COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT EVALUATION Interim Evaluation of the European Defence Fund Accompanying the document REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS The European Defence Fund: supporting the development of the defence capabilities of tomorrow Interim evaluation of the European Defence Fund
Date: 2025-06-17
Institutions: Directorate-General for Defence Industry and Space, European Commission
Subjects: EU programme, European defence policy, common security and defence policy, defence expenditure, fund (EU), innovation, military equipment, military research, research and development, technology

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 17.6.2025  SWD(2025) 151 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT  EVALUATION  Interim Evaluation of the European Defence Fund Accompanying the document REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS  The European Defence Fund: supporting the development of the defence capabilities of tomorrow   Interim evaluation of the European Defence Fund {COM(2025) 299 final} - {SEC(2025) 169 final}  
 
 
Table of contents 

1. 

INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................ 1 

Purpose and scope of the evaluation ........................................................................................ 1 
2.  WHAT WAS THE EXPECTED OUTCOME OF THE INTERVENTION? ....................................... 3 

2.1 
2.2 

Description of the intervention and its objectives ......................................................... 3 
Point(s) of comparison .................................................................................................. 6 
3.  HOW HAS THE SITUATION EVOLVED OVER THE EVALUATION PERIOD? ......................... 8 

3.1 
3.2 

Current state of play ...................................................................................................... 8 
EDF parameters and associated values  ........................................................................ 9 
EVALUATION FINDINGS (ANALYTICAL PART) ....................................................................... 11 
4.1. TO WHAT EXTENT WAS THE INTERVENTION SUCCESSFUL AND WHY? .......................... 11 

4. 

4.1.1  Effectiveness ................................................................................................................ 11 
4.1.2  Efficiency .................................................................................................................... 31 
4.1.3  Coherence .................................................................................................................... 48 
4.2. HOW DID THE EU INTERVENTION MAKE A DIFFERENCE AND TO WHOM? .................... 59 
4.3. IS THE INTERVENTION STILL RELEVANT? .............................................................................. 62 
5.  WHAT ARE THE CONCLUSIONS AND LESSONS LEARNED? ................................................. 64 

5.1 Conclusions........................................................................................................................... 64 
5.2  Lessons Learned .................................................................................................................. 65 

ANNEXES 

Annex 1 – Procedural Information 
Annex 2 – Methodology and Analytical Models Used 
Annex 3 – Evaluation Matrix 
Annex 4 – Overview of Benefits and Costs 
Annex 5 – Synopsis Report  
Annex 6 – Lessons Learned from PADR and EDIDP 
Annex 7 – EDIDP Retrospective Evaluation  
Annex 8 – Limitations of the EDF Interim Evaluation 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Glossary 

Term or acronym 

Meaning or definition 

ASAP 
CARD  
CDP  
CSDP 
CFSP 
DEF 
DG DEFIS 
EEAS 
EDA  
EDF  
EDIDP  

EDIP  
EDIRPA  

EDIS  
EDTIB  
EIF 
ENDR 
EUMS 
EUDIS 
EUDIS BAMM 
GAP  
MAP  
MFF  
Mid-caps 
MoD  
NATO  
OSRA  
PADR  
PESCO  
R&D  
R&T 
RTO  
SDG  
SME  
STANAG 
STEP 
TRL 
US 

Defence 

Industrial 

Development 

Act in Support of Ammunition Production 
Coordinated Annual Review on Defence 
Capability Development Plan 
Common Security and Defence Policy 
Common Foreign and Security Policy 
Defence Equity Facility 
Directorate-General for Defence Industry and Space 
European External Action Service 
European Defence Agency 
European Defence Fund 
European 
Programme 
European Defence Industry Programme 
European  Defence  Industry  Reinforcement  through 
common Procurement Act 
European Defence Industrial Strategy 
European Defence Technological and Industrial Base 
European Investment Fund 
European Network of Defence-Related Regions 
EU Military Staff 
EU Defence Innovation Scheme 
EUDIS Business Accelerator and Matchmaking  
Grant Agreement Preparation 
Multiannual Perspective 
Multiannual Financial Framework 
Medium Capitalisation Enterprises 
Ministry of Defence 
North Atlantic Treaty Organization 
Overarching Strategic Research Agenda 
Preparatory Action on Defence Research 
Permanent Structured Cooperation 
Research and Development 
Research and Technology 
Research and Technology Organisation 
Sustainable Development Goal 
Small and medium-sized enterprise 
Standardisation Agreement 
Strategic Technologies for Europe Platform  
Technology Readiness Level 
United States 

 
 
  
1. 

INTRODUCTION  

Purpose and scope of the evaluation 

The European Defence Fund (EDF) is the EU’s defence research and development (R&D 
funding programme for 2021-2027, with a budget of EUR 7.3 billion1. It builds on two 
precursor  programmes,  limited  in  time  and  budget:  the  Preparatory  Action  on  Defence 
Research  (PADR)  and  the  European  Defence  Industrial  Development  Programme 
(EDIDP). 

This staff working document presents the results of the interim evaluation of the EDF in 
line with the requirements of Article 29 of the Regulation establishing the EDF2 and the 
Commission’s  Better  Regulation  Guidelines3.  The  evaluation  assesses  the  effectiveness 
towards  achieving  EDF’s  objectives,  its  efficiency,  relevance,  internal  coherence  and 
coherence  with  other  initiatives,  and  added  value.  The  document  also  addresses  the 
lessons  from  its  precursor  programmes,  conducting  a  more  detailed  analysis  of  the 
EDIDP in line with Article 17 of Regulation (EU) 2018/1092.  

This  interim  evaluation  covers  the  period  30  June  20214  to  31  July  2024  and  provides 
information on the indicators5 and parameters6 established in the EDF Regulation. It also 
includes earlier data related to its precursor programmes as well as more recent EDF data 
covering the second half of 2024 and early 2025 where available (e.g. related to the 2025 
EDF work programme, published in January 2025). 

The  evaluation  is  based  on  the  triangulation  of  evidence  from  quantitative  and 
from  programme  and  project 
qualitative  methods.  This 
implementation,  including  the parameters7  in  Article 29 of the EDF Regulation  and the 
indicators8 in its Annex; (ii) internal knowledge from project, legal and financial officers 
as well as from other Commission services; (iii) relevant Commission policy documents; 
(iv)  DEFIS  Annual  Activity  Reports9  and  Programme  Performance  Statements10;  (v)  a 

includes: 

(i)  data 

1   Originally  set  at  EUR 8  billion  for  the  period  2021-2027,  the  total  EDF  budget  currently  stands  at 
EUR 7.3  billion,  as  it  contributed  to  support  the  Secure  Connectivity  Programme  (IRIS2,  with  EUR  
400  million),  the  Act  in  Support  of  Ammunition  Production  (ASAP,  with  EUR 260  million),  the 
European  Defence  Industry  Reinforcement  through  the  Common  Procurement  Act  (EDIRPA,  with 
EUR 10 million) and the proposal for a European Defence Industry Programme (EDIP, with EUR 1.5 
billion), whereas the Strategic Technologies for Europe Platform (STEP) provided an additional EUR  
1.5 billion to the EDF budget for 2024-2027. 

2   Regulation (EU) 2021/697 
3   More information available at http://ec.europa.eu/smart-regulation/guidelines/toc_guide_en.htm  
4   The publication date of the first EDF work programme. 
5   Indicators based on the Annex to the EDF Regulation. 
6   Required information under Article 29 of the EDF Regulation. 
7   Data on the parameters  from annual EDF work programmes, submitted proposal information (Part B, 
including detailed budget tables), data from eGrants Data & Results (eGDR), call closure reports, ethics 
screening procedures, Participant Data Management and SyGMa/Compass. 

8   Core indicators include main metrics in benchmarking the EDF’s operational trajectory (Annex I, EDF 
Regulation).  These  ‘core  indicators’  are  used  to  report  on  the  progress  of  the  EDF  towards  the 
achievement of the specific objectives laid down in Article 3(2) of the EDF Regulation. 

9   https://commission.europa.eu/strategy-and-policy/strategy-documents/annual-activity-

reports_en?f%5B0%5D=oe_publication_authors%3Askos_concept%7Chttp%3A//publications.europa.e
u/resource/authority/corporate-body/DEFIS 

10   https://commission.europa.eu/strategy-and-policy/eu-budget/performance-and-reporting/programme-

performance-statements/european-defence-fund-performance_en 

1 

 
 
 
macroeconomic cost-benefit analysis conducted by the Joint Research Centre estimating 
the  economic  and  societal  impact  of  the  EDF.  The  qualitative  evaluation  methods 
mobilised feedback from  an  extensive and targeted stakeholder consultation  carried out 
between January and December 2024. This allowed the Commission to gather input from 
around 330 entities via around 100 questionnaire replies and 35 position papers, as well 
as 20 meetings and workshops. These consultations included: 

1.  Six  workshops,  three with  representatives  from  Member States  and  Norway11, two 
with EDF and precursor programme beneficiaries (one with large industry and one 
with SMEs and mid-caps and  research and technology organisations/RTOs), and a 
workshop with academia and think tanks. 

2.  Targeted  bilateral  meetings  with  stakeholders  and  production  of  consolidated 
position  paper  representing  large  industry,  SMEs,  mid-caps  and  RTOs  to  channel 
lessons learned and recommendations for the EDF thanks to the involvement of the 
Commission  Expert  Group  on  Policies  &  Programmes  relevant  to  the  EU  Space, 
Defence and Aeronautics Industry (Commission Expert Group)12. 

3.  Four surveys and questionnaires: for EDF National Focal Points, for members of the 
European Network of Defence-Related Regions (ENDR), for regional organisations, 
and for non-EDF beneficiaries. 

4.  Bilateral  discussions  with  the  European  External  Action  Service  (EEAS)/EU 
Military  Staff  (EUMS),  European  Defence  Agency  (EDA),  the  Organisation  for 
Joint Armament Cooperation (OCCAR), and with NATO. 

5.  A public call for evidence.  

An external contractor prepared six targeted research pieces, two mapping exercises and 
a  cost-benefit  analysis13.  While  the  EDF  is  still  in  a  relatively  early  stage  of 
implementation (e.g. no EDF projects has been completed at the time of this evaluation), 
the  stakeholders  consulted  include  a  representative  part  of  the  European  Defence 
Technological and Industrial Base (EDTIB), as well as key stakeholders. The feedback of 
stakeholders  as  a  primary  source  of  information  provides  a  comprehensive  picture  of 
EDF’s strengths and areas for improvement. 

In  terms  of  data  limitations,  it  is  important  to  note  that  the  first  EDF  projects  started 
only in early 2023 because of the time needed to set up the programme and prepare the 
work  programmes  together  with  Member  States,  launch  the  calls  and  evaluate  the 
proposals received, and sign the grants14. The reporting on EDF performance indicators is 
thus delayed by two years. This means that only indicators related to the implementation 
of  EDF  2021  and  2022  projects  have  been  publicly  reported  so  far  and  there  is  little 
quantitative  assessment  possible  on  EDF  project  outcomes.  Also  because  of  the 
confidentiality  of  data  on  the  operations  and  performance  of  the  defence  sector,  it  is 
challenging to collect and report on the effects of the EDF support for the beneficiaries, 
and  to  put  it  in  perspective  with  non-beneficiaries  or  even  in  the  wider  European  or 
international context. Furthermore, because of the very nature of investments in defence 

11   Norway is currently the only EDF associated country. 
12   Position paper on the EDF by the Commission  Expert Group on Defence published on 10 July 2024. 
On 30 April 2021, DG DEFIS set up a Commission Expert Group on policies and programmes relevant 
to  EU  space,  defence  and  aeronautics  industry.  This  expert  group,  in  its  defence  configuration, 
comprises around 60 members including defence companies, research organisations and NGOs. In their 
advisory role, the group provided input to the EDF interim evaluation. 

13   External study supporting the EDF Interim Evaluation 
14   Following the publication of calls for proposals in year n, projects are selected for funding during year 
n+1 and grants are signed by end of year n+1 or, in some indirect management cases, during year n+2. 

2 

 
 
 
research and capacities, the EDF supports projects that will deliver concrete measurable 
results mostly in the long term. After only a couple of years of operations and given the 
fragmented  situation  of  European  defence  R&D  spending  before  the  EDF  started,  the 
most  telling  signals  of  progress  towards  the  objectives  set  therefore  come  from  the 
collaborations  set  up  between  key  defence  partners,  their  pooling  of  resources  towards 
shared  objectives,  and  their  commitment  for  procurement  of  the  solutions  to  be 
developed.  Section  4.1.1  ‘Effectiveness’  relies  therefore  on  first  signals  of  progress 
towards delivery based  on the collaborations set up and the funding mobilised and key 
exemplary projects, on feedback from participants and stakeholders, as well as on more 
concrete project outcomes and lessons from the precursor programmes, which are further 
developed in Annexes VI and VII of the report. The difficulties in capturing some long-
term  indicators,  such  as  number  of  patents  and  intellectual  property  rights  (IPRs),  are 
further detailed in Annex VIII15. The final evaluation of the EDF will allow to shed more 
light on the concrete innovative solutions developed with the support of the programme, 
taking also the specificities of the defence sector into account, and based on continuous 
improvement of the monitoring system, also benefitting from the integration of the EDF 
in the e-Grants system. 

The lack of benchmarks or baseline to compare performance is a wider problem. While 
there have been a limited number of bi- and multinational collaboration R&D projects in 
the past, including in the context of the EDA, there has been no programme similar to the 
EDF in terms of scope and size16. The EDF indicators and parameters established in the 
Regulation  therefore  do  not  include  baseline  values  (i.e.  values  before  the  programme) 
nor  target  values  (i.e.  expected  values  at  the  end  of  the  programme).  The  points  of 
comparison  therefore  rely  on  improvements  as  compared  to  precursor  programmes, 
additional qualitative indicators and other indicators, and on an analysis of what  would 
have happened had the EDF not existed.  

2.  WHAT WAS THE EXPECTED OUTCOME OF THE INTERVENTION?  

2.1 Description of the intervention and its objectives 

The  EU  defence  industrial  sector  is  complex  and  highly  specialised,  characterised  by  a 
monopsonistic  demand,  where  single  buyers,  typically  national  governments,  drive  the 
market.  While  the  EDTIB  is  composed  of  27  Member  States’  markets,  the  main 
European  defence  primes  remain  concentrated  in  only  a  few  countries.  With  few 
exceptions  of  integrated  EU  companies,  the  national  defence  markets  represent  a 
collection  of  national  companies  of  all  sizes:  from  large,  multinational  companies  with 
considerable  large  home  markets  to  small  national  SMEs;  from  defence  specialists  to 
companies  with  primarily  civil  markets  which  have  defence  interests.  Notwithstanding 
the fact that the EDTIB has several globally competitive companies capable of producing 
the  most  advanced  and  complex  systems,  its  ability  to  unleash  its  full  potential  is 
undermined by years of underinvestment, despite the progress made over the last years. 
This  has  led  to  reduced  competition  and  innovation,  as  well  as  a  high  degree  of 
fragmentation both at the demand and supply side. Furthermore, the EU defence market 

15   Patents are usually registered (if registered at all) in the last few years or even after the conclusion of 
R&D projects, hence the latency in obtaining data for this interim evaluation. To mitigate such an issue, 
questionnaires  to  beneficiaries  included  questions  on  IPRs  or  patents  generated  through  their 
participation in EDF actions, but no responses were provided on the subject matter. 

16   The  performance  of  the  EDF  has  to  consider  its  role  in  the  wider  defence  R&D  support  system  in 
particular as regards its positioning against (and impact on) the national and regional policy initiatives. 

3 

 
 
 
is  often  hindered  by  barriers  to  entry,  including  high  R&D  costs,  strict  regulatory 
requirements, and limited access to funding.  

The  general  objective  of  the  EDF  is  to  address  these  challenges  by  fostering  the 
competitiveness,  efficiency  and  innovation  capacity  of  the  European  defence  industry, 
which  contributes  to  EU  strategic  autonomy  and  its  freedom  of  action,  by  supporting 
collaborative actions and cross-border cooperation between legal entities throughout the 
EU,  in  particular  SMEs  and  mid-caps,  as  well  as  by  strengthening  and  improving  the 
agility  of  both  defence  supply  and  value  chains,  widening  cross-border  cooperation 
between  legal  entities  and  fostering  the  better  exploitation  of  the  industrial  potential  of 
innovation, research and technological development. To address the identified problems 
and achieving the above general objective, two specific objectives have been established 
in the Regulation:  

(a)  Support  collaborative  research  projects  that  could  significantly  boost  the 
performance  of  future  capabilities;  aiming  at  maximising  innovation  and 
introducing new defence products and technologies, including disruptive ones 
(b) Support collaborative capability development projects of defence products 
and  technologies,  thus  contributing  to  greater  efficiency  in  defence  spending 
within 
the 
fragmentation  of  defence  products  and  technologies  throughout  the  Union  and 
leading to greater interoperability between Member States' capabilities 

the  Union,  achieving  greater  economies  of  scale,  reducing 

More generally, the EDF plays a crucial role in supporting the EU's strategic autonomy 
and  freedom  of  action  by  developing  defence  technologies  and  products  that  reduce 
dependence on third countries.  

The EDF operates with a budget of EUR 7.3 billion17 for its seven-year duration under 
the EU multiannual financial framework (MFF). This allocation enables it to dedicate an 
average  of  around  EUR  1  billion  annually  to  fund  R&D  projects.  For  capability 
development  actions,  the  EDF  is  designed  to  integrate  co-financing  thereby  leveraging 
national  contributions.  The  Fund  creates  a  collaborative  framework  that  amplifies  the 
impact of defence-related investments.  

In  terms  of  implementation  structures,  the  Directorate-General  for  Defence  Industry 
and Space (DG DEFIS) is responsible for implementing the programme. The programme 
is  under  direct  and  centralised  management  by  the  Commission.  This  includes  the 
possibility to delegate  project  implementation  (indirect  management)  to relevant  bodies 
on an ad hoc basis. This is the case with the EDA, which lends its expertise in specialised 
defence  Research  &  Technology  (R&T)  projects,  and  OCCAR  for  certain  defence 
capability projects that are already framed by Member States through the organisation. 

In terms of programming and governance, as national governments and armed forces 
are  the  only  buyers  and  users  of  defence  technologies  and  products,  the  EDF  is 
primarily user-centric,  driven by the needs  of the armed  forces of the  Member States 
and  Norway.  The  EDF  work  programmes  are  therefore  prepared,  and  voted,  within  a 
dedicated  EDF  Programme  Committee  consisting  of  representatives  of  the  Member 
States, Norway, as well as EEAS/EUMS and EDA. The  work programme development 
builds  on  the  defence  priorities  commonly  agreed  by  the  Member  States  under  the 
Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP) and Capability Development Plan (CDP), 
taking also into account NATO priorities. The preparation of the call topics’ description, 

17   The initial Commission proposal provided for a budget of EUR 13 billion for the EDF. 

4 

 
 
 
including  functional  requirements, is  defined in  close cooperation with  national  experts 
from the Member States, Norway and EDA.  

The  annual  work  programme  serves  as  the  operational  backbone  of  EDF's 
implementation.  Structured  around  17  categories  of  actions  (15  thematic  categories  of 
actions and two horizontal categories for disruptive technologies and dedicated calls for 
SMEs),  focusing  on  defence  excellence18,  emerging  challenges19  and  defence  boosters 
and enablers20, the work programmes guide the allocation of funds. They cover the full 
range of defence technologies and capabilities in all military domains (i.e. air, land, sea, 
space and cyber). A key tool for maintaining a long-term perspective is the Multiannual 
Planning (MAP), which aids in prioritising programming over extended periods, thereby 
promoting strategic consistency. 

Figure 1 – EDF INTERVENTION LOGIC. Source: DG DEFIS 

For the purposes of the interim evaluation, the intervention logic in Figure 1 describes the 
links between the problems to be tackled by the EDF, the objectives to be achieved and 
the  expected  outputs,  results  and  impacts.  It  also  highlights  external  factors  that  have 
arisen  during  the  programme’s  intervention  and  influence  the  evolution  of  the 
intervention.  This  relates  to  the  rising  security  threats  amid  growing  geopolitical 
tensions, in particular following the Russian aggression against Ukraine.  

18   Defence excellence, to improve the ability to deliver and sustain ambitious defence systems such as air 
combat, air and missile defence, land combat, force protection and mobility, naval combat, underwater 
warfare and simulation and training.  

19   Emerging challenges to shape a multidimensional and holistic approach to the modern battlespace, such 
as defence medical support, chemical, biological, and radiological nuclear (CBRN), biotechnology and 
human factors, information superiority, advanced passive and active sensors, cyber. 

20   Defence boosters and enablers that provide a key technological impetus in the EDF and are relevant in 
all  capability  areas,  such  as  digital  transformation,  energy  resilience  and  environmental  transition, 
materials  and  components,  disruptive  technologies  and  dedicated  calls  for  SMEs  for  innovative  and 
forward-looking defence solutions. 

5 

 
 
 
 
 
The intervention logic as shown in the figure is inspired by the EDF impact assessment, 
namely as concerns the problem drivers. This relates, for instance, to the threat of losing 
innovation  capacity  or  the  excessive  fragmentation  of  the  EDTIB.  It  also  describes  the 
EDF’s  objectives  that  the  intervention  wants  to  pursue  to  address  the  problem  drivers. 
Additionally,  it  sets  out  the  policy  inputs  or  ‘means’  put  in  place  to  achieve  the 
objectives. As a spending programme, this means the budgetary input of EUR 7.3 billion, 
as  well  as  the  institutional  structures  and  the  human  resources  to  implement  the 
programme. This also relates to the programming of the fund itself acts as the key input 
to define how EU budgetary support will be allocated. Finally, the intervention logic sets 
out:  (i)  Outputs;  meaning  what  is  expected  to  be  generated  directly  by  the  supported 
projects  in  the  short  term;  and  (ii)  Results/Impacts;  meaning  what  the  intervention 
expects to achieve in the medium to long term.  

In  more  operational  terms,  as  depicted  in  the  intervention  logic,  progress  towards 
delivering  on  the  EDF  specific  objectives  is  assessed  for  this  evaluation  according  to 
early outputs and results towards: 

• 

(a)  Boosting  the  collaborative  development  of  defence  products  and  technologies 
throughout  the  Union,  achieving  economies  of  scale  and  addressing  fragmentation, 
identifying signals of progress on: 

1.  Boosting collaborative defence R&D spending in the EU 

2.  Fostering collaboration, reinforcing EU supply and value chains across borders  

3. 

Integrating SMEs, mid-caps, research organisations and newcomers 

• 

(b)  Boosting  the  performance  of  future  defence  capabilities  throughout  the  EU, 
reinforcing  the  innovation  capacity  of  the  EDTIB  and  introducing  new  defence 
products and technologies, identifying signals of progress on: 

•  Advancing key defence technologies and capabilities  

• 

Increasing the innovation capacity of the EDTIB 

•  Ensuring continuity of effort along the R&D cycle up to market uptake 

•  Progressing towards the procurement of projects outcomes  

The EDF is organised through two windows of actions: 
•  The first window is focused on research actions contributing to the advancement of 
knowledge, products, and technologies relevant to defence. This segment of the Fund 
is expected to engage various entities such as SMEs, RTOs and academia.  

•  The  second  window  is  directed  towards  capability  development  actions.  This 
encompasses  initiatives  aimed  at  developing  capabilities  of  the  defence  sector.  The 
participants  in  this  category  are  expected  to  include  primes  (leading  defence 
contractors), SMEs and mid-caps (medium capitalisation entities).  

The EDF Regulation envisages various forms of EU funding to support its objectives: 
•  Grants to support R&D projects: The primary mode of EDF financial support are 
grants  provided  to  eligible  consortia,  materialised  through  grant  agreements.  The 
EDF  funding  is  allocated  to  the  following  spectrum  of  actions:  Generating 
Knowledge,  Integrating  Knowledge,  Studies,  Design,  System  Prototyping,  Testing, 
Qualification, Certification, Efficiency Enhancement.  

•  EU Defence Innovation Scheme (EUDIS) actions to support innovation: to attract 
new players to the defence sector and lower entry barriers to access EDF funding, the 
EDF funds a set of innovative actions in complementarity to specific calls for SMEs. 

6 

 
 
•  Pre-commercial procurement to support future acquisition: The EDF Regulation 
allows  for  grants  to  be  extended  to  Member  States  seeking  to  engage  in  pre-
commercial  procurement.  This  mechanism  intended  to  facilitate  the  exploration  of 
innovative solutions and technologies has not been used so far. 

•  Blending operations to support private sector involvement: Through the Defence 
Equity  Facility,  the  EDF  supports  private  equity  and  venture  capital  funds 
investments in innovative technologies to leverage resources from the private sector. 

2.2 Point(s) of comparison  

As  the  EDF  is  a  completely  new  programme  and  a  first  full  MFF  EU  intervention  in 
defence  R&D,  there  are  no  quantifiable  points  of  comparison.  As  highlighted  in  the 
EDF impact assessment ‘a target value to achieve is not set yet as no previous experience 
is  available’21  and  the  long-term  effects  of  the  EDF  will  not  be  measurable  within  the 
time  span  of  one  MFF.  Also,  data  on  the  overall  performance  of  the  defence  sector  is 
limited, making it difficult to compare with the wider economy. Consequently: 

-  Whenever possible, a quantification is done by utilising the first year of the EDF 

as a point of comparison.  

-  The  interim  evaluation  relies  heavily  on  qualitative  inputs  and  utilises  as 
further points of comparison PADR and EDIDP: consulted stakeholders were 
asked about their experiences in precursor programmes or in the first year of the 
EDF implementation to understand improvements made.  

The related medium-term success indicators and output indicators are: 

-  Quantified to the extent possible: as an example, while the ‘number and value 
of projects’ is quantifiable, the ‘number of projects which have led to subsequent 
procurement’ is  impossible to  quantify at  this  point in time. There will be more 
data available for the final evaluation of the programme. 

-  Addressed in consultations: beneficiaries and Member States were all asked, for 

example, whether project outcomes led to subsequent procurement and use. 

The related long-term success indicators and impact indicators are: 

-  Estimated or projected: as an example, a Joint Research Centre macroeconomic 
study was conducted to estimate the impact of the EDF in terms of employment 
in the EU.  

-  Addressed in consultations: in most cases, consulted actors stated that it was too 
early  to  assess,  for  example,  whether  the  EDF  was  contributing  to  an  increased 
value  of  the  undertaking’s  ‘defence  R&D  turnover’  and  could  not  reply  on  the 
‘number of new patents’. However, it was  possible to obtain general  qualitative 
assessments on whether the EDF is strengthening the EDTIB’s competitiveness.  

21   Section 5.1 and Section 5.3: ‘Implementation based indicators and additional indicators collected from 
applicants are however not sufficient to establish a baseline  for the EDTIB to compare with. To date 
there is no reliable comparable data for the EDTIB’. 

7 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
3.  HOW HAS THE SITUATION EVOLVED OVER THE EVALUATION PERIOD? 

3.1 Current state of play 

€5.4 billion of 
EU budget 
committed to 
defence R&D 
(including 2025 
work programme) 

50% of 
collaborative 
defence 
research in the 
EU funded by 
EDF 

162 EDF 
projects 
involving 1 366 
unique 
participants 
from 26 Member 
States/Norway 

19 
participants22 
from 8 Member 
States/Norway 
on average in 
an EDF project 

43% of 
participants 
are SMEs 

32% average 
proposal 
success rate 

Table 1 - KEY EDF NUMBERS  

As  explained  above,  the 
EDF  annual  work  programmes 
set  out  the R&D topics supported by the Fund in the relevant  year. As of March 2025, 
five  work  programmes  have  been  adopted  by  the  Commission,  committing  a  total  of 
EUR 5.4 billion for defence R&D/ This makes the EDF one of the top 3 defence R&D 
investors  in  the  EU23.  This  includes  around  half  of  the  total  collaborative  defence 
research in the EU (see Figure 2). 

As of March 2025, 162 EDF R&D projects are ongoing. The majority are implemented 
directly  and  centrally  by  the  Commission  (DG  DEFIS),  whereas  18%  are  managed 
indirectly by EDA and OCCAR. With regard to the precursor programmes, 24 out of 44 
EDIDP projects are ongoing, and all (18) PADR projects have ended. 

EDF  projects  involve  1 366  unique  participants24  from  all  Member  States  (except 
Malta) and Norway. This includes the strong participation of SMEs (43% of the unique 
entities), as well as mid-caps (4%)25. Entities controlled by non-associated third countries 
or  by  non-associated  third-country  entities  are  involved  in  24%  of  the  EDF  projects 
awarded.  While  EDF  requires  cooperation  by  at  least  3  different  legal  entities  from  at 
least  3  different  Member  States/Norway,  the  average  EDF  consortium  consists  of  19 
participants from 8 countries. 

The average proposal success rate is 32%, while the non-thematic calls for SMEs and 
disruptive technologies are the most competitive. In terms of effort dedicated to research 
and  to  development,  the  EDF  follows  closely  the  indicative  distribution  set  out  by  the 
EDF Regulation, namely 1/3 for research and 2/3 for development. 

On  synergies  with  projects  developed  in  the  context  of  Permanent  Structured 
Cooperation (PESCO), 41 of the EDF projects (i.e. 60% of EDF development projects) 
are linked with one or more PESCO projects, supporting 33 PESCO projects.  

In  line  with  the  requirements  of  the  EDF  Regulation,  4.3%  of  EDF  awarded  budget 
supports disruptive technologies for defence applications that will strengthen Europe’s 
long-term  technological  leadership  and  contribute  to  cutting-edge  high-end  defence 
products, in line with military needs.  

22   Figure includes affiliated entities and subcontractors. 
23   Together with the national defence R&D investments in France and Germany. 
24   Beneficiaries,  affiliated  entities  and  subcontractors.  DG  DEFIS,  European  Commission.  Extracted  in 

February 2025 (data from 2021-December 2024). 

25   Based on SME and mid-cap self-declarations. 

8 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Between  2024  and  2027,  at  least  EUR 1.5  billion  will  have  supported  critical 
technologies in the areas of deep and  digital tech, biotech and clean  tech under the 
Strategic Technologies for Europe Platform (STEP).   

3.2 Key additional monitoring information  

Programme performance data (pursuant  to  the Annex of the EDF Regulation) collected 
through the relevant data monitoring arrangements has helped to inform the analysis for 
the  EDF  interim  evaluation,  in  particular  as  regards  the  implementation  of  the 
programme.  For  instance,  these  indicators  have  helped  to  monitor  aspects  like  the 
outreach  and  inclusiveness  of  the  EDF,  the  level  of  cross-border  cooperation,  and  the 
coherence  of  EDF  programming  with  the  capability  development  priorities  of  EU 
Member States.  However,  as indicated earlier,  because of the confidentiality of data on 
the operations and performance of the defence sector, it is difficult to collect and report 
on the effects of the EDF support for the beneficiaries, and to put it in perspective with 
non-beneficiaries  or  even  the  wider  European  or  international  context.  Furthermore, 
because  of  the  very  nature  of  investments  in  defence  research  and  capacities,  the  EDF 
supports projects that will deliver concrete measurable products or services mostly in the 
long  term.  The  difficulties  in  capturing  long-term  indicators  at  this  stage  of  EDF 
implementation are further detailed in Annex VIII26. The final evaluation of the EDF will 
allow  to  shed  more  light  on  the  concrete  innovative  solutions  developed  thanks  to  the 
programme,  taking  also  the  specificities  of  the  defence  sector  and  defence  data  into 
account,  and  based  on  continuous  improvements  of  the  monitoring  system,  also 
benefitting from the integration of the EDF into the e-Grants system. 

The  following  table  provides  additional  monitoring  data  to  be  covered  by  the  EDF 
interim evaluation pursuant to Article 29 of the EDF Regulation.  

Relevant monitoring data 

Number of independent experts 
used for the evaluation of EDF 
proposals 2021 to 2023  

Total amount paid to experts 
involved in the evaluation of EDF 
proposals 2021 to 2023 

Values27 
EDF 2021 – 
113 
EDF 2022 – 
117 
EDF 2023 – 
150 
EUR 2.32 
million  
for 380 
contracts 

Number of proposals that 
underwent ethics screening 

14228 

Comments 

Article Ref. 

Some experts may be 
contracted in more 
than one year 

Art.29 (2)(a)(i) - 
Governance of 
the Fund: 
provisions 
related to 
independent 
experts 

Screening is 
performed when ethics 
issues are flagged 
during pre-screening 
of proposals  

Art.29 (2)(a)(ii) - 
Governance of 
the Fund: 
implementation 
of ethics 

26   Patents are usually registered (if registered at all) in the last few years or even after the conclusion of 
R&D projects, hence the latency in obtaining data for this interim evaluation. To mitigate such an issue, 
questionnaires  to  beneficiaries  included  questions  on  IPRs  or  patents  generated  through  their 
participation in EDF actions, but no responses were provided on the subject matter. 

27   Collection date: 31 July 2024. 
28   Only proposals that are on the funding or reserve list (and have been found to have ethics issues either 

in the self-assessment or in the pre-screening performed by the POs) are screened. 

9 

 
 
 
 
 
Relevant monitoring data 

Values27 

Number of proposals that 
underwent ethics assessment  

6 

Lessons learned from the EDIDP 
and the PADR 

n/a 

Commitments  

Payments 

27.5% 

14% 

Number of awarded projects 

162 

Total number of unique 
participants involved in EDF 
awarded projects 

1366 

See Section 4.1.1.2(ii) 

Number of unique SMEs and mid-
caps participants involved in EDF 
awarded projects   

Grant amount going to SMEs and 
mid-caps involved in EDF 
awarded projects   

Degree of their cross-border 
participation 

Rates of reimbursement of 
indirect costs29 

Total EDF budget allocated to 
disruptive projects and calls 

SME: 598 
Mid-cap: 61 

SME: EUR 577 
million 
Mid-cap: EUR 
182 million 

- 25% for 80% 

of the 
participations   
- actual indirect 
costs for 20% 
of the 
participations   

EUR 186 
million (incl. 
2024 work 
programme) 

Funding granted without 
competitive call pursuant to 
Article 195 of the Financial 
Regulation (‘direct award’)  

EUR 80 million 

Comments 

Assessment is 
performed on 
proposals that pose 
serious or complex 
ethics issues 

Integrated in report, 
and see Annex VI and 
VII 

Including all EDF work 
programmes adopted 
before 31 July 2024 
Payments made by 31 
July 2024 
Includes all projects 
awarded following 
EDF 2021, 2022 and 
2023 calls 
As beneficiaries, 
affiliated entities, 
subcontractors or 
associated partners 
Based on self-
declared status and 
sampling verification  

Based on self-
declared status and 
sampling verification  

Article Ref. 

procedures 

Art.29 (2)(b) - 
Lessons learned 
from the EDIDP 
and the PADR 

Art.29 (2)(c) - 
Implementation 
rates 

Art.29 (2)(d) - 
Project award 
results, including 
the level of 
involvement of 
SMEs and mid-
caps and the 
degree of their 
cross-border 
participation 

Participations of 
beneficiaries and 
affiliated entities (see 
Section 4.1.2.4 for 
more details) 

Includes all projects 
awarded following 
EDF 2021, 2022 and 
2023 calls and all 
relevant budget from 
work programmes 
adopted by 31 July 
2024 
Amount awarded to 
the project HYDIS²: 
Hypersonic Defence 
Interceptor Study. 
Under the precursor 
programme EDIDP, 
EUR  137 million out 
of EUR 500 million 
were granted as direct 
awards. 

Art.29 (2)(e) - 
Rates of 
reimbursement 
of indirect costs 

Art.29 (2)(f) - 
Amounts 
allocated to 
disruptive 
technologies in 
defence 

Art.29 (2)(g) - 
Funding granted 
in accordance 
with Article 195 
of the Financial 
Regulation 

29   Ratio  between  indirect  costs  and  direct  costs  (excluding  direct  eligible  costs  of  subcontracting  and 

support to third parties and any unit costs or lump sums which include indirect costs). 

10 

 
 
 
 
 
Relevant monitoring data 

Countries of origin of recipients  

Number of countries involved in 
individual projects 

Values27 
26 EU Member 
States (except 
Malta) and 
Norway 

8 (average) 

Comments 

Place of establishment 
of legal entities 

Place of establishment 
of legal entities 

Distribution of the generated IPRs 

No data 
available yet 

Article Ref. 
Art.29 (2)(last 
paragraph) - 
Countries of 
origin of the 
recipients, the 
number of 
countries 
involved in 
individual 
projects and, 
where possible, 
the distribution of 
the generated 
IPRs. 

4.  EVALUATION FINDINGS (ANALYTICAL PART)  

4.1.  To what extent was the intervention successful and why?  

4.1.1 Effectiveness   

This  section  provides  an  overview  of  the  early  progress  made  towards  achieving  the 
objectives  as  set  out  in  the  EDF  Regulation  to  foster  the  competitiveness,  efficiency 
and  innovation  capacity  of  the  European  defence  industry.  As  depicted  in  the 
intervention logic in Figure 1, progress is assessed according to early outputs and results 
achieved towards achieving the specific objectives: 

•  Boosting  collaborative  development  of  defence  products  and  technologies, 
achieving  greater  economies  of  scale,  reducing  the  fragmentation  of  defence 
products and technologies throughout the Union, increasing the standardisation of 
defence systems and interoperability between Member States' capabilities; 

•  Boosting  the  performance  of  future  defence  capabilities  throughout  the  EU, 
reinforcing  the  innovation  capacity  of  the  EDTIB  and  introducing  new  defence 
products and technologies. 

More generally, the EDF plays a crucial role in supporting the EU's strategic autonomy 
and  freedom  of  action  by  developing  defence  technologies  and  products  that  reduce 
dependence on third countries.  

4.1.1.1  Boosting  the  collaborative  development  of  defence  products  and  technologies 
throughout the Union, achieving economies of scale and addressing fragmentation  

This section assesses the degree to which the EDF has progressed towards reinforcing the 
efficiency  of  the  European  defence  industry  through  the  collaborative  development  of 
defence  capabilities,  the  pooling  of  public  and  private  resources  along  the  R&D  cycle, 
and the diversification of players in the EU supply and value chains. 

a)  Boosting collaborative defence R&D and R&T spending in the EU 

Overall,  the  average  annual  funding  of  EUR  1.14  billion  represents  about  11%  of  total 
R&D expenditure in the EU30. Analyses of the EDF and its precursor programmes have 

30   Excluding  co-financing  under  development  actions.  Taking  as  reference  2023  Total  Defence  R&D 

Expenditure of EUR 10.66 billion. See EDA Defence Data 2023. 

11 

 
 
 
 
 
concluded  that  as  a  result  of  these  defence  R&D  programmes,  the  European  defence 
market is showing concrete ‘signs of consolidation’ 31. 

Due to unavailability of detailed data on collaborative R&D in Europe,  Figure 2 below 
focuses on collaborative Research & Technology (R&T spending (for EDF, data includes 
estimates  for  the  funding  of  ‘research’  projects).  Thanks  to  the  EDF  intervention,  total 
EU collaborative R&T spending is estimated to have more than doubled, increasing 
from  around  EUR  250  million  in  2022  to  around  EUR  580  million  in  2025.  As  a 
reference, in 2022, Member States spent 7.2% of their total defence R&T expenditure on 
European  collaborative  projects,  falling  below  the  collective  benchmark  of  20%  of  the 
defence  R&T32.  With  EDF’s  contribution  in  the  next  few  years,  the  percentage 
doubles33.  

E D F ' S   I M P A C T  O N   E U R O P E A N  C O L L A B O R A T I V E  D E F E N C E  
R & T  S P E N D I N G

EDF funding of research actions

Other collaborative R&T (EDA OB studies, EDA ad hoc projects
and European bi-/multilateral cooperation)

270

300

270

280

2 0 2 4

2 0 2 5

168

250

2 0 2 3

YEAR

250

250

2 0 2 1

2 0 2 2

700

600

500

400

300

200

100

0

)

N
O
I
L
L
I

M

R
U
E
€
(

T
N
E
M
T
S
E
V
N

I

Figure 2 - EDF’S IMPACT ON EUROPEAN COLLABORATIVE DEFENCE R&T SPENDING34. Source: DG 
DEFIS,  EDA 

At  national  level,  although  legal  entities  from  Member  States  with  a  large,  well-
established  defence  industries  (such  as  FR,  DE,  IT  and  ES),  are  the  strongest 
beneficiaries of EDF funding, in comparison with the most recent EDA data on national 
R&D35  funding  shows  a  remarkable  positive  effect  for  all  countries,  including  for 
medium-sized  and  small-sized  Member  States  and  countries  with  a  limited  defence 

31   Giumelli, F. and Marx, M. 2023. The European Defence Fund precursor programmes and the state of 

the European market for defence. Defence Studies, 23 (4). 589-607. 
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14702436.2023.2277440. 

32   Council recommendation of 15 October 2018 concerning the sequencing of the fulfilment of the  more 
binding commitments undertaken in the framework of permanent structured cooperation (PESCO) and 
specifying more precise objectives – see Commitment 3 (2018/C 374/01). 

33   Supporting studies conducted in the context of the interim evaluation – further information in Annex II.  
34   Data  based  on  the  EDA  CARD  Report  2024  (p.  13)  with  indicative  amounts  and  EDF  indicative 

payment profile for research actions.  

35   European Defence Agency’s Defence Data 2020-2021 Key Findings and Analysis. 

12 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
industry.  A  comparison  between  the  national  R&D  expenditure  and  EDF  funding  for 
entities from these countries (reference year 2021) shows that for 15 Member States (BE, 
BG,  CY,  EE,  EL,  ES,  HR,  HU,  IE,  IT,  LT,  LU,  LV,  PT,  SI),  in  only  its  first  year  of 
operation,  the  EDF  already  provided  funding  similar  or  higher,  in  some  cases 
significantly higher, to the total national defence R&D expenditure.  

b)  Fostering collaboration, reinforcing EU supply and value chains across borders  

Through  its  incentives,  the  EDF  fosters  unprecedented  cross-border  defence  R&D 
cooperation across the EU, promoting mutual understanding and a shared culture 
among involved entities, thus helping defragment the EDTIB. The EDF’s impact on 
cross-border  cooperation  and  strengthening  of  the  supply  chain  has  been  recognised  as 
‘extremely  significant’  by  the  defence  industry  and  as  ‘very  good’  by  applicants  and 
beneficiaries. Furthermore, industrial ties established to pursue EDF calls are sometimes 
outlasting  these  efforts,  with  examples  of  certain  consortia  being  granted  national 
funding even without receiving EDF money, further highlighting the added value of the 
EDF in creating cross-border partnerships across the defence industry.  

The  EDF  programme  sees  the  participation  of  a  very  significant  number  (1 366)  of 
unique legal entities and Figure 3 below illustrates the wide geographical distribution of 
entities  involved  in  EDF  projects.  The  EDF  attracts  participation  across  the  EU,  even 
from regions where the defence industry is not traditionally prominent.  

Figure 3 – GEOGRAPHICAL  DISTRIBUTION OF ENTITIES PARTICIPATING IN THE EDF PROGRAMME 
(with duplications). Source: DG DEFIS 

13 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
24% of EDF21-23 projects include at least one entity controlled by a non-associated third 
country or a non-associated third-country entity36. Such participation is allowed as long 
as the security interests of the Union and its Member States are preserved,  and security 
guarantees are substantiated and approved by national authorities. 

Consulted  stakeholders  were  unanimous  that  the  EDF  has  incentivised  industry  to 
explore  new  partnerships  with  entities  from  Member  States  they  would  not  have 
cooperated with before. Member States consulted strongly agreed that the EDF provides 
opportunities for the participation of entities of all sizes from all EU countries, including 
entities from smaller Member States. A majority of consulted regional stakeholders also 
noted that the EDF has  facilitated greater cross-border regional cooperation  on defence 
R&D  and  even  strengthened  existing  cooperation  at  the  regional  level  within  local 
defence clusters.  

Throughout the consultations, ‘new types of cooperation’ were described as having been 
created  thanks  to  the  EDF.  EDF  beneficiaries  have  stated  that  these  ‘new  types  of 
cooperation’  would not  have been created were  it not  for the EDF. SMEs and research 
organisations also have reported that cross-border cooperation was the main reason and 
benefit for applying to the EDF37. Consultations with the defence industry revealed that 
EDF enabled greater peer-to-peer cooperation between traditional competitors across 
the  EU.  As  the  Commission  Expert  Group  noted:  ‘The  EDF  contributed  to  increase 
cross-border  cooperation  among  competitors.  Working  together  to  analyse  common 
strategies for the joint development of new products and for the identification of military 
capabilities  to  be  built  together  is  an  achievement  that  was  made  possible  by  the 
framework provided by the EDF.’38  

Project box: ECYSAP 

Projects  in  the  cybersecurity  sector  were  described  as  particularly  representative  of 
successful  consolidated  collaboration  between  large  companies.  The  ECYSAP  project, 
which  develops  a  Cyber  Situational Awareness  platform  started  under  EDIDP,  and  related 
activities continued under EDF 2021 and 2023 with projects ECYSAP EYE, EUGUARD and 
NEWSROOM.  

In  addition,  EDF  has  enabled  deeper  cooperation  between  primes,  SMEs  and 
research  organisations.  The  Commission  Expert  Group  considered  that:  ‘EDF 
successfully  contributed  to  initiate  and  to  establish  new  cross-border  collaborations 
between research institutions and defence companies, including SMEs and mid-caps, that 
might not have collaborated otherwise.’ Consultations with Member States also revealed 
the  uniqueness  of  the  EDF  in  solidifying  the  integration  of  the  European  defence 
ecosystem, and facilitating knowledge sharing, technology transfer and skill development 
among the EDTIB. SMEs and RTOs further highlighted that the EDF contributes to de-
risk  high  R&D  investments,  allowing  entities  to  pursue  breakthrough  technologies  and 
projects  with  lower  Technology  Readiness  Levels  (TRLs)  without  bearing  the  full 
financial risk. 

36   This includes UK, Israel, USA, Canada, Switzerland, UAE, Japan, Iceland, Türkiye, Liechtenstein, and 

Singapore. 

37   Consultations with EDF beneficiaries (workshop and survey with SMEs, mid-caps and RTOs). Further 

details in the synopsis report. 

38    Position paper on the EDF by the Commission Expert Group on Defence published on 10 July 2024. 

14 

 
 
 
 
R&D  cooperation  between  traditional  defence  companies  and  civilian  companies 
developing  technologies  with  dual-use  potential  (e.g.  related  to  cyber,  space,  electronic 
components,  quantum  or  energy  supply  domains)  has  also  been  fostered  through  the 
EDF. As the Commission Expert Group noted: ‘As very first step, EDF has also helped 
SMEs and mid-caps previously only active in the civilian sector to step into the defence 
field,  promoting  a  beneficial  spin-in  effect  on  technologies.’  However,  the  inclusion  of 
SMEs  not  familiar  with  the  defence  sector  has  been  mentioned  by  traditional  defence 
industry beneficiaries as challenging for the management of consortia, in particular when 
it comes to handling sensitive or classified information and rules on EU transfers. 

Several large defence industry companies confirmed that these cooperation opportunities 
enabled  by  EDF  led  to  additional  product  lines  and  more  diversified  market 
opportunities39. This includes for example a company with a portfolio of land products 
which identified opportunities in other military domains thanks to discussions with new 
partners in connection with EDF projects. Large actors have reported that such examples 
are not isolated and are a natural consequence of their participation in the EDF. 

The  EDF  has  also  enabled  increased  cooperation  between  primes  and  sub-systems 
manufacturers.  As  the  Commission  Expert  Group  noted:  ‘EDF  has  allowed  SMEs  to 
establish  new  contacts  with  system  integrators  and  to  show  their  capabilities  and 
products, thereby increasing the possibility of building a larger customer base.’40  

Project box: FAMOUS I and FAMOUS II  

European Future Highly Mobile Augmented Armoured Systems (FAMOUS with EDIDP 
contribution of €9 million, followed by EDF 2021 FAMOUS2 with €95 million) develops new 
armoured personnel carriers that have greater levels of protection and speed in comparison 
to  similar  legacy  platforms  which  it  can  replace  (M113,  MT-LB,  Bv-206).  The  Commission 
Expert  Group  noted  this  project  as  an  example  showcasing  cross-border  collaboration 
among  platform  manufacturers  and  system  integrators  with  the  support  of  mid-caps  and 
SMEs.  

In  light  of  such  increased  cooperation  effects,  the  majority  of  Member  States  and  the 
defence industry  consulted  underlined how EDF is  inherently contributing to  widening 
cooperation within defence supply chains. The European Defence Agency also noted 
that:  ‘Traditional  supply  chains  have  been  broadened  and  opened  up  for  cross-border 
cooperation.’ 41 

c)  Integration of SMEs, mid-caps, research organisations and newcomers 

As described in the EDF impact assessment, there was a need to put in place measures to 
increase the level  of SME involvement in  the defence sector, which traditionally suffer 
from market access problems42. Beyond the dedicated calls for proposals for SMEs, the 

39    Consultations  with  EDF  beneficiaries  (workshop  and  survey  with  large  defence  industry).  Further 

details in the synopsis report. 

40   One mid-cap noted that the EDF has enabled their company to become involved in the development of 

a next-generation armoured vehicle system. 

41   Following  a  discussion  note  and  questionnaire  distributed  to  EDA  on  the  EDF  in  the  context  of  the 

bilateral discussions on the EDF interim evaluation held with relevant organisations. 

42   SWD/2018/345 final 

15 

 
 
 
 
EDF  encourages  SME  inclusion  through  an  ‘SME  and  mid-cap  bonus  system’43  and 
through the existence of a specific award criterion44.  

Figure  4  –SME APPLICANTS  TO  EDF  CALLS  FOR  PROPOSALS  (2021-24).  Source: 
DG DEFIS 

Beyond traditional defence industry, the EDF has proven to  be an attractive instrument 
also for European SMEs, mid-caps and research organisations. SMEs represent 43% of 
the  unique  participants  in  EDF  and  receive  around  20%  of  EU  funding45.  Mid-caps 
represent  4% of the unique participants and receive around 6% of the  funding.  Despite 
calls dedicated to SMEs and research organisations having the highest over-subscription, 
the number of SME applicants to the Fund is steadily increasing each year, as shown in 
Figure  4.  The  most  recent  –  2024  –  calls  for  proposals  witnessed  a  28%  increase  in 
submitted  proposals  from  SMEs  and  Research  Organisations  compared  to  the 
previous year. 

While  the  dedicated  SME  calls  represent  a  strong  opportunity  for  participation  in  EDF 
projects, data shows that most SME participations are actually in the thematic projects. 
SME participations amount to 73% in thematic projects and 27% in non-thematic 
actions and EDF funding for SMEs roughly follows the same distribution (75% / 25%).  

43   See Article 13(b) and (c) of the EDF Regulation. 
44   See Article 12(e) of the EDF Regulation. 
45   Self-declared SMEs. DG DEFIS, European Commission. Data from EDF projects 2021-2023 extracted 

in February 2025. 

