欧洲政策研究中心-欧盟在乌克兰的配对工具：优势，劣势，机遇和威胁（英文）-2018.04-16页-1mb

EU Twinning Instrument in Ukraine: SWOT Analysis and Policy Recommendations

Core Content Overview

The EU Twinning Instrument is a civil service capacity-building tool designed to support the institutional development of countries in the Eastern Partnership (EaP) region, including Ukraine, by fostering collaboration between EU civil servants and officials from beneficiary countries. It aims to align Ukrainian institutions with EU norms and standards, particularly through the adoption of legislation and administrative practices. Twinning projects typically last up to three years and involve both long-term and short-term experts from the EU side, as well as Ukrainian officials. Despite its successes, the Twinning instrument in Ukraine faces several systemic challenges and external threats that limit its effectiveness.

Main Viewpoints and Key Information

Effectiveness of Twinning in Ukraine

• About half of the analyzed Twinning projects (32 between 2007 and 2016) led to lasting legal or institutional changes in line with EU norms.
• 63% of effective projects resulted in legal convergence (law adoption or amendment).
• 75% led to institutional convergence (implementation of new laws or administrative practices).
• 44% achieved both legal and institutional convergence.
• The remaining half of projects failed to trigger any meaningful change, often due to lack of political commitment, poor planning, or insufficient resources.

Strengths of Twinning

• Learning and Socialisation Platform: Provides a long-term forum for exchanging EU norms and best practices.
• Professional Ties: Builds lasting relationships between EU and Ukrainian civil servants, facilitating future cooperation.
• Personal Development: Offers a fulfilling experience for participants, enhancing their understanding of EU regulations and cultures.
• Track Record: Demonstrates a history of successful reforms in key sectors such as energy, banking, and healthcare.

Weaknesses of Twinning

• Long Preparation Time: Takes up to two years, often leading to outdated or irrelevant project objectives.
• Lack of Flexibility: Difficult to adjust project goals during implementation.
• Low Financial Incentives: Ukrainian officials often lack financial motivation, with low pay compared to EU counterparts.
• Institutional and Political Challenges: Limited autonomy, low transparency, and frequent changes in leadership and structure.
• Poor Visibility: Many Ukrainian civil servants are unaware of the benefits and objectives of Twinning projects.
• Insufficient Conditionality: EU support in certain sectors (e.g., social affairs, education) is less explicit than in others.

Opportunities

• Political Will for EU Integration: Strong public and political support for EU alignment, especially after the Euromaidan revolution.
• Market Diversification: Ukraine's search for alternative trade partners has increased its openness to EU integration.
• Experience Exchange: Twinning has a long track record, offering opportunities for learning from past successes and mistakes.
• Comparative Advantages: New EU member states (CEECs) offer fresh reform experiences, while older members provide established administrative models.
• Coordination Potential: Improved coordination with other EU initiatives and international actors can enhance the impact of Twinning.

Threats

• Institutional Instability: Frequent changes in leadership and structure disrupt project continuity.
• Security Concerns: Ongoing conflict in eastern Ukraine poses risks to Twinning operations.
• Low Morale and Motivation: Ukrainian civil servants often lack incentives and face job insecurity.
• Incompatibility of Systems: Differences in administrative systems and expertise can hinder cooperation.
• Limited Awareness: Poor communication of project goals and benefits reduces stakeholder engagement.

Policy Recommendations

• Re-conceptualise Twinning as a flexible toolkit to allow for adjustments in project objectives during planning and implementation.
• Reduce project preparation time by streamlining the approval process and limiting the number of involved actors.
• Increase financial support for Ukrainian civil servants through travel grants and performance-based bonuses.
• Customise project approaches to specific policy sectors, with a focus on legal and institutional convergence.
• Improve project visibility by making contracts and reports more accessible to stakeholders and the public.
• Align Twinning agendas with the EU-Ukraine Association Agreement (AA) and Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Area (DCFTA), especially in high-priority sectors.
• Conduct thorough evaluations of past Twinning projects to draw lessons and improve future initiatives.
• Enhance coordination with other EU and international programs, as well as domestic civil society.
• Create an EU-wide expert database to improve the selection and matching of short-term experts.

Conclusion

The EU Twinning Instrument has played a significant role in advancing Ukrainian reforms towards EU standards, but its effectiveness is hampered by structural and external challenges. To enhance its impact, the EU should focus on flexibility, financial incentives, visibility, and alignment with national and EU reform priorities. Strengthening coordination and leveraging the comparative advantages of EU member states can further improve the instrument’s utility in Ukraine and the EaP region.