2 European Security and Defence College
| (30713)
—
—
| Council Decision establishing a European Security and Defence College (ESDC) and repealing Joint Action 2008/550/CFSP.
|
| Legal base | Article 14 EU; unanimity
|
| Department | Foreign and Commonwealth Office
|
| Basis of consideration | EM of 23 June 2009
|
| Previous Committee Report | None; but see (29699) —: HC 16-xxiii (2007-08), chapter 20 (4 June 2008) and (26630) — HC 34-i (2005-06), chapter 49 (4 July 2005)
|
| Discussed in Council | Sometime in July 2009
|
| Committee's assessment | Politically important
|
| Committee's decision | Not cleared; further information requested
|
Background
2.1 The European Security and Defence College (ESDC) was originally
proposed by France, Germany, Luxembourg and Belgium at the so-called
"Chocolate" Summit at Tervuren in April 2003, to provide
training in what was described (in his 25 June 2005 Explanatory
Memorandum by the then Minister for Europe, Mr Douglas Alexander,
that accompanied the original Joint Action) as "the broad
range of political, institutional and operational issues which
are central to ESDP [the European Security and Defence Policy],
with the aim of promoting better understanding of ESDP amongst
the relevant Member State civilian and military personnel".
2.2 It has
— a
Steering Committee, comprising one representative from
each Member to, inter alia, establish the annual academic programme
of the ESDC, select the Member State institutes which will host
the ESDC activities, and agree the annual academic programme;
— an Executive Academic Board comprising
senior representatives of the institutes providing training each
academic year with a main role of implementing the agreed annual
academic programme through the ESDC network, developing curricula,
reviewing standards and preparing evaluation reports;
— an Administrative Secretariat
of up to three staff within the Council General Secretariat (CGS)
in Brussels and carrying out administrative support activities
in support of the Steering Committee and the Executive Academic
Board.
2.3 Member State institutions and the EU Institute
for Security Studies make up the training "network".
2.4 Member States that send personnel for training
in the ESDC bear the costs incurred. Member State institutions
providing training as part of the ESDC network cover the associated
organisational costs. The costs of the administrative secretariat
in the CGS are covered by either the existing CGS budget or by
those Member States that choose to second staff to work within
it.
2.5 The ESDC was to deliver two main courses:
— the
High-level Course, consisting of five week-long residential courses
held in five different Member State institutions, intended for
senior military and civilian personnel;
— the Orientation Course, a one-week course
to be held around three times a year, in Brussels, providing a
broad introduction to the ESDP for military and civilian personnel.
Previous consideration
2.6 The then Minister for Europe explained that the
UK was originally sceptical, but a pilot course demonstrated that
it would be "an effective means of delivering some of the
key elements of ESDP training". So the Government had "engaged
with the initiative to ensure that it is based on a proper assessment
of needs, and does not duplicate existing Member State training
provision", and "ensured that the ESDC will be established
as a "virtual network" of existing Member State training
institutions, rather than a new 'bricks and mortar' institution.
Apart from the small administrative secretariat within the Council
General Secretariat, there will be no common funding for the training
provision. Member States will bear their own costs for the funding
of their students".
2.7 On 18 July 2005, the Council adopted Joint Action
2005/575/CFSP establishing the European Security and Defence College.[5]
2.8 It was cleared by the then Committee at its first
meeting following the May 2005 General Election. In so doing,
the then Committee noted that it seemed as though the UK's success
in ensuring that the ESDC would be a "virtual network"
aiming to add value at minimal cost in order to improve the effectiveness
of an established policy had not been achieved without a struggle;
resistance had been necessary not only to proposals for common
funding but also to the proposal to give the ESDC a legal personality,
which would have undermined the concept of a "virtual"
ESDC. Although no legal or policy questions arose, our predecessors
felt that a short Report to the House was appropriate, to illustrate
the constant battle that had to be fought to restrain expenditure
on, and the institutionalisation of, activity which can clearly
be carried out effectively at much lower cost, and in order to
congratulate the Minister on the outcome.