16 

 
 
 
 
Figure 5 –  SME PARTICIPATIONS AS % OF TOTAL NATIONAL DTIB PARTICIPATION TO THE EDF 
PROGRAMME. Source: DG DEFIS 

Figure 5 above displays the percentage of national SMEs participations among the total 
national participations to the EDF. The highest level is observed in CY, EE, IE, LT, LU, 
and  EL,  where  they  represent  more  than  50%  of  the  participations.  This  data  confirms 
that the EDF presents strong opportunities for both big and small R&D players. In this 
context, industrial stakeholders underlined the important role played by SMEs and mid-
caps in EDF R&D projects, as further exemplified in the box below. 

17 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Project box: SMEs and mid-caps taking a strong role in consortia (examples noted in 
the report by the Commission Expert Group)  

The PADIC project is a good example of SMEs having equal workshares in a cross-border 
cooperation.  The  established  cooperation  with  an  Estonian  SME  was  extended  to  other 
EDF calls, not only among the consortium partners but also with the participating Member 
States, which are also open to possible future business cooperations. 

Another example highlighted by  the defence  industry as being successfully led  by a  Mid-
Cap  was  CONVOY,  which  demonstrated  the  capacity  of  mid-caps  to  lead  large-scale 
projects in key capabilities such as counter-IED field. Research projects such as CROWN, 
ARTURO, TYRESIAS and EPICURE have brought together industrial partners and RTOs 
to  develop  cutting-edge  technologies  that  would  otherwise  lack  sufficient  innovation 
potential and national funding. 

Certain  EDF  research  projects  were  described  by  RTOs  and  the  defence  industry  as 
making  it  possible  to  work  together  in  the  development  of  new  complex 
technologies: 

-  Advanced  Radar  Technology  in  eUROpe  (ARTURO)  includes  both  universities 
and  large  primes  as  members  of  the  consortia.  The  project  aims  to  provide 
solutions based on emerging technologies for advanced radar technologies.  

-  European  Packaging  for  highly  Integrated  Circuits  for  Reliable  Electronics 
(EPICURE)  includes  both  research  institutes  and  large  primes  in  the  consortia. 
The  project  aims  to  support  technology  providers  in  Europe  in  the  field  of 
advanced packaging serving defence needs. 

The  EDF  has  clearly  fostered  the  participation  of  ‘newcomers’  in  the  defence 
domain,  meaning  first-time  participants  in  EU  industrial  defence  R&D  programme. 
Table  2  illustrates  that  each  year  the  EDF  attracts  both  new  applicants  and  new 
participants. 

EDF call year 

Number of applicants that never 
applied to EDF before 

Number of participants in EDF-funded 
projects that never participated in 
PADR, EDIDP and EDF before 

2021 

109446 

504 

2022 

576 

275 

2023 

693 

286 

Table 2 – NUMBER OF NEW APPLICANTS TO THE EDF. Source: DG DEFIS 

Consultation  with  stakeholders  highlighted  the  fact  that  newcomers  play  an  important 
role  in  consortia,  filling  in  critical  gaps  in  the  consortium's  collective  knowledge 
particularly in introducing innovative technologies and solutions. At the same time, rules 
for handling classified information, the calculation of funding rates and the bonus 
system for development actions are found to be challenging for newcomers. 

On the ‘SME bonus system’ that envisages higher funding rates for development projects 
involving  SMEs47,  consulted  small  industry  as  well  as  Member  States’  representatives 

46   All applicants considered new to EDF in 2021. 
47   An activity may benefit from an increased funding rate, as referred to in this point, where at least 10% 
of  the  total  eligible  costs  of  the  activity  are  allocated  to  SMEs  established  in  Member  States  or  in 
associated  countries  and  which  participate  in  the  activity  as  recipients,  subcontractors  or  other  legal 
entities in the supply chain. 

18 

 
 
 
 
 
stressed  that  it  was  an  effective  measure  to  encourage  SME  participation.  The 
assessment related to the mid-cap bonus was more mitigated, with  the Commission 
expert group noting that ‘mid-caps have not benefited in the same way from the EDF in 
developing cross-border cooperation. Based on the  experience of  the Group, the bonus 
threshold for mid-caps was assessed as too high and difficult to achieve’48.  
In  terms  of  limitations  for  participation  in  EDF  projects,  some  non-beneficiaries  noted 
the lack of information about the EDF funding opportunities and application modalities. 
Other  consulted  entities  noted  that  the  fund  is  less  relevant  for  companies  that  are 
involved  in  mass  production  of  established  products  (e.g.  ammunition)  or  companies 
specialised in niche collaboration with primes. 

4.1.1.2  Boosting  the  performance  of  future  defence  capabilities  throughout  the  EU, 
reinforcing  the  innovation  capacity  of  the  EDTIB  and  introducing  new  defence 
products and technologies  

This  section analyses the impact  of the EDF from  the capability angle, focusing on the 
degree to which the EDF helps increase the innovation capacity of the EDTIB, including 
by  advancing  key  defence  capabilities,  products  and  technologies,  with  the  potential  to 
strengthen EU competitiveness and strategic autonomy. 

a)  Advancement of key defence technologies and capabilities  

The  EDF  currently  funds  162  collaborative  defence  R&D  projects  in  all  thematic 
categories  of  action,  ensuring  the  balance  needed  to  cover  all  capability  domains  and 
needs. Figure 6 shows the number of projects corresponding to each thematic category of 
action  and  the  projects  selected  as  part  of  the  horizontal  categories  (disruptive 
technologies and SME R&D calls) that can be attributed to these domains.  

Figure 6 - NUMBER OF EDF PROJECTS PER CATEGORY OF ACTION (EDF 2021-2023). Source: DG 
DEFIS 

48   Position paper on the EDF by the Commission Expert Group on Defence published on 10 July 2024. It is further 
mentioned that: ‘The industrial consortia preferred to concentrate their efforts on SMEs and especially on cross-
border SMEs, because it was more beneficial for the success of the proposal and for increasing the bonus.’ 

19 

 
 
 
 
From  a  financial  perspective,  the  following  table  shows  the  EDF  funding  allocated  to 
each category of action under the five EDF work programmes 2021 to 2025: 

Table 3 - EDF MULTIANNUAL INDICATIVE BUDGET SUMMARY PER CATEGORY OF ACTIONS49. Source: 
DG DEFIS 

Categories of actions 

Total 2021-25 

1. Defence medical support, CBRN, biotech and human factors 

2. Information superiority 

3. Advanced passive and active sensors 

4. Cyber  

5. Space 

6. Digital transformation  

7. Energy resilience and environmental transition 

8. Materials and components 

9. Air combat  

10. Air and missile defence  

11. Ground combat 

12. Force protection and mobility 

13. Naval combat 

14.Underwater warfare  

15. Simulation and training  

16. Disruptive technologies 

SME calls and Coordination and support actions 

Other actions 

in € M 

182.7 

457.8 

267.5 

269.8 

488.1 

203.7 

260.1 

179.5 

545.8 

301.0 

572.4 

189.1 

487.0 

214.0 

97.6 

226.1 

285.3 

134.1 

in % 

3.41% 

8.54% 

4.99% 

5.03% 

9.10% 

3.80% 

4.85% 

3.35% 

10.18% 

5.61% 

10.68% 

3.53% 

9.08% 

3.99% 

1.82% 

4.22% 

5.32% 

2.50% 

TOTAL 

5361.5 

100.00% 

The  graph  shows  that  the  EDF  is  ensuring  the  balance  needed  to  cover  all  capability 
domains,  while  at  the  same  time  prioritising  major  capabilities’  areas,  such  as  ground 
combat,  air  combat,  space,  naval  combat  and  information  superiority,  in  line  with  the 
Member States’ needs agreed in the published EDF multiannual perspective.  

EDF actions are expected to develop more than 50 prototypes for key next-generation 
EU  capabilities.  Consulted  stakeholders  highlighted  that  initial  concerns  that  the  EDF 
would only address the less sensitive peripheral technologies at low TRLs are proving to 
be  unfounded.  For  example,  the  EDF  supports  the  development  of  prototypes  for  the 
following capabilities and technologies: 

▪  Air  domain:  helicopters,  drones  (medium-altitude  long-endurance,  tactical, 
combat),  electronic  warfare,  propulsion  systems.  Project  examples  include:  EU 
Next  Generation  Rotorcraft  Technologies  Project  –  ENGRT  –  (funded  by  EDF 
2021  with  0 m  40M)  which  focuses  on  next-generation  military  rotorcraft 

49   EDF work programme 2025. DG DEFIS, European Commission, data from 2021 until January 2025. 

20 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
technologies and capabilities, with a possible follow-on under EDF 2024 (up to 
EUR 100M); project Enhanced Pilot Interfaces & Interactions for fighter Cockpit 
– EPIIC – (funded by EDF 2021 with EUR 75M) with a possible follow-on under 
EDF  2024  calls  developing  innovative  and  disruptive  cockpit  technologies  for 
future air warfare.  

▪  Air and missile defence domain: endo-atmospheric interceptors, counter-drones, 

space-based missile early warning. 

▪  Ground  domain:  combat  platforms,  long-range  indirect  fire,  unmanned  ground 
systems,  soldier  systems,  energy  for  camps.  Project  examples  include:  Main 
ARmoured Tank of Europe – MARTE – (funded by EDF 2023 with EUR20M) to 
initiate the development a new Main Battle Tank platform that meets current and 
future threats and needs, integrating innovative and disruptive technologies.  

▪  Naval domain: platforms (European Patrol Corvette, mid-size semi-autonomous 
vessels), mine countermeasures, underwater communications, seabed and critical 
infrastructure protection.  

▪  Space domain: PRS receivers, space situational awareness, space-based ISR.  

▪  Cyber domain: cyber situational awareness. 

Furthermore,  the  EDF  contributes  to  the  EU’s  strategic  autonomy  by  supporting 
numerous  projects  for  the  development  of  defence  technologies  and  products  for 
which Europe is currently fully dependent on third countries and for which there are 
no EU alternatives50. 

Project box: EDF projects contributing to the EU’s strategic autonomy 

a)  EUROMALE:  The  need  for  a  fully  sovereign  European  Medium  Altitude  Long 
Endurance (MALE) RPAS drone addresses a critical  capability shortfall of European 
armed  forces.  The  €100  M  contribution  from  the  EDIDP  and  the  further  funding 
allocated under the EDF €100 M play an important role for the programme.  

b)  Hypersonic  missile  defence:  EU  HYDEF  and  HYDIS2  are  EDF  projects  funded  to 
develop  capabilities  related  to  the  interception  of  hypersonic  missiles.  Before  this, 
there was no programme dedicated to developing such a critical capability needed for 
Europe’s defence. 

c)  Space-based  Early  Warning  and  Detection:  Through  the  ODIN’s  EYE  II  project, 
EDF supports the further development of fully sovereign and independent capabilities 
dedicated  to  early  warning  from  space  for  the  detection  and  tracking  of  ballistic 
missiles  and  novel  hypersonic  threats.  Having  such  a  critical  capability  will  remove 
current dependencies on third countries and increase EU autonomy in space. 

d)  Future Mid-size Tactical  Cargo (FMTC): The EDF  contributes to the financing of a 
next-generation  European  FMTC  aircraft  (notably  with  the  FASETT  project).  Having 
this  military  transport  capacity  is  a  key  enabler  for  the  autonomous  conduct  of  EU 
missions  and  operations.  Moreover,  current  tactical  aircraft  are  outdated,  with  some 
aircraft originally designed almost 60 years ago.  

Regarding the interoperability/interchangeability of defence systems, Member States 
also  stated  that  ‘the  EDF  carries  a  potential  for  improving  interoperability  and 
interchangeability’  with  EDF  projects  addressing  components  or  sub-systems  that  can 
benefit several future capabilities. Areas where this is particularly relevant identified by 

50   Position paper on the EDF by the Commission Expert Group on Defence published on 10 July 2024. 

21 

 
 
 
 
Member States include military mobility, the naval domain and standardisation of future 
military  rotorcraft.  EDF  projects  are  designed  to  promote  interoperability  among  EU 
Member States' defence systems from the outset. This is achieved by defining technical 
requirements  that  are  agreed  upon  by  Member  States,  ensuring  that  the  developed 
capabilities are aligned with their needs. The technical requirements for EDF projects are 
defined  by  Member  States  through  the  ‘harmonisation  process’  during  the  work 
programme  preparation  stage  that  involves  national  experts  and  the  EDA. As  concerns 
the  role  of  EDF  in  supporting  standardisation  for  improving  interoperability  and 
interchangeability, see section 4.1.3.2.(i) ‘Coherence with NATO activities’. 

Considering  technological  autonomy  as  a  long-term  success  indicator,  it  is  positive  to 
witness  that  most  Member  States  believe  the  EDF,  and  its  precursor  programmes  will 
contribute to EU technological autonomy and to a lower level of dependence on third 
countries (see  Figure 7). For example,  the EDF  supports the development  of European 
technologies  for  unmanned  aircraft  anti-collision  system  and  for  resilient  Global 
Navigation Satellite System receivers (based on the Galileo system). 

In  addition,  while  end  systems  using  the  technology  can  potentially  be  developed  at 
national  level  in  competition  between  Member  States,  many  basic  technologies  benefit 
from  joint  developments  by  increasing  cost  efficiency  and  competitiveness  on  the 
market.  One  such  critical  technology  is  the  Gallium  Nitride  (GaN)  semiconductor 
substrate,  used  in  defence  systems  (e.g.  high-performance  radars),  supported  by  the 
project AGAMI EURIGAMI.  

EDF contribution to national technological autonomy and 
lowering dependency on third countries

Well
38%

Very well
37%

Moderately well
25%

Figure 7 – PERCEPTIONS OF MEMBER STATES ON EDF CONTRIBUTION TO NATIONAL AUTONOMY. 
Source: DG DEFIS. 

Project box: Strengthening EU’s technological autonomy  

For Unmanned Aircraft (UAS) anti-collision systems, the MIDCAS project developed 
between Sweden, France, Germany, Italy, and Spain started in 2009, carried on under 
EDIDP and continues today under EDF with the EUDAAS phase 2 call awarded in 2023. 
The defence industry participants to this initiative highlighted how without such chain of 
projects, the EU would have had to rely solely on non-EU solutions.  

22 

 
 
 
 
b)  Increasing the innovation capacity of the EDTIB 

Consultations  of  the  defence  industry  and  researchers51  highlighted  how  the  EDF  has 
contributed to the reduction of time-to-market risks, the sharing of financial and technical 
risks collaboratively between beneficiaries and partners, and to the overall reduction of 
market uncertainty. By providing 100% of funding for defence research, including for 
lower  TRLs,  as  well  as  co-funding  for  development  actions,  the  EDF  provides  a 
predictable funding environment that encourages companies to invest in high-risk R&D, 
and to collaborate with other companies and research organisations. This allows a larger 
level  of  ambition  than  what  would  be  possible  at  a  national  scale  with  projects  with  a 
stronger research potential or which entail the development of large capabilities that the 
defence industry would not have otherwise been capable of taking.  

The  EDF  investment  in  defence  R&D  leads  to  the  creation  of  new  products  and 
processes,  which  already  contributes  to  the  demand  for  new  jobs.  Evidence  of 
increasing job demand was revealed by consulted stakeholders, who stated that they often 
need to hire specialised staff for EDF projects. The Commission Expert Group noted that 
‘Engineers,  scientists,  and  other  experts  find  challenging  and  interesting  work 
opportunities through EDF-backed initiatives.’ Think tanks and researchers also indicate 
that the EDF contributes directly to Europe’s competitiveness which will lead to an 
increase  in  specialised  skills  and  labour.  Defence  industry  representatives  stated  to 
have gained complementary technical and scientific skills thanks to their participation in 
the EDF, and conversely, that the EDF created new attractive professional opportunities 
in  the  job  market.  Besides,  a  vast  majority  of  the  defence  industry  consulted  noted 
increased organisational growth thanks to EDF52. 

Investment  in  defence  innovation,  including  in  disruptive  technologies,  has  been 
actively  supported  by  the  EDF  under  the  ‘EU  Defence  Innovation  Scheme’  (EUDIS) 
with an overall budget of EUR 1.5 billion until 2027, i.e. around 20% of the EDF budget, 
complemented  with  EUR  400-500  million leveraged  from  other  public  and  private 
sources). The main results from EUDIS measures include: 

-  Major  support  to  start-ups  and  SMEs  in  EDF  R&D  projects.  The  EDF  non-
thematic R&D calls supported 48 projects under the first three evaluation cycles and 
brought  in  a  number  of  new  players.  The  three  EDF  funding  rounds  demonstrated 
consistently high interest from SMEs. For instance, in 2023, applications more than 
doubled  compared  to  2022.  This  strong  interest  in  calls  exclusively  open  to  SME 
consortia  and  those  focusing  on  disruptive  technologies  confirms  that  the  EDF 
remains highly attractive to smaller companies and newcomers to the defence sector.   

-  Since 2023, certain R&D calls with Financial Support to Third Parties (FSTP, or 
cascade funding) require awarded consortia to provide between 10-30 start-ups and 
SMEs  with  acceleration  support  in  specific  technology  domain  thus  fostering 
innovation  and  bringing  closer  new  market  entrants  with  the  leading  European 
players.  Four  call  topics  with  FSTP  have  been  launched  so  far53  and  Ukrainian 
entities are now eligible to receive such financial support. The Commission Expert 

51   Schilde, K. 2023. Weaponising Europe? Rule-makers and rule-takers in the EU regulatory security 

state. Journal of European Public Policy, 30 (7). 1255-1280. 
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13501763.2023.2174582 

52   Position paper on the EDF by the Commission Expert Group on Defence published on 10 July 2024. 
53   Material and Components (EDF 23), Simulation and Training (EDF 24), Protection and Mobility 

Categories and Ground Combat (EDF 25).   

23 

 
 
 
Group strongly  supported the  use of cascade funding,  due to  its potential to  attract 
new suppliers and to incentivise civilian actors to engage in defence R&D. 

-  Strengthened  synergies  between  EU-funded  civil  and  defence  research  by 
including spin-in aspect in selected EDF calls since 2023. These projects facilitate the 
transfer  of  innovation  from  the  civil  sector  to  defence  by  leveraging  the  dual-use 
potential  of  results  from  civil  EU-funded  R&D.  Stakeholders  have  welcomed  the 
introduction of spin-in measures and called for further exploration of their potential. 

-  High-risk/high-return  disruptive  technology  research  has  been  supported  with  a 
total  of  13  projects  in  technology  domains  such  as  quantum,  sensing,  drones, 
environment,  lasers,  hypersonic  velocity,  new  materials  and  additive  manufacturing 
receiving over EUR 226 million so far. The calls also provide funding continuity to 
research  projects  stemming  from  PADR,  for  example  the  project  THEMA,  a 
continuation  of  PILUM  with  the  goal  to  develop  an  electromagnetic  railgun. 
Consulted  think  tanks  noted  the  need  to  further  invest  in  disruptive  defence 
technologies  (such  as  autonomous  systems  or  artificial  intelligence)  which  are 
increasingly relevant for the modern battlefield. 

-  The  use  of  a  ‘Technological  Challenge’  approach  has  enhanced  the  ability  to 
measure  the  performance  of  systems  involving  artificial  intelligence  and  machine 
learning.  This  innovative  methodology,  inspired  by  the  DARPA54  model  for 
autonomous  systems,  has  become  a  key  component  of  the  EDF  work  programmes 
since  2022.  A  ‘technological  challenge’  is  an  organisational  framework  that 
encourages  researchers  and  developers  to  address  complex  objectives  related  to 
capabilities  or  functionalities  of  specific  technologies.  It  enables  the  support  of 
multiple  European  research  teams  working  collaboratively  to  solve  a  particular 
technological  problem.  Since  2022,  two  major  technological  challenges  have  been 
launched,  with  several  research  teams  focusing  on  the  detection  of  Improvised 
Explosive  Devices  (EDF  2022),  landmine  detection,  and  Human  Language 
Technologies (EDF 2023). While it is  still too  early to  draw definitive conclusions, 
these initiatives mark significant progress in the field. 

Additionally, EUDIS provided a set of short-term measures for SMEs and start-ups to: 

-  Attract  highly  skilled  individuals  and  potential  start-ups to  the  defence  sector 
and matching end users and industry players. The funding of defence hackathons 
has fostered innovation in defence and contributed to the development of new start-
ups within the defence sector. Since the first edition of European defence hackathons 
in  2024,  EUDIS  has  supported  European  public  and  private  entities  in  organising 
these  events55.  The  first  edition  engaged  close  to  300  participants  and  79  defence 
mentors, developing 70 innovative defence tech solutions. All top winning teams of 
the first edition created defence start-up companies. The added value of such events 
was noted also by participants of hackathons56. 

-  Coach  131  SMEs  beneficiaries  of  the  EDF  programme  (as  of  March  2025).  The 
business  coaching  with  consultation  advice  on  specific  business  challenges  helped 

54   Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency Home | DARPA 
55   In 2024, the hackathon was held in six EU Member States (Belgium, Hungary, Greece, Italy, Lithuania 

and Poland) and had a total of 275 participants from 16 Member States and Norway. 

56   See testimonials: https://eudis.europa.eu/eudis-tracks/hackathons_en  

24 

 
 
 
- 

defence SMEs to further develop their business. 94% of SME respondents rated the 
service as very good or excellent57. 

Improve  access  to  funding  by  a  Defence  Equity  Facility,  implemented  by  the 
European  Investment  Fund  under  InvestEU.  In  January  2024,  the  Commission 
published  a  study  which  examined  the  access  to  equity  financing  for  European 
defence  SMEs.  The  study  found  that  two  thirds  of  defence  SMEs  felt  discouraged 
from  seeking  equity  financing  and  50%  refrained  from  seeking  debt  financing, 
compared to  only  6.6%  average among  SMEs in the EU during the same period.  It 
also  found  that  the  investor  ecosystem  with  funds  dedicated  to  defence  is 
underdeveloped,  when  compared  to  the  US.  As  an  initial  step  to  address  these 
challenges, the Commission launched the Defence Equity Facility (DEF) through the 
European  Investment  Fund  under  InvestEU.  The  Facility  aims  to  invest  EUR  175 
million between 2024-2027 into private equity and venture capital funds focusing on 
innovative  defence  and  technologies  with  dual-use  potential,  with  the  potential  to 
leverage up to EUR 500 million of additional private funding. The DEF has already 
demonstrated  traction,  with  two  investment  deals  signed  to  date  and  two  more 
expected to be concluded by the end of the year. The DEF produced a strong pipeline 
of potential investments, with 16 active files currently undergoing screening and due 
diligence. This is expected to drive the Facility's investment pace, with up to 60% of 
the  DEF’s  total  allocation  expected  to  be  invested  by  the  end  of  2025  and  the 
remainder to be committed by the end of 2026.   

As of March 2025, based on the identification of additional needs, EUDIS provides two 
new services:  

-  Acceleration  support  to  20  companies  in  the  first  pilot  year  (2025)  to  support 
start-up  and  scale-up  companies  go-to-market  capabilities  through  an  8-month 
acceleration  programme.  It  offers 
testing  activities,  and 
matchmaking opportunities, including six bootcamps across the EU, culminating in a 
Demo Day. Participants will receive a EUR 65 000 seed financing voucher.  

training,  coaching, 

-  A  matchmaking  service  connects  start-ups,  SMEs,  and  small  mid-caps  with 
investors, government entities, and corporate partners to improve access to financing 
and enhance their networks. Online and in-person events will be held, with plans to 
support  up  to  80  SMEs and  small  mid-caps  in  2025.  This  initiative  aims  to  build  a 
network of European investors backing defence innovation58.  

However, the lessons from the Russian war of aggression against Ukraine and the rapid 
technological  progress  have  raised  expectations  that  the  EDF  also  needs  to  provide 
faster,  leaner  processes  in  support  of  smaller  projects  to  integrate  innovative 
defence  solutions.  Most  consulted  beneficiaries  stated  that  accessible  opportunities 
should be created to support smaller, faster projects replicating the success of the quick 
innovation  life  cycle  developed  in  Ukraine,  which  includes  constant  feedback  from  the 
final  user  at  the  battlefield  (real  life  testing).  Considering  the  long-term  nature  of  the 
defence  R&D  projects  under  the  EDF,  SMEs  and  RTOs  specify  that  the  EU  defence 

57   Questionnaire to EUDIS Business Coaching participants. 
58   EUDIS  BAMM  will  provide  comprehensive  support  to  20  companies  over  an  8-month  acceleration 
period  including  strengthening  knowledge  about  defence  end  users’  needs,  enhancing  business 
development and go-to-market capabilities through dedicated testing activities, training, coaching and 
matchmaking.  See  https://defence-industry-space.ec.europa.eu/european-commission-launches-eudis-
business-accelerator-and-matchmaking-programme-defence-technology-2025-02-12_en. 

25 

 
 
 
innovation  ecosystem  is  ‘missing  an  opportunity’  to  benefit  from  the  knowledge  of 
Ukrainian industry and armed forces. 

At the same time, stakeholders highlighted the critical importance for the success of the 
programme to keep the right balance and ensure that the EDF addresses the future, long-
term defence R&D needs. The emergency focus of other EU instruments, such as the Act 
in  Support  of Ammunition Production (ASAP), EDIRPA, and elements  of the proposal 
for  EDIP,  complements  EDF’s  focus  by  addressing  immediate  priorities.  Indeed,  as 
highlighted by a think tank: ‘the EDF is a long-term programme and it’s a good thing 
for it to stay just as relevant.’59 

c)  Ensuring continuity of effort along the R&D cycle up to market uptake 

The  continuity  of  projects  from  previous  programmes  and  under  the  EDF  has  been 
highlighted by the defence industry as one of the main benefits  of the EDF, which has 
helped  to  ‘rescue  several  defence  projects  from  the  valley  of  death’  as  they  would 
otherwise  not  have  received  further  funding  at  national  level  to  move  on  the  critical 
funding  step  between  product  development  and  customer  uptake  and  deliver  concrete 
results for the armed forces of the Members States 60.  

It is essential for the EDF to deliver concrete results along the research and innovation 
cycle to move towards market uptake. There are different approaches within the EDF 
to  ensure  continuity  of  effort  and  optimal  progress  of  funded  projects:  (a)  projects 
evolving from precursor programmes (PADR, EDIDP), (b) projects progressing from the 
EDF  research  window  to  the  development  window  and  (c)  projects  progressing  in  the 
same  window.  Beneficiaries61  have  highlighted  that  ensuring  continuity  of  effort 
reduces  resource  waste  and  retains  expertise,  which  are  critical  to  maintaining 
momentum from research to procurement. The merging of the Research window with the 
Development window, previously addressed separately under the precursor programmes, 
into the single R&D framework of the EDF has been a significant step towards ensuring 
a seamless continuation of effort through the entire R&D life cycle.  

More than half of the EDIDP projects (i.e. at least 20) were followed up under the EDF, 
thus ensuring project continuity, while an increasing number of  EDF projects have 
their  next  steps  also  funded,  as  progress  is  made  in  technology  or  capability 
development.  In  addition,  in  order  to  improve  the  exploitation  of  research  projects’ 
results  towards  development  or  procurement,  a  ‘special  report’  is  issued  as  a  specific 
deliverable  of  all  research  actions  to  facilitate  the  uptake  of  results  to  the  next  steps. 
Several success stories of projects moving from research to development were cited, 
demonstrating  the  full  defence  R&D  cycle  that  the  EDF  successfully  covers62.  Major 
defence  companies  have  indeed  indicated  that  the  rate  of  continuation  of  industrial 
activities  after  the  completion  of  a  given  project  should  be  perceived  as  a  successful 
measure of the EDF’s performance.  

However,  beneficiaries  have  also  identified  some  projects  which,  despite  promising 
results,  have  not  benefited  from  project  continuity,  due  to  lack  of  budget  or  lack  of 

59   Consultations (workshop and survey) with think tanks. Further details in the synopsis report. 
60   The defence industry highlighted a list of ‘success stories’, i.e. projects that had received funding under 
PADR  and  EDIDP  before  being  carried  out  under  EDF.  See:  Position  paper  on  the  EDF  by  the 
Commission Expert Group on Defence published on 10 July 2024. 

61   Consultations  with  EDF  beneficiaries  (workshop  and  survey  with  SMEs,  mid-caps  and  RTOs).  See 

synopsis report for further details. 

62   Position paper on the EDF by the Commission Expert Group on Defence published on 10 July 2024. 

26 

 
 
 
support  from  Member  States.  However,  in  workshops  with  Member  States,  the  EDA 
highlighted that in many cases where PADR projects were not continued under the EDF, 
Member States planned to ensure this continuity themselves or with EDA support. 

Project box: Research projects continued as development projects  

The Next Generation Rotorcraft (NGRT) started as a research project/feasibility analysis in 
2021 and is now seen as a development project in 2024. The project will include the analysis 
of future needs, key future rotorcraft features and capabilities, alternative rotorcraft platforms, 
flight  demonstrators  and  simulators.  The  project  will  also  produce  a  military  rotorcraft 
technology  roadmap,  strategies  for  modularity  and  manufacturing,  life-cycle  analysis  and 
maintenance concepts.  
The  results  of  project  GOSSRA,  a  research  project  funded  under  the  PADR,  will  be  further 
built upon in the EDF development project ACHILE to demonstrate enhanced interchangeable 
capabilities  improving  all  areas  of  dismounted  combat:  survivability,  mobility,  navigation, 
situational awareness and communication.  

The  fact  that  research  projects  were  continued  as  development  projects  should  not  be 
taken as the sole or main indicator of success. Many projects, especially those related to 
large and complex capabilities, build on  long technology  or capability roadmaps and 
sometimes  need  to  have  several  follow-on  topics  before  entering  the  final  R&D  phase. 
This  is  the  case,  for  instance,  for  the  development  of  future  mid-size  tactical  cargo 
aircraft, or advanced radar technologies, both of which were addressed twice in the EDF 
research window. 

In  addition,  optimal progress  of projects  depends not  only  on follow-on topics as such, 
but also on the continuity of consortia. In this respect, beneficiaries have stressed that 
project continuity (from one project to another) cannot be smooth if the same consortium 
is not involved. Such a continuity of consortia could be ensured by a direct award to the 
consortium carrying out the previous R&D activities to be continued, as allowed by the 
EDF Regulation. However, Member States have so far been reluctant to introduce direct 
awards in this context and support by default competitive calls for proposals.  

To  provide  longer-term  visibility  on  upcoming  defence  R&D  opportunities,  and  in 
addition  to  the  annual  EDF  work  programmes,  an  indicative  multiannual  perspective 
(MAP)  has  been  introduced;  however,  it  does  not  give  sufficient  level  of  commitment 
and  detail.  The  overall  challenge  for  the  EDF  is  to  maintain  a  balance  between 
developing  new  projects  and  capabilities  and  supporting  the  continuation  of 
projects already in the EDF pipeline. In this respect, the EDF is currently considered to 
provide  a  satisfactory  balance.  An  assessment  of  how  to  manage  such  balance  in  the 
future will be necessary, in light of the budgetary constraints.  

To  better  anticipate  continuity  of  projects,  the  Commission  Expert  Group  on  Defence 
suggest that Member States and industry could agree, as part of feasibility studies, on 
common roadmaps for the technological or capability developments that they plan to 
consider  under  the  EDF63.  As  a  result,  EDF  programming  would  align  better  with 
Member  States'  needs  and  industrial  feasibility  while  providing  greater  predictability 
through the EDF multiannual perspective. 

A key element in this context is to ensure a strong commitment by Member States to 
ensure  R&D  continuity.  Beyond  the  EDF  contribution,  EDF  development  projects 

63   Position paper on the EDF by the Commission Expert Group on Defence published on 10 July 2024. 

27 

 
 
 
 
require  complementary  financing  (‘co-financing’)64  from  supporting  Member  States  or 
from  other  sources  (e.g.  consortium  own  resources),  to  cover  fully  the  projects’  costs. 
The  demonstration  of  such  co-financing  is  an  eligibility  condition  for  development 
projects65 and was set up to incentivise the leveraging of additional national contributions 
thus ensuring a commitment of Member States to uptake the R&D results. Currently, the 
co-financing  needs  for  all  awarded  EDF  projects  amounts  to  around  EUR  760  million, 
which  represents  19.6%  of  the  total  eligible  costs  of  the  projects66.  As  shown  in  the 
figures below (Figure 8 and Figure 9), an increase in the required co-financing needs has 
been  observed  during  programme  implementation,  both  in  terms  of  amount  and  ratio, 
with  especially  high  values  in  2023.  This  can  be  explained  by  development  projects 
reaching  prototyping  activities,  for  which  the  EDF  only  covers  from  20%  to  55% 
(including maximum bonus) of eligible costs. 

From the industry side, stakeholders reported that no EU-funded defence project had full 
co-financing frameworks in place at the time of signature of grants. More than that, for 
some  projects  co-financing  is  still  not  in  place  several  years  after  the  projects  started, 
leading to financial issues (especially for SMEs and RTOs) and to serious delays. While 
pointing  to  the  lack  of  harmonisation  in  the  practices  of  Member  States  to  set  up  co-
financing,  stakeholders  advocated  the  need  to  ensure  that,  before  grant  agreement 
signature,  100%  of  estimated  costs  of  the  projects  are  covered,  combining  EU  and 
Member States’ co-financing with partners’ own resources. Besides, the Commission has 
introduced an exemption to the State aid rules for Member State co-financing linked to 
EDF projects67 to ease the establishment of such co-financing.  

64   Contrary  to  Research  actions,  the  eligible  costs  of  Development  actions  within  the  EDF  are  not 
systematically  reimbursed  at  100%.  Instead,  specific  funding  rates  apply,  depending  on  the  eligible 
activities  performed  in  the  Development  action,  with  a  possibility  of  an  increase  in  the  funding  rates 
(‘bonus system’) if certain conditions are met.  

65   See Article 21 of the EDF Regulation. Applicants to development actions have therefore to provide a 

signed co-financing declaration. 

66   The total eligible costs of EDF 2021, 2022 and 2023 projects amount to EUR 3.88 billion. 
67   Dedicated State aid rules applicable to the Member States’ co-financing to projects funded by the EDF 
have  been  introduced  in  Article  25e  of  the  General  Block  Exemption  Regulation  allowing  for  a  total 
public  funding  up  to  100%  for  those  projects.  This  is  justified  by  the  fact  that  those  projects  are  not 
expected to receive significant private co-funding because of the specificity of the defence sector. 

28 

 
 
 
 
€1,32

€1,17

€0,99

€0,83

€1,57

€1,12

€0,45

€0,15

€0,16

2021

2022

Year

2023

Project total costs

EU grant

Co-financing needs

Figure 8 – TOTAL COSTS, EU GRANT AND CO-FINANCING GAP. Source: DG DEFIS 

EVOLUTION OF EDF CO-FINANCING NEEDS
(as ratio of total project costs)

28,72%

11,55%

15,91%

n
o

i
l
l
i

b
R
U
E
n

i

t
n
u
o
m
A

1,8

1,6

1,4

1,2

1

0,8

0,6

0,4

0,2

0

30%

25%

20%

15%

10%

5%

0%

2021

2022

2023

% of co-financing needs

Figure 9 – EVOLUTION OF EDF CO-FINANCING NEEDS. Source: DG DEFIS 

On  the  issues  that  may  explain  the  lengthy  process  of  setting  up  co-financing 
frameworks,  Member  States  have  reported  the  difficulty  in  agreeing  on  the  necessary 
Memoranda  of  Understanding  (MoU)  between  them,  which  in  many  cases  are  a 
prerequisite  for  signing  national  co-financing  contracts.  Feedback  from  Member  States 
showed that it takes more than  two years to  have a MoU signed, often due to  complex 
discussions  on  intellectual  property  rights  (IPR)  needed  to  determine  appropriate  co-
financing  amounts68.  In  addition,  the  co-existence  of  multiple  co-financing  schemes69 
complicates the process. 

68   Whereas the EDF only finances project costs without any IPR claim, co-financing Member States may 

have to finance additional costs linked to their IPR claims.  

69   Own resources of consortium partners, national contracts and/or grants placed in parallel, contribution 
to a lead nation contract, contribution to an EDA or OCCAR contract, or any combination of those. 

29 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Therefore,  co-financing  remains  a  point  of  attention  of  EDF  implementation,  all  the 
more  as  projects  funded  reach  higher  stages  of  development  requiring  significantly 
increased  co-financing.  Absence  of  timely  establishment  of  MoU  and,  in  turn,  co-
financing  schemes,  may  in  the  long  run  hamper  the  financial  viability  of  the  awarded 
projects and the uptake of their results by potential end users. 

This led the Commission to strengthen its ability to monitor the establishment of required 
co-financing and to support ongoing discussions70 on improving MoU elaboration in the 
context of the EDF in cooperation with the EDA. In addition, the Commission is actively 
looking to potentially establish a new funding mechanism within the EDF in the form of 
Procurement  of  Defence  R&D  services,  where  a  consortium  of  Member  States  and 
contracting authorities would be the beneficiaries of the EDF grants to place the required 
R&D contract(s). 

d)  Towards procurement of projects outcomes  

In  line  with  the  EDF’s  objective  to  reduce  the  fragmentation  of  defence  markets,  the 
unnecessary duplication of products, and ensure greater interoperability between Member 
States’  capabilities,  the  evaluation  also  investigated  the  procurement  potential  of 
expected project outcomes.  

Despite  the  early  stage  of  EDF’s  implementation,  there  are  already  solid  signals  about 
procurement potential for project results, with some procurements already materialising. 
Half of Member States’ respondents to a questionnaire noted that some EDF, EDIDP or 
PADR  project  results  were  already  being  procured  at  national  level  or  are  likely  to  be 
procured  in  the  near  future.  The  rest  of  the  respondents  stated  that  it  was  too  early  to 
provide  a  definitive  answer71.  In  addition,  one  third  of  defence  industry  respondents 
indicated  that  a  product  or  technology  developed  under  the  EDF,  or  precursor 
programmes has drawn interest of defence end users or shown signs of possible market 
uptake. 

Project box: European Patrol Corvette 

The EDF project European Patrol Corvette (EPC) supports the development of a corvette-
class vessel capable of performing a wide range of missions in future maritime operational 
contexts.  Four  EU  Member  States  (as  of  November  2024:  FR,  IT,  ES,  EL)  have  formally 
expressed interest in procurement, and some of them have already allocated procurement 
funds in their national capability plans. The total EDF contribution is significant and has 
ensured  strong  project  continuity:  the  project  has  been  allocated  €EUR   60  million  under 
EDF21 and €EUR  155 million under EDF22. Procurement contracts for a double-digit 
number  of  vessels  are  expected  and  there  is  a  growing  interest  from  other  Member 
States. 

Furthermore, first project outcomes have started entering the armed forces of the EU 
Member  States  making  a  difference  on  the  battlefield.  This  includes  critical  areas 
such as sea mines  warfare solutions,  unmanned  systems  or cyber defence. Some of the 
technologies developed with EU support are already in use in Ukraine.  

70   Under the lead of the European Defence Agency. 
71   Consultations  with  Member  States  and  Norway.  Further  information  present  in  the  synopsis  report-

noting that to preserve confidentiality quotes have been anonymised. 

30 

 
 
 
 
Project box: Project results entering the navies of Member States 
Innovative  sea  mine  warfare  solutions  for  delivering  better,  faster,  safer  and  more  resilient 
mine countermeasure operations: The design, prototype and demonstration of a system of 
systems composed of unmanned autonomous toolboxes, intelligent platforms, sensors and 
their  decision  support,  was  developed  with  the  support  of  the  projects  MIRICLE  and 
E=MCM  and  are  integrated  onboard  a  new  class  of  mine  countermeasure  vessels 
jointly  procured  by  the  Dutch  and  Belgian  navies  (12  ships  ordered,  with  potential  for 
other operators). The first ship of the class is planned to enter service with the Belgian navy 
in 2025.  

Project box: Project outcomes used in Ukraine 
The EDIDP project iMUGS supports the development of autonomous capabilities of existing 
platform to address a large range of missions. The platform is in operational use in Ukraine 
for  minefields  clearing,  casualty  evacuation,  and  logistics.  Autonomous  surveillance  and 
threat  recognition  solutions  developed  under  EDIDP/EDF  projects  AI4DEF  are  in  use  by 
Ukrainian armed forces. 

In spite of a supportive initial assessment by consulted stakeholders, certain aspects are 
however  reported  as  impeding  faster  and  streamlined  procurement  of  project 
outcomes.  Three  main  issues  were  highlighted:  (a)  national  export  rules  on  the 
transfer of defence products and (b) lack of binding commitments of procurement of 
results (c) latency of national procurement cycles72. 

•  National  rules  on  control  of  intra-EU  transfers  of  defence-related  products 
are apparently hampering the transfer of project results and defence items across 
Member States’ borders once EDF projects  are completed. These issues  need to 
be closely monitored and explored in parallel with the negotiations of EDIP and 
the  ongoing  evaluation  of  the  Transfers  Directive,  with  some  beneficiaries 
recommending the promotion of an exemption73 for EDF projects. 

•  Some  industry  representatives  expressed  doubts  about  their  products  being 
procured by the armed forces despite meeting their requirements. Whereas letters 
of  intent  are  formulated  by  Ministries  of  Defence  to  comply  with  eligibility 
conditions, they do not represent a legal commitment for procurement.  

•  Consulted think tanks also noted that the procurement of project outcomes tends 
to suffer from the latency of national procurement cycles. Many Member States 
in  the  EU  are  still  operating  under  an  outdated  model  of  lengthy,  complex,  and 
costly  procurement  processes  for  a  limited  number  of  top-quality  platforms.  At 
the  same  time  defence  ministries  recognise  the  need  to  improve  and  review  the 
current  models  and  are  considering  reforming  their  procurement  process  to 
expedite procedures and incentivise risk-taking.  

4.1.2  Efficiency  

This section aims at assessing the efficiency of implementation of the EDF Programme. 
The  assessment  is  structured  along  the  major  stages  of  the  EDF  implementation, 

72   Consultations with EDF beneficiaries (workshop and survey with SMEs, mid-caps and RTOs). Further 

detailed in the synopsis report. 

73   Article 4.2 of the Transfers Directive states: ‘Notwithstanding paragraph 1, Member States may exempt 
transfers of defence-related products from the obligation of prior authorisation set out in that paragraph 
where:  (c)  the  transfer  is  necessary  for  the  implementation  of  a  cooperative  armament  programme 
between Member States.’ 

31 

 
 
 
 
 
 
highlighting  the  improvements  introduced  to  increase  efficiency,  while  reporting  also 
some  identified  residual  inefficiencies.  Where  possible,  these  improvements  are 
quantified, and cost estimates74 are provided based on available data. The conclusion tries 
to  assess  the  overall  cost  efficiency  of  the  EDF  implementation  and  provides  a 
complementary macroeconomic analysis of its longer-term economic impact. 

4.1.2.1 Preparation of the work programmes and calls for proposals 

Improvement and simplifications leading to higher efficiency 

Since the launch of the programme, the preparation of the annual EDF work programmes 
and  calls  for  proposals  has  benefited  from  many  improvements  stemming  from  the 
organisation  of  regular  lessons  learned  exercises.  This  includes  clearer  rules  to 
organise and steer the priority setting (i.e. selection of the call topics to be funded in each 
category  of  action),  more  standardised  ways  to  define  detailed  call  topics  description 
(including the functional requirements) and more flexible ways to allocate budget to the 
different calls and topics, the definition of a budget at topic level75 or the introduction of 
flexibility clauses76. It also includes the use of a collaborative and secured tool77, allowing 
it to carry out all the needed work and interactions with the EDF Programme Committee 
and national experts involved in the process.  

As shown in Table 4 below, all those improvements enabled, year after year, to publish 
the  EDF  work  programme  and  the  associated  calls  earlier,  while  at  the  same  time, 
reducing  the  number  of  meetings  needed  and  handling  successfully  the  ramp-up  of 
EUDIS measures. The introduction and consolidation of the EDF indicative multiannual 
perspective (MAP) greatly contributed to reduce the time needed, as it provides a higher 
visibility and predictability on the next annual work programmes.  

2021 

2022 

Year of implementation 
Number of meetings organised with the EDF 
expert group/programme committee to 
prepare the annual work programme78 
Date of adoption of the annual work 
programme 
Date of publication of the calls for 
proposals79 
Table 4 - EFFICIENCY GAINED IN THE EDF WORK PROGRAMME AND CALLS PREPARATION. Source: 
DG DEFIS 

09 Jun  13 Apr  12 Apr  18 Feb 

29 Mar  15 Mar  29 Jan 

25 
May 

30 Jun 

05 Jul 

2023 

2025 

2024 

20 

10 

8 

6 

9 

It is worth mentioning that the most challenging part of the work programme preparation 
is the annual prioritisation and selection of topics80, considering the very high number 
of  topics  of  interest  tabled  by  the  different  Member  States  and  Norway,  the  limited 
available EDF annual budget (with an important ramp-up profile from 2021 to 2027) as 
well as the necessity to address a reasonable number of topics every year (i.e. around 30) 
in order to keep the programme impactful and manageable. This led the Commission to 
explore  all possible ways to  increase the available budget  in  the first  years of the EDF 

74   With a cut-off date of 31 July 2024 unless otherwise specified.  
75   Instead of a budget at call level only (like in EDIDP), leading to a potential winner-takes-it-all situation 

preventing to fund proposals against all topics inside the call. 

76   Ability to fund more than one proposal per topic. 
77   S-CIRCABC. 
78   Some additional meetings were organised for other purposes such as to address horizontal issues or to 

give opinion on the results of EDF evaluations 

79   Date of availability of the call documents (including call conditions) to the applicants. 
80   Despite the existence of prioritisation tools such as the CDP or OSRA.  

32 

 
 
 
and  to  frontload  some  of  the  budget  of  the  subsequent  years81.  Such  a  mechanism  not 
only  allowed  it  to  kick  start  some  major  development  actions  as  of  2021,  but  also 
revealed to be flexible in case of unsuccessful calls resulting in unused budget. 

Remaining inefficiencies 

On residual inefficiencies, several Member States pointed out the lack of budget leading 
either to postpone some important follow-up topics, thus preventing a timely continuity 
of effort towards agreed objectives82, or to split a topic in smaller parts, thus leading to 
unnecessary duplication  of administrative burden on the applicants’ side  and additional 
costs without any added value from a project implementation perspective. Moreover, the 
decision  to  resort  systematically  to  competitive  calls  for  follow-up  topics  is  also 
identified  as  a  potential  source  of  inefficiency  in  the  defence  area  as  it  may  put  into 
question the work already performed and the budget already committed by industry and 
Member  States.  Industry  also  advocated83  to  resort  to  ‘direct  awards’  for  ‘long-running 
topics, particularly those implemented by a well-established consortium focused on one 
capability  (e.g.  Flagship)’,  in  order  to  improve  the  overall  cost  efficiency  of  the 
successive R&D actions.  

4.1.2.2 Preparation of proposals and application process 

The  efficiency  in  the  preparation  of  proposals  and  application  process  can  be  assessed 
from different angles. 

Time to apply 

As  the  calls  for  proposals  are  published  earlier  in  the  year  (see  Table  4),  it  has  been 
possible  to  follow  the  long-lasting  recommendation  of  the  industry  and  progressively 
leave more time to applicants to prepare and submit their proposal. As depicted in 
Table 5, the time to  apply  has  been increased  from  5 months  and 1 week in 2021 to 8 
months  and  2  weeks  in  2025,  which  represent  a  60%  improvement.  This  extra  time,  a 
repeated  request  by  applicants  back  from  EDIDP,  has  been  precious  as  the  rules 
governing the eligibility to the EDF require to form consortia of at least 3 entities from 3 
different  Member  States  or  Norway  and  may  require  the  applicants  to  obtain  several 
declarations  signed  by  national  authorities  which  usually  take  time.  However,  smaller 
entities  looking  for  smaller  projects  and  faster  implementation  are  calling  for  a 
differentiated approach (see Section 4.1.2.3).  

Year of implementation  

2025 
Time to prepare and submit proposals84  
8m 2w 
Table 5 – EVOLUTION OF THE TIME TO PREPARE AND APPLY TO EDF CALLS FOR PROPOSALS (m 
= months; w = weeks). Source: DG DEFIS. 

2023 
7m 3.5w 

2024 
7m 3w 

2021 
5m 1w 

2022 
6m 

Standardised submission process and templates 

Major  improvements  have  also  been  introduced  in  the  application  process 
throughout  the  years  since  EDIDP.  These  include  the  resort  to  the  Commission 
electronic  submission  system  (compared  to  postal  delivery  of  proposals  under  EDIDP) 

81   This is the reason why the work programmes from 2021 to 2024 were split into two parts. 
82   Such as the main expected outcomes identified in the MAP. 
83   Position paper on the EDF by the Commission Expert Group on Defence published on 10 July 2024. 
84   Time from date of publication of the EDF work programme (and call topic description) to deadline for 
submission  of  the  proposals.  Availability  of  the  call  conditions  and  submission  templates  is  usually 
delayed by a few weeks, but those do not change substantially from one year to the other. 

33 

 
 
 
 
and  the  provision  of  formatted  corporate  submission  templates  (instead  of  free  forms 
leading  to  many  errors  under  EDIDP)  to  handle  all  specific  aspects  of  the  EDF 
Regulation  in  a more standardised  approach. Such templates cover notably  the detailed 
budget  tables  implementing  the  EDF  funding  rates  and  bonus  system,  the  control  and 
ownership  declaration,  the  actual  indirect  costs  methodology  declaration,  the  co-
financing declaration, the declaration on harmonised defence capability requirements or 
the  declaration  on  procurement  intent  and  common  technical  specifications.  These 
templates  led  to  a  higher  efficiency  for  both  the  applicants  (fewer  clerical  errors  or 
missing  information)  as  well  as  for  the  Commission  (fewer  and  quicker  requests  for 
clarifications) in the subsequent stages.  

However,  consulted  stakeholders  reported  some  remaining  complexity  linked  to  the 
number  of  supporting  documents  to  be  provided,  leading  to  extra  administrative 
burden compared to other EU programmes. In particular, documents required to support 
the Commission assessment of ownership control of each applicant and – in case of non-
EU control – guarantees, were described as time-consuming and affecting the application 
phase85.  Consultations  with  the  defence  industry  have  also  led  to  further  ideas  on 
simplification that could be implemented in the coming years, such as the possibility to 
reuse previously submitted ownership control declarations and guarantees in case of the 
lack  of  change  in  ownership.  The  Commission  is  exploring  the  feasibility  of  these 
recommendations from the technical and administrative perspective. 

The  defence  industry  also  suggested  the  creation  of  a  two-stage  submission  (and 
evaluation)  process,  in  particular  for  the  call  topics  receiving  many  proposals  (non-
thematic  topics),  stating  that  it  could  lower  the  threshold  for  small  applications  and 
improve the overall efficiency of the application process. However, if such process could 
lead  to  a  better  cost-benefit  ratio  for  applicants,  since  only  successful  applicants  at  the 
first  stage  would  be  invited  to  deliver  a  full  proposal  for  the  second  stage,  this  would 
likely  attract  more  proposals  at  first  stage,  potentially  putting  at  risk  the  evaluation 
workflow already under high pressure. 

Finally, the impossibility of the Commission corporate electronic system (e-Grants) to 
handle  several  EDF-specific  features  (e.g.  subcontractors,  funding  rates  and  bonus 
system,  actual  indirect  costs)  despite  a  substantial  financial  contribution  of  the 
programme to the system, was pointed out as a major residual inefficiency86.  

