International Renaissance Foundationin cooperation with the Open Society FoundationsEuropean Integration Indexfor Eastern Partnership CountriesPilot editionNovember 2011
2 This report was written by:Iryna Solonenko (editor) We would like to thank expert team leaders Boris Navasardian, Leila Aliyeva, Dzianis Melyantsou,Martin Brusis Tamara Pataraia, Leonid Litra, Kateryna Shynkaruk, our colleagues from OSF Viorel Ursu, PawełVeronika Movchan Bagiński, Tetyana Kukharenko, and Inna Pidluska, and all the experts from the EaP countriesIryna Sushko (listed at the end of the report) for their input. We also thank Richard Youngs, Natalia Shapovalova,Natalia Sysenko Norman Spengler, Helmut Anheier, and Jeff Lovitt for their input at different stages of this project.Yaryna Borenko We also acknowledge the kind assistance of the EU Delegation to Ukraine: special thanks go toAnna Golubovska-Onisimova David Stulik, Fabiola di Clemente, Dimitri Gorchakov, Stefanie Harter, Richard Jones, OksanaVictoria Gumeniuk Popruga, Andriy Spivak, and Volodymyr Kondrachuk. And we greatly appreciated the feedbackDmytro Naumenko from numerous experts from the EU and EaP countries, including Kataryna Wolczuk, Katar- zyna Pelczynska-Nalecz, Kristi Raik, Oleksandr Duleba, Laure Delcour, Irene Hahn, Taras Kachka, Olga Sauliak, Susann Worschech, Olena Pavlenko, and Volodymyr Kuzka, as well as the partici- pants of the roundtables in Kyiv in January and May 2011, and Brussels in October 2011. Language editing: Lidia Wolanskyj Design and layout: Denis Barbeskumpe
3Preface The European Integration Index for The Index was developed by indepen-Eastern Partnership Countries will track dent civil society experts who advocatethe progress of Eastern Partnership (EaP) reforms related to European integra-countries—Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, tion. It is prepared by the InternationalGeorgia, Moldova, and Ukraine—on an Renaissance Foundation (IRF) in partner-annual basis. It provides a nuanced cross- ship with the Open Society Foundationscountry and cross-sector picture that is (OSF) and experts from think-tanks andcomparative. university institutions in EaP countries The Index is a monitoring tool that is and the EU. The project is funded byalso intended to assist EU institutions in the IRF’s European Programme and theapplying the ‘more for more’/‘less for less’ EastEast: Partnership Beyond Bordersprinciple, announced by the EU in May Programme of the OSF.2011. Although the EU and independent This is a pilot edition of the Europeancivil society initiatives provide numerous Integration Index, so we welcome feedbackregular assessments of the progress of EaP on the composition and methodo-logy ofcountries in European integration, few of the Index in order to work to improve thisthese assessments have attempted to place product. The first full-fledged edition ofthe countries in a comparative perspective. the Index will be published in May 2012This is what the Index primarily attempts and will then become an annual project.to do.
4Inside the Index:What we look at and how weapproach itWhat? The Index interprets “progress in Eu- dynamic depends more on facilitativeropean integration” as the combination of political decisions and structures. Such atwo separate yet interdependent processes: concept of European integration has ledincreased linkages between each of the us to identify three dimensions for evalu-EaP countries and the European Union; ation:and greater approximation between those 1. Linkage: growing political, econom-countries’ institutions, legislation and ic and social ties between each of the sixpractices and those of the EU. While the EaP countries and the EU;first process reflects the growth of political, 2. Approximation: structures and in-economic and societal interdependencies stitutions in EaP countries convergingbetween EaP countries and the EU, the towards EU standards and in line withsecond process shows the degree to which EU requirements;each EaP country adopts institutions and 3. Management: evolving manage-policies typical of EU member states and ment structures for European integrationrequired of EaP countries by the EU. in EaP countries. The Index assumes that increased link- These dimensions are subdividedages and greater approximation mutually into the SECTIONS , Categories andreinforce each other. However, this virtu- Subcategories shown in Table 1.ous circle is not fully self-enforcing. Its
5Table 1. 5. FREEDOM, SECURITY AND JUSTICE 5.1 Visa dialogue 5.2 Migration and asylumLinkage Dimension Approximation Dimension 5.3 Border management 5.4 Security1. POLITICAL DIALOGUE 1. DEMOCRACY 5.4.1 Organized crime 1.1 Bilateral institutions 1.1 Elections (national legislature) 5.4.2 Money laundering, including financing of terrorism 1.2 Multilateral institutions and Eastern Partnership 1.1.1 Fair electoral campaign 5.4.3 Human Trafficking 1.3 CFSP/ESDP Cooperation 1.1.2 Legal framework and its implementation 5.4.4 Drugs 1.1.3 Organization of elections 5.4.5 Customs (law enforcement aspects)2. TRADE AND ECONOMIC INTEGRATION 1.2 Robust political competition 5.5 Judiciary 2.1 Trade flows 1.3 Executive accountability to legislature 5.5.1 Detention and imprisonment 2.2 Trade Barriers 1.3.1 Legislature’s influence over executive 1.3.2 Legislature’s institutional autonomy 6. ENERGY and TRANSPORT3. FREEDOM, SECURITY AND JUSTICE 1.3.3 Legislature’s specific powers 6.1 Energy: legislation convergence 3.1 Visa dialogue 1.3.4 Legislature’s institutional capacity 6.1.1 Energy community 3.2 Migration and asylum 1.3.5 Conditions for opposition 6.1.2 EU “Energy packages” implementation 3.3 Border management 1.4 Media freedom 6.2 Energy policy 3.4 Security 1.5 Association and assembly rights 6.2.1 Institutional framework of energy market 3.4.1 Organized crime 6.2.2 Energy efficiency 3.4.2 Money laundering, including financing of terrorism 2. RULE OF LAW 6.3 Transport regulatory policy 3.4.3 Drugs 2.1 Independent, professional judiciary 3.5. Judiciary 2.1.1 Appointment, promotion and dismissal 7. ENVIRONMENT 3.5.1 Judicial cooperation: criminal and civil matters 2.1.2 Institutional independence 7.1 Environmental policy 3.5.2 Detention and imprisonment 2.1.3 Judicial powers 7.2 Resources efficiency 2.1.4 Accountability and transparency 7.3 Climate change4. ENERGY and TRANSPORT 2.2 Protection of civil liberties 7.4 Pressure to/ state of environment 4.1 Energy trade 2.3 Equal opportunities 4.2 Integration with Trans-European Networks 8. EDUCATION and PEOPLE-TO-PEOPLE 3. GOVERNANCE QUALITY 8.1 Bologna principles implementation5. EDUCATION and PEOPLE-TO-PEOPLE 3.1 Control of Corruption 8.2 Policy on culture, youth, Information society, media, 5.1 Mobility, including academic and students mobility 3.2 Impartial, professional public administration audiovisual policies 5.2 Participation in EU programmes and agencies 3.2.1 Legal framework of civil service management 3.2.2 Institutional framework6. ASSISTANCE 3.2.3 Employment and remuneration 6.1 European Commission Development Aid 3.2.4 Recruitment, promotion and disciplinary procedures Management Dimension 6.2 European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument 3.3 Policy formulation and coordination 6.2.1 National 3.4 Budget preparation and implementation 1. COORDINATION MECHANISM 6.2.2 ENPI East regional/ Interregional 3.5 Internal and external auditing 6.3 Global and thematic instruments 3.6 Public procurement 2. LEGAL APPROXIMATION MECHANISM 6.4 European financial institutions 6.5 Special technical assistance 4. MARKET ECONOMY 3. PARTICIPATION OF CIVIL SOCIETY 4. MANAGEMENT OF EU ASSISTANCE
