Activities of Elena YONCHEVA related to 2020/2080(INI)
Shadow reports (1)
REPORT on a European Parliament recommendation to the Council and the Vice-President of the Commission / High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy concerning the implementation and governance of Permanent Structured Cooperation (PESCO)
Amendments (37)
Amendment 8 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital A
Recital A
A. whereas according to Article 42(2) of the TEU, the common security and defence policy (CSDP) includes the progressive framing of a common EU defence policy, which could lead to a common defence being put in place; whereas PESCO constitutes an important step towards achieving this objective;
Amendment 22 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital D
Recital D
D. whereas the three-fold level of ambition under the EU Global Strategy in the field of security and defence covers securing external borders, countering hybrid threats and fighting against terrorismthe protection of Europe and its citizens, crisis management and capacity-building of partners; whereas no Member State can protect itself alone, since security and defence threats faced by the EU, and which are targeted against its citizens and, territory, are a jointies and infrastructures, are common multi- faceted threats and cannot be addressed by one single Member State on its own; whereas an effective EU system for addressing burden-sharingefficient, coherent and strategic used of resources would be advantageous for the EU’s overall level of security and defence and is more than ever necessary in a fast deteriorating security environment;
Amendment 32 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital F
Recital F
F. whereas PESCO’s long-term vision is to achieve a coherent full-spectrum force package available to the Member Statesprovide the Union with operational capacity drawing on civil and military assets in order for the Union to perform its tasks referred to in Article 43 TEU; whereas PESCO should enhance the EU’s capacity to act as a global actor and an international security provider in orderand to protect EU citizens an; whereas PESCO would maximise the effectiveness of defence spending; whereas the cost of non- Europe in security and defence is estimated to be more than EUR 100 billion per year;
Amendment 48 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital G
Recital G
G. whereas the COVID-19 pandemic has shown the consequences of the EU not having enough competence when it comes to health care; whereas, by the same analogy, it would make sense to establish an EU common defence strategy in order to be able to respond to an attack on the EU’s borders and territories; whereas PESCO constitutes an important step towards achieving the objective of a common defence and the need for a European Health Union;
Amendment 61 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital G a (new)
Recital G a (new)
Ga. whereas, the establishment of an EU common defence strategy is more than ever needed in the context of growing multiple threats;
Amendment 69 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital H
Recital H
H. whereas according to Council decision 2017/2315, establishing PESCO enhanced defence capabilities of the Member States will also benefit NATO, following the single set-of-forces principle, while strengthening the European pillar within the alliance and responding to repeated calls for stronger transatlantic burden-sharing;
Amendment 88 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital J
Recital J
J. whereas the pMS do not pay enough attentionmust show full political engagement to the 20 binding commitments to which they have subscribed, and not enough progress has been achieved with regard to significantly embedding PESCO into national defence planning processes;
Amendment 90 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital K
Recital K
K. whereas PESCO was originally conceived as an avant-garde, comprising the Member States willing and able to upgrade their cooperation in defence to a new level of ambition; whereas the fact thwe welcome that 25 Member States have decided to participate there are 25 pMSo PESCO; whereas this high number of pMS should not means that PESCO is at risk of being constrained by the ‘lowest common denominator’ approach; whereas meaningful participation of smaller Member States shall be ensured;
Amendment 95 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital L
Recital L
L. whereas work on the first three waves of PESCO projects has led to the pMS proposing 47establishing 47 projects; whereas we consider that this high number of proposals shows that PESCO was much needed; whereas pMS shall now translate this initial enthusiasm into political will and ensure the swift and effective implementation of these projects; whereas the current list of projects lackscould benefit from more mutual coherence, strategic ambition and does not adequately address priority shortfalls as identified by the pMS; whereas one of these projects has been stopped in order to avoid unnecessary duplication; whereas other projects did not make sufficient progress or are at risk of being stopped, and around 30 projects are still in the ideation and preparatory phase;
Amendment 114 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital M
Recital M
M. whereas only the most strategic PESCO projects, such as EUFOR Crisis Response Operation Core (EUFOR CROC) have the potential to decisively contribute to the creation of a coherent full spectrum force package;
Amendment 118 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital N
Recital N
