Category Archives: Conflict Prevention

INTRODUCTION
Conflict prevention
EU response to fragile situations
Instrument for Stability (2007 – 2013)
Cooperation with ACP States involved in armed conflicts
Disaster and crisis response in Non-EU Member Countries
International Treaties
CIVILIAN CRISIS MANAGENT
Financing of civilian crisis management operations
Civilian Headline Goal 2008

Conflict prevention

Conflict prevention

Outline of the Community (European Union) legislation about Conflict prevention

Topics

These categories group together and put in context the legislative and non-legislative initiatives which deal with the same topic.

Foreign and security policy > Conflict prevention

Conflict prevention

INTRODUCTION

  • Conflict prevention
  • EU response to fragile situations
  • Instrument for Stability (2007 – 2013)
  • Cooperation with ACP States involved in armed conflicts
  • Disaster and crisis response in Non-EU Member Countries

CIVILIAN CRISIS MANAGENT

  • Financing of civilian crisis management operations
  • Civilian Headline Goal 2008


Another Normative about Conflict prevention

Topics

These categories group together and put in context the legislative and non-legislative initiatives which deal with the same topic

Foreign and security policy > Conflict prevention

Conflict prevention

Document or Iniciative

Commission Communication of 11 April 2001 on Conflict Prevention [COM(2001)211 final – Not published in the Official Journal].

Summary

Background

Many factors contribute to conflict – poverty, economic stagnation, uneven distribution of resources, weak social structures, lack of good governance, systematic discrimination, oppression of minorities, the destabilising effects of refugee flows, ethnic antagonism, religious and cultural intolerance, social injustice and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and small arms. To control these factors and ensure that they do not lead to conflict, the Commission has drawn up a list of potential causes of conflict to monitor.

The Communication is divided into three sections referring to the Commission’s priorities: long-term prevention, short-term prevention and enhanced international cooperation. An annex contains a list of recommendations for the three priorities.

Long-term prevention: projecting stability

As a promoter of integration, the EU has for decades maintained special relations with its neighbours, which have helped to maintain a high level of stability and prosperity. This regional cooperation has not stopped at the EU’s borders, and could also serve as an example to bodies such as Mercosur, the West African Economic and Monetary Union (UEMOA) and the Gulf Co-operation Council (GCC), which already receive EU support.

Trade is an important aspect of cooperation and development and contributes to conflict prevention. Through the Generalised System of Preferences (GSP), the EU facilitates access to the European market for most products from developing countries. The system is based on tariff preferences at variable rates, accompanied by trade-related capacity building. Since February 2001, the Everything but Arms initiative has given duty-free access to the European market, without quotas, to all products from the least developed countries (LDCs) other than arms. These preferences may be suspended if a country’s political situation deteriorates.

Conflict prevention must be incorporated in cooperation programmes, since violent conflict rarely springs out of nowhere, but is the result of a gradual deterioration. Development policy and cooperation programmes are therefore effective instruments for dealing with the root causes of conflict. Their emphasis is on reducing poverty.

It is, however, not enough for the EU to be a major supplier of aid to the world. It’s approach must also be integrated, i.e. take account of each country’s specific conditions while seeking sustainable or structural stability, as in Salvador and Guatemala.

Country strategy papers (CSP) are an essential part of this integrated approach. They include an evaluation of potential conflict using the indicators referred to above. Conflict prevention measures will thus be incorporated in the cooperation programmes of countries with obvious risk factors.

For sustainable stability and conflict prevention, a healthy macroeconomic environment is also necessary. The Commission therefore provides financial support for appropriate economic reform programmes in highly indebted poor countries (HIPC).

A democratic deficit goes hand in hand with the potential for conflict. Countries at risk therefore tend to have a poorly developed democratic process, making external support difficult to implement. To support democracy, the rule of law and civil society, the EU conducts operations in the fields of transition, democratic elections, civil and political rights, freedom of expression and of the media, good governance, the development of civil society and gender equality. Particular emphasis will be placed on support to electoral processes, parliamentary activities and the administration of justice.

Measures to support security reforms (police, armed forces, etc.) and specific measures for post-conflict situations are also necessary. The latter include demobilisation, disarmament and reintegration (DDR), demining operations, particular attention to children affected by armed conflict, and measures to promote the reconciliation process.