Amendments to the 2005 Joint Action
2.9 In a helpful and informative Explanatory Memorandum
of 2 June 2008, the then Minister for Europe at the Foreign and
Commonwealth Office (Mr Jim Murphy) recalled that the 2005 Joint
Action required the Steering Committee to review implementation
of the Joint Action after two years and present a report to the
Council. He noted that their report acknowledged that, with the
EU's increasingly global role and the continuing development of
ESDP, there was an increasing demand for the training provided
by the ESDC, and accordingly made a number of recommendations
aimed at improving the running of the ESDC and broadening its
activities. He described the first recommendations as follows:
— "Consideration
should be given to expanding the range of courses available to
include the provision of training for specialists and/or on specific
areas of interest, e.g. regional issues (such as Africa, Balkan
issues), and high level seminars for high-ranking staff and decision
makers;
— "A number of practical steps should
be taken to improve the functioning of the secretariat of the
college. A 'Course Director' should be appointed to improve the
coherence and consistency of the High Level Course (made up of
5 week-long modules, each of which is organised and hosted by
a different Member State). And a Head of the ESDC should be appointed
in order to improve the visibility of the ESDC amongst Member
States;
— "Steps should be taken to ensure
the development of the internet-based ESDP Distance Learning System
is pursued with priority".
2.10 The Minister went on to explain that the Steering
Committee report also made other recommendations that required
further investigation, which included increasing the number of
Secretariat staff, securing a long-term solution for ensuring
adequate access to suitable conference facilities in Brussels,
and reviewing the current financing arrangements; and that the
Council had commissioned a study of these issues to report by
November 2008 with a view to further revising the Joint Action
as necessary.
2.11 In the meantime, the Minister explained that
in order to incorporate those findings of the report that did
not need such further investigation, the following revisions to
the original Joint Action had been proposed:
- Article 4.2, Tasks of the ESDC
— an additional type of training activity had been added
so that courses for specialised audiences or with specific focus
could be provided;
- Article 4.3 — various changes to broaden
the ESDC's role in improving the co-ordination of ESDP training
activities, including an annual networking conference and supporting
exchange programmes between Member States' training institutes
(should relevant individual Member States so wish);
- Article 4.4 — the ESDC to be conferred
with the legal capacity to sign contracts and hold a bank account
— this would facilitate development of the Internet-based
Distance Learning (IDL) system by enabling the college to sign
copyright agreements with and receive voluntary contributions
from those Member States who wished to participate in the project;
- Article 6, Steering Committee — this had
been expanded to better reflect the range of activities/tasks
the committee is engaged in fulfilling its remit;
- Article 7, Executive Academic Board — this
had also been expanded to better reflect the board's range of
activities/tasks;
- Article 8.3, The Secretariat — this addition
created within the Secretariat a function of Head of the ESDC
and Course Director for the High Level Course. It also mandated
the Secretariat to take a greater role in co-ordinating the ESDC
work and training programmes;
- Article 13, Review — in looking at the
longer term future of the ESDC, this set out the areas that the
review should address in drawing up its report for consideration
by the Council in November 2008.
2.12 The Minister reaffirmed the Government's support
of the work of the ESDC — "in particular its development
of an internet-based ESDP Distance Learning System" —
and the proposed changes to the Joint Action, as a series of practical
measures that would "allow the college to conduct a broader
range of training activities of use to Member States [and] …
improve the day-to-day management of the college's activities
without the need for major changes to its current organisation."
2.13 He noted that as the ESDC operated on a "costs
lie where they fall basis", the UK did not provide a regular
contribution to support the college's activities, but was nonetheless
"actively engaged in the college's activities", and
routinely sent officials on the ESDC's training courses, and had
provided expert speakers on a number of occasions and hosted a
module of the High Level Course.
2.14 The Minister also welcomed the further review
commissioned by the Council to report in November 2008, which
would "look into the long-term impact that developments in
ESDP will have on the college's future activities and what steps
will need to be undertaken to ensure that the college can continue
to meet Member States' requirements."
Our assessment
2.15 Although modest and sensible, and with no financial
implications, we considered the proposed changes warranted a Report
to the House for two reasons.
