Dies ist eine HTML Version eines Anhanges der Informationsfreiheitsanfrage 'INTCEN mandate and capabilities'.

Brussels, 7.6.2017  
SWD(2017) 227 final 
EU resilience policy framework for cooperation with partner countries and evaluation of 
related implementation actions 
Accompanying the document 
Joint Communication to the European Parliament and the Council 
A Strategic Approach to Resilience in the EU's external action 
{JOIN(2017) 21 final} 
{SWD(2017) 226 final} 
EN    EN 

1.  Introduction – Purpose of this Staff Working Document 
This staff working document gives an overview of how resilience is addressed in the EU's 
development, humanitarian and neighbourhood policies and takes stock of the implementation 
of initiatives to promote and strengthen resilience. It highlights lessons learnt and draws 
conclusions that are relevant to accompany the new Joint Communication on "A Strategic 
approach to Resilience in the EU's external action." 
The EU approach to resilience in development and humanitarian policy emerged from 
recurrent food crises in the Sahel and Horn of Africa. For the latter, the 2011 crisis illustrated 
the failures of the international community in effectively addressing "predictable" crises. With 
the resulting 2012 Commission Communication, "The EU approach to resilience: learning 
from food security crises"1
, the EU took a prominent role in placing resilience as a central 
aim for humanitarian aid and development cooperation to reduce humanitarian needs and to 
achieve durable development outcomes. The Communication defines resilience as "the ability 
of an individual, a household, a community, a country or a region to withstand, to adapt, and 
to quickly recover from stresses and shocks
"; and set the basis, through the 2013 subsequent 
"Action Plan for Resilience in Crisis Prone Countries 2013-2020"2 , to widen the scope of 
the EU responses to other contexts of fragility, including insecurity, weak governance, 
economic shocks, natural hazards and the increasing impact of climate change. 
This new Joint Communication benefits from, and builds on, lessons from the implementation 
of the 2013 EU Resilience Action Plan and is complemented by the experiences of DG NEAR 
with European Neighbourhood Policy (ENP).3  
The findings of this assessment presented here are informed by monitoring of performance 
against the EU Resilience Action Plan, recent assessments such as the evaluation of the EU 
approach to resilience to withstand food crises in African dry lands (2007-2015), and DG 
ECHO's evaluation of Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR) and resilience in Latin America and the 
2. EU policy framework on resilience  
2.1. An expanding development-humanitarian resilience policy framework 
The EU resilience approach, set out in the 2012 Communication, subsequent 2013 Action 
Plan and Council conclusions on EU approach to resilience4, has a clear purpose: 
increasing resilience of the most vulnerable so that development gains can be preserved and 
humanitarian needs reduced and the cycle of poverty, crises and fragility broken. This 
intention is underpinned by two guiding but linked objectives to:    
1 COM(2012) 586 final 
2 SWD(2013) 227 final 
3 The ENP was designed in 2003-2004 to develop closer relations between the EU and its neighbouring 
countries with the principal objective of strengthening the prosperity, stability and security and preventing the 
emergence of new dividing lines between the EU and its neighbours. See more at: 
4 3241st FOREIGN AFFAIRS Council meeting, Brussels, 28 May 2013 


