EPLO Resolution for a European Peacebuilding Agency

In light of the discussions on the establishment of a European Civil Peace Corp and a Planning Cell for military and civilian operations, EPLO  commend this proposal as a contribution to the process for a more coherent and capable EU peacebuildingcapacity and commit themselves to further consultation with a cross-section of EU actors.

The European Peacebuilding Agency (EPA) aims to improve the strategic and operational links across the EU between short-term crisis management actions and longer-term peacebuilding and reconstruction efforts as well as between the civilian and the military interventions.

The EPA aims to bridge institutional divides between the Commission and the Council and fill capability gaps by providing a more integrated mechanism for planning, training, recruitment and deployment of civilians, incorporating relevant expertise from non-state experts into the Union’s growing peacebuilding and crisis management toolbox. 

Having regard to:
•	The European Parliament Resolution calling for a European Civil Peace Corps, 2001,
•	The Feira European Council decision to strengthen its actions in civilian crisis management in the areas of police, rule of law, civilian administration and civil protection, June 2000,
•	The Gothenburg European Council Programme on the prevention of violent conflicts, 2001,
•	The decision by the European Council to set up an Agency in the field of Defence Capabilities Development, Research, Acquisition and Armaments, November 2003,
•	The European Security Strategy, ‘A Secure Europe in a Better World’, December 2003.

Noting:
•	The need to build an awareness of the potential of non-military interventions at all stages of violent conflicts, including early warning, conflict prevention, crisis management and post conflict reconstruction and reconciliation,
•	That external interventions need to approach various levels of the affected society and involve a variety of actors and expertise so as to build local capacities to sustain the de-escalation of conflicts and peacebuilding processes,
•	The difficulty of coordinating and deploying civilian responses to violent conflict,
•	The need to ensure that EU resources and instruments available for these tasks are fully co-ordinated, irrespective of which institutional framework they fall in,
•	The need to coordinate effectively with military capabilities.

Recommends:
•	The establishment of a European Peacebuilding Agency. 

The proposed areas of competence and tasks of the EPA are set out in more detail below.

(a) Training and recruitment

Having regard to:
•	The responsibility of all Member States to recruit suitably qualified civilian personnel for international peace missions and to ensure they are properly trained and prepared for this work,
•	The commitment of the European Council meeting at Gothenburg in 2001 to develop ‘agreed standards’ and ‘common training programmes’ for mission personnel deployed under the auspices of the EU,
•	The determination of the European Commission to support development and implementation of common training modules through the EC Project on Training for Civilian Aspects of Crisis Management and the Network of Europeans for Electoral and Democracy Support Project (NEEDS), 
•	The existence of OSCE’s REACT system, to which all EU Member States are a party and which enables those Member States to train and recruit personnel according to an agreed set of standards and procedures,
•	The existence of Civil Peace Services and other schemes in many Member States which facilitate the training and recruitment of non-State experts for peacebuilding and crisis management work.

Noting:
•	The progress which has been made so far in developing common training modules and piloting these in a number of Member States, 
•	The steps being taken within the EC Project on Training to expand the areas of training beyond the original  four ‘priority areas’ and to involve non-state experts in this training,
•	The commitments made at the Rome Conference in October 2003 to improve the links between training and recruitment and to develop common means of assessing candidates,
•	The agreement by the Committee for Civilian Aspects of Crisis Management in November 2003 to establish an ‘EU label’ for accreditation of training courses and to improve coordination and interoperability of related training courses throughout the EU.

Concerned that:
•	There are as yet no agreed common standards for the recruitment of civilian personnel in this area,
•	There is as yet very little cross-over or coordination between recruitment and training schemes for longer-term peacebuilding work and those for shorter-term civilian crisis management work, even though in many cases these may involve the same people and the same procedures,
•	The emphasis in many Member States is still on recruitment of civil servants with little involvement of non-state experts,
•	There is a need to further expand the categories of personnel required beyond the original four priority areas agreed at the Feira Council in June 2000, 
•	There is as yet no agreed budget line from which to fund the recruitment or training of civilian personnel on a more sustainable basis.

