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

The need to respond quickly to peace and security challenges has forced APF officials in DEVCO to
find solutions to make up for lengthy decision-making procedures: retroactivity and the reallocation of
funds from previous APF actions have been introduced with this objective, in line with the legal rules
(article 19) of the Cotonou Agreement.
PRACTICE
In principle, APF regulations have a relatively flexible approach, as they do not impose the use of
specific implementation modalities. The EC has to decide which aid modality is more suitable for APF
action, taking into account the situation within AU/RECS. In a sense, the most realistic process would
have been for all APF funding to be transferred to AU/RECs through Grant Agreements, until these
institutions were ready from an operational/financial/management perspective. However, it seems that
the political willingness to promote African ownership led the Commission not to insist on the need for
these organisations to prove that they could meet minimum conditions regarding sound administration
for implementing Contribution Agreements. This dynamic interpretation and the corresponding
integrated approach to capacity development are part of the Commission’s overall approach to
development, including the use of EU budget support in developing countries. This approach is
commended by the evaluation, as it would otherwise be difficult for African countries and organisations
to ever build a sustainable capacity to deal with peace and security. That said, it is very important that
the Commission fully understands and appreciates the risks involved and that appropriate risk
management strategies are used including risk aversion measures such as targeted capacity building,
oversight and political dialogue.
Audits soon started to prove problematic, and DEVCO was laudably creative in finding solutions to
keep the APF on track, without damaging expectations already created among AU and RECs
concerning their ownerships. Progress has been made by the AUC in improving its internal controls
and procedures; the 4-pillar standard may well be accorded in 2011. The same may not be true for
every REC except COMESA. Without the active intervention of EU delegations, it seems very difficult
for APF in Brussels to effectively support the RECs. So at least the monitoring of specific REC
components (not PSOs) could be better managed by EU Delegations who have the necessary
expertise.
APF regulations demand that ‘joint lessons learned exercises on APF implementation be held
systematically’ 42 , so that outcomes can be discussed in relevant fora, in particular at the APF Joint
Coordination Committee; and recommendations followed. However, since 2007 in Djibouti, such an
exercise has never taken place. According to DEVCO C5 in Brussels, this issue has been extensively
discussed in every capacity-building APF steering committee meeting. This is regrettable: these formal
exercises provide a good opportunity to discuss the problems related to APF implementation more
deeply and in a more detailed manner. Instead, DEVCO has to deal with problems on a case-by-case
basis.
BUDGETS AND THEIR AMENDMENT
Requests by AU/RECs to transfer a certain amount between budget headings may be acceptable,
provided they do not request new activities. DEVCO analyses whether these requests are coherent,
feasible and acceptable. If accepted, an addendum to the contract (grant or contribution agreement)
is established and signed by both parties. As long as the modifications requested by the AU/RECs are
non substantial, there is no intervention from the political side - the Council (AWG/PSC) - as the
change in the contract does not affect the supporting EC decision: it is just an operational issue and
shows good flexibility in EDF/APF. These “riders” were used for AMISOM on several occasions to
42 Three-year Action Programme for APF 2008-2010 (10th EDF), point 6.5 on lessons learned.
Page 25 of 49