6 All categories and subcategories are thorities and EU institutions. This was and “hard” coding and aggregation prac- coordinators and experts, requesting themfurther broken down into items that are designed to obtain a more differentiated, tices that suggest a degree of precision not (1) to clarify their own assessments wherelisted in full on the Project’s website1. These first-hand comparative assessment that matched by the more complex underlying necessary and (2) to review the codings byitems consist of questions for experts and would make it possible to pinpoint the reality and their verbal representation in comparing them with codings and assess-quantitative indicators from public data strengths and weaknesses of EaP coun- country reports. The expert survey un- ments made for the other countries. Ex-sources. tries. derlying the Index therefore avoids broad perts who disagreed with the evaluation of The structure of the Linkage and Ap- The Management dimension looks at opinion questions, and instead tries to ver- their country were requested to communi-proximation dimensions reflects the institutional structures for European in- ify precise and detailed facts. Drawing on cate and explain their disagreement to themulti-level and multi-sectoral nature of tegration coordination and management existing cross-national studies1, we have core team. Finally, the core team reviewedEuropean integration. It also reflects the on the ground. While the EU has no spe- adapted the questions from these sur- and adapted its scores in the light of thisstructure of bilateral Action Plans/Asso- cific requirements or blueprints as to how veys to our set of countries and our focus expert feedback. This iterative evaluationciation Agenda between the EU and EaP European integration policies should be of measurement. Most survey questions was intended to facilitate a mutual under-countries, and the EU’s annual Progress managed, we believe that this dimension asked for a ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ (Y/N) response to standing among experts as well as betweenReports. Since many items in these di- reflects the level of commitment to Euro- induce experts to take a clear position and experts and coders, in order to improve themensions have not been compared sys- pean integration and the capacity to deal to minimize misclassification. All ques- reliability and validity of the assessments.tematically in existing surveys, we have with the growing EU-related agenda in tions invited experts to explain and thus As a rule, all Y/N questions for coun-asked various local experts to provide their each EaP country. to contextualize their response. In addi- try experts were coded 1 = yes or positiveassessments and information. tion, experts were requested to substanti- with regard to European integration and The Approximation dimension also ate their assessment by listing sources. 0 = no or negative with regard to Euro-seeks to assess how closely institutions How? The survey was implemented in four pean integration and labelled “1-0”. Ifand policies in EaP countries resemble steps. First, the country coordinators se- the expert comments and the correspon-those typical of EU member states. The How can the European Integration In- lected and commissioned local experts, dence with experts suggested intermediatesections on democracy, rule of law and dex achieve a valid and reliable measure- asking them to evaluate the situation in scores, such assessments were coded as 0.5market economy not only constitute core ment of its items? The Index combines their country on the basis of the question- scores and labelled “calibration.” For itemsconditions that the EU imposes on coun- indicators from existing sources with first- naire. Different parts of the questionnaire requiring numerical data, that is, quan-tries interested in closer relations with hand empirical information gathered by were assigned to related sectoral experts. titative indicators, the source data wasit—they are also uncontested political local country experts. This general design Next, the country coordinators returned standardized through a linear transforma-aims and legitimizing general principles is intended to use the best existing knowl- the responses to the core survey team at tion, using information about distancesin all EaP countries. These sections partly edge and to improve this body of knowl- IRF, which reviewed and coded the re- between country scores.use ratings and composite indicators pro- edge by focused, systematic data collection sponses to ensure cross-national compa- To transform source data into scores, itduced by international agencies and other that benefits from OSF’s unique embed- rability. The experts’ comments allowed was necessary to define the endpoints ofnon-governmental organizations (NGOs). dedness and access to local knowledge in us to make a preliminary coding (scoring) the scale. These benchmarks can be based For certain areas that were not well EaP countries. that was sensitive to the specific context on the empirical distribution or on theo-covered by existing cross-national com- However, expert surveys are prone to that guided individual experts in their as- retical considerations, on the country casesparisons, we decided to develop detailed subjectivity. Many such available surveys sessments. As a third step, the core survey examined or on external standards. In thecatalogues of items through consultations are characterized by a mismatch between team returned the coded assessments for case of the Index, this problem is inter-with experts from civil society, public au- “soft,” potentially biased expert opinions all six EaP countries to the local country twined with the question of the ultimate 1 http://www.irf.ua/index.php?option=com_content&view=category&layout=blog&id=273&Itemid=519
7fate of the Eastern Partnership. Whereas my” section, benchmarks were defined bythe EU refuses to consider accession as an the best and worst performing countriesoption, yet tends to expect standards simi- covered by the EBRD Transition Re-lar to those of the accession process, some ports. In the “Energy and Transport” andEaP countries continue to aspire to mem- “Environment” sections, a mixed approachbership. In addition to this uncertain des- was used: both region-specific and exter-tination, many items raise the problem of nal benchmarks were used, such as EBRDdetermining unambiguous best or worst Transition Reports’ countries, EU-27practice benchmarks, in terms of both average, the largest possible number (i.e.,theory and empirical identification. Given the number of existing directives or orga-these difficulties, we have opted for a mix nizations EaP countries can join), and soof empirical and theoretical benchmarks. on. External empirical benchmarks make For items scoring 0-1 or the intermedi- it possible to focus on gaps or catching-upate 0.5, benchmarks were defined theoret- relative to external standards.ically by assigning 1 and 0 to the best and The Index measures the situation inworst possible performance. In contrast, EaP countries in June 2011. Thus, thebenchmarks for quantitative indicators measurement is status-oriented, allowingwere defined empirically: in most cases in us to compare the positions of individualboth the Linkage and the Approximation countries to other countries for the dif-dimensions, we assigned 1 and 0 to the ferent items. Once the Index is producedbest- and worst-performing EaP coun- annually, it will enable cross-temporaltry to emphasize the relative position of assessments of a country’s convergence ora country among its peers. There were ex- divergence.ceptions, however. In the “Market Econo-
