A EUROPEAN DEFENCE UNION? THE EU’S NEW INSTRUMENTS IN THE AREA OF SECURITY AND DEFENCE

Justyna Gotkowska WARSAW NOVEMBER 2019

A EUROPEAN DEFENCE UNION? THE EU’S NEW INSTRUMENTS IN THE AREA OF SECURITY AND DEFENCE

Justyna Gotkowska © Copyright by Centre for Eastern Studies

CONTENT EDITOR Wojciech Stanisławski

EDITOR Szymon Sztyk, Tomasz Strzelczyk

CO-OPERATION Katarzyna Kazimierska

TRANSLATION Jim Todd

MAPS AND CHARTS Urszula Gumińska-Kurek

GRAPHIC DESIGN PARA­‑BUCH

DTP IMAGINI

PHOTOGRAPH ON COVER branislavpudar / Shutterstock.com

Centre for Eastern Studies ul. Koszykowa 6a, 00-564 Warsaw, Poland tel.: (+48) 22 525 80 00, [email protected] www.osw.waw.pl

ISBN: 978-83-65827-45-6 Table of contents

INTRODUCTION | 5

THESES | 6

I. CONCEPTS | 9 1. A European Security and Defence Union? | 9 2. Plans – reality – outlook | 11

II. ACTORS | 15 1. The member states | 15 2. The EU institutions | 18

III. INSTRUMENTS | 23 1. Military instruments | 23 2. Industrial instruments | 32 3. Civilian instruments | 38 4. Military mobility | 42 5. New financial instruments | 45 6. EU-NATO cooperation | 47

ANNEXES | 50 1. Glossary of abbreviations | 50 2. EU Capability Development Priorities for 2018–2025 | 51 3. PESCO projects (as of November 2019) | 53 4. Financial resources for security and defence in the European Commission’s proposal | 58 hs s nesadbe te eeomn o nw ntuet i te U is EU the in instruments new of development the understandable: is This defence and security EU’s of the evolution the present to aims report This INTRODUCTION this text gives the broad political background to the whole process, and pre and process, whole the to background political broad the gives time, text same this the At flank. NATO’s eastern on countries the for generate they is to provide information about the security and defence instruments which instruments defence and security the about information provide to is possible further development; and to show the opportunities and challenges and opportunities the show to and development; further possible their and assessment their present to EU; the in far so developed been have report this of aim The institutions. EU the and states member participating interests the or area, this in undertaking is EU the activities knowledgeof the autonomy’,pean strategic a concept which has no clear definition. Discussions slogans to down comes often issue this on debate Public 2016. since policy sents the interests of the participating actors. participating of the interests the sents of individual actors. individual of actual on based often less much are policy defence and security EU’s the on hgl bracai poes i wih ay cos r ivle: oh the both involved: are actors many which in process, bureaucratic highly a no­ reality in army’,which a ‘European about ‑one intends to create, or ‘Euro or create, to intends ‑one ‑ ‑

5 OSW REPORT 11/ 2019 6 OSW REPORT 11/ 2019 • • • THESES

As a consequence, the creation of a European Security and Defence Union Defence and Security a European of creation the a consequence, As This concept has been significantly modified. This has happened mainly happened has This modified. significantly been has concept This The original concept promoted by Paris for developing the EU’s security and Jean ­ under Commission European the Third, would also be interested in the strengthening of the EU’s political, military military political, EU’s of the strengthening the in interested be wouldalso However, negotiations,new as a resultinstruments most allow of the of also policy, industrial EU’s of the areas related the in also but (CSDP), Policy tical of Paris’s interventionist attitude. Also the eastern flank countries, flank eastern the Also attitude. interventionist Paris’s of tical integrative and inclusive a broad, for opted Germany,has to which thanks trig Brexit Second, administration. Trump of the face the in standing trial not developmentcould development.This & research and policy transport Defence and Security Common of the dimension civilian and military the ment remains the formal reference of the EU’s security and defence policy.defence and security EU’s of the reference formal the remains ment including Poland, have adopted a cautious stance. At present, crisis manage integration. EU.the for support public increase to instrument an as also but integration indus and military political, EU’s the strengthen to wished states member policy have accelerated. New initiatives have been undertaken, not only in only not undertaken, haveNewinitiativesbeen have accelerated. policy has become a flagship project for the Commission. the European for project a flagship become has several largest the factors.First, of havecoincidence the without happened Since 2016, efforts to increase cooperation in the EU’s security and defence and security EU’s the in cooperation increase to 2016,efforts Since gered a political need to show that more European integration is possible. is integration European more that show to need a political gered by the eastern flank countries. flank eastern bythe cooperation armament for support financial providewould and states, ber support for capabilities needed for collective defence, as has been advocated crisis management in the EU’s southern neighbourhood. However,such neighbourhood. southern EU’s the in management crisis eration would take place within an exclusivemember states, which group of Military funds. EU the by supported instruments dustrial in and military interlinked of a framework develop to was policy defence further for a vehicle as only not cooperation defence and security closer approach to security and defence cooperation in the EU, and has been scep EU,been the has in and cooperation defence and security to approach industry defence European of name the in countries biggest the among mem of the some only of interests security the support would a concept autonomyindustrial and vis-à-vis the US and in greater involvement greater in the and in US the ‑Claude Juncker has treated has Juncker ‑Claude ‑industrial coop ­‑industrial ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ • • • •

The decision to set up the DG for Defence Industry and Space in the new the in Space and Industry Defence for DG the up set to decision The France, Germany and the UK. They will use different formats for bilateral for formats different use will They UK. the and Germany France, countries: largest bythe shaped abovebe perhaps all, also,and will Europe co defence and security European closer for framework the future, the In between cooperation enhanced the that indicates nothing However,far so is policy defence that indicating signal a political is Commission European Expeditionary Force (JEF).Expeditionary Greater military integration in the EU will not necessarily mean compe mean necessarily not will EU the in integration military Greater them actively, will to only a small extent increase European military capa military European increase extent a small only actively,to them will poli defence their of integration a true to lead will states member EU the programmes. space and industry defence the to European Commis of the structure the in place its newand DG tasksof the the time, same the At field. this in competence increased have to EU the like would which states member some of expectations the meet to tended military,industrial EU’s the NATO. to alternative If an creating and tition include controversial discussions about European nuclear deterrence and deterrence nuclear European about discussions controversial include ited resources which the EU member states are willing to assign security petition for member states’ resources and involvement could arise. The arise. could involvement and resources states’ member for petition growing tension between the US and Western Europe may also generate also may WesternEurope and US the between tension growing bilities, lead to innovation in the European defence industry, or improve the in was establishment Its EU. the within important increasingly becoming show that this is only a secondary priority in comparison with the others. the with comparison in priority a secondary only is this that show limited are competences its area; this in established be could that smallest sion represent a compromise with those member states which are sceptical of enhancing the Commission’s role in defence policy. The new DG is the is DG new policy.The defence in role Commission’s the enhancing of collectivedefence. cept (FNC), France’s European Intervention Initiative (EI2), or the UK’s Joint Military EU. the to limited be not will operation lim The missions. management crisis civilian and military the of capacity cies and militaries. The new EU instruments, the evenmember states use if a strong impetus to deepen European military cooperation, which would which cooperation, military European deepen to impetus a strong com areas certain However,in Alliance. the for complement a useful as serve may they coordinated, and managed properly are tools civilian and and multilateral cooperation, such as Germany’s Framework Nations Con Nations FrameworkGermany’s as such cooperation, multilateral and 2021–2027 for framework financial multiannual the in policy defence and ‑industrial cooperation in cooperation ­‑industrial ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑

7 OSW REPORT 11/ 2019 8 OSW REPORT 11/ 2019 •

‘European strategic autonomy’ that are the biggest problem. None of these of these None problem. biggest the are that autonomy’ strategic ‘European This has also been exacerbated by the Commission’s rhetoric, which has which rhetoric, Commission’s the by exacerbated been also has This will come with the EU’s new military, industrial and civilian instruments. civilian and military,industrial new EU’s the with come will European Security and Defence Union as a vehicle for further European further for a vehicle as Union Defence and Security European defence and capabilities military real the in reflected are of these None EU’s security and defence policy but the narra It is not the substance of the treated closer cooperation between member states under the banner of the betweencooperation closer treated of the banner the under states member army’,a ‘EuropeanUnion’,tives Defenceabout and Security a ‘European or integration. integration. All this has resulted in misleading ideas about the EU’s present clause. defence mutual EU’s the bolstering or architecture security ropean between member states and between the EU & the US.the & EU betweenthe and states betweenmember far­ the by deepened been spending of the EU member states.spending of the The gap between rhetoric and reality has and future options in security and defence, as well as in misunderstandings ‑reaching French proposals on creating a new Eu a new creating on proposals French ‑reaching ‑ ‑ • • • 1 4 3 2 Defence and Union? Security A European 1. This is due to several external factors: the result of the referendumThis isduetoseveralleave external the factors: theresult of the November2016 pres Trump the initiatives; such blocked hitherto had which UK, the by EU The (A) I. the Council set out the level of the EU’s ambitions in security and defence in defence and security in ambitions EU’s of the level the out set Council the EUGS of the presentation the with coincided tors idency in the US, which has provoked negative reactions in Western Europe;Western in reactions negativeprovoked has which US, the in idency fence policy. EUGS and thefollowing implementation plans, On the basis of the security anddefence policyhasbeendeveloped moredynamically thanbefore a policy document for the further development of the EU’s security and de and security EU’s of the development further the for document a policy fac These Macron. Emmanuel President French of agenda European the and

CONCEPTS Action: A Stronger Europe’ A Stronger Action: Cnoiae vrin f h Tet o Erpa Union’ European on Treaty the of version ‘Consolidated defence’ and security of area the in strategy global EU the implementing on conclusions ‘Council Common Vision, Shared Policy. Security and Foreign Union’s European the for Strategy ‘A Global It that is the worth CSDP clarifying includes and only. instruments civilian the military Instruments The Council of the European Union, 14 November 2016. 14 November Union, European of the The Council covers all the instruments mentioned in this chapter. this in mentioned instruments the all covers port policy. For this reason, the report uses the term ‘the EU’s security and defence policy’, which which policy’, defence and security EU’s ‘the term the uses report the reason, this For policy. port C 202/1. supporting the arms industry and military mobility are are mobility military and industry arms the supporting (strategic communication, cybersecurity, border protection, observing in observing protection, cybersecurity,border communication, (strategic flict prevention and peace­ and prevention flict ternational law, the protection of civilians, good governance);civilians,good law,ternational of protection the in accordance with Article 43 of the TEU (joint disarmament operations, disarmament (joint TEU of the Article 43 with in accordance resilience of critical networks and infrastructure, the security of the EU’s of the security the infrastructure, and networks critical of resilience threat or recoveringfrom countries partner of stabilisation and resilience peace­ including management, humanitarian and rescue tasks, military advice and assistance tasks, con tasks, assistance and advice military tasks, rescue and humanitarian protecting responding capacity of CSDP tasks in civilian and military crisis management outside the EU, the outside management crisis military and civilian in tasks CSDP of ened by conflict or instability. It also includes countering hybrid threats hybrid countering includes also instability. It or conflict by ened and/or mentoring within the security sector in order to contribute to the to contribute to order in sector security the within mentoring and/or European building the 3 , highlighting three priorities: three highlighting , to external EU Union and , European External Action Service, June 2016. June Service, Action External European , of

partners Global its conflicts ‑keeping tasks, tasks of combat forces in crisis in forces combat of tasks tasks, ‑keeping citizens ‑making and post­ and ‑making Strategy wih oes ak i tann, advice training, in tasks covers which , and , i.e. strengthening the protection and protection the i.e. strengthening , crises (EUGS). de jure de Ofca Junl f h Erpa Union European the of Journal Official , 2 , which covers the full range full coversthe which , in June2016,became whichin part of the EU industrial and trans and industrial EU of the part ‑conflict stabilisation) ‑conflict 2016, the EU’s the mid-2016, Since 4 ; 1 ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ . ‑ ,

9 OSW REPORT 11/ 2019 10 OSW REPORT 11/ 2019 According to the EU documents the EU’s security and defence policy comple policy defence and security EU’s the documents EU the to According vember 2016 began the process of developing military, industrial and civilian and military,developingindustrial of process the began vember 2016 work for collective defence for thosememberstateswhich areNATO members. C Instruments. (C) Strategic (B) the creation of a ‘European Security and Defence Union’.Defence and Security a ‘European of creation the instruments and financial mechanisms. financial and instruments and security of area the in US of the independence industrial and military colloquial the autonomy’. contradicts term ‘strategic It of the rowerdefinition a nar offers therefore EUGS The Alliance. the with coordinated is and ments internal EU’s the guaranteeing and neighbourhood, EU’s the in management to EU the for need the state TheyEU. the for a task as defence collective nise understanding of the term, which usually means the EU strive for political, for strive EU the means usually which term, of the understanding civil­ i.e. conducting areas, specific in autonomy strategic have 1. Chart been reinforced by the rhetoric from the Juncker Commission as it opted for opted it as Commission Juncker the from rhetoric the by reinforced been security. At the same time, they clearly state that NATO is the primary frame primary NATOthe that is state clearly they time, same security.the At sented by the High Representative and partially adopted by the Council in No in Council the by adopted partially Representativeand High the by sented defence. The problems with understanding the term ‘strategic autonomy’ have Source: Industrial instruments instruments Military Civilian instruments Civilian radicalisation, combatting people smuggling, the proliferation of weapons of proliferation the smuggling, people combatting radicalisation, ing hybrid threats, cybersecurity, preventing and countering terrorism and of mass destruction, arms trafficking and organised crime. organised and trafficking arms destruction, mass of stable ensuring response, disaster and protection civil borders, external access to the global commons, including the high sea and space, counter space, and sea high the including commons, global the to access own preparation. own New instruments in the EU’s security and defence policy and EU’s the security in New instruments autonomy. h Ipeetto Pa o Scrt ad eec pre Defence and Security on Plan Implementation The (MPCC) ConductCapability and Planning Military Civilian CSDPCompact(CCC) European DefenceFund (EDF) European DefenceIndustrialDevelopment (EDIDP) Programme Action onDefence Research (PADR)Preparatory DevelopmentCapability Plan(CDP) Coordinated AnnualReview onDefence(CARD) Permanent StructuredCooperation(PESCO) Neither the EUGS nor other EU documents recog documents EU other nor EUGS the Neither ‑military crisis ‑military ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑speed Union: the countries integrating in the EU’s core, and its periphery.In its and core, EU’s the in integrating countries the Union: ‑speed (i.e. mainly the US) to the European defence market. defence European the to US) the (i.e. mainly development and research joint for support financial EU’s and (CDP,CARD) This concept was promoted by Paris, which has highlighted the gradual and gradual the highlighted has which Paris, by promoted was concept This Moreover, in the negotiations over the EU’s multiannual financial framework financial multiannual EU’s the overnegotiations the Moreover,in which would co­ wouldwhich would mainly offer financial and bureaucratic support for enhancing crisis enhancing for support bureaucratic and financial offer mainly would outlook reality – Plans – 2. European security. According to France, the EU should develop ‘strategic au ‘strategicdevelop should EU the France, to security.According European Ambitious (A) Fund: a separateenvelope for improving mobilitywithinthe ‘Connect military NATO Defence Planning Process (NDPP).NATOProcess Planning Defence tonomy’, i.e. the ability to undertake actions independent political and military neighbourhood. southern EU’s the in (MPCC) structures command EU the by led operations management crisis for capabilities military developing ture The EUGS. the in defined as ambition level of EU’s the fulfil to aim would tion the longer term, with growing frictions in trans in frictions growing with term, longer the industry arms European of the capacity of the as well as EU, the within ties capabili defence) collective not (but management crisis of development the inevitable withdrawal of the US from political and military involvement in involvement military and political from US of the withdrawal inevitable development capability in coordination closer (PESCO), cooperation military off­ an and (CEF), Facility’ Europe ing securityanddefence, inadditiontotheEuropean Defence ments intheareaof ­ a two create would This capabilities. defence collective not and management, defencepolicy.and security in Parismind, in wantsstrengthen this to Bearing rjcs EF. h ecuie ru o cutis novd n uh coopera such in involved countries of group exclusive The (EDF). projects more enabling instruments interlinked of a framework develop to was policy framework of obligationsandreportingwould makeframework ita self­ of proposed. also was missions management crisis civilian for funding instru financial new introducing proposed Commission the 2021–2027, for Such a concept for the EU’s security and defence policy would not be benefi be not would policy defence and security EU’s the for a concept Such by supporting European champions and limiting the access of third countries third of access the limiting and champions European supporting by capability development planning as it gradually becomes an alternative to the alternativeto an becomes gradually it as developmentplanning capability EU the to stick to preferring Russia, towards policy defence and deterrence NATO’sinvestin to reluctant become could states Westmember est European EU The reasons. several for countries, flank eastern other and Poland for cial ‑finance EU military operations, among others. An increase in increase others. An among operations, military EU ‑finance plans. The original concept for the EU’s security and defence and security EU’s the for concept original The ‑budget European Peace Facility (EPF), Facility Peace European ‑budget ‑Atlantic relations the larg the relations ­‑Atlantic ‑reinforcing struc ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ 11 OSW REPORT 11/ 2019 12 OSW REPORT 11/ 2019 Ambitious plans are currently being worked out to increase the EU’s capacity EU’s the increase to out worked being currently are plans Ambitious vantage of the planned increases of the NATO Structure. Command of the increases planned of the vantage The European Defence Fund (EDF) will benefit more recipients than originally than recipients more benefit Europeanwill The Fund(EDF) Defence military of conduct and planning the for structures command new EU’s The priorities set 2018 in Plan Development Capability of the review latest The which aimed to create an exclusive group of countries willing to conduct ex conduct to willing countries of group exclusive an create to aimed which NATO.and UN the within political EUGS’s the though even defence, collective improve to Process, aims which Planning Defence NATO the with extent great a to overlap which However, the further expansion of the MPCC might take place to the disad the to place take might MPCC of the expansion further However,the Modified (B) Germany, which favoured an inclusive and structural approach in the case the in approach structural and inclusive an favoured Germany,which the Council conclusions issued in November 2018 clearly refer to a single set a single to refer clearly November 2018 in issued conclusions Council the countries, other and Germany by instruments, specific over negotiations the missions. in civilian crisismanagement (CCC). They may, however, clashwiththeknown with companies arms European large by only not conducted equipment, itary their increase to willing are which countries, flank eastern of the needs itary Poland. including peditionary operations. Currently, PESCO projects also correspond to the mil the to correspond also projects Currently,operations.PESCO peditionary addition, projects.In EDF and PESCO of choice the for basis the form priorities guidelines prioritise crisis management. This is important because the CDP’s the because important is This management. crisis prioritise guidelines battle group (approx. 1500 soldiers). Proposals to merge military and civilian and military merge to Proposals 1500 soldiers). (approx. group battle subsidiaries in several all also by smallcountries, and medium­ but first of envisaged. It will support the cooperative development of armament and mil and armament of developmentcooperative the support will It envisaged. missions. EU future conducting to beneficial be might capacities command one of size of the missions executing to limited be will (MPCC) operations cooperation. multilateral through capabilities defence proposals, French the ‘blurred’ has (PESCO), projects cooperation military of i.e. also frameworks, different in use can states member the which forces of curity and defence policy as presented above was significantly modified during difficulties that member states have in providing personnel for civilian CSDP civilian for personnel providing in have states member that difficulties EU.the across enterprises instruments. However, the concept of developing the EU’s se EU’s the developing of concept However,the ‑sized ‑sized ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ European A European A 5 vilian crisis management capabilities could be made, but the EU might still might EU the but made, be could capabilities management crisis vilian 2019–2024, the European Council has agreed that the EU needs to take greater greater take to needs EU the that agreed has Council European the 2019–2024, with theEDFco­ Initiative (EI2).Initiative developwill policy defence further.and possible security three EU’s are There NATOthe mainplatform as for politico­ Outlook. (C) defence and security of area the for instruments financial new Furthermore, Defence Union might however be a useful political label for some EU member EU some for label political howevera useful might be Union Defence ficiency of the EU’s currently developed toolbox. In the new Strategic Agenda Strategic new the In developed toolbox. currently EU’s of the ficiency tiatives generating more bureaucracy than benefits for the member states, member the the tiatives for benefits than bureaucracy generatingmore 2021–2027. framework for financial multiannual the on tions industrial cooperation between the EU member states would be implemented be would states member EU the between cooperation industrial ini civilian and military the with and harmonious, more becoming ­relations de enhancing by particular in defence, and security own its for responsibility mixed results. Some PESCOprojectswillbebeneficialtothe EU memberstates, France’sInterventionEuropean or (FNC) Concept Frameworkmany’sNations bilaterally,formats: other in regionally, NATO,in initiativeswithin Ger likeor lack sufficient resources to be effective. The EDF projects will translate into translate will projects EDF The effective. be to resources sufficient lack paper withsomePESCOprojectsbeingimplementedby thememberstatesand trans­ pend onseveral factors:thefutureof fence investment, capability development and operational readiness in close in readiness operational and development capability investment, fence but other might be might other but states. Despite enjoying a few successes, itwillnotlead totheexpected military on function would Union Defence and Security European significantly. The scenarios: cooperation with NATOwith cooperation ef the and EU of the outside formats cooperation military multilateral of the one. Faced with continued trans­ continued Facedwith one. bring may instruments civilian and military,industrial recent of the opment drive towards deepersecurityanddefence inthe EUcouldweaken integration are under discussion. They will take their shape in the final stage of negotia of stage final the in shape their take will They discussion. under are an increase in industrial cooperation and defence innovation, albeit a small a small albeit innovation, defence and cooperation industrial in increase an

