Security on an EU shoestring

From state-building in the Balkans to border assistance in Gaza, from security sector reform in Africa to conflict resolution in Indonesia and nuclear diplomacy with Iran, the EU is increasingly playing an active role in the international arena.

But since its inception, the EU's external crisis management has been hampered by the scarcity and uncertainty of the budgetary resources at its disposal.

When the European Security and Defence Policy (ESDP) was launched in June 1999, there were no specific arrangements in place to pay for it. That is why, for military operations, NATO rules, under which costs are borne by the participating member states, were adopted in 2004. These were supplemented by the so-called Athena mechanism to cover common costs.

Funding for civilian operations came from the budget line for the EU's Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP). But in the EU budget for 2000-06 the funds earmarked for this were minimal and for a number of years they floated at around EUR 30-40 million.

The stalemate over the EU constitution has not helped. The impulse and co-ordination which could have been provided by the proposed EU minister for foreign affairs is lacking, reviving old rivalries and resulting in new bureaucratic entrenchments.

The growing number and variety of operations undertaken or planned by the EU is putting the CFSP budget under unbearable strain and risks undermining the credibility of the EU.

The CFSP budget rose to more than EUR 60m in 2005 and EUR 102m has been earmarked for 2006. But Javier Solana, the EU's foreign policy chief, argues that EUR 120m would be a more realistic figure - and that is without factoring in the prospect of the EU taking over the United Nations police mission in Kosovo later this year. Yet even increasing the 2006 amount to the levels currently under negotiation would only bring the CFSP budget up to 0.1 % of the overall EU budget.

When confronted with the need to find the means to carry out new operations, the EU institutions and the member states have often resorted to creative solutions. Community funds have been used (more or less openly) to co-finance ESDP missions; member states have mobilised extra resources to support the strapped CFSP budget line; the Athena mechanism has even been used to fund civilian activities.

Such improvisation has limits, however, especially in the light of the ever-growing responsibilities the EU is likely to take on. Even though it is difficult to establish once and for all how much is enough, especially in relation to unforeseeable external circumstances, a certain amount of predictability and transparency in the allocation of resources appears indispensable. The ongoing negotiations on the EU's budget for 2007-13 provide an opportunity to agree at least on a few guiding principles.

First, although the way military operations are financed is unlikely to change substantially, a higher degree of accountability seems desirable. This could be achieved through regular hearings in national parliaments and the European Parliament.

Second, the CFSP budget for civilian operations should be raised to the agreed levels without further ado and disbursement of the money made easier and quicker. Unspent funds could be set aside for future use, as already happens, for example, with ECHO's budget for humanitarian aid.

By contrast, the lower the CFSP budget line remains, the stronger the tendency will be - especially among some member states - to opt for ad hoc arrangements outside the common institutional and budgetary framework. Instead, a sense of common ownership and responsibility should be strengthened, regardless of the differences in means and capabilities that exist across the Union.

Third, for those common actions that relate to fact-finding missions and institution-building (from the training of officials to infrastructural assistance), resorting openly to Community resources should become normal practice.

Fourth, whenever necessary - and this may be the case in Kosovo this year - member states could put extra resources at the disposal of the Union. It is still a moot point whether it is preferable to do so in an ad hoc way (in order to make this the exception rather than the rule) or according to pre-established criteria (to have a more predictable system in place).

And the planned review of the EU budget in 2008-09 should apply also to external crisis management and foreign policy, not just agriculture. In a couple of years' time, some further changes to the budget may prove necessary anyway. In the draft budget, the amount set aside for external action - including pre-accession, neighbourhood partnership and development aid - is a little above EUR 6 billion per year (5% of the overall amount). This will not be enough to meet the challenges facing the Union in an increasingly globalised world.

• Antonio Missiroli is chief policy analyst at the European Policy Centre in Brussels. He writes here in a personal capacity.

Major commentary feature, in which the author says that from its inception, the EU's external crisis management had been hampered by the scarcity and uncertainty of the budgetary resources at its disposal. He makes a number of suggestions how to improve the financing of EU operations under the European Security and Defence Policy (ESDP).

• Primary Source