European Parliament - SEDEBrussels 21.01.15

FINANCING CSDPOPERATIONS & MISSIONS

Fabien TERPAN

Sciences po Grenoble - Jean Monnet Chair

Guest Professor at the College of Europe

Deputy Director Centre d’étudesde la sécurité internationale et des coopérations européennes

1. Financing CSDP Operations and Missions:A Fragmented and Flexible Structure

Balance between national and collective financing:

Athena:

• a permanent mechanism that finances a list of commoncosts through national contributions based on the GNI ofthe Member States

• covers the incremental costs for headquarters, certaininfrastructure works, medical services, and satelliteimages during the active phase of an operation.

• may also covers, if the Council so decides, transport to andfrom the theatre of operations for deployment.

• The costs that have not been defined as ‘common’ areborne by the Member States individually.

List of common costs: annexes I, II, III and IV of the Councildecision 2011/871/CFSP

2. Main problems identified

1°) Lack of effectiveness• Limited resources available for CSDP operations and

missions• Difficulty in facing the challenge of rapid reaction• Difficulty in achieving external coherence

2°) Lack of democratic control & transparency

3°) Lack of solidarity

1°) Lack of effectiveness

• Limited resources available for CSDP operations

Budgetary constraintCFSP: 406 million euros – 314 million euros

After the decision to launch a new operation has been made,several problems remain:- The generation of forces is slow- The MS hesitate to contribute- Athena finances a limited amount of costs- Financial reserves for the funding of common costs are

gone fast

The MS are reluctant to launch new operations, especiallyexpensive ones

Ongoingmissions andoperationsOctober 2014

Source:http://www.eeas.europa.eu/csdp/missions-and-operations/

• Difficulty in facing the challenge of rapid reaction

Slow decision-makingNational contributions are slow to come

in spite of:- Immediate financing for civilian operations- early financing facility for military operations

(Athena)

• Difficulty in achieving external coherence

External coherence:- Required by the treaties- In line with the ‘comprehensive approach’ political

objective

Civilian operations - financed in a rather fuzzy way:- CFSP lines of the budget, non CFSP lines, non budget

financing, national contributions- A source of flexibility – but also a source of complexity and

inter-institutional turf wars

This problem is even more important when the operationcombines civil and military dimensions (as the funding mayalso come from Athena and the Member States)

2°) Democratic control and transparency

Civilian missions:• under Parliament’s scrutiny• a certain lack of transparency (lack of clarity in the way the

operations are charged on the budget)

Military operations:• No parliamentary control of Athena at EU level• The information given to the Parliament depends on the good

will of the Council

3°) Lack of solidarity (in the case military operations)

The MS have neither an obligation to participate in the operations,nor an obligation to contribute to Athena (withdrawal is allowed).They are not always (often) willing to do so.

Participating states:• For these MS: The higher the number of operations, the more

the cost of participating in CSDP• Ask for burden-sharing• See non-participating states as ‘free riders’• In parallel, some third states do participate

Non-participating states:• Do not want to pay for operations they do not necessarily see

as crucial• Do not want to bear the cost for the political ambitions of a

few Member States

3. Possible scenarios for the futureof the financing mechanisms

1°) Status Quo

2°) Mainstreaming ATHENAAll CSDP operations and missions financed through Athena

3°) Strengthening ATHENAEnlarging the list of common costs

4°) Budgetization of CSDP operationsAll CSDP operations and missions are charged on EU budgetlines

1°) Status Quo

• Is it possible?- Not if the EU is to face the challenges of international

security- However, to put an end to the status quo, there must a

change in the positions of the actors

2°) Mainstreaming ATHENA

• How?- Transfer from EU budget lines to Athena (de-

budgetization)- All military costs charged on Athena

EU Budget (CFSP lines)

Athena

National contributions to military operations

• Is it possible?- In 2014: some MS tried to use funds coming from the EU budget

to contribute to Athena

• High costs, low benefits?- Coherence within CFSP / No coherence between CFSP and other

external instruments- Does not contribute to an ever closer Union- Problems both in terms of effectiveness and democracy- A treaty revision is needed

3°) Strengthening ATHENA

• How?- Enlargement of the list of common costs

(starting with transport)

EU Budget (CFSP lines)−

Athena

National contributions to military operations

• Is it possible?- Yes, if the MS take into account the operational needs of

CSDP- But still controversial (the review of the Athena decision

remains blocked)

• Benefits:- In terms of rapid reaction and solidarity

• Costs:- Given that all the costs for military operations are not put

on the Athena budget, decisions upon nationalcontributions will remain difficult The creation of a start-up fund (art. 41-3 TEU) could

help solve this problem- Coherence is not improved (unless strengthening Athena is

a first step towards budgetization)- No parliamentary scrutiny (unless it is decided that Athena

is controled by the Parliament)

4°) Budgetization of all CSDP operations

• How?- A progressive evolution? Partial budgetization of Athéna (expenditures for the

battlegroups before their deployment) In the meantime, transfer from the MS to Athena

EU Budget (CFSP lines)

Athena

National contributions to military operations

• Is it possible ?- A first budgetization was decided in 1997 (Amsterdam treaty)- Consistent with the operational needs of CSDP as well as the

positions of supranational institutions)

• Benefits:- More coherence- A better democratic control- More solidarity

• Costs:- Rapid reaction is not secured – Decision-making may remain

slow Creation of a Shared Service Centre may help solve this

problem- The lack of resources- The EU treaty need to be revised

In addition to existing scenarios, flexible participationcould be formalized:

• Not a distinct scenario / solutions that can be combined withscenarios 2, 3 & 4

• Art. 44-1 TEU: implementation of a task to a group of MemberStates which are willing and have the necessary capability forsuch a task

- Does not improve solidarity- Could help launch new operations

• Art. 46 TEU – PesCo- Does not improve solidarity either- A more stable configuration

Conclusion

The evolution of financing mechanisms result from three interactingvariables:• National reluctance to engage in new operations and lose control of

decision making (especially in the military field)• Institutions (and some MS) pushing towards more integration• Operational needs

Strengthening CSDP operations requires more collective ways offinancing (Budget / Athena)A more collective financing mechanism could follow from:• Agreement between the Commission, the EEAS and the Parliament• Political will of the Member States.

Thank you !

Fabien TERPAN

fabien.terpan@iepg.fr

Sciences po Grenoble - Jean Monnet Chair

Guest Professor at the College of Europe

Deputy Director Centre d’étudesde la sécurité internationale et des coopérations européennes