Guidance, support and outreach measures 

A particular effort has been made to improve the support and guidance provided to the 
applicants  compared  to  the  precursor  programmes.  To  raise  awareness  and  attract  new 
and  non-traditional  players  to  the  programme,  DG  DEFIS  has  worked  intensively  to 
disseminate  information  related  to  the  EDF  and  facilitate  matchmaking  opportunities. 
This included engaging in outreach activities, such as: 

-  Organising  annual  EDF  Info  Days,  with  a  record  number  of  3 000  registered 
participants  in  2024,  an  increase  of  67%  compared  to  202287,  including  unique 
matchmaking  opportunities  to  form  consortia,  pitching  sessions,  and  dedicated 
sessions  and  tutorial  progressively  introduced  to  provide  technical  guidance  on 

85   The situation evolved as of 2022 with the supporting documents being requested only for the proposals 

selected for funding during Grant agreement preparation.  

86   Also impacting the Grant agreement preparation and project implementation  
87   1 800 (including 500 on-site) registered participants in 2022; 3 000 (including 900 on-site) in 2024.  

34 

 
 
 
EDF-specific  features  like  the  ownership  control  assessment,  the  actual  indirect 
costs or the SME and mid-cap assessment88. 

-  Supporting annually around 15 information days in Member States/Norway. 
-  Presence at major aerospace and defence exhibitions, as well as at conferences 

and technology events. 

The  Commission  also  established  a  network  of  EDF  National  Focal  Points  (NFPs)89 
which consists of contact points appointed by national authorities from all Member States 
and  Norway  to  assist  applicants  and  beneficiaries.  The  NFPs90  have  wide-ranging  and 
active  interactions  with  stakeholders,  reporting  that  they  assist  between  80  to  250 
applicants per year and organise an average of 10-20 EDF-related matchmaking events, 
seminars and workshops per year, with good participation rates. The EDF increased the 
capacity  of  the  network  by  funding  a  project  ‘Expanding  Opportunities  for  All’  with 
EUR 1.5 million. The defence industry has reported that the work of NFPs ‘significantly 
facilitates’ their participation in the EDF91. 

Another important outreach opportunity is the European Network of Defence-Related 
Regions  (ENDR)92.  When  consulted  with  questionnaires,  its  members  highlighted  how 
their role greatly facilitated the flow of information about funding opportunities including 
in EU regions which might not otherwise receive such information. 

In addition, support to  applicants through the EDF functional  mailbox  has been greatly 
appreciated.  As  shown  in  Table  6  below,  the  average  time  to  reply  to  questions  has 
considerably  improved  while  the  decrease  in  the  number  of  questions  received  can  be 
considered  as  a  good  indicator  of  the  uptake  of  NFP  network  and  of  the  clarity  of  the 
communication material (info days material, call documents and templates, FAQs on the 
Funding & Tender portal93).  

Year of implementation  

Number of questions received in functional mailbox 
Average time to provide an answer (days) 

2021 
452 
9 

2022 
203 
7 

2023 
297 
5 

2024 
190 
4 

Table 6 – INDICATORS LINKED TO THE EDF FUNCTIONAL MAILBOX FOR APPLICANTS. Source DG 
DEFIS 

88   See  European  Defence  Fund  (EDF)  -  Official  Webpage  of  the  European  Commission.  -  European 

Commission 

89   The establishment of the EDF-NFP network followed a recommendation from the Action Plan on 

Synergies between Civil, Defence and Space Industries, 22/02/2021. 

90   The  EOA (Enhanced Opportunities for All) project, awarded with EUR 1.5 million, will enhance the 
coordination and functioning of the EDF-NFP network by fostering matchmaking activities to facilitate 
the forming of consortia participating in the EDF calls. EOA - Factsheet_EDF22.pdf 

91   Survey undertaken with NFPs in the context of the EDF interim evaluation (further information in  the 
synopsis report). Beyond difficulties in finding partners or entering consortia, applicants also frequently 
approach  NFPs  for  questions  centred  around  governmental  supporting  documents.  For  beneficiaries, 
questions  often focused on national  agreements,  legal  requirements  and finances  (including  (in)direct 
costs and co-financing).  

92   It currently consists of 63 regional organisations, administrations and defence clusters from 23 Member 

States and Norway. 

93   FAQ  posted  on  the  Funding  &  Tender  portal  stem  from  the  questions  received  via  the  functional 

mailbox or during the info days. Topic-specific FAQs are now visible directly on the topic page.  

35 

 
 
 
 
Stakeholder box: Views on improved efficiencies and simplifications in the EDF’s 
application process compared to precursor programmes* 

80% of the stakeholders stated that the clarity of information and documents requested has 
improved compared to precursor programmes. 50% of the stakeholders stated that the 
timelines between the calls for proposals and application process has improved and 30% 
that it has partially improved. 

* Consultations with EDF beneficiaries (workshop and survey with large defence industry). 
Further detailed in the synopsis report. 

Overall, the defence industry and beneficiaries consulted, and in particular SMEs, mid-
caps  and  RTOs,  positively  acknowledged  the  Commission’s  efforts  to  provide  good 
quality communication materials and outreach activities in support of the application 
process. The opportunities provided for networking and matchmaking are appreciated by 
applicants  and  beneficiaries  and  have  contributed  to  the  increase  in  participation  in  the 
EDF calls for proposals over the years. 
 4.1.2.3 Evaluation of received proposals and Grant Agreement Preparation (GAP) 

Improvements and simplifications leading to higher efficiency 

The EDF evaluations are conducted directly by the Commission in a centralised manner, 
with  the  support  of  external  independent  experts94  to  assist  the  Commission  in  the 
assessment of technical,  ethics and financial aspects.  Given the sensitivity  of a defence 
programme such as the EDF, all received proposals are submitted as encrypted files and 
handled  as  sensitive  non-classified  during  the  evaluation95.  Moreover,  the  evaluation 
summary  reports,  evaluation  committee  panel  reports,  call  evaluation  reports  and  draft 
award  decisions  produced  during  the  evaluation  process  are  classified  RESTREINT 
UE/EU RESTRICTED until information to the applicants following the positive opinion 
of the EDF Programme Committee. In addition, all independent experts involved in the 
evaluation process must be in the possession of a valid personnel security clearance at the 
level  of  CONFIDENTIEL  UE/EU  CONFIDENTIAL  (or  equivalent)  issued  by  the 
relevant national authorities96.  

Information box: Ethics assessment in EDF projects 

In  line  with Art.  7  of  the  EDF  Regulation,  consortia  applying  to  the  EDF  must  perform  an 
Ethics  self-assessment  of  their  proposal.  Based  on  the  results  of  this  self-assessment 
(answers  to  a  questionnaire),  Ethics  screening  and  assessment  is  carried  out  by  the 
Commission  with  the  support  of  independent  experts.  In  total,  142  proposals  submitted 
under  the  2021-23  calls  have  gone  into  ethics  screening. The  outcome  of  the  ethics 
screening can be ethics clearance, conditional ethics clearance or no ethics clearance. No 
ethics clearance means the proposal is further pushed to the ethics assessment phase.  In 
total, 6 ethics assessments were made for EDF proposals. 

94   The Commission placed 380 contracts with overall  223 different independent experts to carry out the 

evaluations from 2021 to 2023.  

95   Unless otherwise specified in the EDF work programmes. 
96   For more information, see Defence industry – call for experts to assist the European Commission with 
the  evaluation  of  proposals  submitted  for  funding  under  the  European  Defence  Fund  (2021-2027)  – 
European Commission. 

36 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Despite  these  security  constraints,  the  complexity  stemming  from  the  EDF-specific 
eligibility  conditions  and  award  criteria,  and  a  significant  increase  in  the  number  of 
proposals  submitted,  the  time  needed  to  run  the  evaluations  has  been  reduced  over 
the years, as shown in the Table 7 below, in line with the recommendation of the Court 
of Auditors97 and the provision of the EU Financial Regulation98.  

Year of implementation  

2019*  2020* 

2021 

2022 

2023 

211 

272 

Time needed from call closure to information to 
applicants about the evaluation results (in days) 
Table  7  –  EFFICIENCY  GAINED  IN  THE  EVALUATION  PROCESS.  Source:  DG  DEFIS.  *  Precursor 
programme EDIDP  
This  was mainly  possible thanks to  incremental improvements implemented in  the first 
years of the EDF: 
•  Use  of  tailor-made  tools  to  support  the  EDF  evaluation  in  a  secured  and 
optimised  way.  Such  tools  include  automatic  extraction  of  data  from  submitted 
proposals99, development of DEFEND-S100 to support the entire evaluation workflow 
including all EDF-specific requirements. 

223 

176 

211 

•  Optimisation  of  independent  experts’  involvement.  Earlier  selection  procedure 
with checks on the experts used in different panels, including in terms of conflicts of 
interest101. Shift from physical (EDIDP) to remote evaluations allowing considerable 
time and cost savings compared to EDIDP situation. In parallel, the accessible pool of 
experts  with  relevant  expertise  and  security  clearance  has  improved  significantly 
thanks  to  communications  and  outreach  activities  (in  particular  through  the  NFP 
network). 

•  Optimisation of the eligibility checks. Some specific eligibility checks (ownership 
control  assessment,  SME  or  mid-cap  status,  eligibility  of  some  costs  for  lump  sum 
grants) have been postponed to grant agreement preparation (GAP) to reach a higher 
efficiency  by  limiting  the  verifications  to  the  sole  projects  selected  for  funding.  In 
addition, some of these tasks benefit from the support and experience of the European 
Commission’s Research Executive Agency (REA). 

EDF calls’ independent observer reports from 2021 to 2023 have consistently described 
the  evaluation  process  as  of  ‘high  quality’,  producing  ‘a  correct  result  of  selecting 
proposals  to  be  funded’  and  ‘the  evaluation  process  being  very  efficient,  in  particular, 
taking into account the considerable magnitude and complexity of the exercise…’.  

On  information  to  applicants,  unsuccessful  applicants  have  highlighted  a  significant 
improvement  in  communications  with  the  Commission.  While  in  the  first  years 
limited  feedback  was  given  to  unsuccessful  applicants,  the  results  letters  now  provide 
applicants  with  reasons  for  inadmissibility  and  ineligibility.  This  ensures  that  the  EDF 
application  process  becomes  a  learning  experience  and  renders  the  application  process 

97   European Court of Auditors, Special Report,  26/04/2023, ‘The Commission should, in comparison to 
PADR,  reduce  the  time  taken  from  the  moment  calls  for  EDF  are  closed  until  grant  agreement 
signature.’ 

98   Article 197(2) of Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2024/2509 of the European Parliament and of the Council 
of 23 September 2024 on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union (recast). 
99   Data  from  the  electronic  submission  system  (e.g.  Part  A)  crosschecked  with  data  extracted  from 

detailed budget tables. 

100  DEFEND-S was initially developed for the  evaluations  in  2021 and  was continuously improved over 

the years to implement the lessons learned from previous exercises. 

101  To prevent  conflicts of interest, independent experts of the same nationality as the coordinator of the 
consortium or from the same entity as one of the applicants cannot be involved in the evaluation of the 
proposal. 

37 

 
 
 
 
more  likely  to  succeed  the  next  time  (at  least  on  inadmissibility  and  ineligibility 
conditions).  As  shown  in  Table  8  below,  the  number  of  inadmissible  and  ineligible 
proposals  decreased  from  15%  in  2021  to  10%  in  2023,  demonstrating  that 
communication efforts have contributed to a better understanding of EDF since its start, 
thereby allowing applicants to save time and resources. The increased clarity of the EDF 
and its application process is also reflected by the decreasing number of redress cases as 
a  ratio  of  the  number  of  proposals  submitted  (0  redress  cases  in  2023  concerning 
admissibility  and  eligibility  issues),  which  further  improves  cost  efficiencies  and  saves 
resources within the Commission102.  

Year of implementation  

2021  2022  2023 

Percentage of inadmissible or ineligible proposals out of total number of 
proposals received 
Number of redress cases on admissibility or eligibility review 
Number of redress cases on evaluation review 
Percentage of redress cases out of total number of proposals 
received 
Table 8 – PERCENTAGE OF INADMISSIBLE OR INELIGIBLE PROPOSALS AND NUMBER OF 
REDRESS CASES. Source: DG DEFIS. 

6 
3 

6% 

5 
4 

7% 

0 
10 

4% 

15%  12%  10% 

Remaining inefficiencies 

Despite the improvements  listed above, several  inefficiencies have been  pointed out  by 
the consulted stakeholders.  

First, the requirement to have independent experts in possession of a valid personnel 
security  clearance  (PSC)  issued  by  their  national  security  authority  hampers  the 
possibility to rely on a more extensive pool of experts. Throughout consultations, project 
officers (including for PADR within EDA) have highlighted that the requirement to have 
a valid PSC at the time of application prevents valuable experts such as former defence 
personnel  now  acting  as  freelancers  to  be  selected.  In  addition,  some  of  the  experts 
having  to  renew  their  clearance  may  encounter  delays  in  the  process,  leading  to  last 
moment  rejection  of  preselected  experts  impacting  the  planning  of  the  evaluations.  In 
addition  to  the  PSC  issue,  the  Commission  has  also  raised  awareness  of  the  lack  of 
experts from smaller Member States.  

Second, the EDF award criteria have been described as complex and their assessment 
as  time-consuming,  with  recommendations  to  merge  certain  evaluation  criteria  in  the 
future103, as also highlighted by certain Member States. 

Last,  the grant  agreement  preparation phase has to accommodate key  critical  activities: 
the establishment of the security framework104 for each selected project as well as the 
signature of the co-financing needed to carry out the development projects, which are 
specific to the EDF programme. These activities entail substantial information exchange 
between consortia members, Member States and the Commission and require validation 
by  competent  national  authorities.  Although  the  situation  has  slightly  improved  on 
certain aspects over the years, consulted stakeholders pointed out the lack of appropriate 

102  The ratio of overall redress cases decreased by 33.3% from 2021 to 2023.  
103  The criteria have not been specified to comply with the classification of the EDF 2021-2023 observer 

reports (classified as SENSITIVE). 

104  According to Article 27(4) of the EDF Regulation, the  applicable security framework is to be decided 
by  the  Member  States  on  whose  territory  the  recipients  are  established.  If  no  such  specific  security 
framework is set up by those Member States, the Commission will set up the security framework for the 
action in accordance with the Decision (EU, Euratom) 2015/444. 

38 

 
 
 
 
 
means  and  procedures  to  ease  those  critical  activities  that  are  a  prerequisite  for  the 
signature of the grants. Consequently, the time from information to applicants to the 
signature of the grants has not improved105. 

4.1.2.4 Grant management and project implementation 

The management of EDF grants and the project implementation are long and cumulative 
activities (i.e. accumulation of awarded projects that last on average around three years) 
that  entail  payments  from  the  EU  budget  (i.e.  most  of  the  EDF  budget)  with  expected 
tangible results. The main drivers to the efficiency of the grant management and project 
implementation  are  the  types  of  grants,  the  management  mode  (direct  or  indirect 
management),  the  reporting  obligations  (technical  and  financial)  as  well  as  the  timely 
establishment of co-financing (where needed).  

Types of grants  

Most  of  the  EDF  budget  is  implemented  through  grants  either  in  the  form  of  actual 
costs106  or  in  the  form  of lump  sums  (i.e.  simplified  funding  scheme)107.  The  lump  sum 
cost methodology was tested successfully throughout the precursor programmes as a way 
of  potentially  reducing  administrative  burden  during  project 
implementation108. 
Beneficiaries  consulted  also  reported  that  the  use  of  lump  sums  has  been  greatly 
appreciated. Based on lessons learned, lump sums have been progressively extended to 
more calls (i.e. almost 17% of the EDF budget in 2025) where the budget per proposal is 
capped to low amounts, thus limiting financial risks for the Commission.  

Direct vs indirect management 

The Commission directly and centrally manages 133 EDF projects, while 29 EDF project 
are  implemented  under  indirect  management  by  EDA  and  OCCAR  which  act  as 
entrusted  entities  under  the  provisions  of  Contribution  Agreements  signed  with  the 
Commission. The projects indirectly managed represent a total EDF budget of EUR 625 
million (out of a total of EUR 3.12 billion). The remuneration of the entrusted entities to 
be paid by the EDF budget amounts to  EUR 12.4 million, i.e. less than 2% of the total 
budget  managed  indirectly.  As  a  comparison  point,  15  out  of  18  PADR  projects  were 
implemented under indirect management by EDA and 2 out of 42 EDIDP projects were 
implemented under indirect management by OCCAR.  

105  170 days in 2019, 156 in 2020, 147 in 2021, 175 in 2022 and 213 in 2023 (year of the calls). 
106  Actual costs means that the Commission will reimburse only costs actually incurred by the beneficiaries 
during the project, after verification of evidence of these costs. Lump sums are determined once and for 
all during grant agreement preparation after verifications of the detailed budget estimations provided by 
the  applicants,  and  from  then  payments  will  take  place  upon  completion  of  work  packages  without 
financial ex post controls. 

107  Although Article 16 of EDF Regulation provides for the possibility to use  another simplified funding 
scheme, i.e. a ‘contribution not linked to costs’ in certain cases, this provision has not yet been used.  
108  During  PADR,  three  small  projects  were  launched  to  test  different  aspects  of  the  lump  sum 
methodology. The European Court of Auditors acknowledged the usefulness of testing this process in 
PADR.  During  the  implementation  of  the  EDIDP,  the  two  projects  funded  as  direct  awards  (ESSOR 
and MALE-RPAS) and implemented in indirect management by OCCAR are funded using a lump sum 
methodology for EUR 133 million. 

39 

 
 
 
Information box: Indirect management under EDF  

Indirect management within the EDF is limited to the management of some specific action 
grants. The only entities that have been cleared as entrusted entities for the management of 
EDF grants are OCCAR and EDA. Both have already been appointed to manage specific 
EDF action grants with the following associated costs: 

-  For  EDA,  the  average  management  fee  per  project  is  €0.44  million,  which  is  3.0%  of 

the average total EU budget per project.  

-  For OCCAR, the fee is on average €1.3 million or 1.4% of the average total EU budget. 

Direct management of EDF projects has proven very valuable in gaining experience 
in  implementing  a  new  and  complex  defence  R&D  programme  for  which  the 
Commission  initially  had  little  technical  background.  If  it  required  a  substantial 
investment over the years to recruit the necessary external expertise, it also enabled short 
loop interactions between services in charge of the implementation and services in charge 
of  policy  development,  which  was  precious  for  the  elaboration  of  the  ASAP  and 
EDIRPA instruments. 

When  comparing  the  total  EDF  budget  with  the  relevant  staff  involved  in  direct 
management  (see  Table  9  below),  the  productivity  of  direct  management  is 
comparable  to  the  high  end  of  the  scale  of  productivity  of  wider  EU  spending 
programmes. In particular, when compared to cost of indirect management and resource 
requirements  of  executive  agencies  for  comparable  volumes,  direct  management  is  a 
cost-effective way to implement the EDF. However, due to fixed costs, managing a high 
volume of small projects (as resulting from the annual non-thematic SME, SMERO and 
DIS call topics) is less cost-effective than managing a reduced number of large projects.  

Year of implementation  

Average number of projects per Project officer 
Average budget managed per Project officer (in EUR 
million) 

2021 
5.5 

2022 
6.3 

2023 
7 

19.4  

48.7 

51.1 

Table 9 – INDICATORS OF STAFF WORKLOAD/PRODUCTIVITY. Source: DG DEFIS 

On indirect management, OCCAR and EDA remuneration109 is expected to decrease over 
time as they gain experience in managing EDF grants. However, both EDA and OCCAR 
recognised that greater project complexity generally entails longer integration times, 
which in turn leads to higher administrative costs. 

On the functioning of indirect management, both EDA and OCCAR were satisfied of 
being entrusted with managing EDF projects that they were interested in and could 
handle  efficiently.  They  also  expressed  satisfaction  with  improvements  compared  to 
precursor programmes110. While the decision to resort to indirect management for specific 
projects  was  previously  taken  at  the  time  of  the  award  decision,  plans  are  now 
incorporated  upfront  into  the  EDF  work  programmes,  which  allows  for  better 
preparedness and efficiency. This does not exclude refinements at the time of the award 
decision. Also, the Contribution Agreements with EDA and OCCAR initially concluded 
longer-term  Financial  Framework 
per  project  are  now  being  supported  by 

109  The fees are in relation to the handlings during the implementation and not volumes or size per se. 
110  Throughout  Grant  Agreement  preparation,  monitoring  of  the  Grant  Agreement  implementation, 

payments and reporting to the Commission. 

40 

 
 
 
 
 
Partnership  Agreements  (already  in  place  with  OCCAR  and  soon  with  EDA111), 
making  the  conclusion  of  specific  arrangements  per  project  faster  and  leaner,  thereby 
strengthening  internal  long-term  planning  and  responsiveness.  The  collaboration  with 
EDA  and  OCCAR  also  aims  to  better  oversee  the  successful  implementation  of  the 
awarded  projects  by  coordinating  EU  funding  with  linked  procurement  contracts 
financed by Member States thereby further maximising efficiencies.  

Consulted  project  officers  noted  that  the  direct  management  mode  (the  default  mode 
under  the  EDF  Regulation)  ensured  efficiency  gains,  a  comprehensive  overview  of  the 
implementation  cycle  of  the  EDF  as  well  as  responsive  feedback  to  policy  initiatives 
based on project results and programme planning. The indirect management has brought 
strong added value when combined with expertise in specialised defence R&T projects, 
as well as for large-scale capability projects already managed by the entrusted partner.  

Project box: Maximising efficiency with indirect management 

The  EDIDP  contributes  to  the  development  of  the  Eurodrone  by  building  on  an 
intergovernmental cooperation programme  already managed by OCCAR. In this context, it 
was  decided  that  the  EDIDP  MALE-RPAS  grant  should  also  be  managed  by  OCCAR. 
Consultations  have  confirmed  that  relying  on  the  expertise  and  resources  of  OCCAR  has 
maximised the efficiency of the support to the Eurodrone project.  

On  a  more  process-based  perspective  the  EDF  beneficiaries  reported  a  good,  regular 
and  constructive  communication  with  project  officers  from  the  Commission,  EDA 
and OCCAR. In addition, the use of e-GRANTS has been extended to EDA staff as of 
2023  and  has  been  described  as  an  excellent  improvement  to  optimise  staff  effort  and 
rated  as  generating  ‘significant  cost  savings’  in  the  questionnaires  with  project  officers 
from EDA. Overall, a vast majority of consulted defence industry and beneficiaries have 
stated that  the project implementation stage is considered as more efficient in EDF 
than  in  precursor  programmes,  with  improved  procedures  and  simplification 
measures.  Cooperation  with  the  Commission  project  managers  is  good  and  considered 
beneficial for the implementation of the projects. 

Project box: Practical examples of internal efficiencies since precursor programmes 

-  Concerning  PADR,  EDA  has  described  how  its  financial  management  has  been  an 
opportunity ‘to learn and improve internal procedures on the management of EU funds 
under  indirect  management’,  which  has  now  given  the  EDA  ‘the  opportunity  to  settle 
the path for future programmes as it is now the case of EDF’. 

-  Concerning EDIDP, within the Commission it took an average of  four months to have 
declarations of honour signed and now in EDF it takes around three-and-a-half weeks. 

Reporting obligations 

The  reporting  obligations  for  individual  projects  are  proportional  to  the  project’s 
complexity and vary depending on the management mode. EDF projects are monitored 
through the (standard) combination of continuous and periodic reporting. Project officers 

111  The financial framework partnership agreement will  embed a new cost model (fixed costs per project 
and  variable  costs)  which  seems  promising  to  EDA  so  that  they  can  better  plan/calculate  internal 
resources for cost planning. This should allow grants to be signed under indirect management by EDA 
at the same time as those under direct management (vs three- to six-month delay at present).  

41 

 
 
 
 
 
 
in  both  direct  and  indirect  management  have  described  how  ‘reporting  of  the  EDF 
deliverables and milestones provides in principle all the granularity needed to track the 
results and the progress of the projects to the best possible extent’. 

Following  consultations  with  the  EDF  beneficiaries  the  overall  reporting  obligations 
required from the grant beneficiaries were commensurate to the Commission’s legal 
and financial obligations to certify the work before proceeding with the payment:  

-  A  reduction  in  the  number  of  deliverables  while  having  more  practical 
interactions and demonstrations for project officers at the Commission, EDA and 
OCCAR. Throughout consultations with beneficiaries this simplification appeared 
to  have  been  implemented  effectively,  even  though  some  project  officers  have 
found  certain  projects  to  still  have  too  many  deliverables  proposed  by  the 
consortium.  

-  During  the  implementation  of  the  EDF  projects  there  is  no  reporting  obligation 
towards the Member States though there is the possibility for Member States to 
appoint  a  project  manager  to  monitor  the  progress  made  and  which  must  be 
consulted by the Commission before any payment is executed. 

-  Following  lessons  learned  from  precursor  programmes  and  recommendations  by 
the  Member  States,  the  EDF  adopted  the  use  of  corporate  Model  Grant 
Agreements  and  IT  tools  to  harmonise  reporting,  which  both  beneficiaries, 
EDA  and  OCCAR  recognised  to  ‘have  profoundly  improved’  the  efficiency  of 
reporting112. 

However,  more  investment  in  human  and  material  resources  (e.g.  analytical 
software to track projects results) for reporting and monitoring of the EDF projects 
has been mentioned as a priority by project officers. Such investments should also ensure 
a proper accreditation to handle information  at the appropriate security levels, as stated 
by project officers in both direct and indirect management. Corporate IT tools accredited 
to handle information up to the level of R-UE/EU-R or even higher would also facilitate 
the exchange of information between the Commission and the project coordinator. Such 
investment  could  be  extended  to  the  control  of  reported  actual  costs  and  requested 
payments,  even  though  the  Commission  is  still  in  a  testing  phase  as  the  first  reporting 
periods (and associated payment requests) of EDF 2021 projects took place in 2024 only. 
Such  control  includes  standard  ex  ante  controls  and  stricter  controls  (risk-based  and 
sample-based) to verify justificative documents of the expenses as well as ex post audits. 

Focus on indirect costs 

Article  15  of  the  EDF  Regulation  allows  recipients,  under  certain  conditions,  to  claim 
their actual indirect costs. The EDF is the only EU programme offering such possibility, 
as an alternative to a default 25% flat rate of the declared eligible direct costs113 which is 
higher than the standard practice in other EU programmes (i.e. 7%). Looking at the EDF 
awarded  projects  from  2021  to  2023,  20%  of  recipients114  are  claiming  actual  indirect 
costs. The possibility of reporting actual indirect costs has been described by industry as 

112  Following a discussion note and questionnaire separately distributed to EDA and OCCAR on the EDF 

in the context of the bilateral discussions on the EDF interim evaluation 

113  Excluding direct eligible costs of subcontracting and support to third parties and any unit costs or lump 

sums which include indirect costs. 

114  Beneficiaries and affiliated entities, including duplicates. 

42 

 
 
 
a ‘very significant step in favour of the industry and a key success factor for the EDF’115 
and had been introduced following long-lasting discussions during EDIDP116. To benefit 
from  this  possibility,  applicants  have to  provide  a  methodology  declaration  certified by 
their national authorities (with audit powers) which confirm the use of the methodology 
for comparable national projects in the defence sector. Methodologies are certified during 
audit processes at national level, having as purpose the definition of recognised rules to 
conclude agreements with the national governments. Only 8 Member States and Norway 
declared  such  competent  national  authorities  having  actual  indirect  costs  experience  in 
the  defence  sector.  As  a  result,  recipients  resorting  to  this  possibility  belong  to  these 
countries and are mainly research organisations or large companies with strong defence 
background.  The  weight  of  actual  indirect  costs117  vary  significantly  between  the 
beneficiaries  concerned  and,  for  each  beneficiary,  between  the  projects  in  which  they 
participate, depending on the beneficiary’s cost structure, the methodology applied, and 
the type of direct costs included in the proposal. Considering all awarded projects from 
2021 to 2023, the relates to an average weight of around 83%118.  

Outstanding remaining inefficiencies 

Certain  outstanding  concerns  remain  which  increase  the  administrative  burden  of  the 
EDF  project  implementation  for  beneficiaries  resulting  in  inefficiencies.  These  include 
firstly the size of the consortia which is described as difficult to manage, secondly the 
delays  in  obtaining  co-financing  by  Member  States,  and  thirdly  the  difficulties  in 
communicating and accessing important information within the main actors.  

The first main concern is the size of some consortia, which can exceed 50 partners for 
some projects. The situation is especially problematic when the total amount of funding 
is limited, leading to spend EDF funding in mere coordination tasks without actual added 
value from an EDF perspective. This issue has been recognised by large defence industry 
as  a  consequence  of  aiming  to  form  wide  cross-border  cooperations  to  score  high  in 
award  criterion  on  ‘new  cross-border  cooperation’  (that  counts  double)  and,  for 
development actions, to get access to increased funding rates. It is to be noted that none 
of these reasons justify the need to include all participants in the consortium as the first-
tier  subcontractors  would  be  equally  considered  for  those  two  aspects.  Other  reasons 
were  put  forward  by  consulted  stakeholders  such  as  the  fact  that  the  Commission 
communication  on  the  projects  selected  for  funding  (‘project  factsheets’)  was  not 
including  the  list  of  subcontractors  or  the  fact  that  subcontractors  might  have  limited 

115  Reported  both  by  the  Position  paper  on  the  EDF  by  the  Commission  Expert  Group  on  Defence 
published  on  10  July  2024  and  throughout  workshops  held  with  the  defence  industry  (workshops 
further detailed in the synopsis report) in which large actors reported that the application for EDF grants 
based on the declaration of actual indirect costs was preferred and more attractive than the 25% flat rate 
applied under the EDIDP. The Commission Expert Group further noted: ‘The current model that leaves 
industry  the  freedom  to  choose  between  two  possibilities,  either  applying  for  actual  indirect  costs 
reimbursement or opting for the flat rate, is highly appreciated and should be maintained.’ 

116  Under  the  EDIDP,  indirect  eligible  costs  were  assessed  at  a  25%  flat  rate  of  direct  costs.  However, 
indirect costs can sometimes equal direct costs in defence R&D (especially for large capitalisation firms 
(large caps). This too low coverage of indirect costs proved to be a serious limitation of the EDIDP. 
117  Ratio between the claimed actual indirect costs and the direct costs categories used for the application 
of  the  standard 25%  (i.e.  direct  costs  excluding  direct  eligible  costs  of  subcontracting  and  support  to 
third parties and any unit costs or lump sums which include indirect costs). 

118  These statistics consider only weights above 25%, even though several entities claimed actual indirect 

costs amounts leading to weights lower than 25%. 

43 

 
 
 
responsibilities  and  funding119.  Further  consultations  and  analyses  would  be  needed  to 
address in the best possible ways the root causes and propose necessary improvements. 

The  second  main  concern  hampering  the  efficiency  of  project  implementation  is  the 
observed delay in obtaining co-financing, which may generate cash flow issues for the 
consortium  partners.  The  Commission  has  conducted  an  in-depth  analysis  of  the  co-
financing  issues  to  identify  its  root  causes.  All  consulted  Member  States  indicated  that 
the co-financing issues are stemming from the delay required to set up the prerequisite 
cooperation  framework  (Memorandum  of  understanding)  and  from  the  difficulties  to 
agree on IPR provisions between Member States and then with the consortium. While 
all parties recognised the importance to standardise the practices and templates for such 
cooperation  frameworks,  the  Commission  and  the  European  Defence  Agency  already 
explored some measures to support Member States and the industry solving these issues.  

Background box: Challenges concerning IPRs 

IPR management is linked to two key challenges: the difference of rules between EU 
grants and national grants, and the international nature of EDF consortia.  

- 

In  practice,  the  EU  defence  industry,  which  invests  its  own  funds  to  conduct 
R&D,  expects  to  retain  IP  ownership  associated  to  the  results.  This  is  fully 
aligned with the mindset of the grant agreements associated to the EDF calls, under 
which the IP is owned by the industry. However, there is a first challenge in the fact 
that  the  IP  for  the  final  solution  developed  is  not  owned  by  a  single  entity  but  is 
shared  among  consortium  members  (with  sometimes  dozens  of  members),  which 
are themselves spread across different Member States.  

-  By nature, the EDF ultimately aims at creating joint procurement opportunities hence 
involving  several  Member  States.  When  establishing  co-financing  agreements, 
preparing memoranda of understanding or procurement arrangements with Member 
States, the second challenge is that Member States have their own expectations 
of associated IP ownership (as often the case in national projects) or at least some 
user rights over the solution. Such rights can be defined on a spectrum going from a 
simple access to the solution without any ownership of IP to the rights to exploit and 
transfer  the  IP  to  other  entities.  In  addition,  when  defining  the  rules  for  IP  rights  at 
the procurement phase, the different levels of initial funding from the partners leads 
to some Member States expecting some recovery mechanism to compensate for the 
difference in investment. 

The  third  main  issue  delaying  project  implementation  relates  to  difficulties  in 
communicating  and  accessing  information  between  key  actors,  present  in  three 
different instances 1) Member States having different procedures to ensure the granting 
of  intra-EU  transfer  licences  to  defence  industry  2)  differing  views  between  defence 
industry  and  Member  States  over  IPR  management  and  3)  the  Commission  not  being 
granted access to project results: project officers have reported how the lack of access to 
project deliverables by the Commission represents a considerable challenge. Part of the 
issue  is  linked  to  the  role  of  the  project  manager,  appointed  by  Member  States,  who 
monitors  the  execution  of  EDF  actions  and  coordinates  national  efforts  to  ensure  that 
recipients  adhere  to  agreed  timeframes  and  deliverables.  The  project  manager’s  exact 

119  Subcontracting should normally constitute a limited part and must be performed by third parties (not by 
one of the beneficiaries/affiliated entities). Subcontracting going beyond 30% of the total eligible costs 
per beneficiary/affiliated entity must be justified in the application and may be accepted by the granting 
authority if the topic is not subject to a fixed subcontracting limit. 

44 

 
 
 
 
tasks  and  responsibilities  are  not  clearly  defined  and  are  sometimes  not  well 
understood  by  Member  States,  leading  to  variations  in  how  the  role  is  implemented 
across different projects. To improve consistency and effectiveness, both the appointment 
process  and  the  task  definition  could  be  better  defined.  On  transfer  licences,  EDF 
beneficiaries  have  recommended  that  Member  States  consider  solutions  to  ensure  that 
export licence granting takes place before the actions start, as the lack of them ‘has 
been one of the main difficulties for the launch of EDIDP projects.’ In particular SMEs 
and  RTOs  have  reported  difficulties  to  reach  the  right  authorities  in  their  respective 
Member States causing delays in the projects’ implementation. The defence industry has 
suggested a use of General Transfer Licences for EDF projects. 

Project box: A practical example of transfer license issue 

The  lack  of  approved  transfer  licences  required  for  some  project-related  information, 
prevented  consortium  members  to  exchange  documents  required  to  progress  on  the 
implementation of the project as well as to release reports to the Commission. The lengthy 
procedures  to  ensure  the  compliance  by  all  industrial  partners  with  the  different  national 
obligations  and  to  authorise  the  transfer  to  consortium  partners  established  in  other 
Member States or associated countries led to significant delays in some projects (from 10 
to 18 months).  

. 

Throughout  consultations  Member  States  have  underlined  how  the  inability  to  access 
full  project  proposals  hinders  their  visibility  to  understand  what  results  they  may 
obtain  through  EDF-funded  actions  to  begin  with.  This  creates  uncertain  expectations 
and  an  inability  to  have  a  clearer  co-financing  planning  between  Member  States  and 
consortia.  An  intermediate  level  of  user  rights  for  Member  States  should  be 
considered  in  order  to  stimulate  their  interest  and  incentives  to  procure  the  final 
solutions.  This  requires  a  two-way  negotiation  between  the  consortium  and  the 
contributing Member States. As underlined by a large defence industry beneficiary, in the 
case of a lack of co-financing from national authorities, the concessions on the IP toward 
the Member States (so ultimately, the potential for procurement contracts) are even more 
challenging to envisage.  

In addition, considering the EDF conditions on collaboration, certain defence companies 
perceive  that  sensitive  competitive  proprietary  company  knowledge  might  be 
disseminated.  Some  non-beneficiaries  have  highlighted  the  fear  of  leak  of  intellectual 
property as one reason for not participating in the EDF. These are issues that should be 
further  explored  in  future  programmes  and  that  for  the  time  being  will  be  carefully 
monitored by the Commission, EDA and OCCAR project officers. 

Due  to  the  agreement  of  the  Commission  to  accept  security  frameworks  in  which  the 
Commission is not granted by default access to project documentation and results, 
project  coordinators  must  communicate  information  twice  (first  to  Member  States  and 
then  to  the  Commission).  This  is  another  complexity  that  adds  into  the  difficulties  the 
Commission is facing in monitoring and tracking project results once projects come to an 
end.  

Other remaining inefficiencies 

Several SMEs encountered difficulties in estimating their costs at submission stage, 
as  they  were  not  aware  of  security  provisions  that  would  incur  additional  costs  (e.g. 
security  clearance,  setting  up  facilities  to  store  confidential  data  and  purchasing  the 
necessary encryption software or licences), all the more as the security framework of the 

45 

 
 
 
project is defined only during grant agreement preparation. In addition, SMEs and mid-
caps  reported  unexpected  costs  concerning  proposals  and  applications  that  underwent 
ethics  screening  and  assessment.  Both  SMEs  and  research  organisations  have  little 
experience  during  the  implementation  of  the  projects  in  matters  related  to  handling 
classified  data  and  control  of  intra-EU  transfers  of  defence-related  products.  To 
address this issue, the support measures described in Section 4.1.2.2 have been taken.  

The  significant  inflation  experienced  after  the  COVID  crisis  was  also  reported  as  a 
factor  impacting  the  grant  implementation,  as  the  maximum  grant  amount  is  fixed  at 
grant signature and cannot be increased. It results that the cost estimate of the applicants 
should  have  ideally  included  inflation  scenarios  otherwise  they  will  have  to  absorb  the 
impact unless the 25% of indirect costs give them some flexibility.  

4.1.2.5 Overall efficiency of the EDF implementation 

The  qualitative  and  quantitative  elements  provided  in  the  previous  sections  show  the 
progressive improvements and simplifications introduced throughout the years which led 
to a higher efficiency of EDF’s implementation. Beneficiaries observed that the EDF is 
becoming a simpler programme to apply to and to work with ‘as its instruments and 
opportunities  became  better  known  throughout  the  years’.  This  is  also  valid  when 
comparing  EDF  to  precursor  programmes  as  the  Commission,  Member  States  and 
beneficiaries have collectively drawn lessons and established internal practices that work 
well and have almost become routine.  

In  this  context,  assessing  the  cost  efficiency  of  EDF  implementation  would  require 
establishing  the  overall  costs  of  having  the  EDF  run.  Summing  up  all  the  cost  items 
contributing to each implementation stage can provide a first rough estimate. However, 
such estimate remains very approximative as many other cost factors cannot at this 
stage be identified and quantified (e.g. costs incurred by Member States and Norway to 
follow  and  accompany  the  EDF  implementation).  Table  10  below  summarises  the 
resulting cost estimate for the period until 31 July 2024.  

Cost item 

to  EDF  expert  groups  and 

Commission staff, contractors and seconded national experts 
Reimbursement  of  participations 
programme committee meetings  
Cost for applying to EDF calls 2021, 2022 and 2023120 
Commission Info days 
Financial support to the NFP network 
Independent experts 
IT system development (DEFEND-S and other tools) 
IT systems use 
Fees to entrusted entities EDA and OCCAR 
Other communication costs 
Security (guards) 
TOTAL ESTIMATED COSTS121 

Estimated cost (in EUR) 
35 000 000 

105 000 

257 000 000 
420 000 
1 500 000 
2 320 000 
300 000 
12 000 000 
12 400 000 
600 000 
250 000 
321 895 000 

120  Based on assumptions collected among interviewed applicants and the average cost of staff involved in 
EDF projects, the contractor that supported the EDF interim evaluation roughly estimated the average 
costs incurred by the average EDF proposal consortium (13 entities) to around EUR 500 000, hence the 
total costs for the 514 proposals received. Such amount has therefore to be taken with care since it is 
based on assumptions rather valid for large-scale capability projects (>EUR 30 million), whereas most 
of the proposals received address smaller projects (max EUR 4 million). See Annex IV for more details. 
121  Administrative and management costs of awarded projects are not included in this total. These costs are 
eligible costs and usually amount to 10% of the overall costs, without information about the exact share 

46 

 
 
 
 
Table 10 – SUMMARY OF THE IMPLEMENTATION COSTS. Source: DG DEFIS. 

EDF cost efficiency 
(rough estimate) 

= 

(EUR 3 116 000 000122 – EUR 321 895 000) 

EUR 3 116 000 000   

≃ 90% 

However,  such  a  bottom-up  approach,  with  all  the  limitations  that  it  implies,  does  not 
factor  in  all  the  potential  benefits  resulting  from  the  EDF  investments  on  the  EU 
economy  and  security  environment:  innovativeness  and  competitiveness  of  the  EU 
industry  that  can  open  new  market  opportunities  (even  beyond  defence),  impact  of  a 
collaborative approach on more efficient R&D spending (less gaps and overlaps, bigger 
scale, more risk-taking) at EU level, including in terms of interoperability, compared to 
national  and  potentially  duplicating  approaches,  widening  the  European  market,  impact 
on GDP and employment, impact on the security of the EU and on the influence of the 
EU at global scale, including on standards setting. Without going as far as simulating all 
those  potential  benefits,  a  macroeconomic  study  has  been  conducted  to  provide  a 
complementary view from a ‘return on investment’ angle. 

Macroeconomic benefit 

‘The EDF is not only a strategic catalyst for defence cooperation and 
industrial competitiveness but also a significant contributor to overall 
economic growth and job creation in the EU, reinforcing the value of 
such investments’ Quote from the macroeconomic impact assessment 
on EDF benefits123 

The Joint Research Centre (JRC) conducted a macroeconomic impact assessment on the 
benefits of the EDF124 to estimate the economic returns of EDF investments in terms 
of GDP and employment. While the assessment faces important limitations due to the 
early stage of programme implementation, it provides valuable insight into the expected 
socio-economic results of the fund.  

The EDF is projected to lead to a maximum of EUR 2 954 million increase of GDP in 
2030  and  the  creation  of  additional  32 413  jobs  across  the  EU125.  As  the  EDTIB  is 
estimated to employ around 500 000 people, this data illustrates the solid impact of EDF 
for the economy.  

It  is  worth  noting  that  these  projections  remain  conservative  (e.g.  spill-over  effects  on 
civil sector have not been accounted for) compared to other recent international studies 
conducted on the economic returns on defence R&D. One such recent study assessed the 
effective returns for defence R&D to be between USD 8.1 and USD 9.4, higher than non-

of  pure  administrative  costs.  It  is  to  be  noted  that  such  costs  also  exist  for  non-EDF  projects.  The 
overhead costs linked specifically to EDF could not be assessed. 

122 Amount of EU funding under work programmes 2021-2023. 
123  The RHOMOLO macroeconomic impact assessment of the European Defence Fund 2021-2027. 
124  The RHOMOLO macroeconomic impact assessment of the European Defence Fund 2021-2027. 
125  The RHOMOLO macroeconomic impact assessment of the European Defence Fund 2021-2027 (2025). 

JRC Seville, compared to 2018. 

47 

 
 
 
 
 
defence R&D due to radically different obstacles that defence R&D must overcome with 
trial-and-error approaches126.  

Therefore,  considering  the  wide-range  macroeconomic  benefits  projected,  it  is  safe  to 
assume  that  if  the  projections  were  to  materialise  the  EDF  is  a  highly  cost-efficient 
instrument.  In  particular,  it  is  important  to  note  how  defence  industry  and  think  tanks 
unanimously  highlighted the need for a budget  increase in  the EDF to  further maintain 
cost-effectiveness  and  safeguard  the  incentivising  power  of  the  EDF  in  the  context  of 
increased national  defence expenditures. This  is  also  in  line with  previous Commission 
statements  that  the  Commission  must  consider  strengthening  the  EDF’s  budget,  within 
the overall review of priorities in the mid-term review of the MFF127. 

Stakeholder box: Key actors’ opinions on the cost-efficiency of the EDF (Consultations 
with EDF beneficiaries) 

The  majority  of  consulted  EDF  beneficiaries  have  made  the  following  assessments,  also 
considering  the  aforementioned  costs  they  are  incurring.  The  majority  have  predicted  a 
strong cost-efficiency of the EDF due to the following factors: 

-  The  EDF’s  strong  risk  reduction  for  the  defence  industry  would  not  have  been 

technically or financially feasible at national level. 

-  The  EDF’s  immediate  support  to  cross  borders  cooperation  involving  companies 
from  various  Member  States,  which  will  theoretically  increase  the  potential 
procurement of the developed solutions.  

-  Products  are  increasingly  benefiting  cutting-edge  technologies  and  gaining  in 
complexity, implying increasing R&D costs for the industry. A further increase of the 
EDF  budget  is  welcomed  as  a  way  to  keep  R&D  affordable  and  cost-effective, 
ultimately  preserving  the  capacity  of  the  industry  to  keep  up  with  the  global 
competitiveness. 

-  Member States have described that the EDF projects are on a good pathway to filling 
capability  gaps  in  the  EU  and  improving  the  quality  of  the  defence  products  and 
technologies, standardisation will be fostered as well as interoperability of equipment. 
This  will  ultimately  enable  significant  savings  at  national  level,  in  support  and 
maintenance, repair and overhaul activities, and will facilitate joint operations. 

4.1.3  Coherence 

This  section  examines  coherence  of  the  EDF  with  other  relevant  programmes  and 
initiatives.  As  stated  in  the  EDF  Regulation,  the  planning  and  programming  of  the 
EDF  is  directly  based  on  the  input  from  Member  States,  which  determine  their 
defence  capability  development  priorities  under  the  Capability  Development  Plan 
(CDP)128  and  identify  areas  for  potential  cooperation  during  the  Coordinated  Annual 

126  The  economic  returns  on  defense  R&D.  Global  Economics  &  Markets  (RaboResearch).  15  January 
2025. The study concludes that the ‘effective ‘bang for the buck’ on defence R&D is between $ 8.1 and 
$9.4; by comparison, for non-defence R&D it is $1.5 to $1.7.’ 

127  Joint Communication on the Defence Investment Gaps Analysis and Way Forward. JOIN(2022) 24 

final. 18/05/2022 

128  As  further  explained  in  the  EDIDP  ex-ante  Evaluation  SWD(2017)  228  final,  ‘When  capability 
priorities  are  commonly  developed  and  agreed  within  the  EU  (notably  through  the  CDP)  a  higher 
degree of convergence regarding the above-mentioned elements should be realised. This should make 
the  definition  of  common  technical  specifications  easier  and  should  thus  improve  the  efficiency  of 
collaborative projects from an industrial point of view.’ 

48 

 
 
 
 
 
Review on Defence. The EDF also seeks to ensure coherence and complementarity with 
projects  developed under other  contexts of cooperation (e.g. PESCO, EDA Category B 
projects). Where appropriate, regional and international priorities may also be taken into 
account,  including  in  the  NATO  context,  while  considering  the  need  to  avoid 
unnecessary  duplication.  In  addition,  the  EDF,  and  in  particular  its  EUDIS  measures, 
increasingly promote synergies with the civilian sector.  

4.1.3.1 Coherence with other EU defence initiatives  

Coherence with CDP and CARD 

Consultations  with  the  Member  States,  EDA  and  EEAS/EUMS  demonstrate  a  strong 
coherence  between  the  EDF  and  EU  priority-setting  tools  (CDP)  and  initiatives  to 
identify  collaborative  opportunities  (CARD).  Importantly,  all  EDF  development  call 
topics and resulting  projects  are, by design,  addressing at  least  one CDP  priority. They 
are also in line with the main areas of investments highlighted in the Strategic Compass. 

Workshops  with  Member  States  have  shown  that  the  EDF  projects  contributing  to  EU 
defence  capabilities  priorities  have  been  well  identified  and  prioritised.  However,  the 
granularity  of  EU  defence  priority-setting  instruments  does  not  necessarily  match  the 
level of detail required for EDF call topic proposals. Another complexity is that Member 
States  are  approving  a  growing  number  of  activities  at  EU  level  to  support  more 
coordinated  national  planning.  As  a  result,  it  is  sometimes  complex  to  find  clarity 
among  the  growing  number  of  priorities  in  EU  defence  initiatives.  Member  States 
recommended further strengthening the involvement of the EDA and EEAS/EUMS in the 
EDF  Programme  Committee  to  exploit  better  the  potential  of  existing  and  future 
defence  priority-setting  tools  as  inputs  to  the  EDF  work  programmes.  The  EDA  and 
EEAS/EUMS recommended a greater focus on updated priority-setting tools, such as the 
Overarching  Strategic  Research  Agenda,  Technology  Building  Blocs  and  Priority 
Implementation Roadmaps. Furthermore, it appeared that Member States’ representatives 
involved in the identification and discussion of the priority-setting tools (both at national 
and EU level) are sometimes different from those involved in the preparation of the EDF 
work  programmes  and  multiannual  indicative  planning  and  therefore  may  not  always 
support the same priorities. The Commission can raise and monitor this issue in the EDF 
Programme Committee, but it remains a matter of national competence. 

Looking ahead to  future defence initiatives,  researchers and think tanks  have described 
how the EU’s post-EDF defence initiatives  are expected to be mutually reinforcing 
and have the ‘potential to transform defence capability cooperation in the EU’129. These 
include  the  proposed  EDIP  which  is  expected  to  complement  the  defence  R&D  under 
EDF by addressing the procurement of the products and production ramp-up, continuing 
the logic of the emergency, short-term instruments EDIRPA and ASAP.  

Synergies with PESCO projects 

Permanent  Structured  Cooperation  (PESCO)  is  a  treaty-based  framework  for  the 
participating Member States to jointly plan, develop and invest in collaborative capability 
development and enhance the operational readiness and contribution of armed forces. It 
was  launched  in  2017,  and,  beyond  agreed  binding  commitments,  it  encourages 
cooperation on defence projects between groups of Member States. The EDF Regulation 
provides for a funding bonus of 10% increase of the total eligible costs for EDF projects 
that are also developed in the context of a PESCO project, to ensure continued enhanced 

129  Lawrenson, T. and Sabatino, E., The Impact of the European Defence Fund on Cooperation with Third-

country entities. International Institute for Strategic Studies, October 2024. 

49 

 
 
 
cooperation  between  different  Member  States  and  contribute  directly  to  EDF’s 
objectives. The EDF has emerged as the primary implementation tool  for PESCO. 
The solid level of coherence with PESCO is demonstrated by the fact that 60% of EDF 
development projects claimed links with PESCO projects130. In terms of funding, 50% of 
the EDF budget goes to projects that claimed and obtained the PESCO bonus, including 
71% of the development part of the EDF budget.  

Moreover,  defence  industry  described  how  the  EDF  and  its  precursor  programmes 
enabled  certain  PESCO  projects  to  gain  momentum,  thereby  strengthening  the 
coherence within these defence frameworks. 

