European–Gulf Defence Industrial Partnership

Executive summary

A European–Gulf partnership can create industrial value beyond equipment purchases through documented demand, financing linked to delivery, defined knowledge rights and end-use controls. The paper favours selective cooperation in industrial services, supplier qualification, training and quality assurance, expanding when viability is demonstrated. European funding has separate conditions; political cooperation does not give Gulf firms automatic eligibility.[5][7] It proposes an initial eighteen-month programme for willing parties after project approval, measuring local capability, supply continuity and industrial returns, with suspension when licences cannot be secured or knowledge transfer fails.

EOSP-2026-166 · Policy Paper · 4 October 2026 · Public

Presented by Nasser Zohair — Diplomatic and Economic Adviser

اقرأ هذه الورقة باللغة العربية

Executive judgement

European rules and cooperation announcements show that a political or industrial agreement alone does not establish eligibility, delivery or knowledge transfer. The paper proposes selective projects with staged financing, documented demand, defined knowledge rights and national licensing checks. Eligible EDIP recipients must be distinguished from ineligible external-cooperation costs. Acquired capability and continuing compliance should be assessed before expansion.[3][4][7][12]

Key findings

• Joint venture and MoU announcements establish what was announced rather than verified delivery or knowledge transfer outcomes.[3][4]
• European funding eligibility depends on entity, origin and control checks and remains separate from national export licensing.[6][7][12]
• Documented demand and life cycle costs underpin viability, tested against delay, reduced demand and supply interruption.
• Knowledge requires usable rights and mastered functions; supply resilience requires demonstrated qualified capability.

Defining the industrial purpose

The EU–GCC summit of 16 October 2024 established a broader political agenda covering trade, investment and regional security.[1] At their extraordinary meeting on 5 March 2026, ministers linked Gulf security to global economic stability and emphasised maritime routes and supply chains.[2] This supports an interest in long-term industrial cooperation, but does not turn political alignment into a purchasing commitment or acceptance of every project.

Publicly announced cooperation already takes different contractual forms. On 20 May 2024, Fincantieri and EDGE announced an agreement formalising the Abu Dhabi-based MAESTRAL joint venture and an initial order worth €400 million.[3] On 26 January 2025, Leonardo, Saudi Arabia’s Ministry of Investment and its General Authority for Military Industries announced an MoU to evaluate investment and cooperation opportunities.[4] The first documents a commercial arrangement and an announced order; the second documents an exploratory framework. Neither announcement alone supplies independent verification of delivery or the extent of knowledge transferred.

GCC states should not be treated as a single buyer or a uniform manufacturing base. Partner selection should reflect the demand, supplier network, regulatory responsibilities, training capacity and financing arrangements in the particular country. On the European side, corporate locations, ownership of knowledge and licensing authorities also differ. The practical negotiating unit is consequently a defined project between identified parties.

In this paper’s assessment, the priority industrial purpose is to reduce reliance on a single service or supplier while creating an economically sustainable activity. Suitable starting points may include qualified maintenance services, quality management, protection of industrial information and preparation of smaller companies to join an approved supply chain. The activity must be selected through appropriate legal and technical assessment, with the boundaries of available knowledge stated at the outset.

European funding eligibility and conditions

The Council adopted SAFE on 27 May 2025 to provide up to €150 billion in loans to Member States, on the basis of requests and national plans, supporting common procurement and defence investment.[5] The government borrower, industrial contractor and eventual commercial beneficiary are different actors. The programme ceiling is therefore not credit available to a Gulf company and does not guarantee financing for a factory outside Europe.

Articles 16 and 17 impose establishment, management, control and origin conditions, with defined derogations and guarantees, and allow qualifying agreements to extend eligibility to third countries. The general limit on components originating outside the EU, EEA–EFTA states and Ukraine is 35% of estimated component costs; category-two products face additional design-autonomy conditions.[6] Component content is distinct from shareholder nationality and total contract value.

EDIP was established by Regulation (EU) 2025/2643 of 16 December 2025, published on 29 December, and the Commission adopted its €1.5 billion work programme on 30 March 2026.[7][8] Article 9(6) permits a recipient established in the EU or an associated country and controlled by a non-associated third country or entity to qualify subject to approved guarantees and assessment before funding is awarded. By contrast, external-cooperation costs under Article 9(8) are ineligible for programme support. This exclusion must be distinguished from the eligible-recipient route in Article 9(6).[7]

Canada illustrates the need for a dedicated legal route: the Council announced formal conclusion of its SAFE participation agreement on 15 June 2026.[9] This paper does not infer comparable Gulf rights from the general EU–GCC partnership, and its review did not establish a Gulf SAFE agreement. Projects should initially be structured around legally available commercial and national financing. Possible European support is a separate opportunity to be demonstrated before it enters the financial model.

Allocating capital and risk

A financeable project starts with documented demand rather than a support letter or MoU. The buyer should specify service scope, duration and acceptance arrangements; the industrial partner should demonstrate its ability to fulfil them; and the investor should identify its return and exit risks. Training, qualification, working capital and asset renewal belong in the economic assessment alongside construction expenditure. The business case should also be tested against delayed licensing, reduced demand and inability to enter a third-country market that the investor had assumed would support utilisation.

