe made important progress in
2009, in particular in the areas of energy and transport and cooperation in
public administration reform. At the same time, IPA beneficiaries have assumed
greater ownership of the process for further development of regional
cooperation, also through greater involvement in the planning and programming
of the IPA multi-beneficiary programmes.

However, more efforts are needed to improve the efficiency of
regional structures and initiatives and to overcome bilateral disputes and
disagreements, inter alia relating to Kosovo[99].
The Regional Cooperation Council needs further strengthening to build up its
strategic role. Regional trade should strive to develop its full potential for
economic development and to address the economic crisis. It should also be seen
as a means for reconciliation in the Western Balkans.

9.2.
IPA programming and implementation in 2009
9.2.1.
MIPD 2009-2011

The Multi-beneficiary Multi-annual
Indicative Planning Document (MIPD) 2009-2011[100]
provides the strategic three-year plan for programming of the assistance to
candidate countries and potential candidates through regional and horizontal
projects:

°
Regional projects aim at facilitating regional
cooperation between the IPA beneficiaries. These projects endeavour to promote
reconciliation, reconstruction and political cooperation.

°
Horizontal projects address
common needs across several IPA beneficiaries and seek to attain
efficiencies and economies of scale in implementation.

The strategic choices
under the 2009-2011 Multi-Beneficiary MIPD are addressed under the following
five axes: 1.) Political criteria, where assistance focuses on Democracy
and the Rule of Law, Human Rights and the Protection of Minorities, Regional
Issues and International Obligations, Interim Civilian Administration and Civil
Society Dialogue and Development; 2.) Economic criteria, where
assistance focuses on Competitiveness of the Economies, Cooperation with
International Financial Institutions and Education and Youth; 3.) Ability to
assume  the obligations of EU membership, where assistance focuses on the
Free movement of goods, Intellectual and Industrial Property rights,
Veterinary policy, Transport policy, Energy, Customs and Taxation, Statistics,
Environment, TAIEX and Nuclear Safety and Radiation Protection; 4.) Information
and communication; 5.) Support Activities, such as Audit, Monitoring
and Evaluation as well as Project Preparation.

In particular the main new
features in the Multi-Beneficiary MIPD 2009-2011 with regards to the previous
adopted Multi-Beneficiary MIPD 2008-2010 are: Public finance management and
public procurement, Regional Cooperation Initiatives, Participation of the
relevant IPA countries in the Barcelona Process-Mediterranean Union,
Competitiveness of the economies, and the Regional Environmental Network for
Accession (RENA). As a result of the consultations with the different
stakeholders, the Beneficiaries in particular, Energy has also been chosen as a
prominent priority area in the MIPD.

The strategic choices
within the scope of the 2009-2011 Multi-Beneficiary MIPD have been made based
on the agreed principles of assistance under IPA, on guidance provided in the
EU strategic documents, lessons learned from the programming and implementation
of previous EU assistance and findings from consultations with, amongst others,
the IPA beneficiaries, International Financial Institutions, the Regional
Cooperation Council and other regional initiatives, Civil Society
Organisations, EU Member States and  Commission services.

The preparatory steps for
the adoption of the Multi-beneficiary MIPD 2009-2011
were initiated long before 2009, when extensive written consultations and/or
discussions at meetings with the different stakeholders took place.

The Multi-beneficiary MIPD 2009-2011 was approved by the IPA Committee on
26 May 2009 and adopted on 16 June 2009.

Table 1: MIFF[101]
allocations (Component I only), in million EUR[102]

Component || 2009 || 2010 || 2011 || 2009-2011

I. Transition Assistance and Institution Building || 160.0 || 157.7 || 160.8 || 478.5

TOTAL || 160.0 || 157.7 || 160.8 || 478.5

In order to comply with
the annual revision of the multi-annual indicative planning documents, an
assessment of the Multi-beneficiary MIPD 2009-2011 was carried out at the end
of 2009 with the objective to check its validity in light of developments in
the region and main challenges ahead. It was concluded that the scope, overall
objectives and strategic choices of the 2009-2011 MIPD remained valid also for
2010. All stakeholders, including the donors' community were informed about the
process and conclusions of this assessment and  agreed that a revision of the
MIPD was not required at this stage.

The assessment of the
2009-2011 Multi-beneficiary MIPD constituted a stepping stone toward an
in-depth and comprehensive revision of the strategy in the 2011-2013
Multi-beneficiary MIPD for which a thorough planning and participatory
consultation process with all stakeholders started in 2009. To this end, a
number of Working Groups were set up to provide a framework for discussions
with beneficiaries, donors, civil society and other stakeholders, analysing in
particular the needs for regional cooperation.

Discussions in those
Working Groups provided valuable contributions to the development of specific
sector plans that will in turn feed into the draft MIPD for 2011-2013. This
process should allow better tailoring of the new Multi-beneficiary strategy
according to the needs of the beneficiaries in the region while at the same
time enhancing ownership of the programme and complementarity of regional and
horizontal programmes with national strategies.

9.2.2.
Programming exercise

Table 2: Indicative financial allocation
for the year (Component I only), in million EUR

MULTI-BENEFICIARY || 2009

I Transition Assistance and Institution Building || 247.92[103]

Of which: ||

Multi-Beneficiary Programme I || 19.30

Multi-Beneficiary Programme II || 168.50

Support to the operational budget of the Office of the High Representative (OHR) in Bosnia and Herzegovina || 5.93

Tempus || 15.55

Nuclear safety and radiation protection || 8.50

Contribution to the Energy Community budget || 2.94

TAIEX || 9.00

Information and Communication || 9.00

Monitoring || 6.00

Evaluation and Audit || 3.20

TOTAL || 247.92

In designing the 2009 IPA
Multi-beneficiary programme, particular note was taken of the results of
projects programmed in previous years and lessons learned from experience in
the implementation of previous projects in the specific areas. Among them: (i)
the success of a programme/project depends to a large extent on its
beneficiaries' sense of ownership over and involvement in it; (ii) a needs-driven
approach is essential in order to achieve effectiveness for an action; (iii) in
order to be secured for the "after implementation" stage,
sustainability is to be thoroughly considered from the "planning"
stage; (iv) good communication and coordination among all key stakeholders are
crucial for any programme/project's success; therefore proper communication
"protocols"/"procedures" are to be established from the
very beginning and complied with throughout the process and proper coordination
mechanisms/structures are to be in place.

An IPA Multi-beneficiary
Coordination meeting with the Beneficiaries was organised in Brussels on 15-16
January 2009 with the objective to discuss the IPA Multi-Beneficiary 2009
programming, including the IPA response to the financial crisis, the Civil
Society Facility, and the Nuclear Safety Programme, as well as to discuss
regional cooperation in general. The participants gave feedback on the proposed
project ideas.

Furthermore,
in the management of previous and ongoing IPA Multi-beneficiary, CARDS Regional
and PHARE Multi-Country projects and programmes, a number of lessons have
emerged through project monitoring and evaluation reports, as well as from the
evaluation report on the implementation of CARDS assistance to the Western
Balkans[104], which are
applicable to the Multi-beneficiary programme. By involving the beneficiaries
and the Regional Cooperation Council in the initial project conception phase of
the programming cycle through – primarily - the IPA Multi-beneficiary
coordination meetings, which are held approximately three times a year, as well
as by informing them on the outcomes of each step in the programming cycle,
ownership of the Multi-beneficiary programme has improved considerably compared
to, for example, the CARDS programme. Such involvement affords beneficiaries
the opportunity to judge their absorption capacity for each project as well as
to evaluate how each project would fit into the national plans.

In
order to avoid duplications and ensure complementarities, close coordination
with other donors, in particular EU Member States, was undertaken during the
programming phase of the 2009 Multi-beneficiary programme through early
consultation on the first project ideas. In addition, the IPA National
Programmes were carefully assessed.

The
2010 programming exercise was initiated by mid 2009. An IPA Multi-beneficiary
Coordination meeting with the Beneficiaries was organised in Zagreb on 9-10
June 2009 with the objective to discuss the preliminary project ideas for the
IPA Multi-Beneficiary Programme 2010. A Multi-beneficiary Donor Coordination
Meeting took place on 2 July 2009 with the same purpose, in order to ensure
synergies and avoid overlaps. Consultation with Civil Society Organisations and
IFIs took place as well.

Commitment
by the Beneficiaries to make the necessary resources available, cooperate
closely and share knowledge as well as experiences are essential to the success
of the projects included under the Multi-beneficiary programme.