A third aspect of long-term prevention is more effective handling of cross-cutting issues such as drugs, small arms, the management of natural resources, environmental degradation, communicable diseases, massive population flows, human trafficking and private-sector interests in unstable areas. The Communication gives examples of EU initiatives to combat the negative impact of these practices and explains the importance for conflict prevention of eliminating them. Private businesses in unstable areas have a responsibility in terms of a country’s socio-economic development and also in terms of their possible contribution to maintaining, or even creating, structural causes of conflict. Guidelines therefore encourage businesses to behave more responsibly. This includes respect for the human rights of local people, and non-interference in the political process.

Short-term prevention: reacting rapidly to incipient conflicts

In parallel with the long-term strategy, early-warning and rapid reaction capacity is also needed. Two classic EU instruments, of which optimal use must be made, are emergency economic assistance and election observers. It also has political and diplomatic instruments at its disposal, such as political dialogue, Special Representatives and the use of sanctions. In its recommendations the Commission proposes making political dialogue more focused and flexible, giving Special Representatives the role of full mediators and using sanctions preventively as well as reactively. It also considers that the civilian and military crisis-management tools developed in the context of the European Security and Defence Policy (ESDP) could be used in pre-crisis scenarios.

The EU also has a Rapid Reaction Mechanism with a single financial and legal framework, which facilitates Commission action in this field.

Enhancing international cooperation on conflict prevention

The Commission considers that the “Friends of” approach, bringing together a country’s suppliers of aid, is a good method for coordinating action with partner countries in post-conflict situations. Prevention also occupies an important place in the EU’s dialogue with industrialised countries.

In terms of international organisations, the Commission advocates enhanced cooperation with the United Nations, the Bretton Woods institutions (World Bank and International Monetary Fund), the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), the Council of Europe, the Organisation for Cooperation and Economic Development (OECD) and the G8 (Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States). Such cooperation will take account of the specific characteristics of each organisation.

The Commission recognises the essential role of non-governmental organisations (NGOs), particularly on the ground, and states its intention of emphasising conflict prevention in its dealings with them.

Conclusion

The Commission considers that the advantage of conflict prevention has been demonstrated, and is determined to mobilise Community instruments more effectively and with better coordination. It intends to direct its efforts towards:

  • building the objectives of peace, democracy and political and social stability more clearly into assistance programmes;
  • ensuring that account is taken of political and social exclusion, social and regional marginalisation and environmental degradation;
  • bringing added value to international initiatives on cross-cutting issues which are potential sources of conflict;
  • making effective use of other means such as trade and social policy;
  • developing new approaches and instruments.

In conclusion, the Commission states that the EU’s capacity for action is dependent on three factors: a clear definition of objectives, the capacity to act and, most importantly, the political will to act. A list of recommendations derived from the Communication is annexed.

Related Acts

Council Regulation (EC) No 2368/2002 of 20 December 2002 implementing the Kimberley Process certification scheme for the international trade in rough diamonds [Official Journal No L 358 of 31.12.2002]

Commission Communication of 29 November 2001 on Financing of civilian crisis management operations [COM(2001) 647 final – Not published in the Official Journal]

Council Regulation (EC) No 381/2001 of 26 February 2001 creating a rapid-reaction mechanism [OJ L 57of 27.2.2001]

Commission Communication of 11 April 2000 on EU election assistance and observation [COM(2000) 191 final – Not published in the Official Journal]

Commission Report: “One Year On: the Commission’s Conflict Prevention Policy”, March 2002

by the Secretary General/CFSP High representative and the Commission to the Nice European Council, 7-8 December 2000.

Civilian Headline Goal 2008

Civilian Headline Goal 2008

Outline of the Community (European Union) legislation about Civilian Headline Goal 2008

Topics

These categories group together and put in context the legislative and non-legislative initiatives which deal with the same topic.

Foreign and security policy > Conflict prevention

Civilian Headline Goal 2008

Document or Iniciative

Civilian Headline Goal 2008 , approved by the Brussels European Council on 17 December 2004 [15863/04 – Not published in the Official Journal].

Summary

The EU is determined to share in the responsibility for global security. As underlined in the European Security Strategy, civil crisis management must therefore constitute an essential component of the European Union’s external policy.

Ambitions and tasks

A coherent use of Community and civilian ESDP instruments in civil crisis management situations is of key importance.
The Member States have identified six priority sectors of civil crisis management:

  • police;
  • rule of law;
  • civil administration;
  • civil protection;
  • monitoring missions;
  • support for EU special representatives.

The document also notes that the EU should be able to contribute to security sector reform and support disarmament, demobilisation and reintegration processes.

