DOCSLIB.ORG

Evaluation of the Crisis Response and Preparedness Components of the European Union's Instrument for Stability (Ifs)

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Evaluation of the Crisis Response and Preparedness Components of the European Union's Instrument for Stability (Ifs) EVALUATION OF THE CRISIS RESPONSE AND PREPAREDNESS COMPONENTS OF THE EUROPEAN UNION’S INSTRUMENT FOR STABILITY (IFS) OVERALL PROGRAMME-LEVEL EVALUATION Final Report 12 July 2011 Evaluation for the European Commission EVALUATION OF THE CRISIS RESPONSE AND PREPAREDNESS COMPONENTS OF THE EUROPEAN UNION’S INSTRUMENT FOR STABILITY (IFS) OVERALL PROGRAMME-LEVEL EVALUATION Final Report 12 July 2011 Prepared by International Conflict and Security (INCAS) Consulting Ltd. Prepared for the Service for Foreign Policy Instruments (FPI), European Commission Unit FPI.2, Stability Instrument Operations (Crisis response and peace-building) Disclaimer: This report presents the views and opinions of the authors only. It does not represent official European Commission positions or policy. TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS [03] ACRONYMS [03] GLOSSARY [03] EXECUTIVE SUMMARY [04] 1. INTRODUCTION [09] 1.1 SCOPE 09 1.2 METHODOLOGY 09 1.3 CAVEATS 10 1.4 REPORT STRUCTURE 10 2. OVERVIEW OF THE IFS [11] 2.1 THE IFS RATIONALE 11 2.2 REGULATION AND FOCUS 12 2.3 THE CRISIS RESPONSE COMPONENT 12 2.4 THE CRISIS PREPAREDNESS COMPONENT 14 2.5 TOTAL FINANCIAL COMMITMENTS TO DATE 14 2.6 IFS STAFF RESOURCES 14 3. RESULTS [16] 3.1 SUMMARY OF MAIN ACHIEVEMENTS 16 3.2 DISAGGREGATED PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT 18 3.3 SCORECARD — DESIGN OF IFS CRISIS RESPONSE INTERVENTIONS 20 3.4 CRITICAL ASPECTS OF IFS CRISIS RESPONSE IMPLEMENTATION 25 3.5 STRATEGIC AND CROSS-CUTTING ISSUES 29 4. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS [34] 4.1 SUMMARY CONCLUSIONS 34 4.2 RECOMMENDATIONS 34 ANNEX 1: INDIVIDUALS CONSULTED [38] ANNEX 2: DOCUMENTS [40] ANNEX 3: EVALUATION TEAM BIOGRAPHIES [43] [3] Evaluation of the Crisis Response and Preparedness Components of the European Union’s Instrument for Stability Prepared by INCAS Consulting Limited, July 2011 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The evaluation team would like to express its gratitude to all the Commission and EEAS personnel who gave freely of their valuable time and contributed ideas to guide the evaluation team. LOSSARY ACRONYMS G AU African Union Effectiveness CBRN Chemical, biological, radiological and The extent to which the intervention’s objectives were, or are nuclear expected to be achieved, taking into account their relative CFSP Common Foreign and Security Policy importance. CSDP Common Security and Defence Policy EAM Exceptional Assistance Measure (of IfS) Efficiency EDF European Development Fund A measure of how economically resources/inputs (funds, EEAS European External Action Service expertise, time, etc.) are converted into results. EPLO European Peace-building Liason Office EU European Union Evaluation EU-NAVFOR European Union Naval Force The systematic and objective assessment of the design, EUSR European Union Special Representative implementation and results of an ongoing or completed project, FPI European Union Service for Foreign programme or policy, which aims to determine relevance and Policy Instruments fulfillment of objectives, development efficiency, effectiveness, IfS Instrument for Stability impact and sustainability. IGO International Governmental Organisation JNA Joint Needs Assessment Impacts NGO Non-Governmental Organisation Positive and negative, primary and secondary long-term effects OECD Organisation for Economic Cooperation produced by an intervention, directly or indirectly, intended or and Development unintended. PAMF Facility for urgent action involving Policy Advice, Technical Assistance, Relevance Mediation and Reconciliation for the The extent to which the objectives of an intervention are benefit of third countries affected by crisis consistent with beneficiaries’ requirements, country needs, situations global priorities and partners’ and donors’ policies. PbP Peace-building Partnership (of IfS) PCNA Post Conflict Needs Assessment Reliability PDNA Post Disaster Needs Assessment Consistency or dependability of data and evaluation judgements, PSC Political and Security Committee with reference to the quality of the instruments, procedures and RCRPO Regional Crisis Response Planning analyses used to collect and interpret evaluation data. Officers RELEX Directorate-General for