‘European Council meeting – Conclusions’ meeting – Council ‘European

The development of the EU’s security and defence policy will de will policy defence and security EU’s developmentThe of the Security Security ‑financing smallindustrialR&Dprojects. and Therealmilitary de facto

5 and and . It is too early,too is It . however, howthe determine clearly to abandoned. Progress in strengthening the EU’s ci EU’s the strengthening in Progress abandoned.

Defence Defence ‑Atlantic tensions, the European Security and ‑AtlanticSecurityEuropean the tensions, , The Council of the European Union, 20 June 2019. 20 June Union, European of the Council The , Union Union ‑military cooperation, thedevelopment ‑military ‑Atlantic relations, theperceptionof

of on

small paper. successes. ih trans­ With h devel The ‑Atlantic ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ 13 OSW REPORT 11/ 2019 14 OSW REPORT 11/ 2019 A EU framework. EU o netk cvla cii mngmn ad eoe mr atv ad vis and active more a become and management crisis civilian undertake to trans­ in tension regional formats of military cooperation will be gradually integrated into the into integrated gradually be will and cooperation military multilateral of formats Bilateral, regional time. first the for operations military EU used the be might in Battlegroups EU of Modules neighbourhood. its in actor ible capability its enhance thus will EU The experts.available of pool will the increase and missions management crisis civilian on personnel send to islation and security in engage to willingness states’ member increase may 2020 in cooperation – industrial and military of formats other use will states member pool for the EDF in the multiannual financial framework for 2028–2034 might 2028–2034 framework for financial multiannual the in EDF the for pool be increased. Moreover, member states will be more eager to harmonise leg harmonise to eager more be will states Moreover,member increased. be NATO.in and multilateral regional, bilateral, coordinated military procurement in the EU. As a consequence, the funding the a consequence, As EU. the in procurement military coordinated itself establishes EDF the and useful be to prove projects PESCO current of majority the if likely more prove might This EU. the in cooperation defence a valuable instrument for co­ for instrument a valuable NATO.to alternativeany EU pose The not will and integration, industrial and European Security ‑Atlantic relations if President Trump wins the US elections US the wins Trump President if relations ‑Atlantic

and

Defence ‑financing industrial projects, contributing to the the to contributing projects, industrial ‑financing Union

of

ongoing integration. Growing ‑ ‑ 6 (Africa and the Middle East). However, Paris is not satisfied with what has what with satisfied not is However, Paris East). Middle the and (Africa perceived also has France market. defence European the to US) the (including member states The 1. The UK’s decision to leave the Union has introduced a new dynamic into the into dynamic a new introduced has Union the leave to decision UK’s The primarilybyshaped (largest)mem is the policy defence and security EU’s The A France (A) Commission the Representativeor High I ACTORS II. UK withdrew its veto over the further development of this policy,this ‘quartet’ the developmentof further over vetothe its withdrew UK trial autonomy in the EU by aiming to strengthen the biggest arms industry industry arms biggest the strengthen to aiming by EU the in autonomy trial largest memberstates;andontheother,the onehand,withapproval of the the development of the EU’s security and defence policy as an instrument for instrument an as policy defence and security EU’s of the development the intergovernmental cooperation had hitherto prevailed. hitherto had intergovernmentalcooperation Policy Security and Affairs Foreign for Representative High the and mission military readiness and its capacity to conduct crisis management operations management crisis conduct to capacity its and readiness military players (principally French companies) by limiting access for third countries third for access limiting by companies) French (principally players leverage. Joint Franco extensively:on policy defence and security shape to possibility the used have for military cooperation outside EU structures aimed at increasing Europe’s increasing at aimed structures EU outside cooperation military for ber states. However, the EU’s institutions also have a say. Since 2016, the Com havethe a say.2016,also However, Since states.institutions ber EU’s the ber 2017 Paris proposed the European Intervention Initiative (EI2), a format a format (EI2), Initiative Intervention European the proposed Paris ber 2017 military building on more focused is it as EU, the in far so achieved been tutrs n cpblte ta o ealn oeain. ec, n Septem in Hence, operations. enabling on than capabilities and structures neighbourhood Europe’ssouthern in powerprojection French supplementing the by forward put initiativesnew for basis the formed usuallyhave support, of the largest member states – France, Germany, Italy and Spain – has gained has Spain – Germany,and France, Italy states – member largest of the decision eec coeain Frt f l, ai hs tie t ahee eec indus defence achieve to strived has Paris all, of First cooperation. defence as a controversial way of expanding their own competences into areas where areas into competences own their expanding of way a controversial as

‑German non ‑German This illustrates the development of the CSDP initiatives in 2016. In June of that year, the German and and German the year, that of June In 2016. in initiatives CSDP of the development the illustrates This posing that the EU’s security policy be strengthened. In September, the media published a Franco published media the September, In strengthened. be policy security EU’s the that posing Italy and Spain in October 2016 and later became the basis for the paper put forward by the High High the by O. Wientzek, forward See put paper Commission. the the for and basis the Representative became later and October 2016 in Spain and Italy Defence in the EU’. The Franco French foreign presented ministers a document entitled ‘A strong Europe in world’, an uncertain pro and Defence Policy’ Defence and ‑making process in the EU’s security and defence policy. Since the Since policy. defence and security EU’s the in process ­‑making has been the main promoter of the EU’s enhanced security and security enhanced EU’s of the promoter main the been has ‑paper entitled ‘Revitalising CSDP – towards a comprehensive, realistic and credible credible and realistic a comprehensive, towards CSDP – ‘Revitalising entitled ­‑paper , KAS Prospects for German Foreign Policy Foreign German for Prospects KAS ­‑German proposals, later validated by Italian and Spanish ‑German proposals­‑German were endorsed in a joint letter by Germany, France, 6 . ‘Glimmer of hope for the Common Security Security Common the for hope of ‘Glimmer , 26 January 2017. 26 January , ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ­ ‑ 15 OSW REPORT 11/ 2019 16 OSW REPORT 11/ 2019 7 10 Although France is not satisfied with the final shape of the EU’s initiatives, EU’s of the shape final the with satisfied not is France Although 8 9 will also work for practical (i.e. operational) successes for the initiative. the for successes (i.e. operational) practical for work also will nation framework the as France with B Germany (B) Paris supports theEuropean Security andDefence Unionprojectandpromotes invited states the that seems However, it join. to decided Italy and Sweden,Norway 2019 September In participate. would it that declared also Finland Denmark Kingdom, United the Netherlands, Germany,the Portugal, Belgium, that resulted in Brexit. For Germany, the domestic perspective of the EU’s in EU’s of the perspective domestic Germany,Forthe Brexit. in resulted that proposals. French of the majority the agen French the reinforces this autonomy,as strategic European of idea the to reluctant proven have Germany) (especially project the in participate to ic: most European countries, including Germany, seem rather sceptical about sceptical rather Germany,seem including countries, European most ic: primarily in political terms. For Berlin, increased cooperation in this area is area this in cooperation increased Berlin, For terms. political in primarily board. Sofar,board. however, top this on discussion public serious no been has there ship outside the EU, although they did not want to reject the French proposal French the reject to want not did they EU,although the outside ship creased military cooperation is important. The narrative of creating a Europe creating of narrative The important. is cooperation military creased TreatyonEuropean Union –‘a truly operational mutualdefence clause’of the in 2019, March In initiatives. of a series of driver the been has and defence, and security of area the in EU the in leader natural the as itself sees Paris da. Paris although question, open an remains thus EI2 of the future The outright. leader Paris’s under cooperation military for format ambitious an develop an Security and Defence Union and the need for a more capable Bundeswehr capable a more for need the and Union Defence and Security an tendencies centrifugal the counter to project integration European a flagship on Kingdom United the with Council Security a European of creation the and Art. 42 of strengthening security,the and defence on a treaty of adoption renewal’ European ‘For entitled article an EI2 the establishing intent of letter a signed Estonia) and

M. Lebrun, M. Lebrun, Article 42 (7) of the Treaty on the European Union: ‘If a Member State is the victim of armed aggres armed of victim the is State a Member ‘If Union: European the on Treaty of the (7) 42 Article E. Macron, E. Macron, ‘Letter of intent concerning the development of the European Intervention Initiative (EI Initiative Intervention European of the development the concerning intent of ‘Letter 2018. This shall not prejudice the specific character of the security and defence policy of certain Member Member certain of policy defence and security of the character specific the prejudice not shall This ed version of the Treaty on European Union, Union, European on Treaty of the version ed sion on its territory, the other Member States shall have towards it an obligation of aid and assis and aid of obligation an it towards have shall States Member other the territory, its on sion the foundation of their collective defence and the forum for its implementation.’ See the Consolidat the See implementation.’ its for remains forum it, the of and members defence are collective which of their States foundation those the for which, Organisation, Treaty Atlantic the North Charter. Nations United of the Article 51 with accordance in power, their in means the all by tance States. Commitments and cooperation in this area shall be consistent with commitments under under commitments with consistent be shall area this in cooperation and Commitments States. ‘Forrenewal’ European ‘Strategic Autonomy? France, the eFP and the EII’ the and eFP the France, Autonomy? ‘Strategic sees the development of EU initiatives in security and defence and security in initiatives EU of development the sees , 4 March 2019. 4 March , op. cit. op. 7 I Jn 21 egt onre (Spain, countries eight 2018 June In . 9 , President Macron proposed the proposed Macron President , , ICDS Blog ICDS , 12 October 2018. 12 October , 8 I Ags 2018 August In . 2 )’ , 25 June 25 June , (7) 10 ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ , ‘post­ (and France), Washington’s unilateral decisions, which do not take European take not do which decisions, Washington’sunilateral France), (and Merkel is still aware that European security depends on the US guarantees US the on depends security European that aware still is Merkel ad te U lo a a eaie mat Fo te esetv o Germany of perspective the From impact. negative a has also EU the wards elns uue tne n eain wt te S il e f e importance key of be will US the with relations on stance future Berlin’s development the influence will which factor important most However, the C Italy (C) US presence in Europe as the cornerstone of European security, and perceivesecurity, Europeanand of cornerstone the as Europe in presence US the military alliance. military the US­ to Berlin’s From administration. Trump the of approach ‘confrontational’ the to presidency Obama the during Europe towards approach ‘cooperative’ the from policy, US the in change the by affected most been has Germany tions. defence and security EU’s of the dimension industrial defence the in terested in also NATO.is within Berlin GDP 2% of spending for demands the are than the European pillar in the Alliance. The Social Democrats, however,the Democrats,view Social The Alliance. the in pillar European the strengthening as Union Defence and Security a European of development the in developing the EU’s security and defence policy. In Germany, an intense Germany,an In policy. defence and security EU’s the developing in context EU the in voiced when public German the by accepted readily more is oiin s roiy ates o Fac ad emn i saig h EU’s the shaping in Germany and France for partners priority as position policy multilateral from retreat US’s of the light trans­ the undermining are them, contradict directly even and account, into interests and positions foreign its in approach multilateral abandon to decision US the perspective, companies. arms German of standing the enhance to a chance as policy iiis o te oten egbuho wtot nemnn NATO. Both undermining without neighbourhood southern the for bilities teghnn dfne nutil ntuet ad rss aaeet capa management crisis and instruments industrial defence in strengthening interested also been have Madrid and Rome policy. defence and security f h E’ scrt ad eec plc i te uue f US­ of future the is policy defence and security EU’s the of onre spot nacn te Us oe n euiy n dfne s this as defence and security in role EU’s the enhancing support countries Europe. with eration the in a necessity, as more autonomy strategic European of the development defence policy. Christian DemocratsstillseeNATO Themajorityof the andthe trans of the future the on underway is debate n plc twrs hn ad h Mdl Es. rm’ hsie htrc to rhetoric hostile Trump’s East. Middle the and China towards policy and policy unilateral favourof in policy security and and a functioning NATO, but it also wants to strengthen the EU’s security and security EU’s the NATO,strengthen to wantsa functioning also and it but ‑trans­ Erpa rltos Ti icue tae oiy ciae sus NATO, issues, climate policy, trade includes This relations. ‑European and ‑Atlantic’governmentAngela Chancellor German world.under The Spain have tried to take advantage of Brexit to strengthen their their strengthen to Brexit of advantagetake to havetried Alni pltcl omnt, n a a consequence, a as and community, political ‑Atlantic ‑Atlantic partnership and the and partnership ­‑Atlantic ‑making is highly detrimental detrimental highly is ­‑making ‑making and from their coop their from and ­‑making Erpa rela ‑European ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ 17 OSW REPORT 11/ 2019 18 OSW REPORT 11/ 2019 4 Franco­ V4, 12 11 The EU has exclusive competence in establishing the competition rules neces rules competition the establishing in exclusivecompetence has EU The Northernterms. military also but political in only not apparent been has This with the Franco­ the with institutions EU The 2. Estonia, the Czech Republic), which had hitherto supported the UK’s position. UK’s the supported hitherto had Republic),which Czech the Estonia, The (D) UK (the Nordic states, Estonia). For these countries, Poland is ‘too big to be to big ‘too is Poland countries, these ForEstonia). states, Nordic (the UK Germany (the Czech Republic, Lithuania, Romania), France (Estonia) and the and (Estonia) Romania),France Lithuania, Republic, Czech (the Germany the last few years have shown that the decision­ the that shown have years few last the member states in the area of transportandtrans­ member statesintheareaof transparent been not has Representative High the with along Commission the and states member extenpolicy,defence and security EU’s of the development the in involved potential to replace the UK as a leader of those countries which are not satisfied potential to replace the UK as a leader of (Lithuania, Europe Central and Northern from countries smaller to also plies Since 2016, the European Commission and the High Representativehavebeen High the and Commission European the 2016, Since gives them the platform to engage in multilateral projects of politico­ of projects multilateral in engage to platform the them gives small, toosmalltobebig’. Warsaw hastoolittlepolitical,economicandmilitary politico­ of the majority of the side space. Thus, the European Commission may legislate and adopt non­ adopt and legislate may Commission European the Thus, space. the with competence shares it market; internal of the functioning the for sary treaties the in specified as competences their using sively carry out activities in the areas of research, technological development and development technological research, of areas the in activities out carry Berlin. and Parisby proposed initiatives the to objections ap This years. recent in policy defence and security EU’s the on discussions out staying from, excluded largely been far so have they which cooperation, cerning the internal market, public procurement, industrial policy,industrial the procurement, in public market,and internal the cerning and Central European states have been developing military cooperation with cooperation military developing been have states European Central and projects. PESCO of number largest the in participating currently are Spain and and binding legal acts (together with the Parliament and the Council) con Council) the and Parliament the with (together acts legal binding and

