Explanatory Memorandum to COM(2011)838 - Instrument for Pre-accession Assistance (IPA II) - Main contents
Please note
This page contains a limited version of this dossier in the EU Monitor.
| dossier | COM(2011)838 - Instrument for Pre-accession Assistance (IPA II). |
|---|---|
| source | COM(2011)838  |
| date | 07-12-2011 |
This proposal should be viewed in the context of all proposed financial instruments for the financial perspective 2014-2020 as outlined in the Communication A Budget for Europe 2020. The Communication sets the budgetary framework for EU external action instruments under the Heading 4 (Global Europe), including the Instrument for Pre-accession Assistance (IPA). On this basis, the Commission is presenting a draft regulation laying down the legislative framework for the new IPA, together with an assessment of the impact of alternative scenarios for the instrument.
Article 49 of the Treaty on European Union provides that any European State which respects the EU values referred to in Article 2 of the Treaty and is committed to promoting them may apply to become a member of the Union.
For the past 50 years the EU has simultaneously pursued integration and enlargement, increasing from 6 to the present 27 Member States and from a population of less than 200 million to more than 500 million people. A review, five years after the fifth enlargement of the EU in 2004, concluded that: the latest enlargements had brought greater prosperity for all EU citizens and made Europe a stronger player in the world economy; the institutional and legal frameworks and the common policies of the EU played a vital role in ensuring success; entrepreneurs and citizens experienced clear benefits; and the enlarged EU was better prepared to address current and future challenges.
The rationale for continuing with the enlargement of the EU was recalled most recently in the Council conclusions of 14 December 2010: 'Enlargement reinforces peace, democracy and stability in Europe, serves the EU’s strategic interests, and helps the EU to better achieve its policy objectives in important areas which are key to economic recovery and sustainable growth'. The Council conclusions reiterated that with the Lisbon Treaty entering into force, the EU can at the same time pursue its enlargement agenda and maintain the impetus of deeper integration.
Currently, the EU is dealing with 5 candidate countries and 4 potential candidates. By 2014, only Croatia is foreseen to become a Member State. Socio-economic indicators show that, with the exception of Iceland, enlargement countries are still well below the EU average and even below the level of the weakest Member States. This low level of socio-economic development calls for substantial investments to bring these countries closer to EU standards and allow them to take on board the obligations of membership and to withstand the competitive pressures of the single market. Furthermore, these countries need to be prepared to withstand global challenges such as climate change and to align with the EU's efforts to address this complex issue. The EU 2020 Strategy for smart, sustainable, and inclusive growth includes addressing climate change and renewable energy targets among its 5 headline objectives. The EU has confidence in the low-carbon growth model and this must be projected externally, also in the process of enlargement.
In addition, the countries in the Western Balkans are still relatively young states formed after the disintegration of the former Yugoslavia. Political stability, the full establishment of the principles of democracy and respect for human rights and good governance — all fundamental values of the EU — still need to be strengthened.
These countries cannot sustain alone all the efforts and cost of meeting the criteria for joining the EU. Most lack the capacity to finance by themselves the institutional reforms and public investments necessary to stabilise their societies and economies and put them onto a sustainable development path.
Technical and financial assistance to the Enlargement countries is currently provided through the Instrument for Pre-accession Assistance (IPA). This instrument will expire at the end of 2013. With a view to future accessions, the EU should continue to offer candidate countries and potential candidates technical and financial assistance to overcome their difficult situation and develop sustainably.
The new pre-accession instrument should continue to focus on delivering on the Enlargement Policy, which is one of the core priorities of EU External Action, thus helping to promote stability, security and prosperity in Europe. To that end, the new instrument should continue to pursue the general policy objective of supporting candidate countries and potential candidates in their preparations for EU membership and the progressive alignment of their institutions and economies with the standards and policies of the European Union, according to their specific needs and adapted to their individual enlargement agendas. In doing so, the coherence between the financial assistance and the overall progress made in the implementation of the pre-accession strategy should be strengthened.
In addition, future pre-accession assistance needs to be even more strategic, efficient and better targeted than has been the case so far, aiming for more sustainable results in improving the readiness of these countries for membership. The new instrument needs to operate more flexibly and to leverage more funds from other donors or the private sector by using innovative financing instruments, while pursuing simplification and reduction of the administrative burden linked to managing the financial assistance.
