101
IV. The EU Neighbourhood Policy
The idea of establishing a specific policy framework for the European neighbourhood
entered the official EU working agenda in early 2002, while the negotiations for the
2004 enlargements were moving towards conclusion. The growing awareness about the
geopolitical challenges that the ‘Big Bang’ EU enlargement was expected to entail built
the major source of stimulation for this policy initiative.
In contrast to previous enlargement rounds, this one was different in terms of size and
territorial extent. Moreover, its geostrategic implications also added a new factor to the
logic of the European project, which therefore entered a crucial stage. The upcoming
enlargements were not only expected to bring the EU into direct contact with new areas
of strategic interests. It was also becoming clear that the EU borders would eventually
be shifted to the very eastern, and probably ultimate, limits of Europe, leaving outside a
number of states that are unlikely to ever become candidates for formal membership.
While the previous history of European integration had been one of permanent
expansion, the EU had now come to the point where enlargement was about drawing
lines of ultimate exclusion.
In order to prevent the emergence of new dividing lines across the European continent,
the European Commission set out to develop a respective policy framework that would
help to “promote stability and prosperity within and beyond the new borders of the
Union” and to enhance the establishment of a “ring of friends with whom the EU enjoys
close, peaceful and cooperative relations.341 The ENP addresses all neighbouring
countries of the EU that do not have a mid-term perspective for full membership.
Therefore, it does not involve current candidate countries such as Turkey and Croatia,
and until recently, Romania and Bulgaria, or the Western Balkans. Today, the ENP
covers sixteen countries including Algeria, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Egypt,
Georgia, Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, Libya, Moldova, Morocco, the Palestinian Authority,
Syria, Tunisia, and Ukraine.
In April 2002, the General Affairs and External Relations Council (GAERC) posed a
request to the then External Relations Commissioner, Chris Patten, and the High
Representative for the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP), Javier Solana, to
elaborate ideas and suggestions for the EU policy towards its post-enlargement
neighbourhood. The letter resulting from this inquiry was presented at an informal
meeting of foreign ministers in September 2002, but did not get much political
attention.342 The Copenhagen European Council first endorsed the political ambition to
341 See Wider Europe – Neighbourhood. A New Framework for Relations with our Eastern and
Southern Neighbours. Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European
Parliament. COM(2003) 104 final, 11 March 2003, p. 4.
342 WALLACE William: Looking After the Neighbourhood. Responsibilities for the EU-25. London
School of Economics, European Foreign Policy Unit Working Paper, 2003/03. London 2003, p. 2.
According to exclusive sources cited by Mure?an, the letter was based on a British initiative with
seminal contributions coming from Anna Lindh, then Swedish Minister of Foreign Affairs. See
MURE?AN Ioana: The European Neighbourhood Policy. A New Framework for Europeanization?
In: MOIA Mihai (ed.): Working Paper of the European Institute of Romania, No. 15:2005. Bucharest
2005, p. 15.
102
take forward relations with neighbouring countries based on shared political and economic
values, [...] to avoid new dividing lines in Europe and to promote stability and prosperity
within and beyond the new borders of the Union.343
It also reaffirmed that enlargement would serve to strengthen relations with Russia and
called for enhanced relations with Ukraine, Moldova, Belarus and the Southern
Mediterranean countries to be based on a long term approach promoting reform,
sustainable development and trade. At the same time, the Council also emphasised the
European perspective offered to the countries of the Western Balkans in the context of
the Stabilisation and Association Process.344 In March 2003, the European Commission
then launched its ‘Wider Europe’ Communication, which laid the ground for the
European Neighbourhood Policy (ENP) framework, presenting its major rationale and
specifying the methodology that the new policy should be based upon. The
consideration lying at the core of the ENP initiative was that
over the coming decade and beyond, the Union’s capacity to provide security, stability and
sustainable development to its citizens will no longer be distinguishable from its interest in
close cooperation with the neighbours. [...] “The EU has a duty, not only towards its citizens
and those of the new member states, but also towards its present and future neighbours to
ensure continuing social cohesion and economic dynamism. The EU should aim to develop
a zone of prosperity and a friendly neighbourhood – a ‘ring of friends’ – with whom the EU
enjoys close, peaceful and co-operative relations. 345
This ‘Wider Europe’ Communication was followed by a lively debate among the EU
member states. In the course of 2003, drawing on the proposals that resulted from these
discussions, a neighbourhood policy instrument was developed, destined to serve the
implementation of the ENP in the field of regional cooperation. In view of the changing
circumstances following the 2004 enlargements, the Commission decided to revise the
array of existing financial instruments for regional development. The Communication
“Paving the way for a New Neighbourhood Instrument” released in July 2003,
addressed the issue of enhanced trans-border cooperation with partner states along
external borders of the EU for the programming period of 2007-2013, pointing at the
coordination problems caused by the range and variety of financial programmes.346 The
implementation of the new instrument was organised in two phases. During the first
transition period (2004-2006), the existing financial instruments (INTERREG, MEDA,
TACIS, PHARE) were harmonised through the creation of so-called Neighbourhood
Programmes, which were established either as new projects or as adapted succession
programmes. To this end, projects involving partners from both EU member states and
Russia/Belarus were imposed joint application, project selection and decision making
procedures. The Baltic Sea INTERREG IIIB project, for instance, was converted into
