Procedure : 2009/0058(COD)
Document stages in plenary
Document selected : A7-0066/2009

Texts tabled :

A7-0066/2009

Debates :

PV 20/10/2010 - 10
CRE 20/10/2010 - 10

Votes :

PV 21/10/2010 - 7.1
Explanations of votes
Explanations of votes

Texts adopted :

P7_TA(2010)0378

REPORT     ***I
PDF 377kWORD 241k
13.11.2009
PE 428.290v02-00 A7-0066/2009

on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EC) No 1717/2006 establishing an Instrument for Stability

(COM(2009)0195 – C7‑0042/2009 – 2009/0058(COD))

Committee on Foreign Affairs

Rapporteur: Franziska Katharina Brantner

DRAFT EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT LEGISLATIVE RESOLUTION
 EXPLANATORY STATEMENT
 OPINION of the Committee on Development
 PROCEDURE

DRAFT EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT LEGISLATIVE RESOLUTION

on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EC) No 1717/2006 establishing an Instrument for Stability

(COM(2009)0195 – C7‑0042/2009 – 2009/0058(COD))

(Codecision procedure: first reading)

The European Parliament,

–   having regard to the Commission proposal to the European Parliament and the Council (COM(2009)0195),

–   having regard to Article 251(2) and Articles 179(1) and 181a of the EC Treaty, pursuant to which the Commission submitted the proposal to Parliament (C7‑0042/2009),

–   having regard to the judgment of the Court of Justice of 20 May 2008 in Case C-91/05 Commission v Council, annulling Council Decision 2004/833/CFSP of 2 December 2004 implementing Joint Action 2002/589/CFSP with a view to a European Union contribution to ECOWAS in the framework of the Moratorium on Small Arms and Light Weapons,

–   having regard to Rule 55 of its Rules of Procedure,

–   having regard to the report of the Committee on Foreign Affairs and the opinion of the Committee on Development (A7‑0066/2009),

1.  Approves the Commission proposal as amended;

2.  Calls on the Commission to refer the matter to Parliament again if it intends to amend the proposal substantially or replace it with another text;

3.  Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council and the Commission.

Amendment  1

Proposal for a regulation – amending act

Article 1 – point 2

Regulation (EC) No 1717/2006

Article 4 – point 1 – point a

 

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(2) In Article 4(1), point (a) is replaced by the following:

(2) In Article 4(1), the first subparagraph of point (a) is replaced by the following:

“(a) strengthening the capacity of law enforcement and judicial and civil authorities involved in the fight against terrorism and organised crime, including illicit trafficking of people, drugs, firearms, small arms and light weapons, explosive materials and in the effective control of illegal trade and transit.”

“(a) strengthening the capacity of law enforcement and judicial and civil authorities involved in the fight against terrorism and organised crime, including illicit trafficking of people, drugs, firearms, small arms and light weapons, explosive materials and in the effective control of illegal trade and transit.”

Justification

The amendment is of technical nature and aims to correct the proposal's omission. The Commission's intention was to change the wording of the 1st subparagraph only (out of four).

Amendment  2

Proposal for a regulation – amending act

Article 1 – point 2 a (new)

Regulation (EC) No 1717/2006

Article 4 – point 3 – point b a (new)

 

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(2a) In Article 4(3), the following point shall be inserted:

 

"(ba) developing and organising civil society and its participation in the political process, including measures to enhance the role of women in such processes and measures to promote independent, pluralist and professional media."

Justification

Civil society should be granted support not only in crisis situations, as stated in the original Instrument for Stability, but also in the long-term in context of stable conditions for cooperation in the area of pre- and post-crisis building.

Amendment  3

Proposal for a regulation – amending act

Article 1 – point 2 b (new)

Regulation (EC) No 1717/2006

Article 4 – point 3 – subparagraph 2 a (new)

 

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(2b) In Article 4(3), the following subparagraph shall be added:

 

"Measures under this point may be implemented, if appropriate, by means of the EU Peace-building Partnership."

Justification

The Instrument for Stability should make a reference to the EU Peace-building Partnership, already established by the Commission in the field of pre- and post-crisis capacity building.

Amendment  4

Proposal for a regulation – amending act

Article 1 - point 4

Regulation (EC) No 1717/2006

Article 24 – point c

 

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(c) no more than 5 percentage points of the financial envelope shall be allocated to measures falling under Article 4(3).”

(c) no more than 10 percentage points of the financial envelope shall be allocated to measures falling under Article 4(3), provided the increase is in line with the current review of the EU Peace-building Partnership and internal resources.”

Justification

Despite the fact that the EU has a special expertise in peace-building and conflict resolution, the investment in this comparative advantage still remains inadequate. The Committee on Development proposes to increase the percentage of pre- and post-crisis capacity building from 5 to 10%.


