5.

Overall, the Council underlines that the pMS: (a) confirmed the positive trajectory in terms of the commitments related to defence budgets and defence investment expenditure. However, overall progress remains modest at this stage and, although the pMS face financial challenges as a consequence of the COVID-19 crisis, they are encouraged to allocate the necessary resources to further contribute to this positive trend in the coming years. The pMS are also encouraged to further contribute to a European collaborative approach (for example through equipment procurement and defence research and technology); (b) are strongly encouraged to take more into account and make better use in their national defence planning processes, as an element of orientation and decision making, of the EU defence planning tools such as the Capability Development Plan (CDP), which also includes the results of the Headline Goal Process (HLGP), the Strategic Context Cases (SCC), the Coordinated Annual Review on Defence (CARD) as well as other initiatives such as the European Defence Industrial Development Programme or other relevant EU instruments. In that regard, the Council underlines the importance that EU institutions, agencies and bodies and Member States further enhance the coherence between these tools and initiatives, while recognising that they are distinct and have different legal bases; (c) are encouraged to make further progress in fulfilling the commitments related to bringing their defence apparatus in line with each other and to regularly review plans and objectives to be taken forward, notably with a view to playing a substantial role in capability development within the Union, including within the framework of CARD, while recognising that this requires a sustained longer-term effort. The Council recalls that in its Recommendation of 14 May 2019, it indicated that the coherence of output between CARD and the CDP, on the one hand, and respective NATO processes such as the NATO Defence Planning Process, on the other hand, has been and will continue to be ensured where requirements overlap, while recognising the different nature of the two organisations and their respective responsibilities and memberships. The Council encourages further discussions amongst Member States on such a coherence between those processes, as appropriate; (d) should, in order to increase the operational output as a matter of urgency, enhance their efforts as regards the commitments related to strengthening the availability, deployability and interoperability of forces including by completely filling the EU Battlegroup roster, the Rapid Response Data Base and the Statements of Requirements for common security and defence policy (CSDP) missions and operations. In particular, it is important that their contribution to support CSDP missions and operations should improve qualitatively and quantitatively, also with a view to the most demanding missions. With regard to the more binding commitment on the ambitious approach by the pMS on the common funding of military CSDP missions and operations, the implementation is linked to the Athena Mechanism review and to the establishment by the Council of the proposed European Peace Facility, which are currently being discussed by Member States; (e) have shown limited progress, compared to the updated NIPs provided in 2019, in taking measures to address capability shortcomings identified under the CDP and CARD, including an assessment of the implementation of High Impact Capability Goals (HICGs), and should therefore consider undertaking more efforts to increase the use of a European collaborative approach as a priority in national planning. The pMS should also indicate how their capability development projects strengthen the European Defence Technological and Industrial Base; (f) still have to enhance their efforts with a view to fulfilling the commitments related to taking part, where appropriate, in major joint or European equipment programmes in the framework of the European Defence Agency.