The EU’s Comprehensive Approach and its Implementation

Introduction

For more than a decade, coherence in multidimensional responses to conflicts and crises has been a clearly articulated priority for all international organisations engaged in peace and stability operations (de Coning & Friis, 2011; Gross, 2008; de Coning, 2008; Algar-Faria et al., 2018). Whether they are the United Nations’ and African Union’s integrated approaches, NATO’s comprehensive approach or the European Union’s strategies of the same name(s), all aim – with minor variations – to create coherence across a variety of policy instruments ranging from diplomacy and humanitarian assistance to full-scale military operations, with the EU managing what is likely the widest range of instruments under one single organisation (European Commission, 2013, p.3; Faleg et al., 2018).

In 2013, the EU’s comprehensive approach to external conflict and crises (CA) put forward eight policy goals for increased coherence in the use of EU external instruments (European Commission, 2013). Five years on, this policy has been recast under the new EU Global Strategy (EUGS) (2016) as the basis of a “wider-scoped” Integrated Approach (IA) lauded for being “more about substance and less about process [than the CA]” (EEAS, 2018). In short, the EU’s comprehensive approach, at least in name, is becoming obsolete. This report therefore provides a timely assessment of the comprehensive approach in its original form and the success with which its eight central policy measures have been implemented in the field before it is eclipsed by a strategy of coherence, which may sport a new name, but is likely to face many of the same objectives and challenges.

This deliverable contributes to the wider work of EU-CIVCAP by providing a comparative assessment of the success with which the EU’s comprehensive approach, as a policy framework guiding the Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP), has been implemented in the Western Balkans and the Horn of Africa since 2013. The study aims to assess the extent to which the internal goal achievement of EU coherence, considering the implementation of the eight policy objectives identified by the EU itself. This adds to the efforts of previous studies discussing the overall coherence of efforts at the political-strategic level (e.g. Faleg et al., 2018) and between member states, international actors and the EU (e.g. Gross, 2008; Barry, 2012; Furness & Olsen, 2016) by analysing in depth the implementation of the comprehensive approach at the operational level.

The report proceeds as follows. Chapter two introduces the analytical framework for assessing the internal goal attainment of the comprehensive approach based on the measures articulated in the 2013 Joint Communication and their associated indicators. Chapter three proceeds to analyse each of the eight measures across the two cases. The fourth and final chapter briefly summarises the findings and compares the case studies to provide an indicative assessment of the overall goal attainment within the EU’s comprehensive approach since its articulation in 2013.

The report builds on original empirical data collected through document analysis, 67 structured and semi-structured interviews (see Annex 1) and field observations in two case areas spanning five EU CSDP missions, three EU Delegations and several external regional partners and member states’ embassies. The high number of indicators and the limited number of cases allow for a thorough assessment of all relevant elements of the policy, but also limit the depth with which each indicator can be analysed and thus the potential for causal inference. The conclusions should therefore be considered as indicative, and subsequent exploration and collation of data on each indicator is highly encouraged in support of the implementation of the EU’s integrated approach.

Keyword

• European Union (EU); Conflict prevention; Peacebuilding; Comprehensive approach; Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP); Integrated approach