The enlargement process extends the internal policies of the EU to the beneficiary countries. It contributes to expansion of the internal market, the European Area of Justice and Freedom, the trans-European energy and transport networks, the enhancement of employment opportunities, skills development, education and social inclusion, poverty reduction, protection of the environment and reduction of trans-boundary air and water pollution, alignment with the Common Agricultural Policy and the Common Fisheries Policy, the efforts to diversify energy sources, achieve resource efficiency, improve disaster resilience and risk prevention and management, and attain a more integrated and strategic approach to maritime policies, scientific excellence and the digital agenda, among other things. In addition, convergence with the EU's climate policy and legislation will bring significant benefits to the beneficiary countries through low-carbon development and greener jobs in a region highly vulnerable to the impact of climate change.
Through its Stabilisation and Association Agreements and other agreements with candidate countries and potential candidates, the EU actively encourages enlargement countries to establish competition regimes. Future pre-accession assistance will also be devoted to strengthening research and innovation capacity as well as information and communications technologies (ICTs), which in turn will facilitate realisation of the Innovation Union, underpin the other Europe 2020 strategy objectives and support compliance with EU technical requirements and standards in many other policies (e.g. public health, food security, climate action and the environment, including biodiversity and eco-systems).
Making Europe a safer place is high on the EU's agenda as defined in the Stockholm Programme. The improved strategic orientation of financial assistance for pre-accession will help support enlargement countries in preventing and tackling organised crime and corruption and in strengthening their law enforcement, border management and migration control capabilities.
Enlargement gives the EU greater weight and strengthens its voice in international fora. With the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty, the EU now has the means to pull its weight on the global scene. The EU’s role in adopting the UN General Assembly Resolution on Kosovo is an example of this potential. The fifth enlargement gave a new impetus to the EU’s relations with its eastern and southern neighbours and led it to explore ways of developing initiatives in the Baltic and Black Sea regions. The accession process with countries in the Western Balkans and Turkey gives the EU a still greater interest and influence in the Mediterranean and Black Sea regions and in the Danube basin. Provided that Turkey’s role in its own region is developed as a complement to its accession process and in coordination with the EU, it can add to the weight of both parties in world affairs, not least in the Middle East and the Southern Caucasus. By acting together, the EU and Turkey can strengthen energy security, address regional conflicts, and prevent divisions developing along ethnic or religious lines, and improve cooperation on maritime issues especially in the Black Sea. Iceland and the EU can together play an important role in addressing energy, environmental, climate change, maritime and security issues in the Arctic.
Contents
- RESULTS OF CONSULTATIONS WITH THE INTERESTED PARTIES AND IMPACT ASSESSMENTS
- LEGAL ELEMENTS OF THE PROPOSAL
- BUDGETARY IMPLICATION
- Consistency with other policies
- Stakeholders consultation on future pre-accession assistance
- Internal consultation on future pre-accession assistance
- Public consultation on all external action instruments
- Use of expertise
- Impact assessment
- 5. OPTIONAL ELEMENTS
- Detailed explanation of specific provisions of the proposal
- Delegated acts
The proposal for the new Instrument for Pre-accession Assistance is based on extensive consultation with stakeholders which started at the conference on IPA: sustainable results and impact, organised by the Commission in Brussels on 6 and 7 December 2010. This was followed by a series of consultations with stakeholders throughout the first part of 2011, which provided input to an ex-ante evaluation in preparation of the future pre-accession assistance instrument. Those consultations included:
· An online survey, obtaining 338 responses from: Member State representatives; public administrations and non-public stakeholders of candidate countries and potential candidates benefiting from IPA assistance; Commission staff; donors and international financing institutions; other international organisations; non-governmental organisations (NGOs), researchers, experts and interest groups.
· A series of focus groups, in particular: one high-level working group; four mixed groups comprising Commission officials and external stakeholders; three special focus groups on IPA assistance for cross-border cooperation, regional development, human resources development and rural development; two meetings with Member State representatives in the technical committee that assists the Commission in implementing pre-accession assistance; and a meeting with authorities of the Western Balkans focussing on options for future cross-border cooperation at borders within the Western Balkans.