The EU will deploy integrated and variable civilian crisis management packages that meet specific needs on the ground and contribute to strengthening local institutions by means of advice, training, monitoring and “substitution missions”.

The EU must therefore be equipped to conduct several civilian ESDP crisis management missions concurrently including at least one large civilian substitution mission:

  • at short notice;
  • in a non-benign environment.

Sustainability and the high quality of the personnel involved in civilian crisis management will have to be at the core of Member States’ efforts.

Rapid reaction is key to an effective response in acute crises. The EU has set the aim of being able to take the decision to launch a mission within 5 days of the approval of the Crisis Management Concept by the Council. Specific civilian ESDP capabilities should be deployable within 30 days of the decision to launch the mission.

ESDP civilian crisis management missions can be deployed autonomously, jointly or in close cooperation with military operations. The civil-military cell plays an important role in this respect.

A clear division of labour between Community efforts and ESDP activities and close cooperation with Community activities in the planning and implementation phases of ESDP civilian missions will be an important element to ensure coherence, taking into account planned future Community activity.

Process and way ahead

The Civilian Headline Goal will be developed under the auspices of the Council. It will be overseen by the Political and Security Committee (PSC) and supported by the Committee for Civilian Aspects of Crisis Management (CIVCOM) according to a systematic approach based on four stages:

  • Development of key planning assumptions and illustrative scenarios (to be completed by April 2005).
    A number of strategic planning assumptions and illustrative scenarios will be developed and will serve to define the capacities necessary to achieve the 2010 Headline Goal.
  • Drawing up of a Capabilities Requirements List (to be completed by July 2005).
    This list sets out needs in terms of personnel, equipment, planning, logistics and mission support, as well as command and control requirements and the multifunctional capability packages required.
  • Assessment of national contributions and identification of capability shortfalls (end of 2005).
    Member State contributions to the Capabilities Requirements List will be examined by PSC and CIVCOM. Once the needs and resources available have been determined, the EU will be able to identify shortfalls and prioritise which resources to develop (Capabilities Improvement Plan).
  • Civilian Headline Goal follow-up process
    In order to meet capability needs, a system for providing a regular review of capabilities will be adopted.

The establishment of appropriate operational planning and mission support capabilities within the Council Secretariat to ensure the ability of the EU to conduct several civilian crisis management missions simultaneously must be addressed urgently.

The Civilian Headline Goal process should take into account work of the Headline Goal 2010 process. Experts in civilian crisis management from international organisations, in particular from the UN and the OSCE, should be consulted in order to facilitate a more effective response to demands from such organisations (particularly the UN).

Background

Given the complexity of the conflicts and crisis management situations the EU is increasingly called on to deal with, demand for civilian instruments in the framework of the ESDP is growing. The first ESDP operation authorised by the Council (EUPM) in Bosnia and Herzegovina was a civilian operation (2003); in December 2004, three civilian missions and a monitoring mission were operational.
At the Civilian Capabilities Improvement Conference on 22 November 2004, the Foreign Affairs Ministers of the EU welcomed the progress made under the Action Plan for Civilian Aspects of ESDP and called for the establishment of the Civilian Headline Goal, which identifies needs-driven goals enabling the EU to further define and build up its civilian capabilities before 2008.

Related Acts

Civilian Capabilities Improvement Conference – Ministerial Declaration ( ). Brussels, 21 November 2005 [14713/05 (Press 306) – Not published in the Official Journal].

Civilian Capabilities Improvement Conference – Ministerial Declaration ( ). Brussels, 13 November 2006 [Not published in the Official Journal].

This summary is for information only and is not designed to interpret or replace the reference document, which remains the only binding legal text.

Financing of civilian crisis management operations

Financing of civilian crisis management operations

Outline of the Community (European Union) legislation about Financing of civilian crisis management operations

Topics

These categories group together and put in context the legislative and non-legislative initiatives which deal with the same topic.

Foreign and security policy > Conflict prevention

Financing of civilian crisis management operations

Document or Iniciative

Commission Communication of 29 November 2001 on Financing of civilian crisis management operations [COM(2001) 647 final – Not published in the Official Journal]

Summary

In view of the need for more effective and reliable procedures for the rapid financing of civilian crisis interventions, the Commission has drawn up recommendations on the subject. It proposes a new flexibility instrument to permit the release of additional funds for external action, while remaining within the financial perspectives. It also believes that the procedures should be made less cumbersome and that Member State contributions could be considered in exceptional circumstances.

