Commission representative was grilled over the EU’s snail-paced €7.3bn defence fund as MEPs warned it’s stuck in a ‘valley of death’. Meanwhile, Ukraine battles Russian drones with duct tape and grit.
The European Parliament’s Industry, Research, and Energy (ITRE) committee discussed the interim evaluation of the European Defence Fund (EDF) on 22 September, a €7.3bn initiative launched in 2021 to accelerate collaborative defence research and development. The debate revealed cautious optimism about the fund’s early impact but underscored systemic challenges in adapting to a war-ravaged geopolitical landscape—one unrecognisable from the EDF’s pre-Ukraine inception.
Krastio Preslavsky, deputy head of EDF unit at the European Commission’s DG DEFIS, opened the debate with a progress report. “EDF has become one of Europe’s top three defence investors,” he declared, citing €5.4bn committed to 162 projects involving 1,400 entities across member states.
A collaborative momentum
Over 50 prototypes—from hypersonic missile defences to drone swarms—are under development, with some nearing procurement. The Dutch and Belgian navies, for example, will deploy mine-countermeasure vessels funded by EDF projects within months, while the iMUGS unmanned ground system—already used in Ukraine for mine clearance—has seen adoption by 16 nations.
Cross-border collaboration emerged as a key success. Consortia average 19 entities from eight countries, breaking historical silos between defence industries. “This isn’t a program for big industry alone,” Mr Preslavsky stressed, noting that small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) account for 43 per cent of participants.
You might be interested
Over 700 “newcomers” to defence R&D joined the 2023 call, lured by initiatives like the EU Defence Innovation Scheme (UDIS), which targets startups. “We’re fostering ecosystems, not just funding projects,” he added, pointing to a European patrol corvette project involving four member states, two of which have already allocated procurement funds.
Co-funding woes
Yet the evaluation laid bare systemic hurdles. Designed in a “pre-war era,” the EDF struggles to match the blistering pace of innovation seen in Ukraine, where battlefield technologies evolve within weeks. MEP Rihards Kols (ECR/LAT) branded current procedures unfit for “disruptive, high-impact” projects: “Delays in member-state co-funding aren’t just administrative—they’re strategically dangerous.” Mr Preslavsky acknowledged rigidities, citing proposed reforms under the “defence mini-omnibus” to fast-track funding but admitted legislative delays persist.
Ukraine’s tech base offers lessons. Our BRAVE Tech EU initiative will connect their startups with EU firms. — Krastio Preslavsky, DG DEFIS
Procurement gaps dominated concerns. MEP Eszter Lakos (EPP/HUN) warned of a “valley of death” between prototype development and market uptake, questioning whether the European Competitiveness Fund (ECF)—a proposed €1.5bn vehicle for dual-use technologies—could bridge it.
“Will the ECF’s defence window boost scale-ups, or create a political Frankenstein?” she asked. Mr Preslavski pointed to the Defence Equity Facility, a pilot with the European Investment Bank to mobilise private capital, but conceded: “Equity financing for defence remains uncharted territory.”
Lagging national investment
Geographic disparities further complicated the picture. A participation map showed western European firms dominating, while eastern members—despite rising defence budgets—lagged. “National R&D investment in some eastern states is near zero. EDF is their only source,” Mr Preslavski admitted, though he noted Baltic firms now join 80+ projects.
MEP Kamila Gasiuk-Pihowicz (EPP/POL) warned against eligibility criteria favouring “a select few. Europe’s full deterrence potential hinges on eastern industrial capacity,” she said, urging inclusivity.
Without secure rare-earth supplies, our defence-industrial resilience is a mirage. — MEP Tom Berendsen (EPP/NDL)
The fund’s ability to support fast-moving technologies split the room. Mr Kols demanded leaner processes for projects proven in Ukraine, like drone-jamming systems: “Can EDF pivot from peacetime complacency to wartime agility?” Mr Preslavsky pointed to the European Defence Industrial Programme (EDIP)—a €3.5 billion follow-up focused on production—as a partial fix but acknowledged “higher ambition” is needed.
Supply chain quagmires
Dual-use technologies sparked debate. While the EDF funds purely military R&D, the ECF’s defence window targets civilian-military crossover. Mr Preslavsky hinted at synergies but offered no concrete framework: “Ukraine’s tech base offers lessons. Our BRAVE Tech EU initiative will connect their startups with EU firms.” MEP Ivars Ijabs (Renew/LAT) pressed for structural ties: “Ukrainian innovators excel in ad hoc solutions. How do we institutionalise this?” The Commission’s silence spoke volumes.
Supply-chain vulnerabilities, particularly semiconductors and critical minerals, raised alarms. MEP Tom Berendsen (EPP/NDL) noted Europe’s dependence on foreign suppliers: “Without secure rare-earth supplies, our defence-industrial resilience is a mirage.” The Commission plans to mirror its ammunition-sector analysis—which identified bottlenecks in explosives and fuses—for other sectors under EDIP. “We’re mapping choke points, but this requires time,” Mr Preslavsky cautioned.
The war in Ukraine exposed our naivety. The EDF must be a cornerstone, not a footnote. — MEP Rihards Kols (ECR/LAT)
Permitting delays emerged as another bottleneck. Mr Berendsen cited the Delta Rhine Corridor—a Dutch-German CCS project delayed four years by emission disputes—as emblematic. “Temporary exemptions during construction could unblock such projects,” he argued, urging the Commission to revisit Red III regulations. Mr Preslavsky pledged to “mirror renewables permitting reforms” but offered no timeline.
What the future holds
As the debate closed, Mr Preslavsky struck a defiant tone: “EDF has moved Europe from defence R&D fragmentation to collaboration. Now, we scale up.” Yet urgency tempered optimism. With the European Council negotiating the 2028-2034 budget, MEPs pushed to elevate the EDF’s €1bn annual allocation. “The war in Ukraine exposed our naivety. EDF must be a cornerstone, not a footnote,” declared Mr Kols.
The Commission’s impending “grids package”—a late-2025 overhaul of cross-border infrastructure planning—loomed large. Drawing parallels to energy projects like the Baltic Sea synchronisation, Mr Preslavsky vowed to prioritise “Europeanised planning” and faster permitting. But for all its ambition, the EDF’s midterm reckoning reveals a stark truth: Europe’s defence-industrial awakening remains a race against time, bureaucratic inertia, and the spectre of a protracted continental war.
The fund’s future hinges on balancing competing priorities—speed versus due process, inclusivity versus strategic focus, innovation versus procurement. As MEP Anna Stürgkh (Renew/AUT) noted: “Electrification and hydrogen projects mustn’t cannibalise each other.” With the EU’s defence budget debates set to intensify, the EDF’s success will depend on translating collaborative R&D into battlefield-ready capabilities—a test Europe cannot afford to fail.
