Representatives of all EU and NATO Member States as well as the NATO International Staff were invited to the EDA premises today for an informal briefing on the revised Capability Development Plan (CDP) approved in June 2018 and on its ongoing implementation process. The event was held at the initiative of the EDA Steering Board as part of the renewed EU-NATO cooperation under the Warsaw and Brussels Joint Declarations which call for more transparency and coherence of output between the EU and NATO defence planning processes. 22 EU Member States are also NATO Allies.
Jorge Domecq, the EDA Chief Executive, and Martin Konertz, the Capability, Armament & Planning Director, provided participants with an detailed overview on the general CDP process, on last year’s revision and the 11 new EU Capability Development Priorities, as well as on their implementation through the development of individual Strategic Context Cases (SCCS) which will serve as launching pads for potential future collaborative projects. They also explained the crucial role the CDP plays as a key reference for Member States’ and EU's capability development, and how it guides and informs the Coordinated Annual Review on Defence (CARD), the Permanent Structured Cooperation (PESCO), and the European Defence Fund (EDF).
Participants were also briefed about how EDA ensures coherence with NATO, thus mitigating the risk of unnecessary duplication. The Agency will continue to pursue coherence of output and timelines between the EU and NATO Defence Planning Processes in full transparency with the Member States.
“The meeting aimed at further enhancing transparency and visibility on the overall process and main elements of the revised CDP priorities, and at elaborating on the ways EU and NATO pursue coherence of output as well as the associated benefits, considering that Member States/Allies have a single set of forces and capabilities”, Mr Domecq commented. “I am confident that the meeting was particularly beneficial to those Allies which are not involved in the CDP process”.
Written by Etienne Bassot and Wolfgang Hiller,
© European Union, 2019; EP – Michel Christen
As the European Parliament reaches the end of its 2014-2019 mandate and the European Commission approaches the end of its term, it is timely to look back at the commitments made by the Juncker Commission when it took office in 2014 and assess to what extent it has delivered. Since 2014, this biannual publication has regularly assessed, quantitatively and qualitatively, the Juncker Commission’s performance on the basis of its own standards. This final issue in the series covers the past semester and before, reporting on the Juncker Commission’s term as a whole, examining what the EU institutions have been able – or not – to collectively enact.
The 2014 prioritiesPrior to his election as President of the European Commission in July 2014, Jean-Claude Juncker set out the policy priorities that would serve as the political mandate for his term in office. The aim was to make a difference and deliver concrete results for citizens, on each of the following 10 priorities:
Since President Juncker and the college of commissioners took office in November 2014, every year has brought its share of changes and challenges, some unexpected in their extent, others in their nature. To name just a few, 2015 started with a series of terrorist attacks that were to spread during that year and in subsequent ones and lead to a strengthened focus on security. Later that year, the record-high number of migrants and asylum seekers arriving in the European Union had a significant impact on both policy delivery and political balances at national and European levels. In 2016, the result of the Brexit referendum on the one hand, and the election of a new administration in the United States on the other, compelled the European Union to adapt its priorities, both internally and externally, with major impact in several key areas, from security and defence to trade. While these developments have continued to unfold, they have been joined by additional challenges – such as ensuring energy independence, guaranteeing the respect of the rule of law in each Member State, or strengthening the economic and monetary union –each affecting many, if not all, of the others, and ultimately leading to a reshuffling of the agenda.
As a political player, the European Commission was faced with two imperatives: on the one hand, continue to deliver what it had announced and committed to tabling, and on the other hand, adapt its response and initiatives to an ever-changing environment. It did so through its annual work programmes and the announcements made in the State of the Union addresses. This publication assesses the Commission’s delivery with regards to both initial and subsequent sources of commitments.
To what extent has the European Commission delivered?Overall, this in‑depth analysis reveals that while two thirds of the proposals tabled by the European Commission were adopted by the end of the legislature, almost one third had not reached agreement and one out of ten had been withdrawn. Progress varies from one policy field to another. With regard to the tabling of proposals, the rate is the highest in areas such as internal market, migration, and the union of democratic change. As for adoption of proposals by the co‑legislators, in some priority areas, such as the digital single market, the internal market, justice and fundamental rights, and Europe as a stronger global actor, almost three quarters of the proposals submitted have been adopted; in others, such as jobs, growth and investment, or trade, progress was much slower (around one third adopted). Overall, however, evidence suggests that, step by step, the European institutions have collectively enacted the ‘Juncker plan’.
Read the complete In-depth analysis on ‘The Juncker Commission’s ten priorities: An end-of-term assessment‘ on the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.
Written by Martin Russell,
© krutenyuk / Fotolia
Among the Western Balkan countries aspiring to EU membership, Serbia is seen as a frontrunner in terms of its democratic institutions, level of economic development and overall readiness for accession. However, in November 2018 opposition politician, Borko Stefanović, was beaten up by thugs, triggering a wave of protests that has spread across the country. Week after week, thousands have taken to the streets, accusing Serbian president, Aleksandar Vučić, and his Serbian Progressive Party (SNS) of authoritarian rule, attacks on independent media, electoral fraud and corruption.
Although the protests only started recently, they highlight worrying longer-term trends. Press freedom has been in decline for several years, particularly since Vučić became prime minister in 2014. A large part of the media is now controlled either directly by the state or by pro-SNS figures. Independent journalists face threats and even violence, and perpetrators are rarely convicted.
In the National Assembly, the governing coalition uses its parliamentary majority to systematically block meaningful discussions of legislative proposals. In protest, the opposition started a boycott of plenary debates in February 2019.
The tone of verbal attacks by SNS politicians and their allies on independent media, the political opposition and civil society is often virulent. Criticising government policy is framed as betrayal of Serbian interests. The aim seems to be to marginalise critical voices while concentrating power in the hands of the SNS-led government. Elected to the mainly ceremonial role of president in 2017, Vučić nevertheless remains the dominant figure.
If Serbia’s drift towards authoritarianism continues, it could become a major obstacle to EU accession, for which 2025 has been mentioned as a possible date.
Read the complete Briefing: ‘Serbia at risk of authoritarianism?‘ on the Think Tank website of the European Parliament.