36 Financing European Union operations
having military or defence implications
| Committee's assessment
| Politically important |
| Committee's decision | Cleared from scrutiny
|
| Document details | Council Decision on establishing a mechanism to administer the financing of the common costs of European Union operations having military or defence implications (Athena)
|
| Legal base | Articles 26(2) and 41(2) TEU; unanimity
|
| Department | Ministry of Defence
|
| Document number | (36732), —
|
Summary and Committee's conclusions
36.1 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).
36.2 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.
36.3 The remainder of the expenditure is financed
directly by Member States on the basis of the "costs lie
where they fall" principle.
36.4 The draft Council Decision that the Committee
cleared last November was the outcome of the latest triennial
review. The Minister for Reserves at the Ministry of Defence (Mr
Julian Brazier) said that, from the UK perspective, it had been
a success. As in 2011, the review had 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 had been resisted (see our most recent relevant Report
for full details[109]).
36.5 What the Minister described as "the one
key area in which we have continued to accepted limited expansion
on a temporary basis" was on strategic airlift; this, he
said, was "a separate Declaration and not part of this decision
and thus outside the scope of this EM". He explained it thus:
"We have agreed to the extension of the
current arrangements for deploying EU Battle-Groups[110]
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."
Our assessment
36.6 The Committee noted its wariness of Declarations
generally since, though they may give comfort, they were by definition
not legally-binding. However, on this occasion, we noted that
there was the in-built safeguard of needing a fresh Council Decision,
were implementation to be proposed.
36.7 The Minister also said that he and his officials
were "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 suggested a misunderstanding
about the nature of the document submitted, which (as with most
CFSP/CSDP Council Decisions) was still an "unofficial"
text, i.e., not yet fully finalised, and therefore lacking a Council
number, rather than one that was "classified" (in EU
parlance, , i.e., limité or restreint). The
Committee noted that it was well-used to clearing such "unofficial"
texts, on the basis that no substantive changes were subsequently
made prior to adoption by the Council (in which, very rare, case,
the Minister concerned was expected to submit the revised text
for scrutiny in the normal way).
36.8 On that basis, we cleared the draft Council
Decision.[111]
36.9 The Minister has now submitted a further Council
Decision, which again focuses on the mechanics of funding and
the rules of eligibility on what can be common funded, and which
contains some amendments that he has been willing to accept. All
of these, he says, are consistent with the Government's position
on common funding, which "is at odds with the majority of
Member States"; the Government has nonetheless "engaged
positively with the review at each stage" and "been
constructive where proposals did not cross our own red lines and
could improve the efficiency and cost effectiveness of missions
on the ground" (see paragraphs 36.23 - 36.25 below for details).
36.10 We commend the Minister's approach, and
are content with the outcome.
36.11 We remain wary of Declarations for the reasons
set out above, but again note the in-built safeguard of needing
a fresh Council Decision, were implementation to be proposed.
36.12 The Council Decision has again been submitted
(as with most CFSP/CSDP Council Decisions) as an OTNYR text (Official
Text Not Yet Received), i.e., not yet fully finalised, and therefore
lacking a Council number, rather than one that was "classified"
(in EU parlance, i.e., limité or restreint).
As noted previously, the Committee is well-used to clearing such
OTNYR texts, on the basis that no substantive changes are subsequently
made prior to adoption by the Council (if this is the case, which
is very rare, the Minister concerned is expected to submit the
revised text for scrutiny in the normal way).
36.13 On that basis, we now clear this Council
Decision.
Full
details of the documents:
Council Decision establishing a mechanism to administer the financing
of the common costs of European Union operations having military
or defence implications (Athena): (36732), —.
Background
36.14 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.[112]
36.15 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[113]
— EUNAVFOR ATALANTA[114]
— EUTM SOMALIA[115]
— EUTM MALI[116]
— EUFOR RCA[117]
36.16 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.
36.17 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)
36.18 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.
36.19 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 and 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
& Reconnaissance, human intelligence); and
— other critical theatre-level capabilities
(demining, chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear (CBRN)
protection, storage and destruction of weapons).
36.20 ATHENA has set out specific financial rules
applicable to all expenditure financed through its mechanism.
36.21 In accordance with the article 41.2 TEU, Member
States' contributions to ATHENA are based on the Gross National
Income scale.[118]
The Council Decision
36.22 The Minister says that this further Council
Decision focuses on the mechanics of funding and the rules of
eligibility on what can be common funded.
The Government's view
36.23 The Minister says that:
"UK officials have resisted further expansion
of common funding, in contrast to many other Member States which
have supported an expansion of the costs eligible for common funding.
