by Aurelie Pugnet
The EU ombudsman asked the European Commission on Tuesday (14 November) to give guarantees of independence for the experts evaluating the industry’s proposals for the European Defence Fund, in another blow to the EU’s transparency in defence industry policy.
“The European Ombudsman has opened an inquiry into how the European Commission ensures external experts who help it evaluate European Defence Fund (EDF) project proposals do not have conflicts of interest,” the ombudsman said in a press release.
The EDF is a €8 million fund aimed at boosting collaborative research and development of defence-related equipment and technologies between 2021 and 2027.
Companies’ applications to win projects and receive grants in a competitive bidding process go through experts’ analysis as part of the selection process.
The independent experts “assist in the evaluation and ethics screening of the proposals”, the Commission writes.
However, the Ombudsman Emily O’Reilly says there is no clear evidence that those experts are indeed independent, since the Commission relies on self-declarations that there will be no conflict of interest.
It is the third time the Ombudsman has raised those concerns since the EU’s first innovation programmes in defence started.
The move comes as some critics in EU member states have pointed out an unfair selection in project allocation such as when the French missile maker MBDA was awarded the development of a hypersonic missile interceptor as a consolation prize with no competition after it was outbid by smaller Spanish SENER.
Others, in line with the European Network Against Arms Trade (ENAAT), have also criticised the lack of transparency of ethics compliance overview from the experts, whose analyses are not public.
No official evaluation
“The Commission (…) indicated that it largely relies on experts’ self-declarations to prevent potential conflicts of interest,” the Ombudsman writes.
The Commission was therefore sent a series of questions, covering a large range of issues to analyse the EU executive’s recruitment process of the experts, to be answered by 31 January 2024.
The Commission will have to answer “how [its] staff evaluates and verifies experts’ self-declarations, how often conflicts of interest have been identified, if the Commission has guidance for when experts may be retained despite potential conflicts of interest, and how the Commission deals with alerts concerning conflicts of interest from outside sources.”
The European Network Against Arms Trade (ENAAT) told Euractiv: “At first glance, the selection criteria largely limit the candidates eligible for assisting the Commission in the EDF implementation to those who have had a career in the military, whether public or private”. This “makes it difficult for independent experts, such as university researchers with no links to industry, to apply”.
Euractiv understands that the Commission’s recruitment process does not officially exclude consultants who could also work indirectly for defence companies, or national defence ministries.
However, the names of the experts are not public, the Ombudsman also says.
“Contrary to the general practice for the evaluation of proposals meant to receive EU funding, the Commission is not required to make public the names of the experts it consults for EDF-backed projects,” the Ombudsman’s office wrote.
A spokesperson for the European Commission said they have received the Ombudsman’s request for information, and “will collaborate fully with the Ombudsman’s own initiative inquiry”, adding that the Commission’s responses will be made public.
Member states’ reluctance
In 2018, the Ombudsman asked for higher transparency on the advisory body made of “experts” that influence the development of the EU’s common security and defence policy (CSDP).
They also identified a lack of transparency in the Commission’s evaluation of the proposed defence technologies projects’ compliance with international law and human rights in the framework of the EDF’s pilot project.
The matter of transparency in defence matters is tricky, because of the sensitiveness of the information. Too much transparency is a concern to the member states and the Commission.
Internal Market Commissioner Thierry Breton’s proposal for member states and industries to share sensitive information on their production capacities and value chains was refused and postponed to a later stage, when in the framework of the Act in Support of Ammunition Production (ASAP) to ramp up manufacturing for Ukraine.
The DG DEFIS, in charge of defence industry matters, also faces issues in keeping sensitive information secured, French online media Lettre A reported last week.
*first published in euractiv.com
By: N. Peter Kramer