2.16 First, the story so far illustrated that the
Government's original approach was well-judged. Secondly, we felt
the temptation might arise, in the further consideration of some
of the more substantial issues raised in this review, to use another
review — that of the European Security Strategy —
to argue that "the long-term impact of developments in ESDP"
and the alleged difficulties of ensuring adequate access to suitable
conference facilities in Brussels to which the Minister referred
might now necessitate common funding and giving the ESDC "legal
personality". If so, we trusted that the Minister would resist
these or any other such suggestions with the same determination
as had his ante-predecessor.
2.17 We cleared the document, and looked forward
to scrutinising the outcome of the further consideration of the
review at the end of the year.[6]
2.18 Council Joint Action 2005/575/CFSP was replaced
by Council Joint Action 2008/550/CFSP of 23 June 2008 establishing
a European Security and Defence College.[7]
Further proposed amendments to Joint Action 2008/550/CFSP
2.19 In addition to his Explanatory Memorandum of
23 June 2009, the Minister of State at the Foreign and Commonwealth
Office (Ivan Lewis) encloses a copy of the study,[8]
and says that the French Presidency took up "a number of
these recommendations and proposed a number of changes",
including:
— housing
of the college in permanent accommodation;
— an increase in the number of Secretariat
staff; and
— a dedicated budget of up to €3.6m
per annum.
2.20 He continues as follows:
"Following extensive negotiations in Brussels,
the General Affairs and External Relations Council on 8 December
2008 endorsed a much more modest version of the Presidency proposals.
The Joint Action now needs to be amended for these proposals to
be implemented. The changes incorporated into the new Joint Action
include:
- "Article 1.2 Establishment
— inclusion of language to reflect the civilian and military
focus of the College, the need for the College to establish close
links with relevant EU agencies and reflecting the College's association
with the Commission.
- "Article 2 Legal Capacity — addition
of a new article providing the College legal capacity to fulfil
its tasks and realise its objectives.
- "Article 4 Objectives — inclusion
of language to ensure, where appropriate, ESDC consistency with
Community activities.
- "Article 5.3 Tasks of the ESDC — addition
of (e) supporting exchange programmes in the field of ESDP, based
on the Erasmus model (the UK will not be partaking in, or paying
for, this voluntary initiative), (g) supporting the management
of civilian crisis management training (viewed as a training priority
for the UK), and (h) organising and conducting an annual conference
on ESDP training.
- "Article 7.7 Steering Committee —
addition of (b) tasking the Steering committee with overall guidance
on the work of the Executive Academic Board and (h) making decisions
regarding the functioning of the ESDC and (i) formulating orientations
on the annual budget.
- "Article 8.5 The Executive Academic Board
— addition of (a) tasking the Executive Academic Board with
providing academic advice and recommendations to the Steering
Committee, and (h) ensuring systematic evaluation of all ESDC
training.
- "Article 10 The Head of the ESDC —
addition of a new article providing the Head of the ESDC responsibility
for the management and administration of the ESDC's work.
- "Article 11 Staff of the ESDC Secretariat
— addition of a new article providing that ESDC Secretariat
staff must be seconded from EU institutions, seconded by Member
States or otherwise recruited by the ESDC as necessary.
- "Article 12 Budget — addition of a
new article providing that the running of the ESDC and its particular
tasks will be financed from the general budget of the European
Communities. The budget is capped at EUR 3 310 000 for the four-year
period after the conclusion of a financing agreement between the
Commission and the ESDC.
- "Article 20 Entry into force and termination
— inclusion of an expiry date for the Joint Action of four
years after the date of the financing agreement."
The Government's view
2.21 The Minister comments further, as follows:
"The Government supports the work of the ESDC
— in particular its focus on both civilian and military
training — and its potential for further development along
UK policy lines, without duplicating or undermining NATO training
arrangements. The ESDC maintains strong support amongst Member
States and demand for ESDC courses continues to grow.
"In response to this, the French Presidency
put forward a proposal to expand the college's portfolio of courses,
house it in permanent accommodation in Brussels and increase the
number of Secretariat staff from 3 up to 17 at a cost of EUR 3.6m.
This received wide support across Member States.
"To ensure cost effectiveness and a better deal
for the UK and ESDP, the UK successfully negotiated a significantly
more modest deal which will still allow the college to conduct
a broader range of training activities of genuine use to Member
States and will improve the day-to-day management of the College.