Project box: PESCO projects supported by EDF/EDIDP 

-  EUMILCOM  (Strategic  C2  System  for  CSDP  Missions  and  Operations)  which  was 
the  basis  for  the  launch  of  ESC2  in  EDIDP  2019  and  EC2  in  EDF  2022.  This 
PESCO  initiative  is  also  implemented  in  its  cyber  domain  capabilities  across 
ECYSAP (EDIDP 2019). 

-  CIDCC (Cyber And Informa5on Domain Coordination Center) which would require a 
tool like ECYSAP/ECYSAP EYE (EDIDP 2019 and EDF 2023) in order to become 
operational.  Contacts  have  been  established  between  the  PESCO  team  and  the 
ECYSAP  consortium  to  align  requirements  and  propose  the  tool  as  a  possible 
solution. 

To  highlight  the  complementarity  between  the  EDF  and  PESCO,  both  Member  States 
and the defence industry highlighted a number of concrete success stories of EDIDP and 
EDF  projects  that  enhanced  cooperation  under  PESCO.  This  includes  projects  that 
generated  expertise  and  knowledge  that  was  then  used  in  PESCO  projects131  and  the 
involvement  of  stakeholders  from  Member  States  that  had  initially  not  signed  up  to 
PESCO-linked  EDF  projects,  leading  to  the  Member  States  eventually  joining  the 
PESCO project itself132.  

However, stakeholders also stressed the need to review the way the PESCO bonus is 
evaluated. Until now, the assessment of the bonus required a comparison of the technical 
description  of  the  project  proposal  with  the  description  of  the  relevant  PESCO  project, 
while  Member  States,  the  EDA  and  the  EEAS/EUMS  suggested  that  the  PESCO 
relevance should be confirmed by the Member States participating in or coordinating the 
PESCO  project  as  they  have  more  insight.  As  of  2025,  the  Commission  will  therefore 
request  a  formal  confirmation  of  the  link  by  the  PESCO  project  coordinator  (Member 
State) during the grant agreement preparation phase. The ongoing strategic review of the 
PESCO  framework  provides  a  further  opportunity  to  ensure  stronger  links  between 
PESCO and the EDF. 

130  41 EDF projects (from 2021, 2022 and 2023) are related to PESCO, addressing altogether 33 of the 66 

total ongoing PESCO projects, this accounts for 50% of PESCO projects. 

131  The  EDIDP 2019 Sea Defence Project matured seven different roadmaps in the naval domain, which 

are now all part of the PESCO 4E (Essential Elements of European Escort). 

132    For  example,  the  defence  industry  highlighted  the  PESCO  project  in  the  EUROPEAN  MILITARY 
SPACE  SURVEILLANCE  AWARENESS  NETWORK  (EU-SSA-N),  linked  to  INTEGRAL  and 
SAURON EDIDP projects. 

50 

 
 
 
 
Synergies with EDA Category B projects 

Background box: What are the EDA’s Category B projects? 

Ad  hoc  Category  B  projects  are  the  most  common  EDA  R&T  projects,  set  up  in  a 
partnership  between  at  least  two  EDA  Member  States,  funded  by  contributions  from  the 
participating  Member  States  and  implemented  by  a  consortium  of  research  organisations 
and companies from these participating Member States. 

As  observer  of  the  EDF  Programme  Committee,  the  EDA  provides  its  views  and 
expertise  when  discussing  the  EDF  programming.  The  EDA  can  therefore  inform  the 
Member States about ongoing or planned EDA activities, including Category B projects, 
that should be considered to ensure synergy and complementarity with EDF R&D topics.  

Both EDA and the Member States welcomed the high degree of compatibility between 
EDA  Category  B  projects  and  EDF  projects,  which  ensures  strong  coherence133. 
EDA also highlighted a double synergy: both as regards the uptake of EDA Category B 
projects under the EDF and the uptake of EDF topics under Category B projects.  

Project box: EDIDP/EDF ensuring strong coherence with the EDA CAT B projects 

ECYSAP  (European  Cyber  Situational Awareness  Platform),  launched  under  EDIDP  2019, 
was the continuation of CAT B projects. The EDA CAT B projects focused on the design of 
the system required by the Member States. The EDIDP project has been described by  the 
defence  industry  as  ‘fundamental  to  bridge  the  valley  of  death  between  operational 
requirements and implementation’ by launching the development of a prototype ready to be 
procured, which continued with the EDF23 project ECYSAP EYE. 

EUDAAS  (European  Detect  and  Avoid  (DAA)  function  based  on  new  sensors  and 
processing for RPAS integration into air-traffic management), launched under EDIDP 2019, 
was  the  continuation  of  the  MIDCAS  (MID  air  Collision  Avoidance  System)  and  MIDCAS 
SSP (MIDCAS Standardization Support Phase) EDA CAT-B projects, and aimed to develop 
and  demonstrate  the  detect  and  avoid  functionality  for  unmanned  air  vehicles.  The 
supporting Member States were the same for all projects. EUDAAS was further able to link 
the development of the sense-and-avoid system to a platform under development in another 
different  OCCAR-led  project  supported  under  EDIDP  (EUROMALE,  EDIDP  2019),  which 
needs  this  functionality  to  be  able  to  fly  in  all  airspaces,  further  demonstrating  the 
interlinkages  between  different  projects.  EUDAAS  has  been  continued  with  the  EDF 
2023 project EUDAAS 2. 

However, the defence industry highlighted that there is currently no framework or bonus 
system  in  place  to  encourage  the  uptake  of  EDA  Category  B  projects  under  the  EDF 
development  topics,  although  some  of  them  are  laying  the  ground  for  projects  within 
EDF. This is a point that could be explored in the future to further strengthen coherence. 

Synergies in innovation with EDA initiatives 

As a core element of the EU’s Strategic Compass for Security and Defence, the Hub for 
EU  Defence  Innovation  (HEDI)  was  established  within  the  EDA  in  2022  to  promote 
innovative  solutions  for  military  capabilities.  Following  consultations  with  the  EDA, 
synergies  between  HEDI  and  EUDIS  were  assessed  as  excellent,  allowing  defence 

133  In  its  written  input,  the  EDA  noted  that  ‘The  R&T  domain  has  shown  a  high  level  of  compatibility 

between EU-funded programmes and the EDA activities’. 

51 

 
 
  
 
 
 
innovators to take full advantage of EU support measures, including guidance on military 
end  user  capability  requirements  and  opportunities  to  connect  with  European  defence 
communities. The synergies identified between HEDI and EUDIS include: 

•  The  Commission  being  an  active  member  of  the  European  Defence  Innovation 
Network and present at defence innovation events (e.g. European Defence Innovation 
Days). 

•  The EDF projects resulting from the non-thematic calls to be indirectly managed by 
the EDA, thus supporting HEDI's initiatives in technology scouting, landscaping and 
assessment.  

•  HEDI,  through  its  Member  States  network,  providing  themes  for  the  hackathons 

organised under EUDIS. 

There  is  scope  to  further  strengthen  the  link  between  the  solutions  funded  under 
EDF/EUDIS and the experimentation activities in HEDI. 

4.1.3.2 Coherence with relevant international, regional and national priorities 

This section focuses on the coherence of EDF with (i) major international actors in the 
defence domain (i.e. NATO), (ii) regional organisations and (iii) on a national level. 

(i)  Coherence with NATO activities 

Coherence with NATO activities consist in ensuring that EDF topics are consistent with 
NATO capability priorities, where appropriate, given that Member States have a  single 
set  of  forces.  It  is  also  about  ensuring  that  EDF  projects  use  the  relevant  NATO 
standards  where  applicable  to  ensure  interoperability  and  cooperating  in  the  field  of 
defence innovation. 

In terms of standards, NATO defines a standard as a ‘document, established by consensus 
and approved by a recognised body, that provides, for common and repeated use, rules, 
guidelines  or  characteristics  for  activities  or  their  results,  aimed  at  the achievement  of 
the  optimum  degree  of  order  in  a  given  context.’134  The  Standardisation  Agreement 
(STANAG)  is  a  NATO  standardisation  document  that  specifies  the  agreement  of 
member  nations  to  implement  a  standard.  NATO  Allies  have  agreed  numerous 
STANAGs over the years, covering a vast range of technical specifications for equipment 
and  common  practices.  As  highlighted  in  the  EDF  multiannual  perspective  (MAP),  the 
EDF encourages Member States to take up existing common standards and identify areas 
where  new  standards  need  to  be  developed.  To  ensure  greater  interoperability  with  the 
Allies,  Member  State  experts  involved  in  the  harmonisation  process  of  the  EDF  calls 
insist  on  the  strict  requirement  that  all  EDF  projects  must  comply  with  NATO 
STANAG  wherever  applicable.  Overall,  the  EDF  R&D  projects  aim  at  standardised 
architecture and interfaces. 

The Commission has estimated that at least 17 common standardised architecture and 
interfaces that are interoperable with NATO standards have been supported  since 
the  launch  of  the  EDF  (e.g.  in  the  field  of  communications,  sensing,  collaborative 
combat, soldier systems). Furthermore, the defence industry highlighted in consultations 
that not only have EDF projects been compliant with existing NATO standards, but some 

134  See here for more. 

52 

 
 
 
 
have  even  extended  STANAGs  and  provided  the  basis  for  the  creation  of  new  NATO 
STANAGs135, thus increasing interoperability.  

In  addition,  during  bilateral  meetings  with  NATO,  suggestions  for  further  synergies 
between EDF and NATO initiatives have emerged, such as exploring the  possibility to 
test EDF-funded technologies and products in a NATO facility or exercise. 

Synergies  between NATO DIANA136 and EDF/EUDIS activities in  the  field of defence 
innovation  have  also  been  identified  and  would  require  further  analysis  to  tap  the  full 
potential of both innovation frameworks and to avoid unnecessary duplication. 

Project box: An EDF project extending NATO STANAGs 

The EDF 2021 project LODESTAR is a research action for enhanced situational awareness 
through augmented reality. To illustrate how the EDF is successfully reducing fragmentation 
and increasing interoperability, it builds on the soldier system architecture based on the 
upcoming NATO STANREC 4845, on the EU GOSSRA standards and on the extension of 
NATO standards such as NATO STANAG 4677 from unit level to the soldier level 
(communication internally within the soldier system). This means that not only 
interoperability between soldiers from different forces and countries is improved but also 
that the components from different soldier systems (and different manufacturers) can be 
mixed and matched.  

Project box: An EDF project being tested and used in a NATO experiment*  

The EDF funded prototype equipment from the 5G COMPAD project was used in the 2024 
NATO  Digital  Backbone  Experimentation  (DiBaX)  co-organised  by  NATO’s  Allied 
Command Transformation (ACT) and the Latvian Ministry of Defence*. The Latvian Mobile 
Telephone  (LMT)  was  part  of  the  EDF  co-founded  5G  COMPAD  project  consortium  and 
was also the contractor for the DiBaX testbed. They provided the necessary infrastructure, 
equipment  and  expertise  to successfully  test  and  validate  DiBaX  experiments.  This 
included  two  5G  prototype  systems  developed  in  the  framework  of  the  EU  COMPAD 
project.  

*The  experiment  took  place  from  21  October  –  01  November  2024  in  Riga  and  explored  potential 
applications  of  5G  technology  for  military  operations,  including  the  use  of  drones,  fostering 
collaboration  between  NATO  nations  and 
information:  https://defence-
industry.eu/natos-digital-backbone-experimentation-2024-advancing-multi-domain-operations-with-
5g-technologies/ 

industry.  For  more 

(ii) Coherence with regional priorities 

While  most  regional  defence  networks  consulted  as  part  of  the  European  Network  of 
the  EDF  has  greatly  enhanced  existing 
Defence-Related  Regions  stated 
cooperation at regional level,  some networks highlighted a greater need for alignment 
with  regional  initiatives  and  funding  programmes.  At  the  same  time,  as  recognised  by 
consulted  stakeholders  ‘it  would  be  difficult  to  align  with  all  EU  regions  at  the  same 
time’. For example, some associations highlighted that, as the Baltic Sea differs from the 

that 

135  Like for example with the ESSOR project as reported by OCCAR: OCCAR - NATO ratifies and adopts 

ESSOR High Data Rate Waveform specification as STANAG 5651 NATO HDRWF.  

136  DIANA  is  the  Defence  Innovation  Accelerator  for  the  North  Atlantic,  an  organisation  established  by 

NATO to find and accelerate dual-use innovation capacity across the Alliance. 

53 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Atlantic and the Mediterranean, there are obviously different interests and requirements, 
in particular on research.  

(iii) Coherence with national priorities 

Most  Member  States  have  a  ‘very  positive’  opinion  on  the  efficiency  of  the  EDF 
programming  process  and  a  ‘positive’  opinion  on  the  EDF  strategic  planning  and 
coherence  with  national  priorities137.  Member  States  gave  a  positive  score  on  the  EDF 
work programmes being aligned with national defence planning processes, including 
as  regards  national  R&D  priorities,  capability  development  plans  and  budgetary 
planning.  

Overall,  80%  of  the  Member  States  consider  the  coordination  with  the  Commission 
during the EDF work programme preparation (including the call harmonisation process) 
to be very efficient and a significant improvement from EDIDP, with one Member State 
highlighting  the  ‘efficiency,  transparency,  sophistication  and  inclusiveness’  of  the 
process. Written inputs  further indicate that some R&D projects  funded under the EDF 
and EDIDP are actively embedded in national plans to address national capability needs, 
highlighting the good level of coherence perceived by the Member States138. In addition, 
the Member States have highlighted that the MAP ensures better alignment between EDF 
programming with longer-term defence planning at national level. 

However,  it  was  more  challenging  to  establish  clear  links  between  the  categories  of 
action  and  the  related  amount  of  funding  expected.  In  particular,  half  of  the  Member 
States perceived the one-year programming as too short-term to set up the appropriate 
cooperation  framework  and  prepare  the  national  financial  commitments.  Multiannual 
programming  could  ease  the  administrative  burden  and  provide  more  time  for  Member 
States to better embed national capability needs in the EDF. Nevertheless, the other half 
stated  that  one-year  work  programmes  provided  a  better  overview  and  scrutiny.  To 
facilitate  synchronised  funding  for  cooperative  programmes,  the  defence  industries 
consulted have recommended that ‘Member States could work towards aligning national 
budget cycles’139. The 2023 report from the Court of Auditors on PADR140 stated that the 
lack  of  a  multiannual  planning  document  hampered  the  industry  and  Member  States 
planning  and  recommended  to  consider  the  possibility  to  introduce  either  a  binding 
multiannual perspective or two-year work programmes. 

To  provide  more  predictability  and  transparency,  since  2022  the  Commission  has 
published  an  indicative  multiannual  perspective  (MAP).  The  document  contains 
information  on  the  expected  focus  of  the  EDF  in  the  coming  years,  with  the  aim  of 
facilitating  and  anticipating  planning  for  industry  and  Member  States,  in  particular  for 
large  capability  projects  that  need  to  be  supported  through  several  work  programmes. 
80%  of  the  defence  industries  consulted  welcome  the  MAP  as  a  step  forward  and 
noted  that  it  represents  a  significant  improvement  compared  to  the  precursor 
programmes.  The  Commission  Expert  Group  specifically  highlighted  how  the  MAP 

137  Workshops  with  Member  States  and  Norway  in  the  context  of  the  EDF  interim  evaluation.  Further 

information present in the synopsis report. 

138  A few of these project examples were the iMUGs or FAMOUS and FAMOUS II projects. 
139  Position paper on the EDF by the Commission Expert Group on Defence published on 10 July 2024. 
140  European Court of Auditors, Special Report, 26/04/2023.  

54 

 
 
 
 
 
 
gives a more concrete overview of what is currently under way. The Member States also 
appreciated positively the MAP141.  

To provide further  clarity on the EDF’s  outcomes, the  MAP includes  ‘Main Expected 
Outcomes’ from EDF projects to be launched in the current MFF. However, the defence 
industries consulted highlighted a lack of clarity over Members States’ plans after the 
EDF programming period, including on procurement. Some instead recommended the 
adoption  of  a  multiannual  perspective  that  reflects  not  just  the  EDF’s  programming 
period but also the complete development cycle of the capabilities, with a more detailed 
long-term  agenda  identifying  the  topics  to  be  funded142.  This  would  allow  for  better 
planning  and  ensure  that  the  R&D  supported  by  the  EDF  is  effectively  used  by  the 
Member States' armed forces.  

A multiannual work programme remains the majority recommendation by defence 
industry: this however requires an amendment to the EDF Regulation. In the meantime, 
the Commission provides as many details as possible in the MAP and aims to increase its 
communication channels with the defence industry and with Member States.  

4.1.3.3 Coherence with civil R&D programmes 

From  a  thematic  perspective,  the  following  EDF  categories  of  action  present  strong 
for  synergies  with  civil  R&D  programmes:  cyber  and  digital 
opportunities 
transformation143,  space,  medical  response,  CBRN  &  human  factors,  energy  resilience 
and  environmental  transition,  information  superiority,  disruptive  technologies.  In 
addition,  technologies  developed  under  the  EDF  offer  dual-use  potential,  in  both  the 
thematic and horizontal categories of action.  

(a) Synergies with other EU programmes144 

EU programmes with strong potential for synergies include: 

141  Workshops undertaken with Member States and Norway in the context of the EDF interim evaluation 
with  Member  States  responding  to  the  question  ‘how  would  you  assess  the  overall  added  value  and 
clarity of the MAP?’ (overall average score 7/10). Further information present in the synopsis report-
noting that to preserve confidentiality quotes have been anonymised. 

142  The development of a common strategic long-term planning between Member States and the European 

Commission such as the Aviation Strategy for Europe (2019) was recommended. 

143  For example the EDF project BATTLEPAD will improve security and reliability of end user devices 

such as phone or tablets and benefit both security and defence sectors 

144  Consultations  with  EDF  beneficiaries  (workshop  and  survey  with  large  defence  industry,  SMEs  and 

mid-caps, RTOs) and with think tanks. Further details in the synopsis report. 

55 

 
 
 
 
Figure  10  -  EU  CIVIL  PROGRAMMES  WITH  PINPOINTED  SYNERGIES  ACCORDING  TO  CONSULTED 
DEFENCE INDUSTRY AND THINK TANKS. Source: External Study performed by PwC. 

The following  synergies  between areas falling  under the EDF categories of actions and 
other related EU programmes have been identified during the stakeholders’ consultation, 
as shown in Table 11. 

Table 11 – LEVEL OF POTENTIAL SYNERGIES RATED FROM 0 (VERY LOW POTENTIAL) TO 3 (HIGH 
POTENTIAL). Source: External Study performed by PwC. 

EUDIS spin-in calls as a catalyst for synergies with other EU programmes 

One  of  the  new  EUDIS  measures  since  2023  are  the  spin-in  calls  for  proposals.  These 
calls leverage technologies with dual-use potential from civil EU-funded R&D, enabling 
their  adaptation  to  defence  applications.  So  far,  including  the  2025  EDF  work 
programme, the EDF spin-in calls have addressed the areas of cyber, energy and power 
systems,  high-performance  materials,  electronic  components,  space  and  autonomous 
systems.  Four  EDF  projects  have  been  launched  following  these  calls  for  proposals: 
TRITON,  CALIPSO,  IMMUNE  and  ADMIRABLE,  allowing  the  companies  involved, 
56 

 
 
 
 
previously  active  in  the  civil  market,  to  extend  their  activities  to  the  defence  sector. 
Conversely, EDF project outcomes may generate spill-over effects in other sectors. The 
total amount of EDF spin-in calls for proposals with a clear reference to synergies with 
EU  civilian  programmes  amounts  to  EUR  210  million  up  to  2025.  To  ensure  further 
complementarity  of  the  Commission’s  activities  under  respective  funding  programmes, 
cross  briefings  of  the  EDF  Programme  Committee  have  been  organised145.  This 
improved coordination and raised awareness of possible future synergies.  

Synergies with the EU space programme 

The  EDF  has  funded  projects  which  ensure  complementarity  with  the  EU  space 
programme,  in  particular  the  Global  Navigation  Satellite  System  (GNSS),  the 
Governmental  Satellite  Communication  (GOVSATCOM),  Space  Surveillance  and 
Tracking  Support  (SST)  and  Copernicus.  The  EDF  projects  in  the  space  category  of 
action ensure synergies with the EU space programme by funding the development of 
technologies,  products  and  capabilities  that  will  make  use  of,  complement  or  interface 
with services provided by the EU space programme’s components, for example:  

•  Space  domain  awareness:  INTEGRAL  and  SAURON  (EDIDP  2020)  and  its 
follow-up  EMISSARY  (EDF  2023)  aim  to  develop  a  European  military  capability 
for  space  situational  awareness  and  for  protection  of  space  assets  against  evolving 
threats, and will strengthen the EU SST component of the EU space programme. 
•  GNSS  Positioning,  Navigation  and  Timing:  the  GEODE  (EDIDP  2019  and 
NAVGUARD  (EDF  2021)  will  develop  Galileo  PRS  receivers  for  integration  in 
defence  equipment  as  well  as  capabilities  to  detect  and  geolocate  the  sources  of 
malicious activities in GNSS frequency bands, thus contributing to the resilience of 
the Galileo system and its uptake by the defence community.  

Synergies with Horizon Europe 

While  the  EDF  is  strictly  focused  on  defence  needs,  Horizon  Europe  is  exclusively 
focused  on  civil  applications.  Nonetheless,  R&D  projects’  results  may  develop  into 
technologies with a dual-use potential, either immediately or with some adaptation, even 
if  they  were  originally  intended  and  funded  for  purely  civil  or  defence  applications. 
Civil-defence synergies can be exploited for technologies with dual-use potential, such as 
for  example  cyber,  artificial  intelligence,  and  space.  More  than  20  Horizon  Europe 
projects  have  been  found  to  have  strong  synergies  with  defence146.  Since  2024,  the 
European Innovation Council (EIC) - via its Transition funding scheme, which helps turn 
research outputs into proof-of-concept and beyond - has welcomed spin-in proposals that 
build directly on EDF/PADR results for civil applications. The interconnection between 
both  programmes  is  also  evident  in  the  participation  in  projects  of  many  of  the  same 
stakeholders, which can facilitate the transfer of knowledge and technologies between the 
civil  and  defence  sectors.  Further  actions  could  be  explored  to  support  civil-defence 
synergies, in particular for technologies with dual-use potential.  

145  Different services managing programmes with synergies’ potential have been invited to attend the EDF 

Programme Committees and vice versa. 

146  As an example the MMinE-SwEEPER project funded in 2023 will advance knowledge, capability and 
capacity in Europe for dealing with marine munition in the non-military aspect of UXO-clearance. 
Other projects relate to Clusters 3 – ‘Civil Security for Society’, 4 – ‘Digital, Industry and Space’ and 5 
– ‘Climate, Energy and Mobility’. 

57 

 
 
 
Synergies with Digital Europe 

Synergies  with  Digital  Europe  are  particularly  visible  in  the  cyber  domain  to  avoid 
unnecessary duplication of efforts and to enable an efficient uptake of results. The cyber 
technology  roadmap  prepared  by  the  Commission,  assisted  by  the  EDA  and  in 
consultation with industry and Member States, will continuously monitor synergies and 
provide  inspiration,  where  relevant,  without  affecting  the  decisions  of  the  EDF 
Programme Committee. 

(b) Synergies with wider EU policy initiatives 

This  section  examines  the  coherence  of  EDF  with  wider  policy  initiatives  related  to 
specific  EDF  categories  of  action,  as  well  as  in  the  field  of  critical  technologies.  A 
dedicated section focuses on climate actions, as required by the EDF Regulation.  

EDF contribution to ‘A Europe fit for digital age’ 

The  EDF  supports  31  R&D  projects 
in  the  Cyber  Defence  and  Digital 
Transformation  categories  with  a  cumulated  funding  of  EUR  470  million.  The 
priorities  of  the  EDF  Cyber  category  of  action  and  the  topics  included  in  EDF  work 
programmes address identified capability gaps and are consistent with the CDP Priorities 
(‘Enabling  Capabilities  for  Cyber  Responsive  Operations’).  This  contributes  to  the 
objective of ensuring full-spectrum cyber defence capabilities and a continued coherence 
with emerging strategies and policies in the cyber domain. Certain EDF projects build on 
earlier  EDIDP  projects  such  as  the  EDF  projects  AInception147  and  EU-GUARDIAN148 
which  address  improved  cyber  operations  capabilities  for  response  and  incident 
management.  EDF  projects  support  exploiting  5G  technologies,  improving  defence 
forces’  communication  capabilities,  and  developing  classified  operational  clouds  and 
technologies for a software-defined secure radio. 

EDF contributing to the STEP objectives  

Another  key  EU  initiative  is  the  Strategic  Technologies  for  Europe  Platform  (STEP) 
which  supports  the  European  industry  and  boost  investment  in  critical  technologies  in 
Europe. The EDF is one of the instruments to underpin STEP. At least EUR  375 million 
will  be  earmarked  in  each  EDF  work  programme  from  2024  onwards  (i.e.  at  least 
EUR  1.5  billion  in  total  as  envisaged  in  the  STEP  Regulation)  for  EDF  call  topics 
contributing  to  the  three  STEP  investment  areas:  digital  technologies  and  deep-tech 
innovation, clean and resource-efficient technologies and biotechnologies. The 2024 EDF 
work programme identified 15 actions contributing to STEP objectives with an indicative 
budget of EUR  382 million. This envelope will support future EDF projects contributing 
to the development of defence applications within the scope of STEP, thereby ensuring 
coherence between both initiatives.  

EDF contributing to the Green Deal and climate actions 

The  EDF  supports  9  projects  linked  to  the  EDF  category  of  actions  ‘Energy  resilience 
and  environmental 
including 
considerations on the sustainability of the defence systems and activities developed149. As 

transition’  and  further  EDF  projects  have  been 

147  Further information on the project AInception (AI Framework for Improving Cyber Defence 

Operations). 

148  Further information on the project EU-GUARDIAN (European framework and proofs-of-concept for 

the intelliGent aUtomAtion of cybeR Defence Incident mAnagemeNt). 

149  This  includes  calls  on  Innovative  propulsion  systems  for  Defence  applications  (2023)  or  Energy-

independent and energy-efficient systems for military camps (2024). 

58 

 
 
 
stated in the EDF Regulation150, the EDF aims to contribute to the mainstreaming of 
climate actions and does so by allocating around 4% of the overall EDF budget up 
to 2024 (i.e. around EUR 180 million) to actions linked to the relevant EDF category of 
actions. This budget share is likely to increase in the future as follow-up actions targeting 
higher  TRLs,  therefore  requiring  more  budget,  are  already  envisaged.  These  include 
alternative  propulsion  systems  and  fuels,  sustainable  energy  production  and  storage  for 
military deployed camps.  

In  addition,  there  are  projects  covered  by  several  other  EDF  categories  of  actions  that 
contribute indirectly to climate transition and energy issues, including: 

•  Projects  closely  considering  the  impact  of  the  use  of  military  products  on  the 
environment,  such  as  the  project  Hydrogen  Battlefield  Reconnaissance  and 
Intelligence Drone (HYBRID) which aims to develop drones with reduced impact on 
greenhouse  emissions  and  project  Mine  Risk  Clearance  for  Europe  (MIRICLE) 
which considers the impact of use of drones on the environment. 

•  Under  the  underwater  warfare  category,  projects  considering  underwater  and 
environmental aspects such as new techniques to avoid detonation of sea bottom and 
drifting mines which disturb the maritime environment (wildlife and fauna).  

Project box: Projects demonstrating cross-sectoral links 

-  EDF  project  COUNTERACT 

to  establish  a  network 
countermeasures against CBRN threats such as terror plots; 

to  develop  medical 

-  EDIDP  project  VERTIgO  to  virtualise  training  of  CBRN  military  and  civilian 

respondents; 

-  EDIDP  project  CBRN-RSS  to  enable  reconnaissance,  surveillance  and  incident 

management against CBRN agents;  

-  EDF  project  FACT  to  create  a  common  toolbox  for  improved  resilience  by 

developing an advanced cyber physical test range capability; 

-  EDIDP  project  ECYSAP  and  EDF  project  ECYSAP  EYE  to  provide  a  European 

operational platform on cyber situational awareness for security and defence; 
-  PADR project PYTHIA to map major innovations in civil and defence technology. 

(c) Obstacles to further synergies 

The  main  challenges  to  further  developing  synergies  between  the  EDF  and  other  EU 
programmes depend on the ability, on the one hand, to share technology or capability 
roadmaps and implement them in a timely and complementary manner and, on the 
other hand, to cope with different legal frameworks with different provisions in terms 
of  the  form  of  funding  (e.g.  grants  vs  procurement),  eligibility  conditions,  IPRs  or 
security requirements.  

4.2.  How did the EU intervention make a difference and to whom? 

This  section  assesses  the  value  of  EDF  actions  in  addition  to  what  could  result  from 
interventions at national and/or regional level only.  

The  evaluation  (see  ‘Effectiveness’  assessment)  clearly  showed  that  the  EDF  is 
effectively incentivising EU Member States and Norway to collaborate in developing the 
next  generation  of  defence  technologies,  products  and  capabilities,  many  of  which 
might  be difficult  or  even  impossible  to  achieve  by  a  single  country.  In  a  period  of 
high and increasing defence R&D costs, the EDF plays a critical role as a new source of 

150  Recitals 60 and 61 of Regulation (EU) 2021/697. 

59 

 
 
 
 
R&D funding and by providing a unique collaboration framework. Overall, the Fund 
provides positive structural impact going beyond the EDF budget itself.  

Member States’ representatives confirmed that the EDF allows them to address defence 
needs that could  be prohibitively  expensive to  develop, with  75% stating  that the  EDF 
ranges  from  ‘important  to  extremely  important’  in  having  implemented  projects 
that  could  not  have  been  achieved  purely  at  national/regional  level151.  Furthermore, 
Member  States  highlighted  how  the  EDF  provides  unique  opportunities  also  for 
smaller  Member  States  and  for  countries  with  a  limited  defence  industry  to  have 
their national industry contribute to the development of major EU defence capabilities. 

Considering  the  scale  of  the  EDF  support  in  major  defence  R&D  projects  (e.g.  the 
European  Patrol  Corvette,  Eurodrone),  which  is  larger  than  the  total  annual  R&D 
expenditure  of  most  EU  countries,  it  is  nearly  impossible  for  a  single  country  to 
develop  several  EDF  projects  of  such  magnitude  at  the  same  time.  Similarly,  the 
hypersonic  missile  defence  projects  HYDEF  and  HYDIS2  face  both  high  costs  and 
complex  technical  challenges  that  are  difficult  for  any  Member  State  to  manage 
include  ODIN’S  EYE 
independently.  Other  projects  stressed  by  stakeholders 
(capabilities that have by design an EU-wide dimension), MIRICLE, HGV and ENGRT. 

Project box: What would have happened without the EDF project ODIN’S EYE? 

The  EDF  project  ODIN’s  EYE  II  aims  to  develop  a  European  space-based  missile  early 
warning  architecture.  A  similar  example  to  project  can  be  found  in  the  US  and  its 
development of The Next-Generation Overhead Persistent Infrared (Next-Gen OPIR) 
programme.  With  an  estimated  cost  of  USD 14  billion,  the  project  is  one  of  the  most 
expensive  satellite  procurement  efforts  ever.  As  demonstrated  from  the  programme,  the 
cost and time needed to bring such technology to market uptake and production will likely 
be over a decade and cost billions of euro. No Member State has the financial resources 
or technology knowhow to take on this type of defence R&D alone. The role of the EDF to 
facilitate  and  fund  explorative  defence  R&D  research  is  therefore  critical  to  not  only  for 
boosting the EDTIB but European defence as a whole. Without the EDF, it is unlikely that 
large-scale  defence  R&D  projects  such  as  ODIN’s  EYE  II  would  be  initiated  by 
individual EU countries or even a coalition of states.  

The programme’s additionality (i.e. not displacing or replacing national funding) is very 
strong (EDF funding was categorised as ranging from ‘important to essential’ by 80% of 
consulted beneficiaries).  

Furthermore,  many  Member  States  highlighted  that  they  are  increasingly  taking  into 
consideration the EDF programming cycle in national defence R&D planning processes 
to optimise public defence spending. 

The  EDF’s  impact  on  defence  R&D  has  been  described  unanimously  by  defence 
industry  as  vital,  and  participation  in  EDF  projects  increasingly  seen  to  serve  as  a 
‘European label’, a distinguishing factor likely to grow in importance over the years. The 
Commission Expert Group specifically noted that ‘Projects branded as ‘European’ gain 
traction  and  resources  that  might  otherwise  have  remained  stagnant.’152  EDF’s  added 

151  Workshops undertaken with Member States and Norway in the context of the EDF interim evaluation. 
The question was ‘Do you consider that the EDF contributed to realising projects that could not have 
been  achieved  purely  at  a  national/regional  level due  to high financial/risk  factors?’,  with  an  average 
score of 8/10. 

152  Position paper on the EDF by the Commission Expert Group on Defence published on 10 July 2024. 

60 

 
 
 
 
value  is  further  strengthened  as  R&D  funding  benefits  both  small  and  large  actors 
which have complementary levels of knowledge and expertise in defence industry.  

The importance of EDF for company R&D activities is displayed below:  

Importance EDF funding for company R&D activities 

very essential
38%

no difference
12%

slight
6%

essential
6%

moderately
38%

Figure 11- RESPONSES BY BENEFICIARIES ON HOW ESSENTIAL EDF FUNDING WAS IN 
SUPPORTING THEIR ORGANISATION'S R&D ACTIVITIES153. Source: DG DEFIS 

Main reasons for large industry to apply to the EDF

Competitiveness
9%

Other
2%

Business strategic priorities
9%

Interoperability and 
standardization
7%

Developing new 
technologies and 
competencies
18%

Establishing new 
partnerships, in 
particular cross-
border
21%

Financial support
20%

Market 
opportunities
14%

Figure 12 – LARGE INDUSTRY RESPONSES TO QUESTION: ‘What are the main reasons for large 
defence industry to apply to the EDF?’. Source: DG DEFIS 

153  Consultations with EDF beneficiaries (workshop and survey with large defence industry).  

61 

 
 
 
Project box: A key capability project that would not have otherwise taken place 

The  EDIDP2020  project  SEANICE  explores  new  concepts  in  anti-submarine  warfare  that 
national  navies  have  not  yet  tested.  The  project  was  described  as  not  being  able  to  have 
been carried out purely at national level because the magnitude of budget needed. 

The EDF has been described by SMEs and mid-caps as very relevant  and attractive, as 
demonstrated  by  their  increasing  interest  in  applying  under  EDF  calls.  Throughout 
consultations  with  SMEs  and  mid-caps,  the  EDF  has  been  described  as  successfully 
supporting industry in breaking down a technological problem into smaller steps, to 
identify the roles and interfaces needed for a successful cooperation and implementation, 
and to add in specific expertise in fields not covered by traditional partners.  

Stakeholder box: What are the main reasons for SMEs to apply to the EDF? 

For SMEs and smaller mid-caps, while general drivers apply to stimulate the interest for the 
EDF, additional factors to stimulate interest include:  

- 

- 
- 

the  opportunity  for  networking  and  creating  ties  with  new  partners,  including  in 
particular big industry, which they would not have known otherwise; 
the bonus system for SMEs; 
the  availability  of  measures  incentivising  SMEs  participation,  such  as  the  non-
thematic calls which are best suited for an innovation focus, as well as the EUDIS 
measures overall. 

Academic  stakeholders  have  highlighted  how  the  EDF  provides  strong  support  to 
academia  by  promoting  defence-related  research.  The  EDF  is  gaining  resonance  in 
communities  that  previously  showed  limited  interest  in  defence.  The  EDF  and  similar 
initiatives were not widely known among academic circles in the past, but interest is now 
increasing.  This  growing  attention  is  a  notable  achievement  for  mobilising  the  untaped 
potential within the academic world154.   

4.3. 

Is the intervention still relevant? 

This  section describes whether the EDF is  still relevant  today  and how  well it matches 
the current needs and problems. It also considers how the Fund has adapted to emerging 
and changing priorities.  

4.3.1 Responding to Europe’s needs: an instrument more relevant than ever 

The EDF has been conceived in a different security context. The return of high-intensity 
warfare in Europe, conflicts in the Middle East, Caucasus, Africa etc., coupled with fast 
technological changes, has led to rising security threats since EDF’s adoption. In this new 
geopolitical  context,  the  EDF  original  rationale  for  intervention  and  objectives  to 
strengthen EU’s defence R&D and cross-border cooperation not only remain relevant but 
have become more critical than ever, an opinion shared by all consulted stakeholders.  

A  strong  EU  defence  industry  is  an  essential  prerequisite  to  achieve  defence  readiness. 
As stated by the European Defence Industrial Strategy: ‘… the EDTIB is competitive at 

154  Further  details  in  the  Position  paper  on  the  EDF  by  the  Commission  Expert  Group  on  Defence 
published on 10 July 2024. As an example, research projects like CROWN, ARTURO, TYRESIAS and 
EPICURE  have  brought  together  industrial  partners  and  RTOs  to  develop  cutting-edge  technologies 
that would otherwise lack sufficient innovation potential and national funding. 

62 

 
 
 
 
 
 
global  level,  with  an  estimated  annual  turnover  of  EUR  70  billion  and  strong  export 
volumes (more than EUR 28 billion in 2021). Overall, the EDTIB is estimated to employ 
around  500 000  people…  Notwithstanding  its  overall  competitiveness,  the  EDTIB’s 
ability to unleash its full potential is undermined by years of underinvestment, despite the 
progress  made  over  the  last  years’.  In  this  context,  the  challenges  identified  when 
conceiving the EDF have only gained in importance: 

• 

It  is  widely  accepted  that  only  a  few  EU  Member  States  can  afford  to  develop  the 
most complex systems by themselves, and no country can do so across all domains.  
•  There  is  little  evidence  that  EU  countries  are  in  a  position  to  increase  their  R&D 
budgets sufficiently to be on an equal footing with other defence leading nations155. 
•  At the same time, public support for an increased defence cooperation at EU level is 

increasing, with 78% of Europeans in favour of more cooperation156. 

The  increasing  relevance  of  the  EDF  is  also  confirmed  by  its  growing  attractiveness. 
There  is  a  constant  increase  in  proposals  submitted  under  the  EDF  calls  for  proposals. 
Starting  in  2021  with  140  proposals,  the  2024  calls  attracted  nearly  300  proposals,  an 
increase of 25% in addition to the substantial increase of 78% in 2023.  

In terms of the relevance of the priorities established under the EDF work programmes, 
the  Fund  has  been  able  to  make  programming  choices  that  are  considering  both 
existing and emerging military needs of the Member States. As the EDF is expected 
to  help  fill  capability  gaps,  consultations  with  the  defence  industry  highlighted  many 
projects  addressing  agreed  capability  gaps  in  Europe.  At  least  60%  of  the  EDF  budget 
spent  so  far  supports  the  development  of  key  high-end  capabilities,  further  underlining 
the  coherence  of  the  EDF  with  EU-level  priorities.  In  addition,  the  vast  majority  the 
defence industries consulted assessed the EDF as coherent or mostly complementary with 
other national defence initiatives. 

The EDF also demonstrated its relevance in its ability to accommodate both large-scale 
and small-scale actions. While some Member States noted that EDF should focus on a 
more  limited  number  of  large-scale  projects,  others  noted  that  supporting  smaller-scale 
actions  should  also  be  kept  promoting  wider  inclusiveness.  However,  consulted  large 
industry pointed out that the resulting balance led to funding a high number of projects 
thus  affecting the ability of the EDF to  fund the  development  of major next-generation 
capabilities  in  parallel.  In  this  context,  defence  industry  and  most  Member  States 
underlined the importance of increasing the EDF budget to maintain a suitable and 
relevant balance in the long run157.  

4.3.2 Addressing emerging and changing priorities 

Recent military conflicts have given prominence to ‘new ways of warfighting’ and focus 
on  specific  capability  development  vectors  while,  at  the  same  time,  accelerating  pre-

155 EDA defence data 2023 show that the EU-27 have increased their R&D spending by 15% since 2021, to 
amount to EUR 10.7 billion. As a comparison, the US spends more than 10 times as much as the EU on 
defence R&D.  

156 https://europa.eu/eurobarometer/surveys/detail/3215 (Autumn 2024) 
157  The  Commission  Expert  Group  estimated  that  based  on  political  commitments  and  benchmarks 
established by Member States in the context of NATO (2% of GDP expended in defence and 20% of it 
in  R&D),  PESCO  and  the  EDA,  and  even  including  the  EDF  budget,  the  collective  defence  R&D 
investment expenditure in the EU presents a deficit of EUR 3.1 billion in 2022. They recommended an 
overall increase of the defence R&D investment expenditure of EUR 9.4 billion per year, which should 
be covered by an increase in the investment of the Member States, allowing also for an increase in the 
annual budget of EDF for the period 2028-34. 

63 

 
 
 
existing trends. This is the case for example for the development and use of unmanned 
platforms,  air  and  missile  defence,  in  the  space  and  cyber  domain.  The  EDF  work 
programmes  successfully  address  these  emerging  and  changing  priorities,  for 
example:  

•  The  priorities  addressed  by  the  ‘Air  and  missile  defence’  category  of  action  have 
evolved in response to the growing importance of this area, ranging from interception 
of swarms of small drones (counter-unmanned aircraft system capabilities) to ballistic 
missiles (endo-atmospheric interceptor) and hypersonic glide vehicles. The associated 
cumulative  budget  increased  from  EUR 100  million  in  2021  to  EUR 301  million  in 
2024, strengthening air and missile defence in Europe.  
In  the  ‘Ground  combat’  category,  the  war  in  Ukraine  confirmed  the  importance  of 
high-precision  weaponry  leading  to  the  allocating  of  EUR  30  million  to  intelligent 
weaponry and ammunition systems in the 2024 EDF work programme.  

• 

•  Under ‘Force protection and mobility’, the 2023 EDF work programme addressed the 
strategic air transportation of outsized cargo to address a key capability gap further 
exaggerated by the unavailability of the Antonov transport fleet. 

Furthermore,  certain  topics  which  initially  had  lower  funding  received  increasing 
importance  over  time.  For  example,  the  ‘underwater  warfare’  category  –  with  the 
growing dependence on underwater infrastructure like gas pipelines or internet cables  – 
received  greater  attention.  This  reprioritisation  aligns  with  the  EDF’s  broader  goal  of 
balancing long-term innovation with the demands of the current security context.  

Following  the  Russian  aggression  in  Ukraine,  the  EDF  has  proven  to  be  a  relevant 
instrument  also  to  foster  the  progressive  integration  of  the  Ukrainian  defence 
industry  in  the  EDTIB  and  introduced  mechanisms  to  enable  the  participation  of 
Ukrainian  entities  into  specific  actions.  While  under  the  EDF  Regulation  Ukrainian 
entities can only participate in projects as associated partners (thereby not receiving EDF 
funding)  or  as  providers  of  goods,  works  or  services  needed  to  carry  out  EDF  projects 
(though  the  purchase  cannot  constitute  a  core  action  task),  the  following  actions  have 
been taken to adapt the EDF to the new reality and involve Ukrainian entities. 

•  Third  parties  that  can  benefit  from  cascade  funding  (possibility  offered  in  specific 

EDF call topics) have been extended to Ukrainian entities.  

•  EUDIS hackathons and mentoring programme (participants and mentors) are open to 

• 

Ukrainian participation. 
In  the  EUDIS  matchmaking,  entities  can  be  established  or  subject  to  control  by 
Ukraine or Ukrainian entities. 

5.  WHAT ARE THE CONCLUSIONS AND LESSONS LEARNED? 

The results of this interim evaluation will help improve the implementation of the EDF in 
the remaining years and inform the design of the future MFF defence R&D programme. 
This section summarises the key findings and outlines issues for future consideration.  

5.1 Conclusions 

The  EDF  has  successfully  brought  together  defence  R&D  under  a  single,  long-term 
programme,  contributing  to  a  coherent  EU  defence  R&D  landscape.  While  EDF 
projects  have  not  yet  had  the  time  to  produce  the  full  set  of  outcomes,  results  and 
impacts,  it  is  already  evident  that  the  Fund  led  to  more  effective  support  throughout 
the  entire  capability  development  cycle  and  has  fostered  strong  cross-border 
cooperation, leading to efficiency gains.  

64 

 
 
As the programme evolves, the Commission has continuously integrated lessons learned. 
This  has  led  to  a  continuous  simplification  of  the  programme’s  implementation,  with 
stakeholders  highlighting  the  efficiency  of  the  instrument,  while  recommending  an 
increased budget and specific improvements for the future. Furthermore, macroeconomic 
projections  suggest  that  the  EU’s  economic  growth  and  supply  chains  stand  to  gain 
significantly  from  the  EDF,  with  anticipated  benefits  for  GDP,  employment  and  an 
overall positive impact on the competitiveness of the EDTIB. 

The EDF has effectively achieved its short-term success indicators. It has stimulated 
increased  defence  R&D  across  the  EU,  with  stakeholders  specifically  noting  the  added 
value  of  EDF-funded  projects,  which  would  not  have  materialised  without  EU 
intervention.  The  programme  has  attracted  the  best  defence  R&D  players,  as  well  as 
many  non-traditional  stakeholders.  It  has  been  successful  in  finding  the  right  balance 
between  long-term,  complex  capabilities  projects  and  opportunities  for  defence 
innovation  by  smaller  players,  including  non-traditional  players  from  across  Europe. 
Given  the  early  stage  of  EDF  implementation,  more  evidence  about  its  results  and 
longer-term impacts will be available in its final evaluation due by 31 December 2031. 

With  an  average  annual  budget  of  around  EUR 1.1  billion,  the  EDF  is  on  track  to 
achieve its medium- and longer-term objectives. It is expected to produce large-scale 
impact,  with  over  50  prototypes  for  next-generation  capabilities  in  all  military 
domains – air, ground, naval, space, cyber – expected to be developed with EDF support. 
In  addition,  many  EDF  projects  pave  the  way  for  the  development  of  defence 
technologies  and  products  for  which  Europe  is  currently  fully  dependent  on  third 
countries. A set of products or technologies developed under the  EDF and its precursor 
programmes  are  reaching  the  procurement  stage  or  have  shown  potential  for  market 
uptake. The first project outcomes from precursor programmes (and some from the EDF) 
have  begun  entering  the  EU  Member  States’  armed  forces  providing  critical 
capabilities, and some are already used successfully by the Ukrainian armed forces. The 
fund has also successfully adapted by addressing new and emerging priorities.  

Overall,  the  programme  is  being  implemented  effectively  and  efficiently.  Compared  to 
the  EDF  precursor  programmes,  stakeholders  noted  significant  improvements  and 
efficient functioning of the programme. The EDF has been successful in strengthening 
cross-border  collaboration,  attracting  an  increasing  number  of  applicants  and 
beneficiaries  by  supporting  a  broad  array  of  capabilities,  fostering  innovation  and 
considering the specific needs of SMEs and mid-caps. Simplified processes compared to 
the precursor programmes and strong communication and outreach to stakeholders have 
been  particularly  well-received.  However,  there  is  still  room  for  improvement, 
particularly  in  ensuring  co-financing  and  bigger  certainty  in  the  procurement  of  end 
products. 

The majority of the Member States’ representatives consulted regard the priority-setting 
instruments  for  EDF  programming  as  highly  relevant.  The  EDF  annual  work 
programmes, which are prepared with the Member States, are highly coherent with other 
priority-setting  initiatives  at  both  EU,  national  and  regional  level.  The  use  of  NATO 
standards  in  EDF  projects  promotes  standardisation  and  interoperability,  with 
beneficiaries  already  pointing  to  a  ‘snowball  effect’.  Although  not  all  initiatives  under 
EUDIS  can  be  fully  assessed  yet,  the  defence  industry  and  research  organisations  have 
shown strong interest, including in the spin-in calls, highlighting cross-sectoral links.  

The EDF’s added value in developing defence R&D projects that could not have been 
undertaken at  national  level  is  universally  accepted. The assessment  confirmed that the 
EDF  EU  added  value  is  very  high  compared  to  what  could  be  achieved  at  national  or 

65 

 
 
regional  level  as  many  of  the  actions  supported  exceed  the  financial  and  technical 
capacities of a single Member State.  

The evaluation has shown that the relevance of the programme is unquestioned and that 
its original rationale for intervention and objectives remain valid and more relevant than 
ever. The Fund has proven to be flexible in adapting to new emerging needs.  

5.2 Lessons learned and areas for improvement 

Significant  improvements  have  already  been  made  to  the  EDF  in  the  light  of  lessons 
learned from the PADR and the EDIDP, continuous consultation with stakeholders, and 
evolving  EU  policy  objectives.  The  ability  of  the  EDF  to  respond  and  integrate 
improvements over time and to adapt to emerging new challenges and priorities has 
proven to be one of its key strengths.  

While  the  EDF  has  been  successful  in  meeting  its  objectives,  there  are  areas  for 
improvement  that  need  to  be  further  addressed  in  the  short  and  longer  term,  both 
through non-legislative adjustments and as a basis for preparing the next MFF defence 
industry programme(s). 

Effectiveness:  

•  Need  for  further  reflections  on  how  to  provide  appropriate  funding  for  complex 
and costly capabilities, while ensuring the right balance in supporting smaller and 
innovative projects and maintaining the inclusivity of beneficiaries.  

•  Need for reflection on how to better ensure the continuity of effort from lower to 
high  TRL  levels/prototyping. Going  further,  ways  to  ensure  continuity  between 
R&D,  industrialisation,  ramp-up  and  procurement  (as  pursued  by  EDIP)  should  be 
explored  for  the  future,  including  e.g.  concepts  of  overarching  project  roadmaps  to 
optimise timely project outcomes throughout all these phases.  

•  Need  for  stronger  support  for  defence  innovation  and  reflections  on  how  to 
ensure faster and leaner funding cycles to integrate innovative defence solutions, 
also in the context of the next MFF programme. 

•  Need to build further on the outreach and awareness activities, while strengthening 

the focus on newcomers in the defence sector and research organisations.  

•  Need to  closely  monitor the EDIP negotiations and, in  light  of the outcome, ensure 
the  industrialisation,  production  and  (common)  acquisition  of  EDF  project 
results. 

Efficiency: 

•  Scope  for  further  focus  sessions  on  the  difficulties  reported  by  the  defence 
industry in materialising the required co-financing for development  actions with 
Member States and Norway. 

•  Need for reflection on how to use the full potential of the Transfers Directive (also 
in light of its interim evaluation) as the facilitation of transfers of defence items is an 
important factor for the final stages of the industrial life cycle.  

•  Scope  to  adopt  further  support  measures  and  best  practices  in  order  to  facilitate 
information  exchange  with  applicants  and  beneficiaries  on  security  clearance, 
personnel security clearance and the handling of classified information (in particular 
for SMEs and research organisations).  

•  Assess  how  to  carry  on  simplifying  EDF  implementation  and  reduce  further 
administrative burden. Reflect on the use of the effectiveness of the bonus system, 

66 

 
 
the complexity of the award criteria, as well as how to mitigate the possibility of the 
defence industry forming unmanageable large consortia.  

•  Scope to intensify efforts to ensure access to finance for the defence sector.  

•  Continuously improve EDF data monitoring and tracking arrangements, including in 
view  of  the  data  required  for  the  final  evaluation  of  the  programme  pursuant  to 
Article 29 (3) of the EDF Regulation. 

