62 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 | —
|
| Department | Foreign and Commonwealth Office
|
| Basis of consideration | Minister's letter of 30 March 2010
|
| Previous Committee Report | HC 19-xviii (2008-09), chapter 16 (3 June 2009); 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). Also see (30615) 9029/09: HC 19-xviii (2008-09), chapter 17 (3 June 2009)
|
| Discussed in Council | 11-12 December 2008 European Council
|
| Committee's assessment | Politically important
|
| Committee's decision | Debated in European Committee B on 27 April 2009; further information now provided
|
Background
62.1 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)[262]
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."
62.2 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."[263]
62.3 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.[264]
The Commission Communication
62.4 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."
62.5 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.
62.6 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";[265]
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.
62.7 The main proposals (which are set out in more
detail in our previous Reports)[266]
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;
and
— third
countries (e.g. other
Black Sea Synergy partners like Russia and Turkey) could be involved
in various projects if all the partners agreed.
62.8 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",
facilitating the development of common positions and activities,
and initiating "a structured approximation process, supported
by the CIB".
62.9 There should be four Thematic Platforms:
- democracy, good governance
and stability;
- economic integration and convergence with EU
policies;
- energy security; and
- contacts between people.
62.10 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, International Financial
Institutions and the private sector.
62.11 The Communication also discusses funding —
"substantially increased financial resources are required
to achieve the objectives set out in this proposal" —
and monitoring and evaluation.
62.12 The Commission Staff Working Document examines
potential subjects for the Thematic Platforms and Panels and the
Flagship initiatives in greater detail.
62.13 The proposal was strongly supported by the
then 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 €600 million extra
in this budget to support the implementation of the EaP; €250
million had been found from the existing ENPI envelope (2010-2013),
mainly through re-prioritisation of funds from the Regional East
Programme; but an additional €350 million 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."
62.14 The history of the previous Committee's subsequent
consideration of the Commission Communication is set out in its
previous Reports. It was debated in European Committee B on 27
April B on 27 April 2009.[267]
62.15 During the debate, the then Minister undertook
to provide further information, following the "launch"
Summit in Prague, under the Czech Presidency, on 7 May 2009.
The then Minister's letter of 18 May 2009
62.16 The full details of the then Minister's letter
is set out in the previous Committee's most recent Report. On
the key issue of Financing, she recalled that the €600
million headline figure endorsed by the Spring European Council
declaration on the Eastern Partnership was based on a Commission
proposal to reprioritise €250 million from existing ENPI
(European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument) — Regional
East funds and new additional commitments of €350 million
from the budget margins of Heading 4 (external actions or 'EU
as a Global Partner'). She went on to say that financing for the
Eastern Partnership would be included in discussion of the Commission's
Preliminary Draft Budget for 2010 and the annual EU budget negotiation
process, which she did not expect to be completed before mid-November,
with the Parliament expected to adopt the budget in early December;
and that, for 2010, the Commission proposed additional commitment
appropriations (CA) of €25 million, and payment appropriations
(PA) of €5 million, for the Partnership.
62.17 She then went on to note that:
"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).
62.18 She then went on to note that funding for the
Eastern Partnership from 2011 was also linked to the mid-term
review (MTR) of the ENPI, which was due to be completed in March
2010:[268]
"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."
62.19 The previous Committee observed that it could
not imagine why the Commission should need such encouragement,
since it could see no other sensible basis upon which to allocate
the available resources, and said that it would be looking to
both her and her colleagues in the Department for International
Development, who had 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
came.
62.20 The previous Committee also drew attention
to a second common factor between the proposed Union of the Mediterranean
and the EaP, in addition to embarking on major initiatives without
any indication that appropriate funding was in place — namely,
what, despite the evidence to the contrary, were often styled
as "common values". It noted that the Joint Declaration
of the Prague Eastern Partnership Summit said that the Eastern
Partnership was "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."[269]
However, as the analysis in the Commission Communication on implementation
of the ENP made clear, the reality on the ground was somewhat
different: although there had undoubtedly been economic development
in the ENP partner countries, there had been very little progress
in these other areas — the absence at the Prague Summit
of the President of Belarus, whose democratic failings had constrained
its participation in the ENP hitherto, exemplifying the magnitude
of the challenge that lay ahead.
62.21 In the meantime the previous Committee reported
this further information to the House in view of the importance
of issues concerned.
The then Minister for Europe's letter of 30 March
2010
62.22 In his letter, the then Minister for Europe
at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Chris Bryant) updates
the Committee as follows:
EASTERN PARTNERSHIP BUDGET
"An overall allocation of €5.7 billion
for the ENPI for the period 2011-2013 has been agreed. Financing
for the Eastern Partnership for this period was approved in December
2009 by the EU budget committee. The March 2009 European Council
agreed to find €600 million additional resourcing for ENPI
to fund the Eastern Partnership. The UK was successful in reducing
this to €350 million additional funding. This amount will
be taken from the margins of the External Relations, Heading 4,
EU budget and will require annual approval in Budget Committee
Meetings. The remaining €250 million has been reallocated
from existing ENPI funding for activity in the East.