8Key results Ukraine, the country that was once seen as the flagship country of the Eastern Part- nership, comes only third. Understandably, Looking at specific sections in the In- dex reveals interesting cross-country find- ings. For instance, although Azerbaijanat a glance Belarus is the least advanced among EaP countries. has a very low score, coming last, for “Free- dom, Security and Justice” under Link- Interestingly, Moldova demonstrated age, it is as advanced as Ukraine, second the best performance both in Linkage and best, in this section under Approximation. 1 The findings of the Index show that tive, it is no surprise that Moldova, Geor- Approximation and second best in Man- Similarly, where “Education and People- Moldova is the best performer, gia and Ukraine, which have long aspired agement, which supports the assumption to-People” is concerned, in the Linkage coming first in Linkage and Approxi- to EU membership, are doing better than underlying this Index—that increased dimension Azerbaijan is the second worst, mation and second in Management. Armenia, Azerbaijan and Belarus, which linkages and approximation mutually only narrowly better than Belarus, yet it 2 The second best performer is Georgia, have never aimed at joining the EU. reinforce each other. This assumption shows good result in the Approximation coming first in Management, second Notably, the results for Management seems to hold true for all EaP countries dimension. It is not clear what drives in Approximation, and third in Linkage. correlate with the overall ratings of in- with a few deviations. For instance, al- domestic Approximation in Azerbaijan 3 Ukraine is the third best performer, dividual countries. In other words, the though Ukraine ranks second in Linkage, given the limited Linkage in those fields. ranking second in Linkage and third countries that are best performers in gen- it ranks only third in Approximation and Armenia shows a similar pattern. It is the in Approximation—along with Arme- eral, Moldova and Georgia, show better third in Management. This suggests that worst in Linkage for “Energy and Trans- nia—and Management. scores for Management. They are followed Ukraine has not made the best use of its port,” yet the best in this sector under Ap- 4 Armenia follows Ukraine, shar- by Ukraine, Armenia, Azerbaijan and stronger record and more advanced level proximation. On the contrary, Ukraine is ing third position with Ukraine in Belarus, in the same order as the overall of cooperation with the EU compared to the best in terms of “Trade and Economic Approximation, but ranking fourth in Index rating. If we assume that Manage- the other countries. By contrast, Armenia Integration,” yet the second worst—just Linkage and Management. ment scores mostly reflect the level of in- performed well in Approximation, despite above Belarus—when it comes to “Mar- 5 Azerbaijan follows Armenia, ranking terest and political will on the part of EaP being disadvantaged in Linkage (see scat- ket Economy.” fifth in all three dimensions. countries, while Linkage and Approxima- ter plot—page 14). Another surprise: Belarus did the best 6 Belarus closes the list, being the worst tion reflect interest and effort on the part Also, while Moldova and Ukraine have in “Environment” under Approximation performer in all three dimensions. of both the EU and EaP countries, this somewhat lower scores in Approximation and “Management of EU assistance” un- suggests some interdependence between compared to Linkage, the other four EaP der Management, possibly due to central- The result seems to divide EaP coun- the degree of commitment of the EU and countries are doing better in Approxima- ized management in the country.tries in two groups: Moldova, Georgia that of EaP countries. It might also mean tion than in Linkage. This suggests that, It is important to note that relativelyand Ukraine, the frontrunners with EU that, not only European aspirations, but despite the fact that Armenia, Azerbaijan, low scores of Ukraine, Belarus and Azer-membership aspirations; Armenia, Azer- also political will within each country to Georgia—who share great geographical baijan for “Assistance” have to do with thebaijan and Belarus, the laggers who have reform and benefit from the instruments distance from the EU—and Belarus— fact that the Index have attempted to fo-not indicated interest in joining the EU. It offered by the EU plays a decisive role. In which suffers more from great politi- cus on relative, rather than absolute figures.seems that EU membership aspirations do this case, it is no surprise that Moldova cal distance—are less advantaged where This approach seems to benefit smallerdetermine the degree of Linkage and Ap- is the frontrunner in the Index, given the Linkage is concerned, they are catching up countries: Moldova, Georgia and Arme-proximation, as well as the Management of political situation in this country follow- in Approximation (see scatter plot—page nia have been leading, although MoldovaEuropean integration. From this perspec- ing its change of government in 2009. 14). is far ahead of the others.
9 Moldova Georgia Ukraine Armenia Azerbaijan BelarusLinkage 0.70 0.53 0.60 0.42 0.32 0.19Approximation 0.67 0.63 0.57 0.57 0.49 0.37 0.88 0.92 0.68 0.32 0.28 0.20Management * 1 (the full circle) means different things in different parts of the Index. In most cases fuller circle indicated more leading ranks of a country in comparison with other EaP countries or more convergence with best performing transition countries. See page 7 for more detailed explanation.
10 Linkage Moldova Ukraine Georgia Armenia Azerbaijan Belarus 0.70 0.60 0.53 0.42 0.32 0.19 Political dialogue 0.75 0.94 0.56 0.64 0.50 0.28 Trade and Economic integration 0.74 0.78 0.57 0.61 0.54 0.10 Freedom, Security and Justice 0.85 0.81 0.47 0.19 0.08 0.11 Energy and Transport 0.38 0.34 0.35 0.09 0.37 0.24 Education and People-to-people 0.64 0.48 0.59 0.51 0.27 0.26 Assistance 0.87 0.28 0.62 0.48 0.15 0.16
14 Linkage vs Approximation 1 MD GE 0.70 / 0.67 0.53 / 0.63 AM 0.42 / 0.57 AZ 0.32 / 0.49 UA 0.5 0.60 / 0.57 BY 0.19 / 0.37 This scatter plot shows the relationship between Linkage and Ap- proximation for each country. It shows whether our assumption—that increased linkages and approximation mutually reinforce each other— holds true. The fitted line has been drawn to highlight this relationship. It shows the performance of a hypothetical average country in both dimensions. Thus, it is evident that Ukraine (the country located furthest away Approximation from the line) shows the worst result in Approximation relative to the depth of its linkages with the EU, while Georgia and Armenia are less linked to the EU than Ukraine and have reached comparatively high levels of Approximation. Moldova and Azerbaijan, the two countries situated closest to the line, indicate corresponding levels of Linkage and Approximation. 0 0.5 1 Linkage