TABLE 3: Indicative
financial allocations for the year 2009 under Multi-Beneficiary (regional and
horizontal) programmes, per priority axis and per project, in million EUR

Priority Axis || Projects || Budget

Political Criteria || 33.33

|| Support to the operational budget of the Office of the High Representative (OHR) in Bosnia and Herzegovina || 5.93

|| MBP 1– PF1-Refugee return and provision of durable solutions for refugees and Internally Displaced Persons in the Western Balkans || 1.00

|| MBP1 -PF2 - Training in Public Procurement in the Western Balkans and Turkey || 4.00

|| MBP 1 - PF3 - Regional School of Public Administration || 4.40

|| MBP 1 - PF4 -  Civil Protection Cooperation || 4.00

|| MBP 2 - PF 1: Cooperation in Criminal Justice: Witness Protection in the Fight against Serious Crime and Terrorism (WINPRO) || 4.00

|| MBP 2 - PF 2: Civil Society Facility: Partnership Actions || 10.00

Economic Criteria || 159.70

|| MBP 2 - PF 3: Regional Entrepreneurial Learning Centre || 1.70

|| MBP 2 - PF 4: Regional Programme on Trade and Investment in the Western Balkans || 0.50

|| MBP 2 - PF 5: Crisis Response Package || 120.45

|| MBP 2 - PF 6: Erasmus Mundus Action 1: Western Balkans - Turkey Windows || 8.00

|| MBP 2 - PF 7: Erasmus Mundus Action 2: Partnerships Lot - Western Balkans || 12.00

|| MBP 2 - PF 8: Youth in Action || 1.50

|| Tempus || 15.55

Assumption of the obligations of membership || 35.69

|| MBP1 - PF5 - Regional Environmental Network for Accession || 5.90

|| MBP 2 -PF 9: Regional Blueprints Exercise on Customs and Taxation || 1.45

|| MBP 2 -PF 10: Taxation and Customs IT interconnectivity and operational capacity || 0.50

|| MBP 2 -PF 11: Statistical Cooperation || 5.40

|| MBP 2 -PF 12: Migration and socio-economic development in the Western Balkans || 2.00

|| Nuclear Safety || 8.50

|| Energy Community || 2.94

|| TAIEX || 9.00

Information and communication || 9.00

|| Information and Communication || 9.00

Support activities || 10.20

|| Monitoring || 6.00

|| MBP 2 - PF 13: Project Preparation Facility || 1.00

|| Audit and Evaluation || 3.20

TOTAL || 247.92

The table above reflects
consistency on the distribution of the Multi-beneficiary assistance by the
different areas of intervention as indicated in the Multi-beneficiary MIPD
2009-2011, where a predominant focus was given to the area of “addressing
the economic criteria”. During the 2009 programming and due to the global
economic crisis affecting also the economies of the
Western Balkans and Turkey, more emphasis was put to help Beneficiaries tackle
its effects, notably through the adoption of a comprehensive crisis response
package. In accordance with the 2008 Enlargement package, regional cooperation,
the rule of law, as well as actions under the Civil Society Facility have also been
addressed under the 2009 programming.

During
2009 discussions took place on the need to revise the approach to planning and
programming of IPA assistance, i.e. to move from a project-based to a sector-
or programme-based approach. This approach, which is to be implemented in the
2011-13 MIPDs, is also applicable to the programming of IPA Multi-beneficiary
assistance.

9.2.3.
Implementation
Modalities and Structures

Assistance under the IPA
Multi-beneficiary programmes in 2009 was implemented: i) partly on a
centralised basis by the Commission, and ii) partly in joint management with
International Organisations based on Article 53a and d of the Financial
Regulation, in accordance with the following distribution:

i) Support to the
operational budget of the Office of the High Representative (OHR) in Bosnia and
Herzegovina, MBP 1 2009 (except for PF1- refugee return), MBP 2 2009 (except
for some components of PF 5- Crisis Response Package), Tempus 2009, Nuclear
Safety 2009, Contribution to the Energy Community budget 2009, TAIEX 2009,
Information and Communication 2009, Monitoring and Audit and Evaluation 2009;

ii) MBP 1 2009 for PF1-
refugee return which is implemented by the Commission
in joint management with the United Nations High Commissioner for
Refugees (UNHCR); MBP 2 2009 for some components of PF 5- Crisis Response
Package which are implemented by the Commission in joint management with the
European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD), the European
Investment Bank (EIB), the European Central Bank (ECB) and the OECD.

9.2.4.
Overview of IPA
projects/contracts implemented in 2009

In 2009 special efforts were made to mitigate the impact of the
economic crisis in the Western Balkans and Turkey by channelling a substantial
amount of assistance to the real economy via fast track implementation. As
regards IPA 2009 allocations an important part of the funds, mostly related to
the IPA Crisis Response Package and Municipal Investments, including
commitments to programming and implementing large components of annual  IPA
allocations (e.g. Albania, Kosovo, Turkey) were contracted in at the end of
2009, long before the contracting deadlines, in order to speed up
implementation.

The fact that the main part of the 2009 programming (in financial
terms) was adopted already by mid 2009 has allowed for higher contracting rates
than those achieved during 2008, as the programme was only adopted at the end
of December.

Tables 4: Status of implementation of IPA financial assistance
(Component I) as at 31st December 2009 (in
million EUR) per annual programme and distribution of total committed funds
(2007-2009 allocations) by priority axes

|| Committed || Contracted || RAC[105] || % Contracted || Paid || RAL[106] || %Paid

IPA 2007 || 153.42 || 119.85 || 33.57 || 78.12% || 98.32 || 55.10 || 64.09%

IPA 2008 || 196.54 || 164.79 || 31.75 || 83.85% || 67.08 || 129.46 || 34.13%

IPA 2009 || 247.92 || 136.86 || 111.06 || 55.20% || 96.14 || 151.78 || 38.78%

TOTAL || 597.88 || 421.50 || 176.38 || 70.50% || 261.54 || 336.34 || 43.74%

Priority Axes || % of 2007-2009 allocations

Political criteria || 5.19%

Civil Society || 4.68%

Support to interim civilian administration || 6.63%

Economic criteria || 36.55%

Ability to assume membership obligations || 7.99%

Regional support programmes || 3.14%

TAIEX/SIGMA || 6.97%

TEMPUS/Education/Youth || 17.11%

Communication || 3.90%

Nuclear Safety || 3.94%

Technical support, monitoring, audit and evaluation || 3.90%

TOTAL || 100.00%

Multi-beneficiary programmes provide assistance only to actions
under Component I - Transition Assistance and Institution Building.

Sectors/projects with positive results that could be considered as
“success stories” are the following:

Regional Cooperation Council (RCC): Over the past two years the RCC has
become the principal institution promoting regional co-operation in South East
Europe, taking over successfully from the Stability Pact. After having
established its Secretariat and becoming fully operational it is now working
towards fulfilling its strategic role in the region, by ensuring clear and tangible
results. The RCC has concentrated its work on six priority areas: economic and
social development, energy and infrastructure, justice and home affairs,
security cooperation, building human capital and parliamentary cooperation as
an overarching theme.

The Commission is a member of the RCC and its Board, provides
financial support for the Secretariat and is continuing to finance some of the
initiatives established under the Stability Pact. The RCC
Secretariat was set up in January 2008 and was fully functioning in May 2008.
The EU has been contributing to the operating costs of the RCC since its
inception, by means of two contracts, each worth EUR 1.5 million for the first three years of operation, up to December 2010, and
will continue to do so for three more years.

During 2009, intensive consultations between the Commission and the
Swedish Presidency of the Council took place to discuss the future strategic
positioning of the RCC. As a result, the RCC, assisted
by the Commission, has prepared its Strategic Programme for 2011-13. It will
focus on analysing needs for regional cooperation in the Western Balkans, identifying
gaps and overlaps and taking initiatives to address them effectively and
efficiently. The RCC has also been involved during 2009 in the IPA
Multi-beneficiary programming for both 2009 and 2010, to ensure that IPA
priorities correspond to regional priorities and needs.
During the RCC Financial Sub-Committee on 13 October 2009, Board Members
discussed the issue of future financial support to the RCC Secretariat
activities in the period 2011-2013.

The Regional School of Public Administration (ReSPA): The signing of the International Agreement which provides for the
establishment of the Regional School of Public Administration in Montenegro was
initiated on 21 November 2008 in Podgorica. It shall enter into force when five
of the seven signatories have deposited their instruments of ratification,
acceptance or approval with the Depositary, in this case, the government of
Montenegro. By the end of 2009, four of the ReSPA members had ratified the
International Agreement, namely Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, the former
Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and Montenegro.

The Commission cooperated
with the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) on
implementing the ReSPA project until the beginning of 2009 with a view to
strengthening the capacities of the institution and organising the training
programme. At the beginning of 2009, this role of technical support was passed
on to the European Institute of Public Administration (EIPA), whose mandate is
to ensure the delivery of 2500 training participant days annually. A service
contract was signed with EIPA on December 2008, starting implementation on
January 2009 to this effect for a budget of EUR 2 million.

ReSPA remains a solid example of action towards real regional
cooperation and its main impact so far was the determination and strong
political commitment of all partners to push the project towards
concretisation. Up to 2009 ReSPA has been working as a virtual school providing
professional training in liaison with the National Schools and Agencies in
order to develop coherent and complementary actions for upgrading the
professionalism of the civil service and promoting European integration around
the region and in the EU for an ever growing number of beneficiaries. By the
end of 2009 the project had reached a cruise speed, starting with around
700 participant days per year and providing at the end of 2009 up to no less
than 2 500 participant days annually. Another unplanned positive effect was the
direct leverage impact on the development of the town of Danilovgrad, where
ReSPA is located: as such, ReSPA should also be highlighted as best practice of
synergy between a project with a regional scope and the territorial development
strategy of a local community.

Fight against organized crime: The IPA 2008 grant contract "Police Cooperation: Fight against
Organised Crime, in particular Illicit Drug Trafficking and the Prevention of
Terrorism" was signed in December 2009, to start
implementation in 2010. The project will not only
contribute to foster police cooperation in the Western Balkans and strengthen
the established International Law Enforcement Coordination Units, but will also
assess the requirements to set up an International Law Enforcement Coordination
Units in Kosovo and Turkey.

Civil Society
Facility (CSF): The CSF was established in 2008 as a
single facility for the benefit of all candidate countries and potential
candidates, financed both from the IPA Multi-beneficiary programme and the
national/annual IPA programmes. The objectives of the CSF are to strengthen
civil society bodies and their role in the political process, enhance the
capacity of local Civil Society Organisations (CSOs) for civic mobilisation and
encourage networking, promote cooperation and the transfer of know-how between
business, trade union and professional organisations in partner countries and
corresponding EU level organisations.

Technical assistance under the Multi-beneficiary IPA programme was
established in mid-2009, organising training events and ad hoc advisory services
to locally established technical assistance  desks in each country. Also known
as TACSO, the project has developed a website (www.tacso.org)
which acts as a coordination and information-sharing mechanism. TACSO has
undertaken needs assessments for all countries and at regional level to
identify the requirements of civil society and the local legal and financial
environment. In addition, Local Advisory Groups have been established,
consisting of representatives from EU Delegations, national government, civil
society and other donors in order to discuss the needs and strategic issues for
civil society. Since they are in a better position to give CSF support, they
will identify and select projects at the local level.