The paper proposes separating long-lived asset financing from order and inventory financing, and commercial risks from risks the contractor cannot control. Capital should be released in tranches after disclosed conditions are met: required approvals, documented rights and acceptance of the agreed industrial capability. Contracts should allocate pre-licensing expenditure and specify what can be recovered if implementation becomes impossible.

The EIB Group offers several financing and advisory instruments, as set out in its guide published on 22 September 2026.[10] However, its current rules exclude weapons and ammunition and restrict security and defence industry financing to EU-domiciled companies and projects implemented inside the Union.[11] The Bank should therefore not be described as a general financier of Gulf manufacturing. An eligible European part of a partnership could be assessed under the Bank’s rules, while the Gulf activity obtains suitable separate financing. Transactions and cash flows between the two should be visible to their respective financiers.

Sovereign and private capital should instead be treated as partners taking specified risks in return for disclosed financial and industrial outcomes. Governance should clarify beneficial ownership, related-party transactions, voting rights and access to information. Proposed ownership changes should be assessed for their impact on eligibility and licences before they occur. These provisions protect investors and industrial partners together. They also permit expansion to be paused when a problem emerges, rather than leaving capital committed to capacity whose lawful or practical use remains unresolved.

Supply resilience and demonstrated capability

Moving a stage of a supply chain to another location does not itself establish greater resilience. The new location may still depend on one supplier, an approval it cannot renew or a service unavailable during a crisis. Within appropriate confidentiality limits, companies should record the critical dependency, qualified alternative, expected service-restoration time and responsibility for securing inputs. The record should be revisited when ownership, suppliers or licence conditions change. It should function as an ongoing management instrument rather than a document completed once when the joint venture is established.

A second supplier creates meaningful resilience only when it can deliver accepted services or outputs at the required quality. That needs qualified personnel, lawful access to necessary documentation, stable operating resources and an agreement governing acceptance. Accelerated localisation should not mean diluted quality requirements or concealed dependence on external support. Buyers and lenders should require performance evidence before financing further capacity. They should distinguish documented local value from expenditure routed through a locally incorporated company, and avoid using the latter as a substitute for proof of capabilities that can be sustained.

Continuity planning should also address interruptions to transport, financing and service access, without devising ways to circumvent export controls. Partners should agree in advance how service is allocated when demand rises or a location becomes unavailable, within the law and each party’s security obligations. Sensitive supplier and operational information should have defined access permissions. Economic diplomacy can help organise dialogue between authorities and firms and clarify competing obligations. Demonstrating capability and executing the project nevertheless remain the responsibility of its owners, suppliers and buyers.

Export and end use controls

Member States retain discretion over transfers of military equipment and technology under the common EU framework, including human-rights, humanitarian-law and diversion criteria. Licensing requires reliable knowledge of end use and may involve specified verification arrangements.[12] The Council reviewed the framework on 14 April 2025.[13] An industrial agreement or EU financing decision therefore does not replace a national licence, and third-country manufacture does not release a final product from applicable conditions.

Compliance assessment should precede financial structuring. It should examine counterparties, the end-user and intended destinations, the classification of equipment, technology and software, and restrictions attached to individual inputs. Legal and compliance teams should identify required approvals and the permitted scope of use and re-export, then incorporate their conclusions into contracts. Competent licensing authorities make the relevant decisions; investment teams assess how delay or refusal affects cost and timing. This turns suspension into a modelled contingency that parties can allocate, rather than a surprise after substantial capital has been spent.

Approvals and obligations should be connected to practical contractual rights: suspending shipments or knowledge-sharing after a breach, undertaking agreed verification, reporting material changes and settling costs if continuation becomes impossible. Protecting continuity should not be confused with guaranteeing unconditional delivery. Employment or financial returns should not displace assessment of use-related risks. The diplomatic value lies in building trust, transparency and an ability to explain constraints, while preventing a foreseeable commercial disagreement from developing into a political dispute.

Knowledge transfer and decision choices

Local-content percentages and training hours do not by themselves establish knowledge transfer. The proposed test is whether identified staff and suppliers can perform agreed functions with the required rights and qualifications after the initial partner’s support recedes. Contracts should distinguish pre-existing knowledge from knowledge generated by the project and resolve rights of use, updating, training and continuity after exit. Those rights cannot exceed the owner’s authority or licence conditions.

Each project should provide a skills plan and acceptance criteria that stand independently of promotional language. The plan should identify functions to be transferred, responsibility for training and evaluation, authorised documentation and the point at which dependence on outside expertise should fall. Part of the commercial consideration should be linked to agreed outcomes. If an essential continuity right cannot be granted, the parties should revise scope or price, or exclude the activity. Intellectual-property protection and openness about its boundaries support serious negotiation; hiding those boundaries weakens the investment case.