· Consultations with: individual Commission officials at headquarters and EU Delegations in beneficiary countries; structures providing technical assistance or policy support to the beneficiary countries; offices of the National IPA Coordinators of the beneficiary countries; multilateral and bilateral donors; international and regional organisations (United Nations agencies, Regional Cooperation Council, OSCE, etc); and, NGOs (European Stability Initiative, International Crisis Group, Open Society Foundation etc) at EU level.
· A working-level meeting organised by the Commission in cooperation with the Hungarian Presidency of the EU in Zagreb on 10-11 May, where the preliminary results of the consultation were presented and discussed with all IPA stakeholders.
Analysis of the positions emerging from the stakeholder consultation showed support for:
– Continuing with the instrument with similar levels of resources covering both institutional development and socio-economic development;
– Tailoring assistance to the needs and characteristics of each country;
– Strengthening the sector approach, with a more coherent longer-term planning process resulting in a strategic instrument for donor coordination and for steering private-sector investment;
– Introducing multi-annual planning to cover the duration of the next multi-annual financial framework, with a mid-term review, and developing further multi-annual programming also for transition assistance and institution-building actions, together with better beneficiary involvement in programming, led by stronger national authorities in charge of IPA coordination;
– Rewarding good performance based on absorption and on achieving strategic targets; using conditionalities in a more strict and systematic way at country, sector strategy and project level;
– Making access to the various types of assistance no longer subject to status as candidate/potential candidate, but dependent on readiness to implement, combined with a phased approach to decentralising the management of assistance;
– Re-examining the current component structure, including better coordination between policy areas;
– Continuing cooperation with IFIs and leveraging IFI and other donor funds;
– Adopting a three-tier approach to monitoring and evaluation, assessing progress relative to i) the path to accession; ii) national strategies and iii) achieving results at the level of programmes, sectors and measures.
Within the Commission, preparations for the new IPA post-2013 involved extensive discussions within and between the four services involved in managing the assistance, i.e. the Directorates-General for: Enlargement; Regional Policy; Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion; and Agriculture and Rural Development, as well as with the EU Delegations or Liaison Office in Iceland, the Western Balkans and Turkey.
The future of pre-accession assistance was also the subject of a broader public consultation on future funding for EU external action held by the Commission between 26 November 2010 and 31 January 2011. The consultation was based on an online questionnaire accompanied by a background paper ‘What funding for EU external action after 2013?’ prepared by the Commission and the EEAS services involved. The 220 contributions received reflect the broad and diverse structures and views of the external action community.
Among the responses more specifically covering development assistance, the following were also relevant for pre-accession assistance:
· A majority of respondents confirmed that EU intervention provides a substantial added value in the main policy areas supported through the financial instruments for external action[7]. The EU added value was mentioned by many respondents as the main driver for the future: the EU should exploit its comparative advantage linked to its global field presence, its wide-ranging expertise, its supranational nature, its role as facilitator of coordination, and economies of scale.
· Nearly all respondents supported a more differentiated approach, tailored to the situation of the beneficiary countries, based on sound criteria and efficient data collection, as a way to increase the impact of EU financial instruments.
· Regarding the simplification of instruments, as concerns the balance between geographic and thematic instruments, opinions were mixed regarding a review of EU thematic programmes and a possible reduction in number. Increasing the geographic flexibility of the EU instruments was supported by a significant majority of respondents as a way to respond to inter-regional challenges.
Two expert studies were commissioned by DG Enlargement to assess the intervention logic and draw lessons from the current IPA programme (IPA meta-evaluation), as well as to prepare an ex-ante evaluation of future pre-accession assistance post-2013. Both studies are available on the DG Enlargement website at the following address: ec.europa.eu/enlargement/how-does-it-work
As part of the preparation of the proposal for the new pre-accession instrument, the Commission carried out an impact assessment considering the following options:
Option 1 - ‘No change’.
Option 2 - ‘Amend the existing Regulation’, with the following alternatives:
– Sub-option 2.1 - ‘Reduce scope and keep implementation arrangements’, focusing on the necessary legal and institutional changes needed to comply with the accession criteria, without committing any significant funds for co-financing public investment for socio-economic development.
– Sub-option 2.2 - ‘Keep the component structure and add more focus on investments’ in order to increase the socio-economic impact in the beneficiary countries and to speed up their preparation for managing structural, cohesion and rural development funds.
– Sub-option 2.3: ‘Maintain the scope and adjust implementation arrangements’, covering both compliance with the accession criteria and support for socio-economic development. In addition, adjust aspects of the current IPA set-up and implementation modalities.
