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

The costs covered by ATHENA include the maintenance of the operational headquarters,
investments in the infrastructure made to support the operation, medical services, as well as
‘Nation Borne Costs’ which include lodging, fuel, and similar expenses linked to the
mobilisation of national contingents. All the other costs related to deployed personnel
(allowances, salaries...) are borne individually by the State contributing to the operation in
question. ATHENA does not intervene in the way each contributing State manages its
operational costs. Nevertheless, the Special Committee may decide that the administrative
management of certain expenditures, while remaining the responsibility of the Member State
concerned, should be entrusted to ATHENA;
ATHENA has shown flexibility, in that the mechanism has evolved over time: originally medical
costs, transport etc. were not covered;
ATHENA has been designed to become a very flexible, effective and efficient instrument for
military operations in the field. It has the necessary legal identity to hold a bank account or
property, to sign contracts and to be a party to legal proceedings. It is not profit making. Any
payment from ATHENA´s account only requires the joint signatures of the administrator and
the accounting officer;
Any joint action by which the Council decides that the EU will conduct a military operation, and
any joint action or decision by which the Council decides to extend a EU operation, shall
contain a reference amount for the common costs of this operation. The administrator shall
evaluate this amount for the planned period – meaning that budgets are determined annually,
which is not a definition of long-term ‘predictable funding’ as compared to the current
objectives of the APF;
ATHENA allows the EU MS to conclude ad hoc administrative arrangements with third States
indicated by the Council as potential contributors to a specific EU operation, or as contributors
to EU operations in general.
This financial mechanism was established for military operations, inspired by NATO procedures, for
European-led PSOs. Because of these features, ATHENA might be an inspiration to make APF a
more effective and faster instrument to support PSOs. APF financial decisions might be taken more
quickly. However, for Athena to serve as an operational model in Africa, substantial modifications
would be needed to the original Decision. It should be also recalled that the APF has a limited budget
for PSOs and that an “Athena-Africa” mechanism might be needed to replace APF PSO support, when
or if, funding runs out. That said, it is questionable whether the EU member states have the political
and financial interest to create such an additional mechanism.
An oversight committee could be created for Athena-Africa (or Athena-APF), made up of AU/RECs
together with the EU and which would respect principles of African ownership and Africa-EU
partnership. However, these changes would not solve one of the main problems for APF: the fact that
most African armies lack sound administrative management systems. When efficient management
systems must interact with other inefficient management systems, the interaction becomes inefficient.
b. Differentiate between the various APF Components:
The EU should separate the three APF components: PSOs, capacity building and ERM, to set up the
best decision-making procedures for each of them.
IFS INFORMATION PROCEDURE
In case the Commission retains its competence on APF, the evaluation recommends introducing the
IfS information procedure using written information notes from DEVCO to inform the PSC in Brussels
and just give MS 48 hours to object, but without requiring written approval or any formal meeting of
Council committees or groups. This procedure is particularly relevant for the non-PSO funding of the
APF.
Page 35 of 49