16 The EU Eastern Partnership
| (a)
(30248)
16940/08
COM(08) 823
(b)
(30249)
16941/08
SEC(08) 2974
|
Commission Communication: Eastern Partnership
Commission Staff Working Document accompanying the Commission Communication Eastern Partnership
|
| Legal base | — |
| Document originated | 3 December 2008
|
| Deposited in Parliament | 10 December 2008
|
| Department | Foreign and Commonwealth Office
|
| Basis of consideration | Minister's letter of 18 May 2009
|
| Previous Committee Report | HC 19-xiii (2008-09), chapter 1 (1 April 2009), HC 19-xi (2008-09), chapter 5 (18 March 2009) and HC 19-ii (2008-09), chapter 7 (17 December 2008)
|
| Discussed in Council | 11-12 December European Council
|
| Committee's assessment | Politically important
|
| Committee's decision | Cleared; Debated in European Committee B on 27 April 2009; further information now provided
|
Background
16.1 The June 2008 European Council initially discussed the idea
of an Eastern Partnership (EaP), based on a Polish/Swedish proposal.
It envisaged "enhancing EU policy towards eastern European
Neighbourhood Policy (ENP)[62]
partners in bilateral and multilateral formats", and agreed
on:
"the need to further promote regional cooperation among the
EU's eastern neighbours and between the EU and the region, as
well as bilateral cooperation between the EU and each of these
countries respectively, on the basis of differentiation and an
individual approach, respecting the character of the ENP as a
single and coherent policy framework."
16.2 It said that such cooperation "should bring added value
and be complementary to the already existing and planned multilateral
cooperation under and related to the ENP, in particular the Black
Sea Synergy and the Northern Dimension", and invited the
Commission to take the work forward and present to the Council
in Spring 2009 "a proposal for modalities of the "Eastern
Partnership", on the basis of relevant initiatives."[63]
16.3 The Extraordinary Council on 1 September, which
met to discuss the crisis in Georgia, noted with concern the impact
of the crisis on the whole of the region, and considered that
it was "more necessary than ever to support regional cooperation
and step up its relations with its eastern neighbours, in particular
through its neighbourhood policy, the development of the "Black
Sea Synergy" initiative and an "Eastern Partnership"".
The Council indicated that it now wished to adopt this partnership
in March 2009 and, to this end, invited the Commission to submit
its proposals sooner, in December 2008.[64]
The Commission Communication
16.4 The Communication presents proposals for an
ambitious and specific Eastern dimension within the ENP. It advocates
a "step-change in relations" with the six Eastern neighbours
— Ukraine, Moldova, Belarus, Georgia, Armenia and Azerbaijan
— "without prejudice to individual countries' aspirations
for their future relationship with the EU." The Eastern Partnership
(EaP) "should bring a lasting political message of EU solidarity,
alongside additional, tangible support for their democratic and
market-oriented reforms and the consolidation of their statehood
and territorial integrity". This will, the Commission says,
serve "the stability, security and prosperity of the EU,
partners and indeed the entire continent", and "will
be pursued in parallel with the EU's strategic partnership with
Russia". The Commission sees the EaP as going further than
the present ENP:
"The guiding principle should be to offer the
maximum possible, taking into account political and economic realities
and the state of reforms of the partner concerned, bringing visible
benefits for the citizens of each country."
16.5 An essential component will be a commitment
from the EU to accompany more intensively partners' individual
reform efforts. The full political engagement of EU Member States
will be essential. Active parliamentary contacts and exchanges
will also play an important role.
16.6 The EaP will be based on mutual commitments
to the rule of law, good governance, respect for human rights,
respect for and protection of minorities, and the principles of
the market economy and sustainable development. The extent to
which these values are reflected in national practices and policy
implementation will determine the "level of ambition of the
EU's relationship with the Eastern Partners";[65]
joint ownership is seen as essential, and both sides of the EaP
are to "have their responsibilities." Only with strong
political will on both sides will the EaP achieve its objective
of political association and economic integration.
