18 An EU maritime security strategy Action
Plan
| Committee's assessment
| Politically important |
| Committee's decision | Cleared from scrutiny; further information provided
|
| Document details | Joint Communication on elements of an EU Maritime Strategy
|
| Legal base | —
|
| Department
Document numbers
| Foreign and Commonwealth Office
(35857), 7537/14, JOIN(14) 9
|
Summary and Committee's conclusions
18.1 The Joint Communication (which is fully summarised
in our first previous Report)[77]
sets out the rationale for an EU Maritime Strategy (EU MSS) and
proposes the development of a functional, cross-sectoral approach
to maritime security in order to protect the EU's strategic maritime
security interests against a broad range of threats and risks,
with its focus on five areas: external action; maritime awareness,
surveillance and information sharing; capability development and
capacity building; risk management, protection of critical maritime
infrastructure and crisis response; and maritime security research
and innovation, education and training.[78]
18.2 As initially put forward by the Commission and
European External Action Service (EEAS), the EU MSS raised some
concerns (see the "Background" section). However, by
mid-year, the Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington) said that
he and his officials had "pressed hard on these and other
points and across all areas of concern" and that the UK's
"red lines have been protected". The Committee concurred,
cleared the Communication and looked forward to receiving information
about the implementation "road map" that would be prepared
under the Italian Presidency.
18.3 At the same time, the Committee noted that the
EU MSS is one of the offshoots of last December's "Defence"
European Council — the first since 2007 — and stemmed
from one of that Council's centrepieces, namely a Commission Communication:
Towards a More Competitive and Efficient Defence and Security
Sector. A second such centrepiece was a Joint Communication
on the EU's "Comprehensive Approach" to CSDP (Common
Security and Defence Policy) — also a UK priority, which
focused on better working practices and coordination, and which
in the end avoided proposals that, as originally outlined, would
have crossed UK "red-lines" on institutional growth
or re-structuring. So far, so good. But, the Committee noted,
what now mattered was how these proposals were implemented.
18.4 In that regard, the Minister was already aware
of the Committee's interest in scrutinising a number of documents
related to the December Council Conclusions — not only the
EU MSS but also the Defence Implementation Road Map, a new "EU
cyber defence policy framework" and new EDA projects and
work on developing a new "Policy Framework for systematic
and long term cooperation on capabilities". The Minister
undertook to "submit these in line with the usual procedures
or provide as much information as possible once those documents
have been finalised", and promised a more substantial update
and clearer timetable going forward. The Committee asked for any
update to be provided not later than 30 November.[79]
18.5 The Minister now says that the EU MSS has been
adopted at official level and will then be adopted formally at
the December 2014 General Affairs Council. He notes in particular
that, throughout the development of the Action Plan:
— UK officials have maintained a clear
position that language deemed unacceptable during the negotiation
of the EU MSS must not be re-introduced in the Action Plan;
— both the Strategy and Action Plan now
contain strong commitments to actively coordinate with NATO, "which
mitigates our concerns about potential duplication";
— à propos references in
the EU MSS to "EU flagged exercises" and his having
successfully negotiated their removal to reduce concerns about
competition with NATO:
"Maritime security exercises can play an important
part in capacity building work and also encourage EU Member States
to work together. We have, therefore, agreed there is benefit
in wider maritime security exercises with third countries and
international organisations in the context of CSDP operations."
18.6 The Minister concludes as follows:
"Overall, the Action Plan is consistent with
the EU Maritime Security Strategy, which we worked hard to shape
to ensure it complimented UK maritime security objectives. Discussions
around governance are still ongoing, but a brief review of progress
under each Presidency has been suggested. This will help ensure
that momentum is maintained and workstrands are progressed."