EXPLANATORY STATEMENT

1. Views on the amending Regulation

The Committee on Foreign Affairs (AFET) welcomes the Commission's proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and the Council amending Regulation (EC) No 1717/2006 establishing an Instrument for Stability COM(2009)0195, as part of a wider review of the external financial assistance of the EU.

Firstly, AFET agrees that a revision of Article 3(2)(i) and Article 4(1)(a) of the original Regulation are necessary in order to bring it in conformity with the ruling of the European Court of Justice of 20 May 2008 which found that measures against the proliferation of small arms and light weapons may be implemented by the Community under its development policy. Moreover, the rapporteur invites the Presidency on behalf of the Council along with the Commission and the Parliament to develop a "Declaration on a European Consensus in support of EU Action on SALW" which takes into account the respective competences of all institutions.

Secondly, AFET is of the view that the proposed increase of the maximum financial amount for the implementation of measures under Article 4 (1) of the original Regulation from 7% to 10 % must be coupled with Commission's clearer strategy (including division of labour between the Commission and the Council following the ruling of the European Court of Justice in the ECOWAS case) and reporting to the European Parliament on the implementation the earmarked funds and content of planned projects.

Thirdly, AFET agrees with the opening up to global participation in the award of procurement or grant contracts under Article 4(3).

Additional aspects, not tackled in the Commission's proposal, are addressed in the report. It is proposed that under Article 4 of the original Regulation, civil society be explicitly included as a recipient of support in the long-term in context of stable conditions for cooperation in the area of pre- and post-crisis building.

Furthermore, the Regulation should make a reference to the EU Peace-building Partnership, already established by the Commission.

Finally, AFET agreed on an increase of the percentage of pre- and post-crisis capacity building from 5 to 10%.

2. Position on the reporting and access to information to the European Parliament

On top of the proposal to amend the original Regulation, the Commission's annual report on implementation of Instrument for Stability in 2008 as well as the Commission mid-term review of the financial instruments for external actions provide for a good opportunity for an assessment of the access to information by the European Parliament.

In this context, the rapporteur commends the Commission for the improvement of the annual reporting pursuant Article 23 of the original Regulation, in particular the inclusion of the project specifications.

However, reporting on substance of assistance measures in context of stable conditions under Article 4 was inadequate in the period 2006-2009. The rapporteur encourages the Commission to improve such reporting to the European Parliament, in particular on project design, development, implementation and review.

While the European Parliament does receive information from the Commission on adopted exceptional assistance measures (Article 6), aimed at response in crisis situations (Article 3); it falls short of reporting in a broader strategic and analytical sense as referred to in Article 6 (6) of the original Regulation.

Therefore, the rapporteur seeks Commission's reassurances to the European Parliament on respect of the Commission Declaration on the Instrument for Stability of 2006 on the issue of timely access to information on adopted exceptional assistance measures under Article 3 and compliance of measures adopted under Article 4 (1) in the area of fight against terrorism and organised crime with international human rights law and humanitarian law.

The rapporteur would like to remind the Commission of the European Parliament´s right for reception of information under the committee procedures ("comitology") referred to in Article 22 of the original Regulation.

In addition, the Commission and the Council are encouraged to communicate the monthly information notes to the Political and Security Committee to the European Parliament as well. Such improvement would be in line with the declaration on increased transparency stated by the current EU Council Presidency of Sweden.

3. Position on the pre- and post-crisis capacity building

Your rapporteur is of the view that the Commission should improve its strategic planning and increase disbursement of money available for the established Peace-Building Partnership (PBP) under Article 4 (3). Financial support should be focused at smaller and medium-sized projects as well as the large ones in a balanced fashion. The Commission is welcome to reorganise its administrative staff in order to enable proper implementation of the budgetary allowances available for measures under this article.

4. Position on the financial amount made available for implementation of the Instrument for Stability

The financial envelope for implementation of the Instrument for Stability (Art. 24) amounts to 2,062 billion euro over the period 2007 to 2013.

However, the financial means reallocated from the Instrument for Stability to the Food Facility over the period 2010 to 2013 have reduced this amount by 240 million euro.

In order to ensure that the European Union has the full financial means available, under Heading 4 of the annual budget, to fulfil its role on the international stage as expected by the citizens of Europe, the rapporteur urges the Commission to present a plan to restore the initial amount as foreseen in the Regulation.