External Results Relations The output, outcome and impact (intended or unintended, RRM Rapid Reaction Mechanism positive and/or negative) of an intervention. SSR Security Sector Reform TOR Terms of Reference Sustainability UNDP United Nations Development Programme The continuation of benefits from an intervention after assistance WB World Bank has been completed. The probability of continued long-term benefits. The resilience to risk of the net benefit flows over time. [4] EXECUTIVE SUMMARY and support to Post Conflict Needs Assessment (PCNA) and Post Disaster Needs Assessment (PDNA) methodology development and training. EVALUATION OBJECTIVES AND PROCESS In order to refine findings, the evaluators elaborated a set of ‘qualifiers’ used to review findings as they In line with Article 21 of the Regulation of the emerged from the evaluation process. These include: European Union’s Instrument for Stability • Institutional opportunities/constraints, ranging (IfS), the European Commission authorised an from access to high quality information on crises, independent evaluation of the IfS’ crisis response and to a small team managing a large budget; preparedness components — Articles 3 and 4(3) of the IfS Regulation, respectively. As the first horizontal • The inherently political nature of the IfS, which appraisal of these components since the IfS inception enables the EU to play an enhanced role as a in 2007, this evaluation assesses the relevance of the foreign and security policy actor; two components across various dimensions, with a view to contributing to upcoming decision-making • The fact that the IfS operates across the security about the future of the IfS after its current legal basis and development nexus and is designed to expires in 2012. complement, and often to prepare the ground for the EU’s mainstream external action instruments; In line with the terms of reference, the main objective of the evaluation is “…to ascertain the results to • The high risk and highly volatile environments date of the Instrument for Stability crisis response in which crisis response instruments like the IfS and preparedness components and help enhance often operate; and IfS approaches towards future crisis response • The complex nature of the international crisis measures and strategies for future preparedness preparedness, response and peace-building programming.” architecture. The key legal and policy documents related to the IfS’ creation and functioning, as well as key policy documents of the European Union in the area of peace THE IFS AT A GLANCE and security, constitute the baseline of the evaluation. In addition, a range of programme documents related The IfS was launched one year after the 2006 reform to selected case studies were examined. of the European Commission’s external funding As this is an overall programme-level evaluation, its instruments. Its creation was intended to enhance scope and process did not include specific in-depth the EU’s capacity and tools to undertake both project-level reviews; hence this evaluation is not urgent short-term crisis response measures (Article meant to draw conclusions on the effectiveness and 3 of IfS) and more medium to longer term actions impact of specific IfS crisis actions on the ground, nor covering crisis preparedness (Article 4(3) of IfS) as on capacity-strengthening activities at project level. well as trans-regional threats and CBRN (chemical, However, documentation on five case studies was biological, radiological and nuclear weapons) non- reviewed to bolster the conclusions made here. These proliferation (Articles 4(1) and 4(2) of IfS)1. comprised four Exceptional Assistance Measures (EAMs) in Georgia, Sudan, Somalia and Indonesia, 1 Activities under Article 4(1) and Article 4(2) of the IfS are not included in the scope of this evaluation. [5] Evaluation of the Crisis Response and Preparedness Components of the European Union’s Instrument for Stability Prepared by INCAS Consulting Limited, July 2011 The IfS is governed by Regulation (EC) 1717/2006 typically very urgent nature, are not and indeed cannot of the European Parliament and by the Council be programmed on an annual basis. The IfS regulation of 15 November 2006 establishing an Instrument has envisaged a fair degree of flexibility in the use of for Stability.2 More than €350 million has been the Instrument and the capacity to address a range of committed so far under the IfS in approximately crisis factors. These include actions in response to a 100 crisis response actions spread over 48 