Also under the CSF, “People to People” (P2P) projects started in
2008, initially financed through TAIEX, 10 events being organised that year. In
2009, 714 CSO representatives and 253 speakers participated in 19 P2P events.
The response from participants at study tours has been overwhelmingly positive.
Participants regularly stated that study tours helped them see the human face
of the EU institutions. They also gained valuable knowledge about policies and
programmes and made very useful contacts. The CSF and in particular TACSO are
presented at every P2P event.

Extensive consultation with civil society and assistance to CSOs is
also being provided for in many of the national programmes. Civil society
support also forms part of local donor coordination agendas. As donors (EU Member
States as well as others) are progressively ending their support to the IPA
countries, they are anxious to ensure that civil society continues to receive
adequate and relevant support.

Partnership actions carried out between beneficiary CSOs and the EU
led to a transfer of knowledge and networks as well as trans-national
innovative projects. Under IPA 2008 support for these activities totaled EUR
4.5 million and focused on i) environment, energy efficiency, health and safety
at work; ii) fight against corruption, organised crime and trafficking. Calls
for proposals for both i) and ii) were launched during 2009 and grant contracts
were signed at the end of 2009. In addition, iii) EUR 0.3 million were
transferred to DG Environment (by sub-delegation) to support the Environment
Forum and ensure exchange of good practice between EU and environmental NGOs in
the IPA beneficiaries and alignment to the EU acquis in the sector. Under
IPA 2009, a new programme was adopted including activities focused on the
following sector priorities: socio-economic partners, minorities and vulnerable
group organisations and cultural organisations.

Western Balkan
Investment Framework:
An effective and well co-ordinated co-operation with International Financial
Institutions (IFIs) is politically important for the enlargement region with
high investment needs and limited grant resources from the IPA budget. The main
IFI partners of the Commission (largest programmes co-financed) are the
European Investment Bank (EIB), the European Bank for Reconstruction and
Development (EBRD) and the Council of Europe Development Bank (CEB) (altogether
"European IFIs"). Together with EU Member States and the Commission
those European IFIs have joined forces to establish the "Western Balkans
Investment Framework", a single entry point for countries of the Western
Balkans for their funding requests in support of infrastructure investments. In
this framework, grant sources from the Commission (IPA- EUR 110 million),
European IFIs (EUR 30 million) and EU Member States (more than EUR 20 million)
are pooled to co-finance infrastructure investments along with loans from other
IFIs (minimum EUR 2 billion expected). The main benefits of the Western Balkans
Investment Framework are: (1) increased ownership by beneficiaries, due to the
endorsement of projects requesting a grant by National IPA co-ordinators,
ensuring a better alignment with national/regional priorities; (2) improved
donor co-ordination with multiple IFIs co-financing the same project, gradually
aligning respective procedures; (3) leverage of grants with IFI loans. The
Western Balkans Investment Framework was officially launched on 8/9 December
2009.

In addition to the success
stories mentioned above, the core of activities under the IPA Multi-beneficiary
assistance which took place during 2009 are identified below, grouped by
priority axis:

9.2.4.1             Addressing the
Political Criteria

Refugee return

Actions in this field aim
at facilitating voluntary repatriation and reintegration including local
integration for the remaining persons in displacement. Activities are
implemented under the Regional Programme for refugee
return and provision of durable solutions for refugees and Internally Displaced
Persons in the Western Balkans:

- IPA 2008: a contribution
agreement with the UNHCR for EUR 1 million, signed on September 2008, was under
implementation during 2009. From a cumulative and consolidated regional
perspective, of the overall target group in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia,
Montenegro, Serbia and Kosovo, since the start of the project and up to 2009,
2339 refugees and 12560 returnees were provided with legal counselling, 552
individuals were given repatriation assistance and 365 individuals benefited
from local integration assistance. This programme ended on 30 June 2009.

- IPA 2009: As a follow-up to the abovementioned agreement, another
contribution agreement was signed with the UNHCR for EUR 1 million. Implementation of this
agreement began on 1 July 2009, for a period of 12 months. During the reporting
period the project was being implemented as planned.

Concrete results achieved
during 2009 include the following:

i) the UNHCR provided
extensive support to the Government of Serbia in the planning of a regional
conference on durable solutions, which had been proposed by the Serbian
Government during the High Commissioner visit in August 2009. In particular,
the UNHCR supported the Serbian government in the organization of a regional
expert-group meeting that took place in Belgrade in December 2009, with a view
to prepare the grounds of the regional conference. In addition, UNHCR
Representatives in all countries of the region undertook several follow up
meetings, with both the government and other international organizations as
well as within the UNHCR, in order to ensure an effective organization of the
regional conference; ii) in November 2009, President Mesic of Croatia visited
four returnee families in the Sisak-Moslavina and Karlovac counties. The visit
was a follow-up to the conference on “Refugee Protection and Humanitarian
Work in Croatia in the past 18 years – Achievements and Challenges” which the
UNHCR hosted to mark the 2009 World Refugee Day. A round table with the
President and his advisors was organized for returnees, local officials and
NGOs from Croatia and neighbouring countries (NGOs from Bosnia and Herzegovina
and Serbia participated); iii) in December 2009, the UNHCR in Croatia organized
a regional NGO roundtable for legal aid providers; iv) the UNHCR in Serbia
participated, together with other governmental, non-governmental and
international actors, to a Government organized retreat to revise the “National
Strategy for Resolving Problems of Refugees and IDPs”; v) individual
repatriation assistance or preparation for repatriation was provided on a
needs-basis to returnees to Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina from Montenegro,
Serbia and Bosnia and Herzegovina and Croatia, respectively; vi) the production
of new relevant TV documentaries in collaboration with the film-team and local
counterparts in Serbia, Croatia and Kosovo continued, and regular broadcasting
of these documentaries on public service televisions RTS and RTV took place on
a weekly basis.

Social Inclusion

Under IPA, the project Regional
support to marginalised communities has been under implementation since 1
August 2009, as a follow-up to a CARDS project completed on 31 July 2009. The
overall project purpose is to contribute to increased legal and social
inclusion of marginalised communities and facilitate their full enjoyment of
citizenship rights in the Western Balkans. In 2009 the project was being
implemented as planned. With respect to all the countries, issues of Roma
inclusion, obstacles to civil registration, necessary amendments to laws
and accession to relevant international instruments have been brought to
the attention of governmental representatives and other counterparts, in
regular exchanges and at various occasions, including through specific
letters directed to responsible policy makers in these areas. Continuous
provision of legal advice and legal assistance to individuals has been provided
by the UNHCR’s legal aid partners in all project countries, facilitating civil
registration and the acquisition of documents necessary for access to basic
rights. Several events and public information activities have been successfully
developed during 2009.

Social Security
Coordination

The project Regional
Programme for Social Security Coordination and Social Security Reforms in
South-East Europe has progressed according to schedule in 2009 in all the
areas targeted. Its purpose is to tackle discrimination and the difficulties
faced by vulnerable groups when trying to access the labour market and
facilitate economic integration in the Beneficiaries. Several activities have
taken place, including national training events and experts meeting and study
visits. Thanks to and as a result of activities under the project, some
Beneficiary parties have also identified shortcomings, notably in their existing
bilateral agreements with other countries of the region and have requested the
assistance of the Secretariat in order to draft new agreements.

Participation of the
Western Balkans and Turkey in the Union for the Mediterranean

In 2009, a new programme
was set up to support the involvement of Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina,
Croatia, Montenegro and Turkey in the Union for the Mediterranean, and in
particular in Euro-Mediterranean events (institutional dialogue) as well as in
a number of flagship projects, such as: the Horizon 2020 initiative
(environmental protection of the Mediterranean); the Programme of Prevention,
Reduction and management of the Disasters of natural and human origin in the
Mediterranean region (PPRD); the Regional Transport Action Plan (RTAP) and
other transport-related initiatives, e.g. Safemed and Motorways of the Sea. A
budget of EUR 3.2 million has been earmarked for this
programme, the management of which has been cross-delegated to the EuropeAid Cooperation Office.

Public Administration (The Regional School for Public Administration
(ReSPA) – see
details on success stories above.

Public Administration
(Training in Public Procurement)

In 2009, a new project (part
of the Multi-beneficiary Programme I 2009) was adopted, aiming to develop a
sustainable procurement training strategy at regional and national levels in
the Western Balkans and Turkey that is in compliance with EU public procurement
legislation and practices and with related national legislation in the
Beneficiaries. This training initiative, for which an IPA allocation of EUR 4
million has been agreed, is based on a tailor-made module created by the OECD
SIGMA Team. The project will be implemented as of 2010 via a service contract.

Disaster Risk Reduction

The project “Disaster Risk Reduction in South East Europe”,
under implementation during 2009, aimed at building capacity and developing
strategies for disaster risk reduction (contract signed with UNDP in March
2009), as well as fostering regional cooperation, in particular through better
management and exchange of information on meteorological, hydrological and
climate data (contract signed with World Meteorological Organisation (WMO) in
April 2009). The project has experienced some delays in implementation due to
late mobilisation of resources which will most probably result in a cotnract amendment
for project extension and other adjustments.

A call for tenders was launched during 2009 for the project “Civil
Protection Cooperation”. The activities foreseen envisage to increase the
IPA Beneficiaries’ capability to work with the EU Civil Protection Mechanism
and contribute to the development of their capacities through specific
trainings, workshops, exchange of experts and joint exercises.

