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

In the short term, this evaluation recommends the creation of a ‘common funding basket’ led by the
AU and supported by the EU. The procedures for such an institution could initially follow the model of
a UN Trust Fund, since the AU has not yet proved that is has the capacity to manage such a ‘funding
basket’. These various initiatives are considered something of ‘a moving target’ based on a shopping
list of possibilities; they are discussed in more detail in Annex 3.8.
Agreement for a working group about a new Peace Facility
16. Partners agreed that the ongoing dialogue between the AU and partners on all aspects of
achieving sustainable funding for AU peacekeeping operations should be intensified, including
effective follow-up to the conclusions reached during the May 2007 Consultation on the
establishment of an AU-G8++ Working Group to look into the possibility of the establishment of a
Peace Facility Complementary to APF.
Annual Consultation between the AU - Regional Economic Communities, Regional Mechanisms for
Conflict Prevention, Management and Resolution, the G8 Member Countries, and other Partners,
Addis Ababa, 13 June 2008.
SUPPLEMENTARY UN FUNDING
UN funding for APSA remains a long-term option in terms of UN DPKO funds. The APF has emerged
as the specific long-term partner of APSA, which is a very different ambition from merely ‘running
peace keeping operations’. The JAES and the choice of APF to support and build APSA follows a
long-term strategic vision that was shared by Commissioners Poul Nielson and Said Djinnit for the AU
Peace and Security Architecture. This vision has suffered to some extent from the rising cost and
management demands of PSOs. It could perhaps be argued that APF procedures have created a
demand for PSOs at the expense of the long-term vision of APF to build lasting, pan-African
institutions. In this perspective, UN funding is not an alternative to EU’s commitment to African
development expressed in the JAES. UN ideas for funding were discussed by the Prodi Panel - see
Annex 3.9.
An African CSO perspective on the APF
Current PSOs deal more with the symptoms of African conflict than with their causes.
There is a feeling in Africa, expressed most forcefully by representatives of CSOs interviewed, that the
international community and the UN are sidestepping their responsibilities with regard to P&S by asking the
AU to handle the continent’s most difficult conflicts.
Many cases of peacekeeping in Africa would more appropriately be dealt with by the UN. Instead, ‘African
Ownership’ is raised as a reason for leaving them to the AU which does not yet have the necessary
capacities. Peace and security in Africa are important for European security as well as for Africa, while
human security doctrine places an obligation on the international community to intervene. PSOs should
therefore be seen as an international public good.
APF was originally created on the precept that the UN would run PSOs, with the AU gradually taking over
once the “heavy lifting had been done” and conditions had stabilised. Darfur showed that AU troops can be
deployed quickly and more cheaply, and the philosophy inverted.
There are a number of possible patterns where EU budgets could intervene – or where it could
possibly intervene if the regulations currently in force were modified. EU MS have the power to
change any or all of these instruments and budgets – or to create new ones - if they so decide. The
following table presents a brief assessment of the current position.
Page 43 of 49