‘ Union European of the Functioning the on Treaty of the version Consolidated and areas of Union competence, Official Journal of the European Union C 326. C Union European of the Journal Official competence, Union of and areas in the discussion on the future Strategic Agenda for 2019–2024], Polish Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Foreign of Ministry Polish 2019–2024], for Agenda Strategic future the on discussion the in Polska aktywna w dyskusji o przyszłej Agendzie Strategicznej UE na lata 2019–2024 lata na UE Strategicznej Agendzie o przyszłej w dyskusji aktywna Polska other Biih oprto, h Wia Tinl) Fr hs esn Italy reason, this For Triangle). Weimar the cooperation, ‑British member ‑German tandem. However, it is strong enough to express its express to enough strong However,is tandem. it ‑German 12 . states have largely followed Germany and France in France and Germanyfollowed largely have ‑military collaboration formats (NORDEFCO,formats collaboration ‑military ‑making process between the between process ‑making ‑European networks, andmay 11 . At the same time, same the At . , Title I. Categories Categories Title I. , ’ [Poland active active [Poland ‑military ‑military ‑binding ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ 14 13 Agency (EDA).Agency Treaty on the European Union, “contributes by his proposals to the develop the to proposals his by“contributes Union, European the on Treaty 2009/43/EC onintra­ Base (EDTIB). In 2009 itissued two directives: Directive 2009/81/EC ondefence there Commission The 2009–2014. in Ashton Catherine Representative High The (A) EDIDP andtheEDF). Inaddition,theParliament shapesthedebateonCSDP, and security EU’s the in actor a secondary is ParliamentEuropean the Evenif Eu of the Functioning the on Treaty of the provisions the with accordance In tary competences. tary terms and conditions for transfers of such goods within the EU the within goods such of transfers for conditions and terms take theinitiative: theinternalmarket, thepublicprocurementlaw, industrial resentative has bureaucratic instruments at his disposal, primarily the Euro the primarily disposal, his at instruments bureaucratic has resentative Vice­ of the one also is bymandated as out Council” the carry whichshall policy he that of ment progressive the policy,including security and foreign a common implement and define to competence have shall Union “the (Article 2(4)) Union ropean ment of arms, munitions and war material for defence mentpurposes, of and Directive lack of political and strategic initiatives politicaland strategic in security and defence undertaken bylack of resist UK’s the with connected was approach regulatory R&D.The and policy could it where areas those in integration greater towards worked primarily DefenceEuropean of the head the is and (EEAS) Service ActionExternal pean fore focused on developing a European Defence Technological and Industrial and Technological Defence a European developing on focused fore the establishing regulations of case in (as extent some to legislation the fect of the Article 18 with accordance Policy, in Security and Affairs Foreign for Union of the Representative High The policy”. defence a common of framing by adopting annual resolutions on the implementation of this policy,among this of implementation the on resolutions annual adopting by defence policy, it does participate in the legislative process, and so it can af can it so and process, legislative the in participate does policy,it defence others. areas of R&D and transport within the framework of shared and supplemen and shared of framework the within transport and R&D of areas and sensitive securityprocurementsettingoutEuropean rulesfor theprocure the as well as EU, the in cooperation military and political deepening to ance approach in the EU’s security and defencea regulatory policy. The Commission

Consolidated version of the Treaty on European Union, Union, European on Treaty of the version Consolidated In subsequent years, the proposals put forward by the Commission continued to be focused on the the on focused be to continued Commission the by forward put proposals the years, subsequent In regulation of the defence industrial sector in the EU. These proposals, among others, were contained in the communication ‘Towards a more competitive and efficient defence and security sector’ of July of sector’ security and defence efficient and competitive a more ‘Towards communication the in regulatory ‑EU transfers of defence­ ‑EU transfers of ‑Presidents of the Commission. Moreover,RepCommission. High the of the ‑Presidents approach. Until 2015, the EU institutions had adopted had institutions EU the 2015, Until ‑related products, simplifyingthe op. cit. op. 14 . 13 . He. ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ 19 OSW REPORT 11/ 2019 20 OSW REPORT 11/ 2019 16 15 would strengthen the Commission and guarantee member states influence on influence states member guarantee and Commission the strengthen would Defence Agency, or creating a new ‘hybrid’ institution between the Commission Juncker Commission was to graduallyIt seems that the agenda introduce of the post of the face the in integration European The (B) Juncker and the High Representative Federica Mogherini started to treat the treat to started Mogherini FedericaRepresentative High the and Juncker On the other hand, there were debates on institutional arrangements which arrangements institutional on debates were there hand, other the On the new European instruments. This option included increasing the role of the pro EU’s mobility.The military and cooperation military of instruments the EU’s the in itself) for competences increased (with method Community the tions have come to regard closer cooperation in this area as a vehicle for further mental cooperation so far. Since 2018, discussions have been held on creating on held been have discussions 2018, Since far. so cooperation mental of charge Representativetook policy.High transport The and R&D industrial, pointing a separate Commissioner for Defence. Such a DG Defence wouldDefence have a DG Defence.Suchfor Commissioner a separate pointing institu EU The dimensions.civilian and military the initiativesin undertaken grams on cybersecurity and space would also be included into its competence. its into included be also would space and cybersecurity on grams security and defence policy, had been considered the domain of intergovern of domain the considered been policy,had defence and security projects ship defence procurement, the arms industry and R&D, but also over reporting on overreporting also R&D,but and industry arms the procurement, defence public market, defence the regarding instruments overthe only oversight not states) member with consultation (in Strategy,and Global EU the developing flag of their one became Union Defence and Security a European of creation The project. a political as policy defence and security EU’s developmentof the and the member states member the and Directorate­ a new EU.the for support public increase to instrument an

P. Becker, R. Kempin, R. Kempin, P. Becker, In June 2017 the Commission issued a ‘Reflection paper on the future of European defence’, which which defence’, European of future the on paper a ‘Reflection issued Commission the June 2017 In 2013, which paved the way for the first thematic debate on defence in the European Council and its its and Council European the in defence on debate thematic first the for way the paved which 2013, first conclusions on the CSDP in December 2013. December in CSDP the on conclusions first contained three scenarios for development up to 2025; these ranged from a slight increase in securi in increase a slight from ranged these 2025; to up development for scenarios three contained ploitation of Article 42 of the Treaty on European Union which includes the progressive framing of framing progressive the includes which Union European on Treaty of the Article 42 of ploitation European defence’ European ning would become fully synchronised, and national priorities for capability development would would development capability for priorities national and synchronised, fully become would ning Union being established. In the Reflection Paper the Commission indicated its preference for the the for preference its indicated Commission the Paper Reflection the In established. being Union ­‑ SWP account for agreed European priorities. Such capabilities would subsequently be developed on the the on developed be subsequently would capabilities Such priorities. European agreed for account plan defence States’ Member The (…) defence. common to leading policy, defence Union a common assistance mutual and “solidarity scenario this In Union. Defence and Security European a genuine basis of close cooperation, even integration or specialisation.” See See specialisation.” or integration even cooperation, close of basis ex full the on building norm, the become would defence and security in States Member between ty and defence cooperation to common defence and security with a European Security and Defence Defence and Security a European with security and defence common to cooperation defence and ty implementation of the last scenario, at the end rhetorically asking only about the pace of building building of pace the about only asking rhetorically end the at scenario, last of the implementation Aktuell political , June 2019. June , 15 . After 2016 the Commission started to put put initiatives to forward started . Commission the 2016 After in , European Commission, 7 June 2017. 7 June Commission, European , ‑General (DG) Defence in the European Commission and ap and Commission European the in Defence (DG) ‑General approach. ‘Die EU ‘Die 16 . This institution would be subordinate to the High the to subordinate be would institution This . ‑Kommission und als Sicherheits als und ­‑Kommission The European Commission under Jean­ under Commission European The ‑Brexit integration crisis, and as and crisis, integration ­‑Brexit verteidigungspolitische Akteurin’ verteidigungspolitische - ‘Reflection paper on the future of of future the on paper ‘Reflection ‑Claude ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ , ​ 18 17 von der Leyen, has announced a continuation in the security and defence policy. h dcso t cet a e directorate­ new a create to decision The Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs and which have been respon been have which and SMEs and Industry,Entrepreneurship Market, It is therefore likely that not only will the already established instruments be instruments established already the will only not that likely therefore is It Commission European next the for guidelines political her In The (C) and officials Commission both of up made be also would but Representative, the Commissioner for the Internal Market, and has been granted limited com limited granted been has and Market, Internal the for Commissioner the and Industry Defence for DG a new established has She DG. a new creating to Union”.Defence European a genuine towards steps bold further need “we that inl eg Fac) r o rae uue lentvs o AO icuig Po (including NATO to alternatives future create to or France) (e.g. tional 2021–2027, for framework financial multiannual of the adoption the after that implementation of the two directives mentioned above). It may be assumed be may above).It mentioned directives two of the implementation include the units which hitherto operated within the DG GROW for the Internal Institutionally, introduced. be also might initiatives new but implemented, in defence policy, either out of a reluctance to make this area more suprana more area this make to a reluctance of out policy,either defence in land and the Netherlands). Uncertainty remains surrounding the relationship relationship the surrounding remains Netherlands).Uncertainty the and land space & industry defence the covering petences – regard with solution a compromise on decided has Leyen der however,von Space (DG DEFI) within the Commission, but without creating a separate po a separate creating without but Commission, the within DEFI) (DG Space ber states which would like the EU to have increased competences in security in competences haveincreased to EU the like would which states ber states which are sceptical that the Commission will enhance its competences its enhance will Commission the that sceptical are which states space­ for sible to subordinated been has DG new The Defence. for a Commissioner of sition experts from the member states. member the from experts f h nw omsin i tr, ersn a ocsin o hs member those to concession a represent turn, in Commission, new the of mem those in and Brussels in scene political of the a section of expectations and defence. The tasks and the position of the new DG DEFI in the structure the in DEFI DG new of the position the and tasks The defence. and created. be will Fund Defence European the manage to units additional

(in cooperation with DG Mobility and Transport); (4) foster an innovative space industry in the the in industry space innovative an (4) foster Transport); and Mobility DG with cooperation (in The Directorate The U. von der Leyen, Leyen, der von U. enforcing EU procurement rules on defence; (3) implement the Action Plan on Military Mobility Mobility Military on Plan Action the (3) implement defence; on rules procurement EU enforcing Earth Observation Programme (Copernicus). See U. von der Leyen, Leyen, der von U. See (Copernicus). Programme Sys Observation Navigation Earth Global European the covering Programme, Space future the implement (5) EU; European Commission 2019–2024 Commission European Commissioner fence Fund, a new instrument which will offer financial support for the cooperative research and research cooperative the for support financial offer will which instrument a new Fund, fence tem (Galileo), the European Geostationary Navigation Overlay Service (EGNOS), and the European European the and (EGNOS), Service Overlay Navigation Geostationary European the (Galileo), tem industrial projects; (2) ensure an open and competitive European defence equipment market and and market equipment defence European competitive and open an (2) ensure projects; industrial reshuffle. ‑designate for the Internal Market’ Internal the for ­‑designate ‑related issues and the defence procurement market (e.g. the (e.g. the market procurement defence the and issues ‑related ‑General for the Defence Industry and Space will: (1) implement the European De European the (1) implement will: Space and Industry Defence the for ­‑General A Union that strives for more. My agenda for Europe. Political guidelines for the next next the for guidelines Political Europe. for agenda My more. for strives that A Union The new President of the European Commission, Ursula Commission, European of the President new The , July 2019. July , , European Commission, 10 September 2019. 10 September Commission, European , gnrl a itne t me the meet to intended was ‑general 18 . For now, the new DG will DG now,newFor the . ‘Mission letter to Sylvie Goulard, Goulard, Sylvie to letter ‘Mission 17 , she declared she , ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ 21 OSW REPORT 11/ 2019 22 OSW REPORT 11/ 2019 19 who is both the Vice­ the both is who External Action Service and the European Defence Agency. Borrell will be re be will Agency.Borrell Defence European the and Service Action External this allocation of competences, it is possible that differences will arise be arise for Market, Internal for Commissioner will the Representativeand High the tween differences that possible is it competences, of allocation this new High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, Security and ForeignAffairs for Union Representativeof the High new between the Commissioner responsible for the DG DEFI and Josep Borrell, the Borrell, Josep and DEFI DG the for responsible Commissioner the between pnil fr oriaig h E’ scrt ad eec plc, n fr the for and policy, defence and security EU’s the coordinating for sponsible example with regard to the priorities of funding military industrial projects industrial military funding of priorities the to regard with example Giveninstruments. civilian and military established recently oversightof the

J. Gotkowska, J. Gotkowska, 2019, www.osw.waw.pl. 2019, ‘DG for Defence Industry and Space in the new European Commission’ European new the in Space and Industry Defence for ‘DG ‑President of the Commission and head of the European of the head and Commission of the ‑President , 18 September 18 September , 19 ‑ ‑ . (composed of around 1500 soldiers each), 1500 soldiers around since 2007, operational stand on and of (composed 22 21 20 instruments Military 1. The forces and the majority of funding for EU missions and operations have operations and missions EU for funding of majority the and forces The 11 military missions and operations; six of them arestillongoing missionsandoperations;sixof them 11 military o increase the EU’s operationalplanningandconductcapabilities (MPCC)andtoincreasethe in and mechanisms structures, the adapting on was focus EU’s the Hence, op and missions military of conduct the on focused was EU the 2016, Before I. INSTRUMENTS III. Only a fraction of the costs has been covered by all member states within the within states member all bycovered been has costs of the a fraction Only though the EU could also use NATOuse also could EU the though arrangementsPlus Berlin the under assets al operations, EU the in used been have headquarters national selected ters, peace­ including management, crisis in forces combat of tasks tasks, military advice and assistance tasks, conflict prevention and peace­ and prevention conflict tasks, assistance and advice military tasks, rescue and humanitarian operations, disarmament “joint included ion, in military capability development between the member states. member the developmentbetween capability military in for this purpose, as in the case of EUFOR Althea. EUFOR of case the in as purpose, this for Since 2016 the new initiatives in the EU’s security and defence policy have policy defence and security EU’s the in initiatives new the Since 2016 joint Athena mechanism. In the absence of a permanent operations headquar operations a permanent of absence the In mechanism. Athenajoint joint financing for the common costs of EU operations from the Athena mech Athena the from operations EU of costs common the for financing joint barely affected the above the ­ affected barely used been yet not have basis, a rotational on months six of a period for by so far been provided by those member states who decided to take part in them. providedin takebeen part to far whodecided byso states member those management. crisis Battlegroups EU multinational forThe struments military erations which, in accordance with Article 43 of the Treaty on European Un European on Treaty of the Article 43 with accordance in which, erations coordinating (CDP, CARD) and increasing multinational cooperation (PESCO) cooperation multinational increasing and (CDP,CARD) coordinating agreed unanimously to launch all of them. all launch to unanimously agreed post­ and anism. But the most important military initiatives since 2016 have focused on havefocused since 2016 initiatives military important most the But anism.