Option 3: ‘Design a new instrument’. This option was not analysed in detail.
The economic impact of the various options was assessed in terms of the likelihood that the options would: i) delay or accelerate enlargement and therefore the positive economic impact of the expansion of the internal market; ii) maintain or reduce costs to the EU and Member States in terms of security measures and risks, border controls and irregular migration; iii) constrain or improve the possibilities for better economic integration, e.g. through improved integration with the Trans-European Networks; iv) affect positively or negatively the confidence of donors and investors in the beneficiary countries.
The social impact of the various options was assessed in terms of the likely effect on poverty and exclusion in the enlargement countries linked to progress towards accession and the creation of conditions for improved economic performance and policy measures that could address these issues. Likely effects in terms of risks that rights in the area of justice and the rule of law could be jeopardised in the beneficiary countries as a consequence of delays in and risks to accession were also considered.
The environmental impact of the options was assessed in terms of the likelihood that environmental costs would accrue if enlargement was delayed or put at risk, due to lower environmental standards being used to obtain competitive advantage in the beneficiary countries and/or due to delays in implementing the expensive investments needed to align with the EU environmental acquis.
Option 2.1 was assessed to have likely negative impacts on all aspects. Positive impacts compared to option 1 were expected to accrue from options 2.2 and 2.3, with different scores for the individual aspects. The improved modalities for delivering assistance under option 2.3, by increasing its focus, efficiency, effectiveness, leverage and impact, were assessed as likely to have overall a more positive impacts than the increased investments in socio-economic development under option 2.2.
Enlargement policy is based on Article 21 of the Treaty on European Union, which provides that ‘the Union’s action on the international scene shall be guided by the principles which have inspired its own creation, development and enlargement, and which it seeks to advance in the wider world: democracy, the rule of law, the universality and indivisibility of human rights and fundamental freedoms, respect for human dignity, the principles of equality and solidarity, and respect for the principles of the United Nations Charter and international law’.
The legal base for financial assistance for pre-accession is Article 212 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.
The proposal for the new Instrument for Pre-accession Assistance is in line with the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality under Article 5 of the Treaty on European Union.
In terms of subsidiarity, action at EU level brings crucial added value, linked to a number of factors:
– The successive enlargement of the EU is by its very nature a common task which can be pursued only at EU level. Only the Member States acting together can decide on accession requests by new candidates. The pre-accession assistance provided through the EU budget is designed to help candidate countries and potential candidates prepare for future membership: the IPA is designed to give countries a ‘test run’ of the obligations of membership before accession (such as putting in place institutions for managing post-accession EU funds, and/or adopting the acquis and EU standards). No other multilateral or bilateral instrument can provide such a comprehensive toolbox, and in any case only the EU can define what kind of assistance is needed to prepare for taking over the acquis.
– With 27 Member States acting within common policies and strategies, the EU alone has the critical weight to respond to global challenges. The action of individual Member States can be limited and fragmented, with projects often too small to make a sustainable difference in the field. Streamlining the work of Member States through the EU enables better coordination and makes EU work more effective.
– In recent years EU Member States have been reducing the level of their bilateral assistance to candidate countries and potential candidates, acknowledging that coordinated action at EU level is more effective. About half of the overall financial assistance of the EU to the enlargement countries in 2009 came from the EU budget. Multilateral donor organisations have largely phased out their support and those that remain have now aligned their programmes with the EU priorities. Working with the EU is also cheaper. Administrative costs are lower than the average administrative costs of the principal donors of bilateral aid.
– Pre-accession assistance is an investment in the future of the EU, supporting the stability and prosperity of neighbouring countries and ensuring the effective capacity of candidate countries to implement the acquis upon accession, including to manage the structural, cohesion, agricultural and rural development, maritime and fisheries funds and policies of the Union. Technical and financial assistance speeds up the process of preparation and creates incentives for the necessary transformation of society, the legal system and the economy. Such assistance helps meet the objectives of the internal policies of the EU, creates opportunities for EU businesses and provides tangible return on investment. Without the intensive involvement and closer partnership embodied in pre-accession assistance the EU would certainly have to spend more on combating illegal migration, securing the external borders of the EU, ensuring the security of energy supplies and safe and hygienic food imports for its citizens, and combating climate change and pollution.