Coherence:  

•  Scope to intensify further the cooperation with EDA and EEAS/EUMS in order to 
use the full potential of defence tools as input for defining EDF work programmes. 

•  Need to assess the possibilities for multiannual programming in the future, and in 
the  meantime  provide  detailed  information  in  the  MAP  and  further  discuss  and 
explain it via outreach activities.  

•  Together  with  the  EDA  and  EEAS/EUMS,  need  to  monitor  the  changes  in  2025 

which would aim to better assess the link with PESCO projects. 

•  Need  for  continued  assessment  of  how  to  further  strengthen  synergies  on  the 
civilian  side  with  defence  and  other  policies  and  strategic  sectors  (e.g.  Horizon 
Europe,  EU  space  programme,  EU  secure  connectivity  programme,  Digital  Europe 
programme). 

The EDF’s added value and relevance:  

•  Given the deteriorating security situation in the world and the significant increase in 
demand by both Member States and industry, the need to set an appropriate budget 
for future successor programme(s) under the next MFF.  

•  Need  to  reflect  on  how  to  strengthen  the  involvement  of  Ukraine  in  the 
development  and  funding  of  new  R&D,  as  well  as  the  possible  involvement  of 
Ukraine-based legal entities in future defence R&D.  

Programme monitoring and reporting arrangements: 

•  Need for further reflections, including through closer collaboration with the EDA and 
Eurostat, on how best to capture quantitatively over time signals on the effects of 
the programme for the beneficiaries ahead of the final evaluation of the EDF given 
data  availability  and  confidentiality  issues,  the  long-term  nature  of  the  investments 
and  the  lack  of  comparable  programmes  for  benchmarking.  This  must  be  balanced 
with  data  quality  and  simplification  objectives,  avoiding  overburdening  the 
beneficiaries  thanks  to  a  better  use  of  IT  tools  for  data  collection  and  streamlining 
data reporting needs based on the programme objectives. 

67 

 
 
 
 
Annexes to the Interim Evaluation of the European Defence Fund 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Table of Contents 

ANNEX I.   PROCEDURAL INFORMATION ............................................................................................. 1 
ANNEX II. METHODOLOGY AND ANALYTICAL MODELS USED ..................................................... 4 
ANNEX III. EVALUATION MATRIX  (BY CRITERION) ....................................................................... 15 
ANNEX IV. OVERVIEW OF BENEFITS AND COSTS ............................................................................ 20 
ANNEX V. STAKEHOLDERS CONSULTATION - SYNOPSIS REPORT .............................................. 24 
ANNEX VI. LESSONS LEARNED FROM PADR AND EDIDP ............................................................... 55 
ANNEX VII. RETROSPECTIVE EVALUATION OF THE EDIDP .......................................................... 56 
ANNEX VIII. LIMITATIONS OF THE EDF INTERIM EVALUATION .................................................. 73 

 
 
 
 
ANNEX I.   PROCEDURAL INFORMATION  

(Decide 

interim  evaluation  of 

the  European  Defence  Fund 

The 
reference: 
PLAN/2023/1621) has been developed under the lead of DG DEFIS, under the guidance 
of  a  dedicated  interservice  group  (ISG)  established  in  October  2023  and  composed  of 
representatives of 16 Commission DGs and services (BUDG, CNECT, COMP, ECFIN, 
ENER, ENV, GROW, HERA, HOME, JRC, MARE, MOVE, SANTE, SG, SJ, TRADE) 
and the EEAS/EUMS. 
The ISG met in November 2023 to discuss the expectations of participating services, the 
working  methods  of the  ISG  and the draft  call for evidence. The call for  evidence was 
then  published  in  January  2024  for  four  weeks  and  received  30  individual  replies 
(presented  in  Annex  5),  thereby  officially  kick-starting  the  stakeholder  consultation 
process. A second ISG meeting was held in March 2024 focused on the outcomes of the 
closed “Call for Evidence”, discussed the draft Stakeholder Consultation Strategy and the 
draft  Terms  of  Reference  for  a  contractor.  The  ISG  met  again  in  July  2024  for  a  third 
meeting  where  DEFIS  provided  an  update  to  the  Group  regarding  timelines  on  the 
interim evaluation process, the progress on the targeted stakeholder consultations and on 
the  support  activities  conducted  by  the  external  contractor.    During  the  fourth  ISG 
meeting in October 2024, a consultative discussion was held with its members to enable 
an  exchange  of  views  on  EDF  synergies  with  other  Commission  programmes  and 
defence-related initiatives. During the fifth meeting, the draft interim evaluation (SWD) 
was  presented  and  discussed  with  the  Group  before  submission  to  the  Regulatory 
Scrutiny Board (RSB). 
Further information detailing the evidence used in the evaluation (including sources and 
data quality as well as external expertise), as well as information about the stakeholders’ 
involvement, is available in Annex II. 
This  evaluation  has  been  selected  for  scrutiny  by  the  Commission  Regulatory  Scrutiny 
Board (RSB). The outcome of the scrutiny was  the issuance of  a  positive opinion  with 
reservations, following  a dedicated meeting on 30 April 2025. The table  demonstrating 
how RSB comments were addressed is present below. 

logic 

to  ensure 

Points to improve signalled by Regulatory 
Scrutiny Board 
The  report  should  review  the  programme’s 
intervention 
the  European 
Defence  Fund's  (EDF)  specific  objectives  are 
sufficiently operationalised to be precise enough 
and  measurable.  The  report  should  reconstruct 
the  intervention  logic  to  include  causal  links 
between  its  elements,  allowing  for  a  better 
assessment of the programme's progress towards 
success,  thereby  preparing  the  ground  for  the 
final  evaluation.  Against  this  backdrop,  the 
report  should  discuss 
the 
indicators set out in the Regulation’s Annex and 
the  programme’s  monitoring  and  evaluation 
framework  to  ensure  they  are  fit  for  future 
monitoring and capable of providing meaningful 
results  at  the  time  of  the  final  evaluation.  This 
includes  assessing  the  framework's  ability  to 

the  validity  of 

1 

Changes to the Staff Working Document 

information  provided  on 

The  relevant  section  has  been  updated,  incl. 
further 
the  data 
limitations,  the  intervention  logic  chart  is  now 
accompanied  by  a  narrative  spelling  out  its 
elements and causal links (Section 2.1). 
Additional  information  on  EU  defence  industrial 
sector  at  the  moment  of  EDF  set-up  added  in 
Section 2.1. 
More  details  added  on 
the  monitoring  and 
evaluation  framework’s  role  in  support  of  this 
evaluation (Section 3.1, before the data table) 
Lessons  learned  section  includes  more  details 
regarding 
future 
the  need  of  evidence 
evaluations,  incl.  for  more  measurable  indicators, 
data  needs  for  analyses  etc.  (section  Conclusions 
and Lessons learned) 

for 

 
 
that 

efficiency 

analysis 
are 

its  wide  reliance  on 

the  programming  and 

and 
conclusions) 

Points to improve signalled by Regulatory 
Scrutiny Board 
track  the  programme's  progress  and  propose 
possible  adjustments.  The  findings  on  evidence 
gaps  on  monitoring  and  reporting  arrangements 
should be reflected in the conclusions section. In 
the  lessons  learned  section  of  the  report  an 
analysis should be included whether and how the 
indicators  in  the  Regulations’  Annex  and  the 
monitoring and evaluation framework should be 
amended. 
The  report  should  better  link  the  findings  with 
the  corresponding  evidence  and  analytical 
methods.  Given 
the 
the  report  should 
stakeholder  consultations, 
transparently  present  views 
from  different 
groups  and  data  from  all  affected  parties, 
including  non-participants  to  the  programme 
whose  feedback  can  provide  valuable  insights 
implementation 
into 
shortcomings 
Further,  the  report  should  review  the  parts  of  the 
(and 
effectiveness 
based 
corresponding 
inappropriately on the macroeconomic projections of 
the  Rhomolo  model,  which  –  being  an  ex-ante 
methodology  – 
for 
demonstrating  benefits  in  retrospective  evaluations. 
The unsuitability of this model is further accentuated 
by  the  numerous  specificities  of  the  defence  sector 
which  are  not  adequately  considered  by  the  model. 
Instead,  the  report  at  this  stage  should  establish 
effectiveness  and  efficiency  using  other  methods, 
complementing 
indicators  with  a 
comparison  with  the  preprogramme  situation  in  the 
defence  industry  and  the  national  approach  to  R&D 
in  the  sector,  benchmarking  against  earlier  projects 
or approaches and/or explaining the limitations of the 
possible  points  of  comparison.  The  report  should 
the 
assess  key 
programme such as allocation of bonus points in the 
project  selection  phase.  Anecdotal  evidence  and 
flagship  achievements,  e.g.  around  the  prototypes 
envisaged and under development within the pipeline 
of ongoing projects should be used to a greater extent 
to build the case as potential indicators of the future 
programme’s  success.  The  report  should  also  better 
present  the  nature  and  results  of  the  increased 
cooperation  and  multinational  partnerships 
in 
innovation,  discussing  value  added  of  reduced 
fragmentation  and 
increased  convergence  and 
impacts on competitiveness of the sector. 
Regarding  efficiency,  the report  should  consider the 
costs  associated  with 
and  project 
coordination  accruing  to  the  stakeholders.  It  should 
2 

implementing  modalities  of 

is  conceptually  misplaced 

the  output 

reporting 

Changes to the Staff Working Document 

The  relevant  section  has  been  updated  (Section 
2.1).  
Additional  information  added on reasons  for non-
participation 
(section 
Effectiveness)  

non-beneficiaries 

of 

the  draft  SWD,  as  well  as 

the  Efficiency 
The  Introduction  section  and 
section  of 
the 
accompanying  Commission  report  have  been 
updated  to  significantly  reduce  the  reliance  and 
references to the outcome of the JRC study (based 
on  the  Rhomolo  model)  on  the  expected  macro-
economic benefits of the EDF.  
References  added  to  the  important  limitations  of 
the model at the interim evaluation stage.  

Further clarification added on the lack of complete 
data  on  costs  associated  with  EDF  engagement 

 
 
 
Changes to the Staff Working Document 

(section Efficiency) 

The  issue  of  agility  and  reactiveness  towards 
challenging  priorities  is  addressed  in  a  dedicated 
section, including  through the lens of the Russian 
aggression 
against  Ukraine,  Section  4.3.2 
Addressing emerging and changing priorities. 

Further  explanations  on 
stakeholders’  feedback 
reliance on the source (Section 2.2.). 

the 
to  support 

importance  of 
the  heavy 

further 

analysis 

elaborates 

Additional adjustments include (main parts):  
The 
the 
on 
interconnection between EDF and Horizon Europe 
(Section 4.1.3.3.) 
Additional  examples  and  analysis  on  the  point  of 
interoperability  and  interchangeability  included. 
(Sec. 4.1.1.2 (a)) 
Section  on  newcomers  moved  from  Efficiency  to 
Effectiveness.  
Additional  evidence  inserted  to  clarify  the  notion 
of reduced market uncertainty (Sec. 4.1.1.2 (b)) 
Additional  analysis  to  explain  the  reasons  on 
timeframe between preparation and GAP. 
More  information  about  the  Commission  Expert 
Group  on  Defence,  composition  and  role  added. 
(Section Introduction) 
Specific references added in Lessons learned with 
regards to the functioning of the bonus system and 
the complexity of the award criteria. 
In Annex 5, Synopsis Report shortened. 

justified  potential 

Points to improve signalled by Regulatory 
Scrutiny Board 
discuss  the  lead  time  of  its  programming  phases, 
accentuating  the  adequacy  of  the  framework  and 
identifying 
improving 
efficiency.  The  report  should  assess  to  what  extent 
the  programme  allows  for  sufficient  agility  and 
reactivity  in  the  evolving  dynamic  geopolitical 
context  with  quickly  emerging  needs,  notably 
through  the  lens  of  the  Russian  war  of  aggression 
against Ukraine. 

for 

The  report  should  draw  conclusions,  reflecting 
the outcome of the analysis of the programme’s 
functioning,  paving  the  way  for  the  necessary 
adjustments. 
Some  more  technical  comments  have  been  sent 
directly to the author Service 

3 

 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX II. METHODOLOGY AND ANALYTICAL MODELS USED 

European Commission services 

As  the  lead  service  implementing  the  European  Defence  Fund  (EDF),  DG  DEFIS 
conducted  the  interim  evaluation  process,  including  its  planning,  execution  and  report 
drafting. In support to DG DEFIS, an Inter-Service Group (ISG) (see Annex 1) was set 
up.  The  activities  of  the  Group  started  in  November  2023  and  a  total  of  five  meetings 
were held.  
External Contractor 
DG  DEFIS  engaged  the  services  of  an  external  contractor  to  support  with  targeted 
consultation activities and to obtain third-party expert views and analyses on the subject 
matter.  The  consortium  involved  consulting  firm  PwC  as  consortium  leader  and 
European research institutes IAI, IRIS and SIPRI as partners. The contractor contributed 
to  organise  3  stakeholder  consultations  through  workshops  with  industry  beneficiaries, 
academia and think-tanks. Additional support was provided in drafting questionnaires to 
the ENDR network, regional organisations, non-EDF beneficiaries (more on the outcome 
of such consultations are to be found in the Synopsis Report). The contractor performed 
subsequent analyses based on a triangulation of evidence stemming from all stakeholder 
consultations, open desk research and targeted research pieces elaborated in the context 
of the study. The final outcome of the study can be found here. 
DEFIS Expert Group – Sub-Group on Defence 
On  30  April  2021,  DG  DEFIS  set  up  a  Commission  Expert  Group  on policies  and 
programmes relevant to EU space, defence and aeronautics industry. This expert group, 
in its defence configuration, comprises around 60 members including defence companies, 
research  organisations  and  NGOs.  In  their  advisory  role,  the  group  provided  input 
relevant to EDF programme interim evaluation. In the context of the 8th meeting of the 
subgroup, the Expert Group presented and delivered to  DG DEFIS a  detailed report  on 
the  EDF  Interim  Evaluation  focused  on  the  effectiveness,  efficiency,  coherence,  added 
value  and  relevance  of  the  EDF.    This  has  been  a  very  valuable  input  to  examine  the 
views of the European defence industrial ecosystem and to obtain written analyses of best 
practices and recommendations for the future.  
Joint Research Center (JRC) 

The  Joint  Research  Center  (JRC)  also  supported  DG  DEFIS  with  statistical  and 
econometric  activities  by  delivering  a  macroeconomic  Cost-Benefit  Analysis  on  the 
European Defence Fund, computed using the Rhomolo General Equilibrium model. The 
full report can be found here158. This has been used as key input for an ex-ante assessment 
of the Fund’s economical and societal impact. 
Other studies carried out in support to the EDF interim evaluation 

As  part  of  the  external  contractors  tasking,  six  research  pieces  were  written  to  provide 
complementary analyses on specific thematic areas. These research pieces are as follows 
and can be found here:  

•  Industrial  &  Technological  autonomy:  This  paper  investigated  how  well  the 
EDF  increased  the  Union’s  industrial  and  technological  autonomy,  and  the 

158  Casas,  P.,  Christou,  T.,  García  Rodríguez,  A.,  Lazarou,  N.J.,  and  Salotti,  S. (2025).  The  RHOMOLO 
macroeconomic impact assessment of the European Defence Fund 2021-2027. MPRA Working Paper. 

4 

 
 
amount funded by EDF on key technologies and capabilities for defence vs. the 
amount funded globally on key technologies and capabilities for defence. 

•  Reduction of Risks: This paper investigated whether the EDF was an enabler to 
reduce  risks  and  costs  to  engage  in  collaborative  defence  activities,  both  in  the 
research  and  developments  phases  (concerning  the  defence  industry  and  lack  of 
previous cooperation), and which risks industry would have had to face had there 
not been the EDF existing. 

•  Inclusiveness  of  the  Fund:  This  paper  investigated  the  differences  in  level  of 
participation  of  the  EDF  and  provides  a  mapping  of  beneficiaries  based  on 
size/type/country of establishment. It relies on the analysis of position papers and 
questionnaires  to  respond  to  the  question  on  whether  the  EDF  created  a  strong 
basis for industrial cooperation by detailing project examples and on inputs from 
the workshops with mid-caps and SMEs.  

•  Relevance  of  the  EDF:  This  paper  investigated  how  the  relevance  of  the  EDF 
has changed both by analysing the reasons for the change in relevance given the 
current geopolitical context. 

•  Adaptations  in  the  future:  This  paper  addresses  the  question  of  how  the  EDF 
could or should be adapted in the future to prepare for challenges such as those 
presented in the European Defence Industrial Strategy (EDIS). 

•  Analysis  of  the  EDIDP:  This  paper  addresses  the  question  of  EDIDP  lessons 
learned, using as baseline the objectives in Article 3 of its Regulation and assess 
to which extent these objectives have been met. It also addresses how the EDIDP 
acted as a precursor programme to EDF.  

Internal sources of data collection  

Internal  sources  of  information  were  used  to  determine  the  monitoring  information 
requested  as  part  of  the  EDF  interim  evaluation  pursuant  to  Article  29  (2).  This 
information can be found in section 3.2 of the Staff Working Document. 

The  cut-off  date  of  data  collection  was  July  2024,  in  line  with  the  EDF  Regulation. 
Where relevant, more up-to-date information was used (e.g. information related to EDF 
Work Programme 2025 dated January 2025). 

Documentary review / desk research  

A  thorough  analysis  of  existing  documentation  from  European  Commission  relevant 
policy  papers  was  undertaken  to  gather  foundational  knowledge  and  corroborate 
evidence,  as  shown  in  Table  1  below.  This  involved  examining  a  range  of  documents, 
including statutory texts, strategic plans, prior evaluations, and policy assessments. 

5 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
TABLE 1 - RELEVANT EU POLICY DOCUMENTS 

2024 

2023 

2022 

2021 

2018 

2017 

TOPIC 

Mission 
Letter of 
Commission
er Kubilius 

Court of 
Auditors 
Report  

EU Strategic 
Compass 

Defence 
Investment 
Gaps 
Analysis & 
Way 
Forward 

Roadmap: 
Critical 
technologie
s for 
security and 
defence 

EC 
Contribution 
to European 
Defence 

Synergies 
between 
civil, 
defence and 
space  

EDF Impact 
Assessment 

EDIDP Ex 
ante 
Evaluation 

Strengthening of 
Budget 
Coordinating 
Procurement 
Procedures 
Long-term 
strategy for EDF 
Less Time from 
Idea to 
Implementation 
EDF Bonus 
System  
Integration with 
Member 
States/Industries/
EU defence 
initiatives   
Synergies 
between civil, 
defence and 
space industries 
Focus on SMEs 

Innovation & 
Critical 
Technologies 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

JRC Cost-Benefit Analysis - Rhomolo Model  

As  mentioned  above  in  Annex  1,  JRC  services  elaborated  a  study  presenting  a 
macroeconomic  impact  assessment  of  the  European  Defence  Fund  (EDF)  expenditure 
planned  for  the  programming  period  2021-2027.  The  analysis  was  carried  out  with  the 
spatial dynamic computable general equilibrium model known as Rhomolo. 

The EDF data used in the analysis was provided by DG DEFIS and the main features are 
summarised  here.  The  total  amount  spent  in  the  European  Union  (EU)  is  €7,051.66 
million for the programming period 2021-2027. A more precise time profile of the actual 
expected expenditure over the period was provided as shown in  Table 2. This  payment 
profile is calculated assuming that projects start in January 2023, last around 3 years, and 
payments are made every 18 months with the following shares: 55%, 35%, and 10%). 

TABLE 2 - TIME PROFILE OF THE EDF EXPENDITURE (€ MILLION). SOURCE: DG DEFIS 

Year 

2021  2022 

2023 

2024 

2025 

2026 

2027 

2028 

2029 

2030 

2031 

Indicative 
Payment 
profile 

562.78  901.80  998.66  998.66  998.66  998.66  998.66  465.91  127.86 

6 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Additional  information  provided  by  DG  DEFIS  shows  that  92.7%  of  the  funds  are 
directed to the private sector (funding R&D activities in science and technology  – M-N 
sector, in the NACE Rev. 2 classification, see also Table 2) and 7.3% to the public sector.  

The  Rhomolo  model  is  calibrated  using  data  organised  in  a  multi-regional  system  of 
Social  Accounting  Matrices  (SAMs)  of  the  NUTS-2  regions  of  the  EU27  (García 
Rodríguez et al., 2023). DG DEFIS also provided NUTS-2 level data distribution of EDF 
funding received so far by beneficiaries, thereby enabling a more accurate simulation. 

Below are found more detailed tables on the conclusions of the JRC study, as referenced 
in the interim evaluation report. 

NACE  Rev.  2 
Code 

Definition  

A 

B-E 

C 

F 

G-I 

J-K 

L 

M_N 

O-Q 

R-U 

Agriculture, forestry and fishing 

Industry (except construction) 

Manufacturing 

Construction 

Wholesale  and  retail  trade,  transport,  accommodation  and  food 
service activities 

Information and communication, Financial and insurance activities 

Real estate activities 

Professional,  scientific  and  technical  activities;  administrative  and 
support service activities 

Public  administration,  defence,  education,  human  health  and  social 
work activities 

Arts,  entertainment  and  recreation;  other  service  activities;  activities 
of household and extra-territorial organizations and bodies 

TABLE  3  -  ECONOMIC  SECTORS 
SIMULATIONS 

IN  RHOMOLO  (NACE  REV.  2  CLASSIFICATION)  SOURCE:  JRC  RHOMOLO 

7 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table  4  shows  the  impact  of  the  EDF  investments  on  i)  EU  GDP  expressed  as  % 
differences  from  the  baseline;  ii)  the  impact  in  EUR  million  per  year  (obtained  by 
multiplying the % differences by EU GDP in 2021); iii) EU employment expressed as % 
differences from the baseline;  iv) EU employment expressed as net new jobs created per 
year; v) the cumulative GDP impact in EUR million per year (note that the cumulative 
impact is the same as the annual impact in 2023, that is the first year in which the shock 
is  applied);  vi)    the  cumulative  GDP  multiplier,  which  indicates  the  EUR  of  GDP 
generated by each EUR invested in the policy (it is calculated as the cumulative change 
in GDP divided by the cumulative shock - monetary injection). 

EU GDP 
Impact (%) 
0 
0 
0.001 
0.004 
0.008 
0.013 
0.016 
0.020 
0.023 
0.025 
0.024 
0.022 
0.019 
0.017 
0.015 
0.014 
0.013 
0.011 
0.010 
0.009 

Year 
2021 
2022 
2023 
2024 
2025 
2026 
2027 
2028 
2029 
2030 
2031 
2032 
2033 
2034 
2035 
2036 
2037 
2038 
2039 
2040 

GDP 
Impact 
(euro, 
million) 
0 
0 
85 
488 
1,019 
1,529 
1,975 
2,369 
2,719 
2,954 
2,854 
2,592 
2,309 
2,068 
1,859 
1,676 
1,515 
1,373 
1,247 
1,134 

EU Employment 
Impact (%) 
0 
0 
0.001 
0.004 
0.006 
0.009 
0.011 
0.013 
0.015 
0.016 
0.015 
0.014 
0.013 
0.011 
0.010 
0.009 
0.008 
0.008 
0.007 
0.006 

EU Employment 
(number of 
workers) 
0 
0 
2,526 
7,485 
13,097 
18,366 
23,123 
27,418 
31,295 
32,413 
30,830 
28,147 
25,471 
23,064 
20,902 
18,959 
17,213 
15,643 
14,231 
12,958 

Cumulative 
GDP change 
(Million Euro) 
0 
0 
85 
573 
1,592 
3,121 
5,096 
7,465 
10,185 
13,139 
15,993 
18,585 
20,894 
22,962 
24,820 
26,496 
28,012 
29,385 
30,631 
31,765 

EU GDP 
multiplier 
0 
0 
0.15 
0.39 
0.65 
0.90 
1.14 
1.37 
1.58 
1.90 
2.27 
2.64 
2.97 
3.26 
3.53 
3.76 
3.98 
4.18 
4.35 
4.51 

TABLE 4 -  EU GDP IMPACT AND MULTIPLIERS. SOURCE: JRC RHOMOLO SIMULATIONS 

Figure 1 shows the impact of the EDF on GDP (red line) and on employment (green line) 
over time and the full shock (blue bars) expressed as a percentage of baseline GDP. After 
the  planned  projects  from  the  policy  reach  completion  from  2023  onwards,  EU  GDP 
changes  are  positive  each  year.  The  policy  reaches  a  maximum  impact  of  +0.025% 
increase  in  EU  GDP  in  2030  compared  to  the  baseline  scenario  (without  the  policy), 
thanks  to  the  combination  of  increased  private  and  public  investment  and  higher  TFP. 
This corresponds to a maximum of +2,954 million in 2030 and the creation of +32,413 
jobs  across  the  EU,  leading  to  an  increase  in  EU  employment  of  about  +0.016%.  The 
impact  declines  thereafter  due  to  the  investment  depreciation  and  lack  of  demand  side 
stimulus (it is assumed that there are no further public investment in defence R&D after 
those planned for the period 2021-2027).  

8 

 
 
0,03

0,025

0,02

0,015

0,01

0,005

0

2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040

Expenditure

GDP

Employment

FIGURE 3 - GDP IMPACT (% DEVIATIONS FROM BASELINE GDP) AND EDF EXPENDITURE (% EU GDP) - SOURCE: JRC RHOMOLO SIMULATIONS 

Figure  2  shows  the  evolution  of  the  cumulative  EU  GDP  multiplier,  which  can  be 
interpreted  as  a  measure  of  the  return  on  investment,  expressed  as  the  euros  of  GDP 
generated  by  each  euro  invested  in  the  policy.  The  multiplier  increases  as  projects  get 
completed  and,  by  2040,  a  euro  invested  in  the  EDF  is  able  to  generate  more  than  4.5 
euros  in  return.  This  is  similar  to  the  results  of  the  ex-post  impact  assessment  of  the 
Horizon policy carried out by Christou et al. (2024a), (in that case, the 17 year multiplier, 
comparable  to  the  2040  multiplier  reported  above,  was  4.87  –  see  Table  4.1  of  that 
paper), despite the following differences in the simulation strategy:  

•  The share of private versus public investment is 93% versus 7% (in the Horizon 

analysis it is 60% versus 40%); 

•  The  TFP  impact  is  concentrated  in  the  science  and  technology  sector  (in  the 

Horizon analysis it is spread across all sectors). 

5

4,5

4

3,5

3

2,5

2

1,5

1

0,5

0

2020

2025

2030

2035

2040

FIGURE 4 -  EU GDP MULTIPLIER GENERATED BY THE EDF INVESTMENT SOURCE: RHOMOLO SIMULATIONS. 

9 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Stakeholder consultations  

DG  DEFIS  engaged  in  a  comprehensive  and  wide-ranging  stakeholder  consultation 
process  starting  in  Q1  2024  and  ending  in  Q4  2024.  The  consultation  activities  for  the 
interim evaluation aimed to gather evidence and inputs on the EDF implementation and 
performance from key stakeholders in order to reach a measured judgement on how well 
the programme has performed on the evaluated timeframe.  

The objective of the stakeholder consultation was twofold, namely to: 

(1) 

(2) 

Gather perspectives and insights (such as perceptions, experiences and data) from 
a  wide  range  of  stakeholders  on  specific  issues  of  interest  for  the  interim 
evaluation,  particularly  on  topics  where  available  existing  data  and  evidence  is 
scarce, and 

Test/validate existing analysis and preliminary findings to ensure that the Interim 
Evaluation is communicated to stakeholders and that they have the opportunity to 
comment.  

It  is  worth  noting  that  the  2018  open  public  consultation  in  the  context  of  the  Impact 
Assessment  accompanying  the  EDF  Proposed  Regulation  received  limited  response 
rates159 due to the very specific nature of the Fund. DEFIS has therefore chosen not  to 
repeat  the  experience  in  the  Fund’s  Evaluation.  The  stakeholder  consultation  strategy 
focused  in  a  more  targeted  manner  on  the  stakeholders  that  are  directly  involved, 
knowledgeable or interested in the EDF. 

The consultation activities provided insights into:  

•  The  relevance  of  the  programme,  of  its  governance  and  of  its  focus  given  the 
needs  to  be  addressed  and  the  evolving  socio-economic,  geopolitical,  scientific 
and technological context;    

•  The  first  indications  of  its  effectiveness  in  delivering  the  expected  outputs  and 
results towards its objectives, by looking at the progress of EDF projects so far (a 
more complete assessment of effectiveness will be done for the final evaluation in 
2031), but also achievements from PADR and EDIDP; 

•  An  assessment  of  the  efficiency  of  the  implementation  processes  given  the 
objectives  set,  the  funding  distribution,  participation  patterns,  etc.  and  the 
estimated  costs  and  benefits,  identifying  potential  for  further  burden  reduction 
and simplification; 

•  Coherence:  an  analysis  of  the  positioning,  complementarity  and  coordination  of 
EDF  interventions  with  international,  EU  and  national  relevant  initiatives  for 
defence research and development;  

•  An  assessment  of  the  added  value  of  acting  at  European  level  with  the  EDF 
compared to uncoordinated action for defence R&D investments at national level.  

159 The response rate to the consultation conducted in January-March 2018 (6 weeks) was relatively low: 
there  were  48  replies-the  majority  of  responses  were  by  defence  industries  and  private  enterprises.  In 
detail: research/academia, business associations and public authorities.  The input of stakeholders did not 
seem to be linked to the options, as the questions posed to the stakeholders were of a general nature (e.g. 
importance  of  the  policy  challenges,  conceived  EU-added  value,  and  experience  with  current  funding 
possibilities). The reason for this was deemed to be at the time, that the questions had been too specific on 
the EDF. For more information please consult: Impact Assessment Accompanying the Document Proposal 
for  a  Regulation  establishing  the  European  Defence  Fund.  COM(2018)  476  final.  Published  on  13  June 
2018. 

10 

 
 
A synopsis report providing a summary of all the consultation results has been prepared 
and annexed to the Staff Working Document. 

Mapping of Stakeholders and their involvement in the interim evaluation  

The  consultation  targeted  Member  States  and  Norway  as  well  as  private  entities  and 
public organisations beneficiaries of the EDF in the Member States and Norway as well 
as  non-beneficiaries  of  the  EDF.  The  consultation  included  international  and  inter-
governmental  organisations  engaged  in  defence  activities,  including  the  European 
Defence  Agency  (EDA)  and  the  Organisation  for  Joint  Armament  Cooperation 
(OCCAR),  which  are  involved  in  EDF  actions  carried  out  in  indirect  management,  as 
well  as  NATO.  In  line  with  the  European  Commission’s  Better  Regulation  policy  to 
develop  initiatives  informed  by  the  best  available  knowledge,  researchers,  as  well  as 
academic  organisations,  learned  societies,  and  associations  with  expertise  in  defence 
policies, area also invited to submit relevant published and pre-print scientific research, 
analyses and data once the call for evidence is published.  

The  identified  stakeholders  cover  those  who  are  involved  in  the  implementation  of  the 
EDF, those who may have had an interest in participating in the EDF - to understand the 
drivers and barriers to participation - and those who have specific technical knowledge of 
the EDF.   

The logic establishing stakeholder categories is based on a division between: 

A)  The main stakeholders 
Member States and Norway: 

−  The Member States and Norwegian representatives acting as main focal points in 
stakeholder consultations with national authorities (e.g. Ministries of Defence, of 
Economy/Innovation).   

−  National  EDF  Focal  Points,  which  are  nominated  by  EU  Member  States  and 
Norway to support the implementation of the EDF by reaching out to stakeholders 
and providing information and advice notably to potential applicants and assisting 
in building partnerships, throughout the EDF life cycle. 

−  The  European  Network  of  Defence  Related  Regions  (ENDR)  members 
industrial 

regional  public  authorities  or 

regional  defence 

representing 
clusters/associations  

−  Members  of  the  Sub-Group  of  Defence  of  the  Register  of  Commission  Expert 
Groups  on  Policies  &  Programmes  relevant  to  EU  Space,  Defence  and 
Aeronautics  Industry160 
including  National  Defence  Industry  Associations 
(NDIAs). 

−  EDF beneficiaries (including large industry, SMEs and mid-caps and RTOs which 

are EDF beneficiaries) 

−  Non-EDF  beneficiaries  (entities  that  are  relevant  to  defence  but  who  have  never 

applied to the Fund) 

International/Intergovernmental Organisations or EU Agencies. 

160  See  full  list  of  members  here:  Register  of  Commission  expert  groups  and  other  similar  entities 

(europa.eu).  

11 

 
 
−  European Defence Agency (EDA) staff 

−  European  External  Action  Service  (EEAS)  staff  and  EU  Military  Staff  (EUMS) 

personnel 

−  Organisation for Joint Armament Cooperation (OCCAR) staff 

−  NATO staff 

B)  Civil society stakeholders with a generic interest in defence matters. 

The  call  for  evidence  provided  an  opportunity  for  any  interested  stakeholders   to 
contribute proactively.  

C) Civil society stakeholders with specific areas of expertise 

Academia  and think tanks that are non-beneficiaries  of EDF but  have a  solid area of 
expertise  in  defence  topics.  The  relevant  list  was  designed  by  the  contractor  in 
coordination with the Commission.  

Selection of Consultation Activities & their Accessibility 
The  consultation  activities  supported  the  analysis  of  the  programme’s  performance 
against the five Better Regulation evaluation criteria of relevance, coherence, efficiency, 
effectiveness and EU added value161.   

The table below provides an overview of the different tools mobilised for the evaluation, 
including  the  consultation  activities,  and  their  relevance  to  the  different  evaluation 
criteria  from  the  Better  Regulation  framework.  The  targeted  consultation  was  based  on 
the  voluntary  submission  of  evidence  and  position  papers  from  stakeholders  following 
the  publication  of  the  call  for  evidence  on  the  Europa  website162,  coupled  with 
interviews,  surveys,  case  studies  and  workshops  to  be  performed  with  the  support  of 
external contractors, who will also perform a review of the documentation available and 
analyse implementation data. The consultation activities ran between Q1 and Q4 2024in 
order  to  feed  into  the  drafting  of  the  EDF  interim  evaluation.  The  below  table 
summarises the stakeholders targeted and associated consultation methods. 

TABLE 5 - STAKEHOLDERS & METHODS 

Stakeholders 

Representatives of 
Member States and 
Norway 

Consultation 
channels 

EDF Programme 
Committee 

National EDF Focal 
Points 

National EDF Focal 
Points 

European Network 
of Defence-Related 
Regions (ENDR) 

ENDR Network 

Regional 
Organisations 

Baltic Cooperation 
Assembly, 
NORDEFCO, 

Method 

Responsible 

3 workshops: 23 
May, 18 June, 
17 July 2024 

DEFIS 

Evaluation 
Criteria Assessed 

Effectiveness, 
Efficiency, 
Relevance,      EU 
Added Value, 
Coherence 

1 questionnaire 
(circulated 10 
October 2024) 

1 questionnaire 
(circulated 14 
October 2024) 

1 questionnaire 
(circulated 14 
October 2024) 

DEFIS + 
External 
Contractor 

DEFIS + 
External 
Contractor 

Effectiveness, 

Relevance,           

EU Added Value 

Relevance,  EU 
Added Value, 
Coherence 

DEFIS + 
External 

Relevance,  EU 
Added Value, 

- 

- 

- 

- 

161 Better Regulation Toolbox 
162 Have your Say Portal 

12 

 
 
 
Visegrad Group 

Contractor 

Coherence 

Non-EDF 
Beneficiaries 

Ad hoc mailing list 

- 

1 questionnaire 
(circulated 14 
October 2024) 

DEFIS + 
External 
Contractor 

Relevance,           

EU Added Value 

2 presentations 
1 position paper 

DEFIS 

Effectiveness, 
Efficiency, 
Relevance,      EU 
Added Value, 
Coherence 

Effectiveness, 
Efficiency, 
Relevance,      EU 
Added Value, 
Coherence 

DEFIS + 
External 
Contractor  

DEFIS Defence 
Expert Group 

Internal Group 

List of EDF 
Beneficiaries 

EDF beneficiaries 

DEFIS project 
officers, financial 
officers and legal 
officers 

EDA POCs and 
OCCAR POCs for 
indirect 
management 

EEAS and EUMS 
staff 

NATO staff 

DG DEFIS staff 

EDA and OCCAR 
project officers 

EEAS and EUMS 

NATO 

- 
- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 
- 

Research groups 
and think tanks 

Ad hoc mailing list 

- 

2 workshops 
with EDF 
beneficiaries 
Large industry, 
12 September 
2024 
SMEs, mid-caps 
and RTOs, 18 
September 2024 
2 
Questionnaires 
circulated (21 
August 2024) 
4 additional 
bilaterals 
In person/online 
discussions 
1 questionnaire 
(oral/written) 

In person 
discussion 
1 questionnaire 

1 in person 
discussion 
1 questionnaire 
1 in person 
discussion; 
written 
background 
ahead of the 
meeting 
1 online 
discussion, 26 
September 2024 

General 
Public/Citizens 

Call for Evidence 
published on the 
Have your Say 
portal, 24 January 
2024 

- 

Submission of 
position papers 
to FMB 

DEFIS 

Efficiency, 
Relevance 

DEFIS 

Efficiency, 
Coherence 

DEFIS 

Efficiency, 
Coherence 

DEFIS 

Coherence 

DEFIS + 
External 
Contractor 

EU added value, 
Relevance, 
Effectiveness 

DEFIS 

EU added value, 
Relevance, 

To ensure the quality of the analytical results presented in the evaluation, the evaluation 
team  employed  a  multi-step  approach  to  guarantee  the  reliability  and  validity  of  the 
findings. The following steps were taken: 

13 

 
 
 
Firstly,  a  systematic  tracking  of  stakeholder  input  and  position  papers  was  conducted. 
This  involved  collecting  and  documenting  all  relevant  inputs  from  stakeholders, 
including policy makers, industry representatives, and other interested parties. This step 
helped to ensure that all relevant perspectives and opinions were taken into account and 
that no important information was overlooked. Secondly, the evaluation team developed 
consolidated inputs from stakeholders, literature reviews, and internal data sources. This 
involved synthesizing the information collected from various sources and identifying key 
themes,  patterns,  and  trends.  The  consolidated  inputs  provided  a  comprehensive 
overview  of  the  evaluation  questions  and  helped  to  identify  areas  that  required  further 
analysis.  Thirdly,  the  evaluation  team  employed  a  triangulation  of  evidence  approach, 
using  the  evaluation  matrix  as  a  framework  to  organize  and  analyse  the  data. 
Triangulation  involves  cross-checking  and  verifying  the  findings  across  different  data 
sources and methods to increase confidence in the results and identify potential biases or 
limitations. By using the evaluation matrix, the team was able to systematically evaluate 
the evidence and identify areas of convergence and divergence. 

The  use  of  triangulation  also  enabled  the  evaluation  team  to  mix  qualitative  and 
quantitative analysis, providing a more nuanced and comprehensive understanding of the 
evaluation questions. This approach allowed the team to identify patterns and trends that 
might have been missed through a single method or data source, and to develop a more 
robust and reliable assessment of the Fund's performance. 

Overall,  the  steps  taken  to  assure  the  quality  of  the  analytical  results  presented  in  the 
evaluation  demonstrate  a  rigorous  and  systematic  approach  to  data  collection  and 
analysis.  The  use  of  triangulation,  consolidated  inputs,  and  systematic  tracking  of 
stakeholder  input  helped  to  ensure  that  the  findings  were  reliable,  valid,  and 
comprehensive,  and  provided  a  solid  foundation  for  the  evaluation's  conclusions  and 
recommendations. 

14 

 
 
ANNEX III. EVALUATION MATRIX  (BY CRITERION) 

In accordance with the Better Regulation toolbox, the assessment of the performance of 
the implementation of tasks, objectives, mandates and policies was be done based on the 
evaluation  of  five  main  criteria:  effectiveness,  efficiency,  relevance,  coherence  and  EU 
added value. The overall evaluation matrix is presented in the following table: 

1.  Effectiveness: Did the EDF succeed in meeting the objectives as stated 

Evaluation 
questions 

1.1.  To 

what 
extent  has 
the 
EDF 
boosted  the 
collaborativ
e 
developmen
t  of  defence 
products 
and 
technologie
s 
throughout 
the  Union, 
achieving 
economies 
of  scale  and 
addressing 
fragmentatio
n? 

1.2.  To 

what 
extent  has 
the  boosted 
the 
performance 
of 
future 
defence 
capabilities 
throughout 
the 
reinforcing 

EU, 

Judgement 
criteria 
Early signals 
on the extent 
EDF is 
boosting 
collaborative 
defence R&D 
spending in 
the EU 

Early signals 
on the extent 
EDF is 
fostering 
collaboration, 
reinforcing EU 
supply and 
value chains 
across 
borders  

Early signals 
on the extent 
EDF is 
integrating 
SMEs, mid-
caps and 
Research 
Organisations 

Early signals 
on the extent 
EDF is 
contributing to 
advancing key 
defence 
technologies 
and 
capabilities  

in the Regulation? 

Indicators 

Data mobilised 

Comparative  analysis  of  data  on 
EDF  investment  with  aggregated 
EU defence R&D spending. 

Comparative  analysis  of  data  on 
EDF 
investment  with 
national defence R&T spending. 

research 

Analysis  of  data  on  cooperation 
patterns within the EDF. 

Identification  of  new 
types  of 
cooperation  created  through  the 
EDF  opening  supply  and  value 
chains. 

Illustrations  from  selected  sample 
of projects. 

Analysis  of  data  on  SME,  mid-cap 
and 
Research  Organisations 
involvement  in  cross-border  EDF 
projects. 

funding 

Analysis  of  data  on  SME  and  mid-
cap 
and 
distribution  in  thematic  vs.  non-
thematic calls. 

obtained 

Qualitative  assessment  of  SME 
and  mid-cap 
in  EDF 
consortia. 

roles 

Illustrations  from  selected  sample 
of projects. 

Number  of  EDF  actions  funded 
under each EDF category of action 
and  related  funding  commitments 
made under the first five EDF work 
programmes. 

Identification  of  domains  where 
to 
EDF  projects  are  expected 
advance  the  development  of  key 
defence 
and 
capabilities  that  will  foster  greater 

technologies 

15 

▪ 

Internal 
DEFIS data 
▪  Consultations 

DG 

(survey, 
interviews, 
workshops, 
for 
call 
evidence)  with 
Member  States 
and 
beneficiaries 

▪  EDA data 
▪ 
Internal 
DEFIS data  
▪  Consultations 

DG 

(survey, 
interviews, 
workshops, 
call 
for 
evidence)  with 
Member  States 
and 
beneficiaries 
Internal 
DEFIS data 
▪  Consultations 

DG 

▪ 

(survey, 
interviews, 
workshops, 
call 
for 
evidence)  with 
beneficiaries 

▪ 

Internal 
DEFIS data 
▪  Consultations 

DG 

(survey, 
interviews, 
workshops, 
call 
for 
evidence)  with 
Member 
States, defence 
and 
industry 

 
 
 
 
 
 
the 
innovation 
capacity  of 
the  EDTIB 
and 
introducing 
new defence 
products 
and 
technologie
s? 

EU  strategic  autonomy,  reduce 
dependencies  on  third  countries 
the 
increase 
and 
interoperability/interchangeability of 
defence systems. 

Illustrations  from  selected  sample 
of projects. 

Analysis of available data on effect 
of  EDF  on  increasing  high-skilled 
jobs in the defence R&D sector.   

technologies, 

Analysis of data on EDF support to 
disruptive 
in 
particular  through  the  EU  Defence 
Innovation 
(EUDIS) 
Scheme 
measures. 

Analysis  of  data  on  advancement 
of  EDF  projects  along  the  R&D 
funding cycle up to the provision of 
critical  capabilities  (especially  vis-
à-vis  projects  funded  under  the 
precursor programmes).  

Identification  of  barriers  preventing 
to 
more  effective  support  up 
market  uptake,  notably  related  to 
co-financing issues. 

Illustrations  from  selected  sample 
of projects. 
Analysis  of  procurement  potential 
of  expected 
technologies  and 
products  developed  by  the  EDTIB 
thanks to EU support.   

Identification  of  factors  hampering 
faster 
streamlined 
procurement of project outcomes. 

and 

Illustrations  from  selected  sample 
of projects. 

Early signals 
on the extent 
EDF is 
reinforcing the 
innovation 
capacity of the 
EDTIB 

Early signals 
on the extent 
EDF is 
ensuring 
continuity of 
effort along 
the R&D cycle 
up to market 
uptake 

Early signals 
on the extent 
EDF is 
reinforcing the 
potential for 
the 
procurement 
of projects 
outcomes 

beneficiaries 

▪ 

Internal 
DEFIS data  
▪  Consultations 

DG 

(survey, 
interviews, 
workshops, 
call 
for 
evidence)  with 
Member 
States, defence 
industry 
and 
beneficiaries 
Internal 
DEFIS data 
▪  Consultations 

DG 

▪ 

for 

(survey, 
interviews, 
workshops, 
call 
evidence) 
Member 
States, defence 
industry 
and 
beneficiaries 

▪ 

Internal 
DEFIS data 
▪  Consultations 

DG 

for 

(survey, 
interviews, 
workshops, 
call 
evidence) 
Member 
States, defence 
industry 
and 
beneficiaries 

2.  Efficiency: How cost-efficient was the EDF? 

Evaluation 
questions 
2.1  What  worked 
the 

call 

in 

well 
work 
programme 
and 
preparation 
phase 
what 
remaining 
inefficiencies? 

and 
are 

Judgement 
criteria 
Efficiency of 
preparation of the 
work 
programmes and 
calls for 
proposals 

Indicators  

Data mobilised 

▪ 

Internal DG DEFIS 
data 

▪  Consultations 

(survey, 
interviews, 
workshops, 
call 
for  evidence)  with 
Member States  

Analysis  of  efficiency  of 
programme 
work 
processes, 
preparation 
including 
time 
needed for publication 

overall 

Satisfaction 
of 
stakeholders  with  work 
programme 
preparation 
process  and  alignment  of 
programming priorities and 
with 
planning 

cycles 

16 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Efficiency of 
preparation of 
proposals and 
application 
process 

2.2  What  worked 
the 

well 
in 
proposal 
preparation 
and 
application 
phase 
what 
remaining 
inefficiencies? 

and 
are 

2.3  What  worked 
the 

in 
well 
proposal 
evaluation  and 
Grant 
Agreement 
Preparation 
phase what are 
remaining 
inefficiencies? 

Efficiency of 
processes for 
evaluation of 
received 
proposals and 
Grant Agreement 
Preparation 
(GAP) 

▪ 

Internal DG DEFIS 
data  

▪  Consultations 

(survey, 
interviews, 
workshops, 
call 
for  evidence)  with 
defence  industry, 
beneficiaries,  DG 
project 
DEFIS 
NFP 
officers, 
network, 
ENDR 
network 

▪ 

Internal DG DEFIS 
data 

▪  Consultations 

project officers 

Member States/Norway. 

Identification  of  remaining 
inefficiencies 
to 
lack  of  budget  and  the 
competitive  nature  of  EDF 
calls.   

related 

the 

Evolution  of 
time 
gained  for  EDF  applicants 
to  prepare  and  apply  to 
EDF  calls 
for  proposals 
from 2021 to 2023. 

Assessment 
of 
improvements made to call 
documentation,  application 
forms 
application 
modalities  over  the  first  3 
rounds of EDF calls.  

and 

of 
Assessment 
communication 
and 
outreach  measures  by  DG 
towards 
DEFIS 
EDF 
prospective 
and 
applicants 
beneficiaries. 

Analysis  of  data  on  issues 
raised  by  applicants  at 
application stage. 

Analysis 
of 
number  and 
newcomers 
programme, 
SMEs. 

to 

data 
on 
types  of 
the  EDF 
including 

Evolution  of  time  to  inform 
and 
applicants 
assessment  of 
internal 
measures  put  in  place  to 
enable  faster  and  leaner 
evaluation of proposals. 

Analysis  of  data  on  the 
evolution  of 
inadmissible 
or  ineligible  proposals  and 
number of redress cases. 

related 

Identification  of  remaining 
inefficiencies 
to 
programme-specific 
requirements  (e.g.  need  of 
establishment  of  security 
framework  or  co-financing 
declarations). 

2.4  What  worked 
the 

in 

well 
grant 
management 
and 
implementatio
n  phase  what 
remaining 
are 

project 

Efficiency of 
grant 
management and 
project 
implementation 

such  as 

Analysis  of  EDF  specific 
features 
the 
establishment  of  specific 
the 
arrangements  with 
to 
EDA  and  OCCAR 
grant 
improve 
of 
implementation 
managed 
indirectly 

▪ 

Internal DG DEFIS 
data 

▪  Consultations 

(survey, 
interviews, 
workshops, 
call 
for  evidence)  with 
EDA, 
OCCAR, 

17 

 
 
 
inefficiencies? 

projects. 

Analysis of data on project 
implementation  related  to 
reporting 
obligations, 
access  to  and  sharing  of 
information, 
between 
communication 
the  EC  and  consortia, 
co-
establishment 
financing, 
IPRs 
management,  and  export 
license rules. 

of 

Indicators  related  to  EC 
staff  workload/productivity 
for  grant  management  in 
direct  vs.  indirect  project 
management. 

Analysis of data on size of 
the consortia. 

Identification  of  specific 
difficulties  encountered  by 
SMEs  during  EDF  grant 
implementation. 
Estimated measurement of 
overall  cost  efficiency  of 
the 
programme 
implementation  taking  into 
account  operational  costs, 
administrative  costs  and 
costs for applicants. 

expected 
of 
Overview 
macro-economic  benefits 
of  the  Fund  on  the  EU 
economy  (GDP)  and  job 
creation. 

Overall efficiency 
and costs-
benefits of the 
EDF 
implementation 

2.5  What 

is 

the 
cost 
of 
EDF 

overall 
efficiency 
the 
programme 
(considering 
the 
phases) 
what  are 
expected 
macro-
economic 
benefits? 

different 
and 
its 

beneficiaries, 
non-EDF 
beneficiaries, 
project officers 

▪ 

Internal DG DEFIS 
data  

▪  Data  from  third-
studies 

party 
(external 
contractor 
JRC) 

and 

3.  Coherence: How coherent was the EDF with other relevant (external 

Evaluation 
questions 

3.1.  To 

what 
extent  is  the 
EDF 
coherent 
with 
other 
EU  defence 
initiatives? 

and internal) programmes and initiatives? 
Judgement 
criteria 

Indicators 

Data mobilised 

Degree of 
coherence with 
CDP and 
CARD 
planning 
processes 
Degree of 
synergies with 
PESCO 
activities 

EDF  call  topic  alignment  with 
EU-level 
capability 
development  priorities  set  out 
in planning instruments like the 
CDP and CARD. 

▪ 

Internal DG DEFIS 
data 

▪  Consultations 

with 
States, EDA 

Member 

EDF  contribution  to  supporting 
PESCO projects. 

▪ 

Internal DG DEFIS 
data  

Use  of  EDF  projects  having 
claimed the PESCO bonus . 

▪  Consultations 

with EEAS/EUMS 

18 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Degree of 
synergies with 
EDA activities 

3.2.  To 

what 
extent  is  the 
EDF 
coherent 
with  relevant 
international, 
regional  and 
national 
priorities? 