 Recommends that the EPA:
•	Establish minimum European standards for training and recruitment of civilian personnel in these areas,
•	Ensure that training and recruitment mechanisms are open and accessible to both state and non-state experts, and that these address civilian personnel requirements for long-term peacebuilding as well as shorter-term crisis management,
•	Establish closer links between training and recruitment through the coordination and further development of national rosters and common formats and procedures to improve their interoperability, 
•	Research further areas of civilian expertise required for peacebuilding and crisis management and develop training and recruitment standards for these,
•	Evaluate and manage accreditation of training courses and qualifications that meet the EU standards.
(b) Planning, mission support and evaluation for civilian crisis management  

Having regard to:
•	The UN Panel of Experts Report on Peacekeeping: ‘The Brahimi Report’, 1995,
•	‘Planning and Mission Support Capability for Civilian Crisis Management,’ Council of the European Union, General Secretariat, 22 July 2003,
•	‘European Defence: NATO/EU Consultation, Planning and Operations’, Council Press Release, 15 December 2003.

Noting that:
•	While some 150 EU military staff are engaged in strategic planning for EU military interventions, there are only some 15 staff in the Council General Secretariat involved in strategic and operational planning for civilian interventions, including the current EUPM and Proxima police operation,
•	In seeking to reinforce its operational and planning capacity for civilian operations, the Council has proposed that operational and financial responsibilities be split between the Council and the Commission and that the Council General Secretariat be reinforced with more staff for mission support and planning.

Concerned that: 
•	There is insufficient capacity in the EU institutions to plan for civilian operations and the development of civilian capabilities more generally,
•	The priority targets for civilian crisis management are not derived from a needs-based assessment of the quantity, quality and composition of civilian deployments, but rather on how Member States prioritise their resources and make them available,
•	The current, four, distinct priority area approach does not allow for multi-dimensional operations, involving a mix of police, rule of law and civil administration experts from governmental and non-governmental sectors,

Recommends that the EPA: 
•	Contribute to identifying long-term and short-term civilian capability objectives and operational requirements based on needs assessments and best practice and evaluating the observance of the capability commitments given by the Member States,
•	Explore different options of deployment including rapidly deployable cross-disciplinary teams. The deployment of ESDP operations and relevant Commission-funded activities should be far more closely planned for and managed to ensure a coherent and integrated response,
•	Establish a best-practices unit to: examine lessons learned reports relating to civilian interventions from across the EU institutions; commission independent conflict impact assessments; and to promote best-practice throughout the EU on the basis of this comprehensive and integrated approach to evaluation.

(c)  Co-ordination of internal EU instruments

Having regard to:
Commitments to coherence between the EU’s different short and longer-term instruments and capabilities for strengthening the EU’s impact on conflict prevention in: 
•	EU Programme for the Prevention of Violent Conflicts, June 2001, 
•	Implementation of the EU Programme for the Prevention of Violent Conflicts, June 2002 and 2003, 
•	European Security Strategy, December 2003,
•	Council Common Position Concerning Conflict Prevention Management and Resolution in Africa, January 2004.

Noting that:
•	Progress has been made in integrating conflict prevention into country and regional strategy papers, in the deployment of conflict prevention teams and development of the Watchlist and Check List for Root Causes of Conflict / Early Warning Indicators,
•	The UN and OSCE have found that it is most efficient and effective to integrate planning aspects with logistics and administrative management in military and civilian operations,
•	The December 2003 deal on military operational planning envisages that an operational planning cell be established in the Council General Secretariat, and that this might also be used for operational planning for civilian missions.

Concerned that:
•	The EU’s current ‘strategic deficit’ in linking crisis management with longer-term conflict prevention and peacebuilding is undermining its efficiency and long-term impact,
•	Short-term ESDP crisis management actions, managed in the second pillar, are institutionally and practically divorced from conflict prevention, peacebuilding and post-conflict reconstruction activities supported by the Commission, as well as the wider range of aid, trade, humanitarian, human rights, justice and democracy policies at the EU’s disposal in the Community budget in pillar one and in pillar three,
•	The complementary benefits of more integrated military and civilian planning in logistics, security and military and civilian expertise are not being recognised or operationalised.

