Žaneta Ozoliņa
University of Latvia
POOLING AND SHARING: IDEAS
WHOSE TIME HAVE COME?
Issues to be addressed
 What does pooling and sharing mean?
 Why now?
 What has been congratulated so far?
 Issues of concern
Is it a new concept?
 “there is need for burden sharing, adequate
defense expenditures, and increased
cooperation”
 When was it stated?
- 1988
What does P&S mean?
 Sharing of capabilities: Member States
provide national capabilities to common use
without multinational overhead or integrated
structure
 Pooling of capabilities: National capabilities
for common use with multinational overhead
or integrated structure
What does P&S mean?
 Pooling through acquisition: national
capabilities do not exist and are substituted in
favour of multilateral capabilities, and the
multilateral organization owns the assets
 Role sharing:national capabilities are
relinguished on the assumption that another
country will make it available when necessary.
 Pooling of EU Member States Assets in the Implementation
of ESDP, 2008.
Is there something new? Two substantial
questions
 Operational effectiveness - Does the common
activity lead to the same or higher degree of
operational effect
 Economic efficiency - Does the common
activity lead to an economically constant or
even more efficient use of resources
compared to a national approach?
What is the position of Member States?
 France – supportive and critical about EU
nations that “slash military spending”
 Britain hesitant and skeptical (EDA)
 Majority neutral – “wait and see” policy
 All critical about Mrs Ashton
Why now?
 Financial crisis
 In-put/out-put logic
 Increasing tasks/decreasing funds
 Transformation of defence forces
 Transformation of institutional arrangements
and their responsibilities
 Strengthening national capabilities
One example of the impact of financial crisis
Crisis – perspective is lost
1.61%
350
1.53%
1.60%
1.54%
1.50%
% no IKP
1.40%
300
Plānotais aizsardzības budžets
1.30%
1.23%
250
1.20%
1.08%
1.10%
200
1.10%
1.04%
1.00%
260.2
0.96%
227.9
0.90%
161.5
150
171.4
Faktiskais aizsardzības
budžets
137.7
147.7
0,80%
147.5
0.80%
144.2
126.3
100
0.70%
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
What has been congratulated so far?
Regional initiatives (NORDEFCO)
List of common projects
Audit of capabilities
Top 10 priorities defined










Counter Improvised Explosive Device (C-IED)
Medical Support
Intelligence Surveillance and Reconnaissance
Increased Availability of Helicopters
Cyber Defence
Multinational Logistic Suppor
CSDP Information Exchange
Strategic and Tactical Airlift Management
Fuel and Energy
Mobility Assurance
Issues of concern
 Diversity of views on CSDP – ranging from
criticism that the Member States are not
delivering the military capabilities they have
promised, to concern about the creeping
militarisation of EU crisis management.
 The EU has never deployed the EU
Battlegroups. Capability generation and force
generation are still not linked up.
Issues of concern



The success of the EDA is limited.
Started with a broad mandate, but the
Member States imposed range of limitations.
The tiny operational budget - gives limited
room for maneuver.
Issues of concern





The EU is losing its strategic scope. Member
States still answer the question “why
European security?” in different ways.
EEAS does not help to answer this question.
Cooperation with NATO is decisive.
What is the added value?
How strategic is EU CFSP and CSDP?
Instead of conclusions

Each Member State should consider three key
questions:
- Can national objectives be achieved without a
common EU defence capacity?
- How should growing interdependencies be
addressed?
- What is the price to pay to preserve national
sovereignty through national capabilities?
- How to ensure effective cooperation with
NATO?