‘EU Battlegroups’ ‘EU Operations’ and Missions ‘EU Consolidated version of the Treaty on European Union, Union, European on Treaty of the version Consolidated ‑conflict stabilisation”‑conflict , European External Action Service, 5 October 2017. 5 October Service, Action External European , ‑mentioned area. The Council decided to developthe to decided Council The area. ‑mentioned , European External Action Service, 5 March 2018. 5 March Service, Action External European , 20 . Since 2003 the EU has undertaken a total of of a total undertaken has EU the Since 2003 . op. cit. op. , Art. 43. , 21 . The Council . TheCouncil ‑keeping ‑making 22 ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ . 23 OSW REPORT 11/ 2019 24 OSW REPORT 11/ 2019

Map 1. The military CSDP missions and operations 2019

BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA EUFOR ALTHEA B&H since 2004

EUNAVFOR Med Sophia since 2015

MALI EUTM Mali since 2013

SOMALIA CENTRAL AFRICAN REPUBLIC EUTM Somalia EUTM RCA since 2010 since 2016

EUNAVFOR Atalanta since 2008

military training missions military operations

Source: ‘Military and civilian missions and operations’, European External Action Service. ­ a non as 2014) in updated (and 24 23 1.1. 2018 saw another review of the CDP with 11 capability development priorities development 11 capability with CDP of the review another saw 2018 within the EU. The CDP is not a new initiative: it was first introduced in 2008 in introduced first was it initiative: a new not is CDP EU.The the within B The (B) The (A) CDP should be complementary to NATO Defence Planning Process although it although NATOProcess to Planning Defencecomplementary be should CDP termines the priorities for capability development within the EU, taking into taking EU, the within development capability for priorities the termines ain f U aaiiy eeomn pirte rslig rm h CP the CDP, the from resulting priorities development capability EU of tation in capabilities air military of integration ambition, of level EU’s achieve to cross­ superiority, air sea, at resilience to is should it such Strategy.As the in out set goals political the achieve to needed mit annual data on their defence expenditure, capability development plans development capability expenditure, defence their on data annual mit current states’ member of the a picture present to is which of aim the ment, porting capabilities, naval manoeuvrability, underwater control contributing control manoeuvrability,underwater naval capabilities, porting capabilities the developing in states member the for CDP of the role the lined for increasing coherence and integration in military capability development capability military in integration and coherence increasing for Staff. The EU Global Strategy and the Council conclusions indicate that the that indicate conclusions Council the and Strategy Global EU The Staff. being approved de CDP EDF.The and PESCO namely initiatives, EU other for a reference be should allow the preparation of recommendations concerning the implemen the concerning recommendations of preparation the allow should sup medical and logistic enhanced capabilities, combat superiority,ground shortfalls, lessonslearned,industrialandpoliticalpriorities, andtechnological under has Strategy Global EU The cooperation. military their strengthening operation with member states, the EU Military Committee and the EU Military operation withmemberstates, CommitteeandtheEUMilitary theEUMilitary co close in AgencyDefence European the bydevised is CDP development.The eeomn pirte. ihn hs ehns, ebr tts r t sub to are states member mechanism, this capability Within priorities. the development of implementation the review regularly to and capabilities, operation, space­ and long­ and medium- short -, the account and involvement in cooperative research projects to the EDAthe to projects involvementresearch cooperativeand in 2).Annex (see mobility sector,air aviation a changing

de facto The EDA and the EU Military Staff (EUMS) together make up the ‘CARD secretariat’. See See secretariat’. ‘CARD the up make together (EUMS) Staff Military EU the and EDA The ‘New 2018 EU Capability Development Priorities approved’ Priorities Development Capability 2018 EU ‘New Annual Review on Defence Defence on Review Annual

Capability developmentCapability Coordinated Capability a similar planning mechanism. planning a similar 23 ‑based information andcommunicationservices, information . Theseinclude:theenablingcapabilitiesfor cyber responsive Development ( CARD Annual ) , European Defence Agency. Defence European , ‑binding instrument to assist member states in states member assist to instrument ‑binding Review Plan ‑term threats and challenges, capability challenges, and threats ‑term on (CDP) dmi cpblte contributing capabilities ‑domain Defence , European Defence Agency, 28 June 2018. 28 June Agency, Defence European , is intended as an instrument an as intended is (CARD) 24 s nw instru new a is . Their analysis Their . Coordinated Coordinated ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ 25 OSW REPORT 11/ 2019 26 OSW REPORT 11/ 2019 (anti­ 1.2. a itoue t the to introduced was inter industrial and military political, the consideration into taking without sub and bureaucracy) additional create to not order (in time to regard with NATO.within in presented be to are conclusions its and 2019–2020, in out carried be will Brexit, which lifted the British veto from the CSDP development, allowed PE allowed development, CSDP the from veto British the lifted which ­Brexit, The (A) ensure to countries flank eastern other the and Poland of interest the in is It Opportunities (C) fication establishing PESCO was signed in November 2017 by 23 EU member 23 EU by November 2017 in signed was PESCO establishing fication those of NATO).those of However, thereisa riskthatinthefuturesomemember states possibleextent,that theCDPiscoordinatedwithNDPPtogreatest both encourag is It defined. correctly are priorities the if operations, defence tive NATOand management crisis EU collec both for gaps capability the to closing may strive to subordinate the CDP to the EUGS political guidelines and to re to and guidelines political EUGS the to CDP the subordinate to strive may high­ in invest to need the indicate priorities EU ities. development 2018 capability the that ing largelypriorities those to correspond land (e.g. the upgrade of land platforms), in the air (A2/AD, BMD) and at sea at and (A2/AD,BMD) air the in platforms), land of upgrade the (e.g. land SCO to be activated in 2017. The Permanent Structured Cooperation, which Cooperation, Structured Permanent The 2017. in activated be to SCO sistency in member states’ defence plans. The first CARD trial run began in began run trial CARD first The plans. defence states’ member in sistency stance (to ensure that the EU capability development priorities correspond to correspond developmentpriorities capability EU the that ensure (to stance ests of the eastern flank countries. flank eastern of the ests capabilities management crisis supporting to projects EDF and PESCO direct agreed objectives the fulfilling the to contribute will CDP,this current of the NDPP, collectiveimprovingcapabil allies’ on defence focused are of the which con greater achieving and cooperation, military European of development closer military cooperation among a group of willing and able member states member able and willing of a group among cooperation military closer and medical support. If thePESCOandEDFprojectsaredeveloped onthebasis and medicalsupport. If EDA. the by a report cycle CARD full first The 2018. summer in completed was and 2017 autumn and enhancing the operational readiness of their armed forces. A joint noti A joint forces. armed of their readiness operational the enhancing and projects, shared in investing capabilities, defence developing jointly at aimed

‑submarine warfare, mine warfare), in logistics (e.g. military mobility) military (e.g. logistics in warfare), mine warfare, ‑submarine Military cooperation Military Permanent and Structured acquis communautaire challenges.

Cooperation The CDP and the CARD can contribute can CARD the and CDP The y h Lso Tet, enables Treaty, Lisbon the by (PESCO). ‑intensity operations on operations ‑intensity h dcso on decision The ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ 31 30 27 26 25 29 28 20 “ambitious and more binding” commitments is presented in the annex to annex the in presented is commitments binding” more and 20 “ambitious In June 2018, the Council decided to set common rules for governing PESCO governing for rules common set to decided Council the 2018, June In gener as commitments, certain meeting to related is PESCO in Participation Malta) and Denmark Kingdom, tion was clarified in the Council Recommendation of March 2018 concerning March 2018 of Recommendation Council the in clarified was tion 2017 December of Decision Council the no longer meet the PESCO commitments. PESCO the meet longer no they if majority qualified by states member of participation the suspend may United the (excluding states 25 member by to acceded 2017,and December in precise objectives to be reached within these commitments objectivesthese precise within reached be to projects states (including Poland) (including states a roadmap for the implementation of PESCO of implementation the for a roadmap Lisbon of Treaty of the Protocol 10 in outlined ally

‘Council Decision (CFSP) 2018/909 of 25 June 2018 establishing a common set of governance rules for for rules governance of set a common establishing 2018 25 June of 2018/909 (CFSP) Decision ‘Council In accordance with the Council Decision, the project members shall inform the Council on the de the on Council the inform shall members project the Decision, Council the with accordance In These cover five areas: increasing investment expenditure on defence equipment, harmonising the the harmonising equipment, defence on expenditure investment increasing areas: five cover These Every January, each member state participating in PESCO is required to present a National Imple a National present to required is PESCO in participating state member each January, Every ‘Council recommendations concerning the sequencing of the fulfilment of the more binding com binding more of the fulfilment of the sequencing the concerning recommendations ‘Council structured permanent on 10) (No Protocol Union, European on Treaty of the version ‘Consolidated the Determining and (PESCO) Cooperation Structured Permanent Establishing Decision ‘Council The member states which have signed the notification are Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Croatia, Bulgaria, Belgium, Austria, are notification the signed have which states member The velopment of the respective PESCO projects once a year, by providing the PESCO secretariat with with secretariat PESCO the providing by a year, once projects PESCO respective of the velopment development of major joint equipment programmes in the framework of EDA. of framework the in programmes equipment joint major of development Union’ European on Treaty of the 42 Article by established cooperation come observers to a project under certain conditions, to be determined by the project members. See See members. project the by determined be to conditions, certain under a project to observers come providing input to the High Representative’s annual report on PESCO. The project members unani members project The PESCO. on report annual Representative’s High the to input providing the in participating and shortfalls, capability of overcoming the in cooperation forces, of ployability 2008. May 9 Union, pean PESCO projects’ PESCO into Taking assessment. this on based Council the to report annual an presents Representative High In See Sweden. and Portugal. and Spain Ireland by joined Slovenia, were they Slovakia, December 2017 Romania, Poland, Netherlands, the Latvia, Luxembourg, mitments undertaken in the framework of Permanent Structured Cooperation (PESCO) and speci and (PESCO) Cooperation Structured Permanent of framework the in undertaken mitments mem project The project. of the management the and scope the concerning issues on agree mously projects PESCO the on information consolidated the collects secretariat The progress. on reports Mili EU the including EEAS of the consists which secretariat, PESCO the to (NIP) Plan mentation Cooperation (PESCO) to the Council and to the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs Affairs Foreign for Union of the Representative High the to and Council the to (PESCO) Cooperation Lithuania, Italy, Hungary, Greece, Germany, France, Finland, Estonia, Republic, Czech ­Cyprus, fying more precise objectives’ precise more fying account the recommendations of this report, the Council will assess whether the country has met met has country the whether assess will Council the report, this of recommendations the account Policy’ Security and bers of each PESCO project choose one or more project coordinators. Other member states may be may states member Other coordinators. project more or one choose project PESCO each of bers tation of PESCO’ of tation The secretariat. PESCO the by evaluated is NIP The Agency. Defence European the and Staff) tary list of Participating member states’ member Participating of list its obligations. obligations. its de and flexibility interoperability, availability, the enhancing needs, military of the identification 30 and in October 2018, it issued recommendations specifying more specifying recommendations issued it 2018, October in and ‘Council Recommendation of 6 March 2018 conceming a roadmap for the Implemen the for a roadmap conceming 2018 6 March of Recommendation ‘Council , Council of the European Union, 25 June 2018. 25 June Union, European of the Council , , Council of the European Union, 6 March 2018. 6 March Union, European of the Council , , Council of the European Union, 13 November 2017. 13 November Union, European of the Council , , Council of the European Union, 15 October 2018. 15 October Union, European of the Council , 25 . PESCO was formally established by the Council the by established formally was PESCO . , Council of the European Union, 11 December 2017. 11 December Union, European of the Council , 26 . 28 . The process of their implementa of their process The . 29 . As a last resort, the Council the resort, a last As . ‘Notification on Permanent Structured Structured Permanent on ‘Notification 27 . A more detailed list of of list detailed A more . , Official Journal of the Euro of the Journal Official , 31 . Their implemen Their . ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ 27 OSW REPORT 11/ 2019 28 OSW REPORT 11/ 2019 33 32 10 15 20 25 30 2020, and the second 2021–2025. In 2020 the Council will update and possibly and update will Council the In 2020 2021–2025. second the and 2020, (CFSP) 2018/340 establishing the list of projects to be developed under PESCO’ under developed be to projects of list the establishing (CFSP) 2018/340 the list of participants and projects by Novemberthe list of each year. This procedure will 2018– period the covers phase first The phases. two into divided be will tation projects can essentially be divided into three groups: (1) projects supporting (1) projects groups: three into divided be essentially can projects far achieved.far So far, 47 PESCO projects (as of Novemberhaveadopt 3) been Annex 2019, see of (as projects far,So47 PESCO ject proposals every two years after 2021 after yearstwoevery proposals ject joint training;(2) projectsgenerating capabilitiesfor land,maritime, air, space Chart European European submit new projects before the end of May each year.evaluMayeach are proposals The of end the before projects newsubmit HU – Hungary; HU – Hungary; IT – Italy; FR – France; ES – Spain; DE –Germany; CZ – Czech Republic; PL – Poland; RO – Romania; SK – Slovakia; on the PESCO review process the member states may move to submitting pro submitting moveto may states member the process review PESCO the on High Representative.ed by the Council following a recommendation of the The so have states member the what of a review after commitments the enhance apply in 2019 and 2021; new projects will not be submitted in 2020.in submitted Depending be not will projects new 2021; and in 2019 apply ated by thePESCOsecretariatandrecommendedtoCouncil,which updates enablers joint developing (3) projects operations; cyber and Source: 0 5

(CFSP) 2019/1909 of 12 November 2019 amending and updating Decision (CFSP) 2018/340 establishing The first list of projects was presented in December 2017. 17 of these projects were adopted by the the by adopted were projects 17 of these December 2017. in presented was projects of list first The ‘Council Recommendation assessing the progress made by the participating Member States to fulfil fulfil to States Member participating the by made progress the assessing Recommendation ‘Council 14 November 2019. 14 November of the European Union, 6 May 2019. 6 May Union, (PESCO)’ European cooperation of the structured permanent of framework the in undertaken commitments Council in March 2018. The second round of projects was presented in May 2018, and another 17 pro another and 2018, May in presented was projects of round second The 2018. March in Council the list of projects to be developed under PESCO’ under developed be to projects of list the jects were adopted by the Council in November 2018 and 13 in November 2019. See See November 2019. in 13 and November 2018 in Council the by adopted were jects FR

[number of projects] 2. ‘Council Decision (CFSP) 2019/1909 of 12 November 2019 amending and updating Decision Decision updating and amending 2019 November 12 of 2019/1909 (CFSP) Decision ‘Council Union L 293/113, 14 November 2019. 14 November 293/113, L ­Union Member states’ participation in PESCO projects (as of November 2019)November of(as projects PESCO in participation states’ Member IT BG – Bulgaria; SE –Sweden; FI – Finland; EE –Estonia; LV – Latvia; LT – Lithuania ES DE RO – in total PL HU – as a lead nation CZ , Official Journal of the European Union L 293/113, L 293/113, Union European of the Journal Official , 33 SK . BG SE FI 32 , Official Journal of the of the Journal Official , . Member states Member . ‘Council Decision Decision ‘Council EE LV , Council Council , LT ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ (9) Integrated European (9) Integrated Op Joint Centre, (10) Special Simulation and Training Solution, Navigation Radio (8) EU System, Ground Unmanned (7) Integrated (2) EuropeanSecure Software in Hubs Logistic definedof Radio, (3) a Network 34 This particularly applies to the non­ the to applies particularly This have PESCO published been already of assessments sceptical quite first, The Many of the projects adopted do not have any credible implementation plans. implementation credible anyhave not do adopted projects of the Many However,theoretical. mayonlyprovechallenges be and to opportunities these Opportunities (B) Europe andSupport toOperations, (4) Maritime(semi-) Autonomous Systems Mobility, (1) Military projects: PESCO ten of a member currently is Poland training missions and crisis management operations could also lead to redi to lead also could operations management crisis and missions training tion, (6) Cyber Rapid Response TeamsandMutual Assistance inCyber Security, more pressure on the member states to participate in EU military missions military EU in participate to states member the on pressure more mean may This states. member participating the on commitments increasing col of disadvantage the to resources and focus states’ member the recting included into the PESCO framework. There is also insufficient funding for funding insufficient also is There framework. PESCO the into included in developing a specific equipment or technology. onProgress implementation EU­ avoidan to future the for important has been made in the case of those projects which were started before being before started were which projects those of case the in made been has imposing for framework a becoming risk also may PESCO defence. lective increased However, an well. as NATO in agreed goals the achieving to ute build­ the porting for collective defence. collective for for Mine Countermeasures, (5) Harbour and Maritime Surveillance and Protec y h PSO ertra ad h Cucl ad h ivleet f Poland of involvement the and Council; the and secretariat PESCO the by emphasis on adopting PESCO projects aimed at building up capacity for EU’s for capacity up building at aimed projects PESCO adopting on emphasis contrib will they Plan, Development Capability current of the basis the on developed are projects PESCO If defence. collective and management crisis project. last of the coordinator erations Forces Medical TrainingCentre(see Annex 3). Polandalsobecamethe f h E cpblt dvlpet roiis a aacd hie f projects of choice balanced a priorities; development capability EU the of are NATO.issues in be Three place taking gradually processes the could to alternative it an way,come this in proceeds PESCO If forces. armed the of and other eastern flank countries in promoting PESCO projects beneficial projects PESCO promoting in countries flank eastern other and development the harmonising in and projects EDA the in operations, and