•  Address the root causes of people's vulnerability, fragility and their susceptibility to 
be affected by these (multiple) shocks and stresses, through more equitable and 
inclusive social, economic and political processes that build coping capacities. This 
requires co-ordinated action towards people-centred recovery and greater self-reliance, 
adaptability, learning and better preparation of individuals for future stress. 
•  Accompanying these initiatives to address underlying diverse causes of fragility with 
risk management measures to protect populations from shocks and stresses, limit 
their impact through early response and assist a quick recovery.  
As such, the EU agenda promotes the benefits of pre-emptive risk reduction and early action 
that minimises damage, loss and deterioration, instead of costly and too often avoidable 
response after the fact. A key aspect of this EU resilience approach is to address a diversity of 
risk, the shocks and stresses that people face or are affected by, be they large or more 
localised events, or the result of natural, economic, or political processes. Ecosystems' goods 
and services underpin food, water, energy and health security, and are the foundation for 
resilient communities to natural disasters and conflict.  
The 2013 Council conclusions on resilience gave unequivocal guidance to how resilience 
should be organised, stating, inter alia, that: (i) It is national government’s primarily 
responsibility to build resilience including conflict sensitive approaches across humanitarian, 
development and political dialogue and engagement; (ii)  analysis and solutions must be 
rooted in local ownership and the experience of affected communities, countries and regions. 
This requires working closely with local communities, civil society and local authorities; (iii)  
the EU’s commitment to build long-term resilience in partner countries through inclusive and 
sustainable management of natural resources and economic growth for human development 
should be re-iterated; and (iv) there should be a focus on the most vulnerable households and 
marginalised groups through comprehensive rights-based approaches and facilitating their 
access to basic social services. 
Since then, the resilience policy framework has expanded. The concept of resilience is 
included in the following Communications and Staff Working Documents: 
•  2015 Commission Communication: Towards the World Humanitarian Summit: A 
global partnership for principled and effective humanitarian (COM(2015) 419 final) 
and accompanying Staff Working Document (SWD(2015) 166 final) 
•  2016 Commission Communication: Lives in Dignity: from Aid-dependence to Self-
reliance – Forced Displacement and Development (COM(2016) 234 final) and 
accompanying Staff Working Document (SWD(2016) 142 final)  
•  2016 Commission Staff Working Document Action Plan on the Sendai Framework for 
Disaster Risk Reduction 2015-2030 (SWD(2016) 205 final/2) 
•  2016 Commission Communication on a proposal for a renewed European Consensus 
on Development: Our World, our Dignity, our Future  (COM (2016) 740 final) 
•  International agenda 2030: Commission Communication on Next steps for a 
sustainable European future (COM(2016) 739 final) 
•  Communication (COM(2016) 110 final) and ratification of the Paris Agreement by the 
European Parliament (04/10/2016). 
Last but not least, the EU Global Strategy for the EU's Foreign and Security Policy identifies 
“State and Societal Resilience" as one of the five priorities for the EU’s external action. 


2.2. A new European neighbourhood resilience policy framework  
Joint Communication "Review of the European Neighbourhood Policy"5 was adopted in 
2015, which prioritises four sectors with the overall aim of stabilising the neighbourhood and 
strengthening the resilience of the EU's partners: 
1. Good governance, democracy, rule of law and human rights 
2. Economic development for stabilisation 
3. Security 
4. Migration and mobility 
To achieve results under these priorities, the following tools were put forward in the review: 
•  Differentiation of partner countries based on their needs and preferences;   
•  Ownership of the policy by both Member States (through Joint Programming and 
ongoing consultations) and partner countries (through new, refocused political 
association and economic integration, such as jointly-agreed Partnership Priorities and 
revised Association Agendas); 
•  The regional dimension both enhancing cooperation within the Eastern Partnership 
and Union for the Mediterranean, and bringing on board regional partners beyond the 
neighbourhood for cooperation on shared challenges such as migration, energy and 
•  Flexibility in financial assistance, enabling the EU to deliver on short-term needs 
whilst balancing these with the long-term reform objectives of the policy; 
•  Visibility and better communication with an emphasis on working with youth and 
increasing people-to-people contacts.  
3.  State of play of implementation of the resilience policy framework 
3.1. Resilience Action Plan 2013-2020 review 
EU resilience policies are supported by evidence of good practice from the Sahel (AGIR 
initiative) and Horn of Africa (SHARE programme), from earlier  action on linking relief, 
rehabilitation and development (LRRD), country and thematic programmes (e.g. food and 
nutrition security and sustainable agriculture, social protection, environment, climate 
adaptation and mitigation, DRR, forest, land, water and energy). At the institutional level, 
closer working relationships between DGs ECHO, DEVCO or NEAR have led to a number of 
collaborative initiatives on the ground, such as the first EU Trust Fund ("Bêkou") for Central 
African Republic (CAR) focussing on resilience, and Joint Humanitarian Development 
Frameworks (JHDF) in countries like Haiti, Jordan, Lebanon, Nigeria and Syria.  
Resilience approaches are becoming more widely used, as evidenced by the 2015/2016 
response to El Niño through complementary actions to the EU Resilience Building 
Programme in Ethiopia (RESET Plus) and the flexibilities that in 2016 allowed an early 
response to crises in Haiti and Nigeria. The 2016 EU policy to address protracted forced 
5 http://eeas.europa.eu/archives/docs/enp/documents/2015/151118_joint-communication_review-of-the-


