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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Main Features 1st APF (9th EDF) 2 nd APF (10th EDF) Scope PSOs and relevant capacity Africa-EU dialogue on P&S Conflict management incl. mediation Conflict prevention incl. EWS, Funding PSOs (and prevention) Operationalisation APSA Post-conflict stabilisation Beneficiaries AU and sub-regional orgs AU and sub-regional organisations Relevant institutions & national structures related to APSA CSOs Allocation Nearly €440m over 4-5 years including AVCs 3 €300m for 3 years without AVCs further €300m earmarked in the Intra- ACP reserve for 2011-2013 Flexibility Decision-making process 2-3 months More flexible, with an urgent procedure ERM can be mobilised almost immediately Co-financing NIPs –% African co-financing AVCs – first case of co-financing by EU MS under 9th EDF AVCs become permanent feature of APF Open to contributions from other non-EU countries or donors The undoubted APF political success does not ensure its efficiency and effectiveness, and EDF procedures are sometimes criticised for being inappropriate when dealing with PSO and early response. The creation of ERM has increased flexibility, although its scope is very limited (6-month mediation or planning missions), nevertheless, in practice, APF procedures generally work faster than many EU instruments. APF funding needs to be better targeted - possibly by using more specific earmarks for each component - to ensure that Africa’s early warning, mediation and conflict management processes are able to take over a progressively stronger role in promoting peace and security. Despite its impressive record in funding PSOs, the APF might be more effective - and less controversial among EU and AU MS and CSOs - if its procedures and funding had allowed for a more complete development of the full range of APSA’s ambitions. This also entails APF funding beyond the AUC and REC secretariats. A comprehensive approach to APSA must include a broadening of the implementing entities and include civil society, specialised entities, research institutes and, in a limited number of cases, AU member states. After careful analysis of the procedural and funding options (many of which contain legal obstacles caused by the EC general procedures, the military nature of PSOs or the fact that they are African-led actions), the evaluation sees several ways in which the APF’s procedural and funding structures could be adjusted under the 10 th EDF to ensure greater efficiency between EU funding instruments and get the best value-for-money from APF resources and promote synergies with EU MS: The best for APF would be to continue to be funded under the EDF with procedural modifications inspired by IfS and ECHO to make it more flexible and effective. The EU should reinforce the promotion of joint management and sound administration within the AU and RECs in order to better fulfil the objectives of JAES. 3 Additional voluntary contributions of nearly €40m came from 8 EU MS Page 2 of 49
The principle of subsidiarity should be applied at all management levels within the EU-AU- RECs structure regarding APF activities. Re-defining the roles of NIP, RIP and APF to ensure maximum complementarity and no overlapping in EU actions on peace and security in Africa. Reintroducing the ‘slicing mechanism’ (used in 1st APF) to bring funds to the APF from each NIP to increase both total available funding and African MS ownership. RIPs should take responsibility for funding RECs (except for PSOs) on peace and security activities. RIPs already include this possibility and some are currently funding complementary APF actions. One important element is to create the necessary flexibility within RIP implementing modalities to allow for high-impact support. Re-establishing a balance between the parts of APSA with specifically targeted resources for early-warning-early-intervention, Panel of the Wise and other conflict management functions which could reduce the need to fund conflict-prevention PSOs. Widening the potential range of beneficiaries beyond a narrow focus on AU and REC bureaucracies including civil society, specialised entities, research institutes and possibly AU member states dealing with relevant cross-border issues. Expanding the range of management models, implementation modalities and possibly operating smaller, targeted projects to complement the major support programmes. Page 3 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: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY EU foreign policy
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 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?