L. Béraud collaboration: An early assessment of PESCO implementation’ PESCO of assessment early An collaboration: ‑Sudreau, Y. ­‑Sudreau, ‑up of military capabilities within the EU, both in terms of of terms in both EU, the within capabilities military of ‑up - and S. Efstathiou, C. Hannigan, C. Hannigan, S. Efstathiou, challenges. ‑industrial projects, which will not result not will which projects, ‑industrial PESCO could become a framework sup a framework become could PESCO ‑NATOdefinition divergence:a broad ‘Keeping the momentum in European defence defence European in momentum the ‘Keeping , IISS Report IISS , 14 May 2019. 14 May , 34 ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ . 29 OSW REPORT 11/ 2019 30 OSW REPORT 11/ 2019 1.3. MPCC. The MPCC has been established within the EU Military Staff (EUMS), Staff Military EU the within established been has MPCC The MPCC. MPCC. The MPCC will therefore increase the number of staff to over 150 peo over to staff of number the increase therefore will MPCC The MPCC. which is part of the European External Action Service. It works closely with closely works It Service. Action External European of the part is which policy defence and security autonomous an becoming EU the to lead would mem the for necessary be thus will It funding. for apply to entitled are which Due to pressure from some member states to further develop further to military states EU’s member the some from pressure to Due Military (A) the Civilian Planning and Conduct Capability (CPCC), which is also part of the of the part (CPCC),also Capability is Conduct which and Planning Civilian the (MPCC),Capability Conduct and Planning Military the establish to numbering this that feared Many years. for EU the in issue a contentious been has tions provetoo may PESCO in participation to linked bureaucratisation levelof the member participating the out them carry to determined how on depend thus ning and conduct of one executive operation of the size of an EU Battlegroup Battlegroup EU an of size of the executiveoperation one of conduct and ning the into (OPSCEN) Centre Operations EU of the tasks current the integrate the under conducted havebeen Mali, and Republic African Central the malia, non­ ­re process. whole the for enthusiasm their reduce could involved,and states member the for burden administrative an of much will latter of the implementation The remaining. those for funding national co­ to unable be will EDF and EDIDP resources projects, primarily the non­ the primarilyprojects, l, n b 22 wl b adtoal rsosbe o te prtoa plan operational the for responsible additionally be will 2020 by and ple, time, same the At all. at implemented be not simply will or part, in plemented from EDIDP or EDF. And even in the case of industrial projects, due to limited to due projects, industrial of case EDF.the evenor in And EDIDP from ber states to agree on funding priorities for industrial projects, and to provideto and projects, industrial for priorities funding on agree to states ber been blocked by the United Kingdom. The British decision to leave the EU the leave to decision British The Kingdom. United the by blocked been states and the PESCO secretariat are. Some PESCO projects may only be im be only may projects PESCO Some are. secretariat PESCO the and states tutrs f h EA. h Drco o te PC s h Director­ the is MPCC the of Director The EEAS. the of structures of the EUMS, currently the Finnish General Esa Pulkkinen. Esa General Finnish the currently EUMS, of the So in missions, training military EU three then Since counterparts. civilian opera and missions EU for structure control and command a permanent of of the MPCC. Based on a report from the High Representative, it decided to decided it Representative, High the from a report on Based MPCC. of the role the boost to decided Council the November 2018 in structures, command around 30 people. Its tasks include the operational planning and conduct of of conduct and planning operational the include tasks Its 30 people. around had initiatives such NATO.recently,all to Until additionally Europe, in actor ‑opened the debate, and the first result was a Council decision in June 2017 June 2017 in decision a Council was result first the and debate, the ‑opened

‑executive (i.e. military training) missions and close coordination with its with coordination close and missions training) ‑executive (i.e. military Command structure Command Planning and ‑industrial ones, as they will not obtain co­ obtain not will they as ones, ‑industrial Conduct Capability ‑finance all of those projects those of all ‑finance (MPCC). The establishment The ‑General ‑funding ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ Action Service Action (ca. 1500 soldiers) 37 36 35 B Opportunities (B) develop further MPCC’s the on report another present Representativeshould ture, as hinted at in the June 2019 report on implementing the EUGS the implementing on report June 2019 the in at hinted as ture, the establishment of a permanent headquarters for the planning and conduct and planning the for headquarters a permanent of establishment the remit, possibly by establishing an integrated civilian­ integrated bypossiblyan remit, establishing ment by It the mayend of 2020. contain proposals to further extend the MPCC’s idency of the Council of the EU in 2011 in the area of security and defence, and security of area the in in 2011 EU of the Council of the idency prove the planning and conduct of EU operations EU of conduct and planning the prove 3. Chart become the new MPCC head, as decided by the EU Military Staff. The High The Staff. Military EU the by decided as head, MPCC new the become of military and civilian operations was one of the objectives of Poland’s Pres Poland’s of objectives of the one was operations civilian and military of along with reform of the EU Battlegroups, and closer cooperation in pooling in cooperation closer and Battlegroups, EU of the reform with along Source: Security andDefencePolicy CSDP andCrisisResponse and Peace Integrated ApproachforSecurity

D. Lassche, D. Lassche, The EU Global Strategy in Practice – Three years on, looking forward looking on, years Three Practice – in Strategy Global EU The Strategy’ Global EU of the context the in Defence and Security on Conclusions ‘Council 17 June 2019. June 17 European Union, 19 November 2018. 19 November Union, European

HQ Organisation Chart Organisation HQ The MPCC and the CPCC in the structures of the European External External European of the structures the in CPCC the and The MPCC ‘The EU Military Staff: a frog in boiling water?’ boiling in a frog Staff: Military EU ‘The The High RepresentativeThe High Foreignfor Union the of Security Policy and Affairs 35 . In May 2020 the French Rear Admiral Hervé Bléjean will Bléjean Hervé Admiral Rear French the May 2020 In . and Deputy Secretary General for CSDP and Crisis Response CSDPandCrisis for General Secretary Deputy , European External Action Service. Action External European , challenges. Capability (CPCC) Civilian PlanningandConduct Secretary General Secretary The strengthening of the MPCC may im may MPCC of the strengthening The , Militaire Spectator Militaire 37 , European External Action Service, Service, Action External European , . It is worth recalling that recalling worth is It . ‑military command struc command ‑military Systems andCyberDefence Communications andInformation Logistics Operations Intelligence Concepts andCapabilities EU Military Staff EU Military Capability (MPCC) PlanningandConduct Military , 10 August 2017. August 10 , , Council of the of the Council , 36 . ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ 31 OSW REPORT 11/ 2019 32 OSW REPORT 11/ 2019 ‑Atlantic command in the US and a command for support and logistics in Ger in logistics and support for a command and US the in command ‑Atlantic At present, however, the establishment of a more robust military command command military robust a more of establishment however,the present, At 38 & sharing projects. At that time, these initiatives were designed to stimulate to designed were initiatives these time, that At projects. & sharing Multinational Division North inLatvia.Secondly, MPCC thedevelopment of the instruments Industrial 2. 2.1. In June 2017 the Commission presented a preliminary proposal to create a Eu create to proposal a preliminary presented Commission the June 2017 In NATO HQ Forceand Poland DivisionNorthMultinationalin HQ East Structure: Until 2016 the EU defence industrial policy was limited to regulatory instru regulatory to limited was policy industrial defence EU the 2016 Until Council in November 2016, and formed the basis for the Commission to take to Commission the for basis the formed and 2016,November in Council tive 2009/43/EC). The European Defence Action Plan Action Defence European2009/43/EC). tiveThe Command its expand to in 2018 decided NATOalso since states, member the ropean Defence Fund under the 2021–2027 multiannual financial framework, financial multiannual 2021–2027 the under Fund Defence ropean of acquisition of the procedures of coordination the concerned This ments. one­ the reinforce might the in headquarters new two establish to agreed Allies the addition, many.In from officers NATOand staff EU the the betweenfor competition to lead might and Europe from equipment military and troops withdrawing was istration posals for setting up a European Defence Fund (EDF), fostering investment in investmentfostering (EDF),Fund Defence a European up setting for posals neighbourhood. southern EU’s the in management crisis on focused as policy formal action. formal focused onthe‘Pivot to Asia’, andasEuropean countrieswere slashingdefence SMEs, start ­ SMEs, a North­ headquarters: new two creating by 1200 officers around by Structure structure intheEUismoreproblematic.Firstly, MPCC furtherexpansion of the crisis. economic and financial global of the a consequence as spending sion inNovember 2016, theEuropean announced anaccelerationinintegrating ening the Single Market for defence. These proposals were accepted by the by accepted were proposals These defence. for Market Single the ening pro included plan The innovation. in increase an as well industry,as defence and conditions of transfers of defence­ of transfers of conditions and equipment(Directivearms andmilitary 2009/81/EC) andsimplifyingtheterms admin Obama the as EU the in policy defence and security about a discussion

European Defence Action Plan: Towards a European Defence Fund Defence a European Towards Plan: Action Defence European 2016.

The Defence (EDF) European Fund ‑ups and mid­ and ‑ups ‑dimensional concept of the EU’s security and defence and security EU’s of the concept ‑dimensional ‑caps in the European defence industry,Europeandefence the strength in and ‑caps ‑related products within the EU (Direc EU the within products ‑related , European Commission, 30 November 30 November Commission, European , 38 , issued by the Commis the by issued , ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ 43 42 41 40 According to the Commission’s proposal, the EDF’s budget for 2021–2027 should 39 2021 preparatory instruments) will instruments) preparatory pre- 2021 the (and EDF of the establishment The In February 2019 the Council and the European ParliamentEuropean the and Council the February 2019 In capa military states’ member the indirectly industry,and defence European EDF the establishing a regulation for a proposal published it June 2018 In tablishing the EDF has (as of the end of 2019) not yet been adopted. The issue The adopted. been yet not 2019) of end of the (as has EDF the tablishing negotiations on the next multiannual financial framework, and it should be should it and framework, financial multiannual next the on negotiations the support directly to used be will funds EU the time, first the for that, mean projects remains an unresolved question. unresolved an remains projects regulation the April 2019, In regulation. EDF the on agreement political Chart bility build­ bility be to is EDF legislativeThe procedure. ordinary of the basis the on adopted be Framework for 2021–2027 for ­Framework of third party participation (mainly the US and the UK companies) in the EDF the in companies) UK the and US the (mainly participation party third of projects. multinational within technology defence and equipment military of expected that the final EDF budget might be much smaller. much be might budget EDF final the that expected adopted at the first reading by the European Parliament European the by reading first the at adopted financial support for R&D prototypes work and the developmenta source of of to 2021 prior used be to instruments preparatory financial smaller wellas as amount to €13 billion. This still has to be approvedbe to has still This the in by€13 billion. states to member amount the Source: defence technologies; up to 100% collaborative research in innovative A ‘research window’: funding of €4.1 billion

‘Fostering defence innovation through the European Defence Fund’ Defence European the through innovation defence ‘Fostering of the a regulation for proposal the on 2019 18 April of resolution legislative Parliament ‘European European the establishing Council of the and Parliament European of the a Regulation for ‘Proposal Fund’ Defence European the ‘Launching See Rapporteur Rapporteur See 2019. European Parliament and of the Council establishing the European Defence Fund’ Defence European the establishing Council of the and Parliament European 2018. November 28 Energy, and Research Industry, Fund’ Defence of the 2017.Committee 7 June the and Commission, Committee European Regions, Social and Economic European the Council, the Parliament, ment, 18 April 2019. 18 April ment, and of the Council establishing the European Defence Fund’ Defence European the establishing Council of the and

4. A Modern Budget for a Union that Protects, Empowers and Defends. The Multiannual Financial Financial Multiannual The Defends. and Empowers Protects, that Union a for Budget Modern A The EDF budget proposal for 2021–2027 according to the Commission the for2021–2027 to budget EDFThe according proposal ‑up. , European Commission, 13 June 2018. 13 June Commission, European , Z. Krasnodębski , Communication from the Commission, European Commission, 2 May 2018. 2 May Commission, European Commission, the from Communication , up to 20% for prototype development, up to 80% for testing, qualifications, certifications complementing national contributions; up to 100% for studies and design, A ‘capability collaborativeco-financing of window’: capability development projects €8.9 billion , ‘Report on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament Parliament European of the a regulation for proposal the on ‘Report , Communication from the Commission to the European European the to Commission the from Communication , , European Parliament, Committee on on Committee Parliament, European , , European Parliament, 18 April 18 April Parliament, European , 43 . The regulation es regulation The . 41 reached a partial a partial reached , European Parlia European , €13 billion 42 was 40 to 39 ‑ ‑ . ‑ 33 OSW REPORT 11/ 2019 34 OSW REPORT 11/ 2019 45 44 (and PESCO) projects, which is important in the context of UK/EU cooperation (and PESCO) projects, which is important in the context of The EU member states have so far failed to agree a common position on this on position a common agree to failed far so have states member EU The enti eligible three least at involving projects collaborative fund will EDF The will contribute to the technological supremacy of the European defence in defence European of the supremacy technological the to contribute will Discussion is still underway concerning third party participation in the EDF the in participation party third concerning underway still is Discussion finance the member states’ joint defence procurements. defence joint states’ member the finance US$2–10 billion andemploying upto3000 people) willbefavoured by granting Germany have highlightedthelimitedaccesswhich European armscompanies ters between representatives of the US Departments of State and Defence and Defence and State of Departments US representativesbetweenof the ters mid and SMEs of ticipation states member different three least at from ties interlinked with those of the UK and the US (such as Sweden), as well as the as well Sweden),as as (such US the and UK of the those with interlinked PESCO the in countries third of inclusion the for support greatest The issue. development. their in participate companies US if technology defence ropean pos of the warned has and partners,European its with cooperation industrial from companies arms US of exclusion gradual the fears US The 2019. May in public made was EEAS the and Commission European of the representatives par NATO).The as (such organisations international and regional other in and EU the within agreed priorities development capability the with line in have Eu to the USdefence market, aswell as theUS’sabilitytoblockexports of EDF’s 8% of the to 4% participate. they which in projects for funding higher ber states commit to purchasing the final product final the purchasing to commit states ber long­ the in which disruptive technologies finance to used be will budget sible consequences for allied interoperability. On the other hand, France and France hand, other the interoperability.On allied for consequences sible eastern flank countries. flank eastern co­ be only will development dustry.Prototype and EDF projects comes from countries whose defence industries are closely are industries defence whose countries from comes projects EDF and let of exchange an after EU, the and US the between contention of a bone became latter The collaboration. US/European military as as well Brexit, after

‘EU budget: Stepping up the EU’s role as a security and defence provider’ defence and a security as role EU’s the up Stepping budget: ‘EU “The action shall be undertaken in a cooperation within a consortium of at least three eligible enti eligible three least at of a consortium within a cooperation in undertaken be shall action “The 13 June 2018. 13 June Parliament and of the Council establishing the European Defence Fund’, Fund’, Defence European the establishing Council of the and Parliament shall not, during the whole implementation of the action, be controlled, directly or indirectly, by by indirectly, or directly controlled, be action, of the implementation whole the during not, shall the same entity, and shall not control each other.” See ‘Proposal for a Regulation of the European European of the a Regulation for ‘Proposal See other.” each control not shall and entity, same countries the associated or States Member two least at in established least At entities countries. eligible associated or of these States three Member different three least at in established are which ties ‑cap companies (with a market value of between of value a market (with companies ­‑cap 44 ‑financed if at least two mem two least at if ‑financed . The projects will be selected be will projects The . 45 . The EDF will not directly not will EDF The . op. cit. op. , European Commission, Commission, European , ‑term ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ 46 2.2. Table A The (A) Commission launched test instruments to fund the research and developmentand research the fund to instruments test launched Commission the added­ the with 2017–2019 period the for Research Defence on Action Preparatory the is intended to be an instrument for the EU institutions, member states, and states, member institutions, EU the for instrument an be to intended is was established programme first EDF. The the and framework financial nual lion for 2019) and administered by the European Defence Agency. The PADRAgency. The Defence European the by administered and 2019) for lion entities applying for funding, preparing the ground for the EDF and assessing and EDF the for ground the preparing funding, for applying entities multian of the start i.e. the 2021, before technologies and products defence of a budget of €90 million (€25 million for 2017, €40 million for 2018 and €25 mil and 2018 for 2017,€40 million for (€25 million €90 million of a budget

(2018) (2018) (2017) (2017) (2017) TALOS GOSSRA OCEAN2020 SOLOMON PYTHIA Pilot Project and Preparatory Action on Defence Research Defence on Action Preparatory and Project Pilot

The instruments preparatory

1. PADR projects with Polish participation PADR with projects

Preparatory ‑value of EU supported defence research and technology.and research defence supported EU of ‑value (consortium (consortium (consortium (consortium Germany (consortium CILAS SA,France Informatica, Italy IngegneriaEngineering Rheinmetall Electronics, Leonardo, Italy Informatica, Italy IngegneriaEngineering of 9 participants) of of 42 participants) of 8 participants) of 18 participants) of 16 participants) Project leader

Action

on Defence ‑Rozwojowy Centrum AMS Technologies (Military University(Military Techniki Morskiej Military UniversityMilitary UniversityMilitary Ośrodek Badawczo­ ITTI Instytut Optoelektroniki of Technology) of Technology of Technology, Polish participants , European Defence Agency, 8 July 2019. 8 July Agency, Defence European ,

Research 46 (PADR).