Degree of 
coherence with 
NATO 
activities 

Degree of 
coherence with 
regional 
priorities 

EDF  alignment  with  EDA 
activities  in  terms  of  Cat  B 
through 
followed-on 
projects 
the EDF.  

of 

Analysis 
operational 
synergies 
between 
defence 
complementary 
innovation  initiatives  like  HEDI 
and EUDIS. 

operational 

Assessment  of  EDF  projects 
supporting  NATO  standards 
and 
synergies 
complementary 
between 
initiatives 
innovation 
defence 
like NATO DIANA and EUDIS. 

Analysis  of  perceptions  from 
regional  organisations  and 
regional 
defence 
clusters/association  on  EDF 
impact at regional level. 

Degree of 
coherence with 
national 
priorities 

of 

EDF 
Assessment 
programming  alignment  with 
national 
planning 
defence 
processes and priorities. 

3.3.  To 

what 
extent  is  the 
EDF 
coherent 
with 
civil 
programmes
? 

other 
R&D 

Degree of 
synergies with 
other EU 
programmes 

Degree of 
synergies with 
wider policy 
initiatives 

Assessment of effect of EUDIS 
measures  in  creating  cross-
sectoral civil-military synergies.  

Alignment  of  EDF  operational 
support  with  the  EU  Space 
Programme,  Horizon  Europe 
and Digital Europe. 

priorities: 

Overview  of  EDF  operational 
support in contributing to wider 
Commission 
‘A 
Europe  fit  for  the  Digital  Age’ 
to  STEP 
(via  contribution 
objectives  or funding  of AI  and 
cyber defence related projects) 
and  ‘Green  Deal’  (via  funding 
in  Energy  and 
of  projects 
Environment 
of 
action) 

category 

▪ 

Internal DG DEFIS 
data 

▪  Consultations 

(survey, 
interviews, 
workshops, 
call 
for evidence) with 
Member  States, 
EDA, 
beneficiaries 

▪ 

Internal DG DEFIS 
data 

▪  Consultations 
with NATO 

▪ 

Internal DG DEFIS 
data  

▪  Consultations 

ENDR 
and 

with 
network 
Regional 
Organisations 
Internal DG DEFIS 
data 

▪ 

▪  Consultations 

Member 

with 
States  
Internal DG DEFIS 
data 

▪ 

▪  Consultations 

with  other  DGs, 
project officers. 

▪ 

Internal DG DEFIS 
data 

▪  Consultations 

with  other  DGs, 
project officers. 

4.  Added Value: How did the EU intervention make a difference and to 

Evaluation 
questions 
4.1.  To  what 
extent  did 
EDF 
the 
make 
a 
difference 
to  Member 

Judgement 
criteria 

whom? 

Indicators 

Assessment of EU 
added-value of 
EDF participation 
for Member 
States/Norway 

Examples  of  projects 
that  could  not  have 
been  achieved  purely 
at  a  national/regional 
level. 

Data mobilised 

▪ 
Internal DG DEFIS data 
▪  Consultations  (survey, 
interviews, workshops, 
call  for  evidence)  with 
Member  States  and 
think-tanks/academia 

19 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
States? 

Assessment of EU 
added-value for EU 
industry and other 
stakeholders 

4.2.  To  what 
extent  did 
EDF 
the 
make 
a 
difference 
the 
to 
EDTIB? 

Added  value  of  EDF 
cooperative  projects  to 
fill  capability  gaps  at 
EU 
for 
level  esp. 
smaller Member States.  

Assessment  of  EDF 
impact  on  de-risking 
investments for industry 
on 
collaborative 
defence projects. 

Assessment  of  degree 
of  expanded  market 
opportunities 
and 
increase  in  culture  of 
the 
cooperation 
EDTIB. 

in 

Analysis of EDF impact 
on 
job 
high-skilled 
creation in the sector. 

▪ 
Internal DG DEFIS data 
▪  Consultations  (survey, 
interviews, workshops, 
call  for  evidence)  with 
industry, 
defence 
and 
beneficiaries 
think-tanks/academia 

5.  Relevance: How relevant is the EDF in the current context and what has 

changed since its creation? 

Evaluation 
questions 

5.1.  Is 

the 

intervention 
still  relevant 
its 
since 
onset 
in 
2021? 

5.2.  How well has 
EDF 

the 
adapted 
itself  in  view 
of 
the 
current 
geopolitical 
context? 

Judgement 
criteria 
Degree of adequacy 
of  EDF intervention 
given evolving 
needs 

Degree of 
predictability and 
flexibility of EDF 
programming and 
funding priorities 
compared to the 
needs. 

Indicators 

Data mobilised 

▪ 

Internal  DG  DEFIS 
data 

▪  Consultations  with 
Member 
States, 
beneficiaries,  and 
think-
tanks/academia 
Internal  DG  DEFIS 
data 

▪ 

▪  Consultations  with 
beneficiaries  and 
think-
tanks/academia 

Comparative 
of 
assessment 
relevance  of  the  EDF 
programme  before  and 
after the war in Ukraine. 

Assessment 
of 
adaptation  capacity  of 
EDF  in  funding  areas 
for  evolving 
relevant 
needs, 
defence 
especially  as 
shown 
from  the  experiences  in 
the Ukrainian battlefield.  

Relevance 
towards 
greater 
Ukrainian 
industrial base. 

EDF 
of 
fostering 
the 
integration  of 
defence 

ANNEX IV. OVERVIEW OF BENEFITS AND COSTS  

The European Defence Fund (EDF) stands as a strategic initiative aimed at enhancing the 
EU’s  defence  capabilities  through  collaboration  R&D  actions.  In  assessing  the  EDF 
intervention,  an  overview  of  its  costs  and  benefits  (monetary  and  non-monetary)  is 
provided below. 
Costs 
The EDF intervention entails financial commitments that include operational expenditure 
projected at  approximately  €7.3 billion, along  with  administrative costs estimated to  be 
around  €160  million.  For  EU  citizens,  the  financial  implication  is  a  total  cost  of 

20 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
approximately €22.17 per person over the 2021-2027 timeframe, which averages out to 
€3.17  per  year.  Entities  engaging  in  EDF  programmes  are  confronted  with  application 
costs  that  range  from  €32,030  to  €44,367  per  proposal  (i.e.  around  €500,000  for  an 
average consortium of 13 entities), while average staffing costs are estimated at €8,335 
per month per project163. Beyond these financial expenses, stakeholder consultations with 
industry  beneficiaries  have  revealed  additional  non-visible  costs  related  to  participating 
in the initiative which involve setting up cross-border consortia agreements, securing co-
financing with Member States, and HR costs related to sourcing specialized personnel for 
collaborative  defence  research  and  development  projects.164  Additional  challenges  arise 
from coordinating the necessary documentation for EDF submissions. 
Benefits 
Despite these costs, the EDF offers substantial benefits. Economically, according to the 
JRC’s ex-ante  simulation  (see Annex  II), the EU intervention is anticipated to  generate 
approximately  32,000  direct  and  indirect  jobs  across  the  EU,  with  these  employment 
benefits  expected  to  reach  their  peak  by  2030.  According  to  the  same  simulation,  the 
Fund  is  also  projected  to  have  a  positive  macroeconomic  impact,  with  an  expected 
cumulated increase in EU GDP in the order of €31,765 million (from 2023-2040). 
Financially,  the  EDF  is  predicted  to  channel  significant  funding  into  the  industry,  with 
€3.116 billion already in signed EU grants as of 2023 and of which €567 million destined 
to small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). This influx of financial support is likely 
to  foster  microeconomic  benefits  for  participating  companies,  driving  business  growth. 
Consulted  beneficiaries  have  indeed  noted  that  participating  in  EDF  projects  enables 
companies to enhance market reach of their existing defence products, further scale their 
operations,  access  new  markets,  and  develop  strategic  interactions  with  MoDs  beyond 
their  national  ones.165  Additionally,  collaborations  facilitated  by  the  EDF  lead  to  high-
quality scientific and technological results, contributing to the advancement of defence-
related knowledge which cannot be fully quantified at this stage. 
Another  non-monetary  benefit  of  the  EDF  is  the  inherent  efficiency  gained  by 
consolidating  defence  R&D  spending  at  the  EU  level166.  This  collaborative  approach 
reduces duplication of funding efforts and addresses European capability gaps in funding. 
Furthermore,  EDF  products  are  expected  to  result  in  an  increased  standardisation  of 
defence  systems  between  Member  States’  capabilities  which  will  generate  non-
quantifiable interoperability gains. It is ensured that, by design, EU standards developed 
through EDF projects also use the relevant NATO standards wherever applicable. 
Another  long-term  non-quantifiable  benefit  of  the  EDF  is  the  increased  security  and 
strategic  autonomy  offered  by  investing  collectively  in  European  defence  capabilities 
which  will  offset  dependencies  on  third  countries.  This  appreciation  has  been  also 
confirmed  during  consultations  with  Member  States  which  cited  several  examples  of 
EDF  and  EDIDP  projects  that  are  perceived  as  directly  contributing  to  enhancing 
national autonomy.167 

163 Estimations from external study. 
164 Consultations and Workshops with Large Entities. 
165 Consultations and Workshops with Large Entities, SMEs, Mid-Caps and RTOs.  
166  A  study  performed  by  an  external  contractor  (research  piece  1)  noted  that  the  EDF  R&D  funding 
provided  to  the  European  Patrol  Corvette  (EPC)  programme  (totaling  €214  million)  will  contribute 
towards around 25% of total R&D costs of the programme, considering the expected €5-6 billion total 
production costs for 20 expected vessels for interested nations. 

167 See Annex V, Consultations with Member States. 

21 

 
 
 
In summary, while the programme carries inherent costs and administrative complexities, 
such  costs  are  outweighed  by  much  wider  programme  benefits,  spanning  economic 
growth, industrial reinforcement, strategic autonomy, and scientific advancement.  

Overview of costs and benefits identified in the evaluation 

Citizens/Society  

Beneficiaries/Industry 

Public Administrations 

Quant
itative 

N/A 

Comment 

o  Administrative burden for 
setting up co-financing 
schemes with industry. 
o  Administrative burden for 
providing Letters of Intent 
and other supporting 
documentation for industry’s 
submission of EDF 
proposals. 

Quantitative   Comment 

Quantitative  

Comment 

[Cost or Benefit description]: 

o  Total 

N/A 

cost for 
each EU 
citizen of 
€22.17 
euros for 
the 
timefram
e 2021-
2027 
(€3.17 
per 
year)(evi
dence 
from 
third 
party) 

o  Estimated 
application 
cost of €32 
030 - €44 
367 per 
entity/ 
proposal 
(evidence 
from third 
party) 
o  Average 
staff cost 
per month 
per project 
of  €8 335 
(evidence 
from third 
party) 

Costs: 

EUR 7.3 billion in 
operational 
expenditure 

EUR in 160 million 
administrative 
expenditure 

One
-off 

o  Administra
tive burden 
for 
consortia 
coordinato
rs to set-
up 
consortia 
agreement
s. 

o  Administra
tive burden 
in finding 
co-
financing 
from 
national 
authorities 
for EDF 
developme
nt actions. 
Investing 
in/finding 
specialised 
personnel 
to work on 
collaborati
ve defence 
R&D. 

o 

22 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                        
 
 
 
 
 
Creation of 
new high-
skilled jobs 
and 
employment 
impact 

o  Value of 

EU signed 
grants 
(EDF 2021-
2023 
projects): 
€3.116 
billion 
o  Funding 

granted to 
SMEs until 
2023: €567 
million 

Direct 
Benefits: 
Expected 
Employment 
benefits - 
+32,413 
direct and 
indirect jobs 
across the 
EU (peak 
effect of 
intervention 
in 2030) 

Macroecono
mic benefits: 
+0,016% 
increase in 
EU GDP 
(peak effect 
of 
intervention 
in 2030) 
with 
cumulated 
GDP impact 
of €31,765 
million (from 
2023-2040) 

Benefits: 

One-
off 

N/A 

o 

Increased investment in 
capabilities needed for EU 
strategic autonomy  and 
reduction of technological 
dependence on third 
countries  

o  Stronger cooperation 

between Member States by 
design to increase 
standardisation and 
interoperability of defence 
products. 

o  Developing cooperatively 
capabilities that no single 
Member States could 
develop alone (both 
financially and 
technologically).  

o  Cross-
border 
cooperation 
of entities 
and SMEs 
and mid-
caps and 
ROs 
entering 
large-scale 
partnership
s 
Innovation 
potential 
and 
progressive 
acquisition 
of 
disruptive 
technologie
s. 

o 

o  Microecono
mic benefit 
for 
companies 
and 
potential 
growth 
including 
value of 
projects 
marked 
under EU 
funding  

o  Direct 

revenues 
expected to 
be high 
once the 
EDF 
projects will 
start to be 
procured 
o  Discovery 
of new 
specialised 
entities in 
the defence 
supply 
chains.  

TABLE 6 - OVERVIEW OF COSTS AND BENEFITS IDENTIFIED IN THE EVALUATION 

23 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX V. STAKEHOLDERS CONSULTATION - SYNOPSIS REPORT  

The  stakeholder  consultation  process  performed  for  the  EDF  interim  evaluation  was 
extensive  both  in  scope,  by  encompassing  a  wide  variety  of  relevant  actors,  and  in 
geographical balance, targeting entities from all Member States and Norway. DG DEFIS 
targeted all the stakeholder groups that were originally envisaged under the Stakeholder 
Consultation  Strategy.  DG  DEFIS  reached  out  in  a  targeted  manner  to  330168  relevant 
stakeholders that were directly or indirectly impacted by the EDF, receiving an average 
response rate of 37% to invitations for written contributions (see Table 7). 

TABLE 7 - RESULTS AND RESPONSE RATE OF QUESTIONNAIRES FOR THE EDF INTERIM EVALUATION  

Table 7. Results and Response Rate of Questionnaires for the EDF Interim Evaluation 

Entity Category 

Large Industry 

SME-Mid-Caps, RTOs 

ENDR 

NFPs 

Member States and 
Norway (repetitive) 

Non-EDF Beneficiaries 

Regional Organisations 

EC DG's 

Institutions (EDA, 
EEAS/EUMS, OCCAR) 

Total 

Questionnaire 
replies  

Contacted/Invited  

Response 
Rate 

Average 
response rate 

total 

10 

8 

8 

7 

50 

3 

2 

3 

3 

94 

32 

54 

60 

28 

84 

48 

3 

18 

3 

330 

31% 

15% 

13% 

25% 

60% 

6% 

67% 

17% 

100.0% 

37% 

DG DEFIS received a total of 35 individual position papers, received either in the context 
of  the  Call  for  Evidence,  spontaneously  through  the  dedicated  functional  mailbox 
(DEFIS-EDF-INTERIM)  or  following  dedicated  consultations  (e.g.  workshops)  (see 
Table  8).  All  received  position  papers  were  considered  relevant  and  analysed  for  the 
given stakeholder grouping.   

TABLE 8 - POSITION PAPERS RECEIVED FROM STAKEHOLDER GROUPS 

Position Papers Received from Stakeholder Groups 

Entity Category 

Large 

SME 

Mid-Cap 

Think-Tanks and Academia 

NDIA 

Business Association/Cluster Network 

Position Papers per entity 
type 

7 

4 

3 

4 

5 

5 

168 Including same entities. EU Member States and Norway were consulted on three separate workshops. 

24 

 
 
  
 
 
 
Institutions 

NGO 

Expert Group 

Member States 

TOTAL 

2 

1 

1 

3 

35 

1.  FEEDBACK FROM MEMBER STATES AND NORWAY 

In the context of the EDF interim evaluation, DG DEFIS organised three workshops with 
EU  Member  States  and  Norway  representatives.  The  first  workshop  took  place  on  23 
May  2024  on  the  subject  of  ‘Programming  and  Strategic  Planning  of  the  European 
Defence  Fund’.  The  second  workshop  took  place  on  18  June  2024  on  the  subject  of 
‘Inclusiveness  and  Innovation  of  the  EDF  of  the  European  Defence  Fund’.  The  third 
workshop  took  place  on  17  July  2024  on  the  subject  of  ‘Calls  and  Project 
Implementation’. The below analysis provides a synthetic and generalizable summary of 
views expressed by Member States and Norway on subject matter addressed during the 
three workshops based on dedicated issue papers prepared by  DG DEFIS.  The average 
participation  was  of  around 90 experts from  26  EU Member States, Norway, European 
Defence Agency (EDA) and EEAS/EU Military Staff (EUMS). 
EDF  programming  and  coherence  with  EU-level  and  national  level  priorities  and 
planning 
On average, Member States view EU-level defence priority setting instruments such as the 
CDP,  Strategic  Compass,  CARD,  OSRA  as  being  sufficiently  relevant  in  informing  and 
providing  guidance  for  EDF  programming.  Member  States  pointed  out  that  such 
instruments, however, do not necessarily enable an operational translation of priorities into 
call  topics  for  EDF  Work  Programmes.  Furthermore,  Member  States  perceive  that  EDF 
Work  Programmes  are  sufficiently  aligned  with  and  complementary  to  national  defence 
planning process, including as regards to national R&D priorities, capability development 
plans and budgetary planning.  

FIGURE 5 - RESPONDENTS PERCEPTION ON 
RELEVANCE OF EU-LEVEL PRIORITY SETTING 
INSTRUMENTS FOR EDF PROGRAMMING 

25 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
FIGURE 4 - RESPONDENTS PERCEPTION ON EDF PROGRAMMING ALIGNMENT WITH NATIONAL PRIORITIES  

EDF Work Programme preparation 
Member  States  consider  the  coordination  with  DG  DEFIS  during  the  Work  Programme 
preparation,  including  the  call  harmonisation  process,  to  be  highly  positive  and  an 
improvement  from  EDIDP.  Member  States  however  revealed  the  challenge  of  finding  in 
MoDs  enough  national  experts  to  undertake  harmonisation-related  tasks.  Member  States 
have also noted that the introduction of S-CIRCABC as a secured Commission tool to share 
draft  Work  Programme  versions  improves  traceability  of  Member  States’  positions  and 
enables a more transparent system of communicating with the EC.  

FIGURE 7 – RESPONDENT PERCEPTION ON COORDINATION WITH THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION IN WORK PROGRAMME 
PREPARATION AND CALL HARMONISATION PROCESSES. 

26 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
EDF Multiannual Perspective and Annuality of WPs 
The introduction of the EDF Multiannual Perspective (MAP) is overall well appreciated by 
Member States. It is viewed as a tool that enables better long-term predictability on where 
and how EDF budget in future Work Programmes will be spent and also as a way to ensure 
better alignment between EDF programming with longer-term defence planning at national 
level.  The  high  added  value  of  MAP  is  made  clear  also  through  a  more  quantitative 
assessment of respondent feedback giving an average satisfaction rating of 7 out of 10. In 
terms  of  the  perceived  utility  of  MAP,  there  were  some  dissenting  views  as  well.  Some 
Member States perceive that annual Work Programmes often deviate from original MAP 
intentions  and,  as  such,  the  tool  is  not  extensively  taken  into  consideration  at  national 
planning level. 

While not many respondents expressed views on the matter, there is no consensual opinion 
as  to  whether  there  would  be  a  preference  to  maintain  annual  Work  Programmes  or 
whether  to  shift  to  a  multiannual  Work  Programmes.  Those  in  favour  of  the  latter  noted 
that  the  annual  preparation  cycle  is  very  intense  and  causes  difficulties  to  align  EDF 
programming with national priorities. In this respect, a two-year programme could ease the 
administrative  burden  and  provide  more  time  for  Member  States  to  embed  national 
capability  needs  in  the  EDF  in  a  better  way.  Those  favouring  annuality  put  forward  the 
argument that it allows EDF Work Programmes to be better scrutinized. 

FIGURE 8 – RESPONDENT PERCEPTION ON THE EDF MULTIANNUAL PERSPECTIVE 

Adaptation of EDF programming to new challenges 
Member States tend to  agree that EDF programming priorities should be flexible enough 
take into consideration the changing security environment –over half of the respondents of 
the  questionnaire  very  much  agreed  with  the  statement:  “Do  you  consider  that  the 
changing security environment should lead to an adaptation of EDF priorities?”. Member 
States also noted that the lessons learned from the war in Ukraine, for example, justify a 
greater focus of EDF on certain short-term capability needs such as counter UAS or air and 
missile  defence  systems.  However,  some  Member  States  expressed  that  the  EDF  should 
keep its focus on medium and long-term aims as originally intended. 

EDF Budget 
In  relation  to  the  EDF  financial  envelope,  the 
majority of Member States believe that EDF budget 
is to be increased. Member States further elaborated 

27 

FIGURE 9 -  RESPONDENTS PERCEPTION ON ADEQUACY OF EDF 
BUDGET  

 
 
 
 
that  the  Regulation's  split  between  R&D  funding  could  be  more  flexible  to  enable  the 
funding of follow-up projects where needed. Others view the division of budget between 
Research and Development as adequate.  
Ensuring continuity of efforts on specific defence R&D topics and/or projects over the 
programming period 
On  average,  80%  of  respondents  to  a  questionnaire  provided  a  rating  of  7  out  of  10  or 
higher  regarding  the  EDF’s  capacity  of  supporting  the  transition  of  PADR/EDIDP/EDF 
projects in terms of follow-on projects. Member States therefore view generally positively 
the EDF’s capacity to ensure continuity of efforts on specific defence R&D topics and/or 
projects  over  the  programming  period.  As  one  Member  State  stated:  “EDF  is  the  main 
contributor  to  the  general  continuity  of  effort  of  R&D  action”.  Another  Member  State 
similarly  noted  that:  “There  is  a  good  continuity  for  the  R&D  actions”.    Another  Member 
State noted: “the transition from PADR/EDIDP to EDF has been well supported in terms of 
the  follow-on  projects.  We  believe  that  the  successful  continuation  of  research  results  in 
the  development  stage  can  be  highlighted  positively.”  Member  States  cited  several 
examples  of  EDIDP-projects  which  have  found  a  follow-up  in  EDF.169  Member  States 
however  expressed  diverging  views  as  to  whether  the  EDF  should  be  more  oriented  to 
supporting less projects but of a larger scale (e.g. so called ‘flagships’), or rather a greater 
number of smaller projects to favour inclusivity. Other Member States suggested a mixed 
approach  to  potentially  support  flagships  at  various  levels  of  technological  advancement 
but  also  to  preserve  the  creation  of  smaller  projects.  During  workshop  discussions,  the 
EDA  noted  that  most  of  the  projects  from  PADR  managed  by  EDA  have  received 
continuity  under  EDF  (namely  in  soldiers’  systems  category).  EDA  also  noted  that  if  a 
project did not continue under EDF, in many cases, Member States/Norway plan to ensure 
this continuity on their own or with EDA support.  
EDF-PESCO link 
The EDF link to  PESCO via the additional ‘bonus’ funding rate is  perceived to  have the 
effect of concretely supporting and even advancing the development of PESCO projects in 
a  synergistic  manner.  While  Member  States  did  not  fundamentally  question  the  ‘PESCO 
bonus’ as such, some noted the need to further reinforce the verification of EDF projects 
claiming  ‘PESCO  link’  at  both  proposal  evaluation  stage  and  at  project  implementation 
stage  should  be  found.  To  this  end,  some  Member  States  put  forward  the  idea  that  there 
could be a more structured involvement or role of the PESCO secretariat in the evaluation 
process.  

FIGURE 10 - RESPONDENT 
PERCEPTION OF EDF 
CONTRIBUTION TO THE 
ADVANCEMENT OF PESCO 
PROJECTS 

169 Projects such as: Miricle project in the E=MCM project, the JEY-CUAS project in E-CUAS project, and 
a foreseeable successor of the iMUGS project as a result of 2024 calls. EDIDP project Sea Defence 
resulting in two successor projects EDINAF and dTHOR was also mentioned. Other include: LynkEUs-
Marseus, SEACURE-SEANICE, FAMOUS I-FAMOUS II, ESC2-EC2. 

28 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Technological autonomy, reducing dependencies on third counties and addressing EU 
capability gaps 
On  average,  Member  States  believe  that  EDF  is  laying  the  ground  towards  increasing 
national technological autonomy and reducing dependency on third countries.  

FIGURE 11 – RESPONDENTS 
PERCEPTION OF EDF IMPACT ON 
INCREASING NATIONAL 
TECHNOLOGICAL AUTONOMY AND 

REDUCING DEPENDENCY ON THIRD 
COUNTRIES 

While it is  too  early to assess the impact  of EDF project  results on national  autonomy, 
Member States provided concrete examples of ongoing EDF or EDIDP projects that are 
perceived  to  have  an  impact,  notably  in  the  Mine  Counter  Measure,  Information 
Superiority, Space, Cyber, Hypersonic Interceptor and Radar technology domains.  

Projects identified by respondents (Member States) perceived as increasing 
technological autonomy 
Category  
Energy 
Ground Combat 
Naval 
Air/Missile Defence 
Simulation and Training 
Ground Combat 
Underwater warfare 
Information Superiority 
Information Superiority 
Space 
Cyber 

Project 
INDY 
SHOLFEA 
EPW 
EU HYDEF 
FIIST 
FAMOUS 
MIRICLE 
JEY-CUAS 
MALE RPAS 
GEODE 
PANDORA 
 TABLE 9 -  PROJECTS IDENTIFIED BY RESPONDENTS (MEMBER STATES) PERCEIVED AS INCREASING 
TECHNOLOGICAL AUTONOMY 

Programme 
EDF  
EDF  
EDF 
EDF  
EDIDP  
EDIDP  
EDIDP  
EDIDP  
EDIDP  
EDIDP  
EDIDP  

Call year 
2021 
2021 
2021 
2021 
2020 
2020 
2020 
2020 
2020 
2019 
2019 

Member States also noted that, while is too early to talk about concrete results, the EDF is 
contributing  to  address  capability  gaps  identified  at  EU  level,  with  an  average  of  score 
given by respondents of 7 out of 10. 

FIGURE 12 – RESPONDENT PERCEPTIONS ON EDF CONTRIBUTION TOWARDS ADDRESSING/CLOSING EU DEFENCE 
CAPABILITY GAPS 

29 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Projects perceived by Member States as addressing or closing EU capability gaps 

Category 

Programme 

Call year 

Project 

ACTUS 

EPC 

ENGRT 

LOTUS 

Information Superiority 

FASETT 

Force Protection & Mobillity 

PROTEAS 

Information Superiority (C2) 

EDF  

EDF  

EDF  

EDF  

EDF  

2023 

2022 

2022 

2021 

2021 

2019 

Naval 

Air Combat 

Information Superiority 

EDIDP  

TABLE 10 - PROJECTS ADDRESSING EU CAPABILITY GAPS AS PERCEIVED BY MEMBER STATES 

Procurement  
Asked whether results of EDF, EDIDP or PADR projects were already being procured or 
would  be  considered  to  be  procured  in  the  near  future  at  national  level,  most  Member 
States  noted  that  it  is  too  early  to  provide  a  definitive  answer.  However  some  Member 
States  mentioned  examples  of  projects  whose  results  carry  a  strong  possibility  of  being 
progressively  integrated  in  the  armed  forces.  In  terms  of  the  added  value  of  the  EDF 
instrument,  Member  States  perceive  in  a 
positive light that the Fund is contributing to 
the  realisation  of  common  defence  projects 
that  could  not  have  started  nor  been 
achieved  at  national  level  alone.  Written 
inputs from stakeholders further revealed the 
procurement intentions of national MoDs.  

FIGURE 13 – PROCUREMENT OF RESULTS FROM PADR, 
EDIDP OR EDF 

Future potential procurement of EDF/EDIDP project results 
Category 
Naval 

Project 
SEA DEFENCE 

Programme 
EDIDP 

FIIST 

Simulation & Training 

5G COMPAD 

EPC 

MIRICLE 

PANDORA 

Cyber 

Naval 

Underwater warfare 

Cyber 

FAMOUS I  

Force protection & Mobility 

FAMOUS II 

Force protection & Mobility 

CBRN RSS 

Medical Countermeasures 

BATTLEPAD 

FACT  

Cyber 

Cyber 

EDIDP 

EDF  

EDF  

EDIDP 

EDIDP 

EDIDP 

EDF 

EDIDP 

EDF 

EDF 

TABLE 11- FUTURE POTENTIAL PROCUREMENT OF EDF/EDIDP PROJECT RESULTS 

30 

 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Lowering risk of unnecessary duplication  
On  average,  Member  States  believe  that  EDF  has  to  a  large  extent  had  the  effect  of 
lowering  risks  of  unnecessary  duplication  of  defence  products  in  the  EDTIB,  with 
respondents giving an average score of 7 out of 10.  

FIGURE 14 – RESPONDENT PERCEPTION ON THE REDUCTION OF RISK OF DUPLICATION IN 
THE EDTIB 

Cross-border collaboration, opening supply chains and inclusiveness of the Fund 
Overall, Member States perceive that the EDF is positively contributing to the opening of 
supply chains and the consolidation of the EDTIB. Member States noted the uniqueness of 
the  EDF  tool  in  solidifying  the  integration  of  the  European  defence  ecosystem  and 
industrial  tissue  by  virtue  of  enabling  cross-border  collaborations  and  spreading 
technological  know-how.  Member  States  made  more  specific  reference  to  EDF,  EDIDP 
and PADR projects exemplifying such impacts brought by the EU defence R&D industrial 
programmes:   

•  One  Member  State  noted  the  participation  of  its  entities  in  projects  PANDORA 
(EDIDP), LOTUS (EDIDP), 5G COMPAD (EDF) has enabled them to grow business 
opportunities, build new cross-border partnerships and integrate technologies in larger 
defence products. 

•  One  Member  State  noted  the  role  of  ECYSAP  (EDIDP)  project  in  enabling  the 
involvement  of  RTOs  in  European  defence  projects  researching  and  developing 
cutting-edge technologies. 

•  One  Member  State  noted  project  FAMOUS  (EDIDP)  as  further  expanding  regional 
partnerships  and  ADEQUADE  (EDF)  for  providing  a  common  framework  to  expand 
cross-border cooperation in quantum technologies. 

•  One  Member  State  noted  the  example  of  a  local  company  which  has  grown 
significantly from being an SME to a Mid-cap by being involved in European defence 
ecosystem through EDF. 

•  One  Member  State  noted  CROWN  (PADR)  project  dealing  with  aerial  electronic 

warfare as another example of a project reinforcing European supply chains. 

Remarks  during  workshop  discussions  and  further  written  input  noted  the  uniqueness  of 
the EDF tool in solidifying the integration of the European defence ecosystem:  

31 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
•  “The  EDF  has  facilitated  knowledge  sharing,  technology  transfer  and  skill 
industries,  research  organisations  and 
development  among  defence-related 
academia…this  had  contributed  to  a  more  integrated  and  resilient  defence 
innovation ecosystem within [the country].” 

•  “EDF projects provide [entities] valuable experience in the defence field and help 
build  new  long-term  partnerships  not  only  on  regional,  but  also  European  levels 
with 
and 
opportunities 
follow-up 
industrialisation”. 

cooperation 

innovation 

both 

for 

•  “The  positive  effect  is  twofold  -  it  encourages  cooperation  and  opening-up  of  the 

supply chains and sets the ground for future business opportunities.” 

In  addition,  Member  States  tend  to  acknowledge  that  the  EDF,  as  designed,  sufficiently 
provides opportunities for participation, for both smaller and larger Member States alike: 

•  One large Member State noted that it had: “signed more than 100 Letters of Intents 
since  EDIDP  with  25/26  Member  States  which  is  proof  of  the  opportunities 
generated by EDF across all Member States”. 

•  A mid-sized Member State further noted that “The EDF is designed to be inclusive, 

allowing entities from all Member States and Norway to participate”.  

Realising projects that could not have been achieved only at national level 
On  average,  Member  States  perceive  that  EDF  was  important  in  contributing  to  the 
realisation  of  defence  projects  of  European  interest  that  could  not  have  started  nor  been 
achieved  at  national  level  alone.  Respondent  to  the  question  “Do  you  consider  that  the 
EDF contributed to realising projects that could not have been achieved purely at national 
level?” gave an average rating of 8 out of 10. Inputs from Member States provided some 
clear  examples  of  EDF-funded  projects  in  the  maritime,  space  and  most  notably  in 
hypersonic threats domain, as seen in the table below. 
Smaller  Member  States  also  highlighted  in  their  inputs  that  the  EDF  has  enabled  their 
participation  in  larger  scale  defence  projects  that  otherwise  would  not  have  been 
conceivable:  “Some  projects  of  very  high  budget  could  have  only  been  realised  by  big 
Member  States  at  national  level,  without  funding  from  European  Commission.”  Another 
Member  State  noted:  “With  EDF,  smaller  countries  are  given  the  opportunity  to 
participate in such projects.”. Another Member State also noted that “many awarded EDF 
projects  have  a  higher  budget  than  is  the  MoD  budget  for  R&D…we  conclude  that  we 
would not be able to come up with such ambitious projects on a purely national level”.  

FIGURE 15 – RESPONDENT PERCEPTION 
OF PROJECTS THAT COULD NOT HAVE 
BEEN REALIZED AT NATIONAL LEVEL 
ALONE 

32 

 
 
 
 
 
 
FIGURE 16 – RESPONDENT PERCEPTION OF EDF’S CONTRIBUTION IN REALIZING PROJECTS THAT 
COULD NOT HAVE BEEN ACHIEVED AT NATIONAL OR REGIONAL LEVEL ALONE 

that 

the  EDF  carries  a  potential 

Enabling potential for interchangeability/interoperability 
On average, Member States believe that EDF projects have the potential to enable further 
interchangeability or interoperability of defence systems. While most Member States stated 
that  it  was  too  early  in  the  programme’s  implementation,  one  Member  State  noted:  “we 
interoperability  and 
agree 
interchangeability.” Some project examples listed by Member States in their inputs were: 
o 
in Military Mobility.  
o 
o 
tactical transport interoperability. 

EDINAF, dTHOR and EPC were mentioned for the naval domain.  
ENGRT  was  cited  for  rotorcraft  standardisation  and  FASETT  for  future  mid-size 

SDMMS project  was cited as an example of supporting  increased interoperability 

improving 

for 

FIGURE 17 - RESPONDENT PERCEPTIONS ON EDF CONTRIBUTION TOWARDS INCREASING 
INTEROPERABILITY 

Attractiveness of the Fund for Newcomers 
The majority of Member States believe that the EDF has attracted an increasing number of 
‘newcomers’  to  the  defence  sector  –  meaning  first-time  participants  in  industrial  defence 
R&D projects. Some Member States underlined that newcomers play an important role in 
consortia,  especially  in  terms  of  bringing  innovative  ideas  and  solutions.  Member  States 
have noted from the experiences of their national industries that it remains difficult for new 
entities  to  enter  “follow-up”  EDF  development  projects.  Additionally,  rules  for  handling 
classified  information,  the  calculation  of  funding  rates  and  the  bonus  system  for 
development actions are found to be challenging for newcomers. Some Member States put 
forward  the  recommendation  that  funding  in  “non-thematic”  SME  calls  or  Disruptive 
33 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
technology  calls  should be  increased  to  encourage  newcomers  or  less  experienced  SMEs 
using those calls as an entry point into EDF. One Member State noted: “Maintaining non-
thematic  SME  calls  without  a  specific  focus  area  is  essential…this  approach  provides 
innovative  SMEs,  particularly  those  not  yet  established  in  the  defence  sector,  with  a  fair 
opportunity to participate in the EDF”. 
SMEs and Mid-Caps participation in the EDF  
On  average,  Member  States  are  either  partially  or  strongly  satisfied  with  the  degree  of 
inclusion  of  SMEs  in  the  EDF  and  acknowledge  the  incentivisation  effect  on  cross-
border  defence  R&D  cooperation  enabled  by  the  EDF.  Member  States  view  the 
incentives  favouring  inclusiveness  of  SMEs  and  Mid-Caps  in  EDF  consortia  as 
established  by  the  provisions  in  the  EDF  Regulation  to  be  an  important  driver  for  this 
added participation.  Member States  also  noted the positive impact  of dedicated support 
measures  organised  by  DG  DEFIS  such  as  SME  business  coaching  services,  EDF  Info 
Days  and  NFP  network  to  foster  better  understanding  on  the  funding  opportunities 
available under the EDF and in facilitating SME participation in the Fund. 
Some  Member  States  however  noted  that  the  participation  of  SMEs  does  not  necessarily 
translate to higher participation in work packages nor guaranteeing a central role of SMEs 
in  a  consortium.  One  Member  State  noted  that  there  has  been  a  decrease  in  the 
participation  of SME entities applying to  the  Fund over the three-year EDF  cycle due to 
the  high  administrative  burden  and  difficult  negotiations  on  IPRs.    Some  Member  States 
also  outlined  the  aspect  related  to  the  perceived  difficulty  of  being  integrated  in  larger 
thematic calls. In terms of recommendations, many Member States call on a simplification 
of the application process for SMEs to reduce administrative burden. This could be done 
by  potentially  by  simplifying  funding  rate  calculations,  introducing  bi-annual  Work 
Programmes, extended deadlines for SME supporting document submission.  

EDF support to Defence Innovation - EUDIS measures and non-thematic calls 
Overall, all Member States are satisfied with the way that the EDF support measures are 
addressing  defence  innovation.  With  specific  reference  to  the  set  of  measures  under  the 
‘EU Defence Innovation Scheme’ (EUDIS), enabled by the EDF, Member States perceive 
that they are fit for bolstering EU defence innovation and for enabling civil fertilisation in 
defence. One Member State noted that innovation was particularly supported in the domain 
of  Sensors,  Cyber,  Air  Defence  and  Underwater  warfare.  One  Member  State  noted  that 
innovation  was  particularly  supported  in  the  mine  counter  measures  domain,  notably 
through the ‘Miricle’ project (EDIDP) and E=MCM (EDF) projects. In relation to EUDIS, 
most Member States noted that it was too early to provide a definitive assessment but deem 
overall fit for purpose the introduction of measures targeting defence innovation under the 
EUDIS umbrella.  

•  With relation to “Spin-in calls”, which aim to favour the uptake of results from civil 
programmes  into  the  defence  domain,  one  Member  State  noted  that:  “It  is  vitally 
important that there will be spin-in calls also in the future” and called on increasing 
the  annual  number  of  spin-in  calls.  Another  Member  State  suggested  that  spin-in 
calls should have a broader scope for any civil innovation that could be transferred 
to  the  defence  world.  Additionally,  one  Member  State  noted  that  the  introduction 
“Spin-off calls” (from defence to civil sector) could be considered. 

•  With  relation  to  “Technological  challenges”,  which  fund  testing  environments  to 
address  defence-specific  problems,  one  Member  State  noted  that  “Technological 
challenges  in  the  IT  sector  create  already  interesting  results  in  their  respective 
sectors.”  

34 

 
 
•  With  relation  to  Hackathons,  one  Member  State  encouraged  this  measure  to  be 
further  expanded  and  another  Member  State  noted  that  they  should  be  organised 
earlier to allow more time for applicants to apply. 

•  With  relation  to  Cascade  funding,  a  Member  State  noted  that  the  concept  could 

even be explored in a more structural manner for all development actions. 

•  With  relation  to  SME  business  coaching  services,  provided  to  successful  SMEs 
beneficiaries, one Member State noted: “SME Business coaching is very helpful for 
SMEs  and  start-ups  to  incrementally  advance  in  the  logistic  chain  and  needs 
pursuing.” 

Member States also overall assess that EDF innovation measures had a positive impact in 
fostering national defence innovation communities. 
Effectiveness and set-up of non-thematic open calls for SMEs and calls on disruptive 
technologies (DIS) 
The  majority  of  Member  States  view  non-thematic  (NT)  calls  as  very  important  for  the 
Fund’s inclusiveness, as they act as an entry point for new or less experienced entities, and 
favour competition. Member States, both small and large, overwhelmingly agree that such 
calls are to be kept every year and included in future funding programmes.  
In view of their high degree of competition, Member States generally support the view that 
more budget should be allocated to NT calls to address issues of good proposals not being 
funded.  Questioned  as  to  whether  thematic  call  texts  should  better  state  the  need  to 
integrate results from NT projects, Member States welcomed the idea. One Member State 
noted  that  a  re-submission  policy  should  be  introduced  to  avoid  duplicate/recurring 
submissions  every  year  under  NT  calls.  Asked  whether  Member  States  think  SME  calls 
should  have  a  more  thematic  angle  (e.g.  to  be  more  linked  to  thematic  categories  in  the 
EDF  work  programmes),  most  were  ambivalent  to  the  suggestion.  Member  States 
expressed  no  strong  views  as  to  whether  there  should  be  an  annual  alternation  between 
non-thematic disruptive technology calls and non-thematic open SME calls. 
Synergies with EDA HEDI and NATO DIANA 
Member  States  agree  there  is  room  to  further  strengthen  complementarities  with  other 
defence  innovation  initiatives  such  as  NATO  DIANA  and  EDA’s  HEDI.  Some  Member 
States noted that DIANA and HEDI assignments could be more linked with certain  EDF 
call categories. Other Member States noted that HEDI challenges can offer opportunities to 
test  EDF  outcomes  or  that  there  should  be  less  limits  on  the  integration  of  EDA  CatB 
projects into EDF projects.  
Integration of Lessons Learned from PADR and EDIDP 
Main improvements in EDF based on lessons learned from precursor programmes PADR 
and EDIDP include:  

•  The  merging  of  previously  separated  Research  and  Development  programmes  into  a 

single programme.  

•  An earlier and clearer process of Work Programme preparation. 
•  An improvement in call text harmonization process.  
•  The introduction of having “functional requirements” in EDF.  
•  Better online guidance on proposal preparation for applicants.  
•  Better structural support measures for SMEs (business coaching, NFP networks, lump-

sums for SME calls, matchmaking events, Info Days)  

•  The  introduction  of  S-CIRCABC  as  secured  exchange  platform  between  Member 

States and the EC. 

•  The introduction of the EDF MAP for longer-term planning purposes.  

35 

 
 
Generally,  however,  Member  States  perceive  that  some  key  implementation  challenges 
remain similar in EDF compared to PADR and EDIDP, especially related to co-funding (in 
EDIDP).  However,  it  is  noted  by  virtually  all  Member  States  that  because  the  EDF  has 
lasted  longer,  there  has  been  a  more  constant  learning  process  among  beneficiaries  and 
Member States which in turn has facilitated EDF implementation. 

Clarity of call information and use of independent experts 
Overall,  Member  States  understand  from  their  industries  that  information  on  calls  for 
proposals  made  available  by  the  European  Commission  is  sufficiently  clear.  Member 
States overall assess in a positive light the assistance provided by independent experts for 
technical and financial evaluation of EDF proposals.  

Proposal preparation and GAP identified challenges 
At  proposal  preparation  stage,  Member  States  noted  the  complexities  encountered  in 
needing  to  provide  necessary  Letters  of  Intent  (LoIs)  in  time,  especially  without  the 
necessary  visibility  over  project  proposals  and  more  exact  co-financing  needs  from  the 
consortia and  among  other participating   Member States of a  consortium. At GAP stage, 
Member States noted the lack of visibility on project proposals and lack of access to Grant 
Agreements themselves. In this respect, many Member States requested that participating 
Member States should as matter of principle access grant agreements. Member States also 
noted that changes in EU funding amounts to EDF projects during GAP stage compared to 
when submitted has  implications at  Member State-level  since co-financing amounts need 
to be re-negotiated.  

Memoranda of Understanding  
The  establishment  of  Memoranda  of  Understanding  constitutes  the  primary  manner  for 
participating  Member  States  of  an  EDF  project  to  agree  on  critical  issues  such 
implementing  arrangements,  user  rights,  export  control,  issues  related  to  security 
framework for information exchange and co-financing. Member States noted that in view 
of the complexity and sensitivity of aspects to be negotiated, there should be a need for a 
more guidance from the EC on how to establish a harmonised process or even a common 
EDF MoU template.  

Co-financing 
The issue relating to Member States co-financing of development projects was subject to 
different considerations, being a multipronged issue that presents itself in the early stages 
of  proposal  preparation  but  also  materialises  itself  after  submission  phase  and  during 
implementation project phase. In relation to determining co-financing agreements, Member 
States noted: 
▪  The inability to access full project proposals hinders the visibility of Member States 
to  understand  what  results  they  may  obtain  through  EDF  funded  actions  to  begin 
with.  This  creates  uncertain  expectations  and  an  inability  to  have  a  clearer  co-
financing planning between Member States and consortia. 

▪  There  is  an  information  gap  of  co-financing  needs  that  other  entities  of  the 

consortium ask their respective MoDs. 

▪  Difficulty  in  calculating  the  co-financing  itself  and  the  modalities  of  providing  co-

financing methods (grants vs contracts) 

36 

 
  
 
 
 
▪  Co-financing  is  linked  on  obtaining  from  industry  forms  of  access  rights  or  user 
rights over IPRs developed by the consortia, which is the primary reason for lengthy 
negotiations in view of their sensitiveness.  

▪  Noted  a  general  lack  of  guidance  in  terms  of  the  process  needed  for  associated 
Member States to reach co-financing agreements among themselves and ambiguities 
in definitions.  

Role of National Project Manager 
At project implementation stage Member States/Norway call for clarification of role of 
the national project manager (PM) and enhancement/facilitation of communication 
between Member States/Norway and consortia coordinators. One Member State noted 
the difficulties of a non-lead nation involved in EDF projects to receive information from 
the consortia through the appointed PM: “In some cases, an appointed PM provides the 
rest of the Member States sufficient information on the projects, other times we have no 
feedback from the PM.” Another Member State noted that the role of PM is key for 
coherent implementation of EDF development actions. To facilitate also the exchange of 
project information between PM and rest of Project Board (which manages cofinancing 
of projects), general access rules should be introduced. 

Efficiency of support provided by EDF NFPs  
Member  States  perceive  that  the  support  provided  by  nationally  appointed  EDF  focal 
points to be very efficient and valuable in both supporting industry and Member States to 
provide necessary assistance related to EDF call submission processes.  

2.  FEEDBACK FROM INDUSTRY 

2.1 Large Industry  
As  a  key  stakeholder  group,  large  entity  EDF  beneficiaries  were  consulted  through  a 
dedicated  workshop  (12  September  2024)  and  through  a  linked  survey.  Additional 
bilateral consultations were held with those entities wishing to further express their views 
or  who  had  not  taken  part  in  the  workshop  but  whose  nature  or  geographical  location 
made having their additional feedback important for a more representative consultation. 
Entities were selected with the logic of being amongst the top recipients of EDF funding 
from EDF 2021 and 2022 projects. 

 Questionnaire Respondents 

                 Participants to the Workshop 

Entities Invited                                       

32 

Entities Invited                             32 

Respondents 

Response rate 

10  

31% 

Participants                                  18  

Response rate                            56% 

Cross-border partnerships and fostering innovation capacity in the EDTIB 
All  industrial  entities  highlighted  in  workshops  and  written  surveys  the  importance  of 
EDF  in  fostering  cross-border  collaborations  and  deepening  existing  partnerships. 
Entities noted benefits of cross-border collaborations include: cost savings, establishment 

37 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
of  supply  chains  in  Europe,  and  harmonisation  of  technical  requirements  and 
specifications.  

Developing defence R&D Projects that could not happen at national level 
60%  of  respondents  to  a  questionnaire  consider  that  the  EDF  contributed  to  realising 
defence  R&D  projects  that  could  not  have  been  achieved  purely  at  a  national/regional 
level.  One  entity  noted  during  a  workshop  the  “pull  factor”  of  EDF  for  mobilising 
Member  States  at  very  early  stages  on  projects  of  European  interest  that,  without  EDF 
funding, may not have happened. 

Importance of EDF funding support for large entities engaged in R&D activities 
On a scale of 1-5, almost half of respondents believe that EDF funding is very essential 
(score of 5/5) for its research and development activities. 

FIGURE 16 – 
RESPONDENT 
PERCEPTIONS TO 
EDF IMPORTANCE 

IN SUPPORTING 
COMPANY R&D 
ACTITIVIES 

programme 

Continued 
interest 
While  industry  beneficiaries  expressed  their  increasing  interest  in  responding  to  EDF 
calls  (with  90%  of  questionnaire  respondents  noting  that  their  interest  in  EDF  is  either 
increasing or stable), several  entities noted that interest may decrease if Member States 
do  not  follow  through  with  commitments  on  co-financing.  Entities  pointed  out  the 
recurring  delays  experienced  in  obtaining  the  necessary  co-financing  contracts  by 
respective  Member  States  under  EDF  development  actions.  Moreover,  beneficiaries 
emphasized  the  need  for  collaborative  procurement  of  capabilities  if  results  from  EDF 
projects are to become commercially viable and have an uptake in the armed forces to fill 
capability gaps. 

IPRs  
Industry underlined the fact that future procurement of R&D products from EDF depends 
heavily on IPR implications. Two recurring highlighted issues on IPRs are that, firstly, it 
is  often difficult  to  separate  IPRs among  different  entities from  different countries of a 
consortium and, secondly, that the sharing of IPRs among Member States, as determined 
in MoUs, may contradict the IPR distributions taken previously at consortium agreement 
level on a workshare/cost share basis. 80% of respondents to a questionnaire stated that 
their  EDF  project  is  expected  to  generate  (or  has  actually  generated)  patents  or 
Intellectual Property Rights (IPRs). 

Increase in budget and budget split 
Different entities also noted that EDF overall budget envelope is not sufficient, especially 
if  the  intent  is  to  carry  on  development  projects  at  higher  TRLs  in  the  future.  Several 

38 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
entities have suggested that a future defence R&D programme should be endowed with a 
financial  envelope  at  least  equivalent,  if  not  higher  than,  the  EUR  13  billion  budget 
foreseen  in  the  original  Commission  legislative  proposal  for  the  establishment  of  the 
EDF. 

FIGURE 17 - RESPONDENT PERCEPTIONS ON THE ADEQUACY OF EDF BUDGET 

FIGURE 18 - RESPONDENT PERCEPTIONS ON THE ADEQUACY OF EDF BUDGET SPLIT 

Reducing Duplications and Increasing standardisation 
Entities  positively  noted  EDF’s  efforts  to  reduce  duplications  although  uncertainty 
persists in the defence community as to what the intended goal of ‘reducing duplications’ 
should be - not all view the reduction in the number of defence systems in the EU as the 
way to reduce duplications but rather improving the interoperability of multiple systems. 
In response to the question on to what extent did the EDF contribute so far to “reducing 
the  risk  of  duplication  of  defence  products  and  technologies”,  respondents  gave  an 
average score of 3 (on a scale of 1-5). In response to the question on to what extent did 
the  EDF  contribute  so  far  to  “increasing  standardisation  in  products  and  capabilities  to 
ensure greater interoperability”, respondents gave an average score of 3.7 (on a scale of 
1-5). 

Addressing capability gaps at EU and national level 
Large  industry  was  also  asked  questions  about  their  perception  on  how  the  EDF  was 
contributing to address EU or national capability gaps. In response to the question on to 
what  extent  did  the  EDF  contribute  so  far  to  “addressing  defence  capability  gaps 
identified at EU or national level”, respondents gave an average score of 4.2 (on a scale 
of 1-5), referring to a strong increase.  