displacement, "Lives in Dignity" is organised around strengthening the resilience and self-
reliance of displaced and host communities.   
Reporting on the three priorities of the 2013 Resilience Action Plan 
The Action Plan covers 18 actions to be implemented by EC services with a lead from DGs 
DEVCO and/or ECHO, and as far as possible with MS involvement. It is organised around 
three implementation priorities. 
Overall, progress has been especially positive where objectives were part of, and strongly 
aligned to, existing programmes. There has been considerable advancement since 2013 in the 
thematic areas of Food and Nutrition Security and Sustainable Agriculture, DRR and Climate 
Change. There are also numerous examples where practice has gone beyond the targets set in 
the Action Plan – for example the more widespread use of crisis modifiers, i.e flexible 
financing, in humanitarian programmes for protracted crises. There are other areas, such as 
urban resilience, forced displacement, predictable and flexible financing, and social 
protection, where significant changes are underway. They do not have clear targets in the 
Action Plan but support the achievement of resilience objectives by addressing underlying 
causes of vulnerability, protecting people and programmes from shocks, stresses and change. 
Not captured in the Action Plan is the change in policies and in practice that the Action Plan 
has contributed to, aspects that it meant to catalyse, such as the closer collaboration between 
DGs DEVCO and ECHO, as demonstrated by the EU Trust Funds and in the EU 
commitments on the "Grand Bargain" at the World Humanitarian Summit (WHS)6.  
Implementation priority 1: EU support to the development and implementation of 
national and regional resilience approaches, capacities and partnerships 
Progress includes:  
•  an increased co-operation of the EU, MS, other donors and stakeholders in support of 
national resilience strategies in the Sahel (AGIR) and Horn of Africa (SHARE). For 
instance, 11 out of 17 West African countries have adopted national resilience 
priorities under AGIR and another four others have drafted country resilience 
priorities under SHARE; 
•  the implementation of EU strategic resilience approach in a number of countries 
including Bangladesh, Ethiopia, Haiti, Jordan, Lebanon, Mali, Nepal, Niger, Sudan 
and Zimbabwe, with very close cooperation between DGs ECHO and DEVCO in their 
respective programming; 
•  a better co-ordination of food security, nutrition, sustainable agriculture, DRR and 
climate change sectors with other development/humanitarian objectives including 
mainstreaming across other sectors. For example, the GCCA initiative has supported 
57 projects in Africa, Asia, Caribbean and Pacific regions, of which 34 are ongoing; 
•  a reinforcement of resilience in food and nutrition security and in sustainable 
agriculture within 60 development cooperation programmes; 
•  the EU Sendai Action plan, in support of SDG/Agenda 2030 requirements to address 
poverty, vulnerability, risk and crisis together in crisis prone and fragile contexts, calls 
for: "a disaster risk-informed approach to policy-making, offering a coherent agenda 
across different EU policies to strengthen resilience to risks and shocks"; 
6 http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-16-1847_en.htm 


•  resilience is a core objective of the EU Trust funds. DGs DEVCO, ECHO and the 
EEAS are working closely together for the implementation of the Trust Fund in CAR 
("Bêkou"), and with DG NEAR as well for the EU Emergency Trust Fund for Africa 
and the EU Trust Fund for Syria ("Madad"); 
•  collaboration, shared analyses and partnership and co-ordinated programming as core 
components of the EU Facility for Refugees in Turkey as well as DGs NEAR and 
ECHO programming in Syria, Lebanon, Jordan and Ukraine through the JHDFs 
(similar work between ECHO, DEVCO and Madad trust fund has been initiated 
through a comprehensive action plan.    
•  environment and climate change are more systematically integrated across 
development policies and assistance programmes and contribute to improving 
resilience (e.g. regular social transfers combined with community-based land 
restoration and reforestation works in   Ethiopia's Productive Safety Net Programme 
benefitting 7.8 million people). 
Priority intervention 2: Innovation, learning and advocacy 
The EU is a major funder for supporting and investigating innovative risk financing solutions 
developed at regional, national and local levels. In addition, since the inception of the Action 
Plan a significant change is the expansion of social protection systems to address risks and/or 
meet people needs. Experiences from Ethiopia, Kenya, the Philippines, and Turkey 
demonstrate it is possible to establish shock responsive safety net systems able to assist large 
populations in need. Where appropriate, DG ECHO use of cash transfer has increased, 
allowing for more direct funding and a regain of dignity for the recipients7. In most cases, this 
more widespread use of cash has maintained or has established local markets.  
The EU continues to make a valid contribution to developing good practice, learning such as 
through the EC resilience compendium and the EC contribution to INFORM8; and sharing 
 including through the Capacity4dev platform. With INFORM, the EU is now 
investing in analysis of risks, taking a closer look at global risks and imbalances. According 
to the evaluation of EU’s resilience-building strategy to withstand food crises in Africa 
Drylands, the EU has played a critical role in strengthening Early Warning Systems (EWS) 
for conflict prevention notably via capacity building of relevant local organisations, hereby 
enhancing the availability, regularity and quality of information on the incidence of food 
insecurity and malnutrition.  
On  advocacy for resilience, major successes include EU contribution to coherence and 
integration of resilience principles into the SDGs, Sendai, the Grand Bargain and the WHS 
objectives, and the Paris Agreement on Climate Change to promote low-carbon and resilient 
Implementation priority 3:  Methodologies and tools to support resilience 
7 An evaluation of the use of transfer modalities in DG ECHO found that cash transfers are particularly effective 
in flexibly and simultaneously meeting a range of beneficiary defined needs. See more at: 
8 http://www.inform-index.org/ 


