(B2 — exclusive) Ahead of the proposal that the European Commission is preparing to make, B2 felt the pulse of several manufacturers. Captivating overview. A big divergence appears: on the European preference. But there are also strong convergences. Like a plea to the institutions: make it simple, quickly and forget your internal quarrels!
These comments are the result of several telephone interviews conducted under the seal of OFF between mid-June and early July.
A fundamental divergence: on the European preference
Between those who favor operational urgency and the reconstitution of arms stocks, and those who believe that it is necessary to take advantage of this to consolidate the European defense industrial base, and therefore purely European purchases, there is a chasm.
Benefit European companies only
It is this claim that most often comes to B2's ears. The program must have a legal framework “ clear enough "to be able to benefit" only to European companies and for European equipment », Slips an industrialist to B2. Two other professionals, from a different sector, agree. They also and above all expect the instrument to establish " a European preference in terms of armaments. The criterion of urgency should not soften award clauses " and so " open the door to non-European materials ". Industrialists are waiting for the fund to be made “ with Community money, for the benefit of European companies and Member States “Summarizes an industrial source.
Or relax the FEDEF criteria?
However, warns another source, the criterion of European preference should not lead to " shoot oneself in the foot ". According to him, the acquisition fund should be based on the criteria of the European Defense Fund (FEDef) (three companies, European), but in a form “ slightly revisited ". He thus pleads for a relaxation of the conditions on the European character of a material in the name of realism. In question: this acquisition fund would concern already existing equipment.
Allow an ITAR component?
Therefore, one must not put barriers [to the purchase] of products that have an ITAR component (1)”, at the risk of “ lose competitiveness ". Especially since American products are more quickly available on the market, because purchased off the shelf, than European equipment.
Be less permissive about company criteria
The rules should therefore be less permissive on the definition of a European company than in the case of EDF. What an interlocutor from B2 summarizes as: you have to be " stricter on the producer » (for example, on nationality, location of subsidiaries, etc.) “but more flexible on the [European character of] the product (the presence of non-European components).
Essential convergences: keep it simple and clear
This is a clear point of consensus between manufacturers. You need an instrument simple, devoid of the usual bureaucratic hassles “Summarizes one of them. We can summarize the recommendations of manufacturers to five in fact.
Don't make it complex
What everyone fears is the slowness of contracting. The industrialists contacted by B2 say to themselves " very worried on it. The system set up within the framework of the FEDef is indeed relatively cumbersome. If in the context of a medium or long term research and development project, we can accept a delay of several months (2). Here, in an instrument dedicated to acquisition, the delays must be shorter. THE time must therefore be different. And the simplified procedure. Everyone fears the tendency gasworks of the European executive.
Clarify everyone's role
Another source of uncertainty for manufacturers: the role that the Joint Procurement Task Force, set up mid-June (read: New defense proposals soon on the table), in the process. Because the acquisition fund will be supported by the task force explains an industrialist. He already laments a job “ complicated and poorly managed between the European Defense Agency (EDA), the European Commission and the EEAS. " There is no clear pilot on the plane “Blows a connoisseur.
Do not overlap skills but combine them
The " more efficient » would be the European Commission but it is not within its remit. The European Defense Agency is well sized "but she must know" to make choices " and " prioritize » his proposals, judge our interlocutor. The ideal would be for him a combination of the two. And to conclude: the ggovernance of the task force will have an important role” in the implementation and, ultimately success, acquisition fund. It is she who must define the priority capacities which will be eligible for the fund.
Have sufficient leverage
As for the level of adequate funding, no one really ventures to give a figure. " It will depend on the financing rate of the purchase by community money, we explain to B2. A funding level of around 20% of the costs seems to be the expected level, as it is found in other texts, such as the European Defense Fund. But what is certain is that you have to have a " leverage enough to induce States to buy in common.
Just make up your mind
Finally, how not to mention the impatience of industrialists on the arrival of this acquisition fund. " We are waiting to see exactly what the proposal will be. But for sure we are waiting for it “, sums up one of them. With the hope of seeing it arrive before the summer break!
In the context of the European Defense Fund, the period up to contracting takes several months (± six months on average) between the announcement of the grant award and the signing of the contract.
