EUR-Lex Access to European Union law
This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 52013DC0625
REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL AND THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE 2012 Annual Report on Financial Assistance for Enlargement (IPA, PHARE, CARDS, Turkey Pre-Accession Instrument, Transition Facility)
REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL AND THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE 2012 Annual Report on Financial Assistance for Enlargement (IPA, PHARE, CARDS, Turkey Pre-Accession Instrument, Transition Facility)
REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL AND THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE 2012 Annual Report on Financial Assistance for Enlargement (IPA, PHARE, CARDS, Turkey Pre-Accession Instrument, Transition Facility)
/* COM/2013/0625 final */
REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL AND THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE 2012 Annual Report on Financial Assistance for Enlargement (IPA, PHARE, CARDS, Turkey Pre-Accession Instrument, Transition Facility) /* COM/2013/0625 final - 2013/ () */
Introduction This
Report covers the most significant developments regarding the implementation of
pre-accession assistance in 2012[1],
including considerations on future perspectives. Details
on specific activities undertaken during the reporting period can be found in
the technical Staff Working Document complementing this report[2], covering in
one single document both IPA[3]
and preceding instruments for pre-accession and for the Western Balkans (i.e.
PHARE, CARDS[4],
Turkey Pre-accession Instrument and the Transition Facility). The
2012 Annual Report is an occasion to look at the present successes and lessons
learnt at a moment in which the institutional setting of the new IPA instrument
covering the next Multiannual Financial Framework is in the process of being
finalised. The Report briefly sets out the political and economic context in
which EU-funded activities took place. It highlights the progress made to
improve strategic planning and programming documents, providing summary reports
on project implementation, their results and the on-going enhancement of donor
coordination. Analysis of past experience, provided also by evaluations and
conclusions from the IPA 2012 Conference, is used to draw recommendations for
further improving the impact of IPA funds up to and beyond 2013. 1. THE YEAR IN REVIEW: THE POLITICAL AND
ECONOMIC CONTEXT In
2012, the enlargement countries further advanced on their path towards the
European Union. There were a number of positive developments in the candidate
countries[5]
and potential candidates[6],
including progress made on EU-related reforms. The
ratification process of the Accession Treaty with Croatia continued, paving the
way for Croatia's accession on 1 July 2013. Accession negotiations with Montenegro were opened in June and negotiations with Iceland continued to advance. New impetus was
injected into relations with Turkey through a positive agenda launched by the
Commission in May 2012. The European Council granted Serbia the status of
candidate country in March of the same year. The Commission confirmed that a
Stabilisation and Association Agreement can be concluded between the EU and
Kosovo. Progress was achieved within the framework of the Belgrade-Pristina
Dialogue. A High Level Accession Dialogue with
the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia led to a sharper focus on reforms by
the authorities. Dialogue between government and opposition in Albania allowed the political stalemate to be largely overcome. A High Level Dialogue on
the Accession Process was launched with Bosnia and Herzegovina to assist the
country in fulfilling the requirements fo the EU accession resulting in a Road
Map on EU integration. In most
countries, human rights, good governance, the rule of law, including the fight
against corruption and organised crime, and administrative capacity remain
major challenges. There was often a need to take more responsibility for
reforms and to muster the necessary political will to move forward.
Strengthening freedom of expression and independence of the media is also a
major challenge. The accession process was at times negatively affected by
bilateral issues. There
was a mixed picture as regards socio-economic developments in the enlargement
countries. In 2012, Turkey and Iceland continued on a path of recovery. After a
period of slight recovery, the majority of the economies of the Western Balkan
countries contracted again due to negative economic developments in the EU.