Justice, Freedom and Security

The project “Regional support to the update, implementation and
monitoring of the Integrated Border Management (IBM) strategies and related
Action Plans and development of regional and cross border initiatives”
started implementation in June 2009. The objectives of the project are to:
ensure a regionally harmonised implementation of the national IBM strategies
and the associated Action Plans (AP); further enhance regional co-operation
through the sharing of best practices and lessons learned in implementing the
IBM model, the establishment of common standards and procedures, the
improvement of operational cooperation, and the intensification of
communication and information exchange; support cross-border inter-agency
cooperation; and further support the development of compatible information
systems. During the inception phase, an overall assessment of the state of play
of IBM strategies in the Beneficiaries was carried out, and Assessment and
Monitoring Team visits have started.

For the project “Police Cooperation: Fight against organised
crime, in particular illicit drug trafficking, and the prevention of terrorism”,
see details on the “succes stories” above.

A call for proposals was launched in September 2009 under the
project “Cooperation in Criminal Justice: Witness Protection in the Fight
against Serious Crime and Terrorism (WINPRO)”.  Assessment of full
applications will be concluded after the reporting period. The specific
objectives of the project are to promote a coordinated and harmonised use of
witness protection procedural and non procedural measures at regional and
European level; facilitate operational cross-border, regional and European
cooperation and coordination on relocation of witnesses and change of identity.

Support to the Regional Cooperation Council – see details on success stories above.

Civil Society Development and Dialogue

Civil society plays a fundamental role in bringing about the
acceptance and the implementation of EU values in aspiring EU Member States.
Several actions were under implementation:

- Under IPA 2007, the Multi-beneficiary Civil Society – Media
Project was under implementation during 2009. The project aims at
encouraging and accelerating media reform in the Beneficiaries, consolidating
European standards and bringing more media protection, professionalism and
independence by giving grants to UNESCO, Sense News Agency and nine public
broadcasters. Most of the contracts, all of which started at the end of 2008,
continued to be implemented during 2009. Regarding the Direct Agreement signed
with ‘Sense New Agency’ in order to contribute to "Strengthening
Regional News Exchange from the International War Crimes Tribunal (ICTY), the
international Court of Justice (ICJ) and the international Criminal Court
(ICC)", the celebration of the 400th edition of TV Tribunal and 9
years of Sense production was organised with judges and prosecutors from the
ICTY and ambassadors of the Western Balkans. The closing conference was held on
28 September 2009 in Brussels. The project continues its implementation during
2010.

- Civil Society Facility – see details on success stories
above.

- Under IPA 2007, Regional programme on
Civil Society – Media component in South-East Europe, the Commission invited the media stakeholders in the Western Balkans and Turkey to
pursue their efforts to align their audiovisual
legislation and practice with European standards on media and the European
legal framework. The process was kick-started in
December 2008 by a conference on "The Audiovisual
Media Services Directive in the context of digitalisation: a new era for
Europe's audiovisual media regulation" organised by the Commission in
Istanbul, Turkey.

9.2.4.2             Addressing the
Economic Criteria

IFI Cooperation and Competitiveness

The Western Balkans
Investment Framework (WBIF) – see details on success stories above – will
allow IFIs to consolidate financial instruments and resources available and
invest in a coordinated and strategic manner for the benefit of the Western
Balkans. The aim of the WBIF is to include the following facilities (up to 2009
only IPF) and funds under the same governance mechanism, and with the
beneficiaries’ direct involvement with the IFIs, the EU and bilateral donors on
the projects' requests:

(i) Support to
infrastructure investments, including Municipalities.

- Infrastructure Projects Facility (IPF): The IPF was
initially set up under CARDS and continued its implementation with additional
resources under IPA 2008. The IPF – Technical Assistance 2 was contracted in
November 2009 and mobilization of the project team into the region was due to follow
after the reporting period. The Municipal Window part of the IPF, contracted at
the end of 2009, provides grant co-financing of larger financial packages of
loans and grants from IFIs for municipal projects in the area of environment
(water treatment and sanitation, water distribution, district heating), and
transport (urban transport).

During 2009, discussions took place on the transition of the IPF
management structures – an operational Secretariat and a Steering Committee -
into the WBIF structures. These structures have now become the Project
Financiers' Group and the Steering Committee, respectively carrying out the
technical and financial analysis of projects and their approval for grant
funding.

(ii) Promotion of energy efficiency
investments

- Energy
Efficiency Finance Facility (EEFF): The aim is to financially assist the
beneficiary countries to promote investments in energy efficiency and renewable
energy generation in order to improve the energy performance of the building
and industry sectors. The Programme on Energy Efficiency Finance Facility under
IPA 2007, for which Contribution agreements with the EIB, the EBRD, and the CEB
in cooperation with Kreditanstalt für Wiederaufbau (KfW) were signed in 2008,
was under implementation during 2009. Under the Contribution agreement
between the EBRD and the Commission, two project agreements, one with
Banca Intesa in Serbia and one with Raffeisen Bank in Bosnia and
Herzegovina, were approved for funding and signed in March and April 2009
respectively. The projects will help the beneficiary banks extend
their portfolio of energy investments, improve
their capacity to manage the credit lines, prepare energy efficient projects
and assess investments in the field. The banks will also benefit from
tailored technical assistance for project preparation and verification.

- Southeast Europe
Energy Efficiency Fund under IPA 2009 (Crisis Response Package): The EIB,
KfW and the Commission have agreed in December 2009 to create a Southeast
Europe Energy Efficiency Fund (SE4F). The SE4F is structured as an investment
company with variable shared capital (“SICAV”). Its main activities consist in
promoting investments in energy efficiency for private and public entities. To
that effect, the Commission signed a mandate with the European Investment Fund
(EIF) in December 2009.

(iii) Support to private investments

-European Fund for Southeast Europe (EFSE): The aim is to
foster economic development and prosperity in Southeast Europe through
sustainable provision of additional development finance, notably to the small
and micro enterprise sector and to private households via local financial
institutions. EFSE is supported through all three IPA Programmes 2007- 2009.

EFSE is built as a Public
and Private Partnership with the aim of attracting private sector capital and
thereby leveraging public and donor funds into the region for the development
of the private sector. EFSE is a regional Fund extending loans to local
commercial banks and micro finance institutions in Albania, Bosnia and
Herzegovina, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Montenegro and Serbia,
as well as Kosovo, Romania, Bulgaria and Moldova for on lending to micro and
small enterprises and households.

Following the financial
crisis EFSE continued to monitor more closely its partners. By the end of the
reporting period no financial intermediaries benefiting from EFSE had defaulted
on their commitments, but portfolio quality decreased in some cases.

- Private Sector Support Facility for the Western Balkans
under IPA 2009 (Crisis Response Package): The purpose of the Facility is to
provide loans, supported by grants and technical assistance to the region for
(a) industrial investments necessary for SMEs to be in line with the acquis and
(b) energy efficiency investments in the private sector. The Facility shall
comprise three independent windows: (i) the SME Competitiveness Support Window,
(ii) the Energy Efficiency Window, and (iii) the EBRD Turn
Around Management and Business Advisory Service Programme
Window. The Contribution Agreement with EBRD for
managing the Facility was signed in December 2009. A similar Facility was set
up in December 2009 for Turkey.

- SME Recovery Support Loan (for Turkey) under IPA 2009
(Crisis Response Package): To assist local banks expand their lending for the
benefit of eligible investments carried out by SMEs. In the context of the
action, EIB shall extend loans from its own resources with the EU contribution
loans. The Contribution Agreement with the EIB was signed in December 2009.

(iv) Competitiveness and Trade

- The Regional Entrepreneurial Centre project under IPA 2009
aims at contributing to the implementation of the Small Business Act for Europe[107] using the
experience and the instruments developed in the application of the European
Charter for Small Enterprises, in particular the elements of entrepreneurship
and education and improved skills for enterprises. The contract with the South
East European Centre for Entrepreneurial Learning (SEECEL) for the
implementation of the project was signed in December 2009.

-
Trade: The aim of the projects under this area is to support the monitoring
and implementation of the Central European Free Trade Agreement 2006 (CEFTA) and
activities of the South East European Investment Committee. During 2009, three
programmes/projects were under implementation, Trade 2007, Trade 2008 and Trade
2009. In all the three, part of the IPA support was dedicated to co-financing
the CEFTA secretariat's operational costs. Other activities were aimed at
strengthening the administration capacity of the beneficiaries to formulate and
implement policies furthering both the implementation of CEFTA and promoting
trade and investment. The
CEFTA Joint Committee Meeting, composed of representatives of each Party to the
Agreement (ministers responsible for trade) took place on 29 October 2009 in
Montenegro.  Inter
alia,
the representatives reaffirmed their commitment to exploit CEFTA as a forum for
discussion and resolution of all the issues raised in mutual trade and
cooperation and stressed the importance of enhanced regional cooperation and
successful implementation of the Agreement as complimentary processes on their
ways to EU integration. The
CEFTA Secretariat started working on the preparations for the Serbian
Chairmanship of CEFTA for the year 2010.

Education

The aim of IPA Multi-Beneficiary assistance in this field is to support the modernisation, development and quality of higher
education systems through balanced cooperation between local higher education
institutions and those of the EU Member States. Multi-beneficiary
IPA assistance is provided in Education via the following programmes:

-Tempus IV: mainly
implemented through calls for proposals. During 2009, the second call for
proposals was completed. Out of the 127 applications received from Western
Balkans’ applicants, 24 were recommended for funding. 84% of the proposals
selected for funding were Joint
Projects which are based on multilateral partnerships
between higher education institutions in the EU and the Beneficiaries. 16% were
Structural Projects which seek to contribute to the development and
reform of education institutions and systems in Beneficiaries, as well as to
enhance their quality and increase their convergence with EU developments. The third call for proposals was launched. Also, information
campaigns and meetings with all national contact points in the EU and National
Tempus Offices took place and a thematic study on university governance was
completed. The study provided an outline of the measures and policies adopted
to improve university governance in the Tempus partner countries, mainly
through Tempus but also through the ongoing education policies and reforms. It
also highlighted the variety of governance models, for example in fundraising
or decision-making bodies inside institutions. Finally the study tried to
identify what higher education organisations and governments define as being
the principles of ‘good governance’.

