HOW FAR IS THE EUROPEAN NEIGHBOURHOOD POLICY A

SUBSTANTIAL OFFER FOR MOLDOVA?

SERGIU BUCANEANU

LEEDS, AUGUST 2006

TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT .. 3
GLOSSARY .. 4
I.

INTRODUCTION .. 5

II.

EUROPEAN NEIGHBOURHOOD POLICY ..... 9

1. The ENP general considerations ... 9
2. The development of the ENP ... 10

III.

2.1.

The origins of the ENP . 10

2.2.

Wider Europe Communication . 11

2.3.

European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument ... 13

2.4.

ENP Strategy Paper . 14

2.5.

ENP Action Plans 14

NEGOTIATION PROCESS ON THE EU-MOLDOVA ACTION PLAN ... 17

1. Rounds of negotiations .... 17
2. Signing the EU-Moldova Action Plan ..... 21

IV.

THE ENP A POTEMKIN VILLAGE FOR MOLDOVA? .. 22

1. EU-Moldova PCA & Action Plan brief overviews ....... 22
1.1.

EU-Moldova PCA .... 22

1.2.

EU-Moldova Action Plan . 25

2. EU-Moldova PCA & Action Plan comparative display ....... 27

3. The added value of the EU-Moldova Action Plan ... 32
V.

IMPLEMENTATION AND MONITORING OF THE EU-MOLDOVA ACTION PLAN ... 38

1. Main achievements .. 38
2. Government of the Republic of Moldova 39
3. Civil society . 43
4. European institutions 43

VI.

CONCLUSIONS 45

VII.

APPENDICES ... 49

VIII. BIBLIOGRAPHY .. 55

ABSTRACT

The present paper aims to contribute to the debate on the extent to which the ENP is a
substantial offer for Moldova or whether the ENP can be rather seen as a Potemkin village. For
this purpose, the main part of the paper proceeds in three moves. In the first instance it provides
brief overviews of the EU-Moldova PCA and Action Plan. Secondly, it provides a comparative
display of the content of these two documents and thirdly, on the basis of this display, it makes an
analysis of the new partnership perspectives envisaged by the EU-Moldova Action Plan. All
these three moves and the comparative method employed envisage mainly the political dimension
of these documents.
Comparing the EU-Moldova PCA and Action Plan some could argue that the latter is a
Potemkin village for Moldova, as its final objectives do not consider the opening of a clear
European perspective for Moldova. However, the ENP and EU-Moldova Action Plan reinforced
the relations between the EU and Moldova, brought a new dynamics in their bilateral dialogue,
and opened up new co-operation perspectives. For the time being a full exploitation of these
perspectives stands crucial for the European destiny of Moldova. However, this is far to be
enough. Moldova should go beyond the declared objectives of the Action Plan. It has to start on
its own the gradual adoption of the acquis communautaire.

GLOSSARY
AA
ADEPT
ADR
ALA
programme
CARDS
CEEC
CEFTA
CFSP
CHRM
CIS
CoE
DG
EC
ECHR
EEA
EEC
EIB
EID
ENA
ENP
ENPI
EP
EU
EURATOM
FTA
GAER Council
GATT
MFA
MFAEI
NCEI
NIS
ODIHR
OSCE
PCA
RM
SEECP
SPSEE
TACIS
TAIEX
UK
USSR

Association Agreement
Association for Participatory Democracy
Alliance for Democracy and Reforms
Assistance programme for Asian and Latin American
developing countries
Community Assistance for Reconstruction, Development and
Stabilization
Central and Eastern European Countries
Central European Free Trade Agreement
Common Foreign and Security Policy
Centre for Human Rights of Moldova
Commonwealth of Independent States
Council of Europe
Directorate-General
European Community
European Court for Human Rights
European Economic Area
European Economic Community
European Investment Bank
European Integration Department
European Neighbourhood Agreement
European Neighbourhood Policy
European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument
European Parliament
European Union
European Atomic Energy Community
Free Trade Area
General Affairs and External Relations Council
General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade
Ministry of Foreign Affairs
Ministry of Foreign Affairs and European Integration
National Commission for European Integration
Newly Independent States
Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights
Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe
Partnership and Co-operation Agreement
Republic of Moldova
South-East European Co-operation Process
Stability Pact for South Eastern Europe
Technical Assistance to the Commonwealth of Independent
States
Technical Assistance and Information Exchange Instrument
United Kingdom
Union of Soviet Socialist Republics
4

The inherent limits of enlargement make our European Neighbourhood Policy even more
important.
Benita Ferrero-Waldner

I.

INTRODUCTION

After the implosion of the USSR in 1991, Moldova found itself in a totally new reality.
Along with the establishment of its state institutions and with undertaking a complex process of
reforms, the Republic of Moldova (RM) had also to redefine its relations with the external world.
On the other side, the external actors had also to adapt themselves to the new
international architecture, brought by the dissolution of the USSR. The European Community
(EC) was not an exception in this sense. Along with the establishment of the new diplomatic
relations with the former soviet republics, the EC committed itself to support their political and
economic transformation. The EC TACIS programme became thus the main instrument which
aimed at enhancing the transition process in all former soviet republics, except Baltic States.
When TACIS was initiated in 1991, the technical assistance through this program was a standalone activity. Later it became part of a more complex policy approach of the European Union
(EU) towards countries in Eastern Europe, Caucasus and Central Asia, due to a gradual
development and formalization of their bilateral relations through new legal frameworks
Partnership and Co-operation Agreements (PCAs).
After two intention letters addressed by Moldovan President Mircea Snegur to the
Presidents of the Council and European Commission expressing the will of Moldovan side to
negotiate a PCA with the EU, this document was signed in November 1994. While the EUMoldova PCA was passing through a cumbersome ratification procedure by the EU member
states, the second Moldovan President Petru Lucinschi expressed by successive official letters
addressed to the President of the European Commission Jacques Santer and to all EU heads of

states and governments the aspiration of Moldova to become an associate member of the EU.
Nevertheless, neither positive, nor negative answers followed.
The EU-Moldova PCA entered into force in 1998, providing thus a new contractual
relationship between the Parties concerned and setting out a co-operation framework in a broad
spectrum of policy areas. One year later, despite the reticent attitude of the EU towards the
European aspirations of Moldova, Sturza Government appointed by the ruling parliamentary
coalition Alliance for Democracy and Reforms (ADR) was the first Moldovan Cabinet which
declared European integration as its main foreign policy priority. However, due to the frictions
inside the ADR, Sturza Government has been resigned, fact which undermined substantially the
diplomatic efforts of Moldova on its way to European integration.
Only after a three years period of an incoherent to some degree foreign policy, which
did not impede however Moldova to become in 2001 a member of the Stability Pact for SouthEastern Europe (SPSEE) a regional co-operation project complementary to the European
integration process , the European dimension of Moldovas foreign policy started to come back
gradually to the top of its external relations agenda. The starting point of this surprising in that
time return to the pro-EU rhetoric could be largely considered the establishment by the President
Vladimir Voronin, in November 2002, of the National Commission for European Integration
(NCEI), aimed at the elaboration of the European Integration Strategy of the Republic of
Moldova. Later the establishment of the Parliamentary Commission for European Integration;
setting up the European Integration Department (EID) within the Ministry of Foreign Affairs
(MFA); approval of the Concept of European Integration of the Republic of Moldova;
establishment of ministerial and departmental subdivisions in charge of European integration;
renaming of the MFA into the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and European Integration (MFAEI);

etc. came to add credibility to the re-orientation in the field of external relations, hardly and
hesitantly accepted by the ruling Party of Communists.
On the other hand, the EU, preparing itself for its big-bang enlargement to the East
and South, has been showing an increasing interest in the development of a new policy approach
towards its future neighbours. Few days after its fifth enlargement wave in May 2004, the EU
launched the European Neighbourhood Policy (ENP) which articulates a revised policy approach
towards sixteen countries in the EU neighbourhood. The ENP is thus a response to the extension
of the EUs borders and to the limits of this extension. As the EU cannot enlarge ad infinitum,
while its enlargement already brought it closer to potentially unstable regions, the ENP attempts
in normative terms: to develop a friendly neighbourhood and a zone of prosperity with the EU
neighbours; to avoid drawing new dividing lines in Europe; and to promote stability and
prosperity within and beyond the new borders of the Union (European Commission, 2003a).
The main vehicle for taking the ENP forward is the Action Plans, documents which
come to enhance the multi-dimensional dialogue between the EU and its neighbours. The EUMoldova Action Plan was signed in February 2005.
The present paper approaches the political dimension of the co-operation process
between the EU and Moldova within the ENP. The main research question to be answered by this
paper is: How far is the ENP a substantial offer for Moldova? Before addressing this question, the
paper provides an overview of the ENP, which considers the articulation of the ENP and the main
developments of this policy area. The next chapter looks at the negotiation process on the EUMoldova Action Plan.
The main part of the paper aims to contribute to the debate on the extent to which the
ENP is a substantial offer for Moldova or whether the ENP can be rather seen as a Potemkin
village. For this purpose the paper employs the comparative method. The method is used for a

comparative approach of the EU-Moldova PCA and Action Plan. The approach envisages mainly
the political dimension of these two documents and seeks to find out what new co-operation
opportunities brings on this dimension the EU-Moldova Action Plan in comparison with the
PCA? Thus, the only focus on the political dimension of the EU-Moldova co-operation process
could be seen as a limitation in exploring the main research question. An additional focus on
economic, social and cultural fields of co-operation between the EU and Moldova would add an
important contribution to the central debate of this paper. However, these non-political areas of
co-operation fall aside the specific tasks of the present paper. The final part of the paper looks at
some aspects regarding the implementation and monitoring of the Action Plan.

II.

EUROPEAN NEIGHBOURHOOD POLICY

1. The ENP general considerations

In pragmatic terms the ENP represents for the EU a way to safeguard three foreign
policy priorities as regards to its neighbourhood: (a) staying away from new accessions in the
near to medium term (Johansson-Nogus, 2004); (b) contributing to the diminishing of the
problems in the neighbourhood, and securing itself from the effects of these problems; and (c)
transformation (Europeanization) of the states in the neighbourhood in accordance with common
European values and with the benefits of progressive integration.
In line with the EU pragmatism, the ENP could be seen as an alternative to the EU
enlargement. As Smith (2005) remarks, the ENP was launched to address the enlargement
fatigue of the EU. However, although it is not about enlargement, at least for the time being, the
ENP does not close any doors to European countries that may at some future point wish to apply
for membership (Verheugen, 2004; Ferrero-Waldner, 2004).
Tied with the above rationale, the most important reason for the ENPs designing
represents the security interests of the enlarged EU (Stetter, 2005; Scott, 2005; Lavenex, 2004;
Del Sarto and Schumacher, 2005). In this context, the ENP is founded on the premise that by
helping our neighbours we help ourselves (Ferrero-Waldner, 2005c; Landaburu, 2006). The
December 2003 European Security Strategy points out to the same strategic interest of the EU
and declare the building security in [the] neighbourhood as one of three strategic objectives of
the EU (Solana, 2003).
Another significant aspect of the ENP is its Europeanization dimension. As Scott (2005)
remarks, the EU is attempting to Europeanize not only the political community of states that it
represents, but also the greater regional space around it. Thus, the ENP can be seen as a form of

external governance which consists in the extension of the EUs values, standards and policies,
while precluding the access to its fundamental institutions. The way in which the EU is doing this
resembles the strategy it has applied during enlargement. The EU uses in designing the ENP
some instruments derived from the pre-accession process, including Action Plans with agreed
reform targets, elements of conditionality and regular monitoring in order to achieve a high level
of integration, based on the EEA model, that would be as close to the Union as can be without
being a member (Cremona, 2004). In this context, some observers question whether the
envisaged ENP mechanisms of Europeanization in the EUs neighbourhood will work in the
absence of membership as a target (Cremona, 2004; Lynch, 2004).

2. The development of the ENP

2.1. The origins of the ENP
The origins of the ENP date to early 2002 when some Northern member states,
especially the UK, asked the Commission to make proposals to mitigate the exclusion effects of
the imminent enlargement for Ukraine, Moldova and Belarus. As a result, in August 2002, a joint
letter to the Council by the Commission and High Representative for CFSP expressed the
necessity of a wider Europe initiative to be aimed at future EUs Eastern neighbours. Soon
after, different European institutions have reiterated successively this necessity (Council of the
EU, 2002b, 2002c; European Council in Copenhagen, 2002).
The General Affairs and External Relations (GAER) Council of the EU stated at its
meeting in November 2002 that enlargement presents an important opportunity to take forward
relations with the new neighbours of the EU which should be based on shared political and
economic values. The GAER Council has also remarked the need for the EU to formulate an
ambitious, long-term and integrated approach towards Ukraine, Moldova and Belarus with the

10

objective of promoting democratic and economic reforms, sustainable development and trade,
thus helping to ensure greater stability and prosperity at and beyond the new borders of the
Union(Council of the EU, 2002c). The GAER Council has mentioned as well as that the new
neighbourhood initiative should be seen in conjunction with the EUs strong commitment to
deepen the co-operation with Russia.
The Copenhagen European Council of December 2002 endorsed the GAER Council
conclusions and added that the EU remains determined to avoid new dividing lines in Europe
and included the southern Mediterranean countries to be regarded by the new neighbourhood
initiative as well. The European Council welcomed also the intention of the Commission and the
High Representative for CFSP to prepare more detailed proposals on how to take this initiative
further (European Council in Copenhagen, 2002).

