Since it was established in March 2021, the European Peace Facility (EPF) has become the main source of funding for European Union (EU) external actions in the field of crisis management and conflict prevention with defence and military implications. These actions include initiatives such as EU military missions and operations, support to military peace operations led by other actors and assistance to strengthen third states’ military capacities. In addition, through the EPF, EU security assistance can also include the supply of lethal military equipment and, thus, weapons. This means that the EU, for the first time, can use joint funds to finance arms transfers to partners potentially anywhere in the world.

Non-governmental organizations and some members of the European Parliament have criticized the EPF on the grounds that it circumvents EU treaties that prohibit the use of the EU’s budget for military expenditures, further militarizes the EU’s approach to crises and conflicts, and lacks sufficient controls, oversight and transparency measures. The prospect that the EPF could be used to finance the supply of lethal military equipment to countries that are fragile and affected by political instability and armed conflict has also sparked concerns by the same actors on the grounds that the transfer of this type of equipment could exacerbate armed violence and ultimately harm civilians. Arms transfers in these contexts do bear higher risks that the weapons provided may be misused or diverted to unauthorized end-users. Considering the circumstances in which the EPF is already or will likely be funding the provision of military equipment, including weapons, these risks are particularly tangible. The experience in this regard of some countries in sub-Saharan Africa—some of which are already recipients of EU-funded security assistance––is illustrative of the challenges that the implementation of future or current EPF assistance measures in this and other regions will face and, thus, provides some useful lessons.

The EU and its member states have instruments and expertise at their disposal, which they should use to minimize the potential negative consequences generated by using the EPF for addressing partners’ security needs. These include preventing overlaps in establishing relevant controls, including post-shipment controls, and coordinating EPF actions with assistance in the field of arms transfer and small arms and light weapons controls. These actors should also address concerns about the EPF regarding the level of oversight and transparency surrounding the instrument.

This paper aims to contribute to ongoing discussions about how the EPF should be implemented. It describes why the EPF was established, what is currently known about the deployment and functioning of its ‘equip’ component, and the fund’s potential limitations. Using the experience of partner countries in sub-Saharan Africa as the main example, it discusses the main risks of arms diversion and misuse and what types of control and monitoring measures are available or should be put in place in the context of EPF assistance measures’ implementation in order to mitigate them.