The European The €1.9 million €5.4 million €1.5 million €35 million €1 million contribution Requested EU ‑ ‑ 35 OSW REPORT 11/ 2019 36 OSW REPORT 11/ 2019 49 48 47 The EDIDP is the second preparatory instrument before the EDF comes into comes EDF the before instrument preparatory second the is EDIDP The demonstra a technological included: 2017 for programme workingPADR The Multinational consortia may apply for financial assistance – up to 20% for the for to 20% up assistance – financial for apply may consortia Multinational were awarded to five consortia involving participants from several countries. several from participants involving consortia five to awarded were n ac 21 te omsin ulse nn cls o proposals for calls nine published Commission the 2019 March In The (B) system a (re)configurable were: priorities PADR’s the 2018, In in w PSO rjcs ae en rne a iet wr: 10 ilo to million €100 award: direct a granted been have projects PESCO two tion apply to order In states. member three least at in based undertakings three technology or product a defence of certification qualification, testing, typing, (includ design studies, Feasibility phase. research the after development to grants total, In foresight. technology strategic and systems, soldier and tion protec force environment, a naval in awareness situational enhanced for tor ing the technical specifications on which the design is based), system proto system based), is design the which on specifications technical the ing contribute to and research defence of results the exploit better to intended is systems unmanned military for standards interoperability and technologies, defence disruptive future dominance, spectrum magnetic product or to use the technology in a coordinated way. a coordinated in technology the use to or product for funding for system prototyping and for follow for and prototyping system for funding for budget allotted an with 2019–2020 years the for scheduled is It 2021. in force system­ support the development of the Eurodrone, and €37 million to support ESSOR support to €37 million and Eurodrone, developmentof the the support should demonstrate that at least two member states intend to procure the final for up to 100% and technology, or product a defence of prototyping system other mentioned activities. Funding will be granted to consortia of at least at of consortia to granted be will Funding activities. mentioned other EDIDP the under funding for eligible are technologies and products defence under the current multiannual financial framework.of €500 million The EDIDP electro topics: following the included 2019 for call PADR The last consortia. and development of technologies increasing efficiency across the life cycle of cycle life the across efficiency increasing technologies of development and twoweremultinational awardedto Grants foresight. technology strategic and

‘Commission implementing decision of 19.3.2019 on the financing of the European Defence Industrial Industrial Defence European of the financing the 19.3.2019 on of decision implementing ‘Commission establish 2018 18 July of Council of the and Parliament European of the 2018/1092 and (EU) research ‘Regulation joint other and Eurodrone for €525 million with track on Fund Defence ‘European Development Programme and the adoption of the work programme for the years 2019 and 2020’ and 2019 years 2019. the for 19 March Commission, programme work European of the adoption the and Programme Development Council of the European Union, 18 July 2018. 18 July Union, European of the Council tiveness and innovation capacity of the Union’s defence industry’ defence Union’s of the capacity innovation and tiveness ing the European Defence Industrial Development Programme aiming at supporting the competi the supporting at aiming Programme Development Industrial Defence European the ing projects’ ­industrial ‑in­

European pcae o dfne plctos a ihr oe lsr effector, laser power higher a applications, defence for ‑package , European Commission, 19 March 2019. 19 March Commission, European ,

Defence

Industrial Development ‑up actions, the consortia the actions, ­‑up , The European Parliament and the the and Parliament European The , Programme 47 . ­‑on 49 ­‑a

I addi In . (EDIDP). ‑chip or ­‑chip 48 ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ . ‑ ‑ ,

Airbus, Leonardo. and €1.5 billion For in the case of further comparison, in 2017 51 50 Third, the programmes might be challenging for the defence industries from industries defence the for challenging be might programmes the Third, severallikelyface challenges.will programmes industrial defence EU new The 2.3. ESSOR will receive a total of €137 million out of the EDIDP budget of €500 mil of budget EDIDP of the out €137 million of receivea total will ESSOR struc the into change meaningful introduce to sufficient be not and may (PADREDIDP) instruments preparatory the and EDF the for budget the First, the German defence ministry spent €1.21 billion on R&D, the French defence French the R&D, on €1.21 billion spent ministry defence German the Com the to industry.according Europeandefencebudget, EDF The of the ture the next multiannual financial framework. If, however, the projects prove to prove projects however, the If, framework. financial multiannual next the ministry €4.9 billion. Nevertheless, the EU’s defence industrial funds could be could funds industrial defence Nevertheless,€4.9 billion.EU’s ministry the be might or year, per €2.8 billion to €1.5 from range will proposal, mission’s 2020. in proposals for call another issue communications military security and interoperable projects do not satisfy the member states, the EDF funding can be reduced in reduced be can funding EDF the states, member the satisfy not do projects funds.available 25% of the 2019–2020,yearsi.e. over the for lion Second, the EDF does not have to be a success at all. European experience European all. at a success be to have not does EDF the Second, be useful and are implemented, the funding can be increased, with the EDF the with increased, be can funding the implemented, are and useful be shows that multinational armaments cooperation projects are not necessarily not are projects cooperation armaments multinational that shows totwostraints isthe2019EDIDPgrant PESCOprojects. TheEurodrone andthe companies have comparable R&D (2017) budgets: €2.8 billion in the case of of case the in €2.8 billion budgets: (2017) R&D comparable have companies not is This negotiations. MFF of the outcome final the in smaller much even eastern flankcountries. may ThePolishdefence industry have somedifficulties co­ mid­ and SMEs for importance of a large amount from the overall EU perspective. The biggest European arms European biggest The perspective. EU overall the from amount a large automatically cheaper or more efficient more or cheaper automatically

‑financing larger multinational armaments cooperation projects. cooperation armaments multinational larger ‑financing ‑range cargo aircraft. Large multinational armaments projects have been less successful, such as such successful, less been have projects armaments multinational Large aircraft. cargo ‑range ‘European Defence Fund on track with €525 million for Eurodrone and other joint research and in and research joint other and Eurodrone for €525 million with track on Fund Defence ‘European A successful example of armaments cooperation between European countries is the Strategic Air Strategic the is countries European between cooperation armaments of example A successful dustrial projects’, projects’, dustrial problems with concept development, cooperative production, delivery deadlines and the multiplica the and deadlines delivery production, cooperative development, concept with problems tion of costs. of tion projects these Although NH90 helicopter. the and Eurofighter, the aircraft, transport A400M the have been completed, they are portrayed as negative examples of armaments cooperation due to the the to due cooperation armaments of examples negative as portrayed are they completed, have been long three of 12 countries by use operational and purchase joint the is This project. Capability lift

Opportunities and challenges and Opportunities o p. cit. ‑caps. A good example of the financial con financial of the example A good ‑caps. 51 . If the results of the EDF of the results the If . 50 . The Commission will Commission The . ­‑financed ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ­ ‑ 37 OSW REPORT 11/ 2019 38 OSW REPORT 11/ 2019 52 The decisions on deployment and management of the mission are taken unan taken are mission of the management and deployment on decisions The 11 civilian CSDP missions (three in the eastern neighbourhood, one in Kosovo,in one neighbourhood, eastern the in (three missions CSDP 11 civilian 2021–2027. In 2019 the Polish defence ministry identified projects of interest of projects identified ministry defence Polish the 2019 2021–2027.In will be capable of participating in the consortia applying for funding from funding for applying consortia the in participating of capable be will instruments Civilian 3. A The (A) develop to started has EU the cooperation, military reinforcing to parallel In entities Polish whether seen be to remains It 2018. and 2017 in grants PADR from companies arms for opportunities up open also could However,EDF the Central Europe by allowing for enhanced cooperation with West European West with cooperation enhanced for allowing by Europe Central Council in Santa Maria da Feira in 2000, the four priority areas for civilian for areas priority four the 2000, in Feira da Maria Santa in Council tive presented a concept paper to the Council on strengthening civilian CSDP,civilian strengthening on Council the to paper a concept presented tive funding for eligible and consortia European by implemented be might that for window’‘capability EDF the from and 2019–2020,years the for EDIDP the ity (CPCC), which was established in 2007,headquarters in operational established as (CPCC),wasserves which ity Capabil Conduct and Planning Civilian The states. member EU bythe imously running is EU the Currently protection. civil and administration, civilian ing pro multinational in participate to able are entities Polish that proved ready project with Polish participation (which has already received EDIDP funding),EDIDP received already has (which participation Polish with project al has 2017–2019 years the for PADR The innovation. increasing and partners projects joint developing been have and countries other in subsidiaries have for all civilian missions. The missions are financed from the CFSP budget. CFSP the from financed are missions The missions. civilian for all deployed. 2000 staff around East),with Middle the in three and Africa in four Radio defined Software Secure European the include EDIDP.These the from severaldecades. for jects, with six Polish participants being part of five consortia that won the won that consortia five of part being participants Polish six with jects, crisis management include: police, strengthening the rule of law,strengthen of rule the strengthening police, include: management crisis European the by agreed as date, To instruments. management crisis civilian they as consortia, multinational in participate and lead to suited better erally ammunition (23–25 ammunition UAVs, programmable against defence air tank, battle main generation a new gen are companies arms EuropeanWest personnel. trained adequately and partners, foreign experience,lacks it because EDF the from funds for applying

4 January 2019. 4 January ‘ Europejski Fundusz Obronny – możliwości współpracy Civilian CSDP mm) and static aerostats for ISR for aerostats static and mm) Compact (CCC). In April 2018, the High Representa High the 2018, April In ’ , Polish of Business Ministry and Technology, 52 . ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ • • • 54 53 These fall into three areas: three into fall These man crisis civilian for areas priority the expands Compact CSDP Civilian The which basis the Council adopted the Civilian CSDP Compact (CCC) Compact CSDP Civilian the adopted Council the basis which 2018 May in approved was which nArl 09 h Cmiso pbihd JitAto Pa Implementing Plan Action Joint a published Commission the 2019 April In to enhance the EU’s civilian crisis management capabilities and increase the increase and capabilities management crisis civilian EU’s the enhance to on (CCDP), Plan Development Capability Civilian the with states member the h Cvla CD Cmat hc sos ht tp te ES il ae to take will EEAS the steps what shows which Compact CSDP Civilian the includes 22 politicalcommitmentsthatthememberstatesshouldmeetby 2023. neighbourhood. EU’s the in engagement states’ member extremism, andprotecting culturalheritage. andpreserving TheCompactalso man border crime, organised radicalisation, and terrorism security, cyber agement and maritime security, as well as preventing and countering violent countering and preventing as well security,as maritime and agement threats, hybrid migration, irregular as such challenges include to agement

‘Conclusions of the Council and of the Representatives of the Governments of the Member States, States, Member of the Governments of the Representatives of the and Council of the ‘Conclusions CSDP’ civilian strengthening on Conclusions ‘Council European Union, 19 November 2018. 19 November Union, European meeting within the Council, on the establishment of a Civilian CSDP Compact’ CSDP a Civilian of establishment the on Council, the within meeting up civilian CSDP, to be obtained by strength by obtained be CSDP,civilianto joined-up a more wants EU The of responsiveness and efficiency, flexibility the improve to wants EU The contribu increasing by capable more CSDP civilian make to wants EU The tween the civilian and military CSDP dimensions, and of other activities other of and dimensions, CSDP military and civilian the tween equip personnel, of form the take can these states; member the from tions national procedures to enhance the availability national and participation of of a review includes also This others. among funding or training ment, undertaken by the EU and member states. member and EU bythe undertaken by the EEAS; and by ensuring a robust CFSP budget for civilian CSDP mis CSDP civilian for budget CFSP a robust ensuring by and EEAS; by the ble mandates, in order to allow additional tasks;the activationby of swifter sonnel in any area of operation within 30 days after a Council decision; a Council after 30 days within operation of anyarea in sonnel sions. The EU also wants to be able to up launch to a new200 per mission of experts incivilian CSDPmissions; ening shared analysis and situational awareness, and fostering synergy be synergy awareness,fostering situational and and analysis shared ening operational decision­ scala and modular with missions byCSDP deployingcivilianCSDP civilian ‑making; by enhancing human resources management 53 . In September 2018 the EEAS presented EEAS the 2018 September In . , Council of the European Union, 28 May 2018. 28 May Union, European of the Council , , The Council of the of the Council The , 54 . Its aim is aim Its . ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ 39 OSW REPORT 11/ 2019 40 OSW REPORT 11/ 2019

Map 2. The civilian CSDP missions

UKRAINE EUAM Ukraine since 2014

MOLDOVA AND UKRAINE EUBAM Moldova and Ukraine GEORGIA since 2005 EUMM Georgia since 2008

KOSOVO EULEX Kosovo since 2008 IRAQ EUAM Iraq MALI since 2017 EUCAP Sahel Mali since 2014 PALESTINE EUBAM Rafah LIBYA since 2005 EUBAM Libya EUPOL COPPS Palestinian Territories since 2013 since 2006

NIGER EUCAP Sahel Niger SOMALIA since 2012 EUCAP Somalia since 2012

capacity building missions border assistance missions advisory missions police support missions rule of law missions monitoring missions

Source: ‘Military and civilian missions and operations’, European External Action Service. 58 57 56 55 The biggest promoters of developing civilian CSDP are Germany and Sweden. and Germany are CSDP civilian developing of promoters biggest The with the instruments of the European Neighbourhood Policy and the EU’s Jus EU’s the and Policy NeighbourhoodEuropean of the instruments the with B Opportunities (B) Commission 2021–2027, the for framework financial multiannual draft its In establish suggested Maas Heiko minister foreign German the 2018 August In civilian in undertaken commitments the fulfil theyhow showing(NIPs) Plans U iiay isos n oeain i fia n i te ide at with East, Middle the in and Africa in operations and missions military EU CSDP. The questions of how the NIPs will be verified, and the consequences of of consequences the verified, and be NIPswill howthe CSDP. of questions The the years 2014–2020 the CFSP budget section amounted to around €314 million €314 million around to amounted section budget CFSP the years2014–2020 the tice and Home Affairs, may increase the influence of the EU and bring about bring and EU of the influence the increase may Affairs, Home and tice missions are financed, up to a total of €3 billion, with a gradual increase in increase a gradual with €3 billion, of a total to up financed, are missions 2020. of half second the in Council of the idency a centre on based be could which Corps, Stabilisation European a civilian ing states member with cooperation in Compact the implement ity in the EU’s neighbourhood. However, as the civilian CSDP priorities have priorities CSDP civilian the However,as neighbourhood. EU’s the in ity launched to curb the migration flows issuing from the South, and to enhance to and South, the from issuing flows migration the curb to launched be may missions CSDP Civilian neighbourhood. southern EU’s the in primarily CSDP civilian which from heading, budget CFSP the in increase an proposed for civilian missions in 2016 in missions for civilian open remain commitments, the implement to failing ber states – that the civilian crisis management instruments will be applied be will instruments management crisis civilian the that states – ber civil­ the and flows migration of control the include to expanded been synergy, there is a risk – from the perspective of the Central European mem European Central of the perspective the from a risk – is synergy,there development of civilian CSDP will be one of the priorities of Germany’s Pres Germany’s of priorities of the one be will CSDP civilian of development forcivilianstates missions member from experts prepare and expertise pool could that Berlin in planned management crisis civilian for excellence of Implementation National annual submithave to states PESCO, member the of expenditure from€348 millionin2021 to €560 millionin2027 (see Annex 4). In a capacity build­ a capacity allocated was €225 million around money this annually.Of €341 million and