2.2. Wider Europe Communication

In March 2003 the Commission presented its Communication to the Council and the
European Parliament Wider Europe Neighbourhood: A New Framework for Relations with our
Eastern and Southern Neighbours (European Commission, 2003a).
In accordance with the decision of the Copenhagen European Council, the
Communication refers to the Unions relations with Algeria, Belarus, Egypt, Israel, Jordan,
Lebanon, Libya, Moldova, Morocco, Palestinian Authority, Russian Federation, Syria, Tunisia
and Ukraine countries that do not have the perspective of membership of the EU. In relation to
this, the Communication stipulates: a response to the practical issues posed by proximity and
neighbourhood should be seen as separate from the question of EU accession.
The document states that the overall goal of the new Neighbourhood Policy would be
working with the above partner countries to foster the political and economic reform process,

11

promote closer economic integration, sustainable development, and provide political support and
assistance.
The logic of the document is well-known: in return for concrete progress demonstrating
shared values and effective implementation of political, economic and institutional reforms, the
EU would offer to its neighbours a range of opportunities, such as: closer economic integration
with the EU; a stake in the EUs Internal Market; preferential trading relations; liberalisation of
the free movement of persons, goods, services and capital; co-operation to prevent and combat
common security threats; greater EU political involvement in conflict prevention and crisis
management; greater efforts to promote human rights; integration into transport, energy and
telecommunications networks; enhanced assistance; new sources of finance; etc. (Ibidem).
The document specifies that the EUs engagement would be introduced progressively,
and would be conditional on meeting agreed targets for reform. New benefits would be offered to
reflect the progress made by each partner countries in political and economic reform. Thus, the
progressivity and differentiation are seen as the defining principles of the new Neighbourhood
Policy. In opposition with the positive spirit of these principles, Del Sarto and Schumacher
(2005) remark that as wider Europe puts very different countries in one basket, the EUs
attitude may even lead to discrimination instead of differentiated co-operation.
According to the wider Europe Communication, the main instruments in approaching
the EUs relations with its neighbours within the new Neighbourhood Policy would be the Action
Plans. Another element of the Communication is the possibility of creating a new Neighbourhood
Instrument, which would focus on ensuring the smooth functioning and secure management of
the future Eastern and Mediterranean borders, promoting sustainable economic and social
development of the border regions and pursuing regional and transnational co-operation
(European Commission, 2003b).

12

The GAER Council in June 2003 welcomed the wider Europe Communication and
invited the Commission to present another Communication on the concept of a new
Neighbourhood Instrument (Council of the EU, 2003). The Thessaloniki European Council of
June 2003 endorsed these conclusions.

2.3. European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument

In July 2003 the Commission issued the Communication Paving the way for a New
Neighbourhood Instrument. The document provides an assessment of the possibilities of creating
a new Neighbourhood Instrument. Taking into account the short-term constraints in the coordination between existing financial instruments INTERREG, PHARE, TACIS, CARDS and
MEDA the Communication proposes that a two-step approach should be adopted. An initial
phase from 2004-2006 would focus on improving the co-ordination between the various
financing instruments within the existing legislative and financial framework. In a second phase,
for the period after 2006, the Commission would propose a new Neighbourhood Instrument
addressing the common challenges identified in the wider Europe Communication (European
Commission, 2003b).
The Brussels European Council of October 2003 welcomed the Communication on the
new Neighbourhood Instrument and urged the Council and the Commission to take this initiative
forward. On this basis, the Commission has made a detailed analysis of the elements which could
be included within the renamed European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument (ENPI).
Likewise, it was decided that the ENPI will encourage economic integration and political cooperation between the EU and the neighbours, promote sustainable development and poverty
reduction, address security and stability challenges posed by geographical proximity to the EU,
and will support the implementation of the ENP Action Plans.

13

The Commission has proposed 14,929 million available resources to the ENPI for the
2007-2013 financial perspective (See Appendix 1). In this context, Smith (2005) observes that the
total expenditure on the ENPI would be just over 15 per cent of spending on external action,
while the external action budget itself accounts for less than 10 per cent of the EUs total budget.

2.4. ENP Strategy Paper

In May 2004 European Commission issued the Communication European
Neighbourhood Policy Strategy Paper (European Commission, 2004a). The document was
designed to map out the next steps in carrying forward the European Neighbourhood Policy1.
The Communication proposed to define, together with partner countries, a set of
priorities, whose fulfilment will bring them closer to the EU. Apart from this, the ENP Strategy
Paper refers to the ENPI and contains recommendations concerning the inclusion of the countries
of the Southern Caucasus Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia in the ENP (European
Commission, 2004a).
The Brussels European Council of June 2004 welcomed the ENP Strategy Paper and
accepted the inclusion of the Southern Caucasus in the ENP.

2.5. ENP Action Plans

In December 2004 the European Commission has launched the first seven Action Plans
under the ENP with Israel, Jordan, Moldova, Morocco, Palestinian Authority, Tunisia and

1. The name of the initiative aimed towards the EU neighbours has been changed as many times as the list of
neighbours included in it: from wider Europe initiative to new neighbourhood initiative/ policy, and finally to
European Neighbourhood Policy. For a debate on these terms see Emerson, 2003a, 2003b; Emerson and
Noutcheva, 2005.

14

Ukraine. It is expected that the next group of Action Plans will be concluded with Armenia,
Azerbaijan, Egypt, Georgia and Lebanon2.
These Action Plans have been individually negotiated and jointly agreed with the above
seven countries. Therefore, they are differentiated and have been tailor made (Ferrero-Waldner,
2004), reflecting the existing state of relations with partner countries, their needs and capacities,
as well as common interests (European Commission, 2004a). Despite the differences in the
precise agendas for each neighbouring state, they are drawn on a common set of principles and
have a similar structure, which seems to be derived from the experience of the accession
negotiation process (Cremona, 2004; Emerson, 2004; Emerson and Noutcheva, 2005; Del Sarto
and Schumacher, 2005). In this context, Emerson (2004) observes that, before the appointment of
the Barroso Commission, the work [on Action Plans] was indeed done by the Commissions
Enlargement department3. Therefore, add Emerson and Noutcheva (2005), the initial link to the
enlargement staff in the Commission had an evident impact on the content and method of the
ENP, even though it was clearly stated that the ENP does not imply a membership prospect.
The Action Plans are cross-pillar, setting out comprehensive sets of priorities in
political, economic and security areas of co-operation. They underline the primary importance of
the respect for democratic values and human rights. According to Smith (2005), pressing
governments to implement democratic reforms is difficult if those governments view such
reforms as threatening their own hold on power. This is specifically the case of the Arab
neighbouring countries.
2. In the light of progress made in implementing the AA, Algeria will be able to request full participation in the ENP
and to commence negotiations for an Action Plan. Concluding ENP Action Plans with Belarus and Syria depends
upon their will and democratic developments in these countries. In the case of Libya, joining the Barcelona Process
would open up to it the opportunity to work more closely with the EU under the ENP. In 1999 Libya was invited to
join the Barcelona Process and in 2004 it indicated its intention to join, though no formal request has been made.
Russia is half in and half out the ENP, preferring to develop with the EU on a more equal basis four common
spaces: economic; freedom, security and justice; external security; and research and education.
3. After the appointment of the Barroso Commission, the ENP was transferred to the management of the External
Relations DG.

15

The ENP Action Plans refer to the EU relations with the neighbouring countries,
covering a number of key areas for specific action: political dialogue and reform; trade and
measures preparing partners for gradually obtaining a stake in the EUs Internal Market; justice
and home affairs; energy, transport, information society, environment and research and
innovation; social policy and people-to-people contacts (European Commission, 2004a).
The Action Plans do not substitute the existing Association Agreements (AAs) or PCAs
concluded with the neighbouring countries (See Appendix 2). Instead, they supplement and are
designed on existing arrangements. Moreover, the full implementation and exploitation of the
provisions contained in the existing agreements remains a necessary precondition for any new
development (European Commission, 2003a). As Haukkala (2005) points out, the approach is
thus twofold: first, the EU wants to tap the full potential of the already existing [agreements] //
and only then go beyond that with the prospect of realizing the so-called four freedoms //
within the Wider Europe.
The progress in implementing the Action Plans is to be monitored by the bodies
established through AAs or PCAs. Likewise, the Commission will report periodically on the
progress accomplished. On the basis of this evaluation, the EU, together with partner countries,
will review the content of the Action Plans and decide on their adaptation and renewal. Decisions
may also be taken, on this basis, on the next step in the development of bilateral relations,
including the possibility of new contractual relations. These can take the form of European
Neighbourhood Agreements (ENAs) whose scope would be defined in the light of progress in
meeting the priorities set out in the Action Plans (European Commission, 2004a).

16

III.

NEGOTIATION PROCESS ON THE EU-MOLDOVA ACTION PLAN

The Republic of Moldova met the EU initiative towards its neighbourhood with mixed
feelings. On one side, Moldova welcomed the EU intention to deepen its relations with
neighbouring countries, but on the other side it was more or less disappointed as the new
Neighbourhood Policy of the EU is not considering a clear European perspective for Moldova.
Another important reason for these reticent attitudes was the inclusion of Moldova in the same
group with states without a European vocation.
Despite these attitudes, the EUs initiative towards its neighbourhood brought in
Moldova new hopes with regard to its future European destiny. Although the ENP is not offering
a membership perspective, Moldovan authorities conceived this initiative as an additional way of
co-operation with the EU and as a bridge towards the following stage association and
integration into the EU (Gheorghiu, 2005a). As an argument in this sense, the head of Moldovan
diplomacy Andrei Stratan expressed the view that once Moldova fulfils the tasks outlined in the
[Action Plan], it would acquire a more advanced status in relations with EU, and Chisinau
aspiration to become an associated member might become quite realistic (ADEPT, 2004/ no. 30,
33). Although, this has been stated later, the negotiation process on the EU-Moldova Action Plan
began with similar hopes.

1. Rounds of negotiations
First round
The first round of negotiations began on 29 January 2004 in Chisinau, the next two
being scheduled up to the mid of March 2004. At that time it was expected that the document
would be approved in May 2004. Moldovan negotiators were headed by Andrei Stratan, at that

17

time Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs of Moldova4, whereas the EU negotiators by Hugues
Mingarelli, Director for Eastern Europe, Southern Caucasus and Central Asia in External
Relations DG. According to a press release of the MFA, cited by ADEPT (2004/ no. 24), at this
round of negotiations three roundtables were established: (1) International security issues, justice
and home affairs; (2) Economy, finance, trade, social issues, agriculture and development; and
(3) Transportation, telecommunications, energetics, information society, co-operation in
humanitarian field. At issue were the structure and elements of the Action Plan.
The results of the aforesaid talks were reviewed during two meetings, one convened by
Prime Minister Vasile Tarlev and other by President Vladimir Voronin. During the former one,
held on 31 January 2004 within the framework of the NCEI, the head of the Moldovan group of
negotiators reported on the process of negotiations and mentioned that in the nearest future
Moldovan side is to prioritise the actions to be taken and come up with its own vision of the
document (ADEPT, 2004/ no. 24). In this respect, Prime Minister Tarlev asked Ministries and
Departments to formulate by 5 February 2004 their positions on the document, which are to be
co-ordinated with EID at the national level, and afterwards with the European Commission.
During the second meeting, President Voronin called on mobilising the efforts of
Moldovan officials so as to prepare for the second round of negotiations on the EU-Moldova
Action Plan. At issue was also the co-operation with the countries members of the SPSEE as well
as participation in the EU launched cross-border co-operation initiative.

Second round
Moldovan delegation headed by Prime Minister Tarlev participated on 23 February
2004, in Brussels, at the second round of negotiations on the EU-Moldova Action Plan. At the

4. On 4 February 2004 Mr. Andrei Stratan was nominated Minister of Foreign Affairs of Moldova.

18

negotiation table Moldova side voiced its own vision over the document and insisted on including
a separate chapter on Transnistria. Other propositions Moldovan side came up with included the
country involvement in various European programs and communication networks; extension of
EIB mandate; preferential visa regime as well as an asymmetric trade agreement.
Back from Brussels, Moldovan Minister of Foreign Affairs Andrei Stratan stated we
managed to prove of being able to achieve all the objectives set for the Republic of Moldova
(ADEPT, 2004/ no. 26), objectives which, in his opinion, are not that much different from those
set for accession countries, being just wrapped in another format, i.e. EU-Moldova Action Plan.
Although the third round of negotiations on the EU-Moldova Action Plan should has
been held in mid-March, it was postponed for some time, fact that raised speculations that the
negotiation process was stalled. Later British Embassy issued a press release saying negotiations
were not stalled // At this stage, EU member countries and new members review negotiation
outcomes with all neighbourhood countries involved in Wider Europe program so as to determine
future actions. The main goal is to obtain a clear and positive outcome in discussions on Action
Plans, including for the Republic of Moldova (ADEPT, 2004/ no. 27).
The gist of this explanation has been confirmed by sources in the MFA who expected
negotiations to resume end of March or early April 2004. However, at the beginning of May 2004
Moldovan Minister of Foreign Affairs Andrei Stratan announced that the third round would
resume on 4 June, two months and a half later than initially planned, and that on 15 June the
document should be examined by the GAER Council.

