part 1 of the african peace facility evaluation - European ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

In accordance with the ToR 8 , and taking into consideration political opportunities and feasibility, institutional and legal constraints, implementing modalities and financial aspects, this report specifically reviews and assesses: 1. The APF decision-making procedures, which have proven to be time-consuming for the EU which can impact on the activity implementation, particularly in PSOs. This evaluation focused on reviewing the stages of the EU decision making process, assessing their relevance and suggesting ways to simplify/shorten the procedure. The evaluation is also focusing on the procedures implementation and more specifically the APF delivery approaches a well, the suitability of agreement/grant contracts for the AU/REC structures and the possibility of establishing new management bodies for channelling APF funding. In this sense, the internal AU/RECs procedures are considered in relation to APF requests – without analysing the AU/RECs capacity constraints, which will be the focus of part II of the APF evaluation, in particular in the areas of administrative and financial management, operational, planning and long-term capacity building planning. 2. Possibilities of future alternative sources of funding, looking at the following questions: ‣ The relevance of the security and development nexus for the existence of APF 9 . ‣ The sustainability and predictability of APF funding, particularly for PSOs, as there is an inherent unpredictability that, in the past, triggered the need for several urgent replenishments of the APF. The possibility of third country contribution to the APF and of a bigger role for the African Peace Fund is considered. ‣ The coming EU institutional and budgetary developments in the prospect of developing new financial instruments for external action beyond 2013, and in close relation with the establishment of the European External Action Service. The possible inclusion of the EDF in the EU budget could impact the regulatory, financial and management aspects of the existing APF. I.3 EVALUATION PHASES According to the ToR, this evaluation had four phases: 1) An inception phase in Brussels 2) A headquarter phase 3) A field phase 4) A synthesis phase a. Inception Phase The inception phase was devoted to structuring and preparing the evaluation approach and methodology. The team studied the intervention logic of the Commission support to APF and the development/security nexus. The inception phase included: ‣ Clarification and understanding of the objectives of the APF; ‣ Summary of the fundamental procedures concerning the identification and submission of requests, different contracting procedures, and vetting, approval and implementation of APF grants and/or contribution agreements; ‣ A Launch Note, presenting the team understanding of the ToR and the proposed general approach to the work was prepared in December 2010 and presented to the CGIS on 9th January 2011. 8 Terms of Reference, “Part 1 of the African Peace Facility Evaluation: Reviewing the Procedures of the APF and Possibilities of Alternative Future Sources of Funding”. FWC Commission 2007 – Lot n° 4. Request for offer N° 2010/254164. 9 Article 11 of the Cotonou Partnership Agreement 9 provides the necessary basis for establishing the APF. Page 6 of 49
‣ Areas for further study and questioning were identified and presented in the Draft Inception Note; ‣ Detailed questions were refined, stakeholder groups identified, potential interviewees identified and contacted; ‣ A Draft Inception Note was presented and discussed on 17 January 2011, amended and presented on 23 January 2011 and approved by the CGIS. b. Headquarters Phase 10 The team consulted key documentation and human sources in Brussels: ‣ Examination of European Commission strategy documents and evaluations relating to selected countries/regions and procedures covered by the APF; ‣ Examination of African Union strategy documents and evaluations relating to selected countries/regions covered by the APF; ‣ Examination of funding agreements, income and expenditure and comparison with planning; ‣ Extraction of detailed procedures from documents concerning interventions under the APF; ‣ Detailed examination of procedures for request, selection, approval, implementation; ‣ Detailed examination of procedures for procurement, financial management, and audit; ‣ Examination of intervention-specific documents concerning APF; ‣ Analysis of the origins of procedures, and the nature of checks and balances; ‣ Analysis of oversight procedures, of how responsibility and authority function in the system; ‣ Interviews with EU Commission HQ staff in charge of the APF and related country desks; ‣ Interviews with Council staff; ‣ Interviews with officials of a few selected EU MS working on APF; ‣ Interviews with officials of a few selected African missions in Brussels; ‣ Interviews with selected CSOs and academics informed about APF functioning and procedures; ‣ Interviews with UN officials in New York and Africa; c. Field Phase 11 African visits in February 2011 were mandated to: ‣ 1- AU and EU offices in Addis Ababa (Mr Leon Kukkuk) and ‣ 2- ECCAS and EU offices in Libreville (Mr Eduardo Trillo). Each field visit included: ‣ Interviews with AU/REC officials; ‣ Interviews with local EU officials in office; ‣ Interviews with local and/or regional civil society specialists; ‣ Extracting procedures from documents concerning interventions under the APF; ‣ Analysis of the origins of procedures, and the nature of checks and balances; ‣ Analysis of oversight procedures and how responsibility and authority function in the system; ‣ Detailed examination of PSO request, selection and approval procedures; ‣ Detailed examination of APF intervention, management and control procedures; ‣ Detailed examination of mediation missions request, selection, approval procedures; ‣ Examination of the way in which other EU instruments are considered and used before APF is called in or used to create synergy with APF; ‣ Each field visit resulted in a debriefing in the African capital by the consultant. 10 For details see Annex 4 11 For details see Annex 4 Page 7 of 49
Page 1 and 2: THE EUROPEAN UNION’S EDF PROGRAMM
Page 3 and 4: Contents Executive Summary.........
Page 5 and 6: EASBRIG East African Standby Brigad
Page 7 and 8: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY EU foreign policy
Page 9 and 10: The principle of subsidiarity shoul
Page 11: econstruction, relevant capacities
Page 15 and 16: II. GENERAL APPRAISAL OF THE APF II
Page 17 and 18: Item in the APF budget 16 Amount an
Page 19 and 20: AU, the relative limited focus on t
Page 21 and 22: European Parliament and NGOs contin
Page 23 and 24: It is argued by the military bias s
Page 25 and 26: III. MAIN FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATI
Page 27 and 28: 3) “Political appropriateness”
Page 29 and 30: ‣ EEAS, because APF finances peac
Page 31 and 32: The need to respond quickly to peac
Page 33 and 34: APF MANAGEMENT AND ACCOUNTING In 20
Page 35 and 36: Second, the main APF programmes (on
Page 37 and 38: aiming at allowing a fast and effec
Page 39 and 40: mechanism, EDF has its own decision
Page 41 and 42: The costs covered by ATHENA include
Page 43 and 44: RECs that might not qualify or for
Page 45 and 46: IV. MAIN FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIO
Page 47 and 48: At first sight, the Instrument for
Page 49 and 50: In the short term, this evaluation
Page 51 and 52: The evaluation recommends earmarks
Page 53 and 54: Lack of Synergy between RECs and th
Page 55: IV.4.4 AFRICAN P&S FUNDING POLICIES

part 1 of the african peace facility evaluation - European ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?