countries crisis or emerging crisis, a situation posing a threat to worldwide. An additional €40 million has been democracy, law and order, the protection of human mobilised for crisis preparedness under Article 4(3) rights and fundamental freedoms, the security and of the IfS Regulation during 2007-2010. safety of individuals, or a situation threatening to escalate into armed conflict or severely destabilise a Substantively, the IfS has a three-pronged focus. First, third country or set of countries. it ensures rapid, flexible and adequately funded first responses to situations of political crisis or natural The preparedness activities are funded under Article disasters, including to initiatives that pre-empt them, 4(3) and constitute the Peace-building Partnership in line with Article 3. Second, its crisis preparedness (PbP). They are programmed on
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Special Report No 9/2016 EU External Migration Spending in Southern
    Special Report No 9/2016 (pursuant to Article 287(4), second subparagraph, TFEU) EU external migration spending in Southern Mediterranean and Eastern Neighbourhood countries until 2014 together with the replies of the Commission 12, rue Alcide De Gasperi - L - 1615 Luxembourg T (+352) 4398 – 1 E [email protected] eca.europa.eu 2 CONTENTS Paragraph Abbreviations and acronyms Glossary Executive summary I - V Introduction 1 - 20 EU external migration policy 2 - 20 The policy framework 2 - 5 A global approach to external migration 6 - 8 Priority given to neighbourhood countries 9 Varied institutional and financial instruments 10 - 11 Different sources of the EU's external migration spending 12 - 16 Financing and management arrangements 17 - 20 Audit scope and approach 21 - 26 Coherence of objectives, identification of partner country needs and monitoring instruments need improving 27 - 65 A wide range of policy objectives not always interlinked 27 - 31 Identification of partner countries’ needs requires better attention 32 - 37 Monitoring and assessment instruments need improving 38 - 51 Geographic and thematic priorities were difficult to verify 52 - 60 Intervention spread over a wide geographical area 61 - 65 Weaknesses affected the effectiveness of the EU's external migration spending (TPMA and ENPI) in the Southern Mediterranean and the Eastern Partnership countries 66 - 89 Shortcomings in operational objectives and result indicators made projects’ effectiveness difficult to assess 67 - 69 Factors hindering effectiveness 70 - 73
    [Show full text]
  • Motion: Europe Is Worth It – for a Green Recovery Rooted in Solidarity and A
    German Bundestag Printed paper 19/20564 19th electoral term 30 June 2020 version Preliminary Motion tabled by the Members of the Bundestag Agnieszka Brugger, Anja Hajduk, Dr Franziska Brantner, Sven-Christian Kindler, Dr Frithjof Schmidt, Margarete Bause, Kai Gehring, Uwe Kekeritz, Katja Keul, Dr Tobias Lindner, Omid Nouripour, Cem Özdemir, Claudia Roth, Manuel Sarrazin, Jürgen Trittin, Ottmar von Holtz, Luise Amtsberg, Lisa Badum, Danyal Bayaz, Ekin Deligöz, Katja Dörner, Katharina Dröge, Britta Haßelmann, Steffi Lemke, Claudia Müller, Beate Müller-Gemmeke, Erhard Grundl, Dr Kirsten Kappert-Gonther, Maria Klein-Schmeink, Christian Kühn, Stephan Kühn, Stefan Schmidt, Dr Wolfgang Strengmann-Kuhn, Markus Tressel, Lisa Paus, Tabea Rößner, Corinna Rüffer, Margit Stumpp, Dr Konstantin von Notz, Dr Julia Verlinden, Beate Walter-Rosenheimer, Gerhard Zickenheiner and the Alliance 90/The Greens parliamentary group be to Europe is worth it – for a green recovery rooted in solidarity and a strong 2021- 2027 EU budget the by replaced The Bundestag is requested to adopt the following resolution: I. The German Bundestag notes: A strong European Union (EU) built on solidarity which protects its citizens and our livelihoods is the best investment we can make in our future. Our aim is an EU that also and especially proves its worth during these difficult times of the corona pandemic, that fosters democracy, prosperity, equality and health and that resolutely tackles the challenge of the century that is climate protection. We need an EU that bolsters international cooperation on the world stage and does not abandon the weakest on this earth. proofread This requires an EU capable of taking effective action both internally and externally, it requires greater solidarity on our continent and beyond - because no country can effectively combat the climate crisis on its own, no country can stamp out the pandemic on its own.