the “Baltic Sea Region INTERREG IIIB Neighbourhood Programme” as from 2004.347
343 Presidency Conclusions. Copenhagen European Council, 12 and 13 December 2002. DOC 15917/02,
29 January 2003, pt. 22.
344 See ibd., pt. 23-24.
345 Wider Europe – Neighbourhood. Communication from the Commission to the Council and the
European Parliament. COM(2003) 104 final, 11 March 2003, p. 3 and 4.
346 See Paving the Way for a New Neighbourhood Instrument. Communication from the Commission.
COM(2003) 393, 1 July 2003.
347 For more details on the Neighbourhood Programme for the Baltic Sea Region, see the official
programme website www.bsrinterreg.net [26 December 2007.
103
During the second phase of implementation beginning with the next budget cycle (2007-
2014), cooperation will be further enhanced with increased funding and harmonized
instruments to eventually replace the existing programmes. The main idea behind the
European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument (ENPI) has been to remove the
main obstacle to joint cross-border projects, i.e. the incompatibility of EU funding
instruments, and to overcome situations where cooperation projects involving partners
from inside and outside the EU would have to apply to different EU funding
instruments, namely INTERREG for inside the Union, and e.g. TACIS for external
partners such as Russia or Belarus.348 In recent years, the range and specificity of the
existing financial instruments have caused considerable problems, since geographically
they often operated in similar areas, but on different sides of the EU border. As a result,
each project partner had to follow different rules and conditions for different funding
programmes. In many cases, parallel projects in adjacent areas could not cooperate
directly because the timing and availability of funds was largely asymmetric. To name
an example: the Russian-Finnish ‘Culture-Savo’ project that aimed at fostering the
cultural relations between St. Petersburg and South Savo (Finland) received
INTERREG funding, but had to wait for one year until the TACIS funding was
accredited. In the intervening period, the project partners found it difficult to build up
cross-border relations to the extent they wished.349 By replacing the existing
geographical and thematic programmes, this new approach to regional development
funding aims not only to simplify administrative procedures but also to provide for
genuine cross-border instruments. The joint programmes conducted in the ENPI
framework will bring member states and partner states sharing a common border closer
together, and thus, increase the effectivity of funding.350
In October 2003, the European Commission was mandated to prepare proposals for
country-specific ENP Action Plans (APs) to be implemented by the end of June 2004.
This practical step was followed by a broader conceptual input, the ENP Strategy Paper
published in May 2004.351 It was intended to complete and elaborate the foundations of
the ENP as laid out in the ‘Wider Europe’ Communication. In late 2004, the first seven
APs were proposed for Israel, Jordan, Moldova, Morocco, the Palestinian Authority,
Tunisia and Ukraine. In 2005, the Commission started to prepare further five, including
Armenia, Azerbaijan, Egypt, Georgia and Lebanon. In late 2006, the Commission
launched another significant communication on the “General approach to enable ENP
partner countries to participate in Community agencies and Community pro-
348 Even though Russia decided not to be part of the overall ENP, and instead to opt for the formally
different, but practically similar EU-Russia Common Spaces Partnership, Russian partners will also
be eligible for funding in the ENPI framework. To this end, the name of the instrument has been
changed from New Neighbourhood Instrument (NNI) into European Neighbourhood and Partnership
Instrument (ENPI).
