Documents considered by the Committee on 4 September 2013 - European Scrutiny Committee Contents


47 EU External Action: the Instrument for Stability

(35240)

12862/13

+ ADDs 1-3

COM(13) 563

Commission Report: Annual Report on the Instrument for Stability in 2012

Legal baseArticle 23 of Regulation (EC) No.1717/2006: —
Document originated24 July 2013
Deposited in Parliament16 August 2013
DepartmentForeign and Commonwealth Office
Basis of considerationEM of 28 August 2013
Previous Committee ReportNone; but see (34165) —: HC 86-xii (2012-13), chapter 14 (12 September 2012); (33120) 14048/11: HC 428-xxxviii (2010-12), chapter 17 (12 October 2011); (32103) 15764/10: HC 428-xii (2010-11), chapter 17 (12 January 2011) and HC 428-x (2010-11), chapter 7 (8 December 2010); also see (30859) 12674/10 HC 19-xxvi (2008-09), chapter 18 (10 September 2009); and (29656)—: HC 16-xxiv (2007-08), chapter 11(18 June 2008) and (27653-55)—: HC 34-xxxv (2005-06), chapter 11 (12 July 2006)
Discussion in CouncilTo be determined
Committee's assessmentPolitically important
Committee's decisionCleared

Background

47.1 Towards the end of the previous Financial Perspective, the Commission and Council decided to replace the then plethora of financial instruments for the delivery of external assistance with a simpler, more efficient framework. Instead of the wide range of geographical and thematic instruments that had grown up in an ad hoc manner over time, the new framework comprises six instruments only, four of them new. The four new instruments are:

—  an Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance;

—  a European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument;

—  a Development Cooperation and Economic Cooperation Instrument; and

—  an Instrument for Stability.

47.2 The first three all essentially repackage existing EC activity. The Instrument for Stability (IfS), however, is a new instrument to tackle crises and instability in third countries and address trans-border challenges including nuclear safety and non-proliferation, the fight against trafficking, organised crime and terrorism. [178]

47.3 The previous Committee cleared the draft IfS Regulation on 12 July 2006.[179] At that time, it noted that an original concern — how in practice it would be prevented from encroaching on Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) activities and objectives — had been overcome: activities covered by the Regulation were limited to those falling within the scope of the Community's powers relating to development co-operation and economic co-operation; the Commission would be required to submit all projects for the opinion of the Stability Instrument Management Committee, composed of representatives of all Member States, in order to exercise proper political control.

47.4 The Instrument for Stability was allocated €2.1 billion between 2007 and 2013. The UK's share of the allocation was 17%, i.e. €350.5 million.

47.5 An Annual Report must be submitted to the European Parliament and the Council in compliance with Article 23 of Regulation (EC) No. 1717/2006 of the European Parliament and the Council of 15 November 2006 establishing an Instrument for Stability (the IfS Regulation). The Committee's consideration of previous Annual Reports is set out in the earlier Reports cited in the headnote.

47.6 Most recently, in its fifth year of operation, and with a budget which has more than doubled from €139 million in 2007 to €282 million in 2011, the Commission said that the Instrument for Stability had "demonstrated its robustness and capacity to contribute to timely and dynamic EU responses to a wide range of challenges around the world [which] ... included those associated with the impact of the Arab Spring in the Middle East and North Africa region as well as the ever more complex situation throughout the Horn of Africa region."

47.7 What the Commission described as the maturity of the IfS was (it said) reflected in the findings of the independent evaluation report published in July 2011:

"Covering the period from inception, the report summarises that 'the IfS has significantly contributed to enhancing the overall relevance, effectiveness and efficiency of EU crisis response and preparedness action'."

It concluded that:

"the IfS makes a significant contribution to the coherence of the EU peace, security and development architecture — and to global peace and stability. Critical to its contributions is the demonstrated capacity of the IfS to provide quick, timely and catalytical responses in situations of crisis."[180]

The 2012 report

47.8 The 2012 Annual Report outlines the progress made under the short-term IfS measures launched in that year and provides an update on the financial commitments of the long-term projects.

47.9 Article 3 of the IfS Regulations (67% of total funding) deals with short-term projects designed to provide assistance to help third countries respond to crises or emerging crises. Over the period 2007-2012, the IfS has made available €872 million funding 243 projects responding to crises in approximately 70 countries or regions worldwide. In 2012 alone, €195.8 million was spent worldwide, the largest areas of spend being 39% in Middle East and North Africa and 37% in Sub-Saharan Africa.