Social conditions worsened considerably. Unemployment and poverty rates
continued rising, while fiscal consolidation and the reform of labour markets
remained the most urgent economic priorities. Enforcement of good governance,
the rule of law and administrative capacity continued to represent major
political challenges, with negative effects on the business environment. 2. Towards a more
efficient and effective delivery of assistance Towards
a new Instrument for Pre-accession for 2014-2020 After
an extensive stakeholder consultation and an ex-ante evaluation on the
future pre-accession assistance instrument which contributed significantly to
shape the future instrument, the Commission adopted a proposal for the IPA II
Regulation on 7 December 2011, as part of a package of external action
instruments. The Commission proposal aims at linking the pre-accession
assistance more closely to the enlargement policy priorities and to move
towards a sector approach. In the
course of 2012, the proposal for the IPA II Regulation was subject to
discussion and negotiation in Parliament and Council, and the negotiations were
still ongoing as this report was written. In
parallel, the Commission started to prepare the draft IPA-specific Rules of
Application and the strategic planning documents, in view of completing the
framework for programming and delivering IPA II assistance. It launched a study
on the implementation of the sector approach and initiated duly dedicated
working groups addressing different dimensions of the implementation modalities
of the new instrument. The
Sector approach Throughout
2012 the Commission continued the gradual implementation of the sector approach
in the programming of the next financial instrument for pre-accesion assistance
(IPA II) for the period 2014-2020. The
gradual move towards a sector approach was decided as a follow-up of the IPA
Conference of October 2009, with the purpose to better achieve results, impact
and added value through the assistance. These principles have become key for
all new external action instruments for the period 2014-2020. The
shift towards a sector approach is particularly relevant at a time when budget
constraints faced by Member States and International Financial Institutions
call for an even more efficient and sustainable pre-accession assistance: a
strategy-based approach to programming built upon the countries' needs and
strengths will contribute to a more effective and results oriented
pre-accession process. Moreover, while ensuring greater ownership of national
authorities over the programmes, since the sector approach is based on national
strategies, such an approach maximises the potential for complementarity. It
increases the leverage between different modes of support and helps to
rationalise the support through an appropriate division of labour. The
relevance of this new approach was confirmed in the IPA stakeholder conference
in Zagreb in April 2011 and the conclusions of the evaluation on the current
IPA implementation. The IPA
Multi-annual Indicative Planning Documents (MIPDs) covering the years 2011-2013
were drafted to reflect this approach, resulting in more focused documents and
aiming at achieving an enhanced prioritization and more targeted assistance. A
new programming method including new programming templates and guidance, was
already introduced at the end of 2011 for the programming of the budget years
2012 and 2013. In the course of 2012, all national authorities made a sustained
effort to analyse the readiness of the sectors identified in their respective
MIPD to move towards a sector approach. As such, 2012 saw the first genuine attempt
to implement a sector approach in enlargement countries and served as a pilot
test for the more substantial changes that will take place under IPA II. Meanwhile,
draft guidelines on the application of a sector approach to pre-accession
assistance were produced by the Commission in the course of 2012, to be
finalised in 2013, to serve the programming of IPA II. In 2013, the Commission
has also held workshops on the sector approach in all IPA beneficiary countries
to allow for a thorough understanding of the application of the sector approach
for the programming of IPA II funds. Cooperation
with the donor community on aid effectiveness In
2012, the Commission continued to pursue the donor coordination agenda
including efforts to maximise aid effectiveness and transparency in line with
the commitments made at the 4th High Level Forum on Aid
Effectiveness in Busan in November 2011, where the Commission agreed on the
importance of shared principles such as ownership of priorities, importance of
results, transparency and accountability. In addition, the donor community,
including the Commission, committed to improving the quality and effectiveness
of development co-operation also through the transparency of its aid. In the
course of 2012, the Commission took further steps to ensure alignment of
funding under the Instrument for Pre-accession (IPA) with the international
standards on aid transparency. In accordance with the commitments made during
the 2012 Busan Conference on Partnership for Effective Development
Co-operation, relevant information on Official Development Assistance (ODA)
will be made available to the public in standard format at the latest by the
end of 2015. Through the publication of datasets with information at the
organisation and activity levels as well as on current and future expenditure,
the Commission will provide Member State authorities, their citizens and third
countries with timely, comprehensive and forward-looking information on
