EUROPEAN EXTERNAL ACTION SERVICE
EUROPEA UIO
MILITARY STAFF
Brussels, 26 October 2011
EEAS 268/11
DOCUMET PARTIALLY
ACCESSIBLE TO THE PUBLIC
(17.07.2013)
LIMITE
CSDP/PSDC
COSDP
OTE
From:
European Union Military Staff
To:
European Union Military Committee
No. Prev. doc.: -
Subject:
Draft Military Recommendation on Pooling and Sharing
AO:
Cdr Philippe Valin
Tel. 02-281 5756
Delegations will find attached a Draft Military Recommendation to PSC on Pooling and Sharing.
Member States are invited to provide written comments by 12h00, Friday 4 November 2011.
________________________
EEAS 268/11
PV/rm
1
EUMS
LIMITE E
References:
A.
Military Recommendation to PSC on Pooling and Sharing (Doc. 9847/11, dated 19 May
2011).
B.
Council conclusions on Pooling and Sharing of military capabilities (3091st FOREIGN
AFFAIRS Council meeting, 23 May 2011).
C.
Letter of the Chairman of the EUMC to CHODs (CEUMC 7924/11, dated 17 June 2011).
D.
Compilation of Member States' analysis on Pooling and Sharing (Doc. EUMS 12883/1/11
REV 1, dated 19 October 2011).
E.
Pooling and Sharing - first analysis of Member States' final findings - update (Doc. EEAS
266/11, dated 19 October 2011).
A.
BACKGROUD
1.
The Foreign Affairs Council on 23 May 2011, taking into account the Military
Recommendations (Ref. A), welcomed the initial inputs and findings from MS and called for
a structured and long term approach to pooling and sharing (Ref. B). The Chairman of the
EUMC, in his letter to CHODs (Ref. C), inter alia asked for additional information on the
national analyses of military capabilities and support structures. The EUMS compiled
Member States answers (Ref. D) and identified, in a first analysis (Ref. E), potential new
projects.
B.
AIM
2.
The aim of this document is to provide a Military Recommendation to PSC on Pooling and
Sharing with a view to the 30 November Foreign Affairs Council in MoD format.
EEAS 268/11
PV/rm
2
EUMS
LIMITE E
C.
COSIDERATIOS
3.
Pooling and Sharing has gained favour as a timely means to sustain existing, and develop,
new capabilities by applying multinational solutions, as Member States are facing severe
financial pressure on their respective Defence budgets. The criteria to be achieved to be
considered as a candidate project must be whether they would mitigate identified EU
shortfalls.
4.
The conclusion of Member States’ national analysis of military capabilities and support
structures appears to point to this initiative as the first step to coping with their respective
financial challenges. However, only a limited number of the proposals have the potential to
play a determining role in addressing identified EU shortfalls. This underlines again
impediments that seem to continue to hamper more ambitious proposals. Many of these
challenges, such as the industrial, economic and social (i.e. on Armed Forces human
resources) impact of Pooling and Sharing projects, remain issues to be first addressed at the
political level. Unsurprisingly, the bottom-up methodology has thus shown it is somewhat
limited. Accordingly, a reinforced top-down approach with implicit strengthening of political
involvement as well as a more proactive role for EU bodies, could be considered as a
prerequisite to changing the current mindset. Moreover, Pooling and Sharing must not be seen
as a short-term initiative but as a longer term effort.
5.
A clear motivator for Pooling and Sharing would be to ensure that savings resulting from
projects, or at least a part of it, will be reinvested in defence
1. Additionally, this would
increase the value of Pooling and Sharing projects not directly linked to identified shortfalls.
However, it should be noted that initial short term investments are necessary in order to
realise longer term savings.
6.
Longer term projects need the involvement of the governments' Research & Technology as
well as defence industrial area. Developing the European Defence Technological and
Industrial Base would facilitate the development of new projects that more broadly should
have positive economic consequences for the European Union and its Member States.
Accordingly such projects should be supported.
1
This has also been identified by EDA as one of the key issues, EDA 'Food for Thought' Paper
No. 2011/01 on Pooling and Sharing dated 5 October 2011.