In line with the principle of proportionality, the proposed Regulation does not go beyond what is necessary to achieve its objectives.
In its Communication of June 2011 ‘A Budget for Europe 2020’ the European Commission proposed to allocate an amount of EUR 14 110 100 000 (current prices) to the new Instrument for Pre-accession Assistance for the period 2014-2020.
The detailed estimated financial impact of the proposal is presented in the Legislative Financial Statement enclosed with this proposal. The indicative yearly budget commitments* are given in the table below.
Instrument for Pre-Accession| 2014-2020
1898.| 1935.| 1974.| 2014.| 2054.| 2095.| 2137.| 14110.1
*Current prices in million €
To ensure its predictability, funding for higher education activities in third countries in the context of 'Erasmus for All' programme will be made available, in line with EU external action objectives, through 2 multi annual allocations only covering the first 4 years and the remaining 3 years respectively. This funding will be reflected in the multiannual indicative strategy papers of the IPA, in line with the identified needs and priorities of the countries concerned. The allocations can be revised in case of major unforeseen circumstances or important political changes in line with the EU external priorities. The provisions of the 'Erasmus for All' Regulation (EU) No [--] of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing 'Erasmus for All'[8] will apply to the use of those funds.
Financial assistance to the Turkish Cypriot community will continue to be provided until the adjustment foreseen in the second paragraph of article 11 of the Council Regulation laying down the multiannual financial framework for the years 2014-2020 has taken place. Such financial assistance shall continue to be governed by the provisions of Regulation (EC) No 389/2006 of 27 February 2006 establishing an instrument of financial support for encouraging the economic development of the Turkish Cypriot community. Financial needs for the support to the Turkish Cypriot community will be covered from the overall envelope allocated to the Instrument for Pre-accession Assistance.
Simplification
A priority for the Commission in this new Regulation, as in other programmes under the Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF), is to simplify the regulatory environment and facilitate Union assistance to beneficiary countries and regions, civil society organisations, SMEs, etc.
This proposal pursues simplification primarily by streamlining the component structure around principal policy areas. This translates into simplification of the legislative framework for the instrument and the future implementing rules, with streamlined provisions. Linked to the streamlining of the components structure, undifferentiated access to assistance under each policy area means that beneficiary countries will no longer need to be identified separately in the legal basis of the instrument. As a result, it will no longer be necessary to go through a cumbersome procedure to reflect a beneficiary’s change of status, thus reducing the gap between the political decisions on financial assistance and implementation on the ground. Similarly, should a new country become a potential candidate for EU accession, the procedural requirements for including that country among the beneficiaries of assistance would be considerably simplified.
Different Commission services will remain responsible for managing and implementing the assistance in the different policy areas. However, coordination, communication and implementation on the ground will be further improved through simplification of a number of aspects, including closer joint monitoring of the progress of implementation in the beneficiary countries and fewer processes for accreditation and conferral of management powers. Increasing the coherence of action by the Commission should also substantially reduce the cost and burden of coordination incurred by beneficiary countries, on account of the different communication channels and procedures used by the Commission.
The proposal also envisages that strategic decisions on the allocation of assistance are made through comprehensive country and multi-country strategy papers covering the full period of the new financial framework (2014-2020) and reviewed once at mid-term, replacing the current system of three-year rolling indicative planning documents revised each year. This will reduce, for all stakeholders involved, the administrative burden related to the yearly review of each document and possible ensuing revisions. Similarly, less administration for all and quicker delivery of assistance will follow from introducing multi-annual programming for transition and capacity-building assistance as well.
More simplification should also result from introducing, where the relevant conditions are in place, a sector-based approach to the allocation of assistance for those sectors. In addition to improving the effectiveness and impact of the assistance, this approach could translate into a lower number of projects/contracts, thus reducing the administrative burden related to project/contract management. If conditions allow, the sector approach could also entail the use of budget support, again reducing the administrative burden compared to project support.
Detailed provisions on joint monitoring and the accreditation processes will be set out in separate implementing rules. These rules will pursue further simplification in cross-border cooperation between candidate countries and potential candidates, by further aligning programming and implementation with the Structural Funds approach.