resources provided through development cooperation. In line
with the recommendations of the Organization for Economic
Co-operation and Development (OECD) in the framework of its DAC[7]
Peer Review of the EU 2012, the Commission has reviewed
its programme design approach. The implementation of the sector approach
envisaged under IPA II is aiming at managing external aid in a more effective
way and making pre-accession assistance more effective, efficient and
results-oriented. Further
developments in line with a more results-oriented approach are expected from IPA
in the future. In this respect, a working group was established in 2012 with
the purpose of developing a framework for indicators to be used at the level of
the country strategies for monitoring, evaluation and review of progress and
performance. The Commission
is coordinating these processes to make sure that pre-accession assistance is
in line with the various initiatives within the Commission, as well as by EU
Member States, International Financial Institutions and the wider donor
community, to improve donor coordination and aid effectiveness and to ensure
achieving expected results. 3. Highlights from programme implementation
2012 Following the signature of the
Accession Treaty on 9 December 2011, Croatia continued throughout 2012
the implementation of measures to further strengthen its capacity to meet the
obligations of membership to the EU. Since 1 July 2013, Croatia is an EU Member State. The National Programme[8] for component
I adopted in 2012 covers two budgetary years, namely the IPA 2012 Transition
Assistance and Institution Building allocation, as well as the 6-month
allocation for 2013 (in accordance with the envisaged EU accession of Croatia
on 1 July 2013). The total amount of the 2012 and 2013 National Programmes was
EUR 46.80 million. The implementation of EU financial assistance in 2012
accompanied these developments by providing further support for completing
reforms and building up capacity in the key areas necessary for assuming the
obligations of membership, namely in the areas of judiciary and fundamental
rights and justice, freedom and security, as well as continuing the efforts of
preparing Croatia for the management and implementation of post-accession
funds. Furthermore, during 2012 Croatia completed its preparations for the waiver of the ex-ante controls on
procurement in order to achieve full decentralisation of the management and
implementation of EU financial assistance prior to accession. In 2012, the Positive Agenda for EU - Turkey relations brought fresh dynamism putting in several areas the accession
process back on track after a period of stagnation. This agenda focused on
efforts related to common interests, including: ·
the alignment with the acquis; ·
enhancing the energy cooperation; ·
visas, mobility and migration; ·
trade agreements as well as the Customs Union,
on which a specific study to assess its overall impact was launched with the
World Bank; ·
foreign policy, including political reforms and
counter terrorism actions; ·
substantial increase in the participation in Union programmes. The IPA financial assistance in 2012 continued to support
the political priorities of the accession process with a focus on the rule of
law and tackling key reforms linked to the judiciary and fundamental rights,
under Component I, for a total value of EUR 225.74 million in 2012. Positive developments were also observed in the management
of the financial assistance by the Turkish national authorities under
decentralised management mode. The accreditation process in view of
transferring tendering, contracting and financial management functions from the
Central Finance and Contracts Unit (CFCU) to the line ministries has been
successfully finalised for all Operating Structures under IPA Components III
and IV. The conferral of management for the IPA Component V has also been
granted for almost twenty provinces. Throughout 2012, the dialogue with the Turkish institutions
was enhanced on migration and asylum as well as on integrated border
management. Further opportunities were explored, to support institutional
reform with EU financial assistance. A pipeline of project proposals was
developed and reviewed by all the relevant programming stakeholders for
financing under IPA, including specialised UN agencies. Efforts to improve the
management and control system by the Turkish authorities, responsible for the
implementation of IPA programmes continued, although further
improvements are still required in the area of IPA programming and
monitoring. The
ratification of the IPA Framework Agreement with Iceland was finalised in 2012, following the parliamentary resolution mandating the government
of Iceland to approve the Framework Agreement. The parliamentary resolution was
adopted on 18 June 2012, paving the way for the implementation of projects
planned under the IPA National Programmes for Iceland. Following
the entry into force of the IPA Framework Agreement, the implementation of
projects under the IPA National Programme 2011 started in the second half of
2012. The 2011 Programme supports seven projects. The budget is EUR 12 million
and a balance between the two priority axes set in the MIPD was ensured: ·
to further enhance Iceland's ability to assume
the obligations of membership by supporting institutional capacity building for
acquis transposition and implementation, as well as, ·
to reinforce Iceland's institutional capacity
in its preparations for participation in and implementation of Structural Funds
