The proposed allocation is intended to strengthen civilian systems that support national and collective resilience: Bertelsmann Stiftung
German think-tank Bertelsmann Stiftung says that the recent decision by the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) members to raise total spending on defence to 5 pc, with 1.5 pc on civil preparedness, faces challenges of implementation.
At the recent summit in the Hague in the Netherlands, NATO member nation reached a decision, marking a shift in NATO’s approach to collective defence, member states are expected to adopt a new target of 5 pc of GDP at this year’s NATO Summit in the Hague. Of this, 3.5 pc will be allocated to military spending, while 1.5 pc will be earmarked for civil preparedness.
In a press statement, Bertelsmann Stiftung says that this new target extends beyond military operations to include non-military but defence-relevant domains. The effectiveness of this approach, however, depends on how the target is defined and implemented across the alliance.
It adds that the proposed allocation is intended to strengthen civilian systems that support national and collective resilience. This may include cybersecurity, intelligence, emergency infrastructure and services required to ensure the continuity of government operations. The broader aim is to increase the alliance’s ability to withstand and recover from disruptions. While these objectives are shared, there is currently no unified framework that defines what qualifies as civil preparedness spending.
Bertelsmann Stiftung says that NATO began addressing resilience as part of its strategic planning following the 2014 Wales Summit. This was further developed in 2016 with the ‘Commitment to Enhance Resilience’, where member states agreed on seven baseline requirements. These include protection of critical infrastructure, continuity of essential services, and civilian support for armed forces. In the years since, this collective security system has formed a resilience committee and created new forums for political and operational coordination.
The German foundation says that despite this institutional development, the civil component of the 1.5 pc target remains broadly defined.
According to the statement, analysts have expressed concern that this may lead to inconsistencies and creative accounting. Additionally, previous spending reports have included expenditures such as fire brigades and childcare for defence personnel under the 2 pc military budget. “Without clear definitions, countries are incentivised to engage in creative accounting,” notes the policy brief.
The statement says that another concern is that spending decisions may be driven by what is already available, rather than what is needed. Germany’s experience with its military special fund is cited as an example, where institutional limitations and existing capacity shaped decisions more than strategic gaps. The pressure to meet spending targets could result in short-term, opportunistic allocation rather than long-term, needs-based planning.
The policy brief says that a third risk involves the lack of coordination between member states. When priorities are not aligned, opportunities for joint investment and cross-border cooperation are missed. This limits the potential for shared capabilities and reduces the effectiveness of the collective defence framework. “Unclear and uncoordinated investment priorities hinder the development of cross-border cooperation needed to raise Europe’s overall defence readiness,” warns Bertelsmann Stiftung.
The report says that the proposal, was influenced by discussions between NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte and United States President Donald Trump, and aims to strengthen attention on civil preparedness. However, its impact will depend on whether it becomes more than a symbolic target. Without clear operational guidelines, its implementation could vary significantly across member states.
Bertelsmann Stiftung says that to ensure the target leads to measurable outcomes, the policy brief recommends three key steps. First, NATO should develop a dedicated planning mechanism for civil preparedness, separate from but complementary to the NATO Defence Planning Process (NDPP). This would provide common benchmarks and allow for capability-based assessments.
The German think tank says that the European Union should use its Preparedness Union initiative to support coordination. In particular, the Union Civil Protection Mechanism (UCPM), which includes both EU and non-EU NATO members, can be expanded to facilitate joint planning, resource sharing, and interoperability.
The private operating foundation says that Germany is encouraged to play an active role. With a defined concept of civilian defence and financial flexibility, Germany could strengthen its own systems while supporting a more coherent approach across Europe. By investing at home and engaging at the European level, Germany can help shape a practical framework for other states to follow.
The statement says that if clearly defined and institutionally supported, it could serve as a basis for strengthening national and collective resilience. If not, it risks becoming a loosely interpreted benchmark with limited practical value. As NATO turns its focus to emerging threats beyond conventional warfare, the coming period will be critical in determining whether this shift leads to real capability development or remains an aspirational goal.