18.7 As the Minister knows, we have been in longstanding
discussion with him about the limitations placed by the Commission/EEAS
on documents such as this: caveated limité though
deemed "unclassified". It is therefore disappointing
that the Minister has nothing to say about its contents, e.g.,
what these "workstrands" are. It is not immediately
apparent how this so-called Action Plan differs in terms of sensitivity
from the Defence Implementation Road Map, which likewise emanates
from an earlier and related Communication, and which we recently
recommended for debate in European Committee.[80]
Once again, proper scrutiny is circumscribed for no apparent good
reason — the least bad being because of arrangements that
reflect administrative convenience and custom, and that those
in control of the information, in Brussels and in national capitals,
either will not or cannot be bothered to review.
18.8 Once adopted by the Council, any such justification
falls away. We accordingly put the Minister on notice (so that
the necessary bureaucratic wheels are put in motion) that we expect
the limité caveat to be immediately lifted,
and for any Presidency review of progress to be deposited with
his views, in the normal way.
18.9 We also ask the Minister to provide a copy
of the December 2014 General Affairs Council Conclusions and to
illustrate how they protect UK "red lines" and promote
UK interests.
Full details of the document:
Joint Communication: For an open and secure global maritime
domain — Elements for a European Union maritime security
strategy: (35857), 7537/14, JOIN(14) 9.
Background
18.10 The Joint Communication (which is fully summarised
in our first previous Report)[81]
sets out the rationale for an EU Maritime Strategy (EU MSS) and
proposes the development of a functional, cross-sectoral approach
to maritime security in order to protect the EU's strategic maritime
security interests against a broad range of threats and risks,
with its focus on five areas: external action; maritime awareness,
surveillance and information sharing; capability development and
capacity building; risk management, protection of critical maritime
infrastructure and crisis response; and maritime security research
and innovation, education and training.[82]
18.11 Responding on 15 May to queries raised in our
Report of 30 April, the Minister said that language in the latest
draft:
— explicitly stated that it would "not
create new structures, legislation or funds nor administrative
burden and unnecessary processes";
— mitigated satisfactorily the concern
that the EU had ambitions to intervene in maritime border disputes
between Member States;
— no longer contained statements about
mandatory standards for Privately Contracted Armed Security Guards
(the UK supported the IMO's view that these standards should remain
voluntary); and
— accepted the argument that the existing
range of international exercises, particularly through NATO, was
sufficient, with the result that language concerning the possibility
of EU-flagged maritime exercises with third countries in the context
of CSDP operations had been removed.
18.12 The Minister also explained that the focus
of the NATO Alliance Maritime Strategy (AMS) was entirely on military
aspects of security, while the EU MSS had a much broader focus;
and said that, with a wide range of maritime interests, the UK
stood to benefit from an appropriately tailored EU MSS that would
establish the framework to address maritime security challenges
through a broader range of activities and existing instruments.
He also noted that the fact that both NATO and the EU had been
able to work alongside each other to counter piracy in the Indian
Ocean showed that, though there was some overlap with the NATO
AMS, "confined to the relatively small, albeit important,
area of military activity", this necessary overlap did not
result in any duplication of NATO tasks or structures by the EU.
The UK would continue to work as the EU MSS was developed to ensure
that it remained complementary to the NATO AMS. The EU operating
in a coordinated approach on maritime security issues in international
fora and with third countries, and taking initiatives on enhanced
civil-military and cross-border cooperation for crisis response
and contingency planning, was in line with the Government's aim
of seeing the EU operate in a comprehensive manner and provide
greater coherence between the Commission and EEAS. Overall, he
said, "the Strategy, in its current form, is consistent with
the UK's maritime security objectives and we will continue to
work with European and other international partners on this global
issue".
18.13 Given these assurances, we were content to
allow the Strategy to proceed to fruition. We also asked the Minister
to provide us with a copy of the version adopted by the European
Council, along with his final assessment of the ways in which
it met UK interests, and confirmation that the language addressing
his concerns had been retained. In the meantime, we continued
to retain the Joint Communication under scrutiny (see our Report
of 11 June 2014).[83]
18.14 In his 24 June 2014 response, the Minister
described the final version as "consistent with the UK's
wider maritime security objectives of promoting a secure international
maritime domain, upholding international maritime norms and assuring
the security of vital maritime trade and energy routes" and
"[t]he commitment to improve coordination within the EU and
between Member States" as "very welcome".