and other EU funds. The
2012 National Programme was adopted
on 16 July 2012 aiming to support three projects with a budget of EUR
12 million. The project implementation has partially
started. The National Programme 2013 was adopted on 2 December 2012, for a
total value of EUR 10.8 million. Further
to the parliamentary elections of 27 April 2013, the newly formed government
has put the accession negotiations on hold until Parliament assesses the state
of the negotiations and the developments in the EU. The consequences for IPA
are being examined. The Commission does not envisage proceeding with any further
projects under IPA until such time as the Icelandic government has decided
whether or not to continue the accession process. The
former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia
continued accession-related reforms with the support of IPA but faced serious
challenges during 2012 as regards programming and implementation of EU
assistance. In general, the capacities of the national institutions managing
IPA remained uneven, contributing to recurrent
delays in procurement and low contracting and
disbursement rates. The
IPA 2012-2013 National Programme represents a total EU contribution to
Component I of approximately EUR 28 million per year. It was prepared and
adopted by the Commission in November 2012 and consists of five sector fiches
and seven linked project fiches supporting the sectors of public
administration, justice, home affairs and fundamental rights, private sector
development, agriculture, and environment and climate change. The new
allocations for the Operational Programmes under Components III, IV and V were
also adopted on the same occasion. Absorption
of available funds from all IPA components was an issue to which the Commission
paid attention, supporting the authorities' efforts. Temporary
interruption of payments took place in March and again at the end of 2012 by
the Commission (Regional Policy DG, Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion DG
and Agriculture and Rural Development DG), due to understaffing and
insufficient managerial capacities in key institutions, especially in those
exercising control functions, such as the Audit Authority and the National
Authorising Officer's (NAO) office. Thanks to
resolute action taken by the government, the capacities of all these
institutions almost reached their full staff targets foreseen in their
respective Workload Assessments (WLA) for 2012. Capacity
building needs and the accumulated backlog continue to pose serious problems
and constant efforts and commitment should be secured at the highest possible
political level to accelerate implementation. In
the course of 2012, Montenegro successfully finalised the programming of
the remaining pre-accession assistance allocated under the last two years of
the current Financial Framework. The 2012-2013 National Programmes under
Component I – Transition Assistance and Institution Building – continued to
remain an important part of the IPA funding (EUR 21.28 million) and continued
to support key reform areas in line with previous programmes. The opening of
the accession negotiations, decided by the European Council in June 2012,
reflected and confirmed the relevance and efficiency of the implementation of
the IPA projects by the EU Delegation in Montenegro under Component I. In
comparison with funds under IPA Components I and II, most of the IPA funds in
2012 and 2013 were earmarked for the preparations of the
implementation of EU cohesion and agricultural policies in
the sectors of environment, transport, social development
and agriculture and rural development, i.e. under Components III, IV and V.
Indeed, with the granting of the candidate country status since 2010, key
investments have been programmed through the adoption of the respective
Operational Programmes for 2012-2013 under Component III (EUR 22.24 million)
and Component IV (EUR 5.58 million), with the exception of Component V for
which the adoption of the Instrument for Pre-Accession in Rural Development
(IPARD) programme has been postponed to 2013 . Finally,
the Montenegrin authorities have shown good progress all over the year in
preparing for conferral of management, especially with the submission of the
application package for Components I and II in July 2012. During
2012, EU financial assistance played a strategic role in Albania, deploying approximately EUR 95 million
on Components I and II, with a view to enhancing
administrative capacities of a number of institutions and fostering social,
environmental and economic development. On-going
projects in the areas of justice, public administration reform and fight
against corruption were further advanced. Law-enforcement agencies acquired
increased capacities, as a result of EU strategic support, and are showing
concrete results in the fight against organized crime. Technical assistance
projects continued supporting different line ministries and state institutions
with the effect that many relevant pieces of legislation for the acquis
alignment have been adopted. Infrastructure
projects, however, encounter implementation problems, mainly
due to a lack of coordination among line-ministries and between national and
local institutions, with implications for
the projects' long-term sustainability. This situation has led the Commission
to request an IPA interinstitutional coordination mechanism in order to ensure
project sustainability. Albania
has accomplished substantial efforts in relation to the preparation for the
decentralised management of IPA funds. Further focused actions are still
