On 5 February 2025 the European Court of Auditors presented its audit report on the ‘Action Plan 2.0’ of the European Commission and the High Representative for Military Mobility. The plan, originally presented in 2018, covers the period from 2022 to 2026 and aims to improve military mobility within the EU. The findings of the report highlight significant shortcomings in implementation, which relate not only to financial but also structural problems.
Tony Murphy, President of the European Court of Auditors, emphasised the increased importance of military mobility. The ability to move troops, material and equipment quickly and seamlessly within and across EU borders is essential for Europe’s defence readiness.
Lack of solid funding and limited progress
The action plan for military mobility had a budget of EUR 1.69 billion as part of the Connecting Europe Facility. This budget has already been almost exhausted by tenders in 2022 and 2023. However, as the Court of Auditors emphasises, there is no reliable estimate of the financial resources required to achieve the objectives.
The funding requirements are considerable: the defence budget of the EU member states amounted to almost EUR 280 billion in 2023. An increase to over EUR 300 billion is expected for 2024. The rapid provision of EU funds was an important political signal, but led to a lack of stability and predictability for future investments.
The budget funds made available are not sufficient. Even individual large infrastructure projects are often more expensive than the total amount of EUR 1.69 billion earmarked for military mobility. In 2016 the European Investment Bank put the annual investment gap for transport modernisation alone at EUR 80 billion.
Limited focus and lack of consideration of military requirements
A central point of criticism concerns the focus on the trans-European transport network (TEN-T). While this network is an important basis, according to the defence ministries of the member states it is not sufficient to meet the requirements for military mobility. In particular, transport routes to future military defence positions and local infrastructure for the transport of troops and civilians in the event of conflict have been neglected.
Lack of leadership and strategic co-ordination
In addition to inadequate funding, the Court of Auditors also found a lack of clear structure for organising and controlling the use of budget funds and their allocation. The large number of programmes – including initiatives within the framework of Permanent Structured Cooperation (PESCO) and the Global Gateway – need to be co-ordinated and brought together more closely. A management element that monitors and controls the measures is necessary in order to overcome the fragmentation of projects.
The Court of Auditors also criticised the fact that there is no central point of contact at EU level for military mobility. This not only hinders co-operation with the member states, but also the efficient implementation of projects.
Shortcomings in project selection
The selection of projects was fragmented and did not take sufficient account of geopolitical priorities, the Court of Auditors found. One focus was on projects in the east of the EU, while hardly any investments were made in the southern area towards Ukraine. In addition, military assessments were only marginally included in the project selection process. From a military perspective, the subsidised projects are not always the most relevant.
The report contains examples that illustrate the difficulties. In one case heavy military equipment could only be transported with a major diversion due to a section of bridge that could not bear the load. Another saw a failure to consider a strategically important road project, even though previous sections had already been subsidised. Additionally, only two cross-border projects (Bulgaria-Romania and Finland-Sweden) were recognised.
Slow authorisation procedures
The Court of Auditors also criticised the bureaucratic hurdles. The length of approval procedures does not stop at military mobility projects. Despite efforts to shorten these to three days as part of a PESCO project under Dutch leadership, the granting of authorisations still takes up to 45 days in most cases. In the eyes of the Court of Auditors this is a significant obstacle to a rapid and flexible military response.
The criticism is not only directed at material infrastructure, but also at guidelines and procedures. Main battle tanks from one member state were not authorised to drive through another because their weight exceeded the limit set out in the road traffic regulations.
Recommendations of the Court of Auditors
The European Court of Auditors formulated six key recommendations to improve military mobility:
- improve governance arrangements for military mobility in the EU;
- monitor and communicate the progress of each action in Action Plan 2.0;
- explore the possibility of using calls for proposals under the Connecting Europe Facility (CEF) – Transport to fund dual-use infrastructure projects;
- take measures to improve the predictability of possible funding for military mobility in the next Multi-annual Financial Framework (post-2027);
- improve the selection process for dual-use infrastructure projects;
- sharpen the conceptualisation of EU action in the field of military mobility.