    [Show full text]
  • 1. Thematic Instruments
    1. Thematic instruments 1.1. Instrument for Nuclear Safety Cooperation (INSC) The Instrument for Nuclear Safety Cooperation (INSC) was established following Council Regulation (Euratom) no 300/2007 of 19 February 2007,1 replacing and widening the TACIS Nuclear Safety Programme,2 which had been established to help prevent nuclear incidents in the former USSR satellite states. The INSC aims to fund actions from a broad range of stakeholders and cover the promotion and development of an effective regulatory framework for nuclear safety (including materials and radiation protection). It also allows for the provision of tech- nical support to nuclear stakeholders in 15 countries (at national, local or regional level with private companies, NGOs, the Joint Research Centre (JRC), EU agencies and international organisations). Adopted following the ordinary legislation procedure3 and based on the multiannu- al strategy programme,4 €524 million have been allocated to the INSC for the 2007- 2013 period. The Instrument is implemented through annual action programmes. A margin of manoeuvre is preserved as it is possible to engage in emergency or sup- port measures without clear prior indications in the multiannual strategy paper. For example, a nuclear incident requires urgent safety measures and cannot be planned explicitly into a multiannual strategic programme. On 25 January 2013, a new cooperation mechanism5 was established between the EU and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).6 Once adopted, the new multian- nual financial framework should have a budget of €560 million for the period 2014- 1. See: Council Regulation n°300/2007 of 19 February 2007 establishing an Instrument for Nuclear Safety Coop- eration: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2007:081:0001:0010:EN:PDF.
    [Show full text]
  • The New Eu Foreign Policy Architecture
    THE NEW EU FOREIGN POLICY ARCHITECTURE REVIEWING THE FIRST TWO YEARS OF THE EEAS NIKLAS HELWIG PAUL IVAN HRANT KOSTANYAN CENTRE FOR EUROPEAN POLICY STUDIES (CEPS) BRUSSELS The Centre for European Policy Studies (CEPS) is an independent policy research institute in Brussels. Its mission is to produce sound policy research leading to constructive solutions to the challenges facing Europe. The views expressed in this book are entirely those of the authors and should not be attributed to CEPS or any other institution with which they are associated or to the European Union. Niklas Helwig is a Marie Curie Researcher of the EXACT network at the University of Edinburgh and Cologne and focuses on the institutional development of EU foreign policy. He worked for the Centre for European Policy Studies and the Finnish Institute of International Affairs. Paul Ivan is a Romanian diplomat. Previously, he worked as a researcher for the Centre for European Policy Studies, where he focused on EU political and institutional issues and the European External Action Service. Hrant Kostanyan is an associate research fellow at CEPS and a PhD candidate at the Centre for EU Studies at Ghent University. He worked as an external expert for International Alert, based in London, in the Eastern Europe and South Caucasus research project. He also worked as an expert on a European Commission-funded project on the EU’s relations with Russia and the Eastern Partnership at the EU Neighbourhood Info Centre. The authors thank Piotr Maciej Kaczyński for his comments on an earlier draft. ISBN 978-94-6138-262-7 © Copyright 2013, Centre for European Policy Studies and the authors.