required to ensure that the decentralised management system in place reflects
all the requirements set out in the IPA regulatory framework. However, if
conditions are met, conferral of management can be achieved soon. In view of
this accreditation, the Albanian authorities are supposed to take all necessary
measures to ensure stability as regards the positions of civil servants trained
for the management of IPA funds. Serbia
received the status of a candidate country in 2012 and continued its intense
preparations for the introduction of a decentralised implementation system
(DIS) for the management of IPA funds. The EU
contribution regarding IPA Component I, allocated in 2012, was EUR 170.60
million. After a
positive compliance assessment done by an independent auditor, the national
accreditation was completed and the accreditation packages for all four IPA
Components (I, II, III and IV) were sent to the European Commission in 2012. In the
meantime, it was decided not to proceed with opening of components III and IV
under the current financial perspective 2007-2013. A first audit mission for
Components I and II was conducted by the auditors of the Directorate General
for Enlargement in November 2012. The conferral of management for these
Components is expected to be granted to Serbia in the course of 2013. In
2012, the Commission programmed for Bosnia and Herzegovina the IPA 2012
and IPA 2013 allocations under Component I together in a single exercise
allocating EUR 84.77 million within the National Programme of 2012. This was
different than in previous years when the Commission programmed one programme
per year. The advantage of the new approach was that the planned interventions
followed a longer-term plan, thus ensuring continuity and economies of scale. Despite
the thorough preparation of the programming process, which started with
meetings at the political level, the programming, as in previous years,
witnessed significant delays due to Bosnia and Herzegovina's internal
difficulties to reach agreement on the identification and formulation of
projects. The Commission has urged the authorities to adopt an efficient
coordination mechanism between the state and the two entities to overcome these
persistent difficulties. Notwithstanding
the problems in the programming and implementation of IPA assistance, a number
of projects delivered good results and a perceptible impact, in particular in
the home affairs sector and in the support for the economic development. The
Integrated Border Management System improved considerably, and the support for
the development of the tourism sector and the support for small and medium
sized enterprises created and secured employment. The
implementation of EU assistance to Kosovo exceeded its financial
targets, both in terms of contracts and payments. The preparation of the IPA
2012 Annual Programme for Kosovo has been completed, allocating EUR 63.2
million. The 2013 Annual Programme was prepared and approved by the IPA
Committee in November 2012, aiming for adoption in early 2013. Kosovo's
participation in the IPA Cross-Border Cooperation (CBC) programme proceeded
well in 2012 and the Financing Agreements for 2011 were signed for all three
CBC programmes (with Albania, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, and Montenegro respectively). The first call for proposals in the CBC Kosovo-Albania was
launched in June 2012. In
March 2012, a consultation meeting was organised with civil society during
which the government presented the proposed projects to
civil society organizations and allowed for a discussion. It was the first time
in Kosovo that such a consultation took place in an early stage of the IPA programming
process. Regional
Cooperation and programmes Regional
cooperation in South East Europe has made important progress in recent years,
in particular in the areas of trade, statistics, energy and transport,
cooperation in public administration reform and civil protection. The
bulk of IPA support to the beneficiaries is delivered through the national
programmes. However, around 9% of available funds are allocated through the
Multi-Beneficiary programmes (MB). They complement national programmes and strengthen
multi-lateral relations in the Western Balkans and Turkey in areas identified
as crucial for European integration and stability in the region. Areas
of intervention are only addressed through MB assistance where there is a clear
need for regional cooperation or horizontal action, for instance through
tackling cross-border problems or in increasing efficiency through establishing
harmonised approaches, leveraging existing instruments or facilitating networks
of experts. In the period 2012, the indicative allocation available for this
totalled around EUR 222. 06 million for Component I. A
regional project promoting inclusive education has been selected as one of the
priorities in the sector Justice and Home Affairs, including fundamental rights
and vulnerable groups while a regional project to strengthen witness protection
enhances the fight against organised crime and corruption. Refugee return and
provision of durable housing solutions is addressed through the Regional
Housing Programme under the umbrella of the Sarajevo Process, for which the EU
is the biggest donor. Particular
attention has been given to projects that help the Beneficiaries to overcome
the economic and financial crisis and to sustain the emerging economic recovery
by continuing financial support for priority investments in infrastructure, in
close coordination with International Financial Institutions (IFIs).