Simplification and flexible procedures in the implementation of the new Regulation, will allow swifter adoption of implementing measures and delivery of EU assistance. Furthermore, the revision of the Financial Regulation, in particular the special provision for external actions, will help facilitate the participation of civil society organisations and small businesses in funding programmes, for example by simplifying rules, reducing the costs of participation and accelerating award procedures. In implementing this Regulation, the Commission will use the simplified procedures provided for in the new Financial Regulation.
Overall, the current proposal and future implementing rules envisage the following revisions to the design of the instrument and its implementation modalities (in addition to the simplification already mentioned above):
1. The delivery of assistance will be made more coherent, strategic and result-oriented, by:
· Addressing policy areas through comprehensive multi-annual country (and multi-beneficiary) strategy papers reflecting the political priorities of the Enlargement Strategy and covering, for each policy area, all necessary institution building, acquis compliance and investment actions. The scope will be based on a needs assessment and will be adapted to the country context.
· Reinforcing (co-)financing of agreed sector strategies contributing to the policy objectives, as opposed to individual projects, thus moving away from purely grant-financed projects and increasing the share of assistance funded through support at sector level (including sector budget support for selected policy areas based on effectively targeted conditionalities). Nevertheless, support for acquis compliance will remain available through project support or other implementation modalities such as dedicated facilities, when not covered by overarching sector strategies.
· More systematic multi-annual programming also for policy objectives pursued by transition and institution-building assistance (e.g. public administration reform; reform of justice systems, etc.), supporting effective implementation of the related sector strategies and ultimately attainment of the related objectives.
· Making financial assistance more directly conditional on improved governance and growing ownership by the beneficiary countries. Elements of flexibility will be introduced to cater for emerging needs and give incentives to improve performance.
2. The delivery of assistance will be made more flexible and tailored to address needs, by:
· Allowing un-differentiated access to assistance (irrespective of candidate or potential candidate status), albeit with a different scope or intensity, on the basis of needs and technical and administrative capacity. The needs of the beneficiary countries would be the starting point for determining the sectors/policy areas for assistance.
· Envisaging a more progressive, phased approach to the management of financial assistance, whereby management would be by the Commission or by the beneficiary country, with or without ex-ante controls by the Commission, depending on accession status/perspective, sector/policy area of assistance, and administrative, technical and management capacity. The creation of management structures and procedures mirroring those that need to be in place post-accession would continue to be the aim in relevant sectors in preparation for accession.
· Linking progress along different management phases to political priorities, as reflected in progress reports, the achievement of negotiation benchmarks or the track record in implementing the Association Agreements.
· Increasing flexibility between priorities for a more result-oriented delivery of the assistance, allowing allocations to be transferred between policy areas, with the possibility to carry over funds from one year to another, where allowed by the new Financial Regulation.
3. The deployment of assistance will be made more efficient and effective by:
· Pursuing further the identification and use of innovative financial instruments that could leverage more private funds and looking into the possibility to exploit synergies with innovative financial instruments developed for internal policies, on the basis of a coordinated approach to and coordinated rules for using the EU budget in such instruments.
· Also as part of the move towards greater sector-level support, increasing cooperation with other donors and International and other financial institutions at strategic level, agreeing on policy priorities and on a clearer division of labour;
· Continuing to support regional programmes/projects that bring added value by encouraging knowledge and experience sharing, harmonisation of policies, agreement on joint priorities and building of mutual trust. Regional programmes also have the potential to enhance the effectiveness of policies, e.g. in transport, energy, environment, climate change, statistics, the fight against organised crime and migration issues.
· Streamlining the rules for the procurement of twinning assistance and introducing mechanisms to ensure the suitability of recruited experts, while also adding a possibility to draw funds from a dedicated facility to respond to needs as they arise.
Considering that the discretionary policy decisions on the status of applicant countries should be taken at another level, it is proposed that amendments made to the list of beneficiary countries in Annex to the proposed Regulation to reflect such decisions should be adopted by way of a delegated act in accordance with Article 290 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, since such amendments will not actually affect an essential element of the Regulation.
It is also proposed that the Commission should be conferred delegated powers to adopt detailed rules establishing uniform conditions for implementing the proposed Regulation, in particular as regards management structures and procedures. Such rules are needed to complement the common rules and procedures for the implementation of the Union's instruments for external action established by the Common Implementing Regulation. They should take into account the lessons learnt from the management and implementation of past pre-accession assistance and be adapted to the evolution of the situation in the beneficiary countries.