It is not unusual to see a soldier brandishing an intimidating-looking weapon in a civilian setting, such as an airport or a metro station, in Europe these days. The distinction between civil security and traditional military defence is increasingly blurred, thanks largely to the heightened fear of terrorism since the autumn of 2001, but also because organised crime has over the past decade gone global, utilising the latest technologies and abusing Europe’s much-cherished openness.

Companies and academics, especially those active in the fields of aeronautics and space research and development, but also researchers for information technology projects and consumer electronics manufacturers have been working for national governments and defence forces for years, while simultaneously pursuing their commercial interests in their respective markets.

So why is there still so little collaboration between civil and defence research at the EU level? What are the benefits of such collaboration? And will the recent breakthrough in the agonisingly long process of adopting the Lisbon Treaty make it easier to link defence-related research with the civil research conducted under the auspices of the European Commission’s flagship research vehicle, the framework programme?

One of the first big decisions taken after ten new countries joined the EU in 2004 was to set up the European Defence Agency (EDA). Part of this new agency’s brief was to liaise with the Commission with regard to defence and civil-related research programmes. Two years later, national governments agreed that the EDA should deepen its ties with the Commission in the area of research, but until now this has yielded relatively few coordinated initiatives.

“So far, the EDA and the Commission work together in the area of software defined radio and critical space technologies,” said Raquel Patricio Gomes, a spokeswoman for the EDA. Further coordination is foreseen in areas such as maritime surveillance and CBRNE (chemical, bacteriological, radiological, nuclear and explosives-related) threats.

“All this constitutes a solid basis on which to assess the present level of coordination among R&D programmes of the two organisations, and certainly deserves recognition,” said Marco Malacarne, a head of unit in the Commission’s Enterprise and Industry Directorate.

In May of this year, the EDA was instructed to work with member states as well as the Commission to develop a framework for working together in defence and civilian research. This issue is on the agenda of the EDA’s Steering Board, which meets on 17 November. The agency has created two commonly funded joint investment programmes (JIPs): one called ‘Force Protection’, the other ‘Innovative Concepts and Emerging Technologies’.

“The JIPs concept works well and could be a model for further joint programmes, if participating member states decide so,” said Patricio Gomes.

But here lies one of the problems. Not all member states support greater integration between the EDA’s defence-related research and civil-oriented research covered by the Commission’s framework research programmes. Ireland guards its status as a neutral country in military matters fiercely, while the UK is instinctively opposed to anything that enhances the EU’s defence profile. Theoretically, the adoption of the Lisbon Treaty makes it possible to incorporate defence research into the Commission’s framework programme. The current FP7, which runs from 2007 to 2013, has allocated €1.4 billion to civil security research.

“It is quite possible – some would say very probable, given the current positive trend – that FP8 will maintain a significant level of funding for [civil] security research,” Malacarne said, but he cautioned that it would be “premature” to speculate on whether these funds would be opened up to some areas of defence-related research.

The EDA is committed to bringing the two spheres together. It argues that by doing so the EU will be able to avoid unnecessary duplication of research efforts, “thereby delivering best value for European taxpayers,” said Patricio Gomes.

But Malacarne highlighted three reasons, in addition to the political obstacles, why it might be hard to bring defence research into the sphere of civil research covered by the framework programmes.

First, all civil research – including civil security - has to respect citizens’ civil liberties, such as the respect for people’s privacy, “a preoccupation that is hardly mentioned in a purely military context,” he said. Similarly, cost effectiveness is a crucial consideration in civil research, whereas defence ministries and armies care more about the performance of the equipment, and the fact that it employs cutting edge technology. So in defence research “costs are only a secondary parameter,” Malacarne said.

The third difference is that while budgets for pure military spending in general are being reduced across the EU, spending on civil security is on the rise. Even if defence research is not as obsessed about costs as civil research, it might be hard to incorporate defence research into FP8 when the need for money for research into civil security issues is ever greater.

These issues could be overcome if the political will and the legal means were available. The Lisbon Treaty provides the answer to the second of these.

“There is an opportunity for enhanced cooperation now that wasn’t possible before,” said Celine Ruiz, a spokeswoman at the Council of Ministers dealing with security and defence policy. But political will can be fickle and is never easy to predict, Malacarne said.

“Whether or not there should be an increased cooperation between the framework programme and the R&D activities of the EDA would only be decided by the Council in co-decision with the European Parliament. Only they could definitely decided whether such a cooperation is desirable. The Lisbon Treaty only opens up this possibility,” he said.

Why is there still so little collaboration between civil and defence research at the EU level?