Investments in energy efficiency are geared towards achieving sustainable
economic growth and embracing the Europe 2020 strategy. In the
sector of Environment and Climate Change, a regional project has been selected
to enhance civil protection cooperation in the Western Balkans and Turkey. With a view to foster reforms and regional cooperation in education, the IPA 2012
Multi Beneficiary programme will continue previous practice and support the
Erasmus Mundus Action 1 and 2 as well as the Youth in Action programme in the
sector Social Development. Regarding the support to civil society, 18 framework
partnership agreements were signed in 2012 with more than 170 organisations
from the region and Europe in various priority sectors like anti-corruption,
energy, human rights and security, environment and natural resources. 4. FOCUS ON SUSTAINABLE PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION REFORMS,
STRENGTHENING RULE OF LAW AND DEMOCRATIC GOVERNANCE All
countries in the Western Balkans face significant economic and financial
challenges. The need to ensure integrated, smart, sustainable and inclusive
growth - supported by good governance for growth - was recognized by the
Ministers of the South-East European Cooperation Process (SEECP) when
they adopted the South East Europe (SEE) 2020 Vision in November 2012 in
Tirana. This is a constructive approach by the countries in the region to face
the current challenges under a regional perspective. Good
public governance is part of the political accession criteria and includes
dimensions that go beyond Public Administration Reform (PAR), such as political
stability and respect of democratic principles, government effectiveness, sound
public financial management and respect of the rule of law. This
is the reason why the Commission expects all countries in the Western Balkans
to set up meaningful and comprehensive national strategies which will become
priority areas for financial support under the next Instrument for
Pre-accession Assistance (IPA II). The
regional OECD/SIGMA (Support for Improvement
in Governance and Management) programme is providing an
essential assistance in this regard. It was further strengthened through the
recently approved assignment to develop new Country Assessments and to provide
Country Action Plans to analyse whether and how the national reforms are
effectively implemented. The aim goes beyond the monitoring of the legal
framework and is to develop an integrated approach to PAR that should allow the
Commission to use the available resources in a more coherent, efficient and
sustainable manner and provide more coherence in the policy dialogue. To
ensure an efficient performance measurement in line with the IPA II Regulation,
SIGMA will also define Public Administration standards which would be used as a
reference point for measuring progress and better instruct the high-level
policy dialogue on PAR with the countries. SIGMA's
work is closely linked to and complemented by the Regional School of Public
Administration (ReSPA). Ideally, this could result in developing a common
approach to PAR in the region that would help coordinating efforts and
activities not only at national level, but also at donors’ level. However,
ReSPA needs to establish its regional legitimacy as PAR platform for high level
political dialogue and to consolidate the recognition of quality in its role as
training provider for senior managers. For
this very reason, additional efforts are invested in ReSPA to
consolidate its role in the following areas: i)
raising awareness for Public Administration
Reform in each of the partner countries by providing a network for peer
discussions and peer reviews; ii)
facilitating the sharing of national strategies
and related experience in terms of improving public administration at all
levels; iii)
providing training to strengthen the capacity of
public servants of the Western Balkan countries with a focus on training of
trainers and senior officials that would assure maximum impact. However,
it is the responsibility of the participating countries to
guarantee the impact of ReSPA's work by ensuring an appropriate follow-up of
the lessons learned, including the experience gained in preparing Croatia’s accession to the EU. 5. TECHNICAL
ASSISTANCE AND INFORMATION EXCHANGE (TAIEX) In
2012, the TAIEX instrument's flexibility was demonstrated by a broad set of
activities. Increasing use is being made of medium-term technical assistance
and a sequence of agreed short-term interventions. This approach was used
mostly in the agriculture and food safety sectors as well as in assistance to Iceland, Kosovo and the Turkish Cypriot community. TAIEX also supported the assessment of Montenegro's compliance with the EU acquis, the so-called screening, a key part of
