Common foreign policy budget ‘spent’

By Andrew Beatty

Date: 06/10/05

With three months left to run on this year's budget the EU has virtually run out of money for its common foreign policy operations.

The European Commission says only 15% remains of this year's Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) budget, which covers EU spending on non-proliferation, conflict resolution and the EU's special representatives.

While spending on CFSP operations has more than doubled since 2002 to €62.6 million in 2005, the range of EU operations has grown exponentially, with the Union establishing new envoys and civilian missions around the world.

Adding to its long standing commitment in the Balkans, the EU has also stepped up its presence in the former Soviet Union - creating border-monitoring missions in Georgia and Ukraine and sending envoys to Moldova, Central Asia and a special envoy for Human Rights.

Although current spending commitments are not likely to be affected by the budget shortfall, recently agreed missions have been marred by budget disputes.

The EU's monitoring mission to the Indonesian region of Aceh was the subject of intense discussions, with some member states strongly opposing the use of funds from the EU budget. Most member states have opposed substantially increasing the budget because of fears that Parliament would demand a greater say over CFSP spending.

Currently Parliament sets the level of the budget on so-called non-obligatory spending, which includes CFSP, but has little say over where the money is spent.

A large part of the cost of CFSP operations comes from member states on an ad-hoc basis.

Under new proposals on the table, drafted by the Commission, civilian security operations, such as the monitoring mission to Aceh, could be covered by the EU budget. But the plan has received little backing from member states.

Analysts say that the present system of ad-hoc contributions by member states reduces the Union's ability to plan its long term actions. "The problem is the sheer unpredictability for medium- and long- term operations," said Antonio Missiroli, chief policy analyst at the European Policy Centre.

Missiroli added that tortuous inter-institutional wrangling over ad-hoc budget agreements hampered the EU's ability to scale up missions rapidly.

"The CFSP budget is, as ever, hostage to institutional dispute. The member states want to keep control and are against more oversight, particularly from the Parliament," he said.

Meanwhile the Parliament has backed proposals to use Community funds to pay for the daily costs of EU monitors, but is asking for budget oversight in return.

Member states are bristling at the idea, with defence spending traditionally subject to little parliamentary oversight.

But even with a doubling of CFSP spending, considering the EU's increasing eagerness to develop a common foreign policy, the problem would only be solved for a few years.

Article reports on a budget shortfall in the 2005 Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) budget, which was to cover EU spending on non-proliferation, conflict resolution and the EU's special representatives. A large part of the cost of CFSP operations comes from Member States on an ad-hoc basis. The budgetary pressure led to renewed institutional dispute over this system, which does not follow the same rules as the overall EU budget, including parliamentary oversight.

• Primary Source