15Country Economic Integration,” where it is barely ahead of Azerbaijan and Belarus. This means that these areas need more atten- tion, particularly on the part of the EU, domestic performance, as Approximation scores suggest. Armenia is generally doing worse than Moldova, Georgia and Ukraine, butspecific assessment not only Georgia. It is important to note that Georgia is lagging behind Armenia better than Azerbaijan and Belarus. This holds true for such areas as “Freedom, Se- in “Political Dialogue” due to the fact that curity and Justice” for Linkage, and “De- Armenia participates in peacekeeping mocracy” and “Rule of Law”. This also Below we present an explanation of the When it comes to specific sectors, how- missions with the EU and is thus more holds true for Management. findings of the Index as reflected in coun- ever, the picture is not so clear. For instance, advanced in CFSP/ESDP cooperation, Yet, Armenia has showed relatively try scores. We start with the best perform- Moldova shows high results for “Freedom, which is a part of “Political Dialogue.” good results in Linkage “Political Dia- ing country on most aspects, Moldova, Security and Justice” in both Linkage and Ukraine is the second best performer logue” and “Trade and Economic Integra- and proceed in order until we reach Be- Approximation, but a high discrepancy be- in Linkage, third best in Management, and tion,” leaving Georgia behind; “Education larus, the worst performing country. tween Linkage and Approximation where Approximation. Ukraine shows the best re- and People-to-People” and “Assistance”, Moldova is the best performer in “Education and People-to-People” is con- sults for “Political Dialogue” and “Trade leaving Ukraine behind. Linkage and Approximation and the sec- cerned: compared to other countries, Mol- and Economic Integration,” second best It also has showed relatively good re- ond best in Management. dova is the best performer for Linkage but results in “Freedom, Security and Justice” sults in Approximation, having shared the The country is very advanced in “Free- only fourth best, with Armenia, for Ap- (both Linkage and Approximation, along third position with Ukraine. This is due dom, Security and Justice” (the best in proximation. with Azerbaijan) and in “Democracy”. to high scores in “Governance Quality,” both Linkage and Approximation), “En- Georgia also performs rather well. Ukraine lags behind in “Energy and where it is third after Moldova and Geor- ergy and Transport” (the best in Linkage It is the best in Management, second best Transport” and “Education and People- gia, “Market Economy” where it is second and second best in Approximation), “Trade in Approximation after Moldova, and to-People” for both Linkage and Ap- only to Georgia, “Energy and Transport” and Economic Integration” (second after third best in Linkage, after Moldova and proximation, in “Governance Quality,” where it is the best performer, and “Envi- Ukraine), “Education and People-to-Peo- Ukraine. Given that Georgia has rela- “Market Economy,” “Environment”. Poor ronment” where it is third only to Belarus ple” (Linkage) and “Assistance.” It is also tively low scores in Linkage compared to performance in terms of “Environment,” and Georgia. the best performer in “Democracy” and Ukraine and Moldova, geographical prox- somewhat advanced than Azerbaijan, the Yet, Armenia significantly lags behind“Governance Quality” and the second best imity may be making a difference. Geor- laggard, has to do with the fact that both other countries in “Energy and Transport,” in “Rule of Law.” gia shows the best scores for “Rule of Law,” Ukraine and Azerbaijan are highly in- where it is the worst performer for Link- In general, Moldova confirms the as- “Market Economy” and “Education and dustrialized countries compared to other age, and “Freedom, Security and Justice” sumption that there is a relationship be- People-to-People” in Approximation, and countries in the EaP region. and “Education and People-to-People” for tween Linkage, Approximation and Man- the second highest score on “Assistance,” Although Ukraine had the best perfor- Approximation. agement in the sense that more and deeper after Moldova, and “Environment,” after mance in “Trade and Economic Integra- In “Energy and Transport,” Armenia links with the EU correlate with better Belarus. It seems that Georgia has done tion,” it showed poor results in “Market shows surprising results. While it is the performance at home (Approximation) well in the areas where there has been po- Economy,” leaving only Belarus behind. least developed among the countries in and better Management of European inte- litical will to reform. In general, although Ukraine seems to be Linkage here, it is the best performer in gration. Apparently, political will seems to Georgia proved less advanced only doing well in Linkage, it has not benefit- Approximation. be the key to European integration. in “Political Dialogue” and “Trade and ed from this to fullest extent to improve
16 Azerbaijan is the second worst per- Belarus closed our list, since it shows forming country on all three dimensions, the poorest scores on all three dimensions. coming after Belarus. It is ahead of Ar- “Environment” is the only exception: here, menia and Belarus and also Georgia only Belarus is the best performer of the six in “Freedom, Security and Justice” for Ap- countries. Interestingly, Belarus also has proximation. It is the worst performing the highest score for “Management of country in “Freedom, Security and Justice” EU assistance.” Centralized management for Approximation, “Assistance” and “En- seems to be the factor at play here. No- vironment.” Yet, Azerbaijan is the second tably, the level of EU assistance to Belar- best performer in “Energy and Transport” us, as well as Azerbaijan, is considerably for Linkage and “Education and People- below the level of other EaP countries. to-People” for Approximation.
17Moldova 0.70 Linkage 0.67 Approximation 0.88 Management 0.75 Political dialogue 0.72 Democracy 1 Coordination mechanism 0.74 Trade and Economic integration 0.61 Rule of Law 0.50 Legal approximation mechanism 0.85 Freedom, Security and Justice 0.79 Governance Quality 1 Participation of civil society 0.38 Energy and Transport 0.59 Market Economy 1 Management of EU assistance 0.64 Education and People-to-people 0.94 Freedom, Security and Justice 0.87 Assistance 0.46 Energy and Transport 0.60 Environment 0.64 Education and People-to-people
18 Georgia 0.53 Linkage 0.63 Approximation 0.92 Management 0.56 Political dialogue 0.54 Democracy 1 Coordination mechanism 0.57 Trade and Economic integration 0.63 Rule of Law 0.67 Legal approximation mechanism 0.47 Freedom, Security and Justice 0.71 Governance Quality 1 Participation of civil society 0.35 Energy and Transport 0.63 Market Economy 1 Management of EU assistance 0.59 Education and People-to-people 0.67 Freedom, Security and Justice 0.62 Assistance 0.37 Energy and Transport 0.66 Environment 0.81 Education and People-to-people