We maintain that Member States are ultimately responsible for
deploying their troops, and increased common funding would both
duplicate investment already made by many Member States and risks
encouraging others to view common funding as an effective and
acceptable substitute for adequate national investment in defence
capability."
36.24 He then says:
"The UK has protected its position in the latest
negotiations. In particular firmly rejecting proposals that would
unnecessarily expand agreed eligibility on common funding. We
have blocked proposals to expand common funding for: Battlegroup
Transport Cost; Barracks and lodging for the whole force and Exercise
costs. We see these costs as Nation Borne Costs that should not
have to be covered by common funding."
36.25 The Minister goes on to say that, "whilst
recognising that our position on common funding is at odds with
the majority of Member States", the Government has "engaged
positively with the review at each stage", had "been
constructive where proposals did not cross our own red lines and
could improve the efficiency and cost effectiveness of missions
on the ground", and, as such, has agreed to a number of amendments
to the Council Decision, viz:
— "Article
13(4). The additional
text in Article 13 ensures that funds transferred to Athena in
relation to Article 29 (Management by Athena of third party contributions)
or Article 28 (Management by Athena of expenditure not included
in common costs) are each kept in separate banks accounts and
not mixed with other funds. This represents sound financial management;
— "Article 28bis. This new
article allows for Athena to manage pre-financing and expenditure
of certain nation borne costs in order to facilitate the initial
deployment of forces. The UK supported the addition of this clause.
We see it as a sensible way of facilitating deployment, whilst
not expanding common funding. Should this article be used, Athena
would use its own funds to facilitate some initial deployment
costs before the participating Member States were confirmed. These
costs would then be charged back to those Member States who deploy
on the mission. The UK pushed to ensure that the management of
these costs would be assured within existing means and resources
and that the outlay could not exceed 20% of the total estimated
cost of the mission. Pre-financing can only be approved by the
Special Committee under unanimity so the UK still holds a veto
should it so wish;
— "Article 29. CSDP operations
are able to run discrete projects should agreement be given by
Member States. This new article allows for Athena to manage the
financial contribution of a third party or Member States towards
the delivery of these projects. This proposal was made following
Member States experience in EUTM Mali where a Canadian financial
contribution towards a project in the mission was not able to
be handled through the Athena mechanism. We see this as a useful
amendment that ensures sound financial management of project funds.
Article 29 also allows for financial contributions from Member
states or third parties towards the broader costs of missions
and operations to be managed by Athena. This has the potential
to reduce the costs of CSDP operations for the UK. All administrative
costs arising from these contributions have to be covered by the
contribution itself;
— "Article
34. The amendment to
Article 34 allows the Operational Commander to propose to the
Special Committee a revised depreciation rate as a result of operational
circumstances. This is a relatively minor practical amendment
that improves the flexibility of the mechanism to take account
of the improved understanding on the ground that develops throughout
the course of an operation;
— "Article 40. This article
extends the potential employment term for internal auditors from
6 to 8 years;
— "Article 44/46. These additional
miscellaneous provisions ensure that Athena is following correct
procedures with regards to security classifications and the protection
of personal data;
— "Annex I (5). This addition
allows for the overhead costs related to administrative arrangements
and Framework contracts (Article 11) to be common funded. These
costs cannot readily be attributed to a Member State and as such
we consider them eligible for common funding, particularly as
these agreements seek to ensure cost effective procurement and
mutual support between missions and other organisations;
— "Council Declaration on Battlegroup
Transport. We have continued to accept a temporary expansion
of common funding on strategic lift for the deployment of the
EU Battle Groups pending the delivery and entry into service of
the A400M aircraft. This is agreed under a temporary Council Declaration
separate to Athena which we have agreed to extend to the end of
2016 in line with arrangements for the NATO Response Force. Costs
would only be incurred if a Battle Group were to deploy."
Previous Committee Reports
None, but see (36464), —: Eighteenth Report
HC 219 xvii (2014-15), chapter 12 (5 November 2014); also see
(33523), 18066/11: Forty-ninth Report HC 428-xliv (2010-12),
chapter 19 (14 December 2011).
109 (36464), -: Eighteenth Report HC 219 xvii (2013-14),
chapter 12 (5 November 2014). Back
110
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. Back
111
Ditto. Back
112
Council Decision 2008/975/CFSP of 18 December 2008. Back
113
EUFOR ALTHEA operation was launched on 2 December 2004. Back
114
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. Back
115
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. Back
116
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. Back
117
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 EUFOR RCA. Back
118
See ATHENA. Also EU CSDP (Common Security and Defence Policy)
missions. Back
| 
