Documents considered by the Committee on 5 November 2014 - European Scrutiny Committee Contents


12 Financing European Union operations having military or defence implications

Committee's assessment Politically important
Committee's decisionCleared from scrutiny
Document detailsCouncil Decision on establishing a mechanism to administer the financing of the common costs of European Union operations having military or defence implications (Athena)
Legal baseArticles 26(2) and 41(2) TEU; unanimity
DepartmentDefence
Document numbers(36464); —

Summary and Committee's conclusions

12.1 Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP) operations with military implications or defence operations cannot be financed from EU funds. For the common costs, the Council established a special mechanism (ATHENA) in 2004. The first part of the "Background" section below describes the history and operation of ATHENA thus far. Currently there are five active EU military operations that benefit from ATHENA financing, which is provided by 27 Member States (Denmark has opted out of the "military" CSDP).

12.2 Common costs are financed on the basis of a GNI-based indicator. The UK share is presently 14.82% of eligible common costs. The total UK cost share for 2014 is €8.8m. Funding is drawn from the Peacekeeping budget which is managed by the FCO.

12.3 The remainder of the expenditure is financed directly by Member States on the basis of the "costs lie where they fall" principle (see paragraphs 12.10-12.16 below for full details).

12.4 The draft Council Decision is the outcome of the latest triennial review. The Minister for Reserves at the Ministry of Defence (Mr Julian Brazier) says that, from the UK perspective, it has been a success. As in 2011, the review has largely focussed on modifications of a technical nature as a result of lessons learned from operations, as well as proposals from some Member states to expand the eligibility of common funded costs of EU Military operations: as in 2011, the latter have been resisted (see paragraphs 12.18-12.21 below for full details).

12.5 What the Minister describes as "the one key area in which we have continued to accepted limited expansion on a temporary basis" is on strategic airlift. This, he says, is "a separate Declaration and not part of this decision and thus outside the scope of this EM". He explains it thus:

    "We have agreed to the extension of the current arrangements for deploying EU Battle-Groups[60] up to the end of 2016, in line with arrangements for NATO, in order to allow time for Member States to bring into service planned capability such as the A400M. We have supported the expansion of this arrangement to include common costs for land and sea strategic lift on the grounds that the use of sea and land may be cheaper, quicker and in certain circumstances more operationally effective than the use of air. Such costs would only be incurred if a Battle-Group were to deploy, in which case a separate Council decision would be required over which the UK would have a potential veto."

12.6 We are somewhat wary of Declarations generally since, though they may give comfort, they are by definition not legally-binding. However, on this occasion, we note that there is the in-built safeguard of needing a fresh Council Decision, were implementation to be proposed.

12.7 The Minister also says that he and his officials "are working to secure an unclassified version of the Council Decision but hope that you are able to conduct scrutiny on the basis of this Explanatory Memorandum". This suggests a misunderstanding about the nature of the document submitted, which (as with most CFSP/CSDP Council Decisions) is still an "unofficial" text, i.e., not yet fully finalised, and therefore lacking a Council number, rather than one that is "classified" (in EU parlance, i.e., "limité" or "restreint"). The Committee is well-used to clearing such "unofficial" texts, on the basis that no substantive changes are subsequently made prior to adoption by the Council (in which, very rare, case, the Minister concerned is expected to submit the revised text for scrutiny in the normal way).

12.8 On that basis, we now clear the draft Council Decision.

Full details of the document: Council Decision establishing a mechanism to administer the financing of the common costs of European Union operations having military or defence implications (Athena): (36464), —.

Background

12.9 ATHENA is a mechanism that administers the financing of common costs of EU operations having military or defence implications on behalf of Member States contributing to the financing of EU military operations. ATHENA was set up by the Council on 1st March 2004. ATHENA's legal basis was amended most recently in December 2008.[61]

12.10 Currently there are five active EU military operations benefiting from ATHENA financing, which is provided by 27 Member States (Denmark has opted out of the EU Common Security and Defence policy on military matters):

—  EUFOR ALTHEA[62]

—  EUNAVFOR ATALANTA[63]

—  EUTM SOMALIA[64]

—  EUTM MALI[65]

—  EUFOR RCA[66]

12.11 ATHENA manages the financing of common costs for these operations, which can include transport, infrastructure, and medical services, as well as the Nation Borne Costs, which include lodging, fuel, and similar costs linked to the national contingents.