349 See website of INTERACT, Forum for the exchange of experiences in INTERREG Funding
www.interact-eu.net [25 December 2007].
350 For more details on the new financial instrument, see website of the EU on the European
Neighbourhood Policy. http://ec.europa.eu/world/enp/index_en.htm [25 December 2007].
351 See European Neighbourhood Policy. Strategy Paper. Communication from the Commission.
COM(2004) 373, 12 May 2004.
104
grammes.”352 The institutional design of the ENP has been criticised for its “optimistic
reliance on the well-established model of enlargement” even though the circumstances
conditioning the success of the ENP are very different from the pre-accession situation
of the Central and Eastern European States.353 Another structural reference can be
identified for the EU ND. The ENP built on the policy model of the EU ND, with
particular emphasis on the advantages of the structural openness in the context of
regional and sub-regional cooperation.
The Northern Dimension currently provides the only regional framework in which the EU
participates with its Eastern partners to address trans-national and cross-border issues. […]
New initiatives to encourage regional cooperation between Russia and the Western NIS
[Newly Independent States – Ukraine, Moldova and Belarus] might also be considered.
These could draw upon the Northern Dimension concept to take a broader and more
inclusive approach to dealing with neighbourhood issues.354
Another instance where the EU ND was explicitly mentioned as an exemplary model
was the combat of environmental threats in the ENP framework.
Efforts to combat trans-boundary pollution – air, sea, water or land – should be modelled on
the collaborative approach taken by the Northern Dimension Environmental Partnership.355
These structural references notwithstanding, the institutional role the ENP has taken
over within the CFSP of the Union has nevertheless derogated the visibility of the North
and the Northern agenda. The ENP stands for the general tendency of the EU of rather
turning to the East and the unsettled South than to the decent and uncontroversial North.
In fact, the challenges emerging from these geographical areas are far more acute, and
thus, more essential for the Union to be tackled. The success of the EU’s performance in
its disconcerted neighbourhood must be seen as a key factor to determine its
international standing as well as its legitimacy and acceptance on the global scene.
B. The EU Northern Dimension – A General Overview
Policy issues specifically addressing the Northern ‘near abroad’ of the Union first
entered the EU agenda when the Nordic Countries, and especially Sweden and Finland
began to shift their political attention from the European Economic Area (EEA) to the
more comprehensive European integration project and their future membership in the
EU.356 However, not even the preparations for the Swedish and the Finnish accession in
352 General approach to enable ENP partner countries to participate in Community agencies and
Community programmes. Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European
Parliament. COM(2006) 724, 4 December 2006.
353 See GEBHARD Carmen: Assessing EU Actorness Towards its ‘Near Abroad’. The European
Neighbourhood Policy. Conference Paper, presented at the Centre of International Studies,
University of Cambridge in April 2007. Maastricht/Stockholm 2007, p. 18.
354 Wider Europe – Neighbourhood. A New Framework for Relations with our Eastern and Southern
Neighbours. Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament.
COM(2003) 104 final, 11 March 2003, p. 8.
355 Ibd., p. 12. For a critical discussion of the structural references to the EU ND, see VAHL Marius:
Models for the European Neighbourhood Policy. The European Economic Area and the Northern
Dimension. In: CEPS Working Document No. 218/ February 2005.
356 See CATELLANI Nicola: The EU’s Northern Dimension. Testing a New Approach to Neighbourhood Relations? Utrikespolitiska Institutet, Research Report 35, Stockholm 2003, p. 2.
Chapter Preview
References
Zusammenfassung
Seit 1989 ist es im Ostseeraum zu einer explosionsartigen Entstehung einer Vielzahl von regionalen Initiativen und Zusammenschlüssen gekommen. Der Ostseeraum weist bis heute eine europaweit einzigartig hohe Konzentration an kooperativen regionalen Strukturen auf. Diese bilden gemeinsam ein enges Netzwerk von Vereinigungen, die unter dem Überbegriff der "Ostseezusammenarbeit’ interagieren.
Diese Studie analysiert die Hintergründe dieses regionalen Phänomens oder so genannten „Ostsee-Rätsels“ auf Basis eines Vergleichs zwischen den Regionalpolitiken zweier staatlicher Schlüsselakteure, Schweden und Finnland, wobei der europäische Integrationsprozess als übergeordneter Bezugsrahmen für die Untersuchung dient.