N. whereas major European defence projects such as the Future Air Combat System (FCAS) and the Main Ground Combat System (MGCS) currently remain outside the scope of PESCO; whereas their integration within the remit of PESCO would provide for sufficient strategic focus;
Amendment 127 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital P
Recital P
P. whereas only some of the current PESCO projects do sufficiently address the most obvious capability gapcapability shortcomings or already sufficiently take into account High Impact Capacity Goals (HICG) deriving from the Capability Development Plan (CDP), and should be considered as a priority;
Amendment 130 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital Q
Recital Q
Q. whereas the consistency, coherence and mutual reinforcement between PESCO, CARD, national implementation plans (NIPs) and the CDP has to be further improved;
Amendment 133 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital R
Recital R
R. whereas the NATO Defence Planning Process (NDPP) drives defence national planning processes in most cases in Member States which are Members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization;
Amendment 145 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital S
Recital S
S. whereas interactions between Member States’ national priorities, EU priorities and NATO priorities should be synchronisedtake place at the earliest possible convenience; whereas PESCO can be an effective tool in order to achieve EU and NATO targets simultaneouslyddress the capability development priorities identified in the EU and by NATO;
Amendment 155 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital U
Recital U
U. whereas currently, PESCO projects are dependent on the 25 participating Member States’ financial contributions; whereas it is expected that, as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, national defence budgets will suffer reductions; whereas paradoxically, several of the currently 47 PESCO projects, if funded accordingly, could strengthen Member States’ preparedness, should another massive public health crisis occur: military mobility – a flagship PESCO project –, the European Medical Command and many other projects in areas related to logistics and transportation, health care, disaster relief CBRN preparedness and the fight against malicious cyber activities; whereas cutting funding for the strategic capabilities that the EU and its Member States currently lack would also weaken their ability to jointly act against future pandemics;
Amendment 163 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital V
Recital V
V. whereas the prospect of co- financing certain PESCO projects via the future European Defence Fund (EDF) has led pMS to multiply their proposals, and despite the fact that this has encouraged exchanges and cooperation, notwhereas all proposals shall necessarily have the EU’s best strategic interest in mind;
Amendment 166 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital W
Recital W
W. whereas the participation of third countries, which would meet an agreed set of political substantive and legal conditions, in individual PESCO projects might be in the strategic interest of the European Union, particularly in case of the United Kingdomwhen it comes to providing technical expertise or additional capabilities, particularly in case of strategic partners such as the United Kingdom, countries from the Western Balkans and the Eastern Partnership; whereas possible third country participation to PESCO projects should not undermine the objective to foster the EU CSDP;
Amendment 179 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital Y
Recital Y
Y. whereas the governance of PESCO is led by pMS, and therefore eventually leads to the insufficient coordination and overall consistency of the projects; whereas this should constitute grounds for the extension of the mandate of the PESCO secretariatwhereas the PESCO secretariat should continue to provide expertise upon request and to facilitate liaison with other EU actors as regards possible synergies with other EU instruments and initiatives to ensure transparency and inclusiveness and avoid unnecessary duplications;
Amendment 188 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital AB
Recital AB
AB. whereas the Parliament regrets the fact thatcalls for the Vice-President of the Commission / High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy did noto forward his annual report on the implementation of the PESCO;
Amendment 189 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital AB a (new)
Recital AB a (new)
ABa. whereas the combined Research and Development efforts of pMS under PESCO will give way to significant technological breakthroughs, in turn providing the Union with a competitive edge in the areas of modern defence capabilities;
Amendment 191 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital AB b (new)
Recital AB b (new)
ABb. whereas the COVID-19 pandemic and other health and refugee crises have shown the clear need for the development of real time, rapidly deployable CBRN surveillance capabilities of the Union, which are to increase the preparedness and overall safety of the Member States;
Amendment 193 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – introductory part
Paragraph 1 – introductory part
1. Recommends that the Council and the Vice-President of the Commission / High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy:
Amendment 194 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – point a
Paragraph 1 – point a