A new flexibility instrument

The Commission considers that since the Treaties of Maastricht and Amsterdam established new instruments for action in this field, and given the scale of the crises with which the EU must respond, it is important to ensure coordination and cohesion between the instruments. There must be no confusion about the distribution of tasks. As in the case of the (RRM), it proposes a derogation from the rule requiring CFSP crisis operations to be charged to the regular budget.

Given that both Community and CFSP appropriations depend on the financial perspectives, the Commission considers ways of mobilising needed to respond to a crisis situation. One solution would be to create a crisis management reserve outside the heading for external actions. This would allow the EU to live up to its ambitions, but could also involve a revision of the ceiling. The Commission therefore feels that it would be more prudent to create a new flexibility instrument allowing the EU to respond to unexpected situations without changing the financial perspective ceiling. At the same time the use of the current emergency reserve would be extended to CFSP crisis interventions.

The new instrument should be backed up by improved management, with faster decision-making, adoption and implementation procedures. The mobilisation of the funds from the emergency reserve would follow the present rules. In the Commission’s view this arrangement has three advantages:

Member States only have to contribute when the reserve is exhausted;

  • there is no need to establish a new funding key; and
  • maintaining established budgetary management structures means that administrative overheads can be kept to a minimum

Background

The Court of Auditors has criticised the cumbersome nature of common foreign and security policy (CFSP) procedures for financing civilian crisis management. It believes that the Commission should be more involved at the preparatory stage and that transparency should be improved.

Civilian crisis management operations have four priority fields of action, established by the Feira European Council: the police, the rule of law, civilian protection and civilian administration. The source of their budget financing depends on their purpose and their content. Funds may come from three different budget lines:

  • the appropriate Community budget line, when the operations are conducted under a Community instrument (information or observation missions, training, economic and trade development incentives, mine clearance, human rights, reconstruction, food aid, humanitarian interventions, etc.);
  • the CFSP budget line for CFSP operations without military or defence implications (such as disarmament, support for peace processes, political assistance, etc.);
  • a budget other than the EC budget for operations under the European Security and Defence Policy (ESDP) with military or defence implications.

In the case of CFSP operations, procedures are becoming too cumbersome and threaten to reduce the potential and credibility of the European Union. The Commission considers that if the Community wishes to continue financing CFSP operations from the budget, it must note sure they can be implemented rapidly. Two options could be considered in the context of the CFSP to remove the budgetary constraints: systematic drawing on Member State contributions or increasing the flexibility of the regular budget. The Commission considers the second option more appropriate, since creating a new ad hoc fund would raise many issues concerning its management, control and coherence.

Related Acts

Council Regulation (EC) No 458/2008 of 26 May 2008 amending Council Regulation (EC) No 2368/2002 implementing the Kimberley Process certification scheme for the international trade in rough diamonds [Official JournalL 137, 27.5.2008].

Commission Communication of 1 October 2004: Proposal for a Council Regulation establishing an Instrument for Stability [COM (2004) 630 final – Not published in the Official Journal].

Commission Communication of 11 April 2001 on Conflict Prevention [COM(2001)211 final – Not published in the Official Journal].

Council Regulation (EC) No 381/2001 of 26 February 2001 creating a rapid-reaction mechanism [Official Journal L 57of 27.2.2001].

Council Regulation (EC) No 2368/2002 of 20 December 2002 implementing the Kimberley Process certification scheme for the international trade in rough diamonds [Official Journal No L 358 of 31.12.2002].

Commission Communication of 11 April 2000 on EU election assistance and observation [COM(2000) 191 Commission Report: One Year On: the Commission’s Conflict Prevention Policy, March 2002

by the Secretary General/CFSP High Representative and the Commission to the Nice European Council, 7-8 December 2000.

EU response to fragile situations

EU response to fragile situations

Outline of the Community (European Union) legislation about EU response to fragile situations

Topics

These categories group together and put in context the legislative and non-legislative initiatives which deal with the same topic.

Humanitarian aid

EU response to fragile situations

Document or Iniciative

Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions of 25 October 2007 – Towards an EU response to situations of fragility – engaging in difficult environments for sustainable development, stability and peace [COM(2007) 643 final – Not published in the Official Journal].

Summary

Fragile situations are a major obstacle to sustainable development, regional stability and international security. They are triggered by several factors, such as structural fragility of the economy, a number of democratic governance shortcomings, environmental degradation or access to natural resources. In these situations, the State is unwilling or incapable of meeting its obligations regarding service delivery, management of resources, rule of law, security and safety of the populace and protection and promotion of citizens’ rights and freedoms.