the EU accession process. In line
with the trend registered since 2005, TAIEX reached around 30,000 public
officials from beneficiary countries in 2012. Turkey, the former Yugoslav
Republic of Macedonia, Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina benefited the most
from TAIEX assistance with almost five thousand Turkish participants (4,767)
and more than three thousand from each of the three Western Balkan countries
(3,431, 3,232 and 3,223 respectively). The
Local Administration Facility (LAF) aimed to increase awareness among Western
Balkan local and regional authorities. 14 LAF events were organised, to the
benefit of almost 400 representatives from local and regional administrations. TAIEX's
driving force relies on the expertise provided by public administration
officials from EU Member States. The knowledge and competence of almost 5,000
experts was mobilised throughout 2012, in general excellently rated by the
beneficiaries. In 2012, this objective was met for the large majority of
events; 99% of participants who provided feedback reported that the attended
TAIEX event had enabled them to improve their knowledge. With
the aim of measuring both the effectiveness and the final impact of TAIEX
assistance, a new evaluation system has been put in place. Six months after the
implementation of an event, applicants are asked to provide a synthetic, online
feedback on the specific assistance delivered. 6. CONCLUSION 2012
witnessed a significant step on the path towards making assistance to the
Enlargement countries more strategic and accession-driven as an integral part
of the Enlargement strategy. The legal and strategic planning framework that
the Commission has proposed for delivering pre-accession assistance from 2014
onwards will reinforce its link with the political monitoring and reporting by
putting in place a framework aiming for tangible results, achieving the desired
impact and rewarding performance. This will contribute to increasing even
further the added value of EU funds allocated to the Enlargement countries by
creating stronger incentives for the transformation of their societies, legal
systems and economies, for the mutual benefit of the European Union and of IPA
beneficiary countries and their citizens. Status
of Implementation of IPA financial assistance per country at 31 December 2012
of total committed funds (2007 – 2012): The
following tables provide the amount of all IPA allocations between 2007 and
2012 in EUR million by beneficiary and by component for Candidate Countries and
Potential Candidates. The figures take into account transfers made between
components I and II in the course of 2012. At 31
December 2012 IPA Component I managed by Enlargement DG[9]: EUR Million || Committed || Contracted || Percentage || Paid || Percentage Croatia || 242.08 || 205.93 || 85.07% || 137.85 || 56.94% the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia || 202.18 || 131.25 || 64.92% || 78.69 || 38.92% Iceland || 24.00 || 10.04 || 41.83% || 3.41 || 14.19% Montenegro || 152.04 || 106.14 || 69.81% || 90.43 || 59.48% Turkey || 1,390.41 || 1,376.61 || 99.01% || 772.50 || 55.56% Albania || 430.01 || 299.24 || 69.59% || 169.72 || 39.47% Bosnia and Herzegovina || 474.60 || 248.99 || 52.46% || 159.35 || 33.58% Kosovo || 538.30 || 429.91 || 79.87% || 285.09 || 52.96% Serbia || 1028.99 || 760.06 || 73.86% || 541.33 || 52.61% Total || 4,482.61 || 3,568.17 || 79.60% || 2,238.37 || 49.93% At 31
December 2012 IPA Component II managed by Enlargement DG: EUR Million || Committed || Contracted || Percentage || Paid || Percentage Croatia || 15.02 || 10.32 || 68.71% || 6.75 || 44.94% the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia || 16.22 || 4.13 || 25.46% || 3.10 || 19.11% Montenegro || 18.10 || 9.83 || 54.31% || 7.11 || 39.28% Turkey || 6.93 || 6.93 || 100% || 1.69 || 24.39% Albania || 21.77 || 8.16 || 37.48% || 5.76 || 26.46% Bosnia and Herzegovina || 15.12 || 7.50 || 49.60% || 5.88 || 38.87% Kosovo || 4.80 || 0.17 || 3.47% || 0.09 || 1.96% Serbia || 18.97 || 12.11 || 63.85% || 9.00 || 47.44% Total || 116.93 || 59.15 || 50.59% || 39.38 || 33.68% At 31 December 2012 IPA
Component II, implemented by Regional Policy DG: EUR Million || Committed || Paid || Percentage Adriatic || 205.66 || 59.45 || 28.9% Slovenia-Croatia || 35.75 || 16.24 || 45.4% Hungary-Croatia || 43.90 || 19.85 || 45.2% Hungary-Serbia || 41.96 || 22.96 || 54.7% Romania-Serbia || 44.47 || 18.43 || 41.4% Bulgaria-Serbia || 26.26 || 9.15 || 34.8% Bulgaria-the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia || 14.99 || 5.64 || 37.6% Bulgaria-Turkey || 22.83 || 7.85 || 34.4% Greece-the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia || 12.60 || 6.08 || 48.3% Greece-Albania || 9.47 || 4.62 || 48.8% Total || 457.89 || 170.27 || 37.19% At 31 December 2012, IPA Component III, implemented by Regional