16.7 The main proposals (which are set out in more
detail in our previous Reports)[66]
are :
— new
Association Agreements (AA) between the EU and each partner
country, to succeed the existing Partnership and Cooperation Agreements
due to expire in 2008 and 2009. These agreements would aim to
help encourage these countries to adopt EU norms and standards,
both in terms of democracy and governance as well as technical
standards for trade, energy and other sectors. They should also
advance cooperation on Common Foreign and Security Policy and
European Security and Defence Policy;
— a Comprehensive Institution Building
programme (CIB) to help build partners' administrative capacity
to meet commitments and conditions arising from the AAs;
— to achieve a deep and comprehensive
free trade agreement between each EaP country and the EU Member
States, with a longer term vision of creating a neighbourhood
economic community;
— individual country mobility and security
pacts: encompassing both labour mobility and cooperation on
tackling illegal migration, border management aligned to EU standards,
and enhanced efforts to fight organised crime and corruption;
— talks on visa facilitation with
partners: improved consular coverage; roadmaps to waiving visa
fees from Schengen countries and increased EU support for national
strategies to tackle organised crime, trafficking etc., with non-Schengen
countries such as the UK invited to take parallel steps;
— policies to promote energy security;
— a new multilateral forum to allow
EU Member States to share information with the Eastern Partners
to help these countries to modernise. This would include an annual
Spring meeting of Foreign Ministers and a biennial meeting of
Heads of State and Government;
— third countries (eg other Black
Sea Synergy partners like Russia and Turkey) could be involved
in various projects if all the partners agreed.
16.8 The multilateral track will provide a
new framework to support each differentiated bilateral component,
providing a "forum to share information and experience on
partners' steps towards transition, reform and modernisation"
and facilitating the development of common positions and activities.
The EaP will thus "initiate a structured approximation process,
supported by the CIB".
16.9 There should be four Thematic Platforms:
- democracy, good governance
and stability;
- economic integration and convergence with EU
policies;
- energy security;
- contacts between people.
16.10 A number of flagship initiatives are also suggested
(e.g., an Integrated Border Management Programme, an SME Facility,
promotion of regional electricity markets, disaster preparedness),
to be funded through multi-donor support, IFIs and the private
sector.
16.11 The Communication also discusses funding —
"substantially increased financial resources are required
to achieve the objectives set out in this proposal" —
and monitoring and evaluation.
16.12 The Commission Staff Working Document examines
potential subjects for the Thematic Platforms and Panels and the
Flagship initiatives in greater detail.
16.13 The proposal was strongly supported by the
Minister for Europe at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Caroline
Flint). But, as the Commission itself pointed out, significant
additional resources would be needed. With "significant pressures
on the ENP Instrument due to reallocation of funding for the Georgia
crisis and on-going support to the Palestinian Territories",
the Commission estimated it would need €600m extra in this
budget to support the implementation of the EaP; €250m had
been found from the existing ENPI envelope (2010-2013), mainly
through re-prioritisation of funds from the Regional East Programme;
but an additional €350m of new money would be required. Detailed
Commission proposals were awaited: "further re-prioritisation
in the framework of the budget mid-term review [would] need to
be carefully balanced with the needs, expectations and current
initiatives (such as the Union for the Mediterranean) for the
Southern neighbours."
16.14 The Committee recognised that the EaP "business
case" was well made. But in addition to the immediate challenge
of adequate funding, the Committee noted that success would require
the sort of commitment by all concerned that has so far eluded
the most well-established precursor, i.e., the moribund Barcelona
Process, which the Union is in the process of endeavouring to
reinvigorate: could the Union do both successfully when success
with one had so far been limited? We also wondered what Russia's
reaction was likely to be. The Committee therefore indicated that
it was minded to recommend the Communication for debate in the
fullness of time, but first asked the Minister to write, in good
time ahead of the Spring European Council (when the December European
Council envisaged "this ambitious initiative being approved")
with details of the Commission's eventual financial proposals
and other aspects of its response to the Council's invitation
to "study [the proposals in the Communication] and report
back prior to that Council.