This includes an expansion of the syllabus (including a new focus
of civilian training as supported by the UK), a greater oversight
role for the Head of the ESDC (which will allow improvement in
ESDC courses), the granting of legal entity to the college (which
will allow the ESDC to place a contract for an Internet Distance
Learning (IDL) package to assist training), a modest increase
in Secretariat staff from 3 to 8 (down from an initial Presidency
position of a total of 17) and a dedicated budget (for additional
staff costs, installing and running the IDL System, developing
and producing training materials, managing an Alumni Association
etc.) of EUR 850 000 for the first 12 months (down from an initial
Presidency proposal of EUR 3.6m per annum).
"We shared the European Scrutiny Committee's
concerns about the use of a sizable amount of the CFSP budget
to fund a large scale ESDC expansion, as originally proposed by
the Secretariat. The UK therefore negotiated down significantly
in the face of very strong opposition from the majority of Member
States. The final proposal will have a minimal impact on the budget
(0.3% of the overall budget total). The use of the shared budget
will allow the Committee to scrutinise the use of funds and will
not lead to increased costs to the UK as the CFSP budget is pre-agreed.
"The UK also ensured that the capped budget
agreed to under the deal is reflected in the Joint Action. This
will ensure that that the ESDC shared budget will be capped until
the Joint Action is renegotiated in four years time.
"The UK also initially shared the European Security
Committee's concerns over giving the College legal capacity. Giving
it the necessary legal capacity to fulfil its tasks and realise
its objectives will however be useful in practical ways. It will
enable the College to carry out its functions because it will
be able, for example, to enter into staff contracts, and contracts
for equipment such as IT equipment to install its Internet-Based
Advance Distance Learning System as supported by the UK and to
print teaching materials. It will also be able to open a bank
account.
"Giving the College the necessary legal capacity
will not mean that the College can increase the size of its
budget or act outside the scope of the powers given to it under
the Joint Action by the Member States."
Conclusion
2.22 We agree that the Minister and his predecessor
have done well in holding to the Government's original position,
that the ESDC should be a "virtual network" of existing
Member State training institutions, rather than a new "bricks
and mortar" institution — at least for a further four
years.
2.23 We are less pleased, however, that we have
heard nothing from any Foreign and Commonwealth Office Minister
concerning the recommendations emanating from the review, let
alone what line the Government proposed to take. Not only does
this ignore what we asked in our report of a year ago; it also
illustrates precisely the sort of "upstream" scrutiny
issue that we have discussed in extenso with the previous
Minister for Europe (as summarised in our recent Report on the
Council's annual report on CFSP to the European Parliament) —
which concluded with our saying that one of the things that the
Committee needs to do its job properly is not to be taken by surprise
when it is presented with a piece of draft legislation.[9]
We ask the Minister to explain how this happened, and what will
be done to ensure that it does not happen again.
2.24 We would also ask him to explain, if the
ESDC is to continue as a "network", why (under Article
2: Legal Capacity) one of the reasons given for its acquiring
a legal capacity is "to acquire equipment, including teaching
equipment" (our emphasis). Is this a stepping stone,
from teaching materials to hired class rooms to a new "bricks
and mortar" institution? Or is there a more innocent explanation?
2.25 In the meantime we shall retain the document
under scrutiny.
Annex 1: Council General Secretariat
Study of "The Future Perspectives of the European Security
and Defence College": Executive Summary
The European Security and Defence College has developed
over the last three years into a key training actor providing
Member States and EU institutions with quality training for personnel
involved in ESDP. To meet a steadily growing demand on the ESDC,
some improvements for its functioning were agreed in a review
and revision of the Council Joint Action in spring this year.
However, some difficulties remain related to future perspectives
of the ESDC in general and the current situation of the ESDC Secretariat
in particular.
The General Secretariat of the Council was tasked
to elaborate a "Study on the future perspectives of the ESDC"
in order to provide sound information for a debate on this issue
at the Council in November 2008.
Based on the previous evaluation reports of the ESDC
Steering Committee and relying on the experiences and lessons
learnt by the ESDC Secretariat from the early start in 2005 until
today, the Study elaborates possible options for a further development
of the ESDC including a general assessment of the resource implications.
