A Look at EDIS/EDIP: Reformed Governance and Joint Planning as Coherence Levers in EU Defence Industrial Policy
Research takeaways
Intergovernmental planning mechanisms at the EU level, such as the Capability Development Plan (CDP), or the Coordinated Annual Review on Defence (CARD), lack consistency, coordination, and commitment from Member States to implement them. This gap impacts the overall coherence of EU defence industrial policy. Consolidating the European planning process and common requirements would offer the industry more predictability and enable it to scale and gain competitiveness.
2. The increased importance of the European Commission (EC) in defence industrial policy calls for rethinking coherence between intergovernmental and supranational action. A clearer delineation of roles and responsibilities is needed to improve coordination between actors – and the governance of EU defence policy in general.
3. The new governance architecture proposed by the EC in the European Defence Industrial Strategy (EDIS) and European Defence Industry Programme (EDIP) sets the basis for framing a global capability development scheme flowing from upstream (planning) to downstream (delivering). If it overcomes Member States’ reluctance and the pitfalls of increased bureaucracy and institutional complexity, the Defence Industrial Readiness Board provided for in the EC’s proposal on EDIP could improve effectiveness and coherence of the EU defence industrial policy.
4. However, the creation of new formats to promote Member States’ cooperation at a mini-lateral level, such as the Structures for European Armament Programme, raise questions in terms of concrete functioning, possible duplications with existing organisations and risk of market fragmentation.