Brussels, 28/11/2001 (Agence Europe) - The Commission adopted a Communication on Wednesday in which it proposes improving the procedures for funding civilian crisis management under the CFSP (common foreign and security policy) (see EUROPE of 28 November, p.14 and 19/20 November, p.10). The Commission aims to get round the financial constraints and procedural obstacles to CFSP operations by establishing a new flexibility instrument for funding civilian crisis interventions and facilitating recourse to the current emergency reserve. In parallel an interinstitutional agreement will be signed with the Budgetary Authority.
The Commission is also proposing to inform the discussion on the current CFSP and CSDP (common foreign and defence policy) instruments by listing the three categories of crisis management operations that can be financed by the EU: 1) operations carried out in the framework of a Community instrument under the first pillar (mine-sweeping, emergency civilian aid, civil protection aid, human rights, strengthening institutions, election observation missions, food aid, rebuilding infrastructure and economic aid): 2) CFSP operations without any military or defence implications that are funded from the CFSP budget line (the Council decides on common action and the budget, while the Commission makes commitments, signs contracts and releases funds); and 3) CFSP operations with military or defence implications that do not come under the EU budget (like the deployment of the Rapid Reaction Force). The Commission concludes that the budgetary procedures applying to CFSP operations are too cumbersome and that the CFSP budget would be insufficient if the EU were to decide to extend, for example, the surveillance mission in the Balkans or to launch a huge police operation.
The Commission also seems to be sending a political message to the Council since by proposing use of a new crisis flexibility instrument (which makes it possible to mobilise funds even when there is no budget latitude left and, more importantly, without having to change the Financial Perspectives, Ed) in the framework of the habitual Community budget, the Commission is attempting to "counter" the option currently being examined by the Council (which has the support of a range of Member States) of funding civilian CFSP operations in a crisis situation through a new ad hoc fund making recourse to funding from the Member States. While the Commission notes that the latter option may appear "attractive", it raises a number of questions - the Treaty does not cover the issue of how such a fund would be managed and controlled (unless it were managed by the Commission, like the European Development Fund); it would crease a gulf between the first and second pillars and could therefore damage the coherency of the EU's external actions; the lack of parliamentary control would raise serious doubts concerning the obligation to be accountable for the breakdown of responsibility between the two branches of the Budgetary Authority; and an ad hoc fund outside the regular budget might be seen as a way of getting round the normal budget procedures. The Commission wants to demonstrate even if the funding of such operations from the existing budget procedure has been over-bureaucratic in the past, the Community's budget remains the best way to fund operations because it is the best way of ensuring good governance and transparency and the coherence of the EU's actions under both the CFSP and the Community itself.