Resilience factored in EC, EEAS and partners' guidance: Resilience is incorporated into 
all DG ECHO Humanitarian Implementation Plans (HIPs) as recommended by the 2012 
Resilience Communication. This was practically introduced via a resilience marker for 
emergency projects. Developing tools, for example JHDFs and INFORM, to assist joint 
humanitarian and development analyses is a priority and is ongoing.   
Improved methodologies and tools: Since 2016, the European Commission, FAO and the 
World Food Programme (joined by further partners in 2017) have jointly conducted an 
analysis of threats to food security. As a result of this joint venture, the "Global Network 
against Food Crises"9 was launched during the WHS. The Global Network is designed to 
combat food insecurity from both humanitarian and development perspectives and tackles the 
root causes of these crises. 
In 2015, the EU published the second edition of its staff handbook on "Operating in situations 
of conflict and fragility", which provides practical guidance on conflict sensitivity analysis, 
promoting resilience, programming flexibly and other relevant topics in situations of conflict 
and fragility10. 
Since 2013, numerous learning events directly linked to resilience have been organised 
including: workshops on resilience conducted twice in Brussels (July 2013 and June 2014), as 
well as for EU Delegations and ECHO staff at a country (Bangladesh, CAR, Yemen) and 
regional level  (Caribbean, Central America, Latin America, South Asia). DGs DEVCO and 
ECHO also jointly developed material on DRR for training courses on climate change and 
environment mainstreaming; DG DEVCO and the EEAS co-delivered training courses on 
fragility and conflict sensitivity; DG DEVCO developed a conflict sensitivity on-line training 
course.  DEVCO and ECHO co-hosted two "resilience forum" events in Brussels with high 
level representation from EC, the donor community and civil society.  
In early 2016, the JRC and the EPSC founded a Commission-wide Research Network on 
Measuring Resilience (resil.net). In 2016, it worked towards a common framework for 
resilience in the EU policymaking context. Within its work, the JRC  has published a 
conceptual framework of resilience in 2017.11 
Flexible financing instruments and contingencies: The advantages of flexible financing, 
and contingency funds are being realised and acted on. New mechanisms were developed by 
DG DEVCO (e.g. PRO-ACT and the EU Trust Funds). There is also better use of existing 
mechanisms with increased use of flexible financing procedures.   
Adapting budget support to fragile contexts: In 2012, the Commission introduced State 
Building Contracts (SBC), a flexible instrument which provides rapid support to maintain 
vital state functions, to contribute to macroeconomic stability and to ensure essential service 
delivery to the most vulnerable part of the population, often complemented with a longer term 
focus on the causes of structural fragility and on the transition towards sustainable 
development and democratic governance12. 
9 Global Report on Food Crises 2017 at:  https://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/global-report-food-crises-2017_en 
10 https://europa.eu/capacity4dev/public-fragility/minisite/support-and-guidance 
11 Manca, Benczur and Giovannini, Building a scientific narrative towards a more resilient EU society, Part 1: a 
conceptual framework, doi: 10.2760/635528 
12 At the end of 2016, SBCs were under implementation in 21 countries, of which more than half in West- and 
Central Africa, for a total commitment of € 2.4 billion. The study EU State Building Contracts: early lessons from 
the EU's new budget support instrument for fragile states
 by M. Bernardi, T.Hart and G. Rabinowitz (Overseas 