Third round
On 4 June the third round of talks on the EU-Moldova Action Plan was concluded in
Chisinau. According to the Media Division of the MFA, cited by ADEPT (2004/ no. 32),

19

consultations were held in four working groups: Political dialogue and regional co-operation;
Economic development; Infrastructure, education and environment; and Justice and home affairs.
According to the same source, on 15 June 2004, during which period the political
aspects of the Plan will continue to be considered in Brussels, the European experts will forward
to Chisinau the written agreements reached, so that the document is officially approved at a later
stage.
Until that period of time little information had been disclosed regarding the content of
the document. This was due to the relatively poor coverage by the media of the character and
content of talks carried out, fact which speaks about the limited transparency on behalf of the
Moldovan authorities in this subject and/ or about the lack of a particular interest of the local
media in the EU-Moldova Action Plan.

Fourth round
Although only three negotiations rounds on the EU-Moldova Action Plan were initially
scheduled, on June 15 the fourth round of bilateral consultations was held in Brussels. MFA press
release reads that during the round parties reached an understanding on the content of this
bilateral political document, which outlines the framework of co-operation between the EU and
Moldova for the next three years. The press release is rather vague when it comes to the date of
signing the Plan: once both parties complete the internal procedures (ADEPT, 2004/ no. 33).
However, during a press conference upon his arrival in the country, Minister of Foreign Affairs
Stratan stated that the Plan was to be signed by both parties by the end of July, so that it would be
enforced commencing September 2004.

20

2. Signing the EU-Moldova Action Plan

European Commission launched on 9 December 2004 the EU-Moldova Action Plan,
together with other six similar documents for Israel, Jordan, Morocco, Palestinian Authority,
Tunisia, and Ukraine. Commissioner Benita Ferrero-Waldner (2004) stated at the launching press
conference that these documents will be submitted for the approval of Council and other relevant
Association or Co-operation Councils.
On 22 February 2005, the EU-Moldova Co-operation Council held its seventh meeting
in Brussels. During the meeting Jean Asselborn, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Foreign
Affairs and Immigration of Luxembourg, on behalf of the Council, and Vasile Tarlev Prime
Minister of Moldova signed the EU-Moldova Action Plan, launching in this way the
implementation process of the document (MFAEI, 2005).
Thus, although negotiations on the EU-Moldova Action Plan have been completed in
June 2004, given the EU intention to approve similar documents with a group of states in the
same time, the Plan with Moldova was signed nearly a year later than promised. This contradicts
obviously the differentiation principle announced by the EU to be used within the ENP. Another
problem which the negotiation process of the Action Plan has outlined was a reciprocal lack of
knowledge of the EU about the policy developments in Moldova and of the latter about the EU
policies, programs and standards. During the negotiations the EU had to rely much upon the
information provided by the Moldovan Government, while the latter had to wait for the EU feedback as regards to its standards and requirements. This could be an additional explanation of the
delay in the negotiation process.

21

IV.

THE ENP A POTEMKIN VILLAGE FOR MOLDOVA?

This chapter explores the central question of the present paper. It aims to contribute to
the debate on the extent to which the ENP is a substantial offer for Moldova or whether the ENP
can be rather seen as a Potemkin village.
For this purpose the chapter proceeds in three moves. In the first instance it provides
brief overviews of the EU-Moldova PCA and Action Plan. Secondly, it provides a comparative
display of the content of these two documents and thirdly, on the basis of this display, it makes an
analysis of the scope and substance of the new offers envisaged by the EU-Moldova Action Plan.
All these three moves and the comparative method, due to the specific tasks of this paper,
envisage mainly the political dimension of the co-operation process between the EU and
Moldova.

1. EU-Moldova PCA & Action Plan brief overviews

1.1. EU-Moldova PCA
The PCA was signed by the EU and Moldova in November 1994 and entered into force
in July 1998. The EU-Moldova PCA along with other similar documents signed with all CIS
countries, except Tajikistan (See Appendix 3), replaced the Agreement between the EEC,
EURATOM and the USSR on trade and economic and commercial co-operation, signed in
December 1989. The PCA is the first agreement signed between the EU and Moldova as an
independent state.
Since 1998, the PCA defines until now the legal framework of the relations between the
EU and Moldova. The objectives of the document can be read as follows: to provide an
appropriate framework for the political dialogue between the Parties allowing the development of

22

political relations; to promote trade and investment and harmonious economic relations between
the Parties and so to foster their sustainable economic development; to provide a basis for
legislative, economic, social, financial, and cultural co-operation; to support efforts of Moldova
to consolidate its democracy and to develop its economy and to complete the transition into a
market economy (European Commission, 1998: Art.1).
The EU-Moldova PCA transcends the strict economic objectives of the Agreement
signed with the USSR in that it gave a political dimension to the bilateral co-operation, by
underlining that the respect for democracy, principles of international law, and human rights
underpin the internal and external policies of the Parties and constitute an essential element of the
PCA.
The EU-Moldova PCA has 95 pages, 106 articles and was concluded for a ten years
period. The document refers to a co-operation process between the Parties concerned in such
areas as: political dialogue; trade in goods; business and investment; payments and capital;
competition, intellectual, industrial, commercial property protection and legislative co-operation;
economic co-operation; cultural co-operation; and financial co-operation (See Appendix 4).
The PCA institutionalizes the relations between the EU and Moldova by establishing
three bodies: the Co-operation Council, Co-operation Committee and the Parliamentary Cooperation Committee (See below Box 6 in Table 1).
Due to the long timeframe necessary for the entry into force of the PCA, the provisions
of certain parts of this Agreement, especially related with trade, had been put into effect by
means of an Interim Agreement between the EU and Moldova, which entered into force in May
1996.

23

In order to help partner countries to implement efficiently the PCAs (See Appendix 3),
the EU provided assistance trough the TACIS financial instrument5. In the case of Moldova the
TACIS Programme committed around 123.1 million over the 1991-2005 period and it provided
for measures focusing on: institutional, legal and administrative reform; private sector and
economic development; alleviation of the social consequences of transition; etc. (European
Commission, 2005a).
After eight years in implementing the PCA it can be said that this process has both
positive and negative aspects. Among the positive results it can be noted the alignment of
Moldovan legislation to the EU norms in some policy areas; the facilitation of Moldovan goods
and services access to the European market, strengthening Moldovas judicial system and
customs; etc.
However, in spite of the above progresses, the EU-Moldova PCA did not provide the
expected results. While Moldova had little insensitive to implement the PCA, the EU had no real
leverages over its partner, neither enough interest and will for a more active involvement in the
implementation process of the PCA. Moreover, as the PCA did not set any priorities in terms of
reforms to be implemented and benchmarks for the quality of implementation, the latter came
down to the desire and ability of the Parties concerned. Apart from this, Gheorghiu (2003c)
observes that, due to its late entering into force, the co-operation area envisaged by the PCA was
reduced to the co-operation in trade and economic relations, justice and home affairs, customs

5. Launched by the EC in 1991, the TACIS programme provided grant-financed technical assistance to 12 countries
of Eastern Europe, Caucasus and Central Asia (Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan,
Moldova, Russia, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Ukraine and Uzbekistan), and aimed mainly at enhancing the transition
process in these countries. Mongolia was also covered by the TACIS programme from 1991, but since 2003 it is
covered by the ALA programme.

24

and cross-border co-operation, legal harmonisation and implementation of the study on feasibility
of FTA creation.
Finally, although the PCA was conceived by policy makers as a first step in a gradual
integration of Moldova into the EU (Chiril, 2001), the Agreement does not envisage, even in the
distant future, a membership perspective for Moldova. Thus, the final objective of the PCA is
totally different from that of the Association Agreements (AAs) concluded with the CEEC.

1.2. EU-Moldova Action Plan

The EU-Moldova Action Plan was signed in February 2005. The documents approach
is founded on partnership, joint ownership and differentiation and seeks to contribute to the
further development of the EU-Moldova bilateral relations (European Commission, 2004c). The
document covers a timeframe of three years and invites Moldova to enter into intensified
political, security, economic and cultural relations with the EU, enhanced cross border cooperation and shared responsibility in conflict prevention and conflict resolution (Ibidem).
The Action Plan acknowledges Moldovas European aspirations6, but specifies also that
for the near future the PCA remains a valid basis for EU-Moldovan co-operation. Thus, the EUMoldova Action Plan does not substitute, but supplement the existing PCA. From this stand point
the Action Plan is not a legal document, as the PCA does, but a political one.
The Action Plan sets out a comprehensive set of priorities in areas within the scope of
the PCA (See below Box 2 in Table 1). Seven priorities out of ten refer to the political dimension
of the co-operation process between the EU and Moldova. According to the Action Plan, the
progress in meeting these priorities is to be monitored in the bodies established by the PCA and
by the European Commission which will issue a mid-term report on progress accomplished. On
6. The Action Plans with Moldova and Ukraine are the only such documents, concluded so far within the ENP,
which acknowledge the European aspirations of these countries (European Commission, 2004c, 2004d).

25

the basis of this evaluation, the EU, together with Moldova, will review the content of the Action
Plan and decide on its adaptation and renewal. The Commission will issue a second report after
three years and in light of the fulfilment of the objectives of the Action Plan and of the overall
evolution of EU-Moldova relations, consideration will be given to the possibility of a new
contractual relationship through a European Neighbourhood Agreement (European Commission,
2004a, 2004c).
The EU-Moldova Action Plan contains 46 pages, formulating 80 objectives and 294
actions which must be taken across seven main fields: political dialogue and reform; co-operation
for the settlement of the Transnistrian conflict; economic and social reform and development;
trade-related issues, market and regulatory reform; co-operation in Justice and Home Affairs;
transport, energy, telecommunications, environment, and research, development and innovation;
and people-to-people contacts (See Appendix 4).
Most of these objectives and actions fall only on the Moldovan side responsibility, 14
refer explicitly to the EU and 40 refer to both the EU and Moldova (See Appendix 5). Therefore,
some observers consider that, despite the rhetoric employed, the EU-Moldova Action Plan is not
a bilateral document, because there are only few obligations taken by the EU (Gheorghiu, 2005b).
Thus, the Plan, as most of the similar documents concluded within the ENP do, reflects an
important dose of EU self-interest and strong centre-periphery characteristics, being more or
less commanding (Smith, 2005; Stetter, 2005)7. In this context, Smith (2005) remarks that the
exception is the Action Plan concluded with Israel, which is less a list of things for Israel to do,
and more a list of things for the EU and Israel to do together. In her opinion, this inconsistency in
the EUs treatment of its neighbours may reduce the ENPs credibility and legitimacy.
7. Smith (2005) observes that the Action Plans with Moldova, Morocco, Tunisia and Ukraine insist that the
neighbours must conclude readmission agreements with the EU, which means that they must agree to readmit not
only their own nationals expelled from member states, but the nationals of other countries who have passed through
their territory on the way to the EU.

26

Apart from this, in the case of some objectives and actions spelled out by the EUMoldova Action Plan it is difficult to see which Part has to be responsible for their
implementation (See, for example, objectives no. 68, 72-73). Sometimes, even when this is clear,
due to the lack of precise benchmarks in evaluating the implementation of the document, it is not
always clear how progress will be judged, being thus very difficult to demonstrate that some
actions are implemented or not (Smith, 2005; Gheorghiu, 2005b). Or the quality of
implementation would lead to interpretations. Likewise, although it is clear that the EU-Moldova
Action Plan must be implemented in a three years timeframe, there are no exact requirements
regarding the time and quantity in meeting particular objectives and actions.
All of these lead to the idea that the EU-Moldova Action Plan is far to be a very well
prepared document. One of the reasons in this sense is that the ENP Strategy Paper and Country
Report on Moldova (European Commission, 2004b) were published when the Plan for Moldova
was in its final stage of elaboration (For details see Gheorghiu, 2005b, 2005c).

2. EU-Moldova PCA & Action Plan comparative display

The present section provides a comparative display of the EU-Moldova PCA and Action
Plan. The Table 1 below uses brief extracts from the political sections of these two documents so
as to facilitate a better understanding of the substance of the new co-operation opportunities
brought by the EU-Moldova Action Plan. Likewise, it will help to find out the areas where the
Action Plan maintains the same state of affairs foreseen by the PCA. As such, the Table 1 serves
as a prerequisite for a comparative analysis developed in the last part of this chapter with regard
to the political aspects of the documents concerned.

27

Table 1
The spheres
General issues
(Box 1)

EU-Moldova PCA
(extract)

EU-Moldova Action Plan

(extract)

Respect for democracy, principles of international law, and human rights,

as well as the principles of market economy, underpin the internal and
external policies of the Parties and constitute an essential element of
partnership and of this Agreement (Art. 2).

The ENP of the EU sets ambitious objectives based on commitments to

shared values and effective implementation of political, economic and
institutional reforms.

The Parties consider that it is essential for the future prosperity and
stability of the region of the former Soviet Union that the newly
independent states should maintain and develop co-operation among
themselves in compliance with the principles of the Helsinki Final Act
and with international law and in the spirit of good neighbourly relations,
and will make every effort to encourage this process (Art. 3).

Objectives and
priorities
(Box 2)

- To provide an appropriate framework for the political dialogue between

the Parties allowing the development of political relations;
- To provide a basis for legislative // co-operation;
- To support efforts of the Republic of Moldova to consolidate its
democracy (Art. 1).

