What changed between the plenary report and the adopted text

Removed:EXPLANATORY STATEMENT

Removed:The European Union is facing an unprecedented geopolitical situation, marked in particular by the return of high-intensity warfare on the european soil due to Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine. This crisis underscores the urgent need for the European Union and its Member States to ramp-up investment in our collective security and defence, ensuring a strong and autonomous deterrence capability and the ability to fully support our allies.

Removed:The proposed European Defence Industry Programme (EDIP) regulation seeks to strengthen the European Defence Technological and Industrial Base (EDTIB) as a strategic asset of Europe’s security and defence, ensuring it can equip Member States armed forces with the necessary defence capabilities, in sufficient volumes and within appropriate timeframes.

Removed:This draft report outlines the principal priorities and commonly agreed positions of the two co-rapporteurs.

Removed:The initial Commission proposal was based on a financial envelope of 1,5 billion euro. This amount falls far short of the needs identified by the Commission itself, endorsed by Member States. Only an increased and credible budgetary commitment can guarantee tangible effects on the EDTIB and meet the regulation’s stated objectives, in particular the creation of critical capabilities that will allow us to act autonomously. The co-rapporteurs propose that 10% of financial resources raised under the SAFE instrument be converted into grants and redirected to EDIP. As co-legislator and budgetary authority, the European Parliament holds the responsibility to guarantee adequate funding for EU programmes to achieve their goals. This is a matter of effectiveness, credibility and coherence.

Removed:Similarly, the Ukraine Support Instrument (USI), designed to reinforce Ukraine’s DTIB in response to Russia’s aggression, is not provided with proper resources. The co-rapporteurs share the view that it is simply inconceivable for the European Parliament to adopt the USI without any funding. They firmly emphasize the diplomatic and geopolitical risk of adopting an unfunded instrument, and stress the clear mutual benefits of fostering collaboration between the Ukrainian DTIB and the European defence industry. Strengthening these ties will help the EU adapt its defence sector to the realities of modern warfare. For these reasons, 5 billion euros of SAFE, also reshaped into grants, should be allocated to USI.

Removed:Ensuring strategic autonomy over European defence capabilities is paramount for our security. EU funding should therefore be directed to European industries, supporting the development of defence capabilities owned and controlled by European entities. This approach ensures that external restrictions do not impede the definition, adaptation, or evolution of defence products.

Removed:Closing the gap between military needs and capabilities in Europe requires enhanced efficiency in spending and less fragmentation of demand for the EDTIB, which can only be achieved through deeper cooperation between Member States. To this end, the co-rapporteurs support and strengthen mechanisms that facilitate and incentivize demand aggregation and enhanced cooperation.

Removed:In light of their diverging views regarding governance structures and processes, as well as on measures proposed to ensure the availability and security of supply of defence products, the co-rapporteurs have chosen not to amend these aspects in the present report. They will develop their vision and build-up a common position with all political groups in the course of the negotiation.

Removed:In order to enhance Member States defence investment, and to support European armed forces in their mission to protect peace and freedom on our continent, the co-rapporteurs strongly believe that the EDIP proposal constitutes a decisive step towards strengthening European democracies in the face of the existential challenges of our time.