The Action plan and the EU approach has established resilience priorities 
The recent evaluation of EU’s resilience-building strategy to withstand food crises in African 
Drylands (Sahel and Horn of Africa) concluded that the EU strategic approach to building 
resilience to food crises has prompted a strategic shift and commitment to a humanitarian-
development common vision and shared responsibility in prioritising resilience to food crises 
at global, regional and country levels. It confirms the importance of causal analyses of the 
root causes of food insecurity and impact assessments as a basis for designing EU country 
strategies to build resilience to food crises. More generally it found that, despite the diversity 
of projects and programmes and lack of proper resilience instrument, at different scales across 
the horn of African and the Sahel, the resilience agenda has changed the way development 
operations and humanitarian aid are delivered.   
Another evaluation, on "DG ECHO's action on building resilience in the Latin America and 
Caribbean region (LAC)" between 2012 and 2016, also highlights that the EU resilience 
approach has been an opportunity to strengthen the ties between DG ECHO and other EU 
delegations including a considerable improvement in LAC dialogue between DG ECHO, DG 
DEVCO at headquarters and in partner countries.  
A clear indication of the change in place is the implementation of the EU resilience approach 
through the EU Trust Funds. For example, the 2015 Valletta Summit on Migration in 
launching the EU Emergency Trust Fund for Africa aims at tackling the root causes of 
irregular migration and forced displacement. One of the EU Trust Fund objectives is to 
strengthen "the resilience of communities and in particularly the most vulnerable, as well as 
refugees and displaced." 
Further dynamism to resilience has been provided by other stakeholders' approaches to 
resilience (e.g. DFID, INGOs, SIDA, USAID, UN System,) but also from international 
processes, for example the strong resilience emphasis of the 17 SDGs behind Agenda 2030,  
the resilience approach set out in the Sendai framework for DRR  (a multi-hazard, all of 
society approach to risk management) and the WHS priorities for effective humanitarian 
action, partnerships between development and humanitarian actors and the urgency of finding 
long term solutions to protracted crises.  
Practice is changing. In many instances Governments are taking more responsibility to 
address chronic needs and predictable crises, and to build their competencies to manage risks, 
for example with investments in social protection systems and enhanced national disaster 
management capabilities.  In response to the on-going drought (2017) Kenya and Ethiopia can 
be singled out as having functional structures in place to combat vulnerability and build 
resilience to drought.  
The UN is reforming its development and humanitarian system to meet the demands of the 
SDGS, working more deliberately together towards longer term programmes and "collective 
outcomes," the World Bank is increasing their support to fragile countries and finance is more 
available to middle income countries hosting large scale population displacement. Collective 
action, at different levels and according to added value, is becoming the norm. 
Development Institute, February 2015) shows that SBCs have delivered very positive results in terms of 
macroeconomic and fiscal management, poverty reduction and improvements in health and education 


Consolidating progress while recognising challenges 
Despite practical progress, more concerted efforts are required to apply and expand resilience 
approaches.  The recent reviews and evaluations point out a number of areas where the added 
value of resilience approaches can be promoted by the new communication for better practice 
and results.  
Humanitarian funds are increasingly being used for longer term recovery and to meet basic 
needs for extended periods. In 2015 two-thirds (66%) of humanitarian assistance from DAC 
donors alone continues to go to long-term-recipient countries – due to protracted or recurrent 
crises. Although total humanitarian funding is increasing, it is insufficient to meet exponential 
humanitarian needs worldwide and is absorbing funds that could be used to address longer 
term development and stability issues. Hence the need to implement fully-fledged resilience 
Additionally, notwithstanding progress and momentum, there is still uncertainty and risk 
determining how humanitarians and development actors (local and international) can work 
together in situations of conflict and insecurity. There is a lack of integrating conflict 
sensitivity and "do no harm" principles into programming and not enough active 
consideration of how EU could contribute to conflict reduction. 
Considerable efforts have been made in the field of joint analysis, but a major hurdle is to 
determine how different mandates, priorities and instruments can be reconciled for coherent, 
context-based actions whilst maintaining core humanitarian principles. This challenge has not 
been sufficiently addressed by frameworks intended to guide implementation and monitor 
progress and results, leading to a lack of clarity over the division of labour. This is linked to 
an additional concern of DGs ECHO and DEVCO staff interviewed for resilience evaluations, 
that EU resilience direction placed an added burden on already stretched staffing at 
delegations and that the EU resilience agenda has not been sufficiently backed up 
implementation frameworks and guidance. The importance of causal analyses of the root 
causes of crises and vulnerability for designing EU country strategies is increasingly 
recognised, though in practice these analyses were not systematically conducted and were of 
variable quality. Political Economy Analysis (PEA)13 is one of the key analytical tools to 
inform policy and political dialogue and to adjust EU projects and programmes so our actions 
remain relevant and effective over time. However, PEA and conflict analyses are not 
systematically conducted. 
A recurrent demand from practitioners in fragile and conflict operations is for the awareness 
and assistance with applying methodologies to identify and address such risks within EU 
analysis and assistance programmes. 
EU programming instruments were progressively improved over time (since 2012) with the 
introduction of notably with the introduction of flexible financial procedures that improved 
the timeliness of the support in times of crisis.  Moreover, the EU introduced new financing 
mechanisms more specifically devoted to financing resilience activities, such as PRO-ACT, 
SHARE and the EU Emergency Trust Fund for Africa. However, in some instances, 
13 13 OECD DAC has defined 'Political Economy Analysis' as relating to "the interaction of political and economic 
processes in a society: the distribution of power and wealth between different groups and individuals, and the 
processes that create, sustain and transform these relationships over time"