Decision-makers have three routes. The first is procurement and service contracting with limited local qualification: it offers a quicker start but preserves greater dependence on the partner. The second is a selective joint venture or industrial programme tied to stable demand and explicit knowledge rights, requiring more capital and sustained governance. The third is wider integration in research and production, with greater legal and financing complexity and a need for political alignment, licensed knowledge and long-term demand.

The paper favours the second route where demand, rights, compliance and capability tests are met, and the first where urgency is greater or transferable knowledge is narrowly bounded. The third should be deferred where licensing, intellectual property or market economics remain unsettled. Localisation should not become a separate objective divorced from service quality and returns, and the symbolism of a joint venture does not justify establishing one. Expansion should proceed only when it adds verifiable capability and preserves both parties’ interests within their legal constraints.

Implementation method and limits

During the first ninety days of an approved programme, ministries responsible for industry, defence and investment, competent national authorities and willing firms should establish a team to select two pilot projects. For each, the team should document demand, buyer, rights, eligibility, licensing and cost assumptions; financiers should challenge the underlying business case. Projects dependent on an unproven subsidy entitlement or an unexamined export market should be excluded.

Between months three and six, companies, buyers and financiers should complete four connected arrangements: the demand contract, financing plan, knowledge agreement and compliance and service-continuity plan. Execution and compliance officers should have explicit responsibilities and authority, with conditions for stopping disbursement or suspending work settled in advance. Implementation should begin within available approvals, postponing commitments that require an outstanding licence. Public announcements should follow the substance of enforceable arrangements and should not be treated as substitutes for them.

Between months six and eighteen, buyers and investors should review performance quarterly and commission a qualified organisation to assess acquired capabilities under appropriate confidentiality. Reviews should cover timing, service quality, accepted suppliers, documented local value, rights that have become usable and continuing compliance. Each feasibility assessment should set its own numerical targets; this paper does not propose universal percentages without supporting data. The project board should use the resulting evidence and costs to decide whether to expand, correct or terminate the activity, rather than allowing earlier political expectations to determine the outcome.

This paper draws on primary official sources available by 4 October 2026: EU legal texts, the Council, Commission and EIB, and corporate announcements about their own agreements. It includes no interviews, access to contracts, private ownership data or independent audit of deliveries and knowledge transfer. Announcements establish what was announced; recommendations are analytical judgements open to revision. This analysis does not establish any individual project’s funding or licensing eligibility or any institution’s approval of it. Those decisions require assessment by the relevant authorities and specialists.

Actionable recommendations

1. Within ninety days of approval, ministries, competent authorities and firms select two projects after checking demand, rights and eligibility.
2. Before financial structuring, legal and compliance teams check licences, end-users and re-export and incorporate findings into contracts.
3. Between months three and six, firms, buyers and financiers complete demand, financing, knowledge, compliance and service continuity arrangements.
4. At each financing tranche, financiers verify required approvals, documented rights and acceptance of agreed capability.
5. Between months six and eighteen, buyers and investors review performance quarterly; the project board decides expansion, correction or termination.

Monitoring indicators

• Schedule adherence and service quality
• Accepted suppliers and documented local value
• Mastered functions and usable knowledge rights
• Continuing compliance and service restoration capability

Method and evidence limits

Desk analysis of thirteen primary official sources available by 4 October 2026 distinguishes legal rules and agreement announcements from realised outcomes. No interviews, contract inspection or independent audit of delivery and knowledge transfer were undertaken. Recommendations and indicators are analytical proposals; each project’s eligibility and licences require assessment by the relevant authorities and specialists.

Sources and references

1. First EU–Gulf Cooperation Council summit — 2024-10-16
2. Joint statement by GCC–EU Ministers’ meeting on recent developments in the Middle East — 2026-03-05
3. EDGE Group and Fincantieri formalise MAESTRAL shipbuilding joint venture and announce €400 million order — 2024-05-20
4. Leonardo signs MoU in Saudi Arabia to expand collaboration in aerospace and defence — 2025-01-26
5. SAFE: Council adopts €150 billion boost for joint procurement on European security and defence — 2025-05-27
6. Council Regulation (EU) 2025/1106 establishing SAFE — Articles 16 and 17 — 2025-05-27; Official Journal 2025-05-28
7. Regulation (EU) 2025/2643 establishing EDIP — eligibility, eligible costs and origin requirements — 2025-12-16; Official Journal 2025-12-29
8. EDIP: Commission adopts €1.5 billion work programme to boost European and Ukrainian defence industry — 2026-03-30
9. SAFE: Council concludes agreement with Canada — 2026-06-15
10. Investing in European security and defence — 2026-09-22 (publication page); brochure copyright 2026-08
11. Strengthening Europe’s security and defence industry — EIB current FAQ — Undated current webpage; checked 2026-10-04
12. Council Common Position 2008/944/CFSP — consolidated version of 15 April 2025 — Original 2008-12-08; consolidated 2025-04-15
13. Arms export control: Council reviews EU framework — 2025-04-14

Approved editions

• Open the approved PDF edition
• Approved Word edition

Related papers

• European Defence Readiness 2030: From Spending Pledges to Deployable Capability
• A Security and Prosperity Agenda for the 2026 EU-GCC Summit
• All papers and reports