16.15 In the meantime we retained the document under
scrutiny.[67]
The Minister's letter of 12 March 2009
16.16 The Minister said that, since her November
2008 Explanatory Memorandum, there had been "some progress
in discussions on the issues" she mentioned. Member States
were "broadly content" with the proposed aims, principles
and framework for the Eastern Partnership: a bilateral and a multilateral
dimension, regular meetings at Head of Government level and at
foreign minister level, thematic platforms taking forward work
on agreed areas including energy, economic integration and convergence
with EU policies, people-to-people contacts and democracy, good
governance and stability. Following official level discussions
covering trade, JHA issues, energy, migration and development,
the February General Affairs and External Relations Council gave
broad approval to the plans at a conceptual level; the 19-20 March
Spring European Council was expected to endorse short conclusions,
with a declaration annexed to them; and the Presidency would host
a Summit to launch the Eastern Partnership on 7 May in Prague,
which would include a joint statement.
16.17 But there had been "some more difficult
aspects":
Financing:
the Commission had found €250m from the regional East envelope
within the European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument (ENPI).
It was now proposing to find the other €350m for 2010-13
from the budget set aside for crises and to accommodate unforeseen
expenditure. The Minister was concerned that sufficient money
should be left to cover other priorities that may arise, e.g.
Kosovo and Palestine; she was reassured to the extent that the
Commission would need Council approval for allocations to Eastern
partner countries on an annual basis, which would enable other
claims on the margins and other external relations priorities
to be considered. She now expected more detailed discussions in
the run-up to the 7 May Summit through the EU's annual budgetary
process; although Member States had acknowledged the need for
adequate financing to enable the Partnership to achieve its political
goals, some were concerned that the funding would affect the informal
agreement to split ENPI funding by one third for the East and
two thirds for the South, even though the Commission had given
an assurance that funding for EaP would not come at the expense
of resources for the South.
Mobility: the Minister
was broadly content that the Eastern Partnership proposals should
promote the mobility of citizens as long as important conditionality
remained built in — for example, that steps towards any
visa liberalisation took place gradually, as a long-term aim and
on a case-by-case basis, and provided that conditions on improved
migration management were in place; the UKBA wanted to guard against
any decisions that could increase migratory pressures from any
of the 6 into the UK, and were keen that the UK's position outside
of the Schengen region was recognised and that the UK's independent
mechanisms for managing migration, such as the visa waiver test,
were not threatened.
Third country involvement:
The Minister was content with the February GAERC decision that
third countries such as Russia and Turkey should be invited to
participate in Eastern Partnership projects on a case by case
basis, but not in the launch summit on 7 May itself; and professed
herself keen that communication with Russia on the Eastern Partnership
should be fully transparent, to make clear that it was not conceived
as an anti-Russian initiative.
Belarusian participation:
a decision on the level of Belarusian participation at the Launch
Summit would be taken in April, nearer the time; Belarusian recognition
of South Ossetia and Abkhazia would make their participation in
a Summit with Georgia very difficult.
16.18 Finally, looking ahead to the substance of
the Summit, the Minister wanted to see a substantive agenda, for
example including a discussion of cooperation on energy and economic
issues, to reinforce this focus and to help emphasise that the
EU was not just considering solutions for Member States but was
"reaching out to support Eastern neighbours too."
16.19 We doubted that information seven days in advance
of, was "in good time before", the European Council,
since it made impossible what was our clear intention: that this
proposal be debated before then. Nonetheless, the Minister's comments
made it clear that there were still sufficient ambiguities —
particularly over finance, movement controls, the views of Russia
and the involvement of Belarus, with whom the EU has had major
difficulties over governance issues — for a debate to be
warranted. We so recommended.[68]
The Minister's letter of 30 March 2009
16.20 The Minister wrote to update the Committee
following discussion at the Spring European Council, describing
its endorsement as an important step forward. The Council Conclusions
included a detailed Declaration setting out the aims, principles
and process involved for the Eastern Partnership, were helpful
and broadly reflected UK objectives.[69]
She professed herself pleased that the Declaration set a high
level of political ambition in line with the Commission's Communication,
with goals of significantly strengthening EU policy with regard
to the Eastern partners, including supporting reforms and facilitating
approximation with EU law and convergence with EU standards; and
pleased that the Declaration contained a reference to partners'
participation being without prejudice to their aspirations for
their future relationship with the EU, which safeguarded her concern
that the EU should "keep the door open to potential membership
for those partners who have such aspirations and who might meet
the membership criteria in the future."
16.21 The Minister also noted that the full details
of the Commission's financing proposals had yet to be discussed:
"Our approach will be to balance our political
support for the Partnership with our wish for budget discipline
and improvements in the delivery of EU assistance including better
resource allocation based on needs and absorption capacities.