47.10 Article 4 of the IfS Regulations (33% of total funding) covers longer-term programmable measures to address security and safety threats in a trans-regional context, risk mitigation linked to Chemical, Biological, Radiological and Nuclear (CBRN) materials and pre- and post-crisis capacity building. Over the period 2007-2012 €403.8 million was made available for this element. In 2012, €22 million was committed to trans-regional threats, €46.3million for CBRN risk mitigation and €22 million for pre- and post-conflict capacity building in third countries.

The Government's view

47.11 In his Explanatory Memorandum of 28 August 2013, the Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington) notes that the IfS:

—   enables the EU to respond quickly and flexibly to crisis and instability overseas when timely financial help cannot be provided by other EU sources;

—  focuses its projects on a range of key issues, such as supporting democracy and good governance, mediation, confidence building and strengthening the rule of law in EU partner countries; and

—  also complements wider EU engagement in line with CSDP interventions and longer term development goals (for example, the IfS funded-Needs Assessment on Border Management issues in Libya, paving the way for a CSDP mission, EUBAM Libya).

47.12 With regard to the short term component, the Minister says that the IfS was heavily engaged in 2012 two of the worst crises of the year: Syria and the Sahel:

"In Syria, the IfS funding supported rapid and safe deployment of United Nations Supervision Mission in Syria (UNSMIS) by funding 25 armoured vehicles, some of which later transferred to the UN-Arab Special Envoy Lakhdar Brahimi and his team once the UNSMIS mandate ended. The IfS supported two events, bringing together members of the Syrian Opposition, helping them forge a united position. The IfS has also supported the authorities in neighbouring countries, including Turkey, Lebanon, Jordan and Iraq to build their capacities to cope with the sudden influx of refugees and assisted with the extra education and psychosocial needs of the refugee population.

"In the Sahel, the IfS has been supporting implementation of the EU's Strategy for Security and Development in the Sahel by funding a range of activities linked to fighting insecurity, terrorism and organised crime."

47.13 Further examples cited are:

"In Mauritania, the IfS has supported strengthening of land border posts and airports while in Niger, it has helped to create a municipal police service, provide socio-economic opportunities for unemployed youth and has strengthened capacity building activities for national and local authorities. The programme for Mali was severely disrupted due to the coup d'etat in March 2012 but updated programmes for 2013 have been approved.

"In 2012 the short term component of the IfS was also engaged in broad range of thematic issues concerning peace-building and stability. Examples include:

  • "Support for electoral processes, e.g., organising voter education campaigns, training polling staff, promoting civil society participation, developing systems for voter registration and support to Electoral Commissions. Elections in 2012 included those in Togo, Burkina Faso, Madagascar, Kenya, Pakistan and Afghanistan;
  • "Support to Democratic Transition and Governance -Training and capacity building for civil society to participate in democratic processes and support to preparations for democratic elections and governance (Egypt, Tunisia, Burma);
  • "Strengthening Security Sector Reform and Rule of Law activities including training of police and law enforcement in Afghanistan, Democratic Republic of Congo and Yemen; support to piracy trials in Mauritius and the Seychelles; support to Truth and Reconciliation Tribunals in Colombia, Honduras, East Timor and Lebanon;
  • "Awareness raising programmes and support to clearing land mines and unexploded ordinances in Chad, Central African Republic, Somalia and Nepal;
  • "Supporting peacebuilding and crisis preparedness: a variety of activities have been implemented in several countries including strengthening civil society organisations working on reducing inter-ethnic tension in Kenya, improving socio-economic opportunities for unemployed youth in Bosnia-Herzegovina, follow up activities to the Peace Process in Aceh, Indonesia and capacity building for non-State actors in peacebuilding and humanitarian assistance in Haiti."

47.14 With regard to management issues, the Minister says that the short-term component of the IfS is managed relatively efficiently, although some projects have been less successful than hoped for or have had to be cancelled:

"Projects are designed by EU Delegations in country and are approved in Brussels, with Member State input at the Political and Security Committee (PSC), and respond to genuine needs quickly and flexibly. Updates on projects are also provided to Member States via the PSC. While the vast majority of short term projects continue to contribute to the stabilisation of fragile countries, a very small minority of projects do not achieve the impact intended. For example, the IfS supported capacity building of Zimbabwe's Electoral Commission. It has also been working to build capacity within Zimbabwe's Parliament to enact democratic reforms and to conduct its oversight role over the executive.

"One of the priorities was for new legislation on the Constitution, electoral reform and the Human Rights Commission. Preliminary results from the recent elections suggest that this programme has not been successful. Another concern, although outside the control of the IfS, is the cancellation of projects in countries that are most in need of stabilisation. For example projects working to combat insecurity linked to terrorism in Mali and Yemen were both cancelled in 2012 due to insecurity."

