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

mechanism, EDF has its own decision-making procedures, which exclude intervention of the
European Parliament and ensures that EU member states have more direct influence over the use of
resources than with the regular EU budget.
The current APF legal framework will be in force until 2013 when the 10 th EDF ends - although
Cotonou continues until 2020. The EDF might be integrated into the EU budget. APF might be left out
of this framework and a decision will be taken on whether the APF can be managed through the
Commission and/or through the European External Action Service. The changed legal framework of
the Lisbon Treaty means that new procedures and internal EU task division is required if the EDF is
budgeted. Therefore, it is important to observe what procedural characteristics from other EU financial
instruments might be incorporated into the APF legal framework. New procedures should naturally
improve and shorten the current APF decision-making procedures. Moreover, if more relevant
procedures are available within other EU instruments, the latter could also be applied to the future
APF even if the EDF is not budgeted.
INSTRUMENT FOR STABILITY
IfS can provide inter alia technical and financial assistance to support efforts by international and
regional organisations to promote confidence building, mediation, dialogue and reconciliation in
response to situations of crisis or emerging crisis. In stable conditions for cooperation, IfS can also
provide technical and financial assistance, pre- and post-conflict long-term capacity building support
for international and regional organisations, to help promoting early warning and mediation. These
latter measures may include know-how transfer, exchange of information, risk/threat assessment,
research and analysis, early warning systems and training. In this sense, we could say that IfS might
fund certain activities now being funded by APF under ERM. However, IfS cannot finance military
operations, even if they have a peacekeeping purpose, as this would contradict EU Treaties on the
competence of the Commission.
IfS intervenes with ‘exceptional assistance measures’ and ‘interim response programmes’ adopted
following the general EC decision-making procedures (inter-service consultation, College of
Commissioners). However, contrary to what is required for APF, the Commission does not ‘request’
the approval of the PSC, it simply informs the PSC of the measures they are planning to take, and
have 48 hours to object. Nevertheless, the Commission meets with the PSC once a month to discuss
the measures they are planning. Two days before the meeting they send PSC a note (‘IfS monthly
note’) outlining the content of these measures (a very broad outline, roughly 3 or 4 paragraphs per
measure). This note is discussed during the PSC meeting. If the measure costs more than €20m, a
special Council committee must be consulted, made up of EU MS representatives. 46 A negative
opinion obliges the Commission to delay adoption for up to three months. IfS managers say they have
reduced the burden of ‘comitology’ from 12 months to two months in the best conditions, although they
can send mediation missions in a matter of days using a pre-approved Standing Facility (the Georgia
Observer Mission was on the ground within 3 weeks). An average of 2 months is necessary, more or
less the same as for the quickest APF decisions.
IfS only intervene when other instruments are not available. The EC officers in charge have to
constantly assess the international situation and carry out programme identification in cooperation with
EU delegations.
In theory, even if Member states disagreed with IfS measures, the Commission could still go ahead
with them. In practice, if a proposal raises concerns amongst MS, the Commission takes a second
look. This only happened once, out of a total of some 140 measures proposed to date, because a lot
of political coordination takes place upstream, both with PSC Delegations and with MS embassies in
the country concerned. IfS is normally pretty sure when proposing a particular measure, that it will not
raise difficulties in the PSC.
46 EU Member States representatives have 48 hours to oppose.
Page 33 of 49