6 February 2018. 6 February H. Maas, H. Maas, T. Tardy, T. Tardy, C. Böttcher, C. Böttcher, Compact’ CSDP Civilian the Implementing Plan Action ‘Joint 2019. at the Ambassadors Conference Ambassadors at the ‘Quo Vadis, Civilian CSDP?’ Civilian Vadis, ‘Quo ‘Bucharest, Berlin, Brussels – for a sovereign united, strong Europe’, Romanian speech speech Romanian Europe’, strong united, a sovereign for Brussels – Berlin, ‘Bucharest, ‘Stückwerk beenden, Entwicklung ziviler Fähigkeiten professionalisieren’ Fähigkeiten ziviler Entwicklung beenden, ‘Stückwerk ‑up in neighbouring countries, thus leading to greater stabil greater to leading thus countries, neighbouring in ‑up and challenges. , 27 August 2018. 27 August , 58 . , ZIF Policy Briefing Centre for International Peace Operations, Operations, Peace International for Centre Briefing Policy ZIF , h rifre cvla CD, together CSDP, civilian reinforced The , European Commission, 30 April 2019. 30 April Commission, European , 56 . 55 . As in the case the in As . ‑military ‑military , 29 May 29 May , 57 . The . ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ 41 OSW REPORT 11/ 2019 42 OSW REPORT 11/ 2019 • 61 60 Action Mobility PlanonMilitary beingpublishedinMarch2018 mobility Military 4. 59 vilian CSDP missions. The problem is the development of national provisions national of development the is problem The missions. CSDP vilian Therefore, questions arise about the Commission’s proposals from September from Commission’sproposals the about arise questions Therefore, 2018 to introduce qualified majority voting (55% of member states, representing 2018 to introduce qualified majority voting (55% of which would incentivise employers to send civilian experts on these missions. these on experts civilian send employersincentivisewouldto which Plan the Commission identified three areas of activity: of areas three identified Commission the Plan The (A) the facilitate greatly would which level, EU at procedures the Harmonising However, the ambitious plans for strengthening civilian CSDP may collide with CSDP has neither the financial incentives of the EDF type, nor a set of more of a set nor type, EDF of the incentives financial the neither has CSDP the familiar difficulties member states have in providing personnel for the ci the for personnel providing in have states member difficulties familiar the gradually being neighbourhood eastern the in involvement EU civilian the mobility within the EU. These were announced in November2017 in announced were These EU. the within mobility cooperate. to ingness marginalised. binding commitments as in PESCO which could increase member states’ will states’ member increase could which PESCO in as commitments binding deployment of civilian personnel, might be equally problematic. The civilian The problematic. equally be might personnel, civilian of deployment to able be would which Germany and France by proposed decision everycally practi adopting mean might This missions. CSDP civilian of the launch the on ated actions as part of the EU transport policy aimed at improving military military improving at aimed policy transport EU of the part as actions ated population).and states (of majority double required the acquire total EU population) in three specific CFSP areas at least 65% of the

‑making for the EU Common Foreign and Security Policy’ Security and Foreign Common EU the for ‑making Affairs and Security Policy, 10 November 2017. 10 November Policy, Security and ­Affairs ‘Joint Communication to the European parliament and the Council on the Action Plan on Military Military on Plan Action the on Council the and parliament European the to Communication ‘Joint Mobili Military Improving – Council the and Parliament European the to Communication ‘Joint The Commission has identified three specific areas where qualified majority voting could be intro be could voting majority qualified where areas specific three identified has Commission The duced: (1) EU positions on human rights in multilateral fora, (2) adoption and amendment of EU EU of amendment and (2) adoption fora, multilateral in rights human on positions (1) EU duced: Mobility’ sanction regime, (3) civilian CSDP missions. See See missions. CSDP (3) civilian regime, sanction ty in the European Union’ European the in ty 12 Sep Commission, European Council, the 2018. tember and Parliament European the Council, European to the the identification and agreement of the military requirements for military military for requirements military of the agreement and identification the mobility within and beyondEU; and the within mobility Action , European Commission, 28 March 2018. 28 March Commission, European , Plan on , European Commission, High Representative of the Union for Foreign Foreign for Union of the Representative High Commission, European , Military Mobility. ‘A stronger global actor: a more efficient decision efficient a more actor: global ‘A stronger The Commission has also initi also has Commission The , Communication from the Commission Commission the from Communication , 61 . Inthe Action 59 60 , including , including , with the with , ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ­ ‑ • • 64 63 62 (2) accelerate border crossing procedures for military movement and trans and movement military for procedures crossing border (2) accelerate The first area of the Action PlanonMilitary Mobility was tackledin The firstareaof the November oevr i Jn 21 te oni cle uo mme sae t tk the take to states member upon called Council the 2018 June in Moreover, 2018. The Council approved the military requirements for military mobility military for requirements military the approved Council The 2018. 2021–2027 to improve mobility (see military Annex 4). These would be financed within and beyondand within EU,the by agreed as Committee. will These Military EU the B The (B) rules legal harmonising in states member supports AgencyDefence European mobility by the end of 2019: (1) develop national plans for military mobility; military for plans national (1) develop 2019: of end the by mobility TEN- of ments ry actions, the Commission proposed allotting €6.5 billion in the draft MFF for MFF draft the €6.5 billionin allotting proposed Commission the actions, ry mobility military practice to exercises multinational and national port, digital and energy networks in the EU the in networks energy and digital port, (forportation activitiesroutine fivewithin days,working period a shorter and require the account into gaps,taking infrastructure transport identify to help for rapid reaction units); (3) facilitate and speed up communication and proce and communication up speed and (3) facilitate units); reaction rapid for military of efficiency the improve to level national the at actions following by the Connecting Europe Facility, which supports the development of trans of development the supports Facility,which Europe Connecting the by dures by creating a network of National Points of Contact; (4) use the existing the (4) use Contact; of Points National of a network bycreating dures also carried out projects related to improving military mobility. military improving to related projects out carried also cross­ and customs regulations, and

The CEF would have €8.7 billion available in the area of energy, and €3 billion in the area of tele of area the in €3 billion and energy, of area the in available €8.7 billion have would CEF The ‘Council Conclusions on Security and Defence in the context of the EU Global Strategy’ Global EU of the context the in Defence and Security on Conclusions ‘Council EU’ the beyond and within Mobility Military for Requirements ‘Military the to Annexes communications. See See communications. 2018. 25 June Union, European of the 2018. 9 November Union, European of the cil Europeanswith high temporary temporary export and re­ civilian­ dual for infrastructure transport EU of use the movement permissions related to military operations, etc. military to movementrelated permissions trans­ the particular in simplifying regulatory and procedural issues for the transport of danger of transport the for issues procedural and regulatory simplifying ous goods in the military domain, for customs and Value customs forAdded domain, military Taxthe goodsin ous the for Connecting T, and to grant EU financing for infrastructure projects infrastructure for financing EU grant to and T, ­‑performanceinfrastructure’ ‘EU Budget: Commission proposes increased funding to invest in connecting connecting in invest to funding increased proposes Commission Budget: ‘EU Europe ‑European transport network(TEN- ‑Europeantransport ‑import of military goods, and ‑import also of for cross­ Facility ‑border movement permissions, and has and permissions, movement ‑border (CEF). , European Commission, 6 June 2018. 6 June Commission, European , 64 As a complement to the regulato the to a complement As . ‑military purposes, ‑military T); 63 . , The Council Council The , , The Coun The , ‑border ‑border 62 . The . ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ 43 OSW REPORT 11/ 2019 44 OSW REPORT 11/ 2019 The adoption of the Commission’s proposal will mean that in the next MFF next the in that mean will proposal Commission’s of the adoption The However, it should also be noted that the Commission’s proposal to create a new Opportunitiesandchallenges. (C) Commission’s proposal their own transport investments.transport own their enhance to states member the for incentive an be also may needs military to har and standardise to states member to EU.up However,the largely also is it general the in projects transport for funding in increase any be not will there monise legislation and procedures. The Commission’s proposal for allocating for proposal Commission’s The procedures. and legislation monise NATO mobilitywithintheEUareinlinewithprioritiesof itary andshould Commission the by envisaged than smaller much be might mobility military projects of particular importance from the perspective of military mobility) military of perspective the from importance particular of projects for simplifying regulatory andproceduralissuesfor couldsignificantly simplifyingregulatory accelerate 5. Chart be supported. However, it is essential to synchronise all of the Commission’s of the all synchronise to essential is However,it supported. be Framework for 2021–2027 for Framework due to MFF negotiations between member states. member between negotiations MFF to due transport (i.e. civilian mobility military supporting of purpose the for created be will envelope additional however,envelope;an cohesion the or envelope envelope for military mobility, accessible to all member states, will block any block will states, member all to mobility,accessible military for envelope and standardise member states’ activities regarding military transports within and standardisememberstates’activities transportswithin regardingmilitary support Commission’s The requirements. and NATO’sactions with activities for budget CEF The flank. eastern the on just not and EU, whole the across additional fundsintheyears 2021to2027 toadaptthetransportinfrastructure Source: 10 15 20 25 30 35 0 5 [billion euro] Budget Budget allocation for 2014–2020 24 –Total envelope Transportfor

A Modern Budget for a Union that Protects, Empowers and Defends. The Multiannual Financial Financial Multiannual The Defends. and Empowers Protects, that a Union for Budget A Modern The Connecting Europe Facility, Transport strand according to the the to according strand Facility, Europe Transport The Connecting , Communication from the Commission, European Commission, 2 May 2018. 2 May Commission, European Commission, the from Communication , 12.7 – General envelope 11.3 – Contribution from Cohesion Fund TheCommission’s actionstoimprove mil Budget allocation for Budget 2021–2027 30.6 –Total envelope Transport for 12.8 – General envelope 11.3 – Contribution from 6.5 – Support for Military Mobility for Military 6.5 – Support Cohesion Fund ‑ ‑ 67 66 65 with a new off­ B The (B) se EU’s the that shows proposal This €19.5 billion. of Facility,a total Europe A separate headingforsecurityanddefenceintheEUbudget. (A) Central Europe, questions have been raised about the possibility of facilitating Europe,Central havequestions of possibility the about raised been the MFFfor 2021–2027: ‘A Modern Budget for a UnionThatProtects, Empowers Commission, the by proposed as heading, this to allocated be to amount total funds. these to region’saccess the much greater. This is also reflected in the title of the Commission’smuch greater. proposal for Thisisalsoreflectedinthetitleof the agriculture as such priorities EU traditional of expense the at importance, in ropean Defence Fund mobility envelope and the military within the Connecting Nevertheless,members. EU all to availableenvelopes for funding increasing Commission’s strategy the with in fits envelope.This cohesion the in increase presented a proposal to establish an off­ an establish to a proposal presented instruments New financial 5. budget figures for discussion in December 2019, with expenditure for security for expenditure 2019, with December in discussion for figures budget new submitted Council of the Presidency Finland’s states. member between starting all of the mentioned initiatives, the Commission also proposed a sep proposed also Commission the initiatives, mentioned of the all starting few new securityand since CEFsupport mobilitywillbeoneof the for military crisis response. The defence budget heading includes contributions for the Euthe for contributions includes heading budgetdefence The response. crisis of security improving to contribute realistically can that instruments defence towards states member new the envelopesfor cohesion awayfrom moving of defence heading in the MFF for 2021–2027 will be reduced in the negotiations the in reduced be will 2021–2027 for MFF the in heading defence gain might competitiveness)improving with (along policy defence and curity amounts to €27.5 billion, with three priorities: internal security, defence, and security,defence, internal priorities: three with €27.5 billion, to amounts 2021–2027, together MFF draft the in defence and security for heading arate a proposed allocation of €10.5 billiona proposed allocation of over seven years halvednearly defence and Defends’ and still are twoareas these policy, to cohesion allocated and resources the though

rpsl f h Hg Rpeettv o te no fr oeg Afis n Scrt Plc, ih h sup the with Policy, Security and Affairs Foreign for Union the of Representative High the of Proposal Framework Financial Multiannual Frame Financial Multiannual The Defends. and Empowers Protects, that a Union for Budget A Modern work for 2021–2027 for work gions, European Commission, 2 May 2018. 2 May Commission, European gions, European Union, 5 December 2019. 5 December Union, European Council, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Re of the Committee the and Committee Social and Economic European the Council, the Council, port of the Commission, to the Council for a Council Decision establishing a European Peace Facility Peace a European establishing Decision a Council for Council the to Commission, of the port

European 65 ‑budget fund outside the financial framework (see Annex 4). The . However, it is to be expected that allocations for security and security for allocations that expected be to However,is . it , Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the European European the Parliament, European the to Commission the from Communication ,

Peace

Facility 66 . ( MFF ) 2021–2027: Negotiating Box with Figures (EPF). ‑budget European Peace Facility with Facility Peace European ‑budget In June 2018 the High Representative 67 . The EPF would replace , The Council of the of the Council The , Besides , The The , ‑ ‑ ‑ - - ‑ 45 OSW REPORT 11/ 2019 46 OSW REPORT 11/ 2019 • • • 69 68 The Commission has also proposed making significant modifications to the to modifications significant making proposed also has Commission The would still decide by unanimity to finance EU military operations and adopt and operations military EU finance to unanimity by decide still would the existing instrumentsfinancingEUactivities relatedtopreventing conflicts member states based on a gross national income (GNI) key. According to the to key.According (GNI) income national a gross on based states member proposal, the EPF would co­ would EPF the proposal, decision­ and promoting peace. The EPF would be financed through contributions from contributions through financed be would EPF The peace. promoting and

h Arcn ec Fclt i crety udd y h off the by funded currently is Facility Peace African The These were the common costs of the EU military operations as well as the nation the as well as operations military EU of the costs common the were These For more information, see see information, For more Council. European Council of the European Union, 13 June 2018. 13 June Union, European of the Council Athena mechanism is currently co­ currently is mechanism Athena tion, locally hired staff, force headquarters deployment and lodging; and for the forces as a whole, a whole, as forces the for and lodging; and deployment headquarters force staff, hired locally tion, (so far 5%–10% of the overall costs of an operation) an of costs overall 5%–10% of the far (so infrastructure, medical services (in theatre), medical evacuation, identification and acquisition of acquisition See and images). (satellite identification evacuation, information medical theatre), (in services medical infrastructure, informa public administration, systems, IT travel, including costs, running and implementation Financing would take place within the framework of multiannual ‘action multiannual of framework the within place take would Financing or in deployment Battlegroup EU an of costs additional coverwould EPF Union and other regional African organisations; African regional other and Union infrastructure. and equipment training, military of provision the and actors, military programmes’, through ‘ad hoc assistance measures’ or other ‘operational other or measures’ assistance hoc ‘ad through programmes’, port operations led by partner countries and organisations on a global scale. for EPF funding would also be augmented in order to encourage member encourage to order in augmented be also would funding EPF for tries andinternationalorganisations. Broader EU jectives. states’ engagement in the EU military crisis management. Moreover,the management. crisis military EU the in engagement states’ so far allowed the financing of peace support operations led by the African the led by operations support peace of allowedfinancing far the so der to encourage member states to use them in EU operations.military The actions’.wouldEPF The Facilitythe Peace replace African also operations; and co­ has which anism, Support military ‑making process for the financial management of the EPF.‑making processfor thefinancialmanagement of the TheCouncil In particular this regards the capacity building activities for activities building capacity the regards this particular In actions for peace­ CSDP of ‑supporting African Peace Facility Peace African operations. ‑financed the common costs of EU military operations military EU of costs common the ‑financed

a military/defence ‑finance or fully finance: fully or ‑finance ‘Athena – financing security and defence military operations’ military defence and security financing ‘Athena – The EPF would replace the Athena mech Athena the replace would EPF The military ‑financing all six EU military missions military EU six all ‑financing , European Commission. European , TheEPFwould finance peace sup nature operations ‑budget European Development Fund. Fund. Development European ­‑budget in support 68 . The costs eligible costs The . led by 69 ‑borne costs: HQ HQ costs: ­‑borne third of , which, has

CFSP coun ob ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ , ato porme’ ‘d o assac maue’ r ohr prtoa ac operational ‘other or measures’ assistance hoc ‘ad programmes’, ‘action €4.5 billion beingallocatedtotheEPF 71 70 . EU 6. The EU military, industrial and civilian instruments have been complement been have instruments civilian and military,industrial EU The Presidency Finland’s with smaller, much be probably will budget EPF’s The EU’s security and defence policy is complementary to NATO,to is complementary there is that policy and defence and security EU’s Opportunities (C) chaired and representatives states’ member of (composed Committee Facility the end of which is forecast for autumn 2020.autumn for forecast is which of end the 2021–2027, for framework financial multiannual the on negotiations the final during states member of the preferences the to adapted and changed be to show 2018 November from Conclusions Council the EPF,as the establish to that member states have been cautious about the Commission’s initial proposal ‘assistance programmes’, ‘action the for (i.e. budgets management EPF the the EEAS. However, accordingtotheCommission’s proposal,a European Peace by Representative,supported High the from proposals of basis the on tions’ – tions between urgentthe two need organisations. The declaration speaks of the majority voting initsfinancialmanagement. It givewould also a stronger man qualified of system controversial introduce and before, than neighbourhood voting. majority qualified by actions’) ‘otheroperational and measures’ no alternative European military alliance in the making. The EU-NATOjoint The making. the in alliance military European alternative no posed sum of €10.5 billionposed sum of available for 2021–2027, has been viewed as controver jority voting has been also questioned. The final form of the EPF is thus likely thus is EPF of the form final The questioned. also been has voting jority by a representative of the High Representative) would take key decisions on decisions key take would Representative) High of the a representative by summit in Warsaw in July 2016 initiated the process of strengthening rela strengthening of process the initiated 2016 July in Warsaw in summit EUinstitutions. expanding thepowers It appears of the supporting of thelogic southern EU’s the in actions for funds more times three allocate would It sial. date to the High Representative on the EU’s security and defence policy,thus defence and security EU’s the Representativeon High the to date dent of the European Council and the Secretary General of NATO of NATOGeneral the Secretary at the and EuropeanCouncil of the dent Presi the Commission, European of the President the by signed declaration EU­ of the development the by ed Councilsubmitting new negotiating figuresinDecember2019, withonlyof the

