3 Amendments of Sabine LÖSING related to 2011/2023(INI)
Amendment 2 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Stresses the new role granted by the Treaty of Lisbon toat the European External Action Service (EEAS) can never be the Hrigh Representative/Vice President of coordinating EU operations in third countries to guarantee the consistency between the EU’s crisis response and the overall polit EU agency to devise approaches or methods for planning and implementing crisis or disaster management scenarios, given that it is secretive, undemocratical, and security elements involved; urges that working arrangements be developed among all relevant services dealing with emergency response and crisis management in the Commission and the EEAS, including EU Delegationsdriven by vested interests and – worst of all – has military elements within its organisational structure;
Amendment 4 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Underlines the need to enhance coherence in the use of the different EU instruments, some of which fall underfor optimum coordination and for expansion of the EU’s civil disaster management; calls, the responsibilityfore, ofn the HR/VP, such as the Instrument for Stability, as well as to improve coordination wiEU and its Member States to boost civil protection capabilities and resources; also calls on the Member States and the Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP) civil or military missions which are already on the ground or which could be set up in the aftermath of a disaster; insists on the linkage between crisis prevention, disaster response and post-disaster reconstructionission to view civil protection as a purely civil task and carry it out accordingly; urges the Commission in particular to gauge needs on an ongoing basis and draw up proposals for joint procurement projects;
Amendment 9 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Emphasises that, as a last resort and in compliance with the Oslo Guidelines, military means often constitute an important contribution to disaster response, particularly for specialised assets, strategic lift or heavy engineering; stresses that use of all the capabilities available – civil and military – and Member States’ crisis management assets should be enhanced in order to avoid costly duplications while civil protection and emergency aid may so far have been denied the resources and infrastructure needed to allow crisis or disaster response to proceed on an appropriately comprehensive scale, the reason must be considered to lie in a lack of political will; insists, therefore, that disasters or crises must not lead to the deployment or movement of military forces within or outside the EU; maintains on the contrary that civil protection forces should be provided with resources enabling them to perform their task properly and unaided;