    [Show full text]
  • EU Policy Towards Its Eastern Neighbours
    OÂRODEK STUDIÓW WSCHODNICH IM. MARKA KARPIA CENTRE FOR EASTERN STUDIES INTEGRATION OR IMITATION? EU policy towards its Eastern Neighbours K a t a r z y n a P e ł c z y ƒ s k a - N a ł ´ c z The author would like to thank Ms Katarzyna Jarzyƒska for her assistance in the preparation of the source materials The paper was prepared within the framework of the IFRI-OSW research programme N U M E R / I S S U E 3 6 W A R S Z A W A , K W I E C I E ¡ 2 0 1 1 PRACE OSW W A R S A W , A P R I L 2 0 1 1 O S W S T U D I E S © Copyright by OÊrodek Studiów Wschodnich im. Marka Karpia Editor Anna ¸abuszewska Co-operation Katarzyna Kazimierska Translation Ilona Duchnowicz Co-operation Nicholas Furnival, Timothy Harrell Graphic design Dorota Nowacka Publisher OÊrodek Studiów Wschodnich im. Marka Karpia / Centre for Eastern Studies ul. Koszykowa 6a, Warszawa / Warsaw, Poland phone + 48 /22/ 525 80 00 fax +48 /22/ 525 80 40 osw.waw.pl ISBN 978-83-62936-00-7 Contents INTEGRATION OR IMITATION? EU policy towards its Eastern Neighbours Introduction / 5 Executive Summary / 8 Part I. Eastern neighbourhood – how far from the European Union? / 14 Part II. The Eastern vector of the neighbourhood policy / 29 Postscript. How to avoid the pretence? / 55 INTEGRATION OR IMITATION? EU policy towards its Eastern Neighbours Introduction The European Union’s policy towards the six post-Soviet countries, Ukraine, Belarus, Moldova, Georgia, Armenia and Azerbaijan, has entered a new phase since 2004.
    [Show full text]
  • Strategy 2010
    STRATEGY 2010 What Direction for European Development Policy? Directorate-General of Global Affairs, Development and Partnerships French Proposals DIRECTORATE-GENERAL OF GLOBAL AffaIRS, DEVELOPMENT AND PARTNERSHIPS WHAT DIRECTION FOR EUROPEAN DEVELOPMENT POLICY? FRENCH PROPOSALS Évaluation réalisée par : Pluricité Nicolas Subileau Alix de Saint-Albin Michel Hoffert Synthèse du rapport (français et russe) Rapport remis en décembre 2009 MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AND EUROPEAN AFFAIRS contentS Acknowledgements This document would not have been possible without the active participation and input from various Directorates of the Ministry for Foreign and European Affairs (MAEE), the Ministry of the Economy, Industry and Employment (MINEIE), the French Development Agency (AFD), the Ministry of Immigration, National Identity, Integration and Co-development (MIIIDS), the Ministry of the Interior, Overseas France and Territorial Communities (MIOMCT), the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries (MAAP), the Ministry of Ecology, Energy, Sustainable Development and the Sea (MEEDEM), the Ministry of Defence and the Secretariat General for European Affairs (SGAE). The document was also enriched by consultations with civil society. The layout of this document was prepared by European Development Policy Pole of the Directorate General of Global Affairs, Development and Partnerships (DGM), which organised the consultation meetings. The following people also participated in different ways in the discussions, drafting and review of this document: For the MAEE:
    [Show full text]
  • The EU and Peacebuilding After Lisbon1
    Power Analysis: The EU and peacebuilding after Lisbon1 Objectives: To analyse the roles and responsibilities of EU policymakers – insofar as they relate to conflict – following the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty; To identify advocacy opportunities for civil society working on peacebuilding; To provide an overview of the roles of the EU institutions in conflict for participants in the short training course on the EU and peacebuilding. Index: 1) European Council 2) Council of the EU Council of the EU – General Presidency of the Council of the EU General Secretariat of the Council of the EU 3) External Action Service 4) European Commission European Commission: General European Commission: FPI European Commission: DEVCO European Commission: Enlargement and ENP European Commission: Trade 5) European Parliament (individual MEPs, groups, committees, rapporteurs) 6) Member States (at Member State level: ministers; officials in capitals; national parliaments) 7) Other: European Investment Bank EU Institute for Security Studies European Defence Agency BEPA, EIPA 8) Relevant EU policy documents 1 This document has been prepared as a resource for civil society organisations working on peacebuilding. The views expressed do not necessarily reflect the position of EPLO or its member organisations. The document is based on information available in June 2012. 1 European Council Description: The European Council is made up of heads of governments or states, the President of the European Commission and the President of the European Council, who chairs the meetings. The President of the European Council (currently Herman van Rompuy) is elected by qualified majority from EU Member States for a two and a half year term which is renewable once.
