Annexes to JOIN(2015)6 - JOINT CONSULTATION PAPER Towards a new European Neighbourhood Policy

Please note

This page contains a limited version of this dossier in the EU Monitor.

dossier JOIN(2015)6 - JOINT CONSULTATION PAPER Towards a new European Neighbourhood Policy.
document JOIN(2015)6 EN
date March  4, 2015
agreements such as the Association Agreements and the Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Areas (AAs/DCFTAs).

Are the Association Agreements and DCFTAs the right objective for all or should more tailor-made alternatives be developed, to reflect differing interests and ambitions of some partners?

ENP Action Plans have framed the development of relationships between the EU and most ENP partners.

Are the ENP Action Plans the right tool to deepen our partnerships? Are they too broad for some partners? Would the EU, would partners, benefit from a narrower focus and greater prioritisation?

ENP Progress Reports have helped the EU monitor closely progress with each of the ENP partners that have Action Plans, against the jointly agreed objectives set out in those Plans.

Is this approach appropriate for all partners? Has it added value to the EU’s relations with each of its partners? Can EU and/or partner interests be served by a lighter reporting mechanism? Should the reporting be modulated according to the level of engagement of the ENP partner concerned? How can we better communicate key elements?

· The ENP has provided a framework for sector cooperation across a broad range of areas (including energy, transport, agriculture and rural development, justice and home affairs, customs, taxation, environment, disaster management, research and innovation, education, youth, culture, health, etc.).

Can partnerships be focussed more explicitly on joint interests, in order to increase ownership on both sides? How should the ENP accommodate the differentiation that this would entail? Are new elements needed to support deeper cooperation in these or other fields?

Visa liberalisation and visa facilitation processes have eased travel and cemented reforms; mobility partnerships have furthered contacts, with programmes supporting these processes.

What further work is necessary in this area, which is regarded as key by all ENP partners? How can the ENP further support the management of migration and help to draw the benefits of mobility?

The EU seeks to promote prosperity on its borders. Prosperity in the partner countries is negatively affected by structural weaknesses such as inequalities, poverty, the informal economy and deficiencies in democracy, pluralism and respect for the rule of law. In addition, much of the ENP partners’ economic and social development has been disrupted by turbulence due to conflict or rapid internal change.

How can the EU do more to support sustainable economic and social development in the ENP partner countries? How can we empower economically, politically and socially the younger generation? How to better promote sustainable employment? And how can these objectives be better linked to indispensable reforms in the fields of anti-corruption, judicial reform, governance and security, which are prerequisites for foreign direct investment?

The EU seeks to promote stability on its borders. To address existing challenges effectively, the EU has to draw on all its cooperation instruments. Activities under the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) and the Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP) have until now been conducted outside of the ENP framework. The level of instability in some partner countries not only disrupts progress towards democracy but also threatens the rule of law, violates human rights and has serious impacts on the EU, such as irregular migratory flows and security threats.

How should the ENP address conflicts and crises in the neighbourhood? Should CFSP and CSDP activities be better integrated in the ENP framework? Should it have a greater role in developing confidence-building measures and post-conflict actions as well as related state- and institution-building activities?

Should the ENP be given a strengthened focus on working with partners on the prevention of radicalisation, the fight against terrorism and organised crime?

Should security sector reform be given greater importance in the ENP?

The ENP includes a clear objective to promote regional cooperation. Together with partners, the EU has pursued such cooperation through the Union for the Mediterranean (UfM) in the South and the Eastern Partnership (EaP) in the East.

Is the multilateral dimension able to deliver further added value? Are these formats fit for purpose? How can their effectiveness be strengthened? Can we more effectively use other, more flexible frameworks? Can we better cooperate with other regional actors (Council of Europe, OSCE, League of Arab States, Organisation of the Islamic Conference, African Union)?

· The ENP works extensively with governments, but also seeks to engage with civil society, including enhancing its monitoring function, particularly in countries where civil society is free, or largely free, to operate.

How should the ENP further develop engagement with civil society in its widest sense? Can more be done to network different parts of the partner populations?

What more can be done to promote links between business communities? With and between Social Partners (trade unions and employers’ organisations) and to promote social dialogue?What can be done to promote links between scientific communities, universities, local authorities, women, youth, the media?