Political dialogue
and reform
(Box 3)

- Strengthen the links of the Republic of Moldova with the [European]

Community, and thus with the community of democratic nations (Art.
6).

Democracy and

- Observance of the principles of democracy (Art. 6).

Moldova is invited to enter into intensified political, security, economic

and cultural relations with the EU, enhanced cross border co-operation
and shared responsibility in conflict prevention and conflict resolution.
One of the key objectives of this action plan will be to further support a
viable solution to the Transnistrian conflict.
The EU-Moldova Action Plan is a political document laying out the
strategic objectives of the co-operation between Moldova and the EU. Its
implementation will help fulfil the provisions in the PCA, [which]
remains [for the near future] a valid basis for EU-Moldovan co-operation.
- Sustained efforts towards a viable solution to the Transnistrian conflict;
- Further strengthening the stability and effectiveness of institutions
guaranteeing democracy and the rule of law; ensuring the democratic
conduct of parliamentary elections (February 2005) in Moldova in
accordance with European standards;
- Ensuring respect for the freedom of the media and the freedom of
expression;
- Further reinforcing administrative and judicial capacity;
- Progress towards a system of efficient, comprehensive state border
management on all sectors of the Moldovan border including the
Transnistrian sector;
- Stepping up the fight against organised crime, including trafficking in
human beings;
- Ensuring the efficient management of migratory flows, including
initiating the process towards conclusion of a readmission agreement
between the European Community and Moldova.

- Strengthen the stability and effectiveness of institutions guaranteeing

democracy and the rule of law;

- Review existing legislation, so as to ensure the independence and
impartiality of the judiciary, including the impartiality and effectiveness
of the prosecution, and to strengthen the capacity of the judiciary;
- Ensure the effectiveness of the fight against corruption.

the rule of law

Human rights and

fundamental
freedoms

- Respect and promotion of human rights, particularly those of minorities

(Art. 6).

- Ensure respect of human rights and fundamental freedoms, including

the rights of persons belonging to national minorities, in line with
international and European standards;
- Develop and implement an appropriate legal framework for the
prevention of, and the fight against, the trafficking in human beings,
and for addressing the problems faced by victims of trafficking;
- Eradication of ill-treatment and torture;
- Ensure respect of childrens rights;
- Ensure equal treatment;
- Ensure respect for the freedom of expression;
- Ensure respect for the freedom of association and foster the
development of civil society;
- Ensure respect for Trade Unions rights and core labour standards;
- Ensure international Justice through the International Criminal Court.

Co-operation on
foreign and
security policy,
conflict prevention
and crisis
management

- Increasing convergence of positions on international issues of mutual

concern, thus increasing security and stability;
- Co-operat[ion] on matters pertaining to the strengthening of stability
and security in Europe (Art. 6).

- Strengthen political dialogue and co-operation on foreign and security

policy issues;
- Further develop co-operation in the area of combating terrorism, nonproliferation of weapons of mass destruction and illegal arms exports.

Regional cooperation

See Art. 3 above.

- Continue Moldovas targeted co-operation under activities of the

Stability Pact for South-East Europe, complementary to the
implementation of the present EU-Moldova Action Plan.
- Sustained efforts towards a settlement of the Transnistrian conflict,
respecting the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Republic of
Moldova within its internationally recognized borders, and guaranteeing
respect for democracy, the rule of law and human rights.

Co-operation for
the settlement of
the Transnistrian
conflict
(Box 4)
Co-operation in
Justice and Home
Affairs
(Box 5)

29

Migration issues

- Assess the scale of illegal migration to, via and from Moldova and
monitor migratory movements;
- Supporting the efficient management of migration flows, also by
rendering consultative, financial and expert assistance to the
government of Moldova and promotion of its activities, in particular to
increase professional level of relevant staff through study of foreign
experience and internship in relevant services of EU countries dealing
with migration policy;
- Approximation of Moldovan legislation to the EU norms and standards,
implementation of the 1951 UN Convention relating to the status of
refugees and the 1967 Protocol relating to the status of refugees,
including the right to seek asylum and respect for the principle of
nonrefoulement. Approximation of the system of state authorities
responsible for implementation and realisation of legislation on asylum
and refugees to EU norms and standards;
- Improve co-operation regarding the efficient management of migration
flows and on readmission of own nationals, persons without nationality
and third country nationals;
- Pursue a dialogue concerning co-operation on visa policy.

Border
management

- Development of a system of efficient, comprehensive state border

management on all sectors of the Moldovan border, including the
Transnistrian sector;
- Intensify and facilitate cross-border co-operation between Moldova, the
EU Member States and neighbouring countries.

Fight against
organised crime

- Ratification and full implementation of international instruments which

are of particular importance in combating organised crime;
- Reinforce the fight against trafficking in human beings, especially of
women and children, and smuggling of illegal migrants, as well as
activities to prevent trafficking in human beings and to reintegrate
victims of this traffic.

Police and judicial

co-operation

- Adoption and efficient implementation of legislation and measures for

the development of arrangements under which judicial co-operation can
be offered and obtained from other states;
- Further develop co-operation between Moldova and EU Member State
judicial and law enforcement authorities.
The same bodies established under the PCA supervise the

Institutions

The Co-operation Council shall supervise the implementation of this

30

(Box 6)

Agreement. It shall meet at ministerial level once a year. It shall examine

any major issues arising within the framework of the Agreement. The
Co-operation Council shall consist of the members of the Council of the
EU and members of the [European] Commission, on the one hand, and of
members of the Government of Moldova, on the other (Art. 82-83).

implementation of the Action Plan.

The Co-operation Committee assists the Co-operation Council in the

performance of its duties and it is composed of representatives of the
members of the Council of the EU and of members of the [European]
Commission, on the one hand, and of representatives of the Government
of Moldova, on the other, normally at senior civil servant level. The
duties of the Co-operation Committee include the preparation of
meetings of the Co-operation Council (Art. 84).

General provisions
and monitoring
(Box 7)

The Parliamentary Co-operation Committee is a forum for members

of the Moldovan Parliament and the EP to meet and exchange views. The
Parliamentary Co-operation Committee may request relevant information
[and make recommendations] regarding the implementation of this
Agreement from [/to] the Co-operation Council (Art. 87-89).
The Parties undertake to examine together amendments which it may be
appropriate to make to any part of the Agreement three years after the
entry into force of the Agreement or when Moldova becomes a member
of GATT (Art.5). The Agreement shall be automatically renewed year by
year (Art. 98).
The Parties shall take any general or specific measures required to fulfil
their obligations under the Agreement (Art. 99).

The Action Plan can be regularly amended and/or updated to reflect

progress in addressing the priorities.

Moldova and the EU will co-operate closely in implementing this Action

Plan. The level of ambition of the relationship will depend on the degree
of Moldovas commitment to common values as well as its capacity to
implement jointly agreed priorities.
The Commission will produce reports on the Action Plans
implementation at regular intervals. A first review of the implementation
of the Action Plan will be undertaken within two years of its adoption.

31

3. The added value of the EU-Moldova Action Plan

Comparing the above provisions of the EU-Moldova PCA and Action Plan on their
political dimensions, it could be noted that these documents share a similar rationale and do not
differ radically in their concrete approaches and instruments. However, some visible differences
should be mentioned.
The Action Plan envisages a more complex and, in the same time, specific and
operational co-operation process between the Parties. The document considers new areas of
dialogue such as co-operation for the settlement of the Transnistrian conflict, in migration issues,
border management, fighting against organised crime and in police and judicial matters.
Particularly important for Moldova was the inclusion of a distinctive section in the EU-Moldova
Action Plan dedicated to the settlement of the Transnistrian conflict. Through the Action Plan the
EU has committed itself to support the settlement of the Transnistrian conflict and to consider
ways to strengthen its engagement.
Likewise, the EU-Moldova Action Plan updates the EU-Moldova dialogue in such areas
as prevention of, and fighting against, the trafficking in human beings; eradication of ill-treatment
and torture; combating terrorism; non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and illegal
arms export. The establishment of the new areas of co-operation and updating the former scope
of the dialogue between the Parties come to respond to the present domestic, regional and global
needs and threats.
Paradoxically, although there are few measures which make the EU responsible for their
implementation, overall the EU engagement through the Action Plan seems more visible and
participative. The extension of the EUs borders, its increasing interests in the stability and
security of its neighbourhood and the evolution of the EUs own policy competences must be
seen as the main reasons for such an engagement.

In a comparative analysis of the EU-Moldova PCA and AAs, Chiril (2001) concludes
that the PCA are inspired from the AAs. In the case of the EU-Moldova Action Plan the
similarity with the AAs is even more obvious, although the philosophy of the Plan is not about
accession to the EU. Likewise, the Action Plan displays many similarities with the European
Strategy of the Republic of Moldova (IPP, 2006), which had begun to be designed before the
negotiation process on the EU-Moldova Action Plan has started and which strikingly resemble
the European integration strategies of the CEEC. The latter has been developed in a strict
accordance with the AAs.
The structure of the Political dialogue and reform section of the Action Plan is almost
identical with the structure of the Building the rule of law and strengthening democracy chapter
of the European Strategy of the Republic of Moldova. Both documents refer to the stability of
democratic institutions; independence of the judiciary; fight against corruption; respect of human
rights, including the rights of persons belonging to national minorities; freedom of expression;
civil society sector; and respect for trade unions rights. The same could be said about the
structure of the Co-operation in Justice and Home Affairs section of the Plan and the Justice
and Home Affairs chapter of the European Strategy, both referring to migration issues; border
management; fight against organized crime; etc.
Chiril (2001) also remarks that the objectives of the PCA meet the Copenhagen
criteria. From this stand point, the focus of the Action Plan on these criteria is as well as more
obvious, although there is no single explicit reference to them. Moreover, de-codifying the
provisions of the EU-Moldova Action Plan it could be noted that it gives a particular importance
to the political aspects of bilateral co-operation, aspects which could be easily circumscribed to
the Copenhagen political criterion. In this context, the progress on the political dimension
represents the precondition for co-operation and further developments on other dimensions of the

33

bilateral dialogue. Likewise, it should be remarked that seven out of ten implementation priorities
set out at the beginning of the EU-Moldova Action Plan refer to the political aspects of bilateral
co-operation (See Box 2 in Table 1). In this respect, it seems that the Action Plan gives a greater
importance to the political transformations in Moldova, than the PCA does.
Different from the PCA, the Action Plan approaches the respect of human rights in a
more detailed manner. Apart from general issues, it regards the childrens rights and equal gender
opportunities (See Box 3 in Table 1), as the European Strategy of the Republic of Moldova does
as well.
Under institutional aspect the EU-Moldova Action Plan does not bring anything new.
As Box 6 in Table 1 shows, the same bodies established under the PCA Co-operation Council,
Co-operation Committee and Parliamentary Co-operation Committee supervise the
implementation of the Action Plan.
As it comes to the obligation of Parties to implement these documents, the formulation
used by the PCA seems more binding and addressed equally to both Parties, while the
formulation used by the Action Plan is more evasive and addressed mainly to Moldova (Box 7).
Another difference is that the implementation of the Action Plan will be evaluated through
regular monitoring reports by the European Commission, while in the case of the PCA the
Commission had no such obligation. One consequence of the lack of such obligation was that,
although the PCA stipulates that it can be revised (Art.5 in Box 7), this never has been done. In
the case of the Action Plan it is to be expected that the first Commissions monitoring report will
lead to the updating of the document. However, a future updating of the Action Plan should avoid
as much as possible the moving target problem (ERI, 2002), as this could make unrealistic the
achievement of the new policy targets during the last year of its implementation. A substantial

34

changing of the Plans conditionality would make difficult to comply with it and would tend to
generate disappointment and frustration of the Parties concerned.
Likewise, it should be noted that the EU-Moldova Action Plan is based on different
spatial rationalities. If the EU approach through PCAs designed a partnership with the CIS, the
ENP brings Moldova in a different geopolitical and geo-strategic perspective, based on the
European neighbourhood and proximity concepts. Of course, to be treated similarly as other
European neighbouring countries without a clear European vocation is not what Moldovan
diplomacy expected, but does Moldova deserve more? Then, the enlargement fatigue of the EU
and its actual difficult situation, after the French and Dutch No to the Constitution for Europe,
do not allow the European institutions to promise more.
With regard to regional co-operation, while the EU approach through PCAs stresses for
the CIS countries the importance of co-operation among themselves // in the spirit of good
neighbourly relations, the EU-Moldova Action Plan specifies the necessity for Moldova to cooperate within the SPSEE, which is an explicit European arrangement and complementary to the
implementation of this Plan. Moreover, one of the few responsibilities assumed by the EU
through the Action Plan is to support the participation of Moldova in the SEECP, which is seen
by Moldovan diplomacy as a real possibility to join the Western Balkans countries on their way
to the EU.
Apart from these, the EU-Moldova Action Plan itself mentions explicitly new
partnership perspectives opened up by the ENP. Among the most important, without repeating
the opportunities already discussed, it could be noted: the perspective of moving beyond the PCA
to a significant degree of integration and the possibility for Moldova to participate progressively
in key aspects of EU policies and programmes; an upgrade in the intensity of political cooperation; an increased financial support through the ENPI for the implementation of the Action

