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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

In that case, one possible alternative funding solution for the APF would be the CFSP - the only budget with ‘military support’ possibilities - with additional complementary funding from DCI for the non-PSO and non-ASF parts of APSA. Nevertheless, under the CFSP as currently constituted, Africaled operations appear problematic and current CFSP procedures seem unlikely to support the EU’s African policy based on JAES partnerships and increasing African ownership. If the EDF were to be absorbed under the EU budget, the APF could only fit into the CFSP, but this would be tricky, even with complementary funding from DCI. For the APF to successfully fit into the CFSP, while maintaining the JAES partnership strategy and respecting the Paris Declaration of 2005 and the Accra Agenda, would require the Council to adjust the mandate and tools the CFSP. The European Council is a core institution for the CFSP, given that it defines its «principles and general guidelines». Under the Amsterdam, Maastricht and Lisbon Treaties, the Council plays the guiding role. The European Council adopts strategy documents such as the European security strategy. The Council uses different planning processes than the Commission, which makes coordination difficult. The Council would have to carefully consider in what way CFSP regulations should be changed in order to accommodate the needs of APF and APSA, in line with the objectives of EU foreign policy and the JAES. Moreover there are financial constraints on the current EU budget, which may not increase by more than 4% per year. This limit may hamper the inclusion of such a large fund as the APF into the budget, at least all at once. This might very well lead the Commission, the Council and EU MS to reach a very different conclusion on the destiny of APF. For this and other reasons, EU MS could decide that APF should be made a separate Instrument, to be implemented by the EC. A new financial instrument with its own procedures, following the precedent created by the Athena Decision, could take into account the requirements on African ownership and African led PSOs as established in APSA. The DCI, EDF, CFSP budget, and APF would then be separate. That would require a Council Decision, but is definitely an option to be considered for implementing the EU’s Africa foreign policy and the JAES that is currently built around the construction of long-term pan-African institutions (AU, RECs). Whatever the main EU instrumental and budgetary decisions, the opportunity for AU co-funding of APSA appears to bear no disadvantages. The African Peace Fund may grow and may even be incorporated into an African owned APF or – in the long term – APF might merge into the Peace Fund. The EU should study ways to advance these long-term perspectives. The ongoing EU-AU political dialogue is the forum for these ideas to be explored by the JCC. At this stage, the option of UN funding - following the ideas of the Prodi Panel – appears to offer much less sustainable funding than the APF, but entails no apparent political disadvantages. A new discussion paper is expected from the Secretary General in the course of 2011, focusing on ‘comparative advantage and collective security’ in making and maintaining peace in Africa. Following the publication of this paper, EU and AU MS will have a chance to discuss the mechanisms both for implementing and funding African PSOs and the various elements of APSA. Ensuring reliable funding for the African Peace Fund or – if that is the political decision – merging different existing and potential funds, create alternative possibilities for the EU to support the AU. The African Peace Fund and APF could be combined. It may ensure that African countries make a sincere effort in a critical area to development, and tentative political discussions in this sense should be engaged. Page 48 of 49
IV.4.4 AFRICAN P&S FUNDING POLICIES AND IMPLEMENTATION Funding can distort priorities. In certain areas, EU Africa policy needs to be clarified for the EU policy in Africa has sometimes been funding-led and instrument-led. AU also needs to be clearer in terms of purpose, and AU MS should more clearly express their political will. The demand-driven aspects of AU need to be corrected, so that strong negotiation can take place with funders when partners identify their general areas of interest. The evaluation team endorse the following proposals from the APSA Road Map (Dec 2010), which will offer APF new opportunities for flexibility and enhanced fund allocation to develop regional actions: the EU should allow APSA related funding to be implemented through the existing procedures for interventions in crisis situations. The governance of EU support needs to be upgraded to ensure that it manages the strategic and political aspects and decide on specific priorities funded through the APF and other EU financial instruments (EDF, RIP and IfS). This requires two changes: ‣ First, a more politically oriented EU-AUC/REC (APF) Steering Committee and ‣ Second, a financial facility containing funds for short-term initiatives that help operationalise APSA. The EU could create a financial facility to finance specific, high profile and incentive-based initiatives jointly agreed by the EU, AUC and RECs. Such initiatives should ideally be based on specific requests from African member states and implemented by the AUC or REC/RMs as services, goods, works and supplies. Such specific initiatives need to add value to APSA, be of cross-border nature and ideally encourage active involvement of African countries in regional or continental peace building. Page 49 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 and 50: In the short term, this evaluation
Page 51 and 52: The evaluation recommends earmarks
Page 53: Lack of Synergy between RECs and th
show all

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?