8 Amendments of Arnaud DANJEAN related to 2015/2258(INI)
Amendment 15 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Notes that the EU and its Member States are by far the mainmajor funders of peace operations, while CSDP operatand crisis- management operations throughout the world and that CSDP civilian and military missions and missoperations represent only aa very small psharte of all funding; regrets the very modest nature of CSDP interventions, especially the military ones, consisting mainly of low-profile military training missions instead of substantial European contributions to peace-keeping and peace- enforcement; Is convinced that the EU cannot allow itself to focus exclusively on instruments for a post-crisis context or for supporting exit from crisis, but rather must be capable of intervention across the full spectrum of crisis management;
Amendment 23 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Calls on the VP/HR and the Member States to unleash the full potential of the Lisbon Treaty, and especially of its article 44, with regard to a faster and more flexible use of the CSDP missions and operations;
Amendment 38 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Welcomes the concrete measures and pragmatic solutions introduced recently by the Commission within the existing framework of financial rules in order to shorten financial procedures concerning the CSDP civilian mission; deplores, however, the still significant delays in procuring essential equipment and services to the CSDP missions under the CSDPFSP framework, partially due to the often slow process of adopting decisions by the Council, but also to a certain lack of flexibility of the financial rules, and the resulting negative effect on the missions’ functioning; recalls that the Court of Auditors already criticised this in its 2012 Special Report on the EU assistance to Kosovo related to the rule of law;
Amendment 60 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10 a (new)
Paragraph 10 a (new)
10a. Regrets the opacity and the high costs that prevail in the selection process of the private companies chosen to ensure the security of the CSDP civilian missions' personnel; Calls for the setup of a security framework contract specific to CSDP civilian missions in order to lower the fares charged by private security companies and to make that selection process more transparent; Believes that European companies should be prioritized in that context;
Amendment 62 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. Considers that the CSDP should be viewed ais part of the broader CFSP framework and of EU external action as a whole; strongly believes that coherence and complementarity should be ensured between the various instruments to achieve economies of scale and maximise the impact of EU spending; is convinced that the EU has more tools and leverage potential than any other supranational institution, given that its security and defence policy can be reinforced by a comprehensive approach with other types of EU instruments and financing mechanisms; believes, therefore, that CFSP resources should be used in a smarter way by tying CSDP in with, notably through enhanced coordination between CSDP instruments and the different EU funding programmes managed by the Commission;
Amendment 86 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
Paragraph 15
15. Acknowledges that military operations are financed by the Member States outside the EU budget and that their common costs are covered by the Athena mechanism; underlines that Athena is crucial to the fast deployment of those operations and is an instrument of solidarity between Member States, as well as a major incentive, notably forencouraging them, especially those lacking financial and operational resources, to contribute to CSDP operations; regrets, however, that the proportion of the common costs remains very low (around 10-15 % of all costs) and that the ‘costs lie where they fall’ principle further deters Member States from taking an active part in CSDP operations; Worries that this state of affairs, especially in the context of the Member States' lack of willingness to participate to the operations' force generation, hampers the rapid deployment of CSDP operations and jeopardizes their overall efficiency; finds that the long-term financing of military missions should be ensured;
Amendment 98 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16
Paragraph 16
16. Deplores, in this context, that the review of the Athena mechanism has not produced tangible results, and calls on the Council to deliver quickly on this issue; supports, in particular, an expansion of the costs eligible under Athena, such as the pre-financing of certain costs, the automatic financing of expenditure on CSDP operational and mission deployment (infrastructure for the accommodation of forces, expenses relating to the establishment of points of entry for troops into theatres of operations and security stocks of food and fuel where necessary), or the strategic transport of EU battle groups ; expects a final decision on these issues at the next European Council on defence;
Amendment 115 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19 a (new)
Paragraph 19 a (new)
19a. Is surprised that there are as yet no European-level tax incentives to cooperation and pooling; takes note of the call by the December 2013 Council for such arrangements to be explored, and finds it regrettable that, a year on, discussions have not yet produced any tangible measures in this regard; notes that the Belgian Government already grants VAT exemptions, on an ad hoc basis, to the preparatory phases of certain EDA projects, e.g. for satellite communications; believes that such exemptions should be applied as a matter of course and should be extended to infrastructure and to specific capability- related programmes, taking as a model the existing mechanism within NATO or the existing EU mechanism for civilian research infrastructures; calls for the development of any other incentive that could encourage capability cooperation between Europeans;