35

Plan and for cross-border and trans-national co-operation between Moldova and the EU; support
including technical assistance and twinning to meet EU norms and standards, and targeted advice
and support for legislative approximation through a mechanism such as TAIEX; establishing a
constructive dialogue on possibilities of visa facilitation; and opening a Commission Delegation
in Moldova (European Commission, 2004c; MFAEI, 2004).
Most of these new opportunities of co-operation between the Parties have been stressed
as well as by important European decision-makers (Verheugen, 2003; Ferrero-Waldner, 2004,
2005a). Benita Ferrero-Waldner, Commissioner for External Relations and European
Neighbourhood Policy, is convinced that the ENP represent a substantial offer for the countries
covered by this policy. In her opinion, on the political side of the ENP, the EU is offering a
deeper political integration, which means more frequent and higher level political dialogue,
enhanced assistance for further strengthening the institutions protecting democracy and the rule
of law, and closer co-operation in promoting common foreign policy priorities, like making
multilateral institutions more effective, and in addressing the security threats for common
concern.
Of course, a simple listing or mentioning of the new co-operation opportunities brought
by the EU-Moldova Action Plan does not mean that all of them will be sufficiently explored.
However some of the results achieved already in the implementation process of the Action Plan
(see Ch. V) seem encouraging.
The subtle message which the ENP and Action Plan are bringing along for Moldovan
authorities should be understand as follows: the EU acknowledges Moldovas European
aspirations (acknowledgment not present in the case of the PCA); Brussels is now tired and
busy; therefore, after honouring of the present enlargement agenda (Bulgaria, Romania, Croatia

36

and Turkey8) the EU will stay away from new accessions, at least for the time being; however it
will let few doors or rather windows open; implement rigorously the Action Plan; and then the
opportunity of a new contractual relationship will be considered. From this stand point, the
finality of the EU-Moldova PCA and Action Plan is quite similar, in that it does not lead to the
opening of a clear European perspective for Moldova. Therefore, some could argue that the EUMoldova Action Plan is a Potemkin village, as its finality does not bring any significant
changes. According to some authors, this points to the relevance of the path dependency in EU
foreign relations and to the EU constraints in terms of what it can offer the neighbours (Stetter,
2005; Lynch, 2004). Gheorghiu (2005c) goes even further and states that the [EU-Moldova]
Action Plan is a modified and a bit more specific PCA.
Nevertheless, it is beyond doubts that the ENP and Action Plan brought a new dynamics
in relations between the EU and Moldova; extended their co-operation opportunities; specified
and detailed the co-operation process between the Parties; updated the areas of dialogue;
contributed to a more operational, visible and participative EUs engagement in Moldova; added
more elements of conditionality especially with regard to political dialogue and reform,
emphasising thus the necessity of democratic transformations as a prerequisite for further
developments in other co-operation areas; and brought Moldova in a different spatial perspective
based on the European neighbourhood and proximity concepts. Apart from this, the ENP and
Action Plan have also determined Moldova to be more receptive, responsive and responsible with
regard to European values and standards in a broad spectrum of areas. With all its objective and
inherent deficiencies, this new attitude of the Moldovan authorities is proven by the way they are
engaged in the implementation of the EU-Moldova Action Plan, process which stands crucial for
the European destiny of Moldova.
8. In the case of Turkey there are voices that question the opportunity of its integration into the EU (For details see
Beunderman, 2006a, 2006b).

37

V.

IMPLEMENTATION

AND MONITORING OF THE

EU-MOLDOVA ACTION

PLAN

The final part of the present paper does not attempt to evaluate rigorously the
implementation process of the EU-Moldova Action Plan, as it would repeat the extensive work
which has been done already by governmental and civil society institutions. Its aim is rather more
limited. It attempts to present the main achievements on the political side of the implementation
process of the Action Plan and to highlight some issues related to the monitoring activities
performed by Moldovan Government, civil society sector and European institutions. A special
attention here will be given to the governmental monitoring reports.

1. Main achievements
Among the main achievements in implementing the EU-Moldova Action Plan it could
be noted:
- Opening of the European Commission Delegation in Chisinau;
- Adoption of the Law on the modification of some legislative acts on justice, which introduces
new regulations on organization of the justice and status of judge, and aims to strengthen the
independence of judges and autonomy of the judiciary;
- Adoption of the Laws on modification and completion of the Election Code, which aim to
adjust the electoral legislation to the recommendations of the Venice Commission and OSCE;
- Abolition of death penalty under all circumstances; introducing a new article in the Criminal
Code that establishes punishments for applying the torture; joining the Optional Protocol to
the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women; adoption
of the Law on the insurance of equal chances to women and men;
38

- Appointment of an EU special representative to Moldova;

- Participation of the EU as an observer in the negotiation process of the Transnistrian conflict;
- Creation of the EU Border Assistance Mission to Moldova and Ukraine;
- Establishment of a new customs regime at the Moldovan-Ukrainian border;
- Adoption of the Law on the prevention and combat of trafficking in human beings; ratification
of the CoE Convention on struggle against trafficking in human beings; amendment of the
Penal Code by toughening the punishment for trafficking (For details see Gov. of the RM,
2005a, 2005b, 2006b, 2006c; EXPERT-GRUP and ADEPT, 2006a, 2006b, 2006c).
Although there is still room for improvements in most cases of these achievements, it is
beyond doubts that the EU-Moldova Action Plan served as a strong impetus for reforms. From
this stand point, despite the existing criticisms, the ENP acts to some extent in the case of
Moldova as an EU form of external governance. However, if Moldova wants a clear
membership perspective it should become the leading country among those involved within the
ENP as regards to the speed and the quality of the Action Plan implementation process. However,
this is far to be enough. Moldova should go beyond the declared objectives of the Action Plan. It
has to start on its own the gradual adoption of the acquis communautaire. For this purpose, the
experience, expertise and assistance of the CEEC, especially of Romania with which Moldova
enjoys close relationships and significant affinities should be used. Additionally, as Boan
(2006) suggests, the participation within the SEECP and CEFTA would have the potential to link
Moldova with the Western Balkans countries on their way to the EU.

2. Government of the Republic of Moldova

For an efficient implementation of the EU-Moldova Action Plan, the Moldovan
Government elaborated the National Program for the Implementation of the EU-Moldova Action

39

Plan (Gov. of the RM, 2006a), which establishes necessary measures to be taken, responsible
institutions and terms for their realization.
With the same purpose, in August 2005 four inter-ministerial commissions were
established:
a) Commission for law and security issues (Ministry of Justice co-ordinating institution);
b) Commission for social-economic issues (Ministry of Economy and Trade co-ordinating
institution);
c) Commission for infrastructure issues (Ministry of Transport and Road Management coordinating institution);
d) Commission for cultural and humanitarian issues (Ministry of Education, Youth and Sport
co-ordinating institution) (MFAEI, 2004).
According to the MFAEI (2004), the monitoring reports on the implementation of the
EU-Moldova Action Plan are realized monthly, quarterly and each half year by the Co-ordinating
Ministries, while the MFAEI provides general monitoring at the governmental level.
Nevertheless, by the time of writing this paper, Moldovan authorities have issued only four such
monitoring reports: two in English and other two in Romanian. The reports in English refer to the
February/March August/September9 (Gov. of the RM, 2005a) and August October 2005
(Gov. of the RM, 2005b) periods. The reports in Romanian refer to the February December
2005 (Gov. of the RM, 2006b) and January March 2006 (Gov. of the RM, 2006c) periods.
The reports represent an extensive and very detailed work done by Moldovan
authorities. However some drawbacks of this work should be noted.
They are useful resources in observing the implementation process dynamics of the
Action Plan, but mainly for specialized institutions and persons with a background in public

9. The monitoring period is not explicitly indicated.

40

policy field. As they are very extensive and represent documents for a wide-public use, the
presence of the introductory and concluding/ summarizing sections in the case of these reports
would facilitate their comprehension by the wide public. With one exception (Gov. of the RM,
2005a10), they have no introductory, neither concluding/ summarizing sections.
Another shortcoming of these reports is that they have an obvious self-praising
character with regard to the actions undertaken by Moldovan authorities. In all these 4 reports, in
their sections dedicated to the political aspects of the implementation process of the Action Plan,
there are only 10 critical remarks. All 10 are mentioned in 2 of these reports. Only 3 critical notes
refer to problems which are put on the responsibility of Moldovan authorities (Gov. of the RM,
2005a, 2006b), while 7 envisage problems on the responsibility of Transnistrian and Russian
authorities (Gov. of the RM, 2006b). Among the criticisms which regard Moldovan authorities, 1
refers to the problems in judicial system (Gov. of the RM, 2005a, p. 9) and 2 refer to the
deficiencies in the field of fight against corruption (Gov. of the RM, 2006b, p. 9).
One example which points to a degree of subjectivity of governmental monitoring
process is the way in which one of the reports relates about the character of the 6th March 2005
parliamentary elections. The report mentions that international observers from OSCE/ODIHR,
CoE and EU appreciated the parliamentary elections from the 6th March as correct and
democratic, in accordance with international standards, which is an important indicator of the
evolution and stability of democracy and its institutions in the Republic of Moldova (Gov. of the
RM, 2005a, p. 5). In the same time, the conclusions of the OSCE/ODIHR election observation
mission show that: While the 6 March 2005 parliamentary elections in the Republic of Moldova
generally complied with most OSCE commitments, Council of Europe and other international
standards for democratic elections, nevertheless, they fell short of some that are central to a

10. This report has introduction, but no conclusions.

41

genuinely competitive election process. In particular, campaign conditions and access to the
media were not satisfactorily equitable. In this regard, the elections confirmed negative trends
already noted in the 2003 local elections (OSCE/ODIHR, 2005).
As has been shown above, no one of the reports points to the existing problems in the
field of human rights protection. In the same time, one of the reports presents as an achievement
(!), in its Human rights and fundamental freedoms section, honouring by Moldova of its
financial obligations (41652.5 EURO) towards 11 persons11 who won trials against Moldovan
Government at the ECHR (Gov. of the RM, 2006b, p. 14). In fact, this means that Moldovan
Government had to honour these obligations as a result of the human rights infringements and
abuses.
Moreover, the specialized reports relate that the human right protection in Moldova was
not been improved in 2005. One of such reports issued by the CHRM12 mentions that this
institution has registered 1422 petitions in 2005 on human rights infringements, compared with a
number of 1102 petitions for 2004, while in the first half of the 2006 the CHRM has already
documented 968 such petitions, which exceeds the number of petitions for the similar period of
the 2005 (Flux, 2006).
Apart from this, some of the reports refer to actions performed in other periods than the
timeframes they are covering (Gov. of the RM, 2005a: 37; 2005b: 2, 4-5). Likewise, the
information these reports are providing is sometimes repeated (Gov. of the RM, 2005a: 8, 14),
imprecise (Gov. of the RM, 2005a: 7) and irrelevant (Gov. of the RM, 2005a: 32, 2006b: 7).

11. In the case of arresting the public servants Constantin Becciev and Vladimir arban, few months before the 2005
parliamentary elections, there were suspicions of a politically motivated decision, as they were closed to one of the
opposition parties Alliance Our Moldova. The ECHR decisions in their cases reinforced these suspicions.
12. The major objective of the CHRM is to insure the activity of Parliament attorneys (ombudsmen) for the purpose
of guaranteeing the observance of human rights and constitutional freedoms in Moldova.

42

3. Civil society
Civil society is presented in the monitoring process of the EU-Moldova Action Plan
implementation by two important projects. The first one is implemented by ADEPT Association
and EXPERT-GRUP, which are publishing quarterly reports, called Euromonitor, on the
implementation of this document. By the time of writing this paper, the mentioned consortium
has issued three such reports, which cover ten priority fields identified by the Action Plan
(EXPERT-GRUP and ADEPT, 2006a, 2006b, 2006c). The second project is developed within
Euroforum and was set up under the auspices of the European Initiatives Program of the Soros
Foundation-Moldova. The aim of this project is to monitor the implementation of the Action Plan
in particular policy sectors and to formulate recommendations which would help the public
authorities to enhance this process. The first unified report within Euroforum is intended to be
launched in autumn 2006.
In comparison with the governmental reports, Euromonitors seem to be more
accessible to the wide public and as well as more objective. Apart from acknowledging the
progress realised, they also pay attention to the negative aspects in the implementation process of
the EU-Moldova Action Plan. According to them, Moldova made a moderate progress in
implementing the Action Plan and the main problems of this process remain in the field of
judiciary system and human rights protection. Likewise, although many policy fields were
reformed, Moldova falls short of applying rigorously the new approved legal norms (For details
see EXPERT-GRUP and ADEPT, 2006a, 2006b, 2006c).

4. European institutions
According to the Action Plan, the European Commission will undertake the first review
of the implementation of this document within two years of its adoption. However, one year after

43

its signing the Delegation of the European Commission to Moldova have expressed satisfaction
with accomplishments registered in implementing the Action Plan, but noted that still much work
is to be done for insurance of human rights, combat of corruption, reformation of judiciary, in the
field of law application and the freedom of expression (Delegation of the European Commission
to Moldova, 2006; Moldpres, 2006; Reporter.md, 2006; ADEPT, 2006/ no. 68).
A similar opinion has been expressed in March 2006 by the EP in its resolution on
human rights in Moldova and, in particular, in Transnistria. The EP called on the Moldovan
Government to continue the process of reforms for progress of the state based on the rule of law
and combat of corruption in state institutions; to increase the efforts against any manifestation of
trafficking in human beings; to strengthen the judicial system and stressed the importance of
carrying out these and other reforms without delay (ADEPT, 2006/ no. 70).
Javier Solana, Secretary-General of the Council of the EU, at his meeting with Vladimir
Voronin, President of the Republic of Moldova, in Brussels, on the 22nd of June 2006, stressed
the same necessities in the implementation process of the Action Plan (Council of the EU, 2006).