By virtue of its position as main donor of humanitarian aid and development aid and as an important actor in international security and policy matters, the EU has special responsibilities in addressing situations of fragility.

Early warning, analytical, monitoring and assessment tools have been developed in the area of fragility prevention. Development cooperation and political instruments play an important role in the implementation of preventive measures. Development cooperation addresses the root causes of insecurity. Within this context, country strategy papers (CSPs) present a potential that needs to be enhanced. And political dialogue, an essential element of any cooperation agreement between the EU and third countries, can help to build national strategies aiming at a durable exit from fragility.

First of all, the response to fragility is ensured by long-term development cooperation, through the CSPs in particular. In cases where this is not possible due to deterioration of the situation, the EU applies political and diplomatic instruments. Finally, when situations of fragility slide into crises with humanitarian implications, humanitarian aid is provided.
Response to fragility must be adapted to the country concerned, by focusing long-term strategic response and initial response on addressing the immediate needs of the population, vulnerable groups in particular. Moreover, it is important to avoid creating “aid orphans”, by striving for complementarity in interventions through the EU Code of Conduct and, within the humanitarian aid framework, through its Forgotten Crisis Assessment methodology. Further coordination within the EU is also necessary.

Management of the post-crisis phase is ensured by the “Linking Relief, Rehabilitation and Development ” (LRRD) strategic framework, which aims at the creation of synergies between the withdrawal of humanitarian aid and the transition to development activities. The Commission underlines the need to improve the framework, through better integration of governance, institutional development and security in particular.

In addressing fragility, the EU must improve the use of its resources, i.e. Community instruments, the common foreign and security policy (CFSP) and the European Security and Defence Policy (ESDP) instruments, but also Member States’ bilateral aid. Specifically, it should encourage increased synergy between existing financial instruments, i.e.:

  • The European Development Fund (EDF), which finances flexible mechanisms for post-emergency action and transition to the development phase.
  • The Development Cooperation Instrument (DCI) and European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument (ENPI), which provide for a special emergency procedure allowing transition to development and specific measures to be implemented when stability and humanitarian aid measures cannot intervene.
  • The Instrument for Stability, which provides for support in situations of crisis or emerging crisis, initial post-crisis political stabilisation and early recovery from natural disasters.
  • The humanitarian aid instrument, used when situations of crisis have humanitarian implications, whatever the level of fragility and the causes of the crisis.
  • The thematic programme Non State Actors and Local Authorities in Development and the European Instrument for Democracy and Human Rights (EIDHR), which provide for procedures applicable to situations that are not favourable to participatory development or to respect for human rights. Specifically, the EIDHR can fund activities without approval from the governments of partner countries, which is fundamental in certain situations of fragility.
  • Budget support, which has often been used by the Commission in post-conflict cases to address urgent financial needs, consolidate key state functions and maintain social stability.

Finally, the Commission proposes a series of actions, namely:

  • Endorsement and implementation of Principles of Good International Engagement in Fragile States and Situations , elaborated by the OECD Development Aid Committee (DAC).
  • More systematic inclusion of issues concerning fragility in the political dialogue with fragile partner States.
  • Regular exchanges of risk analyses and relevant EU responses, at the field level and also at headquarters.
  • Mapping of bilateral and EU aid modalities with particular focus on the complementarity of CFSP/ESDP joint actions, the Instrument for Stability, the African Peace Facility and long-term cooperation instruments.
  • Review of assessment and analytical tools on governance, conflicts and disaster monitoring.
  • Improvement of the budget support mechanism, including through better coordination with international financial institutions.
  • Strengthening of the partnership with the United Nations and other multilateral organisations.

Related Acts

Council conclusions on EU response to situations of fragility. General Affairs and External Relations Council – 19 November 2007 [Not published in the Official Journal] (pdf ) (FR).

The Council approves, among other things, in the name of the EU, the “Principles for Good International Engagement in Fragile States and Situations” and calls on the Commission to present an implementation plan for the year 2009 based on its conclusions.


Another Normative about EU response to fragile situations

Topics

These categories group together and put in context the legislative and non-legislative initiatives which deal with the same topic

Foreign and security policy > Conflict prevention

EU response to fragile situations

Document or Iniciative

Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions of 25 October 2007 – Towards an EU response to situations of fragility – engaging in difficult environments for sustainable development, stability and peace [COM(2007) 643 final – Not published in the Official Journal].

