The EU does not fund border security research projects that mainly target military applications. Or do they? AlgorithmWatch found that in the realm of border security, civilian applications appeal enormously to the military.
In order to qualify for EU funding under the Horizon 2020 and Horizon Europe framework programs, research and innovation project proposals must exclusively focus on civilian applications.
And yet, several such border security proposals obtained Horizon 2020 (H2020) and Horizon Europe (HE) funding even though they clearly implicated the involvement of military and defense bodies, AlgorithmWatch found by analyzing project documents obtained through access to information requests sent to the EU Commission’s Research Executive Agency (REA).
A potential military use is not ground for rejection per se, and researching so-called “dual use” items − i.e., outputs and technologies that can have both military and civilian applications − is not enough to disqualify a project proposal from H2020 and HE funding, “as long as the goods or technologies are intended for civil applications,” according to the Commission’s “Guidance note − Research with an exclusive focus on civil applications.” However, we were not given a meaningful explanation of when this becomes a reason for excluding projects from funding in written answers we obtained from the Commission Spokerperson’s Service (SPP) in reply to specific questions related to the involvement of military bodies in multiple EU-funded projects.
The Guidance note states that projects can only be funded “if they are involved in research activities exclusively focused on civil applications.” This does not explain how this “exclusive focus” is actually assessed by project reviewers. We put these criteria to the test by providing the REA with examples from actual H2020 and HE project proposals, both accepted and − in the one and only case of EMERALD − rejected.
We found multiple mentions of military and defense bodies in the documents we managed to obtain concerning the maritime surveillance project EURMARS. “Military and Defence Agencies” are explicitly listed among the “target users/customers.” Potential exploitation cases also include the defense industry and defense contractors as Thales Alenia Space France SAS, for example. Defense applications are envisioned by the Romanian Inspectoratul General Al Politiei De Frontiera, the European Union Satellite Center, the Bulgarian Institut Po Otbrana, and by ONERA (Office National D'etudes Et De Recherches Aerospatiales).
Similarly, we found “Military bodies” among the “Main Target Customer Segments” in the FLEXI-cross project and several mentions of military and defense bodies in the ROBORDER project material. An investigation we conducted together with ZDF Magazin Royale unveiled that a market analysis conducted for ROBORDER identified “military units” as potential end users.
(Source: FLEXI-cross D4.5, Fig. 9, p. 37)
ROBORDER documents explicitly indicate that “a significant body of the work done in the area of Unmanned systems and passive radar has so far been motivated and funded by military applications, so the results of this project have the potential to be used back in the defence sector.” The External Ethical Advisor’s “Further Findings and Recommendations” conclude: “The characteristics and the ethical and societal consequences of the Dual Use capabilities and potential of the ROBORDER results have not been found discussed and evaluated although many of them appear obvious.”
Still, the EU Commission saw no violation of the “exclusively civilian applications” clause.
What distinguishes these funded projects from the EMERALD proposal, which was rejected because it was deemed in violation of this clause?
We cannot tell. The Commission’s SPP said that “Horizon Europe does not fund projects with a military character.” As a result, “research and innovation activities under projects ROBORDER, EURMARS, FLEXI-Cross were evaluated to have an exclusively focus on civilian applications, whereas research and innovation activities under proposal EMERALD was evaluated not to have an exclusively focus on civilian applications.”
This did not answer our question as to why EMERALD was found in violation of the clause, whereas ROBORDER, EURMARS, and FLEXI-cross were not.
Such non-explanations blur the line between civilian and military research, a trend already identified by the EU Commission in its 2019 report “Security and Defence Research in the European Union: A landscape review” that stated a “growing overlap between civil and defence domains,” specifically “robotics, big data and human-machine interfaces.”
This leaves us with the suspicion that there might have been reasonable grounds to exclude all the above-mentioned projects from H2020 and HE funding.
Want to learn more about EU-funded experiments at our borders? Read our long-read article:
Read more on our policy & advocacy work on ADM and People on the Move.