44

VI.

CONCLUSIONS

Moldova met the EU neighbourhood initiative with mixed feelings. On one side,
Moldova welcomed the EU intention to deepen its relations with neighbouring countries, but on
the other side it was more or less disappointed as the ENP is not providing for Moldova a clear
European membership perspective. However, despite the existing reserves, the ENP brought in
Moldova new hopes that a successful implementation of the EU-Moldova Action Plan could lead
to a new stage in its relations with the EU, particularly to its association with the EU.
The delay in the negotiation process and approval of the EU-Moldova Action Plan
outlined two important problems. Firstly, the EU disregarded one of the fundamental principles
of the ENP differentiation. Though negotiations on the EU-Moldova Action Plan have been
completed in June 2004, given the EU intention to approve similar documents with a group of
neighbouring states in the same time, the Plan with Moldova was signed nearly a year later than
promised. Secondly, the negotiation process on the Action Plan outlined a reciprocal lack of
knowledge of the EU about the policy developments in Moldova and of the latter about the EU
policies, programs and standards. During the negotiations the EU had to rely much upon the
information provided by the Moldovan Government, while the latter had to wait for the EU feedback as regards to its standards and requirements.
The EU-Moldova Action Plan formulates 80 objectives and 294 actions to be
considered by the Parties concerned. Most of these objectives and actions fall only on the
Moldovan side responsibility, 14 refer explicitly to the EU and 40 refer to both the EU and
Moldova. This asymmetry reflects an important dose of EU self-interest and strong centreperiphery characteristics. Moreover, in the case of some objectives and actions spelled out by the
EU-Moldova Action Plan it is difficult to see which Part has to be responsible for their

45

implementation. This lack of explicit provisions raises difficulties for an objective assessment of
the progress made in implementing the Action Plan.
Comparing the provisions of the EU-Moldova PCA and Action Plan on their political
dimensions, it could be noted that these documents share a similar rationale and do not differ
radically in their concrete approaches and instruments. Moreover, the finality of both documents
is quite similar, in that it does not lead to the opening of a clear European perspective for
Moldova. Therefore, some could argue that the EU-Moldova Action Plan is a Potemkin village
for Moldova.
However, some visible differences should be noted. The ENP and Action Plan brought a
new dynamics in relations between the EU and Moldova; extended their co-operation
opportunities; specified and detailed the co-operation process between the Parties; updated the
areas of dialogue; contributed to a more operational, visible and participative EUs engagement
in Moldova; added more elements of conditionality especially with regard to political dialogue
and reform, emphasising thus the necessity of democratic transformations as a prerequisite for
further developments in other co-operation areas; and brought Moldova in a different spatial
perspective based on the European neighbourhood and proximity concepts.
Particularly important for Moldova is the presence of a distinctive section in the EUMoldova Action Plan dedicated to the settlement of the Transnistrian conflict and the EUs
commitment to support, through the ENP means, the settlement of this conflict.
Apart from these, the EU-Moldova Action Plan itself mentions explicitly new
partnership perspectives opened up by the ENP. Of course, a simple listing of the new cooperation opportunities brought by the Action Plan does not mean that all of them will be
sufficiently explored. However, some of the results achieved already in the implementation
process of the Plan seem encouraging. Not less important is that the ENP and EU-Moldova

46

Action Plan have also determined Moldova to be more receptive, responsive and responsible with
regard to European values and standards in a broad spectrum of areas.
The subtle message which the ENP and Action Plan are bringing along for Moldovan
authorities could be read briefly as follows: implement rigorously the Action Plan and then the
opportunity of a new contractual relationship will be considered. Therefore, the implementation
of the EU-Moldova Action Plan stands crucial for the European destiny of Moldova.
In most cases of the achievements in implementing the Action Plan it is beyond doubts
that the EU-Moldova Action Plan served as a strong impetus for reforms. From this stand point,
despite the existing criticisms, the ENP acts to some extent in the case of Moldova as an EU
form of external governance. However, there is still room for improvements in most of the
reformed areas. Moreover, much work has to be done to strengthen the independence of
judiciary, in fighting against corruption, to ensure the freedom of expression and for human rights
protection.
In this context, it should be noted that an objective monitoring activity and a judicious
further adaptation of the EU-Moldova Action Plan would substantially help Moldova to
implement rigorously this document. Therefore, the governmental monitoring of the
implementation process of the Action Plan should be enhanced, while considering as well as
conclusions of the alternative monitoring activities performed by civil society and European
institutions. A future updating of the Action Plan should avoid as much as possible the moving
target problem, as this could make unrealistic the achievement of the new policy targets during
the last year of its implementation.
Finally, if Moldova wants a clear membership perspective it should become the leading
country among those involved within the ENP as regards to the speed and the quality of the
Action Plan implementation process. However, this is far to be enough. Moldova should go

47

beyond the declared objectives of the Action Plan. It has to start on its own the gradual adoption
of the acquis communautaire.

48

VII. APPENDICES

Appendix 1
Proposed appropriations for commitments for the ENPI
Year
million
(2004
prices)

2007
1,433

2008
1,569

2009
1,877

2010
2,083

2011
2,322

2012
2,642

2013
3,003

Total
2007-2013
14,929

Source: Smith, 2005.

Appendix 2
EU neighbours and their current contractual relations with the EU
Country
Algeria
Armenia
Azerbaijan
Belarus
Egypt
Georgia
Israel
Jordan
Lebanon
Libya
Moldova
Morocco
Palestinian
Authority
Russia
Syria
Tunisia
Ukraine

Agreement
Euro-Med Association Agreement
Partnership and Co-operation Agreement
Partnership and Co-operation Agreement
Partnership and Co-operation Agreement
Euro-Med Association Agreement
Partnership and Co-operation Agreement
Euro-Med Association Agreement
Euro-Med Association Agreement
Euro-Med Association Agreement
None
Partnership and Co-operation Agreement
Euro-Med Association Agreement
Interim Euro-Med Association Agreement

Status
Signed
In force
In force
Signed
In force
In force
In force
In force
Signed
In force
In force
In force

Date
April 2002
July 1999
July 1999
March 1995
June 2004
July 1999
June 2000
May 2002
April 2002
July 1998
March 2000
July 1997

Partnership and Co-operation Agreement

Euro-Med Association Agreement
Euro-Med Association Agreement
Partnership and Co-operation Agreement

In force
Signed
In force
In force

December 1997
October 2004
March 1998
March 1998

Source: Smith, 2005 (adapted).

49

Appendix 3
PCAs between the EU and...
Country
Armenia
Azerbaijan
Belarus
Georgia
Kazakhstan
Kyrgyzstan
Moldova
Russia
Turkmenistan
Ukraine
Uzbekistan

Entered in force
1 July 1999
1 July 1999
Signed in March 1995 but is not yet in force.
The Interim Agreement is also not in force
1 July 1999
1 July 1999
1 July 1999
1 July 1998
1 December 1997
Signed in May 1998 but is not yet in force.
The Interim Agreement is not yet in force
1 March 1998
1 July 1999

Source: European Commission

50

Appendix 4
Structure of the EU-Moldova PCA and Action Plan
EU-Moldova PCA

EU-Moldova Action Plan

TI General principles
TII Political dialogue
TIII Trade in goods
TIV Provisions affecting business and investment (Labour conditions:
Co-ordination of social security; Conditions affecting the establishment
and operation of companies; Cross-border supply of services; General
provisions)
TV Current payments and capital
TVI Competition, intellectual, industrial and commercial property
protection and legislative co-operation
TVII Economic co-operation (Industrial co-operation, Investment
promotion and protection, Public procurement, Co-operation in the field of
standards and conformity assessment, Mining and raw materials, Cooperation in science and technology, Education and training, Agriculture
and the agro-industrial sector, Energy, Environment, Transport, Postal
services and telecommunications, Financial services, Monetary policy,
Money laundering, Regional development, Social co-operation, Tourism,
Small and medium-sized enterprises, Information and communication,
Consumer protection, Customs, Statistical co-operation, Economics, Drugs)
TVIII Cultural co-operation
TIX Financial co-operation
TX Institutional, general and final provisions.

Introduction
2.1 Political dialogue and reform (Democracy and the Rule of law; Human
rights and fundamental freedoms; Co-operation on foreign and security
policy, conflict prevention and crisis management; Regional co-operation)
2.2 Co-operation for the settlement of the Transnistrian conflict
2.3 Economic and social reform and development (Improve welfare;
Sustain growth, consolidate public finance, and address the issue of public
debt; Functioning market economy; Regional and rural development;
Employment and social policy; Sustainable development)
2.4 Trade-related issues, market and regulatory reform (Movement of
goods: Trade relations, Customs, Standards, technical regulations and
conformity assessment procedures, Elimination of restrictions and
streamlined administration, Sanitary and phytosanitary issues; Right of
establishment and Company Law: Company law, Services, Financial
services; Movement of capital and current payments; Movement of
persons, including movement of workers and co-ordination of social
security; Other key areas: Taxation, Competition policy, Intellectual and
industrial property rights, Public procurement, Statistics, Financial control
and related matters, Enterprise policy)
2.5 Co-operation in Justice and Home Affairs (Migration issues; Border
management; Fight against organised crime; Drugs; Money laundering
financial and economic crime; Police and judicial co-operation)
2.6 Transport, energy, telecommunications, environment, and Research,
development and innovation (Transport; Energy; Information Society;
Environment; Research, development and innovation)
2.7 People-to-people contacts (Education, training and youth; Culture and
audio-visual issues; Civil society co-operation; Cross-border and regional
level co-operation; Public health)
3. Monitoring.

Sources: EU-Moldova PCA and Action Plan

Appendix 5
EU-Moldova Action Plan objectives13 and actions
No.

Objectives and actions addressed

to both the EU and Moldova

Objectives and actions addressed to the EU

1.

Sustained efforts towards a settlement of the Transnistrian conflict,

respecting the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Republic of
Moldova within its internationally recognised borders, and guaranteeing
respect for democracy, the rule of law and human rights (Ob. no. 16)
Effective co-operation between the EU and Moldova towards a settlement
of the Transnistrian conflict within agreed formats, including consultation
on post-settlement arrangements and guarantees as appropriate
Reinforce political dialogue between the EU and Moldova on the
Transnistrian conflict
Active engagement in the trilateral talks Moldova - Ukraine - European
Commission concerning measures to ensure proper management and
control of Moldovas entire border with Ukraine, in particular the
Transnistrian section
Strengthen dialogue and co-operation on social matters (Ob. no. 23)

EU support for the participation of Moldova to the South-East European

Co-operation Process

2.
3.
4.

5.

6.
7.

Develop EU-Moldova co-operation with regard to risk based customs

control, including safety and security of goods imported, exported or in
transit
Jointly identify priority industrial sectors for legislative approximation

8.

Gradual abolition of restrictions to progressively allow the supply of

services between the EU and Moldova in certain sectors (Ob. no. 32)

9.

Develop a dialogue on enterprise policy aiming at the improvement of the

administrative and regulatory environment for companies, at promoting
industrial co-operation and tackling the impact of industrial restructuring

EU to further step up its involvement in supporting the OSCE and

mediators in this process, assist the efforts of the Joint Constitutional
Commission, and to prepare engagement in post-settlement scenario
EU to continue its efforts to ensure the fulfilment by Russia of the Istanbul
commitments with regard to Moldova
Preparation of companies for progressive opening of internal market
elements to Moldovan participation, focusing on information and training.
The opening of one Euro-Info-Correspondence Centre (EICC) is envisaged
Supporting the efficient management of migration flows, also by rendering
consultative, financial and expert assistance to the Government of Moldova
and promotion of its activities, in particular to increase professional level
of relevant staff through study of foreign experience and internship in
relevant services of EU countries dealing with migration policy (Ob. no.
45)
Advice on Eurodac Regulation and functioning of the Eurodac system
Encourage Moldova to conclude readmission agreements with the main
countries of origin and transit
Explore the possibility of inviting Moldova to participate in or observe the
activities organised in the framework of the EU programmes on migration
(ARGO, AENEAS)
Support Moldovas integration in high level scientific exchanges (Ob. no.
74)

13. The text in italics represents the objectives of the EU-Moldova Action Plan.

52

10.
11.
12.
13.
14.

15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.