Summary

Fragile situations are a major obstacle to sustainable development, regional stability and international security. They are triggered by several factors, such as structural fragility of the economy, a number of democratic governance shortcomings, environmental degradation or access to natural resources. In these situations, the State is unwilling or incapable of meeting its obligations regarding service delivery, management of resources, rule of law, security and safety of the populace and protection and promotion of citizens’ rights and freedoms.

By virtue of its position as main donor of humanitarian aid and development aid and as an important actor in international security and policy matters, the EU has special responsibilities in addressing situations of fragility.

Early warning, analytical, monitoring and assessment tools have been developed in the area of fragility prevention. Development cooperation and political instruments play an important role in the implementation of preventive measures. Development cooperation addresses the root causes of insecurity. Within this context, country strategy papers (CSPs) present a potential that needs to be enhanced. And political dialogue, an essential element of any cooperation agreement between the EU and third countries, can help to build national strategies aiming at a durable exit from fragility.

First of all, the response to fragility is ensured by long-term development cooperation, through the CSPs in particular. In cases where this is not possible due to deterioration of the situation, the EU applies political and diplomatic instruments. Finally, when situations of fragility slide into crises with humanitarian implications, humanitarian aid is provided.
Response to fragility must be adapted to the country concerned, by focusing long-term strategic response and initial response on addressing the immediate needs of the population, vulnerable groups in particular. Moreover, it is important to avoid creating “aid orphans”, by striving for complementarity in interventions through the EU Code of Conduct and, within the humanitarian aid framework, through its Forgotten Crisis Assessment methodology. Further coordination within the EU is also necessary.

Management of the post-crisis phase is ensured by the “Linking Relief, Rehabilitation and Development ” (LRRD) strategic framework, which aims at the creation of synergies between the withdrawal of humanitarian aid and the transition to development activities. The Commission underlines the need to improve the framework, through better integration of governance, institutional development and security in particular.

In addressing fragility, the EU must improve the use of its resources, i.e. Community instruments, the common foreign and security policy (CFSP) and the European Security and Defence Policy (ESDP) instruments, but also Member States’ bilateral aid. Specifically, it should encourage increased synergy between existing financial instruments, i.e.:

  • The European Development Fund (EDF), which finances flexible mechanisms for post-emergency action and transition to the development phase.
  • The Development Cooperation Instrument (DCI) and European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument (ENPI), which provide for a special emergency procedure allowing transition to development and specific measures to be implemented when stability and humanitarian aid measures cannot intervene.
  • The Instrument for Stability, which provides for support in situations of crisis or emerging crisis, initial post-crisis political stabilisation and early recovery from natural disasters.
  • The humanitarian aid instrument, used when situations of crisis have humanitarian implications, whatever the level of fragility and the causes of the crisis.
  • The thematic programme Non State Actors and Local Authorities in Development and the European Instrument for Democracy and Human Rights (EIDHR), which provide for procedures applicable to situations that are not favourable to participatory development or to respect for human rights. Specifically, the EIDHR can fund activities without approval from the governments of partner countries, which is fundamental in certain situations of fragility.
  • Budget support, which has often been used by the Commission in post-conflict cases to address urgent financial needs, consolidate key state functions and maintain social stability.

Finally, the Commission proposes a series of actions, namely:

  • Endorsement and implementation of Principles of Good International Engagement in Fragile States and Situations , elaborated by the OECD Development Aid Committee (DAC).
  • More systematic inclusion of issues concerning fragility in the political dialogue with fragile partner States.
  • Regular exchanges of risk analyses and relevant EU responses, at the field level and also at headquarters.
  • Mapping of bilateral and EU aid modalities with particular focus on the complementarity of CFSP/ESDP joint actions, the Instrument for Stability, the African Peace Facility and long-term cooperation instruments.
  • Review of assessment and analytical tools on governance, conflicts and disaster monitoring.
  • Improvement of the budget support mechanism, including through better coordination with international financial institutions.
  • Strengthening of the partnership with the United Nations and other multilateral organisations.

Related Acts

Council conclusions on EU response to situations of fragility. General Affairs and External Relations Council – 19 November 2007 [Not published in the Official Journal] (pdf ) (FR).

The Council approves, among other things, in the name of the EU, the “Principles for Good International Engagement in Fragile States and Situations” and calls on the Commission to present an implementation plan for the year 2009 based on its conclusions.