Share & more
European innovation funding meant for civil research may soon be helping the arms industry, boosting the likelihood that EU-funded technology could be used to harm civilians in conflict zones, advocates warn.
Horizon Europe – the EU’s largest funding programme for civilian technology research and innovation – has been opened up to so-called dual-use applications that could have both military and civil uses. Part of a decades-old programme that previously had a solely civil focus, Horizon has 93.5 billion euros to disburse between 2021 and 2027.
The programme’s current guidelines state that projects should have an “exclusive focus on civil applications”. However, an EU regulation adopted in December 2025 made it possible to tweak programmes like Horizon so that dual-use applications “can be more effectively used to support defence-related activities”.
Arms researchers say it’s part of an alarming trend as governments turn their focus – and budgets – to defence and military spending.
“This is a very dangerous process,” Laura Shewan, a researcher and campaigner working for Scientists for Global Responsibility, a UK-based NGO promoting responsible science and technology, told The New Humanitarian. “It blurs the difference between civilian and military aspects in research and is part of a broader trend of militarisation within the EU that has been accelerating the last 20 years.”
Europe is intentionally re-arming – part of a global shift that accelerated in Europe with Russia’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine, and another Trump presidency in the United States. Many governments have made deep cuts to foreign aid programmes in favour of increasing military funding, while humanitarian needs rise. The EU aims to nearly double its defence spending to 800 billion euros by 2030, compared to about 418 billion last year.
The explicit support for the European arms industry – as well as the opening up for funding for dual-use technologies – is driven by a belief that Europe faces “an acute and growing threat”, but that its “defence readiness has been weakened by decades of under-investment”, according to Readiness 2030, a European Commission white paper that sets out a plan “for Europe to re-arm”. The paper called for the EU to “establish a strong and competitive defence industrial base”.
“It’s about products that are made to kill people and that are exported to conflict zones where they affect civilians.”
In an interview with The New Humanitarian via email, Maciej Berestecki, the European Commission spokesperson for research, described the changes in terms of cost-efficiency and autonomy.
“Possible benefits are related to strategic autonomy and reducing or cutting dependencies, increased cost efficiency, faster innovation cycles, improved spill-over effects, industrial resilience, and retaining talent,” he wrote.
But researchers who study the arms industry, and peace organisations, say funding military technology in the EU means exporting violence to conflict zones. Even under existing rules that limit military applications, civil grants have previously gone to firms like Elbit Systems, the Israeli military tech firm, for example.
When the European arms industry is supported, it leads to more arms exports outside the EU, Wendela de Vries, a researcher at the Dutch peace organisation Stop Wapenhandel who has long tracked the development of EU arms policy and the international arms trade, told The New Humanitarian.
“When the EU invests in the arms industry, it leads to drones and bombs that are being made and used against real people,” she said. “It’s about products that are made to kill people and that are exported to conflict zones where they affect civilians.”
Funds have flowed to a tech provider for the Israeli military
Researchers say the new rules will make it more likely that EU-funded technology will be used in weapons against civilians.
Arms companies have already received funding through projects focused on civilian uses. This includes Elbit Systems, which has also been cited in a UN special rapporteur’s report naming companies complicit in genocide.
Elbit received grants totalling 2.2 million euros under a previous Horizon project, according to European Commission data analysed by Al Jazeera. Elbit is a key military tech provider for the Israeli military. Its drones, surveillance, and digital targeting technologies have been used extensively in Gaza.
Researchers say it’s difficult to establish a clear-cut link between technology funded by EU-funded projects like Horizon, and their end use in conflict. But what they can show is that the same kinds of technical achievements that have been developed in projects funded by civilian EU programmes – drones, for example – are also being used for military purposes, against civilians.
For example, Horizon-funded FLYSEC was a research project that combined surveillance and biometrics with Big Data analytics for airport and aviation security, from 2015 to 2018. Elbit Systems was one of the 11 partners involved. FLYSEC developed electro-optic surveillance and image processing technology – which can also be used for military purposes.
“We just see on one side that a company receives EU funding for a certain research project. And on the other side, we see that this company exports certain weapon systems to war zones.”
The OPARUS project, financed by a Horizon predecessor, helped a consortium that included Israel Aerospace Industries develop thermal image generators and other tech that can be used in drones – including those used by militaries. Both Elbit and Israel Aerospace Industries are among the top 50 arms manufacturers in the world by revenue.
Dual-use applications like advanced sensors are common examples of tech that can be integrated into weapons systems, Luca Schiewe, project coordinator of ExitArms, a weapons-exporters database run by Facing Finance, a German NGO that advocates for responsible investment, told The New Humanitarian.
He pointed out that a lack of transparency around arms-export data and the results and applications of some EU-funded research projects makes it difficult to establish whether a particular weapons system or dual-use application has been exported to conflict zones. But, he said, the pattern is clear.
“We usually don’t know the exact outcomes of a project funded by an EU programme and we don’t know in which weapon systems which EU funded components are actually integrated,” Schiewe said. “Thus, we just see on one side that a company receives EU funding for a certain research project. And on the other side, we see that this company exports certain weapon systems to war zones.”
The European Commission spokesperson did not respond directly to questions about the criticisms of using EU funding for dual-use projects.
Redefining what is civilian and what is dual-use
While the arms industry will benefit from the shift towards funding dual-use applications, research groups and university networks worry that the money will move away from purely civilian programmes.
At the same time, research groups and university networks are calling for academic institutions to engage with non-military research only. But even agreeing on what is purely civilian and what is dual-use can be complicated.
“Dual-use can be pretty much everything if you take the widest definition of it,” Claire Gray, senior policy officer at the Belgium-based League of European Research Universities, told The New Humanitarian. “Research is powerful and EU funding is hugely important for universities and researchers of all kinds. But we need help and guidance when it comes to dual-use.”
Edited by Irwin Loy.