noteworthy resilience intentions, e.g. those in the Emergency Trust Fund for Africa, have not 
received the same attention as other priorities.   
3.2 European Neighbourhood Policy actions to strengthen state and societal resilience   
The reviewed ENP focuses on the need to stabilise the neighbourhood and strengthen the 
resilience of the EU’s partners. This strengthening of both state and societal resilience 
highlights the importance of addressing sources of instability across all four priority sectors of 
the ENP review, not just in the security domain but also in the areas of governance and rule of 
law, economic development, energy and connectivity and in migration policy.  
Good governance, democracy, rule of law and human rights 
A vibrant civil society and public debate are essential to build up consent for socio-economic 
and political reform and to build up trust in governmental institutions and their ability to 
manage crises. Thus, support for civil society organisations and the promotion of human 
rights are core elements of the EU's relationships with all its neighbours. 
The ENP review also emphasises the importance of independent, effective and transparent 
justice systems and accountable public administrations. The EU works extensively on public 
policy analysis, good governance, public administration reform, anti-corruption and rule of 
law issues in the neighbourhood.  
Economic development for stabilisation 
Economic development for stabilisation has a particular focus on better economic governance, 
strengthening fiscal stability and supporting structural reforms. Encouraging trade between 
the neighbourhood and the EU and between neighbours themselves will lead to approximation 
with EU and international standards and the gradual economic integration of partners in the 
EU internal market.  
Commission proposals for an External Investment Plan will support investment in partner 
countries in the European Neighbourhood and throughout Africa. The goal is to harness 
private sector participation in investment in the region contributing to the achievement of the 
SDGs and addressing the root causes of migration. A Joint Communication on Tunisia14 was 
adopted in September 2016 to promote resilience and stability, with EUR 300 million 
committed in 2017 to socio-economic development, good governance and cooperation on 
Ensuring that the EU's neighbours have reliable and more diverse energy supplies and 
increasing cooperation with them on energy efficiency, renewable energy sources, demand 
management and climate change adaptation and mitigation will help to build up both partners’ 
resilience and the EU's. These efforts should focus not just on the neighbourhood itself, but 
also on building up wider regional partnerships into Central Asia and the Middle East.  
The security dimension 
The EU is developing and enforcing security strategies in the Neighbourhood region by 
supporting Security Sector Reforms (SSR); working on the prevention of radicalisation 
leading to violent extremism; introducing hybrid threats and bolstering cybersecurity.  
14 Strengthening EU support to Tunisia, JOIN(2016) 47 final 