19Ukraine 0.60 Linkage 0.57 Approximation 0.68 Management 0.94 Political dialogue 0.64 Democracy 0.50 Coordination mechanism 0.78 Trade and Economic integration 0.60 Rule of Law 0.77 Legal approximation mechanism 0.81 Freedom, Security and Justice 0.62 Governance Quality 0.75 Participation of civil society 0.34 Energy and Transport 0.45 Market Economy 0.70 Management of EU assistance 0.48 Education and People-to-people 0.76 Freedom, Security and Justice 0.28 Assistance 0.34 Energy and Transport 0.49 Environment 0.68 Education and People-to-people
20 Armenia 0.42 Linkage 0.57 Approximation 0.32 Management 0.64 Political dialogue 0.47 Democracy 0.25 Coordination mechanism 0.61 Trade and Economic integration 0.51 Rule of Law 0.33 Legal approximation mechanism 0.19 Freedom, Security and Justice 0.74 Governance Quality 0.50 Participation of civil society 0.09 Energy and Transport 0.61 Market Economy 0.20 Management of EU assistance 0.51 Education and People-to-people 0.47 Freedom, Security and Justice 0.48 Assistance 0.52 Energy and Transport 0.61 Environment 0.64 Education and People-to-people
21Azerbaijan 0.32 Linkage 0.49 Approximation 0.28 Management 0.50 Political dialogue 0.31 Democracy 0.25 Coordination mechanism 0.54 Trade and Economic integration 0.42 Rule of Law 0.17 Legal approximation mechanism 0.08 Freedom, Security and Justice 0.46 Governance Quality 0 Participation of civil society 0.37 Energy and Transport 0.55 Market Economy 0.70 Management of EU assistance 0.27 Education and People-to-people 0.76 Freedom, Security and Justice 0.15 Assistance 0.31 Energy and Transport 0.37 Environment 0.77 Education and People-to-people
22 Belarus 0.19 Linkage 0.37 Approximation 0.20 Management 0.28 Political dialogue 0.20 Democracy 0 Coordination mechanism 0.10 Trade and Economic integration 0.23 Rule of Law 0 Legal approximation mechanism 0.11 Freedom, Security and Justice 0.35 Governance Quality 0 Participation of civil society 0.24 Energy and Transport 0.43 Market Economy 0.80 Management of EU assistance 0.26 Education and People-to-people 0.43 Freedom, Security and Justice 0.16 Assistance 0.16 Energy and Transport 0.67 Environment 0.45 Education and People-to-people
23Sector Democracy Where elections are concerned, none of the six countries fully meets the stan- and Belarus, but these countries suffer from monopolized legislatures.specific assessment dards of democratic elections assumed by the Index. The quality of elections is sig- As far as the accountability of lawmak- ers is concerned, the absence of pluralist nificantly higher in Moldova and Ukraine legislatures in Azerbaijan and Belarus than in Georgia, which, in turn, is clearly reflects the weak rights and capacities ofPolitical dialogue ahead of Armenia, Azerbaijan and Be- these legislatures in relation to the ex- larus. The greatest weakness is the lack of ecutive branch. The legislature in Belarus The intensiveness of political dialogue here for the lack of official political dia- fair electoral campaigns, but in Azerbaijan lacks any rights that might ensure it andseems to depend significantly on the in- logue due to the activities of its opposition. and Belarus electoral laws and the actual its members some institutional indepen-stitutional structure envisaged by the Ukraine is the frontrunner where organization of elections are also clearly dence, and its president can even appointPartnership and Cooperation Agreement CFSP/ESDP cooperation is concerned, deficient. In contrast, Ukraine and Mol- a share of the members of the Savet Re-for each EaP country. From this per- participating in a number of security ar- dova have reasonably fair and accepted spubliki at his discretion. Moldova’s Con-spective, Ukraine, which has the annual rangements and peacekeeping missions. electoral norms. Ukraine’s electoral man- stitution endows its legislature with thesummits and the largest number of sub- Moldova lags far behind, together with agement is less effective and its legitimacy most far-reaching powers to hold the ex-committees—seven, compared to a maxi- other EaP countries, in having almost no more contested than in Moldova. The pat- ecutive accountable, including the powermum of four in other EaP countries— cooperation in this field—although Ar- tern of deficiencies is different in Armenia to elect and dismiss the president and thenaturally takes the lead. Since Belarus menia does participate in a Kosovo mis- and Georgia, as these two countries orga- premier. Moldova is also the only EaPhas no PCA with the EU and the official sion. nize elections comparatively well, but their country that allocates chairs and seats ofbilateral agenda is limited, even frozen The Eastern Partnership has offered all electoral rules and campaigns are less fair, parliamentary committees to oppositionfollowing the 2010 presidential election, EaP countries a more advanced level of di- particularly in Armenia. parties on the basis of their share of seats,Belarus effectively has no ongoing politi- alogue. Since their representatives are in- With respect to political competition, enabling the opposition to influence thecal dialogue with the EU. cluded in the EaP multilateral institutions, Ukraine and Moldova have the most com- agenda of legislative debates. Interestingly, the intensiveness of its added value has been an opportunity to petitive political systems, as indicated by All other countries have directly elect-high level bilateral visits and cooperation expand contacts with EU member states the vote differentials between incumbent ed presidents, but Ukraine, Georgia andwith European political parties that have at different levels and on different issues. presidents and parties and the opposition, Armenia have demonstrated that thisgroups in the European Parliament indi- In terms of political dialogue, Belarus has the legislative activism of the opposition constitutional option does not necessar-cate that Georgia, Moldova, and Ukraine probably benefited the most among EaP and the cohesion of parliamentary groups. ily mean marginalizing the legislature, asare the frontrunners. This suggests that countries, since EaP institutions have in- Although Georgia’s legislature is more they have provided significant powers tothe countries that have membership aspi- cluded the country in cooperation with competitive than Armenia’s, the most re- their assemblies. Still, legislatures in allrations are interested in having intensive the EU. Its officials and civil servants take cent presidential races in both countries six EaP countries lack resources, such asdialogue with the EU and, in return, the part in meetings of EaP institutions. Eu- have been clearly dominated by incum- policy experts who might help oppositionEU is also more interested in these coun- ronest, the parliamentary arm of the EaP, bents. In contrast, presidential elections parties challenge the policy expertise oftries. Belarus may somewhat compensate for political reasons, is the only exception. have been more competitive in Azerbaijan ministries and prepare substantiated bills.