EEAS 268/11
PV/rm
3
EUMS
LIMITE E
7.
Any loss of sovereignty when entering into Pooling and Sharing projects, especially the
assurance that shared assets will remain operationally available whenever required by any of
the partners, is a major constraint within this initiative. All its dimensions (inter alia
employability, sustainability, reversibility) have to be considered in developing projects.
Nevertheless it is believed that in many cases an acceptable solution should be achievable.
8.
Member States in their final findings confirmed the regional or small group approach being
the most appropriate way to initiate projects. However, in many cases increase in potential
benefits, in terms of savings or employability and interoperability, is in direct proportion with
the number of participants. Projects prepared regionally or within a small number of
participants could, on a case by case basis, be extended, when mature, to other Member
States.
9.
Another factor to be considered when entering into pooling and sharing of projects is the
modular approach. This is specially important when applied for scarce and cost-intensive
capabilities by developing standards for modules of a capability with Member States before
they, individually, develop the modules on their own. This would increase interoperability and
would ensure autonomy for Member States regarding their modules.
10. The EUMC has agreed that CHODs’ answers and the associated EUMS’ first analysis should
usefully help shape work on Pooling and Sharing conducted by the EDA, whose role as a key
facilitator in the EU is widely recognized. Accordingly merging of this initiative with EDA
sponsored work must be undertaken to result in a single list driven by EDA. The exception
regards facilitating Training and Education which should remain under EUMS's ambit.
11. Within the political limitations, EU-NATO cooperation to avoid unnecessary duplication has
so far generated excellent results at staff level. This cooperation was conducted in the
understanding that there will be no competition between the organisations and that finally
Member States will decide which projects to follow and, if appropriate, which organisation to
ask for support.
EEAS 268/11
PV/rm
4
EUMS
LIMITE E
D.
COCLUSIOS
12. In May 2011 (Ref A), four projects were already announced, during the EUMC in CHOD
format, and three of them have already been taken forward (see Annex) which are either
facilitated by EDA, specified in the context of the work of the NATO Task Force on
multinational and innovative approaches or developed on a multinational basis.
13. The EUMS analysis has shown that one third of Member States' proposals relate to Training
and Education - a domain which is the less sensitive to sovereignty issues, as it does not
directly involve operational employment of forces. Consequently, the EUMC has asked the
EUMS, in close cooperation with EDA, to propose options to facilitate Member States'
activities in this area.
14. The initiative to develop medical facilities, encompassing the modular as well as the regional /
small group approach, could serve as model for many other projects, like for instance CBRN
capabilities, by transferring the concept and standards for the development of modules, agreed
within a limited group of participants, to other interested Member States.
15. Based on the EUMS analysis of Member States' final findings (Ref. E), a list of potential new
projects has been developed by the EUMC which needs further discussion and Lead Nations
to carry the work forward (see annex). Political involvement and support will be needed to
bring them forward, in particular for those which are of larger scale. A reinforced top-down
approach could be considered.
16. While not having, for the vast majority of projects, the potential to significantly address the
most pressing shortfalls, those proposed projects may lead to savings which could be
reinvested in capabilities addressing the identified shortfalls. EU bodies, in particular the
EDA, could add significant value to many of them. A consolidated list at EU level would
enable Member States to have a better overview. Once implemented, they could represent
strong incentives towards more ambitious initiatives.
EEAS 268/11
PV/rm
5
EUMS
LIMITE E
17. It will be important to further develop and strengthen the European Defence Technological
and Industrial Base which would offer additional impetus to multinational solutions.
18. Close cooperation within relevant EU bodies and continuous exchange of information with
NATO at staff level remains important.
E.
RECOMMEDATIO
19. The EUMC invites the PSC to take into account the considerations and conclusions developed
in this document in preparation for the Foreign Affairs Council in MoD format on 30
November 2011.
EEAS 268/11
PV/rm
6
EUMS
LIMITE E
AEX
DELETED
EEAS 268/11
PV/rm
7
Annex
EUMS
LIMITE E
DELETED
EEAS 268/11
PV/rm
8
Distribution
EUMS
LIMITE E