My officials will be exploring with HMT, DFID and the Commission
what scope there might be for further redeployment of financing
from the existing ENPI envelope and for ensuring that adequate
budget margins are maintained, in line with the Council's conclusions."
16.22 Finally, the Minister referred to concerns
about human rights and democracy in a number of the partners,
particularly Belarus; whether to invite President Lukashenko to
the Summit would be given further consideration by the Presidency
and EU partners in the coming weeks. More broadly, the Summit
would provide "an opportunity to encourage governance and
human rights reform in the region through engagement."
16.23 The Minister concluded her letter by looking
forward to the debate, as did we; and with that in mind, we drew
both it and the related chapter of our previous Report on relations
between the EU and Belarus[70]
to the attention in particular of Members who intended to participate.[71]
16.24 During that debate, which took place in European
Committee B on 27 April 2009, [72]
the Minister undertook to provide further information, following
the "launch" Summit in Prague, under the Czech Presidency,
on 7 May 2009.
The Minister's letter of 18 May 2009
16.25 The Minister's begins her letter by reiterating
that the Eastern Partnership[73]
is "one of a number of UK external action priorities";
that she wants it to be ambitious; and for it "to recognise
the aspirations of our neighbours for a closer relationship with
the EU, and to strengthen EU practical support for long-term democratic
and economic reform that would bring them closer to EU norms and
standards."
16.26 But, the Minister says, "financial support
must be effective and realistic." She continues as follows:
FINANCING
"The Commission's financing proposals for the
Eastern Partnership for the period until 2013 are for total expenditure
of up to €600m. This headline figure was endorsed by the
Spring European Council declaration on the Eastern Partnership
('Increased financial support in line with the Commission's proposal
of €600m for the period to 2013 will respect the resources
available under the multiannual Financial Framework, including
adequate margins'). Of this €600m, the Commission proposes
to reprioritise €250m from existing ENPI (European Neighbourhood
and Partnership Instrument) — Regional East funds. They
have also earmarked new additional commitments of €350m from
the budget margins of Heading 4 (external actions or 'EU as a
Global Partner').
"Financing for the Eastern Partnership will
be included in discussion of the Commission's Preliminary Draft
Budget for 2010 and the annual EU budget negotiation process.
Agreement between Council and European Parliament on the entire
2010 budget may be reached in mid-November, with the Parliament
expected to adopt the budget in early December. For 2010 the Commission
propose additional commitment appropriations (CA) of €25m;
and payment appropriations (PA) of €5m for the Partnership.
"The margins are normally reserved for crises
and other unforeseen expenditure such as support for missions
in Kosovo or responding to the crisis in Palestine. The Commission's
plans to pre-allocate more than half the remaining budget margins
up to 2013 may constrain our ability to support other foreign
policy priorities with EC Budget funds and could ultimately compromise
the EC Budget 2007-2013 Financial Framework. Any use of the margins
to finance the Eastern Partnership will represent wholly additional
expenditure of which the associated UK costs (approximately 14.7%
of the total, which would amount to around £43m, subject
to exchange rates and UK GNI contribution shares, if new expenditure
reached €350m) will need to be found.
"We therefore want to ensure that adequate margins
are maintained to finance future crises and UK priorities, and
will continue to encourage further re-prioritisation within existing
resources and to limit the proposed use of the margin. We also
want the Commission to clarify for us why there should be such
a disparity between the commitments and payments profiles in the
proposal. The Foreign Secretary secured an important amendment
in the Spring European Council conclusions to ensure that the
commitment to €600m was set in the context of a budget-disciplined
approach and the importance of maintaining adequate margins.
"My officials continue to collaborate in a joint
strategy with HMT and DFID to influence decisions on financing
the Eastern Partnership. Policy will be discussed in the COEST
working group (an FCO lead), budget issues in the Council budget
committee (an HMT lead), and individual partner country allocations
in the ENPI Management Committee (a DFID lead).
