The ENP Three Years On: Where From - and Where Next?
Written by Julia Meuter
The European Neighbourhood Policy (ENP) has difficulties meeting the expectations and demands of dealing with the EU’s neighbourhood, argues Antonio Missiroli of the European Policy Centre. This is mainly due to the EU’s undifferentiated approach towards its partner countries from Eastern Europe, the South Caucasus, and the Mediterranean.
So far, 16 countries have been involved in the policy and 11 Action Plans have been introduced. While “improvement of investment and business climate” appears in the “top four” priorities of all Action Plans, other goals are more diverse, ranging from the fight against terrorism, to solving “frozen” conflicts in border regions, to securing energy supplies. As the mechanisms of the ENP are not sufficient to deal with all of these issues, there is a risk of overloading it. In other words, the Mediterranean countries differ greatly from those in Eastern Europe. To position them under one common policy affects its implementation record and the ENP’s image in general. The Action Plans also suffer from a lack of credibility, as the EU is rather reluctant to adhere to some of the commitments outlined, such as opening up its agricultural and labour market.
The ENP lacks effective conditionality, something that enlargement does not. Because the ENP does not offer the carrot of membership, the EU is in fact demanding more than it offers. Although it is impossible to assess the impact of the ENP on its partner countries so far, Missiroli notes that some countries have done quite well, but acknowledges that the climate in those countries was already favourable. Still, Action Plans are better defined now and they are tailored to meet specific characteristics of the countries. Furthermore, although funding remains limited, it has been allocated to target existing problems more effectively.
Missiroli suggests that establishing distinct templates for Eastern and Southern countries, including different incentives and rewards, would improve the policy. The policy could then complement existing policies, such as the “European Conference” and the concept of “Privileged Partner” status for Eastern and Southern Caucasus countries and the Barcelona Process for the Mediterranean countries. In any case, regional coherence and finalité would increase the ENP’s impact. Also, the introduction of a Union Minister for Foreign Affairs, as proposed in the EU Constitutional Treaty, could link the Commission’s tools with those of the Council Secretariat and the Member States, helping to overcome the current intra- and inter-institutional conflicts over competencies and funding.
