STATEMENT

1. The Annual National Programme (ANP) is the main pillar in NATO-Ukraine co-operation. It provides a comprehensive framework and a roadmap for reform in a broad range of areas, from political and economic issues, to defence and military issues, resources, security, and legal issues. Implementation of the Annual National Programme is assessed by NATO.
2. Successful implementation of the ANPs is very important for Ukraine as it demonstrates progress made in reforming political, economic, security, defence, legal and other areas. The fulfilment of these programs will also bring Ukraine closer to European integration. It is therefore essential that Ukraine uses the full potential of the ANP as a transformational tool.
3. The ANP 2011 provided for 466 events and according to the Ukrainian government, 93% of these have been carried out. However, the late adoption of the ANP and the fact that the majority of events took place during the final 1-1,5 months of the programme demonstrates the need for better planning. More should also be done to ensure that the implementation of the ANP is a qualitative rather than a quantitative process, aiming at promoting reform, rather than achieving statistical targets.
4. Positive practical achievements of the implementation of the ANP 2011 include the development of the Joint Rapid Reaction Forces and Special Operations Forces, as well as security arrangements for the EURO 2012 football championship jointly hosted by Ukraine and Poland.
5. Regrettably, concerns regarding respect for the rule of law, human rights, the fight against corruption and civil society development have not been addressed adequately. Efforts to raise awareness of civil society about NATO and Ukraine-NATO cooperation are also insufficient.
6. Elaboration of the draft ANP 2012 is also experiencing delays, and the document is still under consideration by the Government of Ukraine. Regrettably, indications are that it will not be qualitatively different from last year’s document. The effective implementation of the ANP is hampered by the absence of a clear institutional mechanism for coordination and monitoring of the fulfilment of the constructive NATO-Ukraine partnership, the lack of clarity in the definition of the different areas of responsibility for the implementation of the programme’s goals and objectives, and the lack of transparency in the activities of relevant institutions.
7. Co-operation with NATO is in the national interest of Ukraine, and the fulfilment of the Annual National Programmes of Ukraine-NATO Co-operation has a positive effect on the country’s evolution. Regrettably, so far, Ukraine has not made use of the full potential of the ANP as an instrument for wide-ranging reform; ANPs have remained mostly formal frameworks for bilateral co-operation.
8. Taking into account these considerations, the Ukraine-NATO Interparliamentary Council URGES:

The Government of Ukraine:

a) to maintain and improve the Annual National Programmes as a crucial instrument of constructive Ukraine-NATO partnership, and translate stated intentions into concrete achievements;

b) to make the ANP a more effective instrument for systemic reforms in the country, and to this end:

i. to define objectives and measures for their implementation in a way that promotes real qualitative and measurable changes in the functioning of the state and the lives of the citizens of Ukraine;

ii. to take urgent measures for the establishment of a single unified institutional mechanism of coordination and control of the implementation of the constructive Ukraine-NATO partnership, for ensuring that relevant authorities take responsibility for the fulfilment of the ANP, and for increasing public information on ANP implementation;

iii. to secure timely adoption of the ANP and relevant action plans for its implementation no later than January of the given year, including a clear timeline and the approval of necessary funding for the fulfilment of the ANP’s objectives;

iv. to promote broad public awareness of the intermediate and final results of the programme’s implementation, and its impact on society.

c) following the termination in 2011 of the State Programme of Public Information, to take measures for maintaining an appropriate information policy on the constructive NATO‑Ukraine partnership, including further pragmatic initiatives to explain the objectives and activities of co-operation with NATO;

d) to enhance co-operation between government and parliament in the implementation of the constructive NATO-Ukraine partnership policy, particularly in the elaboration and implementation of the goals and objectives of the ANP.

The Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine:

a) to improve parliamentary control over the realisation of the ANP’s tasks, particularly through appropriate parliamentary activities, and through enhanced co-operation with the executive and civil society;

b) to use more effectively the possibilities provided by the Ukraine-NATO Interparliamentary Council as a tool to promote implementation of the ANP.

Member governments and parliaments of the North Atlantic Alliance, and NATO:

a) to maintain current mechanisms and instruments for co-operation with Ukraine;

b) to help ensure that the substance of the ANP is genuinely aimed at achieving those fundamental democratic values in Ukraine​​, which lie at the core of the Alliance, and that joint activities are devised accordingly;

c) to provide regular expert involvement of the Alliance in the implementation of the ANP, and make the conclusions and assessments of NATO monitoring missions more public.

d) to strengthen NATO’s Public Diplomacy efforts in Ukraine as part of the ANP and other NATO-Ukraine partnership activities.

The NATO Parliamentary Assembly:

a) to provide for an annual review of the progress and achievements of ANP implementation at meetings of the Assembly or its bodies.