47.15 With regard to the long-term component, the Minister says that the IfS continued to work on three key areas in which to build the capacity of partner countries:

"Trans-regional threats to security and safety. Programmes included work on transit routes for cocaine trafficking through West Africa, programmes fighting heroin trafficking from Afghanistan, the fight against the proliferation of small arms and light weapons, particularly in Central America and Africa, and organised crime and terrorism programmes in the Sahel and Pakistan. New programmes have also been designed in developing law enforcement capacities in relation to cyber crime and strengthening the legal framework and capacity building to fight threats from falsified medicines.

"Chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear risk mitigation (CBRN). Six regional CBRN Centres of Excellence have been set up in third countries and have become operational. The aim is to strengthen the long-term national and regional capabilities of responsible authorities and administrative infrastructures, and develop a durable cooperation legacy in the fight against the CBRN threat. Other programmes relate to cooperation in export control of dual use goods, re-direction of former weapons scientists and border monitoring to prevent illicit trafficking.

"Pre- and post-crisis capacity building. This area of work is focused on building the capacity of non-state actors to respond to and mediate in crisis situations. Meetings and capacity building programmes during 2012 were held on thematic topics (such as armed groups; conflict prevention and early warning; women, peace and security; children in armed conflict; peacebuilding and development, private sector and conflict) and country or conflict specific topics (such as meetings on Syria, Northern Nigeria and Boko Haram, Northern Mali, Libya, Kosovo) and served to provide input to the EU's policy-making processes.

47.16 More generally, the Minister says:

"The long term programmed activity works less well than the short term. There are fewer opportunities for Member States to input views on programmes and it is therefore more difficult to influence spending. Member States also do not receive sufficient updates on ongoing programmes to enable them to judge whether programmes are achieving an impact and value for money and therefore whether they should be continued. The UK has repeatedly brought this to the attention of the IfS Management at Annual Committee meetings, particularly in relation to the CBRN Centres of Excellence and a programme working on securing critical maritime routes in the Horn of Africa, and will continue to work on improving access to information for Member States."

47.17 Overall, the Minister nonetheless welcomes what he describes as the valuable work conducted worldwide under the IfS in 2012, and says that he has worked to promote the IfS with UK Embassies overseas:

"The IfS contributes to UK objectives in fragile countries, in important areas of work around crisis handling and pre-/post-conflict management. Several Embassies including those in Burma, El Salvador and Nigeria, signalled their interest in accessing funds and have worked with EU institutions to design programmes, which will be implemented in 2013. Work is ongoing to encourage further Embassies to make more use of this funding stream."

Conclusion

47.18 The IfS is a significant part of the EU's capacity to respond positively to relevant challenges that are in both UK as well as wider EU interests. For these reasons we continue to draw this Annual Report to the attention of the House, and of the International Development Committee.

47.19 Elsewhere, we look at the closing stages of two longstanding CFSP missions in the Democratic Republic of Congo, where the challenge beyond next September (when both will close) will be to ensure that progress is sustained once the EU moves towards a more long term approach.[181] In one of these, the IfS is being considered as a source of funding. What the Minister has to say about the relative ineffectiveness of long-term programmed activity compared to short-term, and the difficulties for Member States to input views on programmes and to influence spending, is concerning. Continuing "to work on improving access to information for Member States" is all well and good. But this cannot be allowed to continue: over €100 million of UK taxpayers' money is involved (c.f. paragraph 47.4 above). And there will be more to come in the next Financial Perspective.

47.20 In a year's time, there will be a final report on this first period of IfS activity. When it is submitted for scrutiny, we shall expect the Minister to be reporting that this matter has been satisfactorily resolved, and that Member States:

—  now have a proper degree of access to information and influence on spending and programmes;

—  receive sufficient updates on ongoing programmes to enable them to judge whether programmes are achieving an impact and value for money and therefore whether they should be continued;

and that, overall, long-term programmed activity is working as well as the short term.

47.21 In the meantime, we clear this report.



178   Two existing instruments, for Humanitarian Aid, and for Macro Financial Assistance, were judged not to be in need of modification, and were maintained. See http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/04/1151&format=HTML&aged=0&lg=et&guiLanguage=en for further background Back

179   See headnote: HC 34-xxxv (2005-06), chapter 11 (12 July 2006). Back

180   See (34165) 13149/12 + ADDs 1-4; HC 86-xii, dated 12 September 2012, chapter 14. Back

181   [CROSS REF TO 35723-4]. Back


 
previous page contents next page


© Parliamentary copyright 2013
Prepared 23 September 2013