12.12 In the past, ATHENA has also financed the following operations/support actions:

—  AMIS 2 (Sudan) (June 2005 - December 2007)

—  EUFOR RD CONGO (June - November 2006)

—  EUFOR TCHAD RCA (January 2008 - March 2009)

—  EUFOR Libya (April - November 2011).

12.13 ATHENA is managed by an administrator and under the authority of a Special Committee composed of representatives of the Member States contributing to the financing of each operation.

12.14 ATHENA can finance, for EU military operations, so-called "common costs", which are spelled out in the annexes appended to the Council Decision establishing ATHENA:

·  In all cases:

—  HQ implementation and running costs, including travel, computer information systems, administration, public information, locally hired personnel, Force Headquarters (FHQ) deployment & lodging;

—  for forces as a whole, infrastructure, medical services (in theatre), medical evacuation, identification, acquisition of information (satellite images); and

—  reimbursements to/from NATO or other organisations (e.g. UN).

·  if the Council so decides: transport and lodging of forces, Multinational Headquarters below FHQ level.

·  when requested by the Operation Commander and approved by the Special Committee:

—  barracks and lodging/Infrastructure, essential additional equipment, medical services, acquisition of information (theatre level intelligence, reconnaissance and surveillance, including Air to Ground Surveillance and Reconnaissance, human intelligence); and

—  other critical theatre-level capabilities (demining, chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear (CBRN) protection, storage and destruction of weapons).

12.15 ATHENA has set out specific financial rules applicable to all expenditure financed through its mechanism.

12.16 In accordance with the article 41.2 TEU, Member States' contributions to ATHENA are based on the Gross National Income scale.[67]

The Council Decision

12.17 A review takes place every three years in accordance with Article 44 of the Council Decision. The draft revised Council Decision is the result of a review which started in September 2014.

12.18 In his Explanatory Memorandum of 28 October 2014, the Minister for Reserves at the Ministry of Defence (Mr Julian Brazier) explains that:

—  this review has looked at modifications of a technical nature as a result of lessons learned from operations as well as proposals from some Member states to expand the eligibility of common funded costs of EU Military operations; and

—  as all changes to the extant Council Decision require unanimity from Member States "the UK is continuing to successfully block proposals on any expansion of eligibility for common funding whilst accepting some modifications to the mechanism that will enable it to support EU military operations more effectively".

The Government's view

12.19 Noting that the financial cost of military contributions to CSDP operations are borne by the sending nations, the Minister says:

    "We accept that some elements of EU military operations should be common funded where costs cannot be attributed to a specific nation (e.g. operational Headquarter and Force Headquarter costs) hence we have previously agreed to the establishment of the ATHENA mechanism which administers these costs."

12.20 He also points out that civilian CSDP missions are financed from the EU's Common Foreign and Security Policy Budget.

12.21 The Minister continues his comments as follows:

    "The Council Decision focuses on the mechanics of funding and the rules of eligibility on what can be common funded. We support the current rules of eligibility for common funding as laid out in the extant Council Decision.

    "We have successfully resisted further expansion of eligibility for common funding, in the face of pressure from many other Member States which have supported increased EU engagement in this field. We maintain that Member States are ultimately responsible for deploying their troops, and increased common funding would both duplicate investment already made by the higher-spending nations such as the UK and risk encouraging others to view common funding as an effective and acceptable substitute for adequate national investment in defence capability. Acceptance of the proposed expansions would have resulted in the UK paying twice.

    "All proposed amendments to the existing Council Decision require approval by unanimity from MS. As such the UK has been able to block all proposals to expand eligibility for common funding despite continued proposals by Member States to expand eligibility to include funding for costs relating to exercising, transportation, barracks, lodgings and infrastructure.

    "Other proposed amendments to the Council Decision have been predominantly technical in nature and have not crossed UK red lines. The UK has supported a proposal to allow ATHENA the ability to pre-finance elements of mission costs to expedite mission deployments."