- Erasmus Mundus: As from the academic year 2009-2010 (IPA
2008), students from Turkey are also eligible to this programme, which has been
renamed "Erasmus Mundus Western Balkans - Turkey Window". A total of
156 students from the Western Balkans and Turkey were selected for the academic
year 2009/2010.

Two projects for the Western Balkans Lot were selected in 2009, one
coordinated by Ghent University, the other by the University of Graz under the
former External Cooperation Window which was integrated at the end of 2008 as
Action II "Partnerships" under the new Erasmus Mundus II programme.
This action aims at promoting institutional cooperation and mobility
activities.

During 2009 a new project under IPA 2009 funds (activities starting
in the academic year 2010/2011) of EUR 20 million was earmarked for Erasmus
Mundus, out of which EUR 8 million are foreseen for Erasmus Mundus Action 1
(approximatly 200 scholarships for participation in Master Courses and Joint
Doctorate Programs) and EUR 12 million for Erasmus Mundus Action 2 (approximately
800 scholarships). The number of scholarships that can be delivered under this
scheme is indicatively estimated at maximum 1000.

Youth

The aim of IPA Multi-Beneficiary assistance in this field is to
promote the sector of non-formal education and youth in the region by (i)
supporting projects with partner countries and territories, in particular
exchanges of young people and those active in youth work and youth
organisations and (ii) support initiatives that reinforce mutual understanding,
sense of solidarity and tolerance among young people and/or develop cooperation
in the field of youth and civil society in these countries and territories.

The Western Balkans window, opened in 2007, provides additional
support for projects submitted by young people, youth organisations and civil
society organisations from the Western Balkans under the Youth in Action
programme. Activities include youth exchanges, European Voluntary Service
projects, and training and networking projects for youth workers and youth
organisations. These activities have a strong non-formal learning component and
are based on partnerships between organisations from the region and their
counterparts from the EU. Over the period 2007-2009, 337 projects submitted by
applicants from the Western Balkans were funded under the Youth in Action
Programme. Out of these, 214 projects were funded by the Programme itself and
an additional 123 projects by the complementary funds provided under IPA 2007
and IPA 2008 in the form of the Western Balkans Youth Window.

Under IPA 2007 support amounted to EUR 1 million and additional
support of EUR 1.5 million each year was provided for under IPA 2008 and 2009.
The EUR 1.5 million allocated under IPA 2009 will allow co-financing projects
in 2010.

The Youth in Action Programme is implemented on basis of a permanent
Call for Proposals, which foresees three deadlines (February, June and
September every year). In 2009, 110 projects were selected for funding
submitted by Western Balkans applicants. Out of these,  72 projects by the Youth Balkan Window. The geographic repartition
of the successful projects submitted by Western Balkan applicants were the
following: 40 projects presented by promoters from the former Yugoslav Republic
of Macedonia, 35 projects by Serbian promoters, 21 projects by Bosnian and Herzegovina
promoters, 8 projects by Albanian promoters, 3 projects by Montenegrin
promoters, 2 projects by Croatian promoters and 1 project by a Kosovan
promoter. In terms of thematic repartition, 6 projects (5 from the former
Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and 1 from Bosnia and Herzegovina) were granted
under the Action 2 of the Programme (European Voluntary Service) and 104
projects were selected under the Action 3.1 of the Programme (Cooperation with
neighbouring partner countries in the field of youth exchanges, training and
networking). The permanent priorities of Youth in Action Programme are the
following: European citizenship, participation of young people, cultural
diversity and inclusion of young people with fewer opportunities.

9.2.4.3.            European standards

Quality Infrastructure

The project Quality infrastructure in the Western Balkans and
Turkey is funded under IPA 2008 and was under implementation during 2009.
The aim is to improve the capacity of quality infrastructure bodies, all of
which implement strategies to comply with accession negotiations Chapter 1 of
the EU acquis, thereby enabling them to offer better services to
economic operators, to facilitate trade in the EU and EFTA market, as well as
in the markets of the beneficiaries. By the end of the reporting period,
assessment reports on the quality of infrastructure in the Western Balkans were
completed and approved. Two sectoral assessments in Turkey were conducted and
reported upon. Almost 50 laboratories and accreditation bodies from all
beneficiaries were selected to participate in the proficiency testing exercise,
and planning for the pre-proficiency testing training activity was completed.
The Cooperation Committee approved nine hands-on training subjects, for which a
tender was launched and networking activity begun. The project website was also
launched.

Industrial and Intellectual Property Rights (IPR)

There was one regional project on IPR under implementation during 2009
funded under IPA 2007. The aim was to provide technical
assistance to the intellectual and industrial property rights' authorities in
order to harmonise and to enforce processes and systems. The contract with the
European Patent Office (EPO) was signed in November 2008. During the inception
phase the beneficiaries submitted their request for technical assistance in the
four areas covered by the project: legal harmonisation, capacity building,
enforcement and sustainability of IP institutions. Project progress was
discussed at the steering committees held on 15 April and 26 October 2009.
Activities were being implemented in accordance to schedule in all four
components of the project, according to the agreed
prioritisation scheme. Between
October and December 2009, 12 activities related to workshops, training and
drafting of documentation started or were under implementation.

Food safety, veterinary
and phyto-sanitary policy

The project “Support for the control/eradication of animal
diseases” under IPA 2008 was under implementation during 2009. The aim is
to improve regional and cross-border cooperation in the Western Balkans and
thereby ensure that the control and eradication of important animal diseases is
harmonized and coordinated at a regional level. At the end of 2009, the tender
dossier was finalised and the contracting procedure initiated.

Energy

The aim of IPA Multi-Beneficiary assistance in this sector is to
contribute to the budget of the Energy Community. In
2009 the budget of the Energy Community, established in accordance with Annex
IV of the Treaty establishing the Energy Community[108],
amounted to almost EUR 2 million, out of which 98.10% was covered by IPA.
Regular reporting activities on the utilisation of the budget are made to the
Budget Committee of the Energy Community, chaired by the Commission, either
through monthly, quarterly and annual reports or in the course of the Budget
Committee meetings. Budget utilisation is dependent on the Work Program
approved by the Ministerial Council, the decision making body of the Energy
Community. Achievements of the Work Program are reported on a regularly basis
to the parties at institutional meetings (Ministerial Council, Permanent High
Level Group, Energy Community Regulatory Board). Formal
negotiations with Turkey for the accession to the Energy Community started
during 2009.

Customs
and Taxation

IPA Multi-Beneficiary
assistance in this field aims at ensuring that systems
and documentation in the area of taxation and customs are developed in accordance
with EU requirements. The project “Taxation and Customs IT interconnectivity
and operational capacity” under IPA 2007 was under implementation during
2009.  The EU contribution amounted to EUR 0.5 million. The project includes
technical assistance (CIRCA, development of strategic documents), development
of training modules on IT management, and field missions. Five field missions
and one workshop were undertaken during 2009. An additional amount of EUR 0.5
million was allocated under IPA 2009.

Statistics

IPA Multi-Beneficiary
assistance in this field supports the upgrade and
strengthening of the statistical systems in the Western Balkans, in particular
in macro-economic, price, external trade, agricultural, demographic and social
and business statistics. The main activities developed in 2009 included: expert
missions, workshops and seminars together with experts from the beneficiaries,
financing of data collection as well as general statistical assistance; study
visits to official statistics providers in Europe, training, consultation
visits and traineeships. Activities under three consecutive projects in this
field proceeded in 2009, as follows:

- Statistical cooperation
for the Western Balkans and Turkey under IPA 2007 
(EUR 3 million), July 2008 – March 2010. Implementation continued as scheduled
in 2009 and four progress reports were received during the last quarter of the year and approved by Eurostat. The second interim report under IPA 2007 was received in December
2009. Implementation of activities continued as scheduled. Positive development
to be integrated into the European Statistical System and to achieve sufficient
alignment with the statistical acquis was shown. Continued support is
required.

- Statistical cooperation
for the Western Balkans and Turkey under IPA 2008 
(EUR 4 million), December 2009 – November 2011. The project is implemented via
a single service contract, which was signed on 12 October 2009. The kick-off
meeting was held in December 2009 and implementation started.

- Statistical cooperation
for the Western Balkans and Turkey under IPA 2009 (EUR 5.4 million), December
2010 – November 2012. The project was in the design
phase at the end of 2009, namely preparation of the Terms of Reference and the
Contract Forecast.

Environment (including Climate Change)

Multi-beneficiary
IPA assistance is provided in Environment via the following programmes under
implementation during 2009:

- “Horizontal Programme on
Environment” under IPA 2007 – EUR1.6 million - Support for investment preparation
under the Danube-Black Sea (DABLAS) Task Force: a report was submitted, however
resolution of unforeseeable local complications in one project site (Serbia,
Novi Sad) is pending; support to monitoring transposition and implementation of
the EU environmental acquis: Final progress monitoring reports
for all Beneficiaries were agreed; developing the capacity of environmental
NGOs, through transfer of best practice from NGOs in the EU Member States.

- Multi-beneficiary Programme 2a - ENV- EUR 1.8 million: Activities
aim at a) improving integrated water management of the Sava river basin
following the approach of the EU Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC) and the
Floods Directive (2007/60/EC); b) improving investments in projects,
particularly relating to the protection of the water and water-related
ecosystems in the Danube River and the Black Sea as well as facilitating
stakeholder dialogue in relation to project financing in the IPA Beneficiaries
of the Danube – Black Sea region under the DABLAS Task Force. Contracts for all
activities were signed at the end of 2009.

- The project “Regional Environmental Network for Accession
(RENA)” under IPA 2009 – EUR 5.9 million was adopted in 2009. RENA aims at
establishing tools to assist IPA Beneficiaries in harmonising legal frameworks,
improving capacity and designing appropriate intervention mechanisms in line
with the EU environmental acquis. It will facilitate exchange of
experience and best practices in the field of environment (including climate
change) and help to jointly takle the environmental challenges (including
climate change). Procurement was carried out during 2009.