‘SME Bonus’ and SME Status 
Industry  beneficiaries  noted  that  the  increased  funding  rate  provided  by  the  EDF 
regulation  for  cross-border  collaboration  (so  called  ‘SME  bonus’)  is  effective  in 
attracting  SMEs  in  defence  R&D  consortia.  However,  many  entities  that  have  acted  as 
industrial  coordinators of EDF projects  have noted that this has led to the formation  of 
large  consortia  that  often  hinders  the  ability  to  efficiently  manage  projects  and  their 
subsequent development phases. Entities have also noted that the changes in SME status 
during  GAP  process  carries  at  times  significant  challenges  for  industry  in  development 
actions as this alters eligible costs foreseen at proposal stage, which in turn leads to re-
negotiations of Member States co-financing. 

39 

Do you consider that the EDF budget is adequate, considering the current geopolitical environment and its possible evolution in the future?Budget should be increased1Budget should be significantly increased8Budget should stay the same1Total10Budget should be increasedBudget should be significantly increasedBudget should stay the sameDo you have any views on the current EDF budget split of 1/3 for Research and 2/3 for Development actions?Share of budget for research actions should be increased3Budget split should stay the same5No reply1Total9Share of budget for research actions should beincreasedBudget split should stay the sameNo reply 
 
 
 
 
 
FIGURE 19 - RESPONDENT PERCEPTIONS ON THE SME BONUS SYSTEM 

Submission Process 
EDF call submission processes and required documentation is generally well understood 
by large industry (average score of 3.8 out of 5), especially after full three-year cycles of 
implementation. Large industry has noted that a primary problem for the submission of 
proposals  relates  to  having  necessary  LoIs  and  co-financing  declarations  agreed  and  in 
place  by  the  submission  deadline.  Entities  have  expressed  a  need  for  greater 
synchronisation of provisions and timelines between Member States and EDF industrial 
consortia which currently happens on an ad hoc basis with each entity following different 
national processes, often in tight timelines. 

FIGURE 20 - RESPONDENT PERCEPTIONS ON THE EDF SUBMISSION FORMS AND PROCESS 

Feedback on EDF outreach activities 
EDF Info Days and tutorials offered by DG DEFIS have been mentioned as being highly 
useful to familiarise entities with the EDF application processes. 

FIGURE 21 - RESPONDENT FEEDBACK ON EDF OUTREACH AND SUPPORT ACTIVITIES 

Project Continuity 
80% of respondents to a questionnaire which were either a PADR or EDIDP beneficiary 
stated  that  the  products/technologies  developed  under  EDIDP/PADR  have  partially  or 
fully continued thanks to the EDF, therefore advancing  the industrial  lifecycle of R&D 
products. Examples of successfully transitioned projects from EDIDP to  EDF that have 
been explicitly mentioned include: SEA DEFENCE, E-CUAS, EUDAAS2, ODIN’s EYE 
II, and E=MCM. 

40 

 Did, in your view, the EDF bonus system incentivise SME participation in the EDF?Yes8No1TOTAL9YesNo18. How do you perceive the clarity of the information and guidance relating to the submission forms and submission process (this includes the information and guidance inside the call documentation and submission forms, as well as the information in EDF info days,2133435 - Most satisfactory3Total1000.511.522.533.52345 - Most satisfactory2345 - Most satisfactoryHow useful do you find the following EDF outreach and support activities?: EU and national EDF Info Days1 - Least useful02030415 - Most useful8Total901234567891 - Least useful2345 - Most useful1 - Least useful2345 - Most useful 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Improvements from PADR/EDIDP for project implementation 
Industry  beneficiaries  noted  several  improvements  from  PADR/EDIDP,  including  the 
move  to  a  digital  submission  platform  and  the  introduction  of  actual  indirect  costs 
methodology  (unique to the EDF programme). Generally speaking,  entities believe that 
EDF  implementation  is  smoother  both  in  terms  of  the  indirect  and  direct  management 
modalities.  

FIGURE 22 - RESPONDENT PERCEPTIONS ON IMPROVEMENTS OF EDF COMPARED TO EDIDP RELATED TO FUNDING 
GRANTED 

FIGURE 23 - RESPONDENT PERCEPTIONS ON IMPROVEMENTS OF EDF COMPARED TO  EDIDP RELATED TO 
MANAGEMENT TYPES 

FIGURE 24 - RESPONDENT PERCEPTIONS ON IMPROVEMENTS OF EDF COMPARED TO EDIDP IN TERMS OF PROJECT 
IMPLEMENTATION 

Clarity of Long-term programming from industry perspective  
Entities perceive that EDF generally does not provide the necessary long-term planning 
clarity  for  industry  (average  scores  of  2.9  out  5  were  given  in  response  to  a 
questionnaire).  The  EDF  Multiannual  Perspective  (MAP)  is  perceived  as  a  welcome 
novelty for large industry that helps to give industry more clarity on future funding areas, 
as also  inferred  from  questionnaire replies. However, entities have noted that the MAP 
could include more detailed technological roadmaps. To help with greater predictability 
and to better prepare proposals, some entities have noted that gaining access to publicly 
releasable EDF annual Work Programme drafts (before official publication) would help 
even more with predictability.  

41 

How satisfied are you with the following aspects when comparing EDF with EDIDP? If any of the aspects were not satisfactory, please explain why. If this question is not applicable for you, please leave it blank.: The funding grantedNo difference1EDF is better10Total11No differenceEDF is betterHow satisfied are you with the following aspects when comparing EDF with EDIDP? If any of the aspects were not satisfactory, please explain why. If this question is not applicable for you, please leave it blank.: Direct/indirect managementNo difference4EDF is better6Total10No differenceEDF is betterDo you consider that EDF project implementation is more efficient than project implementation in PADR and EDIDP?Yes8No2TOTAL10YesNo 
 
 
 
 
 
FIGURE 25 - RESPONDENT PERCEPTIONS ON CLARITY OF THE EDF MAP IN PROVIDING PROJECT CONTINUITY 

Procurement 
To gain  insights  as to  whether EDF/EDIDP/PADR project  related results were on their 
way  of  seeing  forms  of  procurement  from  armed  forces,  affirmative  responses  to  a 
question  on  this  topic  revealed  that  there  are  signs  of  either  ongoing  negotiations  with 
end-users  or  expected  commercial  procurement  of  project  results.  Those  that  did  not 
respond  affirmatively  noted  that  this  was  because  projects  have  not  yet  reached  the 
necessary level of maturity needed for procurement. 

FIGURE 26 - RESPONDENT FEEDBACK ON SIGNS OF POSSIBLE PROCUREMENT OF RESULTS DEVELOPED THROUGH 
EDF, EDIDP OR PADR 

2.2 SMEs, Mid-cap and RTOs  

SME,  Mid-Cap  and  RTO  entity  beneficiaries  were  consulted  through  a  dedicated 
workshop (18 September 2024) and through a linked survey. Entities were selected with 
the logic of ensuring the most representative pool by geographical balance. 

 Questionnaire Respondents                        Participants to the Workshop 

Entities Invited                                     

52 

Entities Invited                            52 

Respondents 

Response rate 

8  

15% 

Participants                                 18  

Response rate                            35% 

Benefits of participating in the EDF for smaller players 
Entities underlined that the main benefits of participating in the EDF and drivers of their 
participation include being able to externalise costs of developing new technologies; gain 
future  expected  competitiveness  by  being  part  of  next-gen  defence  capability  projects; 
have a better pulse on EU defence ecosystem as a whole; enable business development 
and growth; develop excellent partnerships with new entities across the EU and extended 
networking in the EDTIB, and helping to  build stronger partnerships with their national 
Ministries  of  Defence  (MoDs).  Moreover,  all  small  entity  respondents  noted  that 
generally the EDF is fostering the opening of supply chains. 

42 

Does the EDF, and in particular the indicative multiannual perspective, provide sufficient clarity regarding the EDF long-term planning and expected continuity of effort on a project that had already benefitted from EDF/EDIDP/PADR funding?Yes2Partially5No3TOTAL10YesPartiallyNoHas a product or technology developed within an EDF/EDIDP/PADR project that your organisation was part of entered any forms of procurement with one or more Member States or shows signs of possible market uptake?Yes5No4Question not applicable1Total10YesNoQuestion not applicable 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
FIGURE 27 - RESPONDENT PERCEPTIONS ON EDF CONTRIBUTION TOWARDS OPENING SUPPLY CHAINS IN THE 
EDTIB 

Growing Interest of SME participation in the programme 
Most  noted  that  their  interest  towards  the  programme  is  increasing  and  even  those  that 
played  a  role  as  EDIDP  consortia  coordinators  would  do  it  again,  despite  the  steep 
learning  curve.  One  participant  suggested  to  look  at  means  to  increase  the  support 
capacity of MoDs and the EDF National Focal Point (NFP), as well as to ease or further 
compensate the workload of the coordinator. 
Comparisons between EDF and Horizon Europe programme 
Asked  how  the  EDF  programme  compares  to  Horizon  Europe  in  terms  of  project 
implementation  and  application  procedures,  entities  noted  that  EDF  participation 
requirements are certainly higher, timelines for applying are more intense and barriers to 
entry  higher.  However,  entities  perceive  that  this  difference  is  justified  considering  the 
nature of the programme requiring to produce defence capabilities and systems for armed 
forces.  Some  also  noted  that  contrary  to  the  EDF,  Horizon  Europe  draft  call  content  is 
publicly available ahead of the final call release and that cost reallocations between cost 
categories  seems  easier  than  in  the  EDF.  The  FFPA  model  (as  used  for  CBRN)  or  the 
thematic of protection of critical infrastructure were mentioned as possible ways to ease 
establishment of smart synergies with civil R&D programmes in a dual-use perspective. 

Importance of EDF funding support for small entities engaged in R&D activities 
Small  entity  beneficiaries  have  noted  that  EDF  funding  clearly  supports  bolstering  the 
R&D  activities  and  capacities  of  their  company.  Respondents  to  the  question  “to  what 
extent  did  the  EDF  contribute  so  far  to  increasing  attraction  of  alternative  sources  of 
funding for your organization” gave a score of 3.4 out of 5. Respondents to the question 
“to what extent did the EDF contribute so far to increasing organisational growth”, gave 
a score of 3.5 out of 5. For some small entities, the annual R&D funding from the EDF 
exceeds 15% and for some even more than 75% of their annual R&D funding. 

FIGURE 28 - RESPONDENT FEEDBACK ON DEGREE TO WHICH EDF FUNDING CONTRIBUTES TO OVERALL ANNUAL 
R&D FUNDING 

43 

Do you consider that the EDF contributed to opening supply chains and consolidating the European Defence Technological and Industrial Base (EDTIB)? In other words, did the EDF help your organisation develop new, incl. cross-border partnerships or enter the defence market?Yes4To a certain extent4TOTAL8YesTo a certain extentWhat part of your organisation’s annual R&D funding comes from the EDF? Less than 5%4Between 5 to 15 %2Between 25 and 50 %1More than 75%1TOTAL8Less than 5%Between 5 to 15 %Between 25 and 50 %More than 75% 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
SME and Mid-Cap bonus and Award criteria 
Asked about the perceived effects of the EDF’s cross-border “SME and Mid-Cap bonus 
system”, 90% of targeted entities noted that the bonus system was an effective incentive 
to  boost  their  participation  in  the  EDF  programme.  One  SME  respondent  noted  that: 
“Without  bonus  we  would  not  apply;  we  cannot  fund  ourselves  innovation  and  need 
100%  funding  rates”.  One  respondent  also  noted  that:  “evaluation  criteria  based  on 
inclusion  of  SMEs  and  midcaps  play  a  decisive  role  in  integration”.  One  participant 
noted the idea that there could be a bonus for newcomers (new entities) or even a bonus 
to  towards  the  inclusion  in  consortia  of  entities  that  participated  in  PADR  or  EDIDP 
projects.  

FIGURE 29 - RESPONDENT PERCEPTIONS ON UTILITY OF SME BONUS IN ATTRACTING PARTICIPATION TO THE EDF 

Thematic vs Non-thematic calls 
Entities noted that despite the fact that non-thematic calls have lower success rates, they 
are an essential way to develop targeted innovative products - without necessarily being 
attached to large companies. An RTO also noted during a workshop that, by their nature, 
non-thematic  calls  facilitate  SME  engagement.  However,  small  entities  believe  that 
thematic  calls  are  equally  important  to  ensure  their  participation  in  EDF  development 
actions at higher TRL levels.  

FIGURE 30 - RESPONDENT PERCEPTIONS ON IMPACT OF THEMATIC VS NON-THEMATIC EDF CALLS ON 
PARTICIPATION 

 Co-financing challenges  
Entities noted that in EDF development actions, beneficiaries often find themselves in a 
situation of not knowing whether the MoDs are going to provide necessary co-funding, 
an uncertainty which is difficult for SMEs. Entities explained that each consortia member 
individually  initiates  discussions  with  corresponding  MoDs  on  co-financing  with  often 
different  deadlines  and  procedures.  One  RTO  noted  that  at  times  consortia  participants 
even have no direct contacts with MoDs. Another RTO noted that where no co-funding 
44 

 Did, in your view, the EDF bonus system incentivise SME participation in the EDF?Yes8No1TOTAL9Did, in your view, the award criteria incentivise SME and mid-cap participation in the EDF?Yes6No3TOTAL9YesNoYesNoDo you have any views whether thematic or non-thematic calls provided more opportunities for your organisation to participate in EDF projects.Thematic calls more important1Non-thematic calls more imporant1Both are important7TOTAL9012345678Thematic calls more importantNon-thematic calls more imporantBoth are important 
 
 
 
 
was  announced  this  has  led  beneficiaries  to  change  their  roles  into  becoming  sub-
contractors. 

FIGURE 31- RESPONDENT PERCEPTIONS ON IMPROVEMENTS BROUGHT BY THE EDF IN TERMS OF MEMBER STATE 
COMMITMENTS AND CO-FINANCING 

Continuity on follow-up calls 
Entities  noted  that  the  Commission  should  play  a  bigger  role  in  ensuring  project 
continuity.  One  Mid-Cap  noted  that  “too  many  projects  would  have  deserved  to  be 
continued, but due to a lack of planning they ended up being lost or stuck at a too low 
development phase.” As another example brought to light during workshop discussions, 
one participant noted that cases where the “phase 2” of an R&D project was awarded to a 
consortium  different  from  that  which  worked  on  “phase  1”,  this  will  lead  to  a  loss  in 
know-how but also to complications in sharing IPRs and results generated from “phase 
1”.  On  the  other  side,  for  some  critical  high-end  technologies  or  capabilities  (e.g. 
hypersonic vehicles), one RTO mentioned that it is important that all relevant players are 
in the EDF supported follow-up project(s). 

Dedicated SME support measures and Outreach Activities 
Small  and  medium-sized  entities  consulted  perceive  in  a  generally  positive  way  the 
dedicated  SME  support  instruments  put  in  place  by  the  EDF  in  order  to  support  their 
integration of smaller entities in the programme. Even if at an early stage of programme 
implementation,  these  entities  noted  that  the  EDF  contributes  to  a  good  extent  in 
fostering innovation  capacity within companies.  Respondent  to  a questionnaire gave an 
average  score  of  3.7  out  of  5  to  a  question  related  to  this.  Smaller  entities,  often  more 
engaged in the civil domain, generally welcome the introduction of spin-in calls in EDF 
Work Programme. 

FIGURE 32 – RESPONDENT PERCEPTIONS ON THE RELEVANCE OF DIFFERENT EUDIS MEASURES 

Small  entity  beneficiaries  have  also  noted  that  the  outreach  support  activities  that  DG 
DEFIS has put in place to promote the attractiveness of the Fund (through European and 
National EDF Info Days, participation to defence exhibitions and tech/start-up events) is 
of very high relevance and usefulness. Respondents to the question “How useful do you 
find  the  following  EDF  outreach  and  support  activities  (EU  and  national  EDF  Info 
Days)”, gave an average score of 4.9 out of 5. 

45 

Average score across SMEs asked about the relevance of different measuresNon-thematic calls focused on SMEs3.875Specifically designed thematic calls3.625SMEs business coaching3.25Technological challenges3Defence equity facility2.875Spin-in calls2.5Defence hackathons2.12500.511.522.533.54Non-thematic callsfocused on SMEsSpecifically designedthematic callsSMEs businesscoachingTechnologicalchallengesDefence equityfacilitySpin-in callsDefence hackathons 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
IPRs and User/Access Rights 
Entities  noted  that  finding  agreements  on  IPR  access  rights  or  user  rights  remains  a 
complex  issue  to  resolve  and  which  often  is  the  cause  of  delays  for  the  finalisation  of 
MoUs  among  participating  Member  States.  It  is  noted  that  some  MoDs  make  their 
financial  support  contingent  to  accessing  results  whereas  grants  are  often  not  the  best 
suited instruments for that. 
Procurement of results from successful projects  
Some small entities noted that despite solutions developed under EDF/EDIDP/PADR are 
highly  recognised  by  the  end  users,  procurement  contracts  have  not  yet  reached  them, 
often due to limited budget in MoDs or due to other prioritisations. A Mid-Cap noted that 
EDF is still a new concept for procurement agencies and not yet fully understood.  One 
RTO noted that they instead have seen signs of procurement  or market  uptake from  its 
MoD. 

2.3  Commission  Expert  Group  on  Policies  and  Programmes  relevant  to  EU  Space, 
Defence and Aeronautics Industry – Sub-Group Defence 

In  light  of  the  EDF  interim  evaluation  exercise,  DG  DEFIS  consulted  the  Commission 
Expert  Group  on  Policies  and  Programmes  relevant  to  EU  Space,  Defence  and 
Aeronautics  Industry  -  Sub-Group  Defence,  to  deliver  advice,  recommendations  and 
lessons  learned  on  the  European  Defence  Fund.  The  group  is  composed  of  around  60 
members  coming  from  manufacturing  companies,  SMEs,  start-ups,  associations  and 
research  institutes.  Together,  they  jointly  formulated  and  delivered  to  DG  DEFIS  a 
comprehensive  report  on  the  EDF  interim  evaluation.    The  full  report  can  be  accessed 
here.  

2.4 Non-Beneficiaries of the Fund 
In  order  to  explore  the  reasons  for  which  why  certain  entities  of  the  European  defence 
industrial  community  never  decided  to  participate  nor  apply  to  the  Fund,  a  targeted 
questionnaire  was  launched  to  108  entities.  Despite  the  low  response  rates  to  the 
questionnaire some relevant input from SMEs and Mid-Caps could be collected. 
Respondents  noted  that  reasons  for  not  applying  to  EDF  were  generally  related  to  not 
being  familiar  with  the  funding  opportunities  offered  nor  the  application  modalities. 
Respondents  also  noted  that  clearer  information  about  call  topics  and  longer-term 
objectives of the Fund could be a reason for them to apply for the future. One respondent 
noted 
into  mass 
manufacturing/production  or  who  are  specialised  in  niche  collaborations  with  existing 
primes.  In  response  to  the  question:  “What  do  you  see  as  the  biggest  added  value  in 
having a Fund at EU level to support collaborative defence R&D?” all replied that it is 
the greater diversity of opportunities and larger pool of resources available. 

is  not  attractive 

to  companies 

the  Fund 

that  are 

that 

46 

 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
3.  FEEDBACK FROM ACADEMIA AND THINK-TANKS 

Experts  coming  from  think-tanks  and  relevant  academia  were  consulted  through  a 
dedicated workshop (26 September 2024) to help gather more reflective observations on 
the programme. Entities were selected with the logic of ensuring the most representative 
pool by geographical balance. 

Participants to Workshop 

Entities invited 

Entities attended 

Participation rate 

24 

17 

71% 

Relevance of EDF 
Think-tanks and the academic community consensually view the EDF as being a relevant 
programme  and  even  a  “groundbreaking”  tool  for  strengthening  the  EU’s  defence 
architecture and bolstering EU strategic autonomy. In light of the Russian aggression of 
Ukraine,  all  noted  that  having  the  EDF  is  certainly  all  the  more  important  now.  Many 
noted that the EDF was conceived in peace-time setting focused on prioritising industrial 
cooperation  as  an  “end  in  itself”.  In  suggesting  how  the  EDF  could  become  more 
“relevant” for the current security landscape, some noted that a future programme should 
think  about  how  it  can  more  directly  support  high  TRL  capabilities  to  fill  short-term 
needs (such as in Air Defence or anti-drone technologies), without compromising longer-
term  R&D.  One  participant  suggested  that  requirements  for  EDF  projects  should  be  to 
demonstrate their combat-ready use, including via field-experimentations in Ukraine-like 
scenarios. Another think-tank expressed the view that to make the EDF more relevant it 
could open R&D to the US, UK or Asian partners to increase interoperability outcomes. 

Positive impact of the EDF 
Several mentioned that the cooperation model designed in the EDF is certainly adequate 
in  stimulating  and  generating  new  cross  border  collaborative  consortia,  far  beyond  the 
minimum  requirements  of  the  Regulation.  A  participant  which  has  also  been  EDF 
beneficiaries noted that the EDF has contributed to a “Europeanisation of EDTIB” in its 
country.  A  university  representative  noted  that  the  EDF  is  also  gaining  resonance  in 
communities previously not interested in defence (like universities). In a similar vein, a 
think-tank  noted  that  EDF  enables  new  players  to  join  the  game.  One  University 
mentioned  example  of  a  truly  successful  cooperation  in  the  space  domain  through  the 
EDF is EMISSARY project (building on precursor EDIDP projects Sauron and Integral), 
which  has  created  in  record  speed  a  military  Command  and  Control  (C2)  software  for 
Space  Situational  Awareness  (SSA).  Think-tanks  view  positively  the  EDF  funding 
support  in  having  indirectly  stimulated  the  advancement  of  some  PESCO  projects,  for 
example EPC or TWISTER, which otherwise may have never been kicked-off.  
With regards to fostering civil-defence synergies, one think-tank noted that many of the 
companies involved in EDF projects are also involved in EU civil R&D projects.: “They 
47 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
are  working  on  technologies  related  to  cyber,  AI,  quantum,  sensors,  hybrid  engines, 
propulsion  systems,  for  example.  We  can  also  see  partners  on  a  civil  R&D  project 
working  together  on  EDF  projects,  with  the  aim  of  developing  a  dedicated  defence 
application.    This  illustrates  the  synergies  and  complementarities  between  these  two 
European  R&D  funding  instruments,  and  the  ability  of  certain  industrial  players  and 
research  centres  to  get  involved  in  the  two  programmes  (H2020/Horizon  Europe  + 
EDF).” 
Promoting fast-track innovation and procurement  
Discussions from the workshop also revolved around wider reflections on how the EDF 
could  enable  “fast-track”  innovations  to  support  ready  deployment  of  small  equipment. 
Think-tanks noted that the rigid certification system  to  enable the commercialisation of 
defence products, as well as the outdated and lengthy national procurement system would 
need  to  change  first  if  this  were  to  materialise.  The  success  of  this  “fast-track”  model 
would  also  be  contingent  on  having  very  close  involvement  of  end-users,  meaning  the 
actual armed forces and not just MoDs or procurement agencies. Think-tanks noted that 
the EDF can be seen to  prepare the ground for future procurement but  in  a unique and 
unprecedented way through the lever of co-financing – which can trigger a new way for 
how Member States go about procuring defence R&D results. 

4.  FEEDBACK FROM EDF NATIONAL FOCAL POINTS 

The  EDF  National  Focal  Points  are  nominated  by  EU  Member  States  and  Norway  and 
are  supported  by  national  structures  established  under  the  responsibility  and  control  of 
the  Member  States  and  Norway.  In  view  of  their  direct  involvement  in  the  EDF 
programme implementation, a targeted questionnaire was sent to them. 
In their feedback, NFPs mentioned that they actively engage in a variety of promotional 
activities, hosting up to 20 EDF-specific events annually. These events frequently include 
national  EDF  Info  Days,  (online)  seminars  and  workshops,  and  matchmaking  events, 
which have proven to  be highly effective in  raising awareness  and interest  in  the EDF. 
The  information  provided  during  these  events  are  also  perceived  the  most  successful 
method to encourage SMEs to participate in the EDF. Moreover, NFPs note that industry 
appreciates  the  networking  opportunities  these  events  provide  by  bringing  stakeholders 
together. As finding partners is the dominant challenge for applicants, the work of NFPs 
thus substantially contributes to facilitating the interaction among entities. 
Applicants  also  frequently  approach  NFPs  for  questions  centered  around  governmental 
supporting  documents  (such  as  the  LoI  and  national  guarantees).  Their  suggestions  to 
smoothen the application process largely focus on two themes: 

-  Facilitating the application process, by – for example – simplifying templates and 

- 

providing detailed guidance on the process;  
Improving applicants’ ability to sufficiently prepare, e.g. by stabilizing timelines, 
providing  greater  transparency  about  the  criteria,  and  providing  multiannual 
perspectives. 

Other  contributions  had  recommendations  on  how  to  improve  the  process  for 
beneficiaries. The suggestions offered largely centred around: 

-  Speeding up the financing (e.g. by offering calls for proposals with fast funding 

or accelerating the governmental co-financing process); 

-  Organizing follow-up calls and actions in such a way that previously  successful 
applicants  can  continuously  work  on  their  project  without  risking  (not  winning) 
new open application procedures halfway through; 

48 

 
 
 
- 

Improving cooperation with MoDs to ensure a timely finalization of the MoU/IA 
and/or  facilitate  the  planning  of  follow-up  development  actions  or  national 
development activities.   

Although  increased  interoperability  and  standardisation  are  foreseen  in  the  call  texts, 
contributions emphasize it is still too early to assess the real-life results of EDF in these 
domains.  All  the  projects  are  still  ongoing,  with  the  few  examples  provided  by  NFPs 
either  not  yet  reaching  the  market  (FAMOUS)  or  not  being  part  of  the  EDF  (CBRN 
SaaS).  

5.  OTHER EUROPEAN COMMISSION DIRECTORATES-

GENERAL AND SERVICES  

In the context of the fourth Inter Service Group meeting, a questionnaire was circulated 
to  DG’s  to  seek  inputs  on  the  perceived  synergies  of  the  EDF  with  other  Commission 
programmes and initiatives. Respondents noted that there are several EDF categories of 
action  (project  areas)  or  projects  that  contribute  to  meet  important  challenges  in  fields 
relevant  to  other  programmes  of  the  European  Commission.  Several  EDIDP  and  EDF 
projects  were  identified  that  contribute  to  creating  operational  synergies,  for  instance 
with Horizon Europe Clusters 3, 4 and 5.  A number of projects were also identified on 
the  detection  and  deterrence  of  threats  to  underwater  and  offshore  infrastructure. 
Respondents  view  positively  the  introduction  of  “spin-in  calls”  in  the  EDF  to  enable 
civil-defence fertilization. One respondent encouraged to consider introducing “spin-off 
calls”  in  the  EDF  to  allow  further  opportunities  for  operational  synergies.  Generally, 
respondents noted that there is space for further synergies between EDF and civil R&D 
programmes  (such  as  Horizon  Europe),  while  more  synergies  are  being  currently 
exploited compared to PADR and EDIDP.  

6. INSTITUTIONS - EEAS/EUMS, EDA, OCCAR, NATO  

The  EEAS/EUMS,  EDA,  NATO,  OCCAR  were  consulted  through  ad-hoc  bilateral 
meetings and linked questionnaires/discussion notes. The organisations were selected for 
consultation considering they are actors either directly involved in the implementation of 
the  EDF  programme  or  whose  views  on  EU  defence  industrial  initiatives  and 
programmes are particularly relevant.  

EEAS/EUMS 
The EEAS and EUMS have been involved in the EDF interim evaluation process since 
the onset as members of the dedicated Inter Service Group. The EEAS/EUMS provided 
additional  inputs  via  two  position  papers  and  through  a  bilateral  meeting  with  DG 
DEFIS. From a policy perspective, the EEAS/EUMS input for the interim evaluation of 
the  EDF  focused  on  the  aspect  of  “coherence”  to  assess  the  extent  to  which  EDF  is 
aligned with the other EU defence initiatives and overarching CFSP goals. In this respect, 
the  relevance  of  the  EDF  as  an  instrument  to  jointly  develop  next  generation  military 
capabilities and investments in technological innovation for defence was stressed. From a 
military perspective, input regarded how EDF programming is contributing to addressing 
capability priorities commonly agreed by Member States, in particular in the context of 
the CDP. The EUMS assessed that the EDF has helped to address some critical capability 
shortfalls  (CCSF)  of  EU  Member  States.  The  EEAS/EUMS  noted  also  that  there  is  a 
need to better clarify the way the links between the various EDF proposals claiming to be 

49 

 
 
 
 
 
 
related  to  PESCO  projects  (and  eventually  benefiting  from  the  PESCO  bonus)  are 
established.  EEAS also noted the importance of ensuring ways for increased and more 
structured participation of Ukrainian defence industry entities in programmes such as the 
EDF. 

European Defence Agency (EDA) 
EDA  was  a  key  stakeholder  consulted  through  bilateral  meetings  and  a  dedicated 
questionnaire.  EDA  shared  its  views  from  both  a  programming  and  implementation 
perspective, as an entrusted entity for the indirect management of EDF projects. From the 
programming  angle,  EDA  recommended  DG  DEFIS  to  make  further  use  of  EDA 
priority-setting tools which are in line with the CDP. EDA recommended how to improve 
the  determination  of  EDF  project  links  to  a  PESCO  project.  From  the  implementation 
angle, EDA staff noted a very positive outlook on EDF indirect management in particular 
compared to precursor programmes, highlighting a good cooperation with DEFIS. EDA 
management  expressed  a  strong  satisfaction  related  to  DEFIS-EDA  cooperation  on 
defence innovation. EDA made recommendations on how to better ensure Member State 
co-financing and a more efficient project result dissemination and these implementation 
points will be further explored in EDF Programme Committees. 

Organisation for Joint Armament Cooperation (OCCAR) 
The  Organisation  for  Joint  Armament  Cooperation  (OCCAR)  staff  was  consulted 
through  a  dedicated  written  questionnaire  and  a  bilateral  meeting  with  DG  DEFIS. 
Collecting  OCCAR’s  views  was  important  as  it  acts  as  an  entrusted  entity  of  the  EDF 
programme,  implementing  several  projects  in  indirect  management,  including  two 
EDIDP projects – MALE RPAS and ESSOR. Consultations noted OCCAR’s satisfaction 
in  cooperating  with  DG  DEFIS  and  noted  there  have  been  improvements  since  the 
EDIDP  in  terms  of  project  implementation.  The  setting  up  of  a  Financial  Framework 
Partnership  Agreement  (FFPA)  in  2024  to  simplify  and  synchronize  processes  for 
transferring  the  implementation  of  EU  defence  projects  under  indirect  management  to 
OCCAR  was  noted  as  an  example  of  such  progress.  OCCAR  generally  noted  the 
importance of increasing the connection of EDF projects with end-users in a capability-
driven  and  procurement-oriented  logic.  It  was  also  noted  that  OCCAR’s  expected 
management of EDF projects could be better stated in calls for proposals. 

North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO)  
NATO staff was consulted through a bilateral meeting. NATO is supportive of the EDF 
as an instrument which is perceived to be of support to NATO Allies. NATO noted its 
commitment to continue working together with the European Commission in this respect. 
Discussions  revealed  that  programming  methodologies  between  the  NDPP  and  EDF 
differ and that it would be beneficial to have a stronger information exchange on funding 
priorities. Technologies developed through some EDF projects have been used in NATO 
live training exercises, illustrating that operational synergies are beginning to take shape. 
NATO  noted  that  DIANA  and  EUDIS  are  complementary  tools  that  can  address  key 
dual-use  solutions  in  the  field  of  defence  innovation.  Potentially,  increased  synergies 
could  be  found  by  engaging  in  joint  testing  campaigns  of  particular  new  technologies 
developed under both initiatives.  

50 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
7. FEEDBACK FROM ENDR AND REGIONAL 
ORGANISATIONS 

DG  DEFIS  also  gathered  views  of  regional  stakeholders.  This  included  contacting 
regional public authorities and regional defence industrial clusters through the European 
Network  of  Defence-Related  Regions  (ENDR),  a  network  managed  by  DG  DEFIS  and 
composed  of  around  60  Members.  DG  DEFIS  wanted  to  also  hear  the  views  of  three 
relevant  regional  organizations  with  a  stake  in  defence  policy  matters.  Two  targeted 
questionnaires were launched. 

Questionnaire Respondents 
ENDR 

Questionnaire Respondents Regional    
Organisations 

Entities Invited 

Respondents 

Response rate 

61 

   Entities Invited                                                 3 

8  

  Respondents                                                     2 

13% 

  Response rate                                             66% 

All regional entities were convinced of EDF’s positive impact, with the area of greatest 
impact differing across submissions. A majority view that the EDF has facilitated greater 
regional  cooperation  on  defence  R&D  and  strengthened  these  industrial  collaborations. 
Furthermore, half of the organizations believe EDF has strengthened existing cooperation 
at the regional level within local defence clusters.  
Regional  entities  held  divergent  perceptions  of  EDF’s  alignment  with  other  initiatives, 
including  those  in  their  own  region.  A  slight  majority  felt  that  the  EDF  and  regional 
initiatives were mostly complementary. By contrast, entities most frequently experienced 
a  need  for  greater  alignment  with  national  initiatives  and  funding  programmes.  The 
alignment  between  EDF  and  other  EU  initiatives  could  similarly  be  improved  in  the 
future.   
To  continue  building  upon  EDF’s  positive  impact,  several  –  but  not  all  –  contributors 
suggested  areas  of  improvements.  These  covered  a  wide  scope:  from  increasing 
continuity  and  budget  to  supporting  Member  States  in  Memorandum  of  Understanding 
negotiations.  Beyond  the  need  to  incorporate  SMEs  to  a  greater  extent,  which  was 
suggested  by  two  separate  entities,  there  was  no  overlap  between  organizations’ 
suggestions.  This  indicates  that  the  challenges  facing  industry  are  highly  context-
dependent and not necessarily inherent to EDF’s structure. The vast majority believe the 
EDF  to  be  sufficiently  inclusive,  though  some  regional  entities  noted  that  greater 
attention could be paid to SME’s or specific fields (e.g. maintenance). 

51 

 
 
 
 
 
EDF has allowed regional 
clusters/organizations to 
cooperate more regularly 
on defence R&D

l

)
e
t
u
o
s
b
a
(
y
c
n
e
u
q
e
r
F

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

0

Extent to which EDF 
supports regional priorities

l

)
e
t
u
o
s
b
a
(
y
c
n
e
u
q
e
r
F

4

3

3

2

2

1

1

0

EDF has made a difference 
in terms of 
enlarging/strengthening 
industrial defence R&D 
cooperations 

l

)
e
t
u
o
s
b
a
(
y
c
n
e
u
q
e
r
F

8

6

4

2

0

Yes

No

Answers

1

2

3

4

5

Support (1 = not at all, 5 = totally)

Yes

No

Answers

FIGURE 35 - RESPONDENT 
PERCEPTIONS ON EDF 
CONTRIBUTION TOWARDS 
REGIONAL COOPERATION 

FIGURE 37 RESPONDENT 
PERCEPTIONS ON EDF 
ALIGNMENT WITH REGIONAL 
PRIORITIES 

FIGURE 36 - RESPONDENT 
PERCEPTIONS ON EDF CONTRIBUTION 
TOWARDS STRENGTHENING DEFENCE 
R&D COOPERATIONS 

8.  FEEDBACK FROM THE CALL FOR EVIDENCE (CfE) 

To  give  all  stakeholders  the  possibility  to  comment  the  Commission  initiated  an  Open 
Public  Consultation  on  the  EDF  in  light  of  the  interim  evaluation.  The  CfE  was  open 
from 24 January 2024 until 21 February 2024 (as per the 4 weeks mandatory time).  The 
CfE  offered  a  preliminary  overview  as  to  the  overall  positive  perception  of  the  EDF 
amongst the EU defence industrial community, and, at the same time, exposed some of 
the  challenges/areas  for  improvement  regarding  the  programme’s  implementation  and 
architecture.  

Despite the limited number of responses, contributions came from  a  wide range of key 
stakeholders,  including:  EU  industry  (Primes,  Mid-Caps,  and  SMEs),  Research 
Organisations, National Defence Industry Associations (NDIAs). 

Contributions widely recognise the EDF as an enabler to deepening existing cross border 
industrial cooperation and as a catalyst for new cross border collaboration. Contributions 
to a large extent demonstrated that participating in the EDF has enabled the expansion of 
new  quality  industrial  partnerships  at  both  national  and  European  level.  Industry  and 
NDIAs noted that whereas EDF project results are still not visible, companies see in the 
EDF  participation  medium-long  terms  benefits,  making  them  ready  to  commit  to 
programme despite lacking short-term impacts. 
The  perception  that  the  EDF  tries  to  push  for  a  continuation  of  PADR/EDIDP  project 
results through EDF calls is visible and welcomed by industry. However, this continuity 
is not always synchronised to industry’s expectations - a precursor project that is mature 
enough to move onto the next phase (from Research to Development of from Lower to 
Higher TRL) under EDF has to wait for appropriate EDF calls to be published, disrupting 
the  industrial  R&D  cycle.  As  regards  the  inclusiveness  and  attractiveness  of  the  EDF, 
contributions  highlighted  the  EDF’s  capacity  of  attracting  a  wide  pool  of  entities, 
including  companies  that  were  not  active  in  defence  previously.  The  generation  of 

52 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
inclusive  consortia,  with  the  involvement  of  SMEs,  mid-caps,  academia  and  research 
organisations is viewed very positively by enabling specialised expertise that can bridge 
knowledge gaps effectively. 

The formation of a consortium, the preparation of a proposal and the submission process 
for an EDF proposal is widely viewed by industry as burdensome and difficult process. 
An  additional  source  of  administrative  burden  for  a  consortium,  as  expressed  by 
contributions from industry, are the lengthy procedures with Member State authorities to 
obtain  co-financing  or  additional  guarantees,  which  have  caused  delays  at  proposal 
submission stage or during project implementation. 

SME  and  Mid-Cap  entities  involved  in  the  EDF  and  precursor  programmes  noted  that 
managing  consortia  composed  by  a  large  number  of  entities  is  considered  to  be  a 
challenging  task (especially for a  coordinator).  In addition,  they perceive that consortia 
formation  is  generally  a  process  dominated  and  led  by  the  big  players.  Smaller 
companies  stressed  that  access  to  information  on  the  EDF  and  access  to  national  focal 
points  remains  challenging  and  view  as  important  the  need  to  have  a  permanent 
matchmaking platform. Industry acknowledged and welcomed the Commission’s efforts 
to commit funding in defence innovation such as through disruptive technology calls and 
EUDIS measures (spin-in calls).  

The  annual  work  programme  mechanism  presents  technical  and  strategic  challenges  to 
industry  insofar  as  it  creates  relatively  short  times  for  project  proposal  preparation 
(especially as claimed by small entities) and that it does not allow the necessary foresight 
on the envisioned types of projects under the EDF (as claimed by different primes). The 
creation  of  the  MAP  is  welcomed  and  to  be  reinforced.  Contributions  from  industry, 
research  organisations  and  the  institutions  pointed  out  that  EDF  category  of  actions  to 
have a clearer roadmap for all needed technologies and sub-systems. 

Industry has conveyed that the stringent security requirements for exchanging encrypted 
information  among  consortium  members  often  hampers  project  implementation. 
Similarly,  the  absence  of  a  regulatory  framework  that  protects  intellectual  property  of 
results  generated  from  an  EDF  action  (including  providing  license  rights  from  actions 
under EDIDP/PADR) is noted in several contributions as bring a potential barrier to the 
inclusion of new actors in consortium agreements for future EDF projects. 

The EDF’s added value was made clear by all contributions. Industry (especially primes) 
highlighted how the EDF facilitates larger projects than could be expected if run solely 
on national level. According to contributions, the EDF has enabled a better understanding 
of  Member  States’  future  capability  needs.  EDF  programming  has  contributed  to 
bringing  Member  States  together  to  discuss  and  agree  on  common  requirements, 
financial  incentives  and  the  planning  of  R&D  activities,  that  otherwise  would  not  have 
been  achieved  by  Member  States  acting  alone.  However,  industry  has  often  mentioned 
the limited interaction with end-users, in particular once the project has been launched. 

Contributions acknowledge the strategic relevance of the EDF today and in the future as 
an EU-level cooperative defence R&D funding instrument. Several contributions pointed 
out the need that a future EDF should incorporate a stronger procurement incentive/pillar 
to enable the market uptake of R&D projects and enable a stronger link between industry 
and end-users. The changed security environment after Russian invasion of Ukraine has 
demonstrated  that  the  EDF  is  not  a  “should  have”  but  a  “must  have”  for  the  Member 
States, according to a business association.                                             

53 

 
FIGURE 38 – SUMMARY OF FEEDBACK FROM CALL FOR EVIDENCE. 
SOURCE: EUROPEAN COMMISSION PORTAL. 

54 

 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX VI. LESSONS LEARNED FROM PADR AND EDIDP 

In line with Article 29 (2)(b), the EDF interim evaluation is expected to include “lessons 
learned  from  PADR  and  EDIDP”.  Therefore,  this  section  further  explains  the  main 
improvements and novelties introduced by the EDF building on the lessons learned from 
PADR and EDIDP. The European Defence Industrial Development Programme (EDIDP) 
and  the  Preparatory  Action  on  Defence  Research  (PADR)  represent  key  EU  initiatives 
aimed  at  bolstering  the  European  defence  industry's  competitiveness,  efficiency,  and 
innovation  capacity.  These  programmes  emerged  in  response  to  the  increasing  costs  of 
defence  equipment,  coupled  with  the  high  risks  and  financial  burdens  of  research  and 
development (R&D) in the defence sector. Both EDIDP and PADR laid the groundwork 
for the European Defence Fund (EDF), which has since become the primary instrument 
for fostering cooperation in defence research and development across EU Member States.  
Main  improvements  and  novelties  introduced  by  the  EDF  building  on  the  lessons 
learned from PADR and EDIDP 

-  A single programme for all collaborative defence R&D activities with a single set 
of  participation  rules  and  an  annual  budget  four  times  bigger  than  PADR  and 
EDIDP combined. 

-  Creation  of  multiannual  perspective  to  provide  defence  industry  and  Member 
States  with  more  clarity  on  funding  priorities  (taking  into  account  the 
recommendations  of  relevant  stakeholders  and  of  the  Court  of  Auditors  on 
precursor programmes). 

-  Full  integration  of  innovation  in  the  programme  and  stronger  support  to  SMEs 
and  mid-caps.  Creation  of  EUDIS  which  provides  R&D  grants  (specifically 
designed calls, such as: technological challenges, spin-in calls, non-thematic SME 
calls  and  disruptive  technologies  calls),  equity  instrument  implemented  by  the 
EIF  under  InvestEU  (Defence  Equity  Facility)  and  several  innovation  support 
measures such as Defence Hackathons and SME Business Coaching.   
Improvement in call text harmonisation process with national experts. 

- 
-  A  single  web  portal  (Funding  and  Tenders  Portal)  for  all  information  and 
application process and less paperwork to make applications, dedicated tutorials, 
functional mailbox and programme FAQs. 

-  Communication  and  outreach  events  at  national  and  EU  level  to  explain  EDF 
funding  opportunities  and  application  processes  (EDF  Info  Days,  National  Info 
Days, NFP network, participation in national defence exhibitions). 

-  Possibility for beneficiaries to claim actual indirect costs. 
-  The  average  time  to  inform  applicants  (from  submission  deadline  to  the  day  of 
announcement  of  results)  compared  to  precursor  programmes  was  reduced  by 
27%. 

-  Ensuring  continuity  of  initiatives  launched  under  the  precursor  programmes, 

towards higher TRLs. 

Annex  VII  further  elaborates  on  the  lessons  learned  from  EDIDP  by  offering  a 
retrospective evaluation of the EDIDP programme. 

55 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX VII. RETROSPECTIVE EVALUATION OF THE EDIDP 

INTRODUCTION 

This  analysis  constitutes  the  retrospective  evaluation  report  of  the  European  Defence 
Industrial  Development  Programme  (EDIDP),  in  line  with  Article  17  of  the  EDIDP 
Regulation170.  The  analysis  also  embeds  lessons  learned  following  the  years  of 
implementation of EDIDP and, where relevant, also in relation to the Preparatory Action 
on  Defence  Research  (PADR).  EDIDP,  with  a  financial  envelope  of  €500  million  for 
2019-2020, was  the first ever EU programme targeting defence capability development 
and co-financing the joint development of defence products and technologies. Of the total 
budget, €200.5 million was allocated in EDIDP 2019 and €291 million in EDIDP 2020171.  
Over  the  two-year  programme  duration,  the  EDIDP  has  financed  44  development 
projects. As of February 2025, 20 EDIDP projects have been completed.  As outlined in 
the  Multi-annual  Financial  Framework  (2021-2027),  both  EDIDP  and  PADR  laid  the 
groundwork for the European Defence Fund (EDF), which has since become the primary 
instrument  for  fostering  cooperation  in  defence  research  and  development  across  EU 
Member  States.  As  such,  they  are  considered  “precursor  programmes”  to  the  European 
Defence Fund. 

FIGURE 39 – EDIDP AND PADR AS PRECURSORS TO THE EDF 

METHODOLOGY AND SCOPE 

Scope 
This report examines the performance of the EDIDP following the Better Regulation172 
programme  evaluation  methodology,  along  the  assessment  criteria  of:  effectiveness, 
efficiency,  coherence,  relevance  and  EU  added  value.  Effectiveness  analyses  the 
extent  to  which  the  aims  and  objectives  of  the  programme  (namely  as  mentioned 
under Article 3 and the pre-amble of the EDIDP Regulation) have been met. Elements 

170 Regulation (EU) 2018/1092 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 July 2018 establishing 
the  European  Defence Industrial  Development  Programme  aiming  at  supporting  the  competitiveness 
and innovation capacity of the Union's defence industry 

171  European  Commission,  ‘European  Defence  Industrial  Development  Programme  (EDIDP)’,  n.d., 

https://defence-industry-space.ec.europa.eu/eu-defence-industry/european-defence-industrial-
development-programme-edidp_en. 

172 

Better 

Regulation 

and 
https://commission.europa.eu/law/law-making-process/better-regulation/better-regulation-guidelines-
and-toolbox_en  

Guidelines 

European 

Toolbox. 

Commission. 

56 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
considered  include  how  the  programme  supported  cross-border  cooperation  between 
undertakings  and  between  Member  States,  how  it  has  fostered  efficiency  and 
innovation capacity of the defence industry by supporting actions in their development 
phase,  promoting  dual-use  even  de-risking  the  development  phase  of  cooperative 
projects. More specific parameters mentioned under Article 17 of the Regulation are 
considered, such as the degree of cross-border participation of SMEs and mid-caps as 
well as information on the countries of origin of the beneficiaries. Efficiency addresses 
the  spending  efficiencies  generated  by  the  programme  from  the  angle  of  how  it  has 
enabled  the  creation  of  first  project  results  that  could  then  be  further  leveraged 
through the EDF, thereby advancing the R&D lifecycle from one funding framework 
to  another.  The  section  also  assesses  the  main  lessons  identified  from  EDIDP’s 
implementation  (from  proposal  preparation  stage  to  grant  implementation)  and 
provides  comparative  insights  as  to  how  implementation-related  improvements  from 
the EDIDP to the EDF programme are perceived by stakeholders. Coherence looks at 
the extent to which EDIDP has addressed funding areas aligned with EU-level defence 
capability  development  priority  setting  instruments  and  how  ‘synergistic’  EDIDP-
funded projects are with other relevant European defence industrial programmes and 
initiatives  (for  example  as  launched  under  EDA  or  PESCO  framework).  Relevance 
and EU added value are addressed together to assess the extent to which the EDIDP 
has acted as a relevant precursor to the EDF and the added-value that the programme 
has created by making a difference for the EDTIB.  

Sources 
The evaluation is based on a mixed-methods approach, combining both qualitative and 
quantitative  data  collection  techniques  and  open-desk  literature,  where  relevant.  The 
combination  of  direct  stakeholder  input  and  secondary  literature  provides  a  robust 
foundation for assessing the programme. 

•  Stakeholder  inputs:  Stakeholder  feedback  was  an  important  source  for  the 
EDIDP analysis with data gathered from targeted interviews, surveys, position 
papers  and  workshops  (in  the  context  of  the  EDF  interim  evaluation).  This 
methodology was designed to capture a range of perspectives, including those 
of defence industry primes, SMEs, research organisations, and Member State 
representatives  (the  same  as  those  targeted  for  the  EDF  interim  evaluation 
presented Annex 2). A brief Synposis Report of stakeholder views dedicated to 
the EDIDP programme is presented at the end of this section. 

•  External  study:  This  analysis  also  integrates  complementary  research 
conducted  by  an  external  contractor  (Research  Piece  6  ‘Analysis  of  the 
EDIDP’ and Research Piece 2 ‘Reduction of Risks’ – see Annex II) 

•  DEFIS  Expert  Group  –  Sub-Group  on  Defence:  The  analysis  also  considers 
the input provided by the DEFIS Expert Group – Sub-Group on Defence in their 
dedicated  report173.  This  expert  group,  in  its  defence  configuration,  comprises 
around  60  members  including  defence  companies,  research  organisations  and 
NGOs.  In  their  advisory  role,  the  group  provided  input  relevant  to  EDF 
programme interim evaluation 

•  Internal  Consultation  with  DG  DEFIS  Project  Officers:  Project  Officers 
from  DG  DEFIS  implementing  the  EDIDP  projects  were  also  consulted  to 
obtain relevant inputs. 

173 Commission Expert Group on policies and programmes relevant to EU space, defence and aeronautics 

industry subgroup defence, ‘Report on the European Defence Fund Interim Evaluation’. 

57 

 
 
 
 
Main Methodological Limitations  
The  report  assessing  the  EDIDP  retrospective  evaluation  faces  several  limitations 
primarily  arising  from  data  constraints  and  timing  issues,  which  impact  the 
comprehensiveness of its evaluation. 

•  Timing  Constraints:  As  of  February  2025,  24  out  of  44  projects  initiated 
under  the  EDIDP  remain  ongoing.  This  circumstance  presents  a  significant 
challenge  for  conducting  an  exhaustive  retrospective  evaluation  of  the 
programme. Since many projects have yet to reach completion, it is difficult to 
assess  their  full  impact  and  outcomes.  The  ongoing  nature  of  these  projects 
means  that  potential  long-term  benefits  or  challenges  are  yet  to  be  fully 
realized  or  understood,  limiting  the  ability  to  draw  definitive  conclusions  at 
this stage. 

•  Data Availability Issues: The main targeted industry stakeholders were EDF 
beneficiaries,  with  only  a  subset  of  them  having  prior  experience  with  the 
EDIDP.  This  inherently  resulted  in  a  more  limited  qualitative  dataset, 
restricting  the  depth  of  qualitative  analysis  possible.  Furthermore,  access  to 
information related to Intellectual Property Rights (IPRs) remains restricted or 
not  available  at  this  stage  to  the  European  Commission,  despite  attempts  to 
gather such data even through the dedicated stakeholder consultations (e.g. in 
questionnaires or workshops).   

•  Conjunctural  Analysis  Challenges:  A  thorough  assessment  of  the  EDIDP’s 
performance necessitates a close conjunctural analysis relative to the European 
Defence Fund (EDF), particularly concerning the uptake of EDIDP results into 
the  EDF  framework.  Such  an  analysis  is  still  premature,  as  outcomes  and 
integrations are only starting to materialize. At the time of writing, only early 
indications  of  this  integration  process  were  observable,  which  hinders  the 
ability to fully understand the programme's long-term effectiveness and impact 
on the EDTIB. 