(Ob. no. 43)

In accordance with articles 52 and 69 of the PCA, promote dialogue on
industrial policy and associate Moldova to EU initiatives to stimulate
competitiveness, including in the tourism sector
Exchange information concerning, and assess the scale of, illegal migration
in the EU and Moldova
Improve co-operation regarding the efficient management of migration
flows and on readmission of own nationals, persons without nationality and
third country nationals (Ob. no. 47)
Initiate a dialogue on readmission in the perspective of concluding a
readmission agreement between Moldova and EU
Setting up, within the existing structures, a mixed expert group to discuss
legal migration to the EU, current situations in Member States,
management structures for legal migration, including to explore ways to
facilitate legalisation, legal migration of the labour force and social
protection of migrant workers as well as programmes for voluntary return
and re-integration
Pursue a dialogue concerning co-operation on visa policy (Ob. no. 48)
Exchange of views on Schengen procedures and initiate a dialogue on the
possibilities of visa facilitation in compliance with the acquis
Dialogue and exchange of views on visa co-operation (criteria and the
procedure for the issue of visas)
Dialogue on document security
Intensify and facilitate cross-border co-operation between Moldova, the
EU Member States and neighbouring countries (Ob. no. 50)
Continuation of the Sderkping process
Strengthen efforts and co-operation in the fight against money laundering
(Ob. no. 54)
Exchange information on the existing European system (Financial
Intelligence Unit (FIU)) and the existing system in Moldova as regards
money laundering
Intensify co-operation and promote exchange of information with
corresponding services of EU Member States and specialised bodies at
European level
Explore the possibilities for co-operation between Moldovan agencies,
Europol and Eurojust in accordance with the Europol Convention and the
relevant Council decisions
Further develop co-operation between Moldova and EU Member State
judicial and law enforcement authorities (Ob. no. 56)

Reinforce Moldavian participation in international Marie Curie fellowships

including support of the appropriate return mechanisms
Promote participation of Moldavian scientists in international debates
Support exchange and study opportunities for Moldovans, in particular
through their participation in the Erasmus Mundus programme
Enhance Moldovan participation in the Tempus III programme
Prepare for possible extension of the Tempus programme to the areas of
vocational training as well as adult education

53

26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.

Elaborate a manual on judicial co-operation between EU Member States

and Moldova and a statement of good practice in relation to such cooperation
Establish a network of contact points with EU Member States law
enforcement authorities to exchange information
Address issues of infrastructure financing (e.g. Public/Private Partnerships,
tolls, shadow-tolling, user charges etc.). Possibly, EIB mandate extension
Continue active participation in the development of the Pan-European
Corridors and Areas as well as in the TRACECA programme. Possibly,
extension of EIB lending
Revision of bilateral service agreements with Member States with a view to
include Community standard clauses
Solution of pending issues with Member States regarding the
implementation of bilateral agreements
Co-operate on aviation security matters
Enhance co-operation in the field of education, training and youth (Ob. no.
76)
Enhance youth exchanges and co-operation in the field of non-formal
education for young people
Increase promotion of intercultural dialogue, youth exchanges and cooperation in the field of non-formal education through the Youth
programme
Enhance cultural co-operation (Ob. no. 77)
Intensify cultural exchanges giving priority to mobility of young
Moldovans, particularly through the Youth programme
Develop a dialogue on cultural diversity
Promote civil society co-operation (Ob. no. 78)
Exchange information and technical expertise in order to facilitate
participation in EU Network for the Prevention and Control of
Communicable Diseases

Source: EU-Moldova Action Plan

54

VIII. BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. ADEPT (2003), Democracy and Governing in Moldova, no. 20, Internet web site for the
Association ADEPT, accessed 17th May 2006, http://www.e-democracy.md/en/e-journal/
20031203/#4.
2. ADEPT (2004), Democracy and Governing in Moldova, no. 24, 26-33, 43, Internet web
site for the Association ADEPT, accessed 20th May 2006, http://www.edemocracy.md/en/e-journal/2004.shtml.
3. ADEPT (2005), Democracy and Governing in Moldova, no. 47-49, 54, 58-59, 63, Internet
web site for the Association ADEPT, accessed 20th May 2006, http://www.edemocracy.md/ en/e-journal/2005.shtml.
4. ADEPT (2006), Democracy and Governing in Moldova, no. 68, 70, 75, 78, Internet web
site for the Association ADEPT, accessed 20th May, 16th June, 3rd August 2006,
http://www.e-democracy.md/en/e-journal/ 2006.shtml.
5. Barbroie, A. and Barbroie, C. (2005), EU-Moldova Action Plan and the Economic
Growth and Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper: Comparative analysis, Internet web site
for the Institute for Public Policy, accessed 10th June 2006, http://www.ipp.md/biblioteca.
php?l=en&idc=32.
6. Beunderman, M. (2006a), Chirac draws up wishlist of concrete EU projects, Internet web
site for the EUobserver.com, accessed 27th February 2006, http://euobserver.com/?aid=
20998 &rk=1.
7. Beunderman, M. (2006b), Balkan states get cautious confirmation of EU entry goal,
Internet web site for the EUobserver.com, accessed 11th March 2006, http://euobserver.
com/?aid=21106&rk=1.
8. Boan, I. (2006), European integration remains a priority of the Republic of Moldova, in
ADEPT, Democracy and Governing in Moldova, no. 78, Internet web site for the
Association ADEPT, accessed 11th August 2006, http://www.e-democracy.md/en/
comments/political/200607312.
9. Chiril, V. (2001), The relation between the Republic of Moldova and the European
Union, Internet web site for the Institute for Public Policy, accessed 11th June 2006,
http://www.ipp.md/files/Publicatii/2001/integrarea_europeana/Chirila-eng.doc.
10. Council of the EU (2002a), 2421st Meeting of the General Affairs Council, 7705/02
(Presse 91), 15 April, Internet web site for the Council of the European Union, accessed
21st June 2006, http://ue.eu.int/ueDocs/cms_Data/docs/pressData/en/gena/70160.pdf.
11. Council of the EU (2002b), New Neighbourhood Initiative Draft Council conclusions,
14078/02, 12 November, Internet web site for the Council of the European Union,
accessed 21st June 2006, http://register.consilium.eu.int/pdf/en/02/st14/14078en2.pdf.
12. Council of the EU (2002c), 2463rd Meeting of the General Affairs and External Relations
Council, 14183/02 (Presse 350), 18 November, Internet web site for the Council of the
European Union, accessed 21st June 2006, http://ue.eu.int/ueDocs/cms_Data/docs/press
Data/en/gena/73248.pdf.
13. Council of the EU (2003), 2518th Meeting of the General Affairs and External Relations
Council, 10369/03 (Presse 166), 16 June, Internet web site for the Council of the
European Union, accessed 21st June 2006, http://ue.eu.int/ueDocs/cms_Data/docs/press
Data/en/gena/76201.pdf.
14. Council of the EU (2004), Sixth Meeting of the Co-operation Council between the
European Union and the Republic of Moldova, 6295/04 (Presse 50), 24 February, Internet

web site for the Eurojournal.org, accessed 26th June 2006, http://eurojournal.org/files/
79153.pdf.
15. Council of the EU (2006), Javier Solana, EU High Representative for the CFSP, met
Vladimir Voronin, President of the Republic of Moldova, S/168/06, 22 June, Internet web
site for the Council of the European Union, accessed 26th June 2006,
http://www.consilium.europa.eu/ueDocs/cms_Data/docs/pressData/en/declarations/90211.
pdf.
16. Cremona, M. (2004), The European Neighbourhood Policy: Legal and Institutional
Issues, Internet web site for the Stanford Institute for International Studies, Stanford
University (USA), accessed 3rd June 2006, http://iis-db.stanford.edu/pubs/20738/
Cremona-ENP_and_the_Rule_of_Law.pdf.
17. Delegation of the European Commission to Moldova (2006), Comunicat de pres al
Delegaiei Comisiei Europene n Republica Moldova privind Planul de Aciuni pentru
politica de vecintate n Europa, Internet web site for the Moldova Azi, accessed 23rd
February 2006, http://www.azi.md/news?ID=38165.
18. Del Sarto, R. A. and Schumacher, T. (2005), From EMP to ENP: Whats at Stake with
the European Neighbourhood Policy towards the Southern Mediterranean?, European
Foreign Affairs Review, 10, pp. 17-38.
19. Dura, G. (2006), Could the EUs absorption incapacity permanently lock Moldova into
the European Neighbourhood Policy?, Internet web site for the for the Moldova Azi,
accessed 16th August 2006, http://www.azi.md/investigation?ID=39170.
20. Emerson, M. (2002), The Wider Europe as the European Unions Friendly Monroe
Doctrine, CEPS Policy Brief, no. 27, Internet web site for the Centre for European Policy
Studies, accessed 7th June 2006, http://shop.ceps.be/BookDetail.php?item_id=128.
21. Emerson, M. (2003a), The Shaping of a Policy Framework for the Wider Europe, CEPS
Policy Brief, no. 39, Internet web site for the Centre for European Policy Studies,
accessed 7th June 2006, http://shop.ceps.be/BookDetail.php?item_id=1058.
22. Emerson, M. (2003b), Institutionalising the Wider Europe, CEPS Policy Brief, no. 42,
Internet web site for the Centre for European Policy Studies, accessed 7th June 2006,
http://shop.ceps.be/downfree.php?item_id=1065.
23. Emerson, M. (2004), European Neighbourhood Policy: Strategy or Placebo?, CEPS
Working Document, no. 215, Internet web site for the Centre for European Policy
Studies, accessed 8th June 2006, http://shop.ceps.be/BookDetail.php?item_id=1176.
24. Emerson, M. (2005), Deepening the Wider Europe, Internet web site for the Centre for
European Policy Studies, accessed 5th November 2005, http://www.ceps.be/Article.php?
article_id=296.
25. Emerson, M. and Noutcheva, G. (2005), From Barcelona Process to Neighbourhood
Policy. Assessments and Open Issues, CEPS Working Document, no. 220, Internet web
site for the Centre for European Policy Studies, accessed 9th June 2006,
http://shop.ceps.be/BookDetail.php?item_id=1209.
26. ERI (2002), Report on Political Dimensions of the Accession Criteria, Workshop series
Assessing the Accession Criteria, no. 1, Internet web site for the European Research
Institute (ERI), University of Birmingham (UK), accessed 24th March 2004,
http://www.eri.bham.ac.uk/Phare/reports/Workshop1report.pdf.
27. EU-Moldova Parliamentary Co-operation Committee (2005), Eighth Meeting of the EUMoldova Parliamentary Co-operation Committee. Final Statement and Recommendations
pursuant to Article 89 of the Partnership and Co-operation Agreement, Internet web site
for the Eurojournal.org, accessed 25th June 2006, http://eurojournal.org/files/PCC.pdf.
56

28. European Commission (1998), Partnership and Co-operation Agreement, Internet web
site for the European Commission, accessed 17th June 2006, http://ec.europa.eu/comm/
external_relations/ceeca/pca/pca_moldova.pdf.
29. European Commission (2003a), Wider Europe Neighbourhood: A New Framework for
Relations with our Eastern and Southern Neighbours, Internet web site for the European
Commission, accessed 17th May 2006, http://ec.europa.eu/comm/world/enp/pdf/com03_
104_en.pdf.
30. European Commission (2003b), Paving the way for a New Neighbourhood Instrument,
Internet web site for the European Commission, accessed 17th May 2006, http://ec.europa.
eu/comm/world/enp/ pdf/com03_393_en.pdf.
31. European Commission (2004a), European Neighbourhood Policy Strategy Paper, Internet
web site for the European Commission, accessed 17th May 2006, http://ec.europa.eu/
comm/world/enp/pdf/strategy/strategy_paper_en.pdf.
32. European Commission (2004b), European Neighbourhood Policy Country Report
Moldova, Internet web site for the European Commission, accessed 22nd May 2006,
http://ec.europa.eu/world/enp/pdf/country/moldova_enp_country_report_2004_en.pdf.
33. European Commission (2004c), EU-Moldova Action Plan, Internet web site for the
European Commission, accessed 22nd May 2006, http://ec.europa.eu/comm/world/enp/
pdf/action_plans/moldova_enp_ap_final_en.pdf.
34. European Commission (2004d), EU-Ukraine Action Plan, Internet web site for the
European Commission, accessed 19th June 2006, http://ec.europa.eu/comm/world/enp/pdf/
action_plans/ukraine_enp_ap_final_en.pdf.
35. European Commission (2005a), The EUs relations with Moldova, Internet web site for
the European Commission, accessed 12th July 2006, http://ec.europa.eu/comm/external_
relations/moldova/intro/index.htm#tech.
36. European Commission (2005b), Commissioner Ferrero-Waldners visit to Libya, Press
release, IP/05/609, Internet web site for the European Commission, accessed 21st July
2006, http://ec.europa.eu/world/enp/partners/enp_libya_en.htm.
37. European Commission (2005c), Commissioner Benita Ferrero-Waldner in Algiers, Press
release, IP/05/790, Internet web site for the European Commission, accessed 21st July
2006, http://ec.europa.eu/world/enp/partners/enp_algeria_en.htm.
38. European Council in Copenhagen (2002, 12-13 December), Presidency Conclusions (Par.
22-25), Internet web site for the Council of the European Union, accessed 21st June 2006,
http://www.consilium.europa.eu/ueDocs/cms_Data/docs/pressData/en/ec/73842.pdf.
39. European Council in Thessaloniki (2003, 19-20 June), Presidency Conclusions (Ch. VI),
Internet web site for the Council of the European Union, accessed 22nd June 2006,
http://www.consilium.europa.eu/ueDocs/cms_Data/docs/pressData/en/ec/76279.pdf
40. EXPERT-GRUP and ADEPT (2006a), Euromonitor, no. 1, Internet web site for the
Association ADEPT, accessed 18th June 2006, http://www.e-democracy.md/files/
euromonitor01en.pdf.
41. EXPERT-GRUP and ADEPT (2006b), Euromonitor, no. 2, Internet web site for the
Association ADEPT, accessed 18th June 2006, http://www.e-democracy.md/files/
euromonitor02en.pdf.
42. EXPERT-GRUP and ADEPT (2006c), Euromonitor, no. 3, Internet web site for the
Association ADEPT, accessed 4th August 2006, http://www.e-democracy.md/files/
euromonitor03.pdf.
43. Ferrero-Waldner, B. (2004), Press Conference to launch first seven Action Plans under
the European Neighbourhood Policy, Speech/04/529, Internet web site for the European
57