Nuclear safety and radiation protection

The aim of IPA
Multi-Beneficiary assistance in this field is to enhance
the technical competence and administrative capacity of national radiation
safety authorities and other relevant public organisations, contribute to
aligning national legislation and regulations in the nuclear field with the acquis
and support construction, fitting out and/or upgrading of facilities involving
the handling and management of radionuclides according to best EU practices.

The IPA horizontal
programme on nuclear safety and radiation protection started in 2007. The total
budget allocated over the last three years amounts to about EUR 24 million. A
total of 32 projects were programmed so far under this programme, out of which
8 have been contracted up to 2009.

The Contribution Agreement with the International Atomic Energy
Agency on support to the Vinča Nuclear Institute Decommissioning Project
under IPA 2008 was amended
in September 2009 in order to accelerate funding for the repatriation of the
spent nuclear fuel from Serbia to the Russian Federation and to cover some
modifications brought to the work programme.

Assessment of the regulatory infrastructure in the Western Balkan
countries under IPA 2008 came to an
end in December 2009 following the organisation of a concluding seminar which
took place in October 2009 in Ljubljana. As its main result, the project
produced a detailed assessment of the current situation regarding the nuclear
regulatory bodies in the Western Balkans and can be considered as very
successful. The final report provides a number of very valuable input data for
the future strategies to be drawn up in 2010 on national plans of actions to be
implemented by the Western Balkans in order to comply with the acquis in
the nuclear area until accession.

The Contribution Agreement with the International Atomic Energy
Agency on the assessment of the management of sealed radioactive sources in the
Western Balkan countries under IPA 2007 – regional component was extended until
after the reporting period, due to the late signature of an amendment extending
the project to Serbia and Kosovo. Discussion of the final report took place in
Vienna after the reporting period.

Assistance to enhance capabilities of the
Western Balkans to develope regulations on Naturally Occurring Radioactive
Materials and Technologically Enhanced Naturally Occurring Radioactive
Materials under IPA 2007 came to an end in December 2009 following a concluding seminar
that was held in Brussels. This assessment showed that specific legislation and
regulations on NORM and TENORM must be laid down by each Beneficiary. To a
large extent, this project can be considered as successful, since the final
report provided can been considered as a good reference point for future
actions to be taken.

Management of medical radioactive waste in Albania, Bosnia and
Herzegovina, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Montenegro and Serbia
as well as Kosovo under IPA 2007 was extended until after the reporting period to better finalise
reporting. The project was concluded by a technical seminar that was held in
December 2009 in Brussels. The project highlighted the rather important number
of gaps and deficiencies currently existing in each of the Western Balkans in
terms of regulations and management practices for radionuclides in medical
establishments. The project, by evaluating the current situation in the Western
Balkans, has managed to highlight a number of rather important gaps and
deficiencies currently existing in terms of regulations and management
practices for radionuclides in medical establishments which can be proved as a
good basis for future actions. Furthermore, the closing seminar was very well
perceived by the Beneficiaries. Under these circumstances, this project can be
characterised as a highly successful one.

Contribution Agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency
on the assessment of the prevention and combat of illicit trafficking of
nuclear materials and radiation sources in the Western Balkans under IPA 2007 has been
extended until after the reporting period due to the late signature of an
amendment extending the project to Serbia and Kosovo. Discussion of the final
report took place in Vienna.after the reporting period.

Monitoring of radioactivity of the environment in the Western
Balkans under IPA 2007 is about to
come to an end. The draft final report showed that an important effort must be
undertaken by each Beneficiary in order to comply with the acquis
(Articles 35 and 36 of the Euratom Treaty).

9.2.4.4             Participation in EU Programmes
and Agencies

The Western Balkans can
participate in EU agencies on a case-by-case basis and the ticket to participate in the programmes or agencies is financed
through the national IPA programmes. As was the case
with previous enlargements however, the EU supports the EU Agencies to prepare
their counterparts in the beneficiaries for participation in the activities of
the EU Agencies.

During 2009, several
grants were awarded under the 2008 IPA programme to prepare Beneficiaries for
future participation in the EU Agencies. The programme is implemented by the
following agencies: (i) Community Plant Variety Office; (ii) European Aviation
Safety Agency; (iii) European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control; (iv)
European Food Safety Authority; (v) European Maritime Safety Agency; (vi)
European Agency for Safety and Health at Work; (vii) European Foundation for
the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions; (viii) European Chemical
Agency; (ix) European Environment Agency; (x) European Monitoring Centre for
Drugs and Drug Addiction; (xi) European Medicines Agency and (xii) European Railway Agency.

Activities foreseen under
the programme adopted in 2007 (as well as under CARDS 2005), have ended during
2009. The Agencies presented their final reports under
the CARDS and IPA 2007 programmes to the Commission for assessment. As this
assistance continues under the IPA 2008 programme, it is too soon to present
final results, but it can be concluded that some beneficiaries are already
knocking on the door of some Agencies, notably the EEA and the EMCDDA. Croatia
planed to join the EMCDDA sometimes in 2010.

A conference organised by
the EMCDDA in Sintra (Lisbon, Portugal) in November 2009 allowed beneficiaries
to exchange views with the Agencies. At this event both parties increased their
mutual understanding on the needs, requirements and way forward.

9.3.
Coherence, compatibility and coordination of aid

For
the programming of the Multi-beneficiary Programme, DG Enlargement has
established a transparent consultation process with EU Member States and other
donors, IFIs, Civil Society Organisations and the Regional Cooperation Council.
This process aims at ensuring complementarities and avoiding overlaps. DG
Enlargement staff responsible for the implementation of the Multi-beneficiary
programmes also participate in regional networks and structures to facilitate
coordination amongst the stakeholders and donors active in the region. Special
importance is being given to the role of the RCC as the interlocutor for the
Beneficiaries, especially for the regional cooperation process in the Western
Balkans.

The
Commission ensures regular written consultation on programme/project
documentation, including Project Fiches, to EU Member States and other donors,
IFIs, Civil Society Organisations and the RCC. Other Donors also communicate
pertinent information regarding bilateral projects in the fields covered by the
Multi-beneficiary programme. In the case of projects to be implemented under
joint management with International Organisations or in cooperation with IFIs,
close consultations are maintained in order to ensure coordination for projects
jointly developed.

Several IPA
Multi-beneficiary Coordination meetings with the Beneficiaries were organised
during 2009: in Brussels on 15-16 January 2009, where it was concluded that further efforts to inform and involve the EU Delegations and
Beneficiaries in the implementation of the Multi-beneficiary Programmes should
be made; in Croatia on 9-10 June 2009, where strategic
discussions on the Multi-beneficiary programme 2011-2013  held in workshops
took place; in Skopje on 18-19 November 2009 where the preliminary outcomes of
the various Strategic Working Group meetings held in October 2009 in Brussels
were exchanged.

As already mentioned, a
Multi-beneficiary Donor Coordination Meeting took place on 2 July 2009 to start
discussing the preliminary project ideas for the Multi-beneficiary Programme
2010, in order to ensure synergies and avoid overlaps, as well as to explain
the different steps for the programming of IPA Multi-beneficiary assistance in
2011 - 2013. IFIs and implementing agencies, in particular from the UN
organisations were also involved in the discussions of the Sector Working
Groups, set up to better analyse the needs for regional cooperation and tailor
accordingly the MIPD for the new programming cycle 2011 – 2013.

In comparison with
previous years, participation from the Beneficiaries and other donors in the
exchange of information has considerably increased, in particular with regards
to the new approach to 2011-13 Multi-Beneficiary IPA programming, focusing on
long-term strategic planning with Beneficiaries and other relevant donors from
the initiation phase on, including project preparation.

9.4.
Monitoring

IPA Multi-beneficiary
programmes are monitored by an external company using Results-Oriented
Monitoring (ROM). The purpose of ROM is to provide a clear, objective,
consistent and user-friendly snapshot on projects implementation as well as
providing information on best practices/common mistakes and recommendations for
improvement to the Commission and the Beneficiaries.

Through a consistent
approach, with standardised outputs, ROM highlights strengths and weaknesses in
the implementation of EU external assistance projects, by assessing projects’
relevance, quality of design, efficiency, impact and sustainability. The
general principle and aim is to monitor ongoing projects of at least EUR 1
million EU contribution and a minimum duration of 12 months.

The average ratings for CARDS and IPA Regional and Multi-beneficiary
projects monitored in 2009 in comparison to the ones monitored in 2008 show
improvements in almost all criteria (see balow), and a better performance in
average. During the reporting period, 25 projects were monitored by means of
152 monitoring missions. The majority (68.8%) of regional projects
monitored in 2009 are in the area of good performance. No reports flagged
serious problems in project implementation. However there is one project,
“European Investor Outreach Program (EIOP) – Phase 2” which has shown a low
performance in terms of sustainability, i.e. likelihood of a continuation in
the stream of benefits produced by the project after the period of external
support has ended.

Criterion || 2008 || 2009

Relevance/Quality of design || 2.81 || 2.89

Efficiency || 2.99 || 2.86

Effectiveness || 2.82 || 3.00

Impact || 2.94 || 2.96

Sustainability || 2.91 || 3.06

Average[109] || 2.89 || 2.95

In general, project
managers carry out several monitoring missions to the projects they are
responsible for, participate in steering committees and meet regularly the
project stakeholders. To complement the day-to-day project management and
missions undertaken to verify the progress of the projects, a system of
Monitoring Maps per project has been put in place in late 2009. These
monitoring maps are a way of systematically monitor individual contracts based
on an initial risk assessment of what type of controls are necessary for the
contract followed by the identification of the appropriate means of control
(verification, missions, external monitoring, audits etc).