    [Show full text]
  • Instrument Contributing to Stability and Peace Lead DG: FPI Associated Dgs: DEVCO I
    Programme Statements DB2021 HEADING 4: Global Europe Instrument contributing to Stability and Peace Lead DG: FPI Associated DGs: DEVCO I. Overview What the programme is about? The Instrument contributing to Stability and Peace (IcSP) is one of the EU’s main instruments in the areas of crisis response, conflict prevention, peace-building and crisis preparedness, and in addressing global and trans-regional threats. It came into force in 2014, replacing the Instrument for Stability (IfS) and several earlier instruments that focused on drugs, landmines, displaced people, crisis management, rehabilitation and reconstruction. The IcSP provides quick, short-term support in countries or regions where a crisis is emerging or unfolding, as well as longer-term support to conflict prevention, peace-building and crisis preparedness activities as well as activities addressing global and trans-regional threats and emerging threats. Its activities complement those of the European Union’s geographical and other thematic instruments. The actions of the IcSP are structured around three operational articles in its regulation: Article 3 – Assistance in response to situations of crisis or emerging crisis to prevent conflicts – consumes 70 % of the financial envelope and is non-programmable; Article 4 activities – Assistance for conflict prevention, peace building and crisis preparedness –consumes 9 % of the financial envelope and are programmable; finally, Article 5, which is implemented by DG DEVCO, covers the third objective of the instrument – Assistance to address global and trans-regional threats – and is also subject to programming. EU added value of the programme The Treaty on the European Union, under Article 21, has defined common overarching principles and objectives for the Union’s external action, such as to ‘preserve peace, prevent conflicts and strengthen international security’.
    [Show full text]
  • Policy Department External Policies the EU's APPROACH to TACKLING THE
    WORKING PAPER Policy Department External Policies THE EU'S APPROACH TO TACKLING THE PROLIFERATION OF MATERIALS AND WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION AND PROSPECTS FOR COOPERATION ON THE EVE OF A NEW US ADMINISTRATION SECURITY AND DEFENCE November 2008 JANUARY 2004 EN DIRECTORATE-GENERAL FOR EXTERNAL POLICIES OF THE UNION DIRECTORATE B - POLICY DEPARTMENT - WORKING PAPER The EU's approach to tackling the proliferation of Materials and Weapons of Mass Destruction and prospects for cooperation on the eve of a new US Administration This Working Paper survey's the EU's approach to tackling the proliferation of Materials and Weapons of Mass Destruc tion (WMD) which serves as a basis for preparing ourselves for what is expected to be a US priority for engagement with Europe. This working paper was originally written following a conference in Berlin and will be published as a book chapter (this will become evident when reading below). DGExPo/B/PolDep/Working Paper/2008_218 5 November 2008 EN This Working Paper will be published as a chapter entitled "A New Transatlantic Approach? A view from Europe" in a forthcoming book edited by Oliver Meier and Christopher Daase and entitled "Coercive Arms Control: the paradigm shift in Arms Control and Non- proliferation". Copyright therefore remains with the requesting publisher. It is published in the following language: English Author: Dr Gerrard Quille Directorate-General for External Policies of the Union Policy Department BD4 06 M 81 rue Wiertz B-1047 Brussels E-mail: [email protected] Publisher Policy Department, DG EXPO Manuscript completed on 5 November 2008.