· The ENP seeks real partnership with the EU’s neighbours, and this must reflect and embrace diversity.

How can the ENP do more to foster religious dialogue and respect for cultural diversity, and counter prejudice? Should increasing understanding of each other’s cultures be a more specific goal of the ENP and how should this be pursued? How can the ENP help tackle discrimination against vulnerable groups?

III.   Towards a Partnership with a Clearer Focus and More Tailored Cooperation

Experience and initial comments by a number of EU Member States and ENP partner countries to this review point to four priority areas which require further consultation and reflection:

- Differentiation

- Focus

- Flexibility

- Ownership & visibility

1. The Challenges of Differentiation

Some partners in the East are embarking on DCFTAs, and aspire to the closest possible relationship with the EU. Although the large scope of the relationship is far from exhausted in any of these cases, there is an aspiration on their side to set a further horizon beyond their Association Agreements/DCFTAs.

In the South, there are increasing divergences in the aspirations of partner countries and instability arising from armed conflict. The events in the Arab world in 2011 and thereafter have fundamentally changed the region. For some Southern partners, this has led to positive political change; others are undergoing complex transitions, remain heavily exposed to the fallout of the Syrian crisis, or remain caught in protracted conflicts.

Should the EU gradually explore new relationship formats to satisfy the aspirations and choices of those who do not consider the Association Agreements as the final stage of political association and economic integration?

How should the EU take forward the tasking of the 2013 Eastern Partnership Summit in Vilnius of the long-term goal of a wider common area of economic prosperity based on WTO rules and sovereign choices throughout Europe and beyond?

Is there scope within the ENP for some kind of variable geometry, with different kinds of relationships for those partners that choose different levels of engagement?

2. Focus

Our cooperation with ENP partners, as set out in the Action Plans, is currently very broad. Experience suggests that the ENP will be most effective when the agenda of the EU and its partner is truly shared. The review needs to clarify what are the interests of the EU and each partner, and those areas of strongest common interest. This will help strengthen the partnership between the EU and our neighbouring countries going forwards.

On the basis of our informal consultations to date, the initial assessment is that the EU and our partners have strongest common interest in the following areas:

Promoting trade and inclusive and sustainable economic development and enhancing job opportunities are priorities for our Neighbours and are also in the interests of the EU itself, in areas ranging from traditional rural livelihoods to research and digital markets.  Both also have strong shared interests in improving connectivity, notably in the fields of sustainable transport and energy. There is also a shared interest in increasing energy security and efficiency, as well as energy safety. There are currently a number of conflicts affecting the neighbourhood region. Stability is a prerequisite for working together on enhanced prosperity. The EU and its Member States need to do more together with our partners to address the security threats that arise from conflict situations, from organised crime and from terrorism, and to develop our ability to jointly manage crises and disasters. Our partners face governance challenges. Ensuring rule of law, human rights and democracy is first and foremost key for their own citizens. By enhancing legal certainty, they also address issues that are important for domestic and foreign investors, such as fighting corruption and fraud and strengthening public finance management, including public internal control based on international standards. Migration and mobility is a key area of co-operation for the EU and our partners. Enhancing mobility, especially for education, scientific, cultural, training and professional purposes, has positive effects on economies and societies alike. Tackling people smuggling and illegal migration is a common challenge. Other common challenges with impacts across borders are health security, threats to the environment and climate change. Increasing engagement with young people, including through educational exchanges and other networks, can play a major role in developing a common vision for the future. The EU will continue to support increased opportunities for women.

The review is an opportunity to establish a firm understanding between the EU and our partners of those areas of strongest common interest. This will be the basis for a stronger partnership going forwards.

In that regard, we would propose to focus the consultations on the following questions:

- Do you agree with the proposed areas of focus? If not, what alternative or additional priorities would you propose?

- Which priorities do partners see in terms of their relations with the EU? Which sector or policy areas would they like to develop further? Which areas are less interesting for partners?

- Does the ENP currently have the right tools to address the priorities on which you consider it should focus? How could sectoral dialogues contribute?

- If not, what new tools could be helpful to deepen cooperation in these sectors?