PART III: FINANCIAL DATA

BREAKDOWN OF IPA COMMITMENTS IN 2009 IN MILLION EUR

1. COMPONENT I – TRANSITION ASSISTANCE AND INSTITUTION BUILDING PROGRAMMES

Country Allocations

Country || Annual Programme || Nuclear Safety || Tempus || budget Support || Total

Albania || 69.86 || 0.50 || 1.00 || - || 71.36

Bosnia & Herzegovina || 80.50 || 1.00 || 2.40 || - || 83.90

Croatia || 44.60 || 1.00 || - || - || 45.60

former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia || 37.06 || 0.50 || 1.75 || - || 39.31

Kosovo || 103.60 || 0.30 || 2.20 || - || 106.10

Montenegro || 28.43 || 0.20 || 1.20 || - || 29.83

Serbia || 70.55 || 5.00 || 7.00 || 100.00 || 182.55

Turkey || 204.55 || - || - || - || 204.55

TOTAL || 639.15 || 8.50 || 15.55 || 100.00 || 763.20

Multi-Beneficiary Allocations

Programme || Total\*

Multi-beneficiary Programme I || 19.30

Multi-beneficiary Programme II || 168.50

Support to the operational budget of the Office of the High Representative (OHR) in Bosnia and Herzegovina || 5.93

Contribution to the Energy Community budget || 2.94

TAIEX || 9.00

Information and Communication || 9.00

Monitoring || 6.00

Evaluation and Audit || 3.20

TOTAL || 223.87

\*Excluding Nuclear Safety and Tempus, which
are presented under the country allocations table

1.2 Component II – Cross Border Cooperation Programmes

1.2.1 Cross Country Cooperation Programmes with Member States

Country || Bulgaria || Greece || Hungary || Romania || Slovenia || Adriatic Programme || Total

Albania || - || 1.63 || - || - || - || 5.90 || 7.53

Bosnia & Herzegovina || - || - || - || - || - || 2.45 || 2.45

Croatia || - || - || 2.62 || - || 3.21 || 7.31 || 13.14

former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia || 1.34 || 1.47 || - || - || - || - || 2.81

Kosovo || - || - || - || - || - || - || 0.00

Montenegro || - || - || - || - || - || 1.36 || 1.36

Serbia || 2,36 || - || 2,49 || 2,94 || - || 0,60 || 8.39

Turkey || 2.05 || - || - || - || - || - || 2.05

TOTAL || 5.75 || 3.10 || 5.11 || 2.94 || 3.21 || 17.62 || 37.73

1.2.2 Cross Country Cooperation Programmes between IPA countries
and Participation in transnational programmes

Country || Albania || Bosnia & Herzegovina || Croatia || fYR Macedonia || Montenegro || Serbia || ERDF SE Europe / Med || ENPI Black Sea || Total

Albania || - || - || - || 0.85 || 0.85 || - || 0.60 || - || 2.30

Bosnia & Herzegovina || - || - || 1.00 || - || 0.50 || 0.70 || 0.56 || - || 2.76

Croatia || - || 1.00 || - || - || 0.40 || 0.80 || 0.56 || - || 2.76

former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia || 1.00 || - || - || - || - || - || 0.56 || - || 1.56

Kosovo || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || 0.00

Montenegro || 0.60 || 0.60 || 0.50 || - || - || 0.60 || 1.01 || - || 3.31

Serbia || - || 1.10 || 1.00 || - || 0.50 || - || 1.26 || - || 3.86

Turkey || - || - || - || - || - || - || - || 1.00 || 1.00

TOTAL || 1.60 || 2.70 || 2.50 || 0.85 || 2.25 || 2.10 || 4.55 || 1.00 || 17.55

1.3 Component III – Regional Development Programmes

Country || Regional Competitiveness || Transport || Environment || Technical Assistance || Total

Croatia || 12.70 || 18.50 || 18.50 || - || 49.70

former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia || - || 15.70 || 3.90 || 1.20 || 20.80

Turkey || 54.8 || 60.3 || 67.6 || - || 182.70

TOTAL || 67.50 || 94. 5 || 90.00 || 1.20 || 253.20

1.4 Component IV – Human Resources Development Programmes

Country || Reducing Unemployment || Social Inclusion || Education and Training / Human Capital Investment || Technical Assistance / Administrative Capacity || Total

Croatia || 2.85 || 4.00 || 5.95 || 1.4 || 14.20

former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia || 2.85 || 2.13 || 1.42 || 0.70 || 7.10

Turkey || 8.56 || 17.00 || 4.25 || 25.79 || 55.60

TOTAL || 14.26 || 23.13 || 11.62 || 27.89 || 76.90

1.5 Component V – Rural Development Programmes

Country || EU Standards || Preparatory actions for Agri- Environmental measures and Leader || Development of Rural Economy || Technical Assistance || Total

Croatia || 16.77 || 0.00 || 8.00 || 1.03 || 25.80

former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia || 7.96 || 0.00 || 1.84 || 0.41 || 10.21

Turkey || 62.42 || 0.00 || 21.38 || 1.71 || 85.51

TOTAL || 87.15 || 0.00 || 31.22 || 3.15 || 121.52

[1]               Croatia, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia
and Turkey. As Iceland became formally a beneficiary of IPA assistance only in
2010, this annual report does not yet cover for programming and implementation
of IPA assistance to Iceland. References to candidate countries in the text of
this report and in the background document must be understood to refer only to
Croatia, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and Turkey.

[2]               Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Montenegro, Serbia
and Kosovo under UNSCR 1244/99.

[3]               Council Regulation (EEC) No 3906/89 of 19 December
1989.

[4]               Instrument for Structural Policies for Pre-Accession,
Council Regulation (EC) No 1267/1999 of 21 June 1999.

[5]               Special Accession Programme for Agriculture and Rural
Development, Council Regulation (EC) No 1268/1999 of 21 June 1999.

[6]               Council Regulation (EC) No 2500/2001 of 17 December
2001.

[7]               Community Assistance for Reconstruction, Development
and Stabilisation, Council Regulation (EC) No 2666/2000 of 5 December 2000.

[8]               Special Accession Programme
for Agriculture and Rural Development.

[9]               For two measures out of seven.

[10]             For three measures out of four under the IPARD
Programme.

[11]             Albania 2009 Progress Report, SEC(2009) 1337 of 14
October 2009, available at http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/pdf/key\_documents/2009/al\_rapport\_2009\_en.pdf.

[12]             Communication from the Commission to the Council and
the European Parliament: Enlargement Strategy and Main Challenges 2008-2009,
COM(2008)674 final, of 5 November 2008, http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/pdf/press\_corner/key-documents/reports\_nov\_2008/strategy\_paper\_incl\_countryconclu\_en.pdf.

[13]             Communication from the Commission to the Council and
the European Parliament 'Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance (IPA)
Multi-Annual Indicative Financial Framework for 2010-2012', COM(2008)705 of 5
November 2008.

[14]             Final allocations (shown in the main report and in
table 2) differ from these indicative figures following transfers between
components I and II during the course of 2009.

[15]             Supporting Public Administration Reform in Croatia -
Thematic evaluation of EU and other support,

                June 2009.

[16]             Under UNSCR 1244/99.

[17]             Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the
Council, Kosovo\* - Fulfilling its European Perspective, COM(2009)534 final, of
14 October 2009, p. 14.

[18]             Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25
June 2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the
European Communities (OJ L 248, 16 September 2002, p. 1), as amended by Council
Regulation (EC) No 1525/2007 of 17 December 2007 (OJ L 343, 27 December 2007,
p. 9).

[19]             Commission Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2342/2002 of 23
December 2002 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council
Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to
the general budget of the European Communities (OJ L 357, 31 December 2002, p.
1) as last amended by Commission Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 478/2007 of 23
April 2007 (OJ L 111, 28 April 2007, p. 13).

[20]             Remains to be contracted (Reste
à Contracter).

[21]             Remains to be paid (Reste à
Liquider).

[22]             Includes
an additional € 3.12 million allocated during the year 2008 following the
Gerdec explosion.

[23]             The Albanian Government has assigned AlbInvest three strategic
goals: assisting and accelerating the inflow of foreign investment into the
Albanian economy, improving the competitiveness of Albanian exporters, and
providing professional services to assist the growth of Albanian SMEs.
(www.albinvest.gov.al).

[24]             Bosnia and Herzegovina 2009 Progress Report, SEC(2009)
1338 of 14 October 2009, available at http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/pdf/key\_documents/2009/ba\_rapport\_2009\_en.pdf.

[25]             Communication from the Commission to the Council and
the European Parliament 'Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance (IPA)
Multi-Annual Indicative Financial Framework for 2010-2012', COM(2008)705 of 5
November 2008.

[26]             Remains to be contracted (Reste à Contracter).

[27]             Remains to be paid (Reste à Liquider).

[28]             Enlargement Strategy and Main Challenges 2009-2010, COM(2009)
533 of 14 October 2009,
http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/pdf/key\_documents/2009/strategy\_paper\_2009\_en.pdf.

[29]             Croatia 2009 Progress Report, SEC(2009) 1333
of 14 October 2009, available at http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/pdf/key\_documents/2009/hr\_rapport\_2009\_en.pdf.

[30]             Enlargement
Strategy and Main Challenges 2009-2010, COM(2009)
533 of 14 October 2009,
http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/pdf/key\_documents/2009/strategy\_paper\_2009\_en.pdf.

[31]             Multi-annual Indicative Planning Document (MIPD)
2009-2011, C(2009)5371 of  9 July 2009, http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/pdf/mipd\_croatia\_2009\_2011\_en.pdf.

[32]             Communication from the Commission to the Council and
the European Parliament 'Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance (IPA)
Multi-Annual Indicative Financial Framework for 2010-2012', COM(2008)705 of 5
November 2008.

[33]             As foreseen by Art. 166 (3)(a) of Regulation (EC,
Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002.