Commission, accessed 2nd March 2006, http://www.europa.eu.int/comm/external_

relations/news/ferrero/2004/sp04_529.htm.
44. Ferrero-Waldner, B. (2005a), Europes Neighbours Towards Closer Integration,
Speech/05/253, Internet web site for the European Commission, accessed 2nd March 2006,
http://www.europa.eu.int/comm/external_relations/news/ferrero/2005/sp05_253.htm.
45. Ferrero-Waldner, B. (2005b), Strengthening the partnership between the EU and its
neighbours, Speech/05/586, Internet web site for the European Commission, accessed 25th
June 2006, http://europa.eu.int/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=SPEECH/05/
586&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en.
46. Ferrero-Waldner, B. (2005c), The European Neighbourhood Policy: helping ourselves
through helping our neighbours, Speech/05/658, Internet web site for the European
Commission, accessed 2nd March 2006, http://www.europa.eu.int/rapid/pressReleases
Action.do?reference=SPEECH/05/658&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLan
guage=en
47. Ferrero-Waldner, B. (2005d), European Neighbourhood Policy: A year of progress,
Reference: IP/05/1467, Internet web site for the European Commission, accessed 2nd
March 2006, http://www.europa.eu.int/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/05/
1467&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en.
48. Ferrero-Waldner, B. (2005e), Quo Vadis Europa?, Speech/05/797, Internet web site for
the European Commission, accessed 2nd March 2006, http://europa.eu.int/rapid/press
ReleasesAction.do?reference=SPEECH/05/797&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN
&guiLanguage=en.
49. Flux (2006), Moldova: drepturile omului nu se respect, nr. 88, 3 July.
50. Gheorghiu, V. (2003a), Moldova Unwelcome Neighbour of the European Union,
Internet web site for the Institute for Public Policy, accessed 10th June 2006,
http://www.ipp.md/public/biblioteca/48/en/Moldova~neighbour~EU.doc.
51. Gheorghiu, V. (2003b), Moldova future EU neighbour or member?, in ADEPT,
Democracy and Governing in Moldova, no. 6, Internet web site for the Association
ADEPT, accessed 17th May 2006, http://www.e-democracy.md/en/e-journal/20030507/#
21.
52. Gheorghiu, V. (2003c), European Strategy of Moldova, Internet web site for the Institute
for Public Policy, accessed 17th January 2006, http://www.ipp.md/public/biblioteca/68/ro/
EurStratMold.doc.
53. Gheorghiu, V. (2005a), Moldova on the way to the European Union: Distance covered
and next steps to be done, Internet web site for the Institute for Public Policy, accessed
10th June 2006, http://www.ipp.md/public/biblioteca/83/en/MoldovaWayEU.pdf.
54. Gheorghiu, V. (2005b), EU-Moldova Action Plan: Negotiations and Implementation,
Internet web site for the Institute for Public Policy, accessed 10th June 2006,
http://www.ipp.md/public/biblioteca/92/en/Yerevan272.doc.
55. Gheorghiu, V. (2005c), Stabilizarea Republicii Moldova vecintate sau asociere la UE,
Internet web site for the Institute for Public Policy, accessed 10th June 2006,
http://www.ipp.md/public/biblioteca/94/ro/StabMoldPEV.doc.
56. Gov. of the Republic of Moldova (2005a), Internal Report on Semestrial Evaluation of
the EU-Moldova Action Plan Implementation 2005, Internet web site for the Ministry of
Foreign Affairs and European Integration of the Republic of Moldova, accessed 25th May
2006, http://www.mfa.md/En/EurInteg/Documents/Raport%2012.09.2005%20eng%20rev
%20integral.pdf.

58

57. Gov. of the Republic of Moldova (2005b), Report of the Government of the Republic of
Moldova on the Implementation of the EU-Moldova Action Plan (August-October 2005),
Internet web site for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and European Integration of the
Republic of Moldova, accessed 26th May 2006, http://www.mfa.md/En/EurInteg/
Documents/RAPORT%20aug-octob2005.pdf.
58. Gov. of the Republic of Moldova (2006a), Program Naional de Implementare a Planului
de Aciuni RM-UE, 2006-2007 (Draft), Internet web site for the Ministry of Foreign
Affairs and European Integration of the Republic of Moldova, accessed 23rd May 2006,
http://www.mfa.md/Ro/IntegEur/Home_DIE.html.
59. Gov. of the Republic of Moldova (2006b), Raport anual al Guvernului Republicii
Moldova privind implementarea Planului de Aciuni Republica Moldova Uniunea
European (februarie-decembrie 2005), Internet web site for the Ministry of Foreign
Affairs and European Integration of the Republic of Moldova, accessed 26th May 2006,
http://www.mfa.md/Ro/IntegEur/Documente/Raport%20anual%202005.pdf.
60. Gov. of the Republic of Moldova (2006c), Raport al Guvernului Republicii Moldova
privind implementarea Planului de Aciuni Republica Moldova Uniunea European
(ianuarie-martie 2006), Internet web site for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and
European Integration of the Republic of Moldova, accessed 26th May 2006,
http://www.mfa.md/Ro/IntegEur/Documente/RAPORT%20trimestru%20I%20-%202006
%20-%20FINAL.pdf.
61. Haukkala, H. (2005), The EU, Russia and the European Neighbourhood Policy: The Case
of Moldova, Internet web site for the FORNET, European Foreign Policy Research
Network, accessed 25th June 2006, http://www.fornet.info/documents/FORNET%20
Plenary%2005%20Moldova%20Backgroundpaper.pdf.
62. IJC (2005), Raport anual. Libertatea de exprimare i informare n Republica Moldova,
Internet web site for the Independent Journalism Centre (IJC), accessed 28th May 2006,
http://www.ijc.md/serviciul_juridic/docs/RAPORT_ANUAL_2005.doc.
63. IPP (2006), European Strategy of the Republic Moldova, Internet web site for the Institute
for Public Policy, accessed 26th May 2006, http://www.ipp.md/biblioteca1.php?l=en&id
=85.
64. Johansson-Nogus, E. (2004), A Ring of Friends? The implications of the European
Neighbourhood Policy for the Mediterranean, Mediterranean Politics, 9(2), pp. 240-247.
65. Landaburu, E. (2006), From Neighbourhood to Integration Policy: are there concrete
alternatives to enlargement?, Internet web site for the European Commission, accessed
21st April 2006, http://europa.eu.int/comm/world/enp/pdf/060223_el_ceps_en.pdf.
66. Lavenex, S. (2004), EU external governance in wider Europe, Journal of European
Public Policy, 11(4), pp. 680-700.
67. Light, M., White, S. and Lwenhardt, J. (2000), A wider Europe: the view from Moscow
and Kyiv, International Affairs, 76(1), pp. 77-88.
68. Lwenhardt, J., Hill, R. J. and Light, M. (2001), A wider Europe: the view from Minsk
and Chisinau, International Affairs, 77(3), pp. 605-620.
69. Lynch, D. (2004), The European Neighbourhood Policy, Internet web site for the
Eurojournal.org, accessed 16th May 2006, http://eurojournal.org/files/dov_prague.pdf.
70. MFAEI (2004), Politica European de Vecintate, Internet web site for the Ministry of
Foreign Affairs and European Integration of the Republic of Moldova, accessed 20th May
2006, http://www.mfa.md/Ro/IntegEur/relatii%20RM_UE.ro.html.
71. MFAEI (2005), Reuniunea a VII a Consiliului de Cooperare Republica Moldova
Uniunea European, Internet web site for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and European
59

Integration of the Republic of Moldova, accessed 24th February 2006, http://www.mfa.

md/Ro/Comunicate/2005-02-24ReuniuneaConsiliuluiCooperareRM_UE.htm.
72. Moldpres (2006), Comisia European este mulumit de implementarea Planului de
Aciuni RM-UE, Internet web site Moldova.org, accessed 23rd February 2006,
http://politicom.moldova.org/stiri/rom/9993/.
73. OSCE/ ODIHR (2005), Republic of Moldova: Parliamentary Elections 6 March 2005.
OSCE/ ODIHR Election Observation Mission Final Report, Internet web site for the
OSCE Mission to Moldova, accessed 22nd May 2006, http://www.osce.org/documents/
odihr/2005/06/14919_en.pdf.
74. Oudenaren, J. V. (2004), Policy Towards the Extended Frontier: The Balkans and the
Newly Independent States, in Green Cowles, M. and Dinan, D. (eds.), Developments in
the European Union, 2nd, Basingstoke, Macmillan, pp. 256-274.
75. Patten, C. (2003), The Wider Europe New Neighbourhood Initiative: An Opportunity
for Co-operation along the Enlarged Unions Borders, Speech at the ministerial meeting
in Kyiv, 10 November 2003, Internet web site for the European Commission, accessed
26th June 2006, http://ec.europa.eu/comm/world/enp/pdf/10-11_kyiv_cp_speech_en.pdf.
76. Popescu, N. (2006), The EU and South Caucasus: Learning lessons from Moldova and
Ukraine, Internet web site for the International Policy Fellowships program, accessed 26th
June 2006, http://www.policy.hu/npopescu/publications/caucasus.pdf.
77. Potonik, J. (2004), Enlarging Europe: Which Format and Which Architecture?,
Speech/04/332, Internet web site for the European Commission, accessed 3rd March 2006,
http://www.europa.eu.int/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=SPEECH/04/332&for
mat=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en.
78. Prodi, R. (2002), A Wider Europe: A Proximity Policy as the Key to Stability,
Speech/02/619, Internet web site for the European Commission, accessed 14th June 2006,
http://ec.europa.eu/comm/external_relations/news/prodi/sp02_619.htm.
79. Reporter.md (2006), UE se ateapt la aciuni mai eficiente din partea Chiinului n
realizarea Planului de Aciuni, Internet web site Moldova.org, accessed 23rd February
2006, http://politicom.moldova.org/stiri/rom/9975/.
80. Scott, J. W. (2005), The EU and Wider Europe: Toward an Alternative Geopolitics of
Regional Co-operation?, Geopolitics, 10, pp. 429-454.
81. Smith, K. E. (2005), The outsiders: The European neighbourhood policy, International
Affaires, 81(4), pp. 757-773.
82. Smith, M. (1996), The European Union and a Changing Europe: Establishing the
Boundaries of Order, Journal of Common Market Studies, 34(1), pp. 5-28.
83. Solana, J. (2003), A Secure Europe in a Better World European Security Strategy,
Internet web site for the Council of the EU, accessed 24th June 2006, http://www.
consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cmsUpload/78367.pdf.
84. Solana, J. (2005), Remarks of Javier Solana, EU High Representative for the CFSP, at the
Launch of the EU Border Mission for Moldova-Ukraine, Speech/398/05, Internet web site
for the Council of the EU, accessed 25th June 2006, http://ue.eu.int/ueDocs/cms_Data/
docs/pressdata/en/discours/87379.pdf.
85. Stetter, S. (2005), Theorising the European Neighbourhood Policy: Debordering and
Rebordering in the Mediterranean, EUI Working Papers, RSCAS no. 34, Internet web
site for the European University Institute, Florence, accessed 4th June 2006,
http://www.iue.it/RSCAS/WP-Texts/05_34.pdf.
86. elari, G. (2005), From Partnership and Co-operation Agreement to Action Plan, in
CSSR, Year 2005 Economy: Analytical Notes, Internet web site for the Centre for
60

Strategic Studies and Reforms, accessed 11th June 2006, http://www.cisrmd.org/reports/Notes%202005/note3.html.

87. Tocci, N. (2004), Conflict Resolution in the European Neighbourhood: The Role of the
EU as a Framework and as an Actor, EUI Working Papers, RSCAS no. 29, Internet web
site for the European University Institute, Florence, accessed 18th February 2006,
http://www.iue.it/RSCAS/WP-Texts/04_29.pdf.
88. Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe (2004), Art. I-57, Internet web site for the
European Union, accessed 3rd July 2006, http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex/en/treaties/
index.htm.
89. Vahl, M. (2005), Models for the European Neighbourhood Policy. The European
Economic Area and the Northern Dimension, CEPS Working Document, no. 218,
Internet web site for the Centre for European Policy Studies, accessed 9th June 2006,
http://shop.ceps.be/BookDetail.php?item_id=1192.
90. Verheugen, G. (2003), The European Neighbourhood Initiative: An Opportunity for
Enhanced Co-operation EU-Moldova, Internet web site for the Institute for Public Policy,
accessed 25th June 2006, http://www.ipp.md/public/biblioteca/67/en/AlocVerhEngl.doc.
91. Verheugen, G. (2004), The European Neighbourhood Policy, Speech/04/141, Internet
web site for the European Commission, accessed 24th June 2006, http://europa.eu.int/
rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=SPEECH/04/141&format=HTML&aged=0&lan
guage=EN&guiLanguage=fr.

61