Could EU funds be used to boost defence spending in 2012?

0

Rate this Article: (4.4 Stars | 7 Votes)   Thanks for your rating!

A ground-breaking resolution agreed upon by the European Parliament in the closing sessions of 2011 have raised an interesting prospect - that European Union funds could be used to plug capability gaps for the continent’s militaries.

Though a long way from formal endorsement, the ideas outlined in this resolution could indicate a radical new direction for the EU, which has up till now taken a hands-off approach to encouraging military capability development within Europe.

European defence under scrutiny by MEPs

The statement, endorsed by the European Parliament’s specialist committee on security and defence issues, comes in response to a detailed report put into circulation in mid-2011 regarding “the impact of the financial crisis on European militaries”. On 14 December, the so-called “Lisek Resolution” (named after key author, Polish MEP Krzysztof Lisek), outlined the steps MEPs feel will be needed to rectify Europe’s defence market fragmentation, lack of investment and failure to coordinate military cuts.

The statement calls for EU member states to strengthen on-going initiatives in the area of defence: such as the pooling and sharing (P&S) of military equipment within the “Ghent Framework”, increasing interoperability for cooperation in EU battlegroups and the strengthening of the so-called “Defence Directive”.

The latter, a legislative package which promises to punish protectionism in defence contracting, formally entered force in August 2011. However, following reports in December that only ten out of the EU 27 had effectively met the requirements of the Directive, MEPs urge the Commission “to report in due time on the transposition measures taken by the Member States, and to take all necessary action to ensure timely and consistent transposition and correct implementation”.

Though a task force has been created to undertake this study on the Defence Directive, the potential form that “all necessary action” will take is not yet clear. However, analysts have speculated that on the spot fines for non-compliance in defence tendering, or even a case being levelled in the European Court of Justice, could be used as a means of enforcement.

Opening EU coffers for defence?

However, the most controversial aspects of the Lisek report relates to EU funding. The recommendations focus on existing EU funding lines, and how they could be harnessed to address gaps in European capabilities. For instance, the report speculates that EU financial support for below average GDP nations under the European Stability Fund could be applied to struggling defence sectors in these countries as well.

More directly, noting that R&D accounts for a lowly average of 1% of all European defence spending, MEPs wish to see the EU’s Multi-annual Research Framework Programme (RFP) come to the rescue. Noting that funding is available for counter-terrorism and disaster management purposes under the RFP’s Security Research budget line, Ministers call “for the reinforcement and extension of security research…[to include] a new theme for defence research with civil-military applications”. Such research could include UAVs, command and control and situational awareness capabilities.

More ambitious proposals look to co-fund assets in the model of the Galileo global-positioning satellite system - which is directly financed to the tune of €20 billion by the EU at the behest of member states. Such a scheme “could be a viable and cost-effective option, especially in areas such as strategic and tactical transport or surveillance”, the report notes.

Finally, the resolution calls for a review of the so-called ATHENA mechanism for EU missions. Whilst currently used to help cover basing and infrastructure costs for member state military forces deployed under the EU flag, Ministers imagine a greater role for this in the future. They envision “the possibility of extending the mechanism to provide common funding for actions or acquisitions…notably a common financing of equipment”. In short, MEPs wish to see if ATHENA could be used to directly purchase military equipment for EU missions.

The future of defence is blue and gold

Though non-binding at this stage, the Lisek Resolution is a sign of the increased interest in the plight of defence spending by European Parliamentarians. Whilst constitutional prohibitions currently forbid the direct investment of EU money into arms, R&D for civil-military technology and the use of various existing funds to support the industrial base or purchase of equipment for EU missions demonstrates some creative potential solutions to Europe’s pressing lack of defence investment.

Of course, member states may baulk at the use of EU money for defence purposes. Yet their own shrinking national defence budgets are symptomatic of a lack of public interest in military affairs. Perhaps by handing the load over to the EU - which is politically neutral in internal budget debates - some glaring capability gaps could be filled in a cost effective manner.

It may not be popular at first, but perhaps the EU has a greater role to play in fixing Europe’s defence equipment crisis.

Jonathan Dowdall writes for the Defence Dateline Group

Contributor:   Defence Dateline Group

Defence Dateline Group

Internal UK and European defence analytics

For military decision makers, industry stakeholders and the fighting men and women of Europe, understanding the state of European defence is a top priority. In this regular column, the Defence Dateline Group will explore Europe’s defence dilemmas: asking the tough questions, shining a light on the biggest issues and providing you with the “food for thought” you need to tackle the challenges ahead.

The Group

Tom Wein – Editor

Tom is a defence industry and strategy analyst with experience in the Middle East and strategic communications. He has worked as a project manager for Strategic Communication Laboratories, and published numerous policy papers and articles.

Robert Knapp – Columnist

Robert is a regular foreign affairs and defence contributor to BN magazine, with his principal areas of focus being naval strategy, European defence procurement and 20th century maritime history.

Laurence Conneely – Columnist

Laurence is currently studying for an MSc in Violence, Conflict & Development at the School of Oriental and African studies, with a particular focus on contested governance, geopolitics and insurgent & separatist movements across the Indian Subcontinent, the Caucasus and the Middle East.

David Moroz – Columnist

David is a former RAF reservist and War Studies graduate. His areas of interest include air power, British defence policy and the Second World War in Europe.

You can contact Defence Dateline Group and its members here.

You Should Check Out:

Does EU Defence Initiative Mark the Beginning of a Truly Competitive Military Equipment Market?

EU Reaches Agreement on Maritime Security

Part II - Brussels Takes to the Trenches: The EU Force Protection Debate Heats Up

'Dear Human, I Have Seen the Navy of the Future and It Does Not Include You . . .'