18.15 Recalling his earlier concerns, the Minister
said that he and his officials had "pressed hard on these
and other points and across all areas of concern" and that
"the UK's red lines have been protected", citing specific
UK secured language guarding against new legislation and "multiple
references to NATO"; the next stage would be the development
of an Action Plan under the Italian Presidency; UK officials would
"continue to be engaged as this develops".
18.16 The Principles and Objectives section of the
Strategy, which we reproduced at the Annex to our Report, confirmed
the Minister's assessment.
18.17 Taking this into account, and it having been
over-taken by the finally-adopted Strategy, we then cleared the
Joint Communication.[84]
The Minister's letter of 24 November 2014
18.18 The Minister says that the EU MSS Action Plan
is nearing completion, and will be adopted via Council Conclusion
at the December General Affairs Council.
18.19 He then continues thus:
"The attached Action Plan is being provided
to the Committee under the Government's authority and arrangements
agreed between the Government and the Committee for the sharing
of EU documents carrying limité marking. It cannot
be published, nor can it be reported on substantively in any way
which would bring detail contained in the document into the public
domain."
18.20 The Minister then says that, following the
adoption of the EU MSS, UK officials have "remained fully
engaged" with the drafting of the EU MSS Action Plan; the
negotiation process has concluded; the final version was released
under silence on 20th November; and that "our concerns have
been addressed". The Minister outlines the main points to
note thus:
· "You will recall from my previous
correspondence on the EU MSS that there were areas, such as the
prospect of new legislation and structures, which we successfully
objected to during the negotiation of the Strategy. Throughout
the development of the Action Plan, we have maintained a clear
position that language deemed unacceptable during the negotiation
of the EU MSS must not be re-introduced in the Action Plan;
· "A major focus of our effort, through
the Friends of the Presidency working group, has been ensuring
appropriate references to NATO are included in the Strategy and
Action Plan. Both documents now contain strong commitments to
actively coordinate with NATO, which mitigates our concerns about
potential duplication;
· "I mentioned in my letter of 12th
May that text referring to 'EU flagged exercises' had been proposed
during the drafting of the Strategy. We successfully negotiated
the removal of the phrase 'EU flagged' to reduce concerns about
competition with NATO. Maritime security exercises can play an
important part in capacity building work and also encourage EU
Member States to work together. We have, therefore, agreed there
is benefit in wider maritime security exercises with third countries
and international organisations in the context of CSDP operations."
Previous Committee Reports
Fifth Report HC 219-v (2014-15), chapter 14 (2 July
2014), Second Report HC 219-ii (2014-15), chapter 4 (11 June 2014)
and Forty-seventh Report HC 83-xlii (2013-14), chapter 8 (30 April
2014).
77 Forty-seventh Report HC 83-xlii (2013-14), chapter 8
(30 April 2014). Back
78
Also see the European External Action Service (EEAS) Q and A Fact
Sheet on the EUMSS, at http://eeas.europa.eu/statements/docs/2014/140306_01_en.pdf.
Back
79
See Fifth Report HC 219-v (2014-15), chapter 14 http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201415/cmselect/cmeuleg/219-ii/21904.htm - a3
(2 July 2014). Back
80
See (36180), 11358/14: Eighteenth Report HC 219-xvii (2014-15),
chapter 1 (5 November 2014). Back
81
Forty-seventh Report, HC 83-xlii (2013-14), chapter 8 (30 April
2014). Back
82
Also see the European External Action Service (EEAS) Q and A Fact
Sheet on the EUMSS, at http://eeas.europa.eu/statements/docs/2014/140306_01_en.pdf.
Back
83
Second Report, HC 219-ii (2014-15), chapter 4 (11 June 2014). Back
84
See Fifth Report, HC 219-v (2014-15), chapter 14 http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201415/cmselect/cmeuleg/219-ii/21904.htm - a3
(2 July 2014). Back
| 