[34]             Supporting Public Administration Reform in Croatia – Thematic
Evaluation of EU and other support, MWH Consortium,
June 2009.

[35]             2009 Country Program Interim
Evaluation of EU Pre-accession Assistance to Croatia, Economisti Associati, draft report of 22 December 2009, final
report of 12 March 2010.

[36]             Only regarding cross-border programme between IPA
beneficiaries and the participation of Croatia in ERDF transnational
programmes, whereas for cross-border programmes with Member States management
of assistance does not require a conferral on Croatia by the Commission as it
is operated under shared management.

[37]             Remains to be paid (Reste à Liquider).

[38]             Remains to be contracted (Reste à Contracter).

[39]             Disbursements did not yet start under Component V as
the process of conferral of management requires more time than other
components, based on the principle of full decentralisation without any ex
ante controls by the Commission.

[40]             As foreseen by Art. 166 (3)(a) of Regulation (EC,
Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002.

[41]             Election day on 1 June
was marred by a large number of security incidents and acts of violence,
including the death of one person in Aracinovo, and injuries to several others
in exchanges of gun-fire in a suburb of Skopje. There were also reports of a
significant number of instances of ballot box stuffing, tampering with results,
family voting, voter intimidation and other acts of electoral malpractice and,
last but not least, weak and partisan action of police forces since the
beginning of the electoral campaign.

[42]             The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia 2009 Progress
Report, SEC(2009) 1335, 14.10.2009, available at http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/pdf/key\_documents/2009/mk\_rapport\_2009\_en.pdf.

[43]             C(2009)5043, 29.06.2009.

[44]             "Past and ongoing assistance" is
mentioned in headings of all MIPDS and NPs/APs. It refers to the whole cycle of
financial assistance, from design to implementation.

[45]             Communication from the Commission to the Council and
the European Parliament 'Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance (IPA)
Multi-Annual Indicative Financial Framework for 2010-2012', COM(2008)705 of 5
November 2008.

[46]             Final allocations (shown in the main report and in
table 2) differ from these indicative figures following transfers between
components I and II during the course of 2009.

[47]             The amounts in brackets refer to the EU contribution
(excl. national co-financing).

[48]             The amounts under 'Budget' refer to the EU contribution.

[49]             Under
UNSCR 1244/1999.

[50]             The exception is the CBC programme with Bulgaria, which
is implemented under shared management by the Member State, where a multiannual
Decision taken in December 2007 covers the first three years; it is implemented
by means of a multi-annual Financing Agreement between the Commission and the
Government of the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia.

[51]             Commission Regulation (EC) No 718/2007 of 12.6.2007

[52]             The beneficiary country shall put in place an organisational
structure (see sub-section 2 of the IPA Implementing Regulation), namely
the NIPAC, CAO, NAO, National Fund, Audit Authority and Operating Structures
per IPA component or programme. Also internal controls and procurement
procedures necessary to meet the minimum requirements for the related
internal control standards set out in Annex I of the IPA Regulation must be set
up.

[53]             Remains to be paid (Reste à Liquider).

[54]             Remains to be contracted (Reste à Contracter).

[55]             CIP has three sub-programmes: 1. Entrepreneurship and
Innovation Programme (EIP), 2. Information and Communication Technology
Programme (ICT) and 3. Intelligent Energy Europe Programme (IEE). Participation
in EIP in 2007 and 2008 was co-financed with CARDS funds, whereas participation
in the other two sub-programmes was co-financed with IPA funds.

[56]             Conferral of management power for Component V was
granted by the Commission Decision C/2009/10123 on 18 December 2009.

[57]             Shadow Sectoral and Joint Monitoring Committees are
held for Component I of IPA because the conferral of management powers for this
component is not granted to the national authorities.

[58]             Under United Nations Security Council Resolution 1244
of 10 June 1999.

[59]             Kosovo under UNSCR 1244/99 2009 Progress Report, SEC
(2009) 1340 of 14 October 2009, available at http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/pdf/key\_documents/2009/ks\_rapport\_2009\_en.pdf.

[60]             Under UNSCR 1244/99.

[61]             COM (2009) 5343 of 14 October 2009.

[62]             C (2009) 5438 of 10 July 2009.

[63]             Communication from the Commission to the Council and
the European Parliament 'Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance (IPA)
Multi-Annual Indicative Financial Framework for 2010-2012', COM(2008)705 of 5
November 2008.

[64]             Final allocations (shown in the main report and in
table 2) differ from these indicative figures following transfers between
components I and II during the course of 2009.

[65]             Remains to be contracted (Reste à Contracter).

[66]             Remains to be paid (Reste à Liquider).

[67]             Council Decision 2007/49/EC.

[68]             Montenegro 2009 Progress Report, SEC(2009) 1336 of
14/10/2009, available at http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/pdf/key\_documents/2009/mn\_rapport\_2009\_en.pdf.

[69]             It will be complementary to the EIDHR programme dealing
with democracy and human rights.

[70]             Communication from the Commission to the Council and
the European Parliament 'Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance (IPA)
Multi-Annual Indicative Financial Framework for 2010-2012', COM(2008)705 of 5
November 2008.

[71]             Remains to be contracted (Reste à Contracter).

[72]             Remains to be paid (Reste à Liquider).

[73]             Serbia 2009 Progress Report, SEC(2009) 1339 of 14 October 2009,
available at  http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/pdf/key\_documents/2009/sr\_rapport\_2009\_en.pdf.

[74]             Communication from the Commission to the Council and
the European Parliament 'Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance (IPA)
Multi-Annual Indicative Financial Framework for 2010-2012', COM(2008)705 of 5
November 2008.

[75]             Remains to be contracted (Reste à Contracter).

[76]             Remains to be paid (Reste à Liquider).

[77]             The Energy Treaty for the establishment of an Energy
Community comprises countries from the EU and South- East Europe.

[78]             Further information is available in the annual TAIEX
activity reports:
http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/taiex/publications/reports/index\_en.htm.

[79]             Turkey 2009 Progress Report, SEC(2009)1334 of
14/10/2009, available at http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/pdf/key\_documents/2009/tr\_rapport\_2009\_en.pdf.

[80]             Commission Decision C(2009)5041 of 29 June 2009
available at http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/pdf/mipd\_turkey\_2009\_2011\_en.pdf.

[81]             SEC(2008) 2699 published 5 November 2008 available at http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/pdf/press\_corner/key-documents/reports\_nov\_2008/turkey\_progress\_report\_en.pdf.

[82]             Special Report No 16/2009 The European Commission’s
management of pre-accession assistance to Turkey, published on published on
13 January 2010. Available at
http://eca.europa.eu/portal/pls/portal/docs/1/3632589.PDF.

[83]             Thematic Report No. R/ZZ/MIPD/0815 from 21 September
2009.

[84]             Communication from the Commission to the Council and
the European Parliament 'Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance (IPA)
Multi-Annual Indicative Financial Framework for 2010-2012', COM(2008)705 of 5
November 2008.

[85]             Final allocations (shown in the main report and in
table 2) differ from these indicative figures following transfers between
components I and II during the course of 2009.

[86]             C(2009)9135 of 20 November 2009.

[87]             C(2008)7406 of 27 November 2008.

[88]             C(2007)6477. The programme will be updated in 2010.

[89]             The Environment, Transport, Regional Competitiveness
and Human Resources Development operational programmes were adopted,
respectively, by Commission Decisions C(2007)5758 of 29 November 2007,
C(2007)6053 of 7 December 2007, C(2007)5758 of 29 November 2007 and C(2007)6030 of 7 December 2007. These
operational programmes will be updated in 2010.

[90]             C(2008)691of 25 February
2008.

[91]             C(2009)8022.

[92]             Background document to the 2008 annual report on the
implementation of the instrument for pre-accession COM(2009)699 final available
at
http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/pdf/press\_corner/key-documents/financial\_assistance/2008/annex\_working\_document\_en.pdf.

[93]             The Commission had transferred management powers to
Turkey for Component I in 2008 and on that same year had granted Turkey's
participation in the ENPI Black Sea basin programme under Component II.

[94]             2008 Annual Report on the Implementation of Instrument
of Pre-Accession COM(2009)699 final of 23 December 2009.

[95]             Remains to be paid (Reste à Liquider).

[96]             Remains to be contracted (Reste à Contracter).

[97]             ROM is based on regular on-site assessments by
independent experts of ongoing projects and programmes which are
methodologically appraised against the criteria: relevance, efficiency,
effectiveness, potential impact and likely sustainability.

[98]             That is, risks associated with the “n+3” budgetary
rule, as foreseen by Art. 166 (3)(a) of Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002
of 25 June 2002.

[99]             Under UNSCR 1244/99.

[100]            C(2009)4518, 16 June 2009.

[101]            Communication from the Commission to the Council and the
European Parliament 'Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance (IPA) Multi-Annual
Indicative Financial Framework for 2010-2012', COM(2008)705 of 5 November 2008.

[102]            These indicative figures from the 2010-2012 MIFF differ
from those in the main report following additional funds becoming available
from the support expenditure envelope. See also footnote 105.

[103]            This amount includes national funds for Tempus, Nuclear
safety and radiation protection and the crisis package for Turkey, as well as
the use of carried over assigned revenues. This explains the difference between
the figures here and those in the main report. Note that the amounts for Tempus
and Nuclear Safety are also included in each country table 2.

[104]            Ad-hoc evaluation of the CARDS
regional programmes in the Western Balkans, Final report, December 2008.

[105]            Remains to be contracted (Reste à Contracter).

[106]            Remains to be paid (Reste à Liquider).

[107]           
http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/policies/sme/small-business-act/.

[108]            http://www.energy-community.org/portal/page/portal/ENC\_HOME/ENERGY\_COMMUNITY/Legal/Treaty.

[109]            Explanation of ROM Ratings:  4
=Very Good; 3=Good; 2=Problems; 1=Serious deficiencies.

[Top](#document1)