Military mobility is slowing down – a commentary
With the support of the member states, the Commission has begun a comprehensive gap analysis to identify critical infrastructure gaps, particularly with regard to military mobility. The results are to be incorporated into the planning of the next multi-annual financial framework (MFF) and form a strategic basis for future investments.
The report makes it clear that Europe continues to face considerable challenges when it comes to the rapid deployment of troops and military material.
In addition to physical infrastructure, efficient procedures are essential for effective military mobility. Procedural guidelines do not seem to be up to date. Bureaucratic hurdles and lengthy authorisation procedures can, as the above examples from the report show, can slow down the process considerably. The simplification, standardisation and acceleration of procedures are therefore just as important as the modernisation of infrastructure in order to ensure the rapid and smooth deployment of troops and material. The processes surrounding military mobility also need to be adapted.
In the context of military mobility, national initiatives such as the Operational Plan Germany are of particular importance. The plan aims to upgrade German transport corridors and logistical capacities for the defence of Europe and to better dovetail them with European projects. The national infrastructure must be harmonised with cross-border requirements and the German transport corridors must be better dovetailed with European projects. However, there are numerous challenges in terms of implementation. After decades of neglecting national and alliance defence, comprehensive material and immaterial modernisation measures must be carried out.
Financing – particularly tricky
The financing requirements are enormous. The European Commission estimates that additional defence investment of around EUR 500 billion will be required over the next 10 years. Measured against the requirements, the need to restore and maintain military mobility is relatively modest. Transport infrastructure projects rarely take their dual-use function into account; they primarily fulfil civilian requirements. The report makes it clear that military requirements are not taken into account in the planning of these projects at an early stage or in a binding manner.
This is already evident when it comes to the financing structure. With the Connecting Europe Facility the EU established a funding instrument with which EUR 25.81 billion was made available for strategic investments in the EU’s transport infrastructure over the course of the 2021-2027 period. From this, earmarked budget funds for dual-use transport infrastructure projects were made available for the first time in the 2021-2027 MFF, amounting to the aforementioned EUR 1.69 billion. The budget originally proposed by the Commission for dual-use transport infrastructure was EUR 6.5 billion. Tony Murphy, President of the EU Court of Auditors, explained that the budget for military mobility is still relatively modest compared to the needs.
One issue is that there is no clear link between the action plan on military mobility and the EU’s Global Gateway initiative. Global Gateway aims to mobilise up to EUR 300 billion of investment worldwide between 2021 and 2027 to support sustainable and high-quality infrastructure projects. Greater integration of this initiative could unlock additional sources of funding and improve strategic coherence.
The European Investment Bank (EIB) increased its support for security and defence to EUR 8 billion in June 2023 through its Strategic European Security Initiative (SESI). Military mobility is one of the areas of activity eligible for funding under this initiative. However, the EIB is not involved in any of the measures under Action Plan 2.0.
It is also unclear to what extent the European Defence Industrial Programme (EDIP) could also be tapped into. Whether a European Defence Fund, the proposed EUR 100 billion European instrument to finance collective defence needs, will also cover the area of military mobility is not clear at this point.
Wanted: a mastermind
Overall, it is clear that military mobility is not only dependent on improved infrastructure, but also on co-ordinated management that links existing programmes and funding pools – including international and national initiatives. Numerous players with partly overlapping responsibilities are active in the field of military mobility, in addition to the nations, NATO, the European Defence Agency (EDA) and the EU Commission. Hesitant integration with NATO plans also requires urgent action here.
The lack of centralised co-ordination leads to inefficiencies and makes it difficult to implement EU plans for military mobility in a targeted manner. Added to this are the inadequately co-ordinated EU funding instruments and the hesitant integration into NATO plans and procedures. The wheel does not always have to be reinvented: a characteristic of military activities in the EU.
However, perhaps the fundamental understanding that military mobility depends crucially on a functioning dual infrastructure that fulfils both civilian and military requirements needs to prevail.