24 Rule of Law appointment and promotion decisions, service, regular performance reviews and turnover on average over 2007-2010 and but this step requires that incumbent proper professional development systems ranking 23rd among EU trading partners. Moldova and Georgia have imple- judges be of exceptional personal integrity for their staff. Armenia has the lowest share of EU trade mented the most rules and procedures and not abuse their immunity to violate In developing institutions for policy turnover and ranks 108th. guaranteeing an independent and profes- the law. Protecting functional immu- formulation and coordination, Moldova The breakdown of EaP country exports sional judiciary. However, even these two nity while maintaining accountability is is far ahead of the other EaP countries, and imports from and to the EU differs leading countries have been unable to en- a problem that has not been adequately since its government has, amongst oth- significantly. Firstly, EaP exports to the sure that the appointment, promotion and solved in most EaP countries. ers, put together detailed administrative EU are dominated by raw materials and dismissal of judges is only guided by pro- procedures for processing and evaluating unfinished products, like energy and met- fessional standards and protected against policies. In contrast, Belarus and even als, while the countries import mostly fi- political influences. These selection proce- Governance quality Ukraine lag behind the Caucasian coun- nal products from the EU. Only Moldova dures emerged as the weakest links in EaP tries, lacking, for example, bodies to coor- shows a high—over 50%—share of final country judicial systems, although judicial Public administration in Moldova and, dinate cross-sectoral policies. products in exports to the EU, largely tex- powers are relatively well respected and to a lesser extent, Armenia comes closest tiles and clothing. For other EaP countries, enforced in most of the countries, except to the standards of impartiality and pro- shares vary between 0 and 15%. Exports for Belarus and Azerbaijan. Azerbaijan fessionalism defined in our survey. As for Trade and Economic of machinery and transport equipment to also has particularly weak or dysfunc- the judicial systems, personnel decisions integration the EU occupy noticeable share only for tional procedures to achieve accountable emerge as the weakest link in public ad- two EaP countries, namely Ukraine, with and transparent judicial decision-making. ministration for all countries, even though Trade in Goods1: As things are 10.9% of total exports in 2010, and Mol- Ukraine lags behind Georgia due to its the legal and institutional frameworks of As the largest regional market, the EU dova, with 8.3%. The highest shares of raw less impartial appointment, promotion civil service administration are relatively plays an important role in trade in goods material exports to the EU are from Azer- and dismissal procedures and due to the well developed in many of them. The with all the EaP countries. In 2010, it was baijan, with 99.5% of total exports, and weak protection of judges against harass- situation in Belarus appears to be most the №1 trading partner in both exports Georgia, 86.9%, also due to the export of ment, assault and even assassination. removed from a professional and impar- and imports of goods for all EaP countries energy. None of the six countries can be said to tial public bureaucracy, while Azerbaijan except for Belarus.2 EaP trade turnover By contrast, EaP country imports guarantee a judicial deliberation protected scores comparatively well and outperforms with the EU varies between 30% and 50% from the EU are dominated by finished from undue influences by senior judges, even Ukraine with its much more compet- of total trade, with the highest EU share products—40–70% of the total—, espe- private interests or other branches of gov- itive political system and better rule of law seen in Moldova and the lowest in Belarus cially machinery and vehicles. The EU has ernment. Most countries also lack a judi- record. The main cause for this placement and Georgia. played an important role in modernizing cial self-governing body with a majority of is Ukraine’s weak standards of recruitment, By contrast, EaP countries play a the EaP economies, supplying capital members elected by judges that has a deci- promotion and disciplinary procedures. In very modest role as EU trading partners. products and the organizational know- sive influence on the career paths of judges. contrast with Ukraine, Azerbaijan and Ukraine has been the largest trading part- how associated with them. Establishing this element of judicial Armenia operate, among others, consis- ner for the EU among the EaP countries, self-government is key to depoliticizing tent recruitment practices across the civil accounting for only 1.2% of EU trade 1 Reliable and comparable statistics on trade in services, as well as investment, appears to be unavailable. 2 Trade turnover with the EU is second to the Russian Federation, with which Belarus has signed a Customs Union Agreement
25 Trade policy Azerbaijan enjoys zero duty on virtually tend to have higher average duty on farm of DCFTA talks is expected to be non- Most EaP countries enjoy some prefer- all its products, mostly because energy products, compared to industrial goods. tariff barriers to commodity trade andential access to the EU market, either un- products almost entirely dominate its ex- Trade protection measures have been trade in services, and other trade-relatedder the Generalized System of Preferences ports basket. rarely used in trade between the EU and topics like intellectual property rights,(GSP)4 or the GSP+5 and Autonomous Ukraine has to pay duty on more prod- EaP countries. Ukraine accounts for the competition policy, state procurement,Trade Preferences (ATP). These prefer- ucts than any other EaP country. This is majority of currently registered cases. the environment, and dispute settlementences are non-reciprocal and are provided due to the nature of the country’s exports These measures were adopted mostly a mechanisms. In tariff negotiations, accessby the EU to developing countries with and the relatively high share of ‘sensitive’ decade ago, that is, before the EU grant- for agricultural products to EU markets isthe primary aim of contributing to pov- products. Also, Ukraine’s exports exceed ed Ukraine market economy status, and highly sensitive on both sides of the table.erty alleviation, sustainable development 1% of the total GSP-covered imports, Ukraine became the member of the WTO. The deep institutional reforms embed-and good governance in these countries. while its GSP-covered imports are not No new measures against the Ukrainian ded in implementing the DCFTAs make All EaP countries except for Belarus sufficiently concentrated, preventing the exports have been implemented recently. impact assessment a challenging exercise.are eligible for the GSP. Preferences to country from being classified as ‘vulner- Databases and measurement techniquesBelarus were temporary withdrawn in De- able.’ 6 As a result, Ukraine is not eligible Towards DCFTA? need further elaboration. In particular, acember 2006 in response to systematic and for the more generous preferences provid- As part of the European Neighbour- comprehensive statistical database forserious violations of the core principles of ed within the GSP+, either. hood Policy and Eastern Partnership, trade in services is needed between thethe International Labour Organization. The actual level of tariff protection the EU is working to establish Deep EU and its partner countries. Three EaP countries—Armenia, Azer- faced by EaP countries in the EU is de- and Comprehensive Free Trade Areasbaijan and Georgia—are eligible for the termined by the EU Import Tariff Sched- (DCFTA) with all EaP countries. Ne-GSP+. Moldova was formally removed ule, eligibility for existing preferential gotiations on this part of the Association Market Economyfrom the list of GSP beneficiaries as it be- schemes—GSP, GSP+ and others—, bi- Agreement have been underway withcame entitled to ATPs above the level of lateral agreements, and the country’s com- Ukraine since 2008. With Armenia, Mol- In assessing domestic economic perfor-GSP+ as of March 2008. ATPs give Mol- modity structure. dova, and Georgia these negotiations are mance, we focused on the quality of thedova unlimited and duty-free access to the Among EaP countries, Belarusian ex- expected to begin in the near future. The business climate in the countries and theirEU market for all products originating in porters face the highest level of protection remaining two EaP countries, Belarus and transition progress as widely-used indica-Moldova, except for certain agricultural in the EU, followed by Ukraine, while Azerbaijan, are not yet WTO members, tors for international economic compari-products. Moldova’s exporters face the lowest. EU but they are negotiating accession. The sons, not affected by country