EU support to SSR in all partner countries is now framed by the recently adopted EU SSR 
policy15. Effectiveness and good governance of the security apparatus are essential assets for 
more resilient societies. As announced in the EU Joint Framework on Countering Hybrid 
Threats16country-specific hybrid risk surveys are being launched in the Neighbourhood. The 
framework also calls for a closer EU-NATO cooperation. The EU has been supporting cyber 
capacity building in partner countries based on the Convention on Cybercrime of the Council 
of Europe (the Budapest Convention).  
Factors such as discrimination and lack of educational and economic opportunities act as 
specific drivers in the radicalisation of young people. The EU is addressing this through 
targeted social and educational development and by increasing partner countries' abilities to 
work with European agencies on counter-terrorism measures and combatting organised crime.      
Migration and mobility, Forced displacement 
Europe's neighbourhood is a source, a transit point and a destination for migrants. Europe's 
neighbourhood also includes both countries hosting refugees as well as countries of origin of 
refugees. The EU approach aims at improving international protection of refugees. It also 
aims at reducing irregular migration; promoting legal migration and mobility; maximising the 
development impact of migration and effectively managing borders. An illustration of this 
approach is the EU Emergency Trust Fund for Africa.  
Following on from the Syria Conference in London in February 2016, compacts were 
developed with Lebanon and Jordan to address the needs and promote the resilience and self-
reliance of refugees and vulnerable host communities by providing education and 
employment opportunities.  
The January 2017 Communication on Migration on the Central Mediterranean Route17 
focussed efforts on cooperation with Libya and other North African countries to tackle 
migration issues. EUR 200 million will be provided from the EU Trust Fund for Africa in 
2017 with an emphasis on tackling migration issues in Libya.   
Through regional projects, the EU has been assisting all Neighbourhood countries to enhance 
their ability to prevent, get prepared and respond to natural and man-made disasters, based on 
the principles and approach of the Union Civil Protection Mechanism. 
4. Conclusions and way forward 
4.1 Validity of concept and meaning 
The current global situation of fragility and crises, linked to a more coherent global agenda, as 
indicated by the SDGs and the call to leave "no –one behind", , and the realisation that 
change, uncertainty and risk is a normative part of societal functioning, has led broad 
agreement that resilience is relevant, and a pre-requisite for societal progress and stability.  
4.2 Context analysis for better programming and implementation 
In support of the collective approaches demanded by these above mentioned opportunities, 
further development of EU analytical and programming tools is recommended.   
15JOIN(2016) 31 final of 5 July 2016 
16 JOIN(2016) 18 final of 6 April 2016 
17 Migration on the Central Mediterranean Route, managing flows, saving lives, JOIN(2017) 4 final 

Joint and shared analysis – comprehensive and systematic 
Work still needs to be done for various services of the EU to intervene according to mandate 
and added value; this would allow greater efficiency and impact. A differentiated level of 
engagement in joint programming may be required.  One option is for the EU, with the 
engagement of MS, to establish requirements for systematic risk and resilience analyses that 
identify differing drivers of vulnerability along with transparent linkages between these 
analytical processes, programme objectives and EU country strategies.  
According to the Evaluation on building resilience in the LAC region, EU staff request further 
guidance on operationalising the resilience approach, including a division of responsibilities 
and programming tools.  The EU possesses a wide ranging number of tools to assist with 360 
degree analysis. The next step is now to ensure capacity building and guidance to 
systematically apply and share the relevant tools across programmes and services.  Reaching 
an understanding of the local political, development and institutional context is a necessary 
prerequisite for developing appropriate resilience strategies and programmes and to broaden 
our analysis of risk. PEA18 is one of the key analytical tools to inform policy and political 
dialogue. Context analysis including the PEA tool should be regularly used to adjust EU 
projects and programmes ensuring that our actions remain relevant and effective over time.   
Integrating conflict sensitivity into planning and programmes 
In fragile environments, existing conflict sensitivity tools should be more systematically used, 
to assist the prevention of potential conflicts, avoiding negative impacts and doing harm.  
Integrating environmental resilience into programming and project design  
Environment, climate change and DRR should be systematically integrated into programming 
and project design. 
Increasing multiyear, flexible programming  
Working towards mutually agreed medium and longer term objectives necessitates multi-year 
programming, also in humanitarian assistance. Longer-term programmes should be risk 
informed, incorporating flexibility and contingencies.  
Social protection and cash-based responses 
Extensive evidence demonstrates that social protection helps reduce poverty and inequality, 
enhances livelihoods, and has long-term positive impacts on human capital development. 
While establishing effective social protection in the context of protracted instability and 
displaced populations is more complex, responsive long-term systems that bridge the 
humanitarian-developmental divide are needed to reach affected vulnerable populations 
18 18 OECD DAC has defined 'Political Economy Analysis' as relating to "the interaction of political and economic 
processes in a society: the distribution of power and wealth between different groups and individuals, and the 
processes that create, sustain and transform these relationships over time"