Policy DG: EUR Million || Committed || Paid || Percentage Croatia || 329.68 || 88.64 || 26.9% the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia || 199.93 || 48,15 || 24.1% Turkey || 1,747.58 || 519.29 || 29.7% Montenegro || 22.24 || 0 || 0% Total || 2,299.43 || 656.08 || 28.5% At 31 December 2012 IPA
Component IV, implemented by Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion DG:
EUR Million || Committed || Paid || Percentage Croatia || 85.88 || 35.02 || 41% the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia || 33.50 || 10.33 || 31% Turkey || 382,9 || 109.48 || 28.6% Montenegro || 2.77 || 0 || 0% Total || 403.18 || 96.32 || 23.9% At 31 December 2012 IPA
Component V, implemented by Agriculture and Rural Development DG: EUR Million || Committed || Paid || Percentage Croatia || 129.90 || 30.08 || 23.16% the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia || 63.49 || 11.33 || 17.8% Turkey || 650.38 || 81.25 || 12.5% Total || 843.77 || 122.66 || 14.5% [1]More specific
management-reporting aspects concerning these programmes and expenditure - such
as governance & accountability, risks & controls, legality &
regularity, error rates & potential consequences on reasonable assurance -
can be found in the 2012 Annual Activity Report (AAR) of DG Enlargement. In
line with the Commission's obligation to provide detailed information to the
Council and the European Parliament, it publishes annually a report on
pre-accession assistance. The previous report was published in 2012 for the
budget year 2011 and is publicly available under the following link: http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/instruments/how-does-it-work/index_en.htm. [2]Commission Staff Working
Document – Accompanying the document 'Report from the Commission to the
European Parliament, the Council and the European Economic and Social Committee
- 2012 Annual Report on financial assistance for enlargement (IPA, PHARE,
CARDS, Turkey Pre-accession Instrument and the Transition Facility). [3]The Instrument for
Pre-Accession Assistance (IPA) has an overall budget of EUR 11.5 billion for
the period 2007-2013. Beneficiaries of IPA are Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina,
Croatia, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Montenegro, Serbia, Turkey,
Iceland (as of 2011) as well as Kosovo*. IPA supports reforms in the
beneficiary countries and their progressive alignment with the standards and
policies of the European Union and the acquis, with a view to preparing
them for future EU membership. [4]Originally created in 1989 as
the Poland and Hungary: Assistance for Restructuring their Economies (PHARE)
programme, PHARE expanded from Poland and Hungary to cover ten countries. It
has assisted eight of the ten 2004 accession Member States: the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Slovakia, and Slovenia, as well as those countries that acceded in 2007 (Bulgaria and Romania), in a period of
massive economic restructuring and political change. Until 2000 the countries
of the Western Balkans (Albania, former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, and Bosnia and Herzegovina) were also beneficiaries of Phare. However, as of 2001 the CARDS
programme (Community Assistance for Reconstruction, Development and Stability
in the Balkans) has provided financial assistance to these countries.This Regulation repeals the
OBNOVA Regulation and amends the Phare Regulation, and establishes a single
framework for assistance to the countries of South-Eastern Europe: the CARDS
programme (Community assistance for reconstruction, development and
stabilization). The instrument for pre-accession assistance (IPA) replaces it starting in 2007. * This designation is without
prejudice to positions on status, and is in line with UNSCR 1244/1999 and the
ICJ Opinion on the Kosovo declaration of independence. [5] Croatia, Iceland, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Montenegro, Serbia, Turkey. [6] Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Kosovo [7] Development Assistance
Committee, Development Co-operation Directorate (DCD-DAC), OECD [8] For
the purpose of this Report, figures quoted under National Programmes refer to
Components I [9] Croatia, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and Turkey benefit from Decentralised Management, which
consists in entrusting the implementation of the allocated EU-funds to the
Ministry of Finance of the beneficiary country which becomes responsible for
managing the effective contracts and payments.