12.22 The Minister then says:

    "The one key area in which we have continued to accepted limited expansion on a temporary basis is on strategic airlift which is a separate Declaration and not part of this decision and thus outside the scope of this EM. We have agreed to the extension of the current arrangements for deploying EU Battle-Groups[68] up to the end of 2016, in line with arrangements for NATO, in order to allow time for Member States to bring into service planned capability such as the A400M. We have supported the expansion of this arrangement to include common costs for land and sea strategic lift on the grounds that the use of sea and land may be cheaper, quicker and in certain circumstances more operationally effective than the use of air. Such costs would only be incurred if a Battle-Group were to deploy, in which case a separate Council decision would be required over which the UK would have a potential veto."

12.23 Finally, the Minister notes that:

—  the UK cost share of EU led Military operations is 14.82% of eligible common costs;

—  the total UK cost share for 2014 is €8.8m; and

—  funding is drawn from the Peacekeeping budget, which is managed by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.

Previous Committee Reports

None, but see (33523), 18066/11: Forty-ninth Report HC 428-xliv (2010-12), chapter 19 (14 December 2011).


60   The key elements of EU Battlegroups are: Stand-alone Battlegroup-sized forces (around 1,500 strong, including Combat Support and Combat Service Support); deployable within 15 days; sustainable for 30 days (but extendable up to 120 days); designed for compatibility with typical UN Chapter VII mandates to restore international peace and security; composed of contributions from one or more Member States, and open to participation by third parties. See http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/en/esdp/91624.pdf for full information. Back

61   Council Decision 2008/975/CFSP of 18 December 2008. Back

62   EUFOR ALTHEA operation was launched on 2 December 2004. See http://www.consilium.europa.eu/eeas/security-defence/eu-operations/althea?lang=en for further information. Back

63   EU NAVFOR - Operation ATALANTA was launched in December 2008 in response to the continuing impact of piracy and armed robbery at sea off the coast of Somalia on international maritime security and on the economic activities and security of countries in the region. See http://www.consilium.europa.eu/eeas/security-defence/eu-operations/eunavfor-somalia? for further information. Back

64   In April 2010, the EU launched a military training mission in order to contribute to strengthening the Transitional Federal Government and the institutions of Somalia. This support takes place within the framework of EU's comprehensive engagement in Somalia, with a view to responding to the priority needs of the Somali people and stabilising Somalia. See http://www.consilium.europa.eu/eeas/security-defence/eu-operations/eu-somalia-training-mission for further information. Back

65   On 18 February 2013, at the request of the Malian authorities, and in accordance with international decisions on the subject, in particular United Nations Security Council Resolution 2085 (2012), the European Union launched a training mission for Malian armed forces, EUTM Mali for an initial mandate of 15 months. See http://www.eeas.europa.eu/csdp/missions-and-operations/eutm-mali/index_en.htm for further information. Back

66   On 10 February 2014 the Council established an EU military operation to contribute to a secure environment in the Central African Republic, as authorised by the UN Security Council in resolution 2134 (2014). See http://www.eeas.europa.eu/csdp/missions-and-operations/eufor-rca/index_en.htm http://www.eeas.europa.eu/csdp/missions-and-operations/eufor-rca/index_en.htm for further information. Back

67   See http://www.consilium.europa.eu/eeas/security-defence/csdp-structures-and-instruments/financing-of-csdp-military-operations?lang=en for further information on ATHENA. Also see http://www.eeas.europa.eu/csdp/missions-and-operations/index_en.htm for full information on all EU CSDP (Common Security and Defence Policy) missions. Back

68   The key elements of EU Battlegroups are: Stand-alone Battlegroup-sized forces (around 1500 strong, including Combat Support and Combat Service Support); deployable within 15 days; sustainable for 30 days (but extendable up to 120 days); designed for compatibility with typical UN Chapter VII mandates to restore international peace and security; composed of contributions from one or more Member States, and open to participation by third parties. See http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/en/esdp/91624.pdf for full information. Back


 
previous page contents next page


© Parliamentary copyright 2014
Prepared 18 November 2014