"Funding for the Eastern Partnership from 2011
is also linked to the mid-term review (MTR) of the ENPI, which
is due to be completed in March 2010. We view the MTR as an important
exercise in assessing the impact and effectiveness of EC aid in
the region and an opportunity for Member States to propose
adjustments to existing priorities and programmes (including country
allocations for the Eastern Partnership) accordingly. We want
the MTR to consider funding needs and priorities for the Eastern
Partnership countries from 2011-13. The UK plays an active role
in the Brussels ENPI Management Committee, working closely with
other Member States to make it an effective forum, and to hold
the Commission to account. We will continue to encourage the Commission
to allocate funding based on a sound resource allocation model
to reflect partners' needs, priorities and absorption capacity."
16.27 The Minister then says that she also undertook
to write with more detail on the state of play on negotiations
of new Association Agreements in the Eastern Partnership countries.
NEW CONTRACTUAL ARRANGEMENTS
"The Eastern Partnership includes the proposal
to deepen engagement with partners through new Association Agreements
as soon as the partners are willing and able to take on the appropriate
commitments. It is also proposed to offer the partners deep Free
Trade Agreements as and when partners are ready and meet the relevant
conditions. Negotiations with Ukraine on a new Association Agreement
and deep Free Trade Agreement are already underway. The Commission
has just completed the 11th round of negotiations on
the Association Agreement. Negotiations and ratification of the
EU-Ukraine Association Agreement will take some more years before
the full Agreement can enter into force. It is however expected
that an Interim Agreement covering the Community aspects of the
Agreement will enter into force significantly earlier. The Association
Agreement with Ukraine includes a deep Free Trade Agreement. We
believe that it is important to realise an ambitious agreement
that offers Ukraine the opportunity for substantial integration
into the single market including the European energy market.
"The Commission has proposed a mandate for negotiating
a new Agreement with Moldova, including the possibility to establish
a deep and comprehensive Free Trade Area with the EU, if and when
Moldova is deemed to be ready to sustain effects of far reaching
liberalisation. With this in mind, the EU launched a feasibility
study in December 2008.
"Georgia signed a Partnership and Co-operation
Agreement (PCA) with the EU that come into force in July 1999
and which is due to expire later this year. It has also signed
up to a five-year European Neighbourhood Policy (ENP) Action Plan
in 2006 which aims to fulfil the conditions set out in the PCA
and contribute to closer political and economic co-operation between
Georgia and the EU. A feasibility study carried out
by the EU in 2008 concluded that a Free Trade Agreement would
bring significant economic benefits to Georgia. The EU concluded
that Georgia is not yet in a position to implement the commitments
that a Free Trade Agreement would require, and is therefore not
ready to negotiate the agreement. The EU remains committed to
building Georgia's capacity so that it can reach such a position
in due course.
"Both Armenia and Azerbaijan signed Partnership
and Co-operation Agreements (PCA) with the EU which entered into
force in 1999 and is due to expire later this year. Both
also have European Neighbourhood Policy (ENP) Action Plans dating
back to November 2006 which aim to fulfil the conditions set out
in the PCA. Armenia has also been the subject of an EU fact-finding
mission in February 2009 which aimed to identify reform
priorities and accelerate the process of negotiating a comprehensive
Free Trade Agreement with the EU. Azerbaijan is not yet a
member of the WTO, so is not eligible for consideration for a
Free Trade Agreement at this time.
"The EU negotiated a PCA Agreement with Belarus
in 1995, but this never came into force because the EU had concerns
about the undermining of democratic conditions. The EU withdrew
GSP trade preferences with Belarus in 2007 because Belarus did
not comply with its International Labour Organisation obligations
relating to freedom of association for workers. As relations between
Belarus and the EU improve, it may be possible to re-examine the
contractual relationship."
16.28 The Minister concludes her letter by welcoming
"the Committee's close interest in the Eastern Partnership"
and by saying that she "will write again to update the Committee
of any significant developments."
Conclusion
16.29 Elsewhere in this Report we consider the
latest Commission Communication on the implementation in 2008
of the European Neighbourhood Policy, which assesses progress
made by ENP partners in implementing the planned reforms in their
bilateral Action Plans during 2008, and areas that still require
action. The Communication is accompanied by country progress reports
on five of the six Eastern Partners (Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia,
Moldova, Ukraine — but not Belarus; see below) as well as
on the current Mediterranean partners (Egypt, Israel Jordan, Lebanon,
Morocco, the Palestinian Authority and Tunisia).[74]
There are two common factors.