The rapporteur reminds the Commission of the commitments made by the Community in the Instrument for Stability, namely to the promotion of stable conditions for human and economic development and the promotion of human rights, democracy and fundamental freedoms as the prime objectives of European Union external action. In this respect, she calls on the Commission to present a plan for the mobilisation of financial resources for any external emergency assistance facilities or mechanisms that are created outside the Instrument for Stability in a way that would avoid drawing on the funds foreseen for the Instrument for Stability. 

As a final point, the Commission is urged to increase the low levels of budget disbursement in the short-term future, underpinned by a strategic vision on its use.

5. Position on the mediation capabilities of the EU

For the EU to become an effective provider of civilian conflict prevention, it urgently needs a professional mediation facility with similar functions as the Mediation Support Unit (MSU) at the United Nations Department for Political Affairs (DPA). The MSU provides technical, financial and logistical support to peace missions. It strengthens mediation capacities of regional and sub-regional organizations and institutionalises the knowledge management of conflicts. The MSU is supported by a standby team which consists of mediation experts specializing in transitional justice, constitutional questions, power- and wealth sharing.

Articles 3 and 4 of the original Regulation provide a sound legal basis for the establishment of a permanent Mediation Support Facility under the auspices of the EU.

At the moment, both Commission and Council lack a pool of experts for mediation in crisis situations. There is neither logistical nor expert support for EU and EU-backed mediators. As a result, the training for EU and EU-backed missions lacks a systematic analysis of mediation experience. Moreover, general guidelines for EU mediation in political crises and violent conflicts need to be established.

The rapporteur believes the staff dealing with the programming should be increased, especially with regards to the setup of the External Action Service. It is of particular importance to the rapporteur of IfS to learn more about the Commission's opinion on the inclusion of the management responsibilities for IfS.

6. Position on strategic planning by the Commission

Your rapporteur is of the opinion that the Commission should improve its strategic planning regarding the implementation of the IfS. More specifically, the Commission should present details on the bodies which were chosen for the implementation and also give reasons as to why they were chosen.

The Commission also needs to outline its strategy vis-à-vis the UN and its agencies. Your rapporteur would like to know what steps the Commission plans to take to strengthen this cooperation.

Furthermore, it is still unclear how the Commission plans to organize the 'lessons learned' evaluation system. Is there also strategic planning on the issue of partnerships?

Your rapporteur also calls for greater coherence with non-IfS funding mechanisms, especially EIDHR, the thematic programmes, as well as development funds.

Finally, your rapporteur kindly asks the Commission to better explain the prioritization process for selecting situations and projects for IfS. What are the Commission's selection criteria? For example, have the decisions been based on policy, visibility or donor coordination concerns?


OPINION of the Committee on Development (11.11.2009)

for the Committee on Foreign Affairs

on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EC) No 1717/2006 establishing an Instrument for Stability

(COM(2009)0195 – C7‑0042/2009 – 2009/0058(COD))

Rapporteur: Eva Joly

SHORT JUSTIFICATION

With the implementation of the Instrument for Stability, the potential of the EU to respond to situations of crisis or emerging crisis has been strengthened. The aim of the IfS is to tackle these situations taking account the horizontal and geographical objectives and priorities of the EU while, at the same time, making these actions complementary with Community geographic policies and their objectives and instruments. In the case of development, these objectives must be in line with the ultimate goal of fighting poverty and its causes.

There is widespread consensus that development cannot take place in an insecure environment. However, there is a delicate international agreement over which actions in the area of security may be considered part of development policy: one principle set by the Development Assistance Committee of the OECD is that actions in the military field are excluded from the definition of Official Development Assistance (ODA).

Actions combating the illicit use and access to small arms and light weapons (SALW) were originally excluded from the scope of the Stability Instrument as the matter was subject to proceedings in the European Court of Justice at the time(1). The court found that "it is ... necessary, if a measure is to fall within [Community development] policy, that it contributes to the pursuit of that policy's economic and social development objectives(2)" thus ensuring compatibility between development policy at European level and the OECD/DAC definition of ODA.

The Commission's proposal, which is part of the Mid Term Review of the Instruments for External Action, intends to respond to the outcome of the case by including actions to combat the illicit use and access to SALW within the scope of the Stability Instrument. This instrument has the combined legal base of Art 179 EC, on development cooperation, and Art 181a EC, on economic, financial and technical cooperation with third countries. Any SALW actions which fall outside the ambit of development cooperation may therefore be carried out under Art. 181a.

In view of the reasons explained above, the Committee on Development has no objections to the amendments referring to the SALW case included in the proposal.

In recent years it has become more and more evident that the civilian components of peace-building and conflict resolution play a vital role for a successful stabilisation process. Despite the fact that the EU has a special expertise in this field, the investment in this comparative advantage still remains inadequate. The Committee on Development therefore proposes to amend Art. 24 (c) of for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EC) No 1717/2006 establishing an Instrument for Stability in order to increase the percentage of pre- and post-crisis capacity building from 5 to 10%.