Recommends that the EPA:
•	Co-ordinate the planning, implementation and evaluation of relevant mechanisms in pillars one, two and three within country/region-specific strategic frameworks of intervention, under a joint Council and Commission mandate, for a longer-term conflict prevention approach,
•	Co-ordinate focal points within DG Relex, DG Development, DG Trade, ECHO and EuropeAid in the Commission (pillar one), the EU Military Staff and CivCom in the Council (pillar two), and the justice and home affairs mechanisms under the Council (pillar three) for regular planning and evaluation,
•	Develop expertise in managing the civilian / military interface and establish a mechanism to integrate planning and mission-support for civilian crises management operations with military planning in the EUMS and future Planning Cell,
•	Establish mechanisms for regular consultation and co-operation between the European Peacebuilding Agency and the Agency in the field of Defence Capabilities Development, Research, Acquisition and Armaments.

(d) Cooperation with external organisations and non governmental organisations

Having regard to:
•	Article 19 of the Treaty of the EU which stipulates that the Union and its Member States co-ordinate their action to promote conflict prevention in international organisations where they are members,
•	The Common Catalogue of co-operation modalities between the OSCE and Council of Europe, 2000,
•	The Helsingborg ‘Partners in Prevention’ Agenda 2002, 
•	The Berlin Plus EU NATO arrangement which provides a framework for strategic partnership between the two organisations in crisis management, 2002,
•	The EU UN Joint declaration on co-operation in crisis management, 2003.

Noting:
•	The significant progress that has been made by the EU in developing partnerships with external organisations for recent ESDP Operations - including the request of the UN, for operation ‘Artemis’ in the Democratic Republic of Congo and the replacement of NATO in the FYRoM Macedonia with operation ‘Concordia’ and latterly the police mission ‘Proxima’, 
•	The added value and growing role of NGOs and civil society in conflict prevention and peacebuilding, through professional Civil Peace Services and similar schemes being supported in some EU Member States,
•	That military crisis management is unsustainable and therefore priority must be given to civilian crisis management, linked to a longer-term conflict prevention approach,  
•	That due to the pillar structure of the EU, the ESDP approach to civilian crisis management is limited and is institutionally and practically separated from conflict prevention and post conflict reconstruction activities led by the Commission, which are often carried out by a number of actors including the UN, OSCE and NGOs in the field.

Concerned that:
•	The EU is paying insufficient attention in the planning of ESDP operations with the UN, NATO, OSCE and Council of Europe for the early implementation of complementary programmes to support local capacity building and longer term peacebuilding,
•	Support for promoting cooperation with non governmental organisations engaged in complementary crisis management and conflict prevention activities is lacking,
•	The preventative capacities of regional (eg. AU), sub-regional (eg. SADC, ECOWAS) and local organisations and actors outside Europe should be strengthened,
•	Greater efforts should be made in cooperation between the EU and international financial institutions, such as the WB and IMF, as well as the WTO, to engage constructively and strategically in conflict-sensitive policy planning and practice.

Recommends that the EPA:
•	Minimise duplication and maximise efficiency of implementation between external organisations, regional and sub regional and non governmental organisations, involved in crisis management and conflict prevention,
•	Ensure the development of joint operations that support local capacity building and longer-term peacebuilding,
•	Document and develop, in consultation with NGOs, best practice principles for all parties engaged in EU crisis management and conflict prevention.

(e) Research and evaluation

Having regard to:
•	The Sixth Framework Research Programme 2002-2006, that dedicates €17.5 billion to research in the areas of nuclear safety, life sciences, information society technologies, nanosciences, aeronautics and space, food safety, sustainable development and citizens and governance.

Noting that:
•	A minute percentage (2%) from FP6 research funds goes to the political and social sciences, and that this research is not generally designed to be policy relevant,
•	There is currently no other EC budget line that the EU can draw on to commission research relevant to the development of conflict prevention or crisis management capabilities and practices (although €1.125 million has recently been allocated to a CPN budget line), 
•	The EU does not systematically draw independent expertise with regard early warning or the assessment of its various policies and operations on conflict impact assessments,
•	The Commission internal research funding mechanisms should be adapted to support timely and policy-relevant research in this field.

Recommends that the EPA: 

•	Support independent policy-relevant research to identify needs based capability targets and promote best practice in EU peacebuilding and crisis management policies, programmes and operations,
•	Support independent audits of the EU’s conflict prevention and crisis prevention efforts, drawing on the experience of local stakeholders,
•	Support independent early warning reports for the Commission and the EU Situation Centre.