- How can the EU better support a focus on a limited number of key sectors, for partners that prefer this?

3. Flexibility – Towards a More Flexible Toolbox

Over the past ten years, the EU has developed and expanded the instruments of the ENP. It is currently based on the following central elements:

o Relations between the EU and the majority of ENP partner countries are structured in the legal framework provided by Association Agreements (AAs) or Partnership and Cooperation Agreements (PCAs).

o Action Plans or Association Agendas have been agreed to date with 12 ENP partner countries; for each of these countries, there is an annual report on implementation of Action Plan priorities.

o In addition to annual progress reports, the Annual Neighbourhood Package also comprises one strategic communication and two reports on implementation of regional cooperation priorities, one on the Partnership for Democracy and Shared Prosperity with Southern partners and the other on the Eastern Partnership.

o The EU holds regular bilateral dialogues with most ENP partner countries in different formats. This includes formal exchanges foreseen in the AAs or PCAs (Association/Cooperation Councils, Association/Cooperation Committees, sectoral subcommittees). There are also numerous other interfaces, such as Human Rights Dialogues and other sector-specific dialogues.

o Substantial targeted financial support has already been provided to ENP partner countries. A further EUR 15 billion is foreseen for the period 2014-2020. A mid-term review is scheduled for 2017, which will be a major opportunity to adjust the allocation and implementation of funding from the European Neighbourhood Instrument in the light of the results of this review and to ensure that the EU is better able to respond more flexibly through its financial cooperation to rapidly changing developments in the region.

o How to streamline Action Plans to adapt them better to individual country needs and priorities?

o Is annual reporting needed for countries which do not choose to pursue closer political and economic integration?

o How should the EU structure relations with countries that do not currently have Action Plans?

o How can the EU adapt the ‘more for more’ principle to a context in which certain partners do not choose closer integration, in order to create incentives for the respect of fundamental values and further key reforms?

o How to assess progress against jointly agreed reform targets when a partner country experiences significant external pressure, for instance armed conflict or refugee flows?

o How can the EU engage more effectively and respond more flexibly to developments in partner countries affected by conflict situations?

o What tools would the EU need to respond more effectively to fast-changing developments in its neighbourhood?

o Are the choice of sectors and mechanisms for delivery of EU financial support appropriate? How could its impact and visibility be enhanced?

4. Ownership & Visibility

One of the most often repeated criticisms of the ENP is a lacking sense of ownership with partners, across their societies, and the general public’s weak awareness of the policy’s aims and impact. It is clear that substantial efforts are needed in the context of the ENP review to improve both the ownership of this policy by partner countries and to improve communication of its objectives and results both within the EU and in the partner countries.

What do partners seek in the ENP? How can it best accommodate their interests and aspirations?

Can ways of working be developed that are seen as more respectful by partners and demonstrate a partnership of equals? How should this impact on annual reporting ?

Can the structures of the ENP be made more cooperative, to underline the partners’ own choices and to enable all civil society actors across partner countries to take part?

Can the ENP deliver benefits within a shorter timeframe, in order that the value of the policy can be more easily grasped by the public? What would this require from the EU? And from the partner country?

How can the EU financial support be recast in an investment rather than donor dynamic, in which the partner country’s active role is clearer?

How can EU Member States be involved more effectively in the design and implementation of the policy, including as concerns foreign policy and security related activities? How can the activities in EU Member States be better coordinated with the ENP?

This phase of public consultation will be crucial in helping to build greater ownership and to pave the way for more effective communication in the future of the ENP.

IV.   Next Steps

The purpose of this document is to frame a policy debate on the future direction of the ENP. The aim is to consult as widely as possible both with partners in the neighbouring countries and with stakeholders across the EU. We will consult with Member States and partners, but also with a wide range of actors from parliaments, including the European Parliament, civil society and think tanks, and from the social partners, business and academic communities. We will engage with key international organisations active in the neighbourhood, including notably the Council of Europe, the OSCE as well as the major international financing institutions. Interested members of the public will also have an opportunity to submit written contributions. The consultation on this document is foreseen until the end of June.

[1]               COM(2003) 104 final of 11.03.2003

[2]               COM(2011) 303 of 25.05.2011