16.30 The first concerns funding. The Minister's
letter makes clear that no substantive progress has yet been made
regarding one of the concerns we expressed at the outset, viz.,
that the Union was embarking on major initiatives, both to the
east and in the Mediterranean, without any indication that appropriate
funding was in place. However, the Minister draws attention to
the opportunity for appropriate adjustments to existing priorities
and programmes, including country allocations for the Eastern
Partnership, that will arise from 2011 onwards. She also says
that she will be working closely with other Member States to make
the Brussels ENPI (European Neighbourhood Policy Instrument)[75]
Management Committee an effective forum, to hold the Commission
to account and to "encourage the Commission to allocate funding
based on a sound resource allocation model to reflect partners'
needs, priorities and absorption capacity."
16.31 We cannot imagine why the Commission should
need such encouragement, since we can see no other sensible basis
upon which to allocate the available resources — which amounts
to nearly €12 billion in the current financial perspective.
As we say in that other chapter, we shall be looking to both her
and her colleagues in the Department for International Development,
who have made much, in a variety of contexts, of their commitment
to pursuing these matters in the relevant Councils and Council
working groups, to demonstrate this when the time comes.
16.32 The second common factor concerns what are
often styled, despite the evidence to the contrary, as "common
values". The Joint Declaration of the Prague Eastern Partnership
Summit says that the Eastern Partnership is "founded on mutual
interests and commitments", including "to the principles
of international law and to fundamental values, including democracy,
the rule of law and the respect for human rights and fundamental
freedoms … and good governance."[76]
As the analysis in the chapter of this Report on implementation
of the ENP makes clear, this commitment is presently based on
stony ground: although there has undoubtedly been economic development
in the ENP partner countries, there has been very little progress
in these areas. The absence at the Prague Summit of the President
of Belarus, whose democratic failings have hitherto constrained
its participation in the ENP, exemplified the magnitude of the
challenge that lies ahead.
16.33 In the meantime we are reporting this further
information to the House in view of the importance of issues concerned.
62 According to its website, the ENP was developed
in 2004 "with the objective of avoiding the emergence of
new dividing lines between the enlarged EU and our neighbours
and instead strengthening the prosperity, stability and security
of all concerned." See http://ec.europa.eu/world/enp/index_en.htm
for full information and chapter 17 of this Report for our consideration
of the latest Commission report on the ENP. Back
63
Paragraphs 68-70; see http://www.consilium.europa.eu/ueDocs/cms_Data/docs/pressData/en/ec/101346.pdf
for the full Council Conclusions. Back
64
See http://www.consilium.europa.eu/ueDocs/cms_Data/docs/pressData/en/ec/102545.pdf
for the full Council Conclusions. Back
65
For example: "The level of Belarus' participation in the
EaP will depend on the overall development of EU-Belarus relations". Back
66
See headnote: HC19-xi (2008-09), chapter 5 (18 March 2009) and
HC19-ii (2008-09), chapter 7 (17 December 2008). Back
67
See headnote: HC19-ii (2008-09), chapter 7 (17 December 2008). Back
68
See headnote: HC19-xi (2008-09), chapter 5 (18 March 2009). Back
69
The draft Declaration is at the Annex to our previous Report,
and the conclusions are available at http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/en/ec/106809.pdf. Back
70
See (30507) HC19-xiii (2008-09), chapter 10 (1 April 2009). Back
71
See headnote: HC19-xiii (2008-09), chapter 1 (1 April 2009). Back
72
See http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200809/cmgeneral/euro/090427/90427s01.htm
for the record of the debate, which took place on 27 April 2009 Back
73
Full background to and details of the Eastern Partnership is now
available at http://ec.europa.eu/external_relations/eastern/index_en.htm
Back
74
See chapter 17 of this Report. Back
75
The ENPI is one of a suite of new financial regulations, or Instruments,
that were adopted in 2007 with respect to the funding of the EU's
external actions, including the Development and Cooperation Instrument,
the Instrument for Stability, and the Instrument for the promotion
of democracy and human rights. Back
76
The Joint Declaration of the Prague Eastern Partnership Summit
is available at http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/en/er/107589.pdf.
Back
| 