    [Show full text]
  • Information Guide EU-ACP Relations
    Information Guide EU-ACP Relations A guide to the European Union’s relations with the African, Caribbean and Pacific States, with hyperlinks to sources of information within European Sources Online and on external websites Contents Introduction .................................................................................................. 2 Background and legal basis ............................................................................. 2 The ACP Group of States ................................................................................ 3 The Cotonou Agreement ................................................................................. 4 Support for the Least Developed and Highly Indebted Poor Countries .................. 12 Cooperation with Africa ................................................................................. 13 European Consensus on Development ............................................................. 16 The future of ACP-EU cooperation ................................................................... 19 Information sources in the ESO database ........................................................ 20 Further information sources on the internet ..................................................... 20 Copyright © 2013 Cardiff EDC. All rights reserved. 1 Cardiff EDC is part of the University Library Service at Cardiff University Introduction We should see our reflections on the future of ACP-EU relations as a unique opportunity for us to establish a relevant, modern relationship that builds
    [Show full text]
  • Service for Foreign Policy Instruments 2013 MANAGEMENT PLAN
    EUROPEAN COMMISSION Service for Foreign Policy Instruments Service for Foreign Policy Instruments 2013 Management Plan [June 2013 update] / 1 EUROPEAN COMMISSION Service for Foreign Policy Instruments Table of contents 1. MISSION STATEMENT ........................................................................................................................ 3 2. KEY CHALLENGES ............................................................................................................................. 3 3. GENERAL OBJECTIVES ..................................................................................................................... 7 4. SPECIFIC OBJECTIVES FOR OPERATIONAL ACTIVITIES ........................................................... 10 5. SPECIFIC OBJECTIVES FOR HORIZONTAL ACTIVITIES.............................................................. 30 / 2 Service for Foreign Policy Instruments 2013 MANAGEMENT PLAN 1. Mission statement The mission of the Service for Foreign Policy Instruments (FPI) is to support the attainment of the objectives of the EU foreign and security policy as defined in Article 21 of the Treaty on European Union, in particular as regards peace and conflict prevention, and to project the EU’s interests and image in the world. For that purpose FPI is responsible, under the authority of the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy in his/her capacity as Vice- President of the Commission, for the operational and financial management of the budgets for Common Foreign and
    [Show full text]
  • The Instrument for Stability ─ Multi-Annual Indicative Programme 2009-2011
    EN EN EN COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES Brussels, 8.4.2009 C(2009)2641 The Instrument for Stability ─ Multi-annual Indicative Programme 2009-2011 EN 1 EN TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION...................................................................................................................... 4 1. PRIORITY 1: SUPPORT FOR THE OBJECTIVES OF THE EU NON-PROLIFERATION OF WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION STRATEGY........................................ 7 1.1. Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 7 1.2. Context and justification (Project areas 1-6)....................................................................... 8 Project area 1 — Regional centres of excellence on CBRN ...................................................... 8 Project area 2 — Fighting illicit CBRN trafficking and deceptive financial practices.............. 8 Project area 3 — Support for bio-safety and bio-security.......................................................... 9 Project area 4 — Assistance and cooperation on export controls on dual-use goods................ 9 Project area 5 — Support for the retraining and alternative employment of former weapons scientists and engineers................................................................................................ 9 Project area 6 — Support for Multilateral Nuclear Assurance (MNA) initiatives................... 10 2. PRIORITY 2: TRANS-REGIONAL THREATS ...............................................................
    [Show full text]