size, specific Thanks to continuous EU trade liber- exporters have to deal with the highest DCFTA negotiations can only come after factors, and short-term shocks. In particu-alization efforts and the flexible system duty in Belarus, based on the reciprocity accession. lar, we used two sets of indices producedof trade preferences, over 80% of EaP principle, and in Azerbaijan. The lowest Given the fairly liberal duty regime by the World Bank Doing Business andcountry products effectively enter the import duty on EU products is applied in applied in commodity trade between the the EBRD Transition Reports.EU market without paying import duty. Georgia. Both the EU and EaP countries EU and EaP countries, the natural focus A number of conclusions can be drawn 4 The GSP is an autonomous trade arrangement through which the EU provides non-reciprocal preferential access to the EU market. The system allows exporters from developing countries to pay lower duties onsome or all of what they sell to the EU. It envisages duty-free access for non-sensitive products, and a reduction in import duties for sensitive products. See details at http://ec.europa.eu/trade/wider-agenda/develop-ment/generalised-system-of-preferences/ 5 The GSP is an autonomous trade arrangement through which the EU provides non-reciprocal preferential access to the EU market. The system allows exporters from developing countries to pay lower duties onsome or all of what they sell to the EU. It envisages duty-free access for non-sensitive products, and a reduction in import duties for sensitive products. See details at http://ec.europa.eu/trade/wider-agenda/develop-ment/generalised-system-of-preferences/ 6 See definition and list of eligible countries at http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2008/july/tradoc_139963.pdf
26 from the analysis. According to WB’s the EU, partly determined by the size of may encourage countries to proceed with launched institutional cooperation with Doing Business, Georgia enjoys the best the country, but its business climate is crucial reforms in combating corruption the EU in FSJ back in 2002, when the business climate among the EaP countries, the worst of the lot. Still, once a business and organized crime, fighting illegal mi- first EU-Ukraine Action Plan on “Free- followed by Belarus. The worst business climate improves, it further boosts invest- gration and human trafficking, and stimu- dom, Security and Justice” was signed— climate is reportedly in Ukraine. ments and trade between the parties. late reforms aimed at better protection of and updated in 2007. In the case of Mol- Four of the six EaP countries—Arme- human rights, more effective law enforce- dova, there was no separate document on nia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia—have ment and a transparent judiciary. the matter and structured cooperation was organized quick start-up procedures for Freedom, Security The specific “carrot” in the FSJ coop- launched under the EU-Moldova ENP business, both in terms of time and fees, and Justice eration with EaP countries is visa liberali- Action Plan signed in 2005. effectively allowing free entry on their sation, which is expected to stimulate and Both Ukraine and Moldova have al- markets. At the same time, all six coun- The leaders, Ukraine and Moldova, are guide important reforms aimed at making ready almost completed negotiations on tries throw up obstacles for business clo- at about the same level of FSJ cooperation these countries safer for both their own the chapter on Justice, Liberty and Se- sure, thus preventing free market exit (an- with the EU, although Moldova is appar- citizens and foreign partners. curity in the framework of official talks other basic principle of market economy). ently doing better where Approximation of At the same time, FSJ cooperation can on the Association Agreements that will Armenia demonstrates the best result, FSJ is concerned. Ukraine took the lead raise certain risks when it comes to rela- replace their PCAs. while Ukraine shows the worst. for a long time, while Moldova made tions with authoritarian and repressive re- For a long time, especially after the Or- Paying taxes is cumbersome in all of steps to catch up and even moved ahead gimes, as it happens with Belarusian Ales ange Revolution in late 2004, Ukraine was the EaP countries, with Georgia being the after its change of government in 2009. Bialiatski, Chair of the Viasna Human seen as a pioneer in FSJ. It was the first least so. Both time-consuming procedures Meanwhile, Georgia has had more success Rights Centre. In August 2011, Mr. Biali- among EaP countries to sign the Visa Fa- and high tax rates cause problems. in combating corruption and organized atski was detained by Belarusian authori- cilitation Agreement (VFA) and a Read- All EaP countries have relatively good crime, where it outperforms the leaders. ties on charges of tax evasion as a result of mission Agreement (2007). Then the pro- standing in contract enforcement. Armenia and Azerbaijan have a substan- information provided by Lithuanian and cess was synchronized with Moldova and The EBRD Transition Indicators show tially shorter record of institutional FSJ Polish governments on a matter presented the Western Balkans and all agreements that all EaP countries have room for im- cooperation with the EU and weaker po- by Minsk as “combating money-launder- entered into force as of January 2008. provement in the majority of areas. The litical will. In the case of Belarus, obvious ing.” This case clearly demonstrate the Georgia signed such documents with corporate sector and certain infrastructure political limitations dominate. way FSJ cooperation may be misused and the EU in June 2010, while the negotia- sectors are currently the most developed. FSJ cooperation between the EU and even used against the purpose for which tions with Armenia and Azerbaijan are to At the same time, further regulatory ef- EaP countries is an issue of high impor- it has been designed. So, FSJ cooperation be launched in the near future. forts need to be devoted to developing the tance, as it indicates the level of integra- cannot be assessed automatically with a The European Commission also re- financial and energy sectors. tion/cooperation in the most sensitive quantitative approach and actual capacity ceived a mandate for VFA and readmission There seems to be no direct link be- areas, which require a high confidence of a partner to cooperate on the basis of talks with Belarus. Despite almost frozen tween “Trade and Economic Integration” between partners. FSJ cooperation is democracy, respect for human rights and relations, the Council of Foreign Minis- with the EU, on the one hand, and “Mar- closely connected with the maturity of rule of law should by considered. ters stressed the importance of promot- ket Economy,” on the other. For instance, democratic institutions and rule of law. As mentioned, Ukraine and Moldo- ing people-to-people contacts between Ukraine has the largest trade value with Increasing standards of FSJ cooperation va are the leaders of the group. Ukraine Belarus and the EU on January 31, 2011.
27At the same time, the EU has imposed Member States are currently in effect has been confirmed in numerous indepen- litical will to reform is stronger in the casevisa restrictions on some 200 Belarusian in Ukraine, which is the largest number dent studies, such as Transparency Inter- of Moldova. Georgia is the more obviousofficials involved in political repression among EaP countries. national’s Corruption Perception Index, success story in such key areas as combat-following the presidential elections in Currently, no EaP country has en- which gave Georgia the best score, 3.8, ing corruption and organized crime. TheDecember 2010. forced operational agreements with Eu- among all the EaP countries in 2010. By more modest success of Armenia and Ukraine unilaterally cancelled visa re- ropol or Eurojust. Ukraine and Moldova contrast, Ukraine and Azerbaijan were at Azerbaijan is due to a substantially shorterquirements for EU citizens in 2005, with have only signed framework agreements the bottom, with 2.4, Belarus was margin- record of institutional FSJ cooperationMoldova and Georgia following suit sev- with Europol. ally better at 2.5, Armenia similarly at 2.6, with the EU, as well as to weaker Euro-eral months later. Armenia and Azerbai- In border management, only Ukraine and Moldova a still-distant 2.9.8 pean aspirations in these countries. In thejan continue to practice a symmetric visa and Moldova have Working Arrange- Ukraine and Moldova, although case of Belarus, political risks place seriouspolicy approach. Azerbaijan even tough- ments with FRONTEX, as well as valu- frontrunners on most aspects of FSJ, are limitations on existing opportunities.ened its visa policies as it cancelled visas able practical cooperation with EUBAM, considered countries of origin for illegalat borders. the EU Border Assistance Mission. migration to the EU more than other In October 2009, Ukraine