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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

IV.3 SUMMARY OF THE ANALYSIS OF SELECTED EU FUNDING MECHANISMS AND COMPATIBILITY WITH APF APF support to PSOs could come from here APF support to APSA could come from here Complementary funding for AU/APSA EDF (inside which is APF) Yes Yes Peace-building support /synergy Eur. Neighbourhood & Partnership Instr. (ENPI) No (possibly in North Africa) Yes (only North Africa) Development Cooperation Instrument DCI (formerly DCEC) No Yes Yes Instrument for Stability No Yes – SSR, support to AU peace building and mediation [ERM could be shifted here] Yes Common foreign and security policy budget No Yes Yes Athena mechanism of CFSP Possibly Possibly No CSDP of CFSP Possibly Possibly Possibly Other (humanitarian aid, macro-financial assistance No Possibly Possibly AU Co-Funding Yes Yes Yes – from AU MS New special instrument for voluntary EU MS contributions Yes Yes Possibly UN funding for AU PSOs No No Yes IV.4 RECOMMENDATIONS On balance – and it is only after careful consideration of the pros and cons of EU instruments, politics and laws, the evaluation sees greater advantage for APF to work towards improving the status quo inside EDF rather than undertaking major changes. It seems that APF can yield greater benefit from inside the EDF, provided that the procedures can be streamlined to strengthen APSA as a whole. EDF offers wider opportunities for African leadership and synergistic development of peace and security – and other JAES partnerships – than the alternative scenarios. IV.4.1 FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS IN A POLITICAL CONTEXT The evaluation is sympathetic to arguments supporting the ‘development-security nexus’ and recommends that the APF continue to be funded under the EDF. The evaluation recommends that APF redefine its role and procedures, to define itself as the principal funding partner of APSA in all its components. Significant pillars of APSA may not have received adequate attention. Page 44 of 49
The evaluation recommends earmarks for each APSA pillar, as a more even procedural and financial balance is needed to develop AU policy and protect the component parts of APSA: allocating greater resources to the AU’s early-warning-early-intervention, mediation and conflict management tools. Entry strategies should be rethought and redesigned, to ease and lower the price of exit strategy negotiations. Locating the APF within the 10 th EDF (to 2013) with possible funding sources EU (EDF) AU EU MS Voluntary Contributions Military Equipment Support to PSOs Public Information Streamlined Procedures AU MS Voluntary Contributions Military Equipment Support to PSOs Liaison Offices APF Support from AU Pillars: CB, CDSP, Governance, Gender, Institutional Strengthening, Capacity Development, Panel of the Wise, CEWS, Mediation Unit NIPs/RIPs ASF Mediation Liaison Offices Centre of Excellence UN MS Voluntary Contributions Military Equipment Support to PSOs UN Figure 2 IV.4.2 SHORT-TERM OPTIONS FOR APF FUNDING The evaluation perceives three ways in which – under the current funding regime - the APF’s funding structures could be adjusted to ensure that the Overall and Specific Objectives of APF are better achieved, drawing greater efficiency of the EU’s funding instruments, getting the best value-for-money from APF resources and promoting synergy with EU MS: Redefining the roles of NIP, RIP and APF to ensure minimal overlap and maximum complementarity. More than one of the interviewed EU MS representatives raised concerns about the overall delivery and results of the APF that might be impeded because most of the programme design and fund disbursement in Brussels. Most of the APF programmes are also centrally managed; implementation responsibilities should be decentralised to EU Delegations for all non-PSO components of the APF. A number of P&S issues, such as piracy, terrorism, transnational organised crime and drug trafficking where dynamics are very specific to certain regions are perhaps best dealt with by the RECs. Not all RECs have strong P&S pillars and SADC for example only accepts EU funding for its peace and security actions, through the African Union. Nevertheless, better co-ordination between RECs and the AU is desirable, with the EU funding requests from these institutions to the RIPs or NIPs. Annual Steering Committee Meetings attended by AU/RECs/EU should be used to define respective responsibilities and determine funding needs. Additionally, there may be merit in having bi-annual meetings, to better follow the Page 45 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 and 12: econstruction, relevant capacities
Page 13 and 14: ‣ Areas for further study and que
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: In the short term, this evaluation
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?