Multiannual Financial Framework Financial Multiannual ‘Council Conclusions on Security and Defence in the context of the EU Global Strategy’, Strategy’, Global EU of the context the in Defence and Security on Conclusions ‘Council European Union, 5 December 2019. 5 December Union, European - NATO cooperation and challenges. ( MFF ) ‑NATO cooperation. This is to show that the that show to is This ‑NATOcooperation. 2021–2027: Negotiating Box with figures 71 The new off­ new The . Theproposaltointroducequalifiedma ‑budget facility, with a pro facility,with ‑budget , The Council of the of the Council The , op. cit. op. 70 ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ . 47 OSW REPORT 11/ 2019 48 OSW REPORT 11/ 2019 • • • • • • • 72 At the NATO summit in Brussels in July 2018, the President of the European of the President the 2018, July in Brussels in NATOsummit the At Commission, the President of the European CouncilandtheSecretary General Commission, thePresidentof the progress made in the cooperation between the two organisations regarding organisations two the between cooperation the in made progress for the EU and NATO to cooperate in seven areas; so far 74 actions have been have 74 actions far so areas; seven in cooperate NATOto and EU the for ­specified of NATOof issued a joint declaration on EU/NATO cooperation. It emphasised the

Council conclusions on the third progress report on the implementation of the common set of proposals proposals of set common of the implementation the on report progress third the on conclusions Council endorsed by the EU and NATO Councils on 6 December 2016 and 5 December 2017 5 December and 2016 6 December on Councils NATO and EU the by endorsed European Union, 8 June 2018. 8 June Union, European wider industry matters and concrete topics; concrete and matters industry wider Herzegovina,MoldovaTunisia). and Hel in Threats Hybrid Counteracting for Excellence of Centre European the as well as Branch, NATOAnalysisHybrid the and Cell Fusion Hybrid Operation Sophia and NATO’sand Sophia ­Operation others; among Guardian, Sea Operation the NATOthe others; among Process, Planning Defence ities and resilience, in particular in the Western Balkans, and in the Eastern participation in cyber exercises,cybercross­ in participation brid sinki, among others; among sinki, staff­ defence and security capacity building: assisting partners in building capac exercises; hy with exercises management crisis of synchronisation exercises: on information of exchange and dialogue research: and industry defence opment Plan (CDP), the Coordinated Annual Review on Defence (CARD) and DevelCapability EU betweenthe output of coherence capabilities: defence cyber security and defence: exchanges on concepts and doctrines, reciprocal EUNAVFORbetweenlevel MED operational and tactical the at ordination co and cooperation issues: maritime including cooperation operational EU the between information of exchange the threats: hybrid countering and Southern neighbourhood by information exchange, including informal ‑to­ scenarios between EU and NATO; participation of EU staff in NATO in staff EU of NATO;participation and EU between ­scenarios 72 . They include: They . ‑staff political consultations on the three‑staff pilot countries (Bosnia and ‑briefings, among others; ‑briefings, among , The Council of the the of Council The , ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ 73 At the same time, four areas for intensive cooperation were listed: military military listed: were cooperation intensive for areas four time, same the At EU/NATO cooperation has so far mainly concerned information exchangeand information EU/NATOconcerned mainly far so has cooperation ings of the other organisation has become the rule. the become has organisation other of the ings and Peace Women, the promoting and risks, related nuclear and radiological mobility,counter­ maritime operationsintheMediterranean, combatinghybrid threats, andsup porting partners in the EU and NATO’sneighbourhoods.and eastern EU and the southern in partners porting Security Agenda Security better communication between the two organisations.two the between communication better and the Secretary General of NATOand theSecretary Generalof intheforeignanddefence ministers’meet

on dcaain n EU on declaration Joint The Council of the European Union, 10 July 2018. 10 July Union, European of the The Council dent of the European Commission Jean Commission European of the dent 73 ‑terrorism, strengthening resistance to chemical, biological, biological, chemical, to resistance strengthening ‑terrorism, . The participation of the High Representative of the Union Representativeof the High of the participation The . NT coeain y rsdn o te uoen oni Dnl Ts, Presi Tusk, Donald Council European the of President by cooperation ­‑NATO ‑Claude Juncker, and Secretary General of NATO Jens Stoltenberg Jens NATO of General Secretary and Juncker, ­‑Claude JUSTYNA

GOTKOWSKA ‑ ‑ - , 49 OSW REPORT 11/ 2019 50 OSW REPORT 11/ 2019 V4 ANNEXES A2/AD 1. ANNEX TFEU TEU TEN- MPCC MFF PESCO PADR NORDEFCO NIP NDPP FNC EUMS EUMC EUGS EPF EI2 EEAS EDTIB EDIDP EDF EDA DEFI DG BMD JEF CSDP CPCC CFSP CEF CDP CCDP CCC CBRN CARD OPSCEN

T

Glossary ofGlossary abbreviations Permanent Structured Cooperation Structured Permanent Research Defence on Action Preparatory Cooperation Defence Nordic Plan Implementation National NATOProcess Planning Defence Concept NationFramework Staff Military Union European Committee Military Union European Strategy Global EU Facility Peace European InitiativeInterventionEuropean Service ActionExternal European Base Industrial and Technological Defence European DevelopmentProgramme Industrial Defence European Fund Defence European Agency Defence European Directorate­ Policy Defence and Security Common Capability Conduct and Planning Civilian Policy Security and Foreign Common FacilityEurope Connecting DevelopmentPlan Capability DevelopmentPlan Capability Civilian Compact CSDP Civilian (weapons)Nuclear and Radiological Biological, Chemical, Defence Reviewon Annual Coordinated Defence Missile Ballistic EU Operations Centre Operations EU Military Planning and Conduct Capability Conduct and Planning Military Framework Financial Multiannual Force Expeditionary Joint Anti­ the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union European of the Functioning the on Treaty the Union European on Treaty the Trans­ the Visegrad Group Visegrad the ‑Access/AreaDenial ‑European Transport NetworksTransport ‑European ‑General for Defence Industry and Space and Industry Defence for ‑General 74 ANNEX

4. 8. 6. contributing toresilienceat sea 5. responsive operations 1. 7. and communication services supporting capabilities 2. 3. ‘New 2018 EU Capability Development Priorities approved’, approved’, Priorities Development Capability 2018 EU ‘New

control Underwater Enabling capabilitiesforcyber Air superiority Information superiority and medical Enhanced logistic Naval manoeuvrability Ground combatcapabilities Space­

‑based information 2.

EU Capability Development Capability EU for Priorities 2018–2025 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

‑operations (manned/unmanned vehicles, precisionstrike) (ISR) capabilities Earth observation harbour protection power projection upgrade, moderniseanddevelop landplatforms positioning, navigation andtiming maritime situationalawareness medical support mobility military improvised explosive devices, individual soldier intelligence, surveillance andreconnaissance information management radio spectrummanagement mine warfare enhanced logistics equipment) forces (CBRN, countering enhance protectionof cyber educationandtraining cyber R&T cyber cooperationandsynergies air­ anti­ air ISRplatforms air combatcapability anti­ tactical communicationandinformation ballistic missiledefence (BMD) surface superiority systems satellite communication space situationalawareness space, maritimeandlanddomains specific cyber­ systems framework engineering for cyber­ ‑to­ ‑access areadenial(A2/AD) ‑submarine warfare ‑air refuelling ‑defence challenges intheair, op. cit. op. 74 51 OSW REPORT 11/ 2019 52 OSW REPORT 11/ 2019 9. of contributing toachieve EU’s level 11. 10. aviation sector air capabilitiesina changing ambition Air mobility Cross­ of Integration ‑domain capabilities military • • • • • • • • •

within the EU’s level of ambition within theEU’slevel of military capabilities military innovative for technologies enhancedfuture accesstoairspace military enabling capabilitiestooperateautonomously cooperation withcivilian aviation authorities critical information evacuation autonomous EUcapacitytotestandqualify and control (C2)capabilities air/space military adaptation of command mission ability toprotectconfidentialityof the EU’s developed capabilities tactical airtransportincludingmedical strategic airtransport strategic 75 3. ANNEX

4. Competence Centre(EUTMCC) 5. 1. Radio (ESSOR) PESCO projectsadoptedinMarch2018 Project and support toOperations 2. 3. ‘Council Decision (CFSP) 2019/1909 of 12 November 2019 amending and updating Decision (CFSP) (CFSP) Decision updating and amending 2019 12 November of 2019/1909 (CFSP) Decision ‘Council 2018/340 establishing the list of projects to be developed under PESCO’ under developed be to projects of list the establishing 2018/340 pean Union L 293/113, 14 November 2019. 14 November L 293/113, Union pean

European Medical Command(EMC) Network of European UnionTrainingMission Mobility Military European SecureSoftwaredefined

PESCO projects (as of November 2019) Hubs inEurope logistic Lead nation Germany Germany Germany Netherlands France 75 Austria, CzechRepublic, Austria, Belgium, Germany, Greece, Cyprus, CzechRepublic, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Croatia, Cyprus, France, Germany, Italy, Slovakia, Spain,Sweden Spain, Sweden Slovenia, Spain,Sweden Slovenia, Spain Belgium, Finland, Belgium, Netherlands, Romania, Republic, France, Italy, Czech Belgium, Netherlands, Romania, Italy, Luxembourg, France, Ireland, Romania, Slovakia, Poland, Portugal, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Hungary, Italy, Latvia, Estonia, Finland,France, Bulgaria, Croatia, Portugal, Slovakia, Netherlands, Poland, Bulgaria, Belgium, Portugal, Spain Netherlands, Poland, Participants , Official Journal of the Euro of the Journal Official , ‑ 53 OSW REPORT 11/ 2019 54 OSW REPORT 11/ 2019 Armoured Amphibious (C2) System forCSDPMissions and (MAS MCM) 9. 8. Mutual 6. Centre forEuropean Core ( Operations Capability Package 17. 16. 14. 13. 12. 11. 10. 7. Information SharingPlatform Project and Protection( Systems forMineCountermeasures 15.

(EOF) Energy OperationalFunction

European Training Certification Maritime (semi-) Deployable DisasterRelief Military of Upgrade EUFOR CrisisResponse Operation Fighting Armoured Infantry Cyber Rapid Response Teamsand Indirect FireSupport, EuroArtillery Cyber Threats andIncidentResponse CommandandControl Strategic Harbour &MaritimeSurveillance EUFOR Assistance inCyber Security Vehicle Assault CROC) MaritimeSurveillance HARMSPRO Autonomous Vehicle / Light Armies ) Vehicle /

Lead nation Germany Greece Greece Slovakia Spain Belgium Italy France Italy Italy Lithuania Italy Austria, Croatia,Greece, Austria, Cyprus, Hungary, Greece, Netherlands, Greece Cyprus, France, Italy, Greece, Slovakia Croatia, Estonia,Finland, Cyprus, Ireland,Italy, Greece, Poland, Portugal Spain Spain Spain Latvia, Poland,Portugal, Italy,Belgium, Spain Hungary, Italy Luxemburg, Portugal France, Germany, Italy, Poland, Romania Italy, Netherlands, Italy, Portugal,Spain Bulgaria, Croatia, Romania Participants Airship Platform( (C-UAS) ( (H3 Training) Mark III 19. 18. Intelligence, Surveillance and Endurance Remotely Piloted Intervention CapabilityPackage Land BattlefieldMissileSystems PESCO Project Reconnaissance (ISR)Capability 22. 21. 20. 27. 26. 25. 24. 23. Systems – MALERPAS (Eurodrone) System (UGS) DIVEPACK Joint EUIntelligence School UnmannedGround Integrated European High Helicopter Hot andHighTraining Counter Unmanned Deployable Modular Underwater European EU Beyond LineOf European Medium EU TestandEvaluation Centres projectsadoptedinNovember 2018 ) Attack Helicopters EHAAP Atmosphere Sight(BLOS) Altitude Long Aerial System ) – Persistent Aircraft TIGER

Lead nation Greece Greece Germany Sweden France, Italy Italy France Bulgaria France Estonia Cyprus Czech Republic Germany, Spain Czech Republic, France, Germany, Hungary, Slovakia, Spain Italy, Romania France Italy, Spain France, Greece Cyprus Belgium, Poland, Spain Latvia, Netherlands, Finland, France, CzechRepublic,Belgium, Participants 55 OSW REPORT 11/ 2019 56 OSW REPORT 11/ 2019 (EU-SSA ( (CBRN SaaS) Training Centre(SMTC) Coordination Element(GMSCE) (Geo Oceanographic Joint Intelligence, Surveillance and Hub (EUCAIH) PESCO Reconnaissance (JISR)Cooperation forFuture Interoperability Programme Forces (SOF)Tactical Command Project and SimulationCentre( and Nuclear Surveillance asa Service and Control (C2)CommandPost (CP) for Small Joint Operations(SJO) 29. 28. 37. 36. 35. 34. 33. 32. 31. 30. Surveillance EURAS Co-basing Special OperationsForces Medical EU Radio Navigation Solution European JointIntegrated Training EU Cyber Geo­ Space European Military Electronic Warfare Capabilityand One Deployable SpecialOperations Radiological Chemical, Biological, projectsadoptedinNovember 2019 and ‑meteorological ) -N) Academia and Innovation Awareness Network METOC EUROSIM ) Support ) Austria Lead nation Czech Greece Germany Republic Poland Portugal Hungary Italy France France Austria, France, Greece, Germany Cyprus Germany, Netherlands, Croatia, France, Hungary, Spain Slovenia Spain Slovenia Hungary France, Germany, Poland, France Poland, Spain Germany,Belgium, Italy, Portugal, Romania CzechRepublic,Belgium, Participants ‑Submarine System ( Architecture System Aircraft Systems (RPAS) Insertion 47. 46. 45. 44. 43. 42. 41. 40. ( ( ( with Space­ Capabilities (ECoWAR) Coordination Centre( Centres ( Project and Nuclear DefenceTraining Range EUCompetitivenessfor Technological 39. 38. MAC-EU TWISTER CBRNDTR

European Patrol Corvette (EPC) European GlobalRemotely Piloted Airborne Electronic Materials andComponents Cyber andInformation Domain EU Collaborative Warfare Timely Warning andInterception European Union Network of Radiological Chemical, Biological, Maritime Unmanned EUNDC ) ) ) ‑based TheatreSurveillance ) MUSAS CIDCC Attack (AEA) Anti­ ) ) Diving Lead nation Germany Spain Portugal Romania Romania Italy France France France Italy Czech Republic, Hungary, Spain France, Spain, Sweden Bulgaria, France France, Italy France, Romania Romania, Spain,Sweden Hungary,Belgium, Portugal, Romania, Netherlands, Spain Finland, Italy, Netherlands, Spain France, Sweden France Participants 57 OSW REPORT 11/ 2019 58 OSW REPORT 11/ 2019 4.1. 76 4. ANNEX

• • V. & Defence & Border & Environment & Values & Digital Crisis Response Management Security Defence IV. Resources III. II. Innovation I. Budget heading

A Modern Budget for a Union that Protects, Empowers and Defends. The Multiannual Financial Framework for 2021–2027for

The European Mobility Military Defence Fund Single Market, Cohesion Security The draft multiannual financial framework for 2021–2027 framework for financial multiannual draft The (in millions of euros) millions (in Migration Natural

, Financial resources for security and defence and resources for security Financial in the European Commission’sin the European proposal op. cit. op. 53,403 54,593 25,421 2021 3264 1500 2373 3347 873 543 187 25,890 58,636 53,667 2022 1500 3495 2391 4567 192 664 891 26,722 53,974 61,897 2023 3514 2410 1500 4873 910 196 655 26,604 54,165 63,741 2024 1600 3695 2528 5233 200 928 709 27,000 54,363 65,645 2025 4040 1900 5421 2847 204 725 947 69,362 54,570 27,703 2026 76 2200 4386 5678 3166 742 208 966

28,030 54,778 68,537 2027 2800 5039 5866 3785 212 769 985 442,412 187,370 378,920 27,616 34,902 13,000 19,500 2021– 2027 1400 6500 4806 4.2. • Administration Assistance VII. VI. & the World The European Peace Facility Pre‑Accession External Action Instrument Public Budget heading bourhood

including CFSP

Instruments outside the MFF ceilings (in millions of euros) of millions (in ceilings MFF the outside Instruments The Neigh European ‑ 15,669 11,024 13,278 2021 2021 1949 800 348 16,054 13,614 11,385 2022 2022 1050 1989 361 16,563 14,074 11,819 2023 2023 1300 2029 380 17,219 14,680 12,235 2024 2024 2070 1550 408 12,532 15,458 18,047 2025 2025 1800 2111 446 19,096 16,454 12,949 2026 2026 2154 2000 496 20,355 17,662 13,343 2027 2027 2000 2198 560 123,002 105,219 14,500 10,500 85,287 2021– 2021– 2027 2027 3000 59 OSW REPORT 11/ 2019