General overview of the European Neighbourhood Policy (ENP) and the European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument (E

1. General overview of the European Neighbourhood Policy (ENP) and the European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument (ENPI) ENP policy seminar HBf and WWFBrussels, November 2006Paloma AgrasotWWF Neighbourhood Policy Programme Manager

2. The "Wider Europe" Concept (COM(2003) 104 final) • 2003: EU gets new neighbours. • Aims at creating anenlarged area of political stability and prosperity, a “friendly neighbourhood” to avoid “dividing lines”. • Based on the recognition of the common values: rule of law, good governance, the respect for human rights, including minority rights, the promotion of good neighbourly relations, and the principles of market economy and sustainable development.

3. The "Wider Europe" Concept (COM(2003) 104 final) • The ENP embodies this concept • And foresees that the EU will act to promote regional cooperation and integration as preconditions for political stability, economic development and the reduction of poverty. • It will be an importantgeopolitical instrument.

4. ENP countries Eastern borders Belarus, Ukraine, Moldova, Armenia, Georgia, Azerbaijan, (Russia : special status) Southern borders Syria, Lebanon, Israel, Palestine, Jordan, Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Libya, Egypt Note: Turkey and the Balkans countries (seen as potential candidates) are not directly concerned but can benefit from cross border programmes.

5. ENP Policy framework • Previous partnership andcooperation agreementswith the partner country, when existing. • European Commission’s Strategy Paper of the ENP(2004)and other COM communications. • National Action Plans that also include transnational component (there is no “regional action plans”!)

6. The implementation “steps” • Country report for each NC= the current situation in ENP counties, by DG Relex. • Action Plans (EU and the NC Government) • ENPI regulation (co-decision EP & Council, Commission) • Country Strategy papers (Local authorities, EU Delegation, EC: DG RELEX leading, DG ENV advise) • National Indicative Programmes (id) • Annual Action Plan (id)

7. Action Plans (AP) • Tailor-made to reflect the particular circumstances and objectives of each partner country (nevertheless they are all very similar…) • Do not contain anything that does not have the full approval of both sides, • Requires a mutual commitment to common values between EU and ENP countries • All components are NOT automatically implemented with EU funds.

8. Content of the Action Plans • All have acommon structure, all give top priority to broad economic, governance and security issues; • Most have text that opens the way for promoting civil society access to information and participation in decision-making (though these words are not used!); • Environmental considerations are not integrated into sections like Transport and Energy; • Specificenvironmental themes(forests, freshwater, marine, climate change, toxics, protected areas) are rarely mentioned.

9. The ENPI financial instrument The ENPI is a“simplification”of existing instruments : • replaces existing instruments for external policies (geographic and thematic); • isone of the three major geographical financial instrumentsof EU external policies in the financial perspective 2007-2013.

10. EU financial perspectivesHeading 4: “The EU as a Global Partner” Geographic Instuments (1 country) Developt. Co-op Instr. (new) (Asia, Central Asia, East-Jordan, Latin America, ACP plus thematic) DCI Europ. Neighbourhood & Partnership Instrument (new) (TACIS, MEDA and cross-border cooperation) ENPI Pre-Accession Instrument (new) (candidate and potential candidate Countries: the Balkans) IPA HorizontalInstruments Instrument for Stability (new) SI Macro-Financial Assistance MFAI Humanitarian Aid Instrument HAI

11. The ENPI regulation • Proposed by the Commission (when? 04), amended by the EP and adopted by the Council (Oct 06) • Large scope of assistance including development of civil society and NGOs (Art 2), • Different types of programmes: Country, Multi- Country (“trans-regional”) and Cross Border (Art 6) • Strong emphasis on CB programmes (new!) Title III (Art 9 to 11)

12. The ENPI regulation (2) • Various types of beneficiaries: NGOs included (Art. 14); • Easy access to financial intermediaries and international organisations (EIB, WB, UN, etc) • Various types of measures (Art 15): twinning, sector budgetary support, micro-projects……(credible?) • Financing of projects involving countries not covered by the ENP (projects of global, regional or CBC nature) (Art. 9 and 27).

13. The ENPI regulation, and SD and the environment • Objectives: promoting sustainable development, environmental protection and good management of natural resources, renewable energy, energy efficiency, clean transport; (whereas…) • SD and environmental protection very detailed (nature protection, freshwater, marine) in the scope of cooperation (Art. 2)

14. The ENPI regulation, and SD and the environment (2) • Consistency with community policy: one of the main principles of the Regulation; (Art. 5) • No environmental conditionality at all, evaluation requirements very poor with regards the overall ENPI (Art. 24) and the CBC (Art.9.7) • So… greening the strategies, implementation rules and guidelines is crucial!

15. The ENPI money • An envelopeof nearly15 billion €wasproposed by the Commission; the EP proposed 17 billion € • The final figure is smaller: 11.181 M€ of which a min of 95 % for geographic programmes and up to 5 % for CBC programmes. (Art. 29) • Co-financingwill be mandatory to promote ownership. • Management stays in the hands of the EC, assisted by a Committee (Art. 26) • The EP has a minor role: regular information but no decision (Art. 26)

16. Implementation tools: • Countryormulti-country programmesi) Covering assistance to one partner country; ii) addressing regional or sub regional cooperation between two or more partner countries, in which Member States may participate. • Cross-border cooperation programmescovering cooperation between one or more Member States and one or more partner countries, taking place in regions adjacent to the shared part of the external border of the EU. • Thematic programmes, addressing one or more specific challenges which may be relevant to one or more Member States.

17. A) Country or multi-country programmes • CSP, RSP and NIP, RIP; • Based on the APs but more focussed • Commission has the leading role, not shared with the EP or the MS • Prepared in some cases (Caucasus) parallel to the negotiations of the APs • Negotiated with the NC Governments. Risk is when these don’t see civil society participation and sustainable development as a priority …

18. B) Cross Border Component • Based on the INTERREG cross border experience between Third countries and MS. • INTERREG: Instrument financing the programmes on the EU side, combined in the past with external funding instruments. • CBC/ENP simplifies this system. From 2007: only one instrument for “both sides”. • “Joint programmes” covering regions of Member States and of partner countries sharing a common border. • Co-financed by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF).

19. C) Thematic programmes Formerly in the draft ENPI regulation, now under EU development cooperation instrument (DCI) • Programmes on the following issues: • Democracy and Human Rights. • Investing in People • Environment and sustainable management of natural resources including energy • Non state actors and local authorities in development • Food security • Migration and asylum

20. The thematic programme on environment and sustainable management of natural resources including energy • Established for the period 2007-13; • The programme will: provide support for global initiatives, support the capacity of developing countries government and civil society, provide operational support to Multilateral agreements and promote EC environmental policy abroad; • Fully applied to the DCI. In the ENPI context support will be focussed on biodiversity, climate change and energy.

21. To conclude: how it works “in reality” • This should be the process for each NC (“lineaire”) … but is not • Regional processes should be similar … but are not or are not clear yet • Differences between the South (Mediterranean) and the East (new context?) • So much work to do!

22. Thank you, Paloma Agrasot WWF European Policy Office Neighbourhood Programme Manager pagrasot@wwfepo.org www.panda.org/eu