European defence policy is undergoing rapid change, but the industrial sector says the governance framework that will steer that change remains murky. Corporates and defence associations warn that without clearer division of roles between national governments, NATO and an expanding set of EU bodies, European defence spending risks inefficiency and duplication.
Camille Grand, secretary-general of the Aerospace, Security and Defence Industries Association of Europe - which represents more than 4,000 companies in 21 countries - said policymakers must define who does what and how decisions are taken.
"It’s a bit of an alphabet soup of organisations that have a role," Grand said. "We don’t have yet a clean governance for all of that, to define who does what and how decisions are taken."
His comments come against a backdrop of stepped-up defence investment across Europe after Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022 and following public signals from U.S. political leadership that European countries should prepare for reduced American support within the NATO alliance. That combination has prompted national governments to increase spending and prompted EU institutions to take a more active role in defence policy and industrial support.
Recent EU-level efforts aim to address capability shortfalls and encourage collective action. Among the initiatives cited by industry are:
- Security Action for Europe - a 150 billion euro loan scheme designed to support defence spending;
- The European Defence Industrial Programme - intended to bolster the defence sector; and
- The Defence Readiness Roadmap - a plan to make the continent ready to defend itself by 2030.
These initiatives are intended to narrow capability gaps such as counter-drone systems, reduce dependence on the United States and promote joint procurement of weapons. Yet, according to Grand, multiple agencies and funding mechanisms have produced overlapping projects, and the net result can be confusion about responsibilities and processes.
"It all boils down to getting a little more clarity on: How do we govern this necessary collective effort to deliver capabilities faster?" Grand said, pointing to air and missile defence as an area where overlapping projects across different bodies have emerged to counter missiles, drones and other threats.
Calls for structural reform among officials have also surfaced. European Defence Commissioner Andrius Kubilius has proposed the creation of a European Security Council that could in some cases include non-EU countries such as Britain. The proposal aims to forge more coherent strategic decision-making but has not won universal support.
EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas voiced scepticism about adding yet another body, saying in Brussels:
when asked about the proposal."I don’t think another institution will actually make it easier,"
Industry stakeholders and officials therefore face a trade-off: using new EU instruments to accelerate capability development while avoiding a proliferation of overlapping governance structures that could slow procurement and raise costs. Clarity on where responsibility lies - whether at national capitals, NATO, the European Commission or specialised agencies - will shape how quickly and efficiently Europe can translate higher defence budgets into deployable capabilities.
Summary
Defence industry representatives say Europe needs clearer governance and role definition among national governments, NATO and EU bodies to avoid wasted spending and slow delivery of capabilities as defence budgets rise. Multiple EU initiatives aim to close capability gaps and support joint procurement, but overlapping projects and institutions risk inefficiency. Senior industry figures highlighted air and missile defence as a priority area needing better coordination. Proposals such as a European Security Council have been suggested but face scepticism from some EU officials.