These methodological limitations — ongoing projects that prevent a full retrospective 
evaluation,  limited  data  from  a  specific  beneficiary  group,  unavailability  of  certain 
critical data, and the nascent stage of result uptake — restrict the report’s capacity to 
offer a comprehensive assessment of the EDIDP. 

58 

 
 
 
Brief Synopsis Report – Stakeholder views related to the EDIDP Programme 

The stakeholder views on EDIDP, consulted in the context of the EDF interim evaluation 
process, have provided insights into its achievements and challenges. 

Fostering defence cooperation: Large companies and SMEs positively view the EDIDP as 
an instrument in facilitating cross-border defence collaboration. They noted the programme's 
importance in enabling new partnerships and strengthening existing ones. Large companies 
noted the added-value of working in consortia with smaller yet highly innovative companies 
from different EU countries. SMEs valued the ability to participate in larger defence projects 
which may not have happened if an EU-level programme such as the EDIDP was not in place.  

Project Continuity and Implementation Improvements: Member States noted that certain 
products and technologies developed under EDIDP have successfully continued and evolved 
within the EDF framework. Projects such as SEADEFENCE and E-CUAS were explicitly 
mentioned as successfully transitioning from EDIDP to EDF and this continuity is noted to 
have contributed to advance product lifecycles. Additionally, industry beneficiaries have noted 
improvements in the EDF's implementation modalities over EDIDP, particularly with the 
adoption of a digital submission platform and the introduction of an indirect costs methodology 
which is considered more optimal for a defence R&D programme. 

Implementation Challenges: Industrial stakeholders also noted first co-funding related 
issues that emerged under the EDIDP. The complexity of setting up Memoranda of 
Understanding (MoU) to agree on co-financing actions at the Member State level and 
determining access/user rights to generate results under EDIDP projects was in particularly 
highlighted as a difficulty by large industry. 

Relevance: All stakeholders generally viewed the EDIDP as an important programme that laid 
the groundwork for the subsequent EDF, which continued to build on the cooperative and 
integrative efforts initiated under the EDIDP. Consequently, the programme is seen by Industry 
and Member States alike as highly relevant not only in advancing immediate defence 
capabilities needs, including strategic enablers, but also in paving the way for a longer-term 
strategic framework for European defence collaboration and innovation. 

EFFECTIVENESS  

Fostering  cooperation  between  undertakings  (industrial  entities),  including  SMEs 
and Mid-Caps, and Member States 

Through the two rounds of EDIDP calls for proposals it was already possible to observe 
that  there  was  a  significant  demand  by  EU  industry  to  participate  in  a  European 
collaborative  defence  development  programme.  Under  EDIDP  2019,  nine  calls  for 
proposals were published. In response, 40 proposals were submitted, involving a total of 
441 entities. Under EDIDP2020, 12 calls for proposals were published. In response, 63 
proposals covering all call topics were submitted, involving a total of 717 entities174. In 

174  DG  DEFIS,  European  Commission.  Data  from  2020  and  2021  based  on  published  factsheets,  see: 

https://defence-industry-space.ec.europa.eu/eu-defence-industry/european-defence-industrial-

59 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
the call results, announced the year following the publication of the call for proposals, 16 
projects  were  selected  under  EDIDP  2019  and  26  under  EDIDP  2020.  Given  the  44 
proposals selected, this meant that there was an oversubscription rate to the calls of 42%.  

FIGURE 40 - COUNTRIES OF ORIGIN OF THE BENEFICIARIES OF THE EDIDP PROGRAMME 

The  EDIDP  has  attracted  a  vast  involvement  of  industrial  entities  across  the  EU 
generating  a  clear  cooperation  effect.  Figure  38  further  illustrates  the  distribution  of 
beneficiaries of the EDIDP programme, with 626 participations spanning 26 EU Member 
States175.  The  requirement  of  needing  consortia  formed  by  a  minimum  of  three  entities 
from three Member States, was also surpassed with an average of 14 entities from seven 
different countries participating in an EDIDP consortium176.  

The  EDIDP  programme  was  also  open  to  the  participation  of  third  countries  as  a 
derogation and under strict conditions177, with participation figures demonstrating strong 
interest  in  the  EDIDP  by  third-country  controlled  entities.  Third  country-controlled 
entities (without Norway and the United Kingdom) are involved around 25% of EDIDP 
projects. 

The  size  of  the  EDIDP  budget  meant  that  it  could  not  significantly  impact  the  overall 
level of defence R&D spending within the EU. However, one of the objectives of EDIDP 
was  to  incentivize  Member  States  to  cooperate  and  invest  more  in  defence.  EDIDP 
contributed to this through the token of requiring co-financing for the joint development 
of defence projects. The period of EDIDP implementation revealed that  cumulative co-
financing needs for EDIDP projects are of 38%, representing around €309 million.  This 
exemplifies  the  EDIDP’s  leverage  effect  on  further  mobilising  national  co-financing 
efforts to ensure both greater and more effective degrees of public spending. 

The  EDIDP  can  be  viewed  as  having  played  a  significant  role  in  fostering  increased 
cross-border cooperation between undertakings. As one study noted, “(t)he requirement 
of  inclusiveness  in  the  building  of  consortia  has  encouraged  applicants  to  look  beyond 
their  current  networks.”178  This  point  was  also  made  in  connection  with  all  types  of 
applicants, including both research organisations and companies179. As also noted in the 

development-programme-edidp_en.  Entities  are  counted  on  a  proposal  basis,  some  of  them 
participated in multiple ones, leading to double counting. 

175 DG DEFIS, European Commission. PowerBi, extracted in February 2025. 
176 DG DEFIS, European Commission. PowerBi, extracted in February 2025. Including subcontractors. 
177 See EDIDP Regulation, Article 7. 
178  Frédéric  Mauro,  Edouard  Simon,  and  Isabel  Xavier,  ‘Review  of  the  Preparatory  Action  on  Defence 
Research  (PADR)  and  European  Defence  Industrial  Development  Programme  (EDIDP):  Lessons  for 
the Implementation of the European Defence Fund (EDF)’ (Directorate General for External Policies 
of the Union, May 2021), 12. 
179 Mauro, Simon, and Xavier, 12. 

60 

 
 
 
 
analysis  performed  by  the  Commission  Expert  Group,  the  EDIDP  is  seen  to  have 
initiated several “excellent” cross-border collaborations were covering various categories 
of actions: “projects falling in the cybersecurity sectors were particularly representative 
of  a  successful  consolidated  collaboration  among  large  companies,  which  started  with 
the EDIDP precursor programmes and continued in the EDF...”180  

SMEs have also particularly benefitted from their involvement in EDIDP projects, as the 
programme has  actively  sought to  include smaller companies in  consortia led by larger 
defence  primes.  This  has  helped  to  expand  the  participation  and  inclusion  of  SMEs  in 
defence development projects and building a culture of cross-border cooperation between 
large and small entities181. In total, EDIDP has involved 225 SME beneficiaries, receiving 
approximately 18% of total EU funding, accounting for 36% of total entities involved in 
the EDIDP182. 

As  also  noted  in  the  analysis  performed  by  the  Commission  Expert  Group,  several 
EDIDP projects were mentioned as developing consolidated partnerships also involving 
SMEs  such  as  ESC2  project  (European  Command  and  Control  (C2)  system  from 
strategic  to  tactical  level)  in  the  information  sharing  domain.  In  ground  vehicles,  “one 
cooperation among platform manufacturers and system integrators, with the support of 
mid-caps and SMEs, has started through EDIDP FAMOUS project.”183 The Commission 
Expert  Group  also  noted  that  the  PADIC  project  (Passive  Acquisition  by  DIgital 
Convergence  (EDIDP  2020))  for  passive  sensing  “is  a  good  example  of  cross-border 
cooperation  with  SMEs  having  equal  workshares  in  a  consortium”.184  It  also  noted: 
“some SMEs also successfully played the coordinator role in projects like USSPs (Greek 
SME,  ETME)  and  SIGNAL  (project  led  by  a  Spanish  SME,  DAS  Photonics)”.185  Both 
PADR and EDIDP deeply  impacted the level of  intra-EU defence cooperation in  R&D 
and  provided  scaled-up  cooperation  possibilities  between  entities  that  had  never 
collaborated  previously.  The  impact  of  this  knowledge-sharing  on  the  creation  and 
development of technologies and prototypes cannot yet be fully quantified. 

Investing  in  disruptive  technologies,  defence  innovation  and  encouraging  dual-
useAn  explicit  focus  on funding  disruptive  technologies  for  defence  was  established  in 
PADR  with  six  projects  funded  with  a  total  allocation  of  €11.8  million186.  The  focus 
continued  under  EDIDP.  EDIDP  2019  included  a  thematic  focus  on  ‘Innovative  and 
future-oriented  defence  solutions’  under  which  three  projects  were  funded,  with  a  total 
allocation  of  €10.7  million187.  The  thematic  focus  was  retained  under  EDIDP2020,  and 
the number of projects funded and the total budget allocated increased. Six projects were 
funded,  with  a  total  allocation  of  €16.6  million188.  This  means  that  more  projects  were 

180 Commission Expert Group on policies and programmes relevant to EU space, defence and aeronautics 

industry subgroup defence, ‘Report on the European Defence Fund Interim Evaluation’. 

181 A position paper received by a Mid-Cap noted that participating in the EDIDP, beyond supporting R&D 
investments for their range of products, catalysed the creation of partnerships with a large primes and 
paved the way to present their products to other European MoDs. 

182 DG DEFIS, European Commission. PowerBi, extracted in February 2025. 
183 Commission Expert Group on policies and programmes relevant to EU space, defence and aeronautics 

industry subgroup defence, ‘Report on the European Defence Fund Interim Evaluation’. 

184 Commission Expert Group on policies and programmes relevant to EU space, defence and aeronautics 

industry subgroup defence, ‘Report on the European Defence Fund Interim Evaluation’. 

185 Commission Expert Group on policies and programmes relevant to EU space, defence and aeronautics 

industry subgroup defence, ‘Report on the European Defence Fund Interim Evaluation’. 

186 METAMASK, SPINAR, PRIVILEGE, ARTUS, AIDED, OPTIMISE, PILUM, and QUANTAQUEST  
187 DECISMAR, DRONEDGE-E, and OPTISSE 
188 ALTISS, FIIST, P2P-FSO, SIGNAL, TRANSFLYTOR, and VireTS 

61 

 
 
funded with this thematic focus than any other included in EDIDP2020. Also noteworthy 
is that these projects have been carried forward as part of projects and calls funded and 
issued  under  the  EDF.  OPTISSE  was  continued  under  NEMO  in  EDIDP2020  and 
SPIDER under EDF2022.  In EDF2024, the  call  DA-SIMTRAIN-STME-STEP  seeks to 
build upon results produced under FIIST and VireTS. 

In line with its aims, the EDIDP has funded projects that also aimed to further advance 
the  development  of  technologies  which  have  both  civilian  and  defence  applications189. 
Projects  such  as  EUDAAS  (European  detect  and  avoid  system)  developed  under 
EDIDP2019  have  the  potential  to  be  used  in  both  the  civilian  and  military  sectors. 
Civilian air traffic could benefit from the type of detect  and avoid  capabilities that it is 
seeking to develop, which would, in turn, support the general adoption and integration of 
Unmanned  Aerial  Systems  by  different  sectors.  Analogously,  in  the  field  of  space  data 
processing, EDIDP’s PEONEER (persistent Earth observation for actionable intelligence 
surveillance and reconnaissance) and EDF2021’s IntSen2 (Proactive automatic imagery 
intelligence  powered  by  artificial  intelligence  exploiting  European  space  assets)  have 
both civilian and military applications.   

Supporting actions in their development phase  
Successful EDIDP project results being scaled up in the development phase through the 
EDF  at  higher  TRL  levels  can  also  be  considered  as  an  indicator  of  the  programme’s 
effectiveness.  As  explained  in  a  study,  two  illustrative  examples  of  EDF  supported 
projects that have moved up the TRL scale from its precursor include FIRES and FIRES 
2; and JEY-CUAS and E-CUAS190. Originally funded under EDIDP 2020, FIRES aimed 
to  develop  the  next  generation  155mm  artillery  projectiles  and  rockets.  The  FIRES 
project under EDIDP 2020 involved tasks at a TRL of 1 to 3. Its continuation, FIRES2, 
has  expanded  to  include  activities  up  to  TRL  6.    In  the  case  JEY-CAUS,  also  funded 
through  EDIDP  2020,  the  purpose  of  the  project  was  to  pave  the  way  for  the 
development  of  a  joint  European  Counter  Unmanned  Air  Systems  capability  at  a  TRL 
between  1  and  3.  E-CUAS,  selected  under  EDF  2023  moves  the  project  up  to  TRL  7. 
ADEQUADE,  E-CUAS,  FIRES2,  THEMA  and  TALOS-TWO  are  other  examples  that 
have  been  awarded  at  higher  TRL  levels.  Based  on  selected  projects  in  EDF  2022  and 
EDF 2023, roughly one-third of all projects involve activities that are higher on the TRL 
scale. These activities include prototyping, testing, and qualification which are typically 
ranked from 4 to 7 on the TRL scale.  

De-risking investments in defence capability development   

Given  the  significant  technical  and  financial  risks  associated  with  complex  defence 
product  development,  the  absence  of  EDIDP  would  likely  have  left  European  industry 
unable or unwilling to bear risks alone. Without the ‘risk-sharing’ logic provided by the 
EDIDP, consulted industry noted that it would have been more hesitant to proceed with 
such  high-risk  initiatives.  In  addition,  according  to  industry  beneficiaries,  EDIDP 
provided a timeframe within which both the industry and the Member States had to take a 
clear  investment  position,  speeding  up  a  process  that  may  have  conducted  to  similar 
results only in a much longer time span.  

189  As  mentioned  in  the preamble  of  the  EDIDP  Regulation: “In  order  to  ensure  that  the  funded  actions 
contribute  to  the  competitiveness  and  efficiency  of  the  European  defence  industry,  they  should  be 
market-oriented,  demand  driven  and  commercially  viable  in  the  medium  to  long  term,  including  for 
dual-use technologies.” 

190 External Contractor study, Research Piece 2. 

62 

 
 
As  one  DG  DEFIS  project  officer  also  noted  with  reference  to  a  specific  project: 
“EDIDP2020  project  SEANICE  explores  new  concepts  in  anti-submarine  warfare  that 
the navies are not yet fully adopting but are curious about. Therefore, there is a lack of 
Member State cooperation the industry is pushing the innovation and the new concepts 
with a view of demonstrating the possibilities and greater efficiencies to the MoDs. This 
would not have been done at national level because the magnitude of budget would not 
be committed to this exploratory topic.”191 

The Commission Expert Group also noted how a cooperative programme driven by the 
logic of “sharing the risks between beneficiaries and partners” contributes in general to 
reduce the investment exposure of industry in terms of lower risks to market and lower 
sunk-cost risks192. 

The  key  to  successful  de-risking  however  remains  linked  to  whether  the  final  products 
will  be  procured  by  end-users.  Consultations  with  small  and  large  industry  alike  raised 
concerns  about  EDIDP  projects  still  have  limited  procurement  prospects,  despite  often 
meeting  end-user  requirements193.  This  has  been  attributed  to  several  external  factors, 
including  changes  in  national  budget  priorities  or  insufficient  human  resources  to 
formalise the procurement  process194. More structural  solutions  should be considered to 
address this issue, which is especially critical for SMEs, as they are more vulnerable to 
financial pressures.  

EFFICIENCY  

Efficiency (1)  

Assessment of project continuity from EDIDP to EDF enabling spending efficiency   

For a precursor programme, efficiency may be best characterized by observing whether 
EDIDP  project  outcomes  and  results  have  received  funding  continuity  through  EDF 
actions. At this stage, assessing this in its entirety cannot be fully done considering that 
projects under the programme are still running with last projects expected to be finalised 
in  mid-2026.  As  of  February  2025,  at  least  20  EDIDP  projects  have  witnessed  a 
continuation  through  the  EDF  2021-2023  projects.  Considering  this  figure,  this 
represents  around  half  of  all  EDIDP  projects  being  continued.  The  share  is  likely  to 
increase since future EDF calls will continue to build upon previous programmes’ results. 
In  this  regard,  the  EDF  multiannual  perspective  provides  a  clearer  indication  of  those 
precursor  projects  expected 
to  be  further  supported  under  future  EDF  work 
programmes195.  Despite  continuity  of  consortia  composition  not  being  necessarily 
guaranteed  from  one  project  to  another  due  to  the  competitive  nature  of  the  calls,  it  is 
clear  even  to  industry  that  a  continuity  of  effort  is  observable  –  when  asked  whether 
products/technologies developed under EDIDP/PADR had continued thanks to the EDF, 
50%  of  large  industries  which  replied  said  “yes”196.  The  assessment  below  provides  a 

191 Questionnaire to DG DEFIS Policy and Project Officers. 
192 Commission Expert Group on policies and programmes relevant to EU space, defence and aeronautics 
industry  subgroup  defence,  ‘Report  on  the  European  Defence  Fund  Interim  Evaluation’.  While  the 
point was made with reference to the EDF, the same logic can be said to apply to a programme such as 
the EDIDP. 

193 Workshops with EDF Large Entities and SMEs, Mid-Caps and RTOs. 
194 Workshops with EDF Large Entities and SMEs, Mid-Caps and RTOs. 
195 C(2025) 568 EDF Indicative multiannual perspective 2025-2027, European Commission. 
196 EDF Large Entities, Questionnaire results. 

63 

 
 
non-exhaustive overview of notable EDIDP projects that have received continuity under 
the EDF. 

Underwater Control Contributing to Resilience at Sea 
The  MIRICLE  project,  funded  by  EDIDP,  laid  the  foundation  for  an  extended  mine 
countermeasures  toolbox.  The  first  ships  carrying  technology  developed  through 
MIRICLE were launched in 2023 and are expected to be delivered to the Belgian navy197. 
During  consultations with  Member States, MIRICLE project  was mentioned as being  a 
highly  innovative  product  contributing  to  enhanced  national  technological  autonomy198. 
This toolbox was then further developed through the E=MCM project, which was funded 
under the EDF 2023 work programme. Similarly, the SEANICE project was followed up 
by  the  EDF  SEACURE  project,  which  focused  on  seabed  and  antisubmarine  warfare 
capabilities.  The  EDIDP  CUISS  project  has  developed  a  system  offering  solutions  for 
divers  engaged  in  sub-surface  threats  such  as  mine  hunting,  where  there  is  a  strong 
potential for procurement by Bulgarian, Romanian and Finnish navies. This project was 
then further developed through the EDF SWAT-SHOAL project. 

Counter-Unmanned Air Systems (UASs) Capabilities 
The  development  of  counter-UAS  capabilities  is  another  area  where  continuity  starting 
from the EDIDP has played a crucial role. The JEY-CUAS project, which was supported 
by  EDIDP,  was  a  pioneering  effort  in  this  field.  Consultations  with  Member  State 
revealed  that  such  a  project  was  perceived  as  one  increasing  European  technological 
autonomy199.  A  follow-up  EDF  2023  project,  E-CUAS,  aims  to  develop  a  European 
prototype  to  counter  unmanned  aerial  systems,  building  on  the  successes  of  the  JEY-
CUAS, leading to possible future joint procurement at EU level200.  

Intelligence,  surveillance,  and  reconnaissance  (ISR)  and Tactical  Remotely  Piloted 
Aircraft System (RPAS) Systems 
The development of permanent air capabilities for ISR and tactical RPAS has also been 
an area of focus for EDIDP. The MALE RPAS project, also known as ‘Eurodrone’, was 
funded by EDIDP with €100 million (representing one fifth of the entire EDIDP budget) 
and aimed to support the early development phase of the project201. This project will be 
followed up under the EDF 2024 work programme aiming to further develop the MALE 
RPAS  system.  Four  Member  States  (Germany,  France,  Spain,  Italy)  have  already 
committed to  buying  Eurodrones through a  Global  Contract  for 20 systems  (60 aircraft 
and 40 ground control stations).   

Another  EDIDP  project  called  LOTUS202  has  developed  a  drone  mothership  able  to 
deploy  dispensable  ‘daughter’  drones  for  ISR  purposes.  Such  a  platform  will  help  to 
simultaneously  patrol  wide  areas,  such  as  islands,  that  would  otherwise  require  more 
costly and less efficient means. The follow-up EDF project ACTOS will develop the next 
phase of the platform.  

Cyber Situational Awareness and Defence Capabilities 

197 Further information including a press release by the NAVAL Group is present. 
198 Consultations with Member States. 
199 Consultations with Member States. 
200 C(2025) 568 EDF Indicative multiannual perspective 2025-2027, European Commission. 
201  For  more 

information,  see:  https://defence-industry-space.ec.europa.eu/eurodrone-stage-2-global-

contract-signature-marks-important-step-future-eu-defence-industry-2022-02-28_en 

202 Low Observable Tactical Unmanned air System 

64 

 
 
 
 
 
 
The development of cyber situational awareness and cyber defence capabilities is another 
domain  EDIDP  provided  funding  for,  with  the  intention  to  address  emerging  hybrid 
threats.  The  ECYSAP  project,  which  was  supported  by  EDIDP,  aimed  to  develop  a 
European cyber situational awareness platform. This project was later followed up by the 
ECYSAP  EYE  project,  which  focuses  to  further  enhance  the  capabilities  of  European 
defence forces in this area. The EDF 2021 AINCEPTION and EU-GUARDIAN projects 
address improved cyber operations capabilities in response and incident management and 
both projects build on earlier EDIDP projects, such as CYBER4DEF. 

Space  Situational  Awareness  (SSA),  Positioning-Navigation-Timing  (PNT)  and 
Satellite Communication Capabilities 
The development of space situational awareness and early warning capabilities is another 
strategic area of investment initiated under the EDIDP. The EDIDP already addressed the 
early development stage of the space-based early warning capability through the ODIN’S 
EYE project. Building on precursor results, the EDF’s 2022 ODIN’S EYE II project aims 
to reach a design phase. Together, the two projects reached an EU funding contribution 
of close to €100 million, which according to one study is comparatively higher funding 
amount  than  the  US’s  comparable  Hypersonic  and  Ballistic  Tracking  Space  Sensor 
(HBTSS) programme203. 

The  SAURON  and  INTEGRAL  projects,  which  were  supported  by  EDIDP,  aimed  to 
develop  sensors  for  advanced  usage  and  reconnaissance  of  outer  space  situations.  This 
project  was  later  followed  up  by  the  EDF  NAUCRATES  project,  which  focused  on 
developing a small satellite for geostationary Earth orbit space situation awareness. The 
NAUCRATES  project  was  then  further  followed  up  by  the  EMISSARY  project  to 
develop  a  European  military  integrated  space  situational  awareness  and  recognition 
capability. The development of PNT and satellite communication capabilities is another 
area  where  continuity  has  played  a  crucial  role.  The  GEODE  project,  supported  by 
EDIDP,  aimed  to  develop  Galileo  for  EU  defence  applications.  This  project  was  later 
followed  up  by  the  EDF  NAVGUARD  project,  which  focused  on  adding  ground  and 
space-based  navigation  warfare  resilience  to  Public  Regulated  Service  (PRS)  receiver 
technological capabilities. 

Ground Combat Capabilities 
The development of ground combat capabilities is another area where EDIDP generated 
collaborative  spending  efficiencies.  The  FAMOUS  project,  which  was  supported  by 
EDIDP, aimed to develop European future highly mobile augmented armoured systems. 
This  project  was  later  followed  up  by  the  FAMOUS  II  project,  which  focused  on 
developing next-generation armoured platforms. The testing of two FAMOUS prototypes 
are  expected  to  soon  begin  with  the  Finnish  Defence  Forces.  In  another  example,  the 
LYNKEUS project, which was also supported by EDIDP, aimed to upgrade the current 
and develop  the next-generation ground-based precision strike capabilities. This  project 
was  later  followed  up  by  the  MARSEUS  project,  which  focused  on  enhancing  the 
beyond-line-of-sight capability initiated in the EDIDP project. One study noted that “the 
long strike artillery is one of the main capability gaps of EU Member States.”204 

The  Unmanned  Ground  System  (UGS)  project  iMUGS  (with  EU  contribution  of  €30.6 
million)  stands  to  be  one  of  the  earliest  supported  European  defence  development 

203 External Contractor study, Research Piece 6. 
204 External Contractor study, Research Piece 6. 

65 

 
 
 
projects.  This  consortium  also  exemplifies  the  added  value  and  synergies  attainable 
through  industrial  civil-defence  collaboration  by  uniting  13  entities  from  7  Member 
States  (Estonia,  Finland,  Germany,  Latvia,  France,  Spain,  Belgium).  iMUGS  is 
developing  further  the  autonomous  capabilities  of  existing  platform’  to  address  a  large 
range of missions: these can include for example casualty evacuation and re-supply. 

Air Combat Capabilities 
The development of air combat and electronic warfare capabilities is another area where 
EDIDP  has  initiated  collaborative  industrial  action.  The  REACT  project  aimed  to 
develop  a  design  for  Air  Electronic  Attack  Capability  (AEAC)  and  allowing  European 
Union  air  forces  to  conduct  operations  in  a  contested  anti-access/area  denial  (A2/AD) 
environment responding to low-frequency radars. This project was later followed up by 
the  REACT  II  project  under  EDF,  which  focused  on  developing  airborne  electronic 
warfare  capability  capable  of  being  employed  on  manned  and  unmanned  platforms. 
Manned-unmanned  teaming  was  also  tackled  under  the  EDIDP  in  2020  through  the 
MUSHER project. A project related to collaborative air combat (EICACS) was selected 
for funding following the EDF calls for proposals in 2021. 

European Command and Control  
In  the  domain  of  Command  and  Control  systems,  EDF  funded  project  European 
Command  and  Control  System  (EC2)  is  a  direct  continuation  of  EDIDP  project  ESC2 
project,  totalling  a  combined  EU  contribution  of  €50  million.  The  EC2  project  will 
develop infrastructure (software and hardware) needed to create a modern and secure EU 
command  and  control  system  at  the  disposal  of  the  EU  to  conduct  and  rapidly  deploy 
Communication  and  Information  System  (CIS)  needed  to  set-up  EU  military  missions 
and operations. This project is expected to deliver a fully tested and validated prototype, 
with a view to being procured between 2025 and 2026. 

Efficiency (2)  

Programme Implementation - Proposal preparation and submission  

The  EDIDP  was  the  first  time  industry  was  faced  with  applying  to  an  EU  grant 
programme for defence capability development.  The programme was a novelty also for 
the European Commission. The consulted industry stakeholders that also had experience 
under EDIDP agree that there was a steep initial learning curve, especially as related to: 
the technical preparation of proposals in a relatively short timeline, forming cross-border 
consortia and understanding the novel programme-specific requirements. Building from 
these  experiences,  60%  of  beneficiaries  consulted  noted  the  EDF  had  brought 
improvements  in  terms of the “clarity of the information and documents requested” for 
the  proposal  preparation  and  submission  stage  as  compared  with  PADR  and  EDIDP205. 
Moreover,  beneficiaries  that  had  experiences  in  both  EDIDP  and  EDF  noted  the 
important  steps  taken  to  ensure  simpler  application  modalities,  including  by  having  a 
single digital portal for submissions206. Half of the consulted industrial entities also find 
that the EDF has improved communication and outreach on funding processes compared 

205 EDF Large Entities and SMEs, Mid-Caps, RTOs Questionnaire results. 
206 EDF Large Entities, Questionnaire results. 

66 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
with  EDIDP207.  The  Commission  Expert  Group  has  also  highlighted  that  the  changes 
since the EDIDP have been particularly appreciated by the beneficiaries and notably the 
following  changes:  clearer  eligibility  criteria,  the  need  to  provide  the  Declaration  of 
Honor (DoH) after selection, improvement of the detailed budget table template and the 
introduction of the SME self-assessment208.   

Programme Implementation – Grant implementation  

Feedback received through consultations with beneficiaries and implementing entities of 
to  grant 
the  programme,  such  as  OCCAR,  allowed  several  elements  related 
implementation to be noted.  

During  the  EDIDP,  first  issues  related  to  co-financing  emerged.  Several  consulted 
beneficiaries of EDIDP noted that they still face several delays, even after several years 
of grant implementation, in receiving such co-financing209. One representative of a large 
defence  industry  described  how  one  Member  State  provided  only  a  commitment  to 
provide  co-funding  “up  to”  a  certain  amount,  creating  uncertainty  about  what  would 
eventually  be  provided.  The  issue  of  co-financing  is  strongly  interlinked  with  external 
factors,  over  which  the  European  Commission  has  no  direct  prerogatives,  such  the 
agreements on IPR distribution decided at consortium level and access rights negotiated 
among  Member  States  through  dedicated  MoUs.  This  challenge  remains  largely  shared 
by  the  stakeholders  also  in  the  EDF,  despite  recent  efforts  made  by  the  European 
Commission to provide more detailed co-financing declaration templates. To the question 
“compared  to  the  EDIDP,  has  the  EDF  brought  improvements  Member  States 
commitment  and  co-financing?”,  nearly  half  of  the  respondents  confirmed  at  least  a 
partial improvement in the topic of Member State commitment and co-financing210.  

Another aspect of project implementation that was raised in connection with EDIDP was 
insufficient  coverage  of  indirect  costs.  Under  the  EDIDP,  indirect  eligible  costs  were 
“assessed  at  a  25%  flat  rate  of  direct  costs”.  The  EDF  introduced  a  system  of  actual 
indirect  costs,  which  was  perceived  by  some  large  industry  beneficiaries  to  be  a 
significant  improvement  and  better  adapted  to  cover  higher  project  costs  amounts  – 
something  that  can  determine  the  attractiveness  a  programme211.  As  noted  by  the 
Commission  Expert  Group  “The  current  model  that  leaves  industry  the  freedom  to 
choose between two possibilities, either applying for actual indirect costs reimbursement 
or opting for the flat rate, is highly appreciated and should be maintained. In particular, 
the possibility of  reporting  actual indirect  costs, which was not  allowed  by the  EDIDP 
regulation, was a very significant step in favour of the industry and therefore represents 
a key success factor for the EDF.”212 

Several  entities  that  had  roles  as  coordinators  in  EDIDP  also  noted  the  higher 
administrative and economic burden of acting as a consortium coordinator. As one Mid-
Cap  mentioned:  “being  a  project  coordinator…represents  a  significant  workload  and 
responsibility  as  it  is  the  role  of  the  company  to  ensure  that  the  project  achieves  its 

207 EDF Large Entities and SMEs, Mid-Caps, RTOs Questionnaire results. 
208 Commission Expert Group on policies and programmes relevant to EU space, defence and aeronautics 

industry subgroup defence, ‘Report on the European Defence Fund Interim Evaluation’. 

209 Workshops with EDF Large Entities and SMEs, Mid-Caps, RTOs. 
210 Workshops with EDF Large Entities and SMEs, Mid-Caps, RTOs. 
211 Commission Expert Group on policies and programmes relevant to EU space, defence and aeronautics 

industry subgroup defence, ‘Report on the European Defence Fund Interim Evaluation’. 

212 Commission Expert Group on policies and programmes relevant to EU space, defence and aeronautics 

industry subgroup defence, ‘Report on the European Defence Fund Interim Evaluation’. 

67 

 
 
goals.”213 While the perception continues also in the EDF, overall, beneficiaries viewed 
project  management  under  the  EDF  as  being  more  efficient  and  easier  to  manage  now 
that  industry  has  more  experience  and  is  aware  of  expectations.  When  asked  if 
beneficiaries  consider  EDF  project  implementation  to  be  more  efficient  than  project 
implementation  in  PADR  and  EDIDP,  almost  90%  of  large  entities  responded 
affirmatively214.  

From experience in the EDIDP implementation as an entity entrusted for the indirect 
management  of  two  large-scale  capability  development  projects  (MALE  RPAS  and 
ESSOR), OCCAR noted that the supporting documents for EDF templates, such as the 
annotated Model Grant Agreement, have improved profoundly since EDIDP215. From 
an implementation point of view, OCCAR noted that EDIDP has been “very useful to 
confirm, on the job, the difficulties as regards defence related R&D cooperation (e.g., 
export control, IPR, security of information, budget synchronization).”216 

COHERENCE 

Addressing EU capability gaps  
The  EDIDP  projects  explicitly  aimed  to  address  defence  capability  priorities  agreed  by 
Member States within the framework of the CFSP and particularly in the context of the 
Capability Development Plan, as per the explicit award criterion (d) under Article 10 of 
the EDIDP  Regulation.  Despite the limited budget  of EDIDP,  the programme has been 
able  to  fund  projects  in  all  military  domains  (Air,  Land,  Sea,  Space  and  Cyber).  Two 
EDIDP  projects  in  particular  address  critical  shortfalls  of  the  European  armed  forces, 
MALE  RPAS  and  ESSOR.  Project  MALE  RPAS,  also  known  as  the  Eurodrone,  was 
funded with a grant of €100 million supporting a fully sovereign and ITAR-free medium-
long-endurance  drone.  The  European  Secure  Software-defined 
altitude  and 
Radio, ESSOR,  received  a  €37  development  million  to  boost  the  EU’s  armed  forces 
interoperability by creating a European standardisation for communication technologies 
(software radios).  

PESCO  
A key metric for measuring the extent to which the EDIDP has been coherent with other 
defence  industrial  policies  is  the  proportion  of  funded  projects  that  had  a  direct 
connection  with  PESCO  projects.  The  EDIDP  sought  to  promote the  link  with  PESCO 
projects through a bonus system that increased the funding rate of projects by up to 10%. 
Data indicates that between 2019 and 2020, the share of EDIDP projects connected with 
PESCO projects slightly increased:  

• 

In 2019, 9 of the 16 EDIDP-funded projects (56%) had a direct connection with 
one of 8 PESCO projects217. The total budget for these EDIDP projects was €233 
million, equivalent to 84% of the funds allocated.  

213 Position paper from Mid-Cap. 
214 EDF Large Entities, Questionnaire results. 
215 Consultations with OCCAR. 
216 Consultations with OCCAR. 
217  European  Commission,  ‘European  Defence  Industrial  Development  Programme  2019’  (European 
2020), 
Commission, 
https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/api/files/attachment/865753/European_Defence_Industria
l_Development_Programme_en.pdf. 

June 

68 

 
 
 
 
• 

In 2020, 15 of the 26 EDIDP-funded projects (58%) had a direct connection with 
at least one of 14 PESCO projects218. The total budget for these EDIDP projects 
was €115.7 million, equivalent to 62% of the funds allocated. All but one of these 
14  PESCO  are  listed  as  active  today,  with  the  exception  being  ‘Indirect  Fire 
Support (EuroArtillery)’, which is listed as closed219.  

An  additional  observation  made  by  the  Commission  Expert  Group  is  that  through  the 
participation  of  companies  in  INTEGRAL  and  SAURON  EDIDP  projects  in  Member 
States decided to join the related PESCO project itself, such as in the case of EU-SSA-N 
(European military space surveillance awareness network)220. 

EDA 
EDIDP  proved  that  there  is  latitude  for  greater  synergy  and  complementarity  with 
relevant  EDA  projects,  particularly  Category  B  (CAT-B)  projects.  There  are  numerous 
examples of CAT-B projects and topics that provided a foundation for EDIDP and EDF 
projects.  For  instance,  ECYSAP  was  an  EDIDP  project  carrying  on  an  EDA  CAT-B 
project launched between 2016 and 2019, showcasing the positive bridging of the valley 
of  death  between  research  and  development  enabled  by  the  different  funding 
frameworks.  Analogously,  MIDCAS  (mid-air  collision  avoidance  system)  and  the 
following  MIDCAS  SSP  (MIDCAS  standardization  support  phase)  were  EDA  CAT-B 
projects  which  found  continuity  under  the  2019  EUDAAS  project.  The  CAT-B  project 
focused  on  system  design  requirements,  while  EDIDP  enabled  to  further  develop  and 
demonstrate the Detect and Avoid Functionality, which is also needed for the operation 
of capabilities like the ‘Eurodrone’ to fly seamlessly in all airspaces. 

Coherence with other EU and NATO strategic goals 
The 2022 Strategic Compass outlined ambitious goals and areas to advance EU defence 
capability  development  efforts.221  One  example  of  a  project  linked  to  the  Strategic 
Compass  objectives  is  ESC2  funded  under  EDIDP  with  €20  million,  which  is  strongly 
aligned  with  the  work  strand  under  “Act”  focused  on  developing  an  EU  command  and 
control  structures222.  EDF  2022  project  EC2  continues  to  build  on  the  results  of  ESC2 
with  further  €40  million  in  EU  funding.  EDIDP  projects  also  demonstrated  degrees  of 

218 European Commission, 'European Defence Industrial Development Programme 2019', June 2020; and 
‘Permanent  Structured  Cooperation  (PESCO)  Deepen  Defence  Cooperation  between  EU  Member 
States’.  In  later  sources,  the  Commission  has  indicated  that  the  number  of  projects  with  PESCO 
connections  was  14  and  that  the  total  value  of  these  projects  was  €97.7  million.  See  European 
Commission,  ‘European  Defence  Fund  -  Performance’,  n.d.,  https://commission.europa.eu/strategy-
and-policy/eu-budget/performance-and-reporting/programme-performance-statements/european-
defence-fund-performance_en. 

219  European  Commission,  'European  Defence  Industrial  Development  Programme  2020',  30  June  2021 

<https://defence-industry-space.ec.europa.eu/document/download/8afdb7a0-90cd-4cd6-9cdf-
5eda1e5a6cec_en?filename=DEFIS%20_%20EDIDP%20Factsheet%20_%2030%20June%202021__.
_0.pdf>;  

220 Commission Expert Group on policies and programmes relevant to EU space, defence and aeronautics 

industry subgroup defence, ‘Report on the European Defence Fund Interim Evaluation’. 

221 ‘Within this decade and beyond, we  will focus our capability development efforts on next generation 
capabilities in all domains, including at system and subsystem level along the focus areas identified by 
CARD … We will develop further incentives to stimulate Member States’ collaborative investments in 
joint projects and joint procurement of defence capabilities that are developed in a collaborative way 
within  the  EU.’  'A  Strategic  Compass  for  Security  and  Defence',  (EU  External  Action  Services 
(EEAS):  Mar.  24,  2022),  <https://www.eeas.europa.eu/eeas/strategic-compass-security-and-defence-
0_en>. 

222 Commission Expert Group on policies and programmes relevant to EU space, defence and aeronautics 

industry subgroup defence, ‘Report on the European Defence Fund Interim Evaluation’. 

69 

 
 
coherence with NATO initiatives, especially in aligning technological developments and 
fostering interoperability between the European Union and NATO Member States. Given 
that  the  majority  of  EU  Member  States  are  committed  to  NATO’s  capability  targets, 
EDIDP  projects  often  reflect  priorities  that  are  consistent  with  NATO’s  strategic 
objectives,  ensuring  that  European  solutions  are  compatible  with  broader  transatlantic 
security goals. For instance, EDIDP projects like EUDAAS and REACT mirror NATO's 
efforts  to  advance  capabilities  in  surveillance,  situational  awareness,  and  electronic 
warfare.  These  projects  contribute  directly  to  enhancing  the  defence  capabilities  of 
NATO and the EU, addressing shared challenges in domains such as air combat, cyber 
defence, and electronic warfare. Several EU-funded projects, particularly those operating 
at  the  system  of  systems  level,  either  demonstrate  existing  compatibility  or  have 
sufficient  potential  to  integrate  elements  from  NATO’s  standardisation  framework 
(STANAGs), as already demonstrated by the ESSOR project223. 

RELEVANCE AND ADDED VALUE  

Achieving  projects  that  could  not  otherwise  have  been  achieved  alone  and  a 
springboard to EDF 
EDIDP  created  avenues  for  conducting  projects  that,  in  the  absence  of  these  funding 
streams,  would  not  have  likely  taken  place.  When  asked  to  assess  whether  EU 
mechanisms had contributed to realising defence R&D projects that could not have been 
achieved purely at a national/regional level, 60% of the large entity beneficiaries replied 
affirmatively224. 

EDIDP  managed  to  fund  the  advancement  of  major  strategic  enablers.  In  the  Space 
domain,  EDIDP  launched  the  first  EU  project  for  Space-based  Situational  Awareness 
capable of dedicating early warning against ballistic missile threats.  In the Air domain, 
EDIDP  laid the groundwork for the development  of a first  European Detect  and Avoid 
System  which,  will  allow  Europe  to  have  its  own  Sense  &  Avoid  system  for  air  space 
integration  of  RPAS.  According  to  the  Commission  Expert  Group:  “EUDAAS  was 
rescued  from  the  “death  valley”  by  EDIDP225.  The  EDIDP  has  also  funded  a  project 
aimed explicitly at supporting the EU in developing a modern and secure EU command 
and control system. 

Beyond  the  specific  content  of  the  projects,  it  is  also  the  nature  of  industrial 
collaborations created through them which would not have occurred in the absence of the 
EDIDP.  As  has  been  noted  in  studies  and  stakeholder  consultations,  the  EDIDP  (and 
even PADR) enabled new forms of coordination at the Member State, EU and industrial 
levels.  The  EDIDP  has  proven  the  successful  logic  of  cross-border  cooperation, 
something which has continued and been expanded under the EDF.  

In  many  respects,  the  EDIDP  was  a  learning  ground  for  industry  and  the  European 
Commission alike. Its initial success, together with that of PADR in the defence research 

223 Commission Expert Group on policies and programmes relevant to EU space, defence and aeronautics 
industry  subgroup  defence,  ‘Report  on  the  European  Defence  Fund  Interim  Evaluation’.  See  also: 
“NATO ratifies and adopts ESSOR High Data Rate Waveform specification as STANAG 5651 NATO 
HDRWF”. 
https://www.occar.int/news/nato-ratifies-and-adopts-essor-high-data-rate-
waveform-specification-as-stanag-5651-nato-hdrwf. 

OCCAR. 

224  EDF Large Entities, Questionnaire results. 
225 Commission Expert Group on policies and programmes relevant to EU space, defence and  aeronautics 

industry subgroup defence, ‘Report on the European Defence Fund Interim Evaluation’. 

70 

 
 
 
 
 
domain, paved the way towards having an EU wide defence R&D framework. As such, it 
can be reasonably assessed that the EDIDP has acted as a successful springboard towards 
the EDF. 

Making a difference for the EDTIB   
The  EDTIB  as  a  whole  benefitted  from  the  EDIDP  given  the  involvement  of  entities 
from all strands of the EU defence ecosystem. As already mentioned, the EDIDP created 
unprecedented  levels  of  cross-border  industrial  defence  cooperation,  only  to  be  later 
surpassed  by  the  EDF.  The  EDIDP  consortia  also  saw  the  involvement  of  research 
organisations,  ministries  and  universities,  which  in  many  instances  developed  new  and 
lasting  cooperation  partnerships  pursued  under  the  EDF.  Consultations  with  Member 
State  even  noted  several  specific  examples  of  how  the  participation  of  its  entities  in 
EDIDP  projects  like  PANDORA  and  LOTUS,  has  enabled  them  to  grow  business 
opportunities,  build  new  cross-border  partnerships  and  integrate  technologies  in  larger 
defence  products226.  One  Member  State  also  noted  the  role  of  ECYSAP  project  in 
enabling  the  involvement  of  RTOs  in  European  defence  projects  researching  and 
developing cutting-edge technologies. Another Member State noted project FAMOUS as 
further expanding regional partnerships227. 

CONCLUSION 

This retrospective evaluation of the EDIDP highlights the overall positive impact of the 
EDIDP  programme 
industrial 
collaboration  in  the  European  Union.  The  EDIDP  represents  a  significant  milestone  in 
the  EU's  aim  to  progress  from  early-stage  research  to  initial  capability  development  of 
defence technologies.  

in  fostering  defence  capability  development  and 

From the effectiveness point of view, the EDIDP can be noted as a successful initiative in 
attracting    a  variety  of  entities  across  Member  to  jointly  collaborate  on  sovereign 
European defence products and technologies. The programme has reasonably leveraged 
cross-border  cooperation between smaller undertakings, including  SMEs  and Mid-Caps 
in particular. Increasing interest from EU industry was registered under the two EDIDP 
calls for proposals, a trend which continued at larger scale under EDF. EDIDP moreover 
facilitated synergies with civil research, exemplified by funding several dual-application 
projects. 

From an efficiency perspective, it can be noted that several EDIDP projects and project 
results have been followed-up through the EDF, enabling effective spending continuity. 
While  EDIDP  financing  was  essential  for  kick-starting  defence  capability  projects  of 
European  interest,  further  efficiencies  will  only  be  generated  when  outcomes  of 
procurement are realised by armed forces. The EDIDP’s implementation was a first for 
both  industry  and  the  European  Commission.  While  several  challenges  have  been 
identified related to the application process and project management, generally, industry 
beneficiaries  noted  the  substantial  wider  benefits  to  participating  in  such  an  EU  level 
programme.   

In terms  of  coherence, the EDIDP-funded  actions shown to  be complementary to  other 
defence industrial policies like those advanced through the EDA, the PESCO framework, 

226 Consultations with Member States 
227 Consultations with Member States 

71 

 
 
 
and  are  aligned  with  broader  strategic  goals  set-out  in  the  Strategic  Compass  and  by 
NATO. 

The  EDIDP  demonstrated  its  unique  relevance  given  its  support  in  funding  defence 
capabilities  that  have  become  all  the  more  important  to  invest  in  given  the  current 
geopolitical  context  which  requires  a  stronger  defence  preparedness  by  the  EU.  The 
EDIDP’s relevance can also be implicitly affirmed insofar as it effectively prepared the 
development  window of the EDF  from  2021 onwards. Similarly, the  EDIDP  showed it 
added-value by incentivising industrial cooperation on projects of European interest that 
otherwise would likely have not have been achieved if Member States continued acting 
alone. 

72 

 
 
ANNEX VIII. LIMITATIONS OF THE EDF INTERIM  EVALUATION 

The main limitation of this interim evaluation concerns its timing: it is taking place 
only  three  years  after  the  EDF  start  of  implementation,  with  most  projects  only 
having  started  in  early  2023.  This  period  is  too  limited  for  important  results  and 
wider impacts to emerge from actions related to defence research and development.  

FIGURE 41 - DATA COLLECTION & REPORTING STAGES FOR EDF INDICATORS 

Moreover, considering that reporting on EDF performance indicators involves a data 
lag of two years (as shown in Figure 39) this implies that only EDF 2021 and 2022 
project data has been publicly reported on. Despite this limitation, the most updated 
data has been used where applicable, as relates to: 2023 selected EDF projects, 2023 
evaluations  (e.g.  related  to  ethics  screening,  independent  experts)  2024  calls  for 
proposals  (e.g.  number  of  submitted  proposals,  oversubscription  rates  to  calls),  the 
2025  annual  work  programme.  Limitations  also  include  issues  related  to  data 
availability and measurability of outcomes. For  example, monitoring data covering 
patents are not yet available. It has also not always been possible to validate findings 
from external studies/expert groups, for example with respect to macro-econometric 
modelling results. 
Generally speaking, this limited timeframe has made the computation and extraction 
of  data  for  certain  indicators  challenging,  such  as  those  described  below.  Despite 
efforts  to  compute  these  measurements  with  the  support  of  JRC  and  by  asking 
beneficiaries in questionnaires, data could not be retrieved.   The Eurostat managed 
patents database (PatSat) includes as most recent data information from 2021, before 
any  EDF  projects  started.    Patents  are  also  typically  generated  only  years  after  the 
conclusion of results, hence the latency of obtaining data for this interim evaluation. 
To  mitigate  such  issue,  questionnaires  to  beneficiaries  included  points  asking 
whether  IPRs  or  patents  have  been  generated  through  their  participation  in  EDF 
actions, although the outcome was inconclusive with  no responses provided on the 
subject. Other indicators that have proven difficult to measure relate to “Number of 
Defence R&D employees supported by Member State”. The closest estimates come 
from  the  calculation  of  staff  effort  used  to  implement  EDF  projects,  but  without  a 
clear-cut  corresponding  breakdown  by  Member  State.  To  complement  this 
shortcoming,  the  JRC’s  Rhomolo  analysis  provided  an  estimation  of  expected 

73 

 
 
employment supported through the EDF’s intervention. 

The  specific  data  limitations  are  compounded  by  a  general  lack  of  available  Member 
States’  disaggregated  data  on  defence  R&D  spending  which  would  be  important  to 
measure  the  comparative  effect  of  EDF  in  increasing  Member  State  investments  in 
collaborative defence R&D - latest known figures are available from EDA’s 2020-2021 
Defence  Data  report.228  An  originally  expected  limitation  was  the  hindered  access  to 
information from stakeholders considering defence-sensitivity aspects. However, such a 
problem  was  not  extensively  encountered  in  the  process  of  stakeholder  consultations. 
Response  rates  to  workshops  and  questionnaires,  as  well  as  the  quality  of  inputs,  were 
overall highly satisfactory. 
Another limitation is the lack of benchmarks to compare performance. Worldwide there 
is no programme similar to the EDF in terms of size, thematic coverage and depth. Also, 
the  R&D  performance  of  countries  is  influenced  by  many  other  factors  (including 
geopolitics). The performance of the EDF has thus to be seen in the context of its role in 
the wider R&D support system in particular as regards its positioning against (and impact 
on) the national and regional policy initiatives. Furthermore, it is important to point out 
that one of important risks concerning any evaluation to be carried out with regards to the 
defence  sector  is  the  lack  of  publicly  available  statistical  data  on  this  industry.  In 
particular,  Eurostat  does  not  have  separate  statistics  on  defence  nor  on  the  defence 
industry (civil and military use are not separated), whereas data from Member States is 
often  classified.  Monitoring  information  was  included  in  the  early  years  of  the  EDF’s 
implementation as well as information on short-term indicators and on output indicators 
(such  as  number  and  types  of  projects).    Considering  the  length  of  the  projects  as 
expected  in  the  EDF  impact  assessment-  information  on  medium  and  long-term 
indicators  is  still  not  yet  available.  The  same  can  be  said  for  information  on  results 
indicators  (such  as  subsequent  procurement  by  Member  States  and  patents)  which  is 
expected  to  be  available  in  the  later  years  of  the  EDF.  To  overcome/mitigate  these 
limitations,  the  interim  evaluation  is  transparent  in  indicating  its  data  sources  and  all 
underlying data sources are made publicly available. 

The  analysis  of  the  evidence  by  Commission  services  has  allowed  identifying  data 
availability/quality  problems  that  could  already  be  addressed  over  the  course  of  the 
evaluation.  Conclusions  are  drawn  based  on  the  systematic  triangulation  of  evidence 
from  various  data  sources.  All  evaluation  results  have  been  systematically  checked 
against input from stakeholders. Given the novelty of the programme and the absence of 
an  ex-post  assessment  from  the  precursor  programmes,  the  interim  evaluation  exercise 
was in itself a starting point. Beyond this, the absence of a comparable programme in the 
EU landscape makes benchmarking or targeting for points of comparison challenging. 

228 https://eda.europa.eu/docs/default-source/brochures/eda---defence-data-2021---web---final.pdf  

74