"There are 3 main areas of funding engagement
under the Eastern Partnership: (i) The Comprehensive Institution
Building programme, which supports capacity building in individual
partner countries to enable reforms to be carried out (€175
million); (ii) Regional programmes aimed at addressing economic
and social disparities within partner countries (€75 million);
and (iii) the multilateral dimension (€350 million).
ENPI MID-TERM REVIEW
"At the ENPI mid-term review in December 2009,
Country and Regional Strategy Papers for 2007-13 were reviewed
and new three-year National and Regional Indicative Programmes
for the period 2011-13 agreed with five of the six Eastern Partnership
countries. The 2007-10 National Indicative Programme for Belarus
will be extended to one more year, to include 2011, to allow a
review of the most recent developments in democratisation, respect
for human rights and the rule of law to be carried out before
a new one is developed. We will monitor the situation closely.
"We are satisfied that the new National and
Regional Indicative Programmes and financial allocations are in
line with our and Partners' priorities, and reflect progress against
medium and long-term objectives and absorption capacity. We will
continue to press for the aims and objectives which are outlined
in strategy documents to be implemented. Our priority is to ensure
spend continues to be used effectively and supports concrete political
and economic reform.
MULTILATERAL DIMENSION
"The Eastern Partnership has both bilateral
and multilateral dimensions. Multilateral working groups allow
Partners and Member States to share best practice and guidance
in areas of common interest. The groups are structured around
four key areas of work, referred to as `platforms': Platform 1
Democracy, Good Governance, Stability; Platform 2 Economic Integration
& Convergence with EU Policies; Platform 3 Energy Security
and Environment and Climate Change; and Platform 4 Contacts Between
People.
"Flagship initiatives in Integrated Border Management,
Prevention of, preparedness for, and response to natural and man-made
disasters, SME Development, Regional energy markets and energy
efficiency and Environmental Guidance are now being developed
and the initiatives on border management and response to disasters
have already been launched.
ASSOCIATION AGREEMENTS
"Bilateral Association Agreements between the
EU and each Partner country will require Partners to make progress
in ensuring rule of law, respect for human rights and improved
economic governance. The Eastern Partnership offers Association
Agreements to five of the six partners (i.e. excluding Belarus).
Negotiations on an Association Agreement with Moldova have begun
and the EU is currently putting together negotiating mandates
for Association Agreements with all three South Caucasus countries.
Much progress has been made in negotiating the Association Agreement
with Ukraine and I hope work on this will be finalised by the
middle of next year.
"Belarus remains ineligible for an Association
Agreement whilst respect for democratic values and the rule of
law are not clearly demonstrated. The long term EU goal for Belarus
is for it to become a democratic, stable and prosperous partner
with whom we share a common agenda based on common values. We
support the Commission approach to progressing work with Belarus
with this aim, which consists of a two track approach of restriction
of political contact and links with, and assistance to, other
actors in civil society."
62.23 The then Minister concludes by saying that
the Foreign and Commonwealth Office "will to continue to
work closely with other government departments, and our representations
in Brussels and the region to ensure the Eastern Partnership delivers
real progress in our priority areas", and that he "will
continue to update the Committee on progress at key stages."
Conclusion
62.24 So far as funding is concerned, there seems
to have been little change in the situation described by the then
Minister (Caroline Flint) in her previous letter. Her determination
to encourage further re-prioritisation within existing resources,
and to limit its use notwithstanding, the margin is still where
the bulk of the €600 million is to be found.
62.25 So far as the process itself is concerned,
Belarus continues to exclude herself, and on the key element —
new Association Agreements — only Moldova is out of the
traps. Dramatic change was never on the cards. But the challenge
will be to ensure that, on its tenth anniversary, the EaP does
not find itself being described by the then Minister for Europe
in the same terms as did one of his or her predecessors on the
tenth anniversary of its southern precursor: moribund, and in
need of "a strategic refresh".
62.26 We note the offer of further updates. But
the Committee has now done its job in ensuring the scrutiny of
the establishment of the Eastern Partnership. Unless the Commission
produces further documents on the EaP (which should, of course,
be deposited for scrutiny), we are content to leave interested
Members to follow its development via other channels and for the
Minister to respond accordingly.
262 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 17of the then Committee's most
recent Report for its consideration of the latest Commission report
on the ENP. Back
263
Paragraphs 68-70; see http://www.consilium.europa.eu/ueDocs/cms_Data/docs/pressData/en/ec/101346.pdf
for the full Council Conclusions. Back
264
See http://www.consilium.europa.eu/ueDocs/cms_Data/docs/pressData/en/ec/102545.pdf
for the full Council Conclusions. Back
265
For example: "The level of Belarus' participation in the
EaP will depend on the overall development of EU-Belarus relations". Back
266
See headnote: HC 19-xi (2008-09), chapter 5 (18 March 2009) and
HC 19-ii (2008-09), chapter 7 (17 December 2008). Back
267
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
268
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
269
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
| 