More widespread use of cash as a humanitarian response mechanism to allow beneficiaries to 
meet basis needs, can be distributed using local systems, and can be used to maintain or 
establish local markets. If the conditions are right, cash is more efficient and flexible. 
4.3 Risk management, early action and early response 
The EU Sendai Action plan, in support of SDG/Agenda 2030, calls for a disaster risk-
informed approach across EU policies to strengthen resilience to risks and shocks. 
Strengthening national and local competencies for risk management 
Integrating contingencies and crisis modifiers is part of a deliberate process to promote early 
action and response within EU programming but also to strengthen the local and national 
capacities to do so.  DG ECHO is one of the first donors to support an "anticipation fund" for 
crisis response. In more stable environments, Governments, with support from development 
partners, should be encouraged and assisted to take more responsibility for chronic vulnerably 
and strengthen local capabilities for risk management and an earlier, local response.  
Environmental, climate and disaster risk assessments should be more systematically required 
and applied to identify potential impacts of catastrophic sudden and slow onset risks, as well 
as to identify and prioritise preventive and/or adaptive measures for risk informed 
investments. More operational risk informed programming is needed to ensure effective joint 
approaches to build the resilience of people and ecosystems for adaptation and DRR, in 
particular to strengthen capacities of community-based organisations, civil society 
organisations and local authorities. 
Advocacy and media outreach for resilience 
The 2016 Communication for a new European Consensus on Development recommends joint 
analysis of risk and vulnerabilities for an increased use of EU single response strategies and, 
where appropriate, joint indicative programmes, recognising the EU's unique ability to 
influence change, from a political perspective, through operational programmes and as a 
convenor of MS in support of complementary outcomes.  
Investing in risk management, promoting more inclusive societies and overall attaining 
resilience objectives requires widespread public and political support. The EU should 
continue to take the lead demonstrated in 2012 in building international and local support 
through well organised initiatives such as the Political Champions for Resilience, the 2014 
and 2016 Resilience Forums and the third World Reconstruction Conference (2017). The 
New resilience commitments should be backed up by a robust communication strategy that 
advocates and assists media awareness of critical resilience issues; for example, recurring low 
level forced displacement that does not hit the headlines, or the value of risk management as 
compared to the spectacle of response. Local and international media can be powerful agents 
for change starting with asking questions on the root causes before a next recurrent, 
predicable and protracted crisis hit populations. 
Monitoring tools for resilience 
As recommended in evaluations, DG DEVCO, DG ECHO and EEAS (in relation to 
Instrument contributing to Stability and Peace – IcSP) to develop common monitoring and 

evaluation tools, including the similar markers to that used by ECHO for monitoring progress 
in integrating resilience perspectives into programming whilst, at the same time DG DEVCO, 
DG ECHO and EEAS could implement a common learning strategy. Options include 
introducing shared accountability frameworks, into programmes and country strategies that 
define monitoring and reporting indicators across EU services and Member States that 
incorporate key elements of a strategic resilience approach.  
Within the context of the Research Network on the Measurement of Resilience, the JRC has 
just started working on creating a dashboard of resilience characteristics (observable, “usual” 
statistical variables that prove to be meaningful and significant drivers/determinants of the 
resilience of entities such as cities, regions, countries or individuals) for EU MS, regions and 
cities. Lessons from this activity could be drawn also for the external dimension of the EU. 
4.4 Delivering on international commitments, taking opportunities 
In addition to the global commitments listed previously, further momentum is provided by the 
international context and EU operational commitments to deliver on policy priorities to 
address protracted crises and protracted forced displacement, including: 
•  The elaboration, across EU institutions, of medium to longer term strategies for 
protracted crisis (notably Syria and neighbouring countries) – with clarity of roles, 
expectations and matching budgetary commitments.  
•  The delivery of the explicit resilience objectives in the EU Trust Funds.  
•  DGs DEVCO, ECHO and EU delegations collaboration in nexus/LRRD pilot 
countries19 as well as forced displacement focus countries for joint programming, for 
better collective outcomes.  
•  Marked attention to forced displacement as a joint responsibility of political, 
economic, developmental and humanitarian actors, calling for a new development-
oriented approach, supporting access to education, housing, land and productive 
assets, livelihoods, services and community interaction.  
•  Strengthening resilience must be locally owned and driven by national and local 
actors.  Policies and programmes for state and societal resilience should be developed 
and implemented in partnership with local communities, civil society, national and 
local authorities, research institutions and the private sector.  
The processes and approaches promoted by the Resilience Action Plan provide valuable 
experiences and lessons that will contribute to meeting these objectives and by doing so, 
further advancing the practicalities and benefits of integrating resilience principles into 
normative planning processes. 
19 Kenya, Somalia, Uganda, Sudan, Tanzania, Ethiopia, South-Sudan, Nigeria, Niger, Chad, Afghanistan, 
Myanmar, Iraq, Yemen 

Document Outline