(a) inform and consult Parliament on the review of PESCO, and to ensure that Parliament’s views are duly taken into consideration, in line with Article 36 TEU especially in the context of the current strategic review of the first PESCO phase, which ends in 2020, in order to ensure; reinforced accountability, transparency, and scrutiny;
Amendment 203 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – point c
Paragraph 1 – point c
(c) prepare as soon as possible, on the basis of the results of the discussion on the Strategic Compass, a fully-fledged EU Security and Defence White Book;
Amendment 224 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – point e
Paragraph 1 – point e
(e) maintain the EU’s budgetary ambition for the strengthening of defence capabilities, notably thought the sufficient financing of the future EDF in the upcoming MFF;
Amendment 229 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – point f
Paragraph 1 – point f
(f) ensure that PESCO is effectively used as an instrument to reachwards EU defence integration as a common goal, especially in terms of availability, interoperability, flexibility and deployability of forces in line with the ambition for greater EU Sstrategic Autonomyautonomy; highlights the need to secure European defence autonomy by building and developing its own capabilities, resources and reserves;
Amendment 247 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – point h
Paragraph 1 – point h
(h) ensure that PESCO is treated as a Union institutions sui generis, as is the case with the European External Action Service (EEAS), which would require amending the Financial Regulation8 in order to include PESCO, with a specific section in the Union budget; recognise that Parliament, jointly with the Council, exercises legislative and budgetary functions, as well as functions of political control and consultation as laid down in the Treaties; _________________ 8 OJ L 193, 30.7.2018, p. 1.
Amendment 281 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – point l
Paragraph 1 – point l
(l) consider, as part of the reform of the EU Battlegroup system, whether to bring it under PESCO in order to increase its operational capacity, modularity and agility;
Amendment 287 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – point m
Paragraph 1 – point m
(m) group PESCO projects into capability clusters and make a distinction betweenassess their strategically relevant and other projectsce;
Amendment 290 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – point n
Paragraph 1 – point n
(n) promote compliance with the 20 PESCO commitments by establishing clearer definition of compliance benchmarks, and by ensuring that future project proposals must address a specific CDP priority; ensure that any reviews of project progress should be based on clear and transparent criteria; ensure that such criteria serve as benchmark for all Member States participating in PESCO projects; whereas PESCO can in this respect contribute to greater coherence, coordination and interoperability in security and defence, and to consolidating solidarity, cohesion and the resilience of the Union;
Amendment 297 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – point o
Paragraph 1 – point o
(o) use the synergies between the PESCO project cycle and other defence capability processes such as CARD, HLG and EDF in order to enable more mature and well-documented projects to be submitted; allow projects to be submitted outside the cycle in order toenhance the coherence of EU defence planning and development tools and initiatives in order to enable more focused, mature, better developed and structured PESCO projects proposals to be submitted; make sure the submission cycle enables the synchronised implementation of several European initiatives, including the EDF;
Amendment 302 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – point p
Paragraph 1 – point p
(p) consider giving CDP a more binding characterencourages pMS to embed CDP into their national defence planning processes with a view to help to overcome capability shortcomings;
Amendment 309 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – point q
Paragraph 1 – point q
(q) define an effective and strong project steering committee, reaffirm the central role of the PESCO secretariat as a single point of contact for all projects and invite the secretariat to carry out regular situation points on the progress of projects to the Parliament as well as for the benefit of all the stakeholders, including Parliament, via information collected from the Member State(s) in charge of project coordination;
Amendment 312 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – point q a (new)
Paragraph 1 – point q a (new)
(qa) call on the pMS to ensure tangible progress in the achievement of the current PESCO projects;
Amendment 330 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – point w
Paragraph 1 – point w
(w) clarify the rules governing third- party participation in PESCO, taking into consideration the importance of EU decision-making autonomy and full reciprocity, with a case-by-case approach considered to be most beneficial for the EU; underlines the need to prepare and adopt a comprehensive and fundamental document, which regulates future cooperation with third-party participation in PESCO projects;
Amendment 335 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – point w a (new)
Paragraph 1 – point w a (new)
(wa) ensure that PESCO projects further develop and increase the industrial capacity of pMS in the fields of nano-technologies, super-computers, AI, drone technology, robotics and others, in turn securing European self-reliance from foreign importers in these areas, as well as facilitate the creation of new jobs;