was the first Ukraine, Georgia, Moldova and Arme- EaP countries. The government of Mol- Energy and Transportcountry to start an official Visa Dialogue, nia have all implemented an integrated dova proved the most willing to cooperatewith the ultimate goal of visa-free travel border management concept in domestic comprehensively with the EU in migra- Energyregime. Moldova launched its dialogue in legislation, while the first three have also tion and asylum. Meanwhile, Belarus and Where energy is concerned, the EaPJune 2010, while other EaP countries can put together the necessary Action Plans Azerbaijan are source countries of asylum- Index analyzes the extent to which thedo so after full implementation of VFAs or implementation strategy. These three seekers, but cooperation with them is lim- energy markets of EaP countries are inte-and Readmission Agreements. countries are obviously ahead of other ited for political reasons. grated with and organized similarly to EU Ukraine signed its Action Plan on Visa three EaP partners in efforts to reform Ukraine is the most advanced where energy markets. Since the issues of energyLiberalisation (APVL) in November 2010. border security structures into a Europe- border management is concerned, while sector and energy policy receive a lot ofMoldova did likewise in January 2011. an-style border force. the relative success of Moldova is re- attention in EU policy towards EaP coun-The initial period of APVL implementa- Moldova can be considered as the stricted by the Transnistrian conflict: tries, the Index looks at energy markettion showed that this new instrument was “laboratory” of new initiatives such as the 450 km of the country’s border is out of regulation and the market structure of thean effective tool to mobilize both coun- Mobility Partnership, since 2008, and the control of the central government. Geor- EaP countries in terms of EU standards.tries’ governments to proceed with impor- Common Visa Application Centre, since gia, Azerbaijan and Armenia have similar Our analysis of trade in energy includ-tant legislation, including ratification of 20077. In 2011, Moldova became the first problems—“frozen conflicts” and hostile ed mineral fuels, mineral oils and productsCoE and UN conventions, in such areas EaP country to stop issuing non-biomet- relations with some neighbours. of their distillation9. Foreign direct invest-as integrated border management, data ric passports to its citizens and is now is- To sum up, Moldova and Ukraine are ment in trade was excluded from the ana-protection, countering human trafficking suing only biometric, ICAO-compliant at about the same level of FSJ cooperation lysis due to unavailability of reliable andand illegal migration, protecting refugees passports. with the EU, with Moldova being some- comparable data. The results show thatand asylum-seekers, and so on. Yet, Georgia is the more obvious suc- what in the lead. Ukraine’s success is due Azerbaijan is significantly ahead of other 13 cooperation agreements on judi- cess story in such key areas as combating to the longer formal record of cooperation EaP countries in export of energy, whilecial cooperation and assistance with EU corruption and organized crime. This fact with the EU in this field, whereas the po- Moldova and Georgia in import of energy. 7 Moldova’s Foreign Policy Statewatch, Issue 30, July 2011, http://www.viitorul.org/public/3466/en/Policy%20Statewatch30_en.pdf 8 Corruption Perception Index 2010 Results http://www.transparency.org/policy_research/surveys_indices/cpi/2010/results 9 Article 27 of United Nations Commodity Trade Statistics Database.
28 For now, EaP countries are only at the responsibility for fair and non-discrimina- and EaP countries. Belarus, who are both larger and closer to initial stage of integration with the EU tory pricing. Moreover, energy markets in So far, EaP countries have not demon- the EU. in energy, partly due to the institutional EaP countries remain highly monopolized, strated much success in pursuing deeper In terms of the regulatory environment, weakness of EaP country energy markets, which hampers competition, transparency integration with the common trans- Azerbaijan and Moldova rank high, with especially in terms of secure energy policy, and the general efficiency of the sector. port corridors of the EU, in particular in Georgia a close third. Ukraine has the internal market competition and energy Unlike the EU, EaP countries are aviation and maritime transport. Only worst record: while it has allowed third- commodity and investment turnover with less dependent on energy imports, since Georgia has signed an agreement on a party access to its marine port and airport the EU. To a lesser extent, this also has to many of them have domestic resources Common Aviation Area, although Mol- infrastructure and unbundled different do with the fact that the EU’s energy mar- and different primary energy consump- dova finalized the talks in October and business activities there, it has not estab- ket has been constantly moving towards tion patterns. Nevertheless, EaP countries Ukraine still in talks to join as well. When lished an independent transport regulator higher standards, which makes it difficult consume twice as much energy as the EU this happens, it will be advantageous for and has not reduced state influence. Bela- for EaP countries to catch up. Objective standard due to the high energy intensity all sides because of better quality and rus has the weakest regulatory environ- reasons—historical, geographical and of their economics and inefficient energy more reasonably priced aviation services. ment in terms of EU standards. geopolitical—also account for differences sectors. Their efforts in developing re- All the EaP countries are located along When it comes to road safety, Georgia among EaP countries in cooperation with newables, adopting CO2 Emission Trad- transport corridors between the EU and has been the worst performer, though this the EU. ing Scheme and CO2 emission reduction Russia and Asian countries. Consequently, can be attributed to its complicated terrain. Energy legislation in EaP countries targets, and so on, have been quite weak. they occupy a very advantageous transit In general, all EaP countries demonstrate largely fails to meet the requirements Only Ukraine and Armenia have defined position, in particular Ukraine, which has poor transport safety, which means that all of the EU and Energy Community in National RES targets as guidelines in their the largest number of international trans- of them have to work hard to improve this South-Eastern Europe. Only Ukraine national energy policy. EaP countries have port corridors that are priorities for the aspect of their transport system. and Moldova are members of the Energy relatively high CO2 emission levels, gener- EU’s transport system. However, trans- It can be argued that all the countries Community and have taken on strict ob- ated primarily by coal-fired power genera- port companies from Belarus and Mol- under consideration are at a different ligations to meet EU legal requirements, tion. This means they have to work hard dova obtain relatively significant numbers progress level in transport integration and while Georgia has observer status. Yet, few to reach even today’s level of energy and of permits to enter the EU, compared to harmonization with the EU and the ef- relevant reforms have taken place. For in- carbon emission efficiency in the EU. It is Ukraine. Armenia, Azerbaijan and Geor- forts of Moldova and the three Caucasus stance, only three countries adopted some expected that the latter aspect will play an gia do not have a common land border countries are noteworthy. of the legislation demanded by the EU to increasingly dominant role in the EU and and are therefore disadvantaged in terms regulate the gas market (Ukraine), elec- will be demanded of non-EU countries of integration with the EU’s land trans- tricity market (Armenia and Moldova) wanting to integrate into the EU’s energy port system. Nevertheless, they have made Environment and renewables (Armenia). Other impor- market. significant efforts in recent years to im- tant issues remain uncovered. prove the quality of their transport infra- Armenia, Ukraine and Moldova are In terms of the standards for organiz- Transport structure and customs procedures. As a leading in terms of policy, where envi- ing the EU’s internal gas market, EaP Where transport is concerned, the un- result, despite their more disadvantageous ronmental protection has a crosscutting countries are far behind. Only Moldova, derlying idea is that transport connections geographic placement, they are more ad- nature—environmental policy integra- Georgia and Armenia have an indepen- should be smoother, safer and more reli- vanced in terms of infrastructure, which tion (EPI)—, as demanded by the EU. dent regulator on their energy market with able for all transport users from the EU allows them to compete with Ukraine and Although Ukraine recently adopted new