The starting point is the state of play of training
undertaken by the ESDC with a significant grow of training activities
in terms of number and variety, the further development of the
IDL system and at the same time running parts of it in a transitional
phase which all together can no longer be dealt with by the current
3 staff members of the Secretariat. Insufficient staff resources
also prevent the ESDC from valuable participation in international
co-operation activities, notably with the Geneva Centre for Security
Policy and the NATO Defence College, limitations which would also
apply to further developments in international co-operation.
Key is and remains thereby the current situation
of the ESDC Secretariat within the Council Secretariat which does
not allow the recruitment of any additional staff beyond the current
three and is so identified as an obstacle to a demand-driven development
of the ESDC.
The solution proposed to meet the growing demand
on the ESDC is therefore the establishment of the ESDC / ESDC
Secretariat as a separate entity with its own premises and its
own budget.
A needs analysis with a view to the years 2009/2010
results in the need for a permanent staff of about 11 staff members,
including
— a
Head of the ESDC, as already foreseen by the current Council Joint
Action,
— supported by a small administrative team
of 2 persons managing a budget, human resources and security aspects
and 1 staff for overall secretarial support of the Secretariat,
— 3 staff to run the IDL system in its
transitional phase and further develop it towards full operational
capability, and
— about 4 staff who are basically dealing
with the programming, planning, conduct and evaluation of the
training activities in support of the national institutes, and
aspects related to international co-operation.
Two concrete options are identified to establish
the ESDC as a separate entity, taking the establishment of the
European Police College as an organisation model:
— firstly,
the Quartier Panquin close to Brussels, offered by Belgium as
a potential location to accommodate the ESDC and its staff, and
— secondly, the renting of offices in the
centre of Brussels. The building currently occupied by the WEU
Secretariat might be an option.
Furthermore, it is recommended that training activities
falling under the ESDC should get financial support through the
budget of the ESDC.
Consideration has been given to management and co-ordination
of other training initiatives at EU level. The study comes to
the conclusion that the ESDC, if established properly, could be
a suitable framework for hosting and providing management support
for
— training
activities in the field of civilian crisis management,
— training initiatives currently undertaken
by the EDA to close significant capability gaps in the intelligence
area, and "Enhancing the mutual understanding of stakeholders
engaged in co-operative programmes" (recommended in the study
of the EU ISS).
The ESDC with these additional responsibilities would
also provide the financial support to these activities through
the ESDC budget.
As regards the financial implications, 4 specific
cost factors are identified: the staff, the staff facilities,
the development and running of the IDL system and the training
activities. The overall cost estimate is elaborated on this basis
and differentiates between 2 options which so far do not include
costs related to a building and/or offices needed and related
operational costs.[10]
Option 1 is considered
to be the ESDC as a separate entity with a focus on its strategic
level training, with 11 staff members and financial support to
the ESDC training activities (on the basis of the current academic
programme with 14 activities). This would require a budget of
about 1.6 million Euro. If parts of the staff would be made available
by Member States as Seconded National Experts, the budget could
be limited to about 1.2 Million Euro.
Option 2 is considered
to be the ESDC with additional responsibilities, with additional
6 staff members and financial support to about 50 additional training
activities through the ESDC budget. This would require a budget
of about 3.6 Million Euro. If parts of the permanent staff would
be made available by Member States as Seconded National Experts,
the budget could be limited to about 2.7 Million Euro.
Finally, among other options, the use of the CFSP
budget is considered to be a feasible options for financing the
ESDC as a separate entity.
5 OJ No. L 194, 26.07.05, p.15. Back
6
(29699) -: HC16-xxiii (2007-08), chapter 20 (4 June 2008); see
headnote. Back
7
OJ No. L 176, 4.7.08, p.20. Back
8
The executive summary of which is at Annex 1 of this chapter of
our Report. Back
9
(30691) 10665/09; see HC 19-xxi (2008-09), chapter 7 (24 June
2009). Back
10
"The assessment of these costs could not be finalised in
time before publishing the study due to ongoing research into
the two concrete possibilities. It will be finalised and circulated
to delegations as soon as possible." Back
| 
