The European Commission’s Director-General for Defence Industry and Space, Timo Pesonen, explained to MEPs on the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy (ITRE) on Wednesday 24 July that the Member States had reacted positively to the Commission’s proposal establishing a European Defence Industry Programme (EDIP).
“They have generally responded positively, but now the work is in the working group, Coreper (meeting of the permanent representatives of the Member States to the EU, Editor’s note)”, he explained. For their part, MEPs were positive about EDIP, although they did have questions about the funding and the companies involved. The planned budget is €1.5 billion up to 2027.
“Has the European Commission realised that the resources are really not sufficient?”, asked Angelika Niebler (EPP, German), wondering how to obtain a larger budget. In her opinion, a budget of 1.5 billion is “almost ridiculous”.
“We have to make sure that the projects are carried out and that we can pay out enough to achieve the targets set”, added Beata Szydło (ECR, Polish).
The Managing Director acknowledged that we needed to be able to mobilise more funding and be more ambitious in terms of innovation and production. “The ambition is a significant increase in efforts for the next Multiannual Financial Frameworks and, of course, in the meantime, there will be a discussion on the most urgent needs and to fill the gaps in terms of capacity”, he explained. Mr Pesonen acknowledged that the subject was a sensitive one in the EU Council and recalled that European leaders had asked the Commission for options for financing European defence to be discussed at the October European Council.
Asked about private investment, Mr Pesonen pointed out that the EU budget had a leverage effect. In his opinion, ASAP, with the €500 million from European funds, has been able to raise almost €2 billion in investment across all value chains.
Christophe Grudler (Renew Europe, French) was also concerned about the destination of European funds. “I’m hearing some worrying things at EU Council level, where many Member States are not making enough of a distinction between European and non-European products. It is vital that EDIP, which is European money, goes into European industry for European products”, he explained.
Marc Botenga (The Left, Belgian) also raised the issue of the involvement of third countries.
“We need to prevent exports to countries that violate human rights, and we need to be more ambitious in terms of common spending and market integration, particularly with regard to calls for tender”, added Ville Ninistö (Greens/EFA, Finnish).
In response, Mr Pesonen said that “the starting point” for defining the eligibility criteria for EDIP “is to stick (to the criteria defined) for the European Defence Fund”, i.e. companies from third countries would be eligible provided that the funds were used on European territory and that security guarantees were respected. “We have agreed on flexibility for the EDIRPA and ASAP programmes in view of the situation, but we will be more rigorous for EDIP. (...) When European money is involved, it must be directed towards European industry, that’s our approach”, he added.
Many MEPs also stressed the role that SMEs can play, which is taken into account in the proposal on EDIP. (Original version in French by Camille-Cerise Gessant)