Defense and sustainable development

For many months we have been hearing both in the media and in official communications from the authorities that defense is, along with competitiveness, Poland’s and Europe’s priority for the coming years. Security jumped onto the European agenda after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, but recently the emphasis on the topic has been further increased.

This is not surprising news if we consider the US government’s policy towards Europe, Ukraine and Russia in the last quarter. Europeans have not felt so threatened and abandoned by their greatest ally for very many years. So the natural reaction is to try to take care of their own security.

Defense funds

A number of initiatives for the defense sector are being undertaken at both the EU and Polish levels. Special funds are being created, such as the Armed Forces Support Fund with a budget of more than 60 billion zlotys, or the European Defense Fund with a budget of 1 billion euros for 2025. Nonetheless, EC estimates put as much as €500 billion needed to support defense in the coming decade. Many banks, which have so far excluded defense financing in their credit policies, are dropping such provisions. It looks like Europe will find the funds to improve defense.

Parallel to the extensive efforts to ensure safety on our continent, work is underway on a series of simplifications in sustainability-related regulations. This is, of course, the Omnibus package on due diligence regulations and sustainability reporting. In Poland, there has been a shift to defense of funds from the National Reconstruction Program (NRP), originally earmarked for Green Transformation of Cities. We’re talking about the not inconsiderable sum of PLN 30 billion to be injected into the Security and Defense Fund (FBiO).

There is strong pressure overseas to move away from climate or social policies. The United States has withdrawn from the Paris Agreement, and President Trump’s administration is cutting funding for initiatives that increase inclusivity. With security issues coming to the fore, is sustainability no longer relevant to Europe? Can we even talk about sustainable defense?

Europe stands by its values

When talking about the European Union’s ESG policy, we must keep in mind that it represents a certain compromise, worked out at the level of the European Commission and Parliament, representing many different interests. It is true that the EC has partially withdrawn from sustainability reporting regulations. However, we must not forget that the EU’s climate goals or biodiversity policy have not been changed, and there is no indication that this will happen in the near future.

Interestingly, on the same day that the Omnibus Package saw the light of day, the EC published the Clean Industrial Deal, a document containing a series of environmental requirements for industry. Among them were issues of access to clean products, the growth of a closed-loop economy of raw materials, or access to clean and cheap energy. The ETS stays, the Zero pollution policy stays, Fit for 55 remains unchanged, and the role of the Border Tax on Emissions (CBAM) is strengthened.

Aside from the removal of reporting obligations from businesses, there is no indication that the EU is moving away from sustainability. What’s more, regulations for the financial sector are, figuratively speaking, tightening. Banks will be required to include environmental and social risks in their customer credit ratings, and this will translate into a premium for sustainable investments.

So where is defense in all of this?

At first glance, it seems rather absurd to tie the production of weapons or military equipment to sustainable development goals. If we see the issue through the prism of, for example, electric tanks, reusable ammunition or zero waste rifles, it actually sounds frivolous. We are practically rubbing shoulders with greenwashing.

In the public space, one can encounter statements that security is a key element of social issues and ecological elements are not needed in this situation. Protecting the lives of citizens is paramount. So perhaps it is reasonable to clearly state that defense should be excluded from the sustainability assessment?

The answer is not as clear-cut as it might seem. Let me start by explaining that defense is a broad concept. It refers not only strictly to the production of armaments, but also to the manufacture of dual-use products. These are items used in civilian projects that can also be used for military purposes. They are defined by legislation.

Dual-use products include drones, pipes, navigation systems or lasers, among others. In their case we can talk about sustainability without much problem. The same is true of materials and components for weapons production. Steel or aluminum can be produced sustainably, and there are already not only regulations for this, but above all technologies.

Clean energy can (and even should) be used for production in the defense sector. While this sounds rather unfortunate for this industry, the principle of “don’t do serious damage” can apply here. Efficient use of resources, such as water and natural resources, and avoiding investments in flood-prone areas, for example, makes sense not only for environmental reasons, but also for economic ones.
It is difficult to justify excluding defense from compliance with human or labor rights requirements. In the EU, regardless of the sector, it is quite obvious that child labor or bullying is not condoned. This applies to the entire armaments supply chain.

If we look at security more broadly, not just as weapons production, then environmentally positive activities will also fall into this scope. Energy security can be built by increasing the share of distributed energy sources. The Polish Shield East project plans to use natural conditions as a physical barrier. Figuratively speaking, on a flooded (restored) wetland heavy military equipment will get bogged down. In the process, biodiversity in the renaturalized areas will be improved.

The EU’s ambitious goals

All these sound like academic considerations. In practice, however, they translate into, among other things, the funds mentioned earlier. The European Defense Agency has prepared a series of documents addressing various elements of sustainable development in the context of defense. It includes such topics as energy efficiency, the closed-loop economy, pollution management and green procurement.

The case is similar with the European Defense Fund, which has the topic of energy efficiency included in its priorities. The regulation establishing the Fund indicates that one of the categories of activities is the development of sustainable technologies. What’s more, the number of new jobs is to be the yardstick for measuring the implementation of tasks.

Europe is not backing down from its sustainability ambitions. It is looking for a way to combine issues related to environmental and social themes in a broad way, sometimes even into seemingly incompatible issues with sustainability, such as defense. There seems to be a belief at the Union level that there is no turning back from efficient use of resources, building resilience and respecting social rights. So Europe wants to base its development on these, including security.

MAIN PHOTO: U.S. Navy, Specialist 3rd Class Samuel Wagner/Wikipedia