AMENDMENTS

The Committee on Development calls on the Committee on Foreign Affairs, as the committee responsible, to incorporate the following amendments in its report:

Amendment  1

Proposal for a regulation – amending act

Article 1point 4

Regulation (EC) No 1717/2006

Article 24 – point c

 

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(c) no more than 5 percentage points of the financial envelope shall be allocated to measures falling under Article 4(3).”

(c) no more than 10 percentage points of the financial envelope shall be allocated to measures falling under Article 4(3).”

Justification

Despite the fact that the EU has a special expertise in peace-building and conflict resolution, the investment in this comparative advantage still remains inadequate. The Committee on Development proposes to increase the percentage of pre- and post-crisis capacity building from 5 to 10%.

PROCEDURE

Title

Instrument for Stability

References

COM(2009)0195 – C7-0042/2009 – 2009/0058(COD)

Committee responsible

AFET

Opinion by

       Date announced in plenary

DEVE

14.7.2009

 

 

 

Rapporteur

       Date appointed

Eva Joly

1.9.2009

 

 

Discussed in committee

6.10.2009

 

 

 

Date adopted

10.11.2009

 

 

 

Result of final vote

+:

–:

0:

28

0

0

Members present for the final vote

Thijs Berman, Michael Cashman, Corina Creţu, Véronique De Keyser, Nirj Deva, Catherine Greze, Enrique Guerrero Salom, Eva Joly, Filip Kaczmarek, Franziska Keller, Gay Mitchell, Norbert Neuser, Bill Newton Dunn, Maurice Ponga, David-Maria Sassoli, Birgit Schnieber-Jastram, Michèle Striffler, Alf Svensson, Patrice Tirolien, Ivo Vajgl, Gabriele Zimmer

Substitute(s) present for the final vote

Harlem Désir, Agustín Díaz de Mera García Consuegra, Isabella Lövin, Miguel Angel Martínez Martínez, Vincent Peillon, Cristian Dan Preda, Åsa Westlund

(1)

Case C-91/05 for annulment of Council Decision 2004/833/CFSP of 2 December 2004 implementing Joint Action 2002/589/CFSP with a view to an EU contribution to ECOWAS in the framework of the Moratorium on Small Arms and Light Weapons (SALW).

(2)

Para 67, Judgement Case C-91/05, which also cites Case C-268/94 paras 44, 60, 63 and 73 to the same effect


PROCEDURE

Title

Amendment of the Instrument for Stability

References

COM(2009)0195 – C7-0042/2009 – 2009/0058(COD)

Date submitted to Parliament

21.4.2009

Committee responsible

       Date announced in plenary

AFET

14.7.2009

Committee(s) asked for opinion(s)

       Date announced in plenary

DEVE

14.7.2009

INTA

14.7.2009

 

 

Not delivering opinions

       Date of decision

INTA

1.9.2009

 

 

 

Rapporteur(s)

       Date appointed

Franziska Katharina Brantner

16.9.2009

 

 

Discussed in committee

29.9.2009

 

 

 

Date adopted

10.11.2009

 

 

 

Result of final vote

+:

–:

0:

45

3

0

Members present for the final vote

Bastiaan Belder, Franziska Katharina Brantner, Frieda Brepoels, Elmar Brok, Arnaud Danjean, Michael Gahler, Marietta Giannakou, Andrzej Grzyb, Anna Ibrisagic, Ioannis Kasoulides, Tunne Kelam, Nicole Kiil-Nielsen, Maria Eleni Koppa, Vytautas Landsbergis, Krzysztof Lisek, Ulrike Lunacek, Mario Mauro, Francisco José Millán Mon, Alexander Mirsky, María Paloma Muñiz De Urquiza, Annemie Neyts-Uyttebroeck, Kristiina Ojuland, Justas Vincas Paleckis, Pier Antonio Panzeri, Ioan Mircea Paşcu, Vincent Peillon, Alojz Peterle, Cristian Dan Preda, Libor Rouček, José Ignacio Salafranca Sánchez-Neyra, Nikolaos Salavrakos, Adrian Severin, Marek Siwiec, Ernst Strasser, Hannes Swoboda, Zoran Thaler, Inese Vaidere, Boris Zala

Substitute(s) present for the final vote

Nikolaos Chountis, Göran Färm, Evgeni Kirilov, Georgios Koumoutsakos, Barbara Lochbihler, Emilio Menéndez del Valle, Vittorio Prodi, Tokia Saïfi, György Schöpflin, Luis Yáñez-Barnuevo García

Legal notice - Privacy policy