Insights

At this year’s Munich Security Conference (MSC, 13-15 February 2026), one message rang out clearly: Europe and its partners must invest more in security and defence. Faced with war on the continent, instability along Europe’s periphery, and intensifying geopolitical competition, few now question the need to spend. The debate has shifted from “whether” to “how fast.”

Yet one critical element was too often missing from these conversations: governance. The real question is not simply whether to increase defence budgets. It is how to ensure those investments — whether in Europe’s rapid defence expansion or in support for security institutions overseas — translate into lasting capability, resilience, and sustained security. Without attention to institutions, oversight, legitimacy, and political context, security and defence spending risks becoming inefficient at best and destabilising at worst.

Governance may not have dominated the main stage, but it was central at a roundtable convened by DCAF and the OECD at the MSC entitled ‘Human Security Meets Hard Security: Rethinking Security Sector Governance in a Changing World’. Participants repeatedly stressed that speed is essential — but without governance, gains will not hold.

Investment without governance does not hold

The OECD States of Fragility Report highlights a growing imbalance: record levels of defence and security spending are occurring alongside sustained declines in investment in governance, rule of law, and development assistance. Moreover, the report shows that the complex interplay of risk and resilience across different countries, contexts and systems will require responses that blend tools of international statecraft – security, development and diplomacy – to geo-strategic effect. However, short-term operational imperatives are increasingly overshadowing long-term efforts to build accountable and effective institutions — entrenching drivers of fragility that can overwhelm finite resources.

Resilience is often framed in terms of stockpiles, force readiness, and redundancy. These are essential. But true resilience runs deeper. It requires institutions and societies able to absorb shocks, adapt under stress, and continue functioning during crisis.

Governance is central to that resilience. Many countries exposed to extreme levels of fragility understand this and it is reflected in their calls for increased governance support, especially on security questions.

Effectiveness begins with affordability

Long-term capability requires sustainable financing. Acquiring new systems is only the first step; states must maintain, operate, and integrate them over decades. Somalia illustrates this challenge. Costing of the planned Somali National Security Architecture, conducted by the Federal Government with DCAF’s support, has highlighted how capabilities built with external support often struggle to endure once funding ends. This question is equally relevant in Europe, where accelerated defence spending must be matched with long-term budget planning, predictable maintenance, and integration of new capabilities into existing structures. Without careful attention to affordability, rapid acquisitions risk straining public finances, degrading the very capabilities they are meant to build, and ultimately undermining the moral case for a stronger security posture.

Accountability and inclusion are equally critical

Urgency may justify exceptional procurement measures, but transparency and inclusivity in decision-making are essential to ensure long-term commitment to funding and sustainment. Opaque or exclusionary defence decisions — whether nationally funded or externally supported — risk public contestation, particularly if investments are perceived to crowd out basic services such as healthcare, education, or local infrastructure. This dynamic is evident in contexts like Mali, where insecurity and weak governance make the legitimacy of security institutions critical, but it is also relevant in Europe, where accelerated defence spending can provoke political backlash if citizens feel priorities are unbalanced.

Governance requires a whole-of-system view

Addressing the root causes of instability requires coordinated action across security, political, and economic systems. These elements reinforce one another: weak institutions can undermine security, while insecurity disrupts economies and political stability.

Governance is not just about oversight of security and defence institutions; it requires understanding these interconnections. Roads, border posts, ports, courts, and basic services enable security, while security is essential to protect and sustain those same systems.

The Red Sea illustrates this interdependence. It is not merely a maritime security theatre; it is a strategic artery for global trade and regional economies – with many European countries reliant on its uninterrupted functioning. Enhanced focus on maritime security is essential, but patrols alone cannot address vulnerabilities rooted in economic fragility or weak governance.

Effective governance therefore requires understanding these linkages. Security and development are mutually reinforcing. Jobs, infrastructure and accountable institutions form part of the ecosystem that allows defence investments to endure.

The costs of inaction

The costs of neglecting governance are substantial. Unsustainable spending creates fiscal strain. Unaccountable forces generate backlash. Neglected peripheries become incubators of instability. Poorly governed maritime spaces enable illegal fishing, piracy and trafficking. Each failure ultimately demands more expensive, reactive interventions.

These risks are not confined to countries facing extreme fragility. In high-income countries, governance failures can be even more politically consequential. If defence investments are perceived to crowd out healthcare, education, or local infrastructure, public support can erode rapidly.

In Europe today, urgency is justified. Procurement cycles are accelerating and exceptional budgetary measures are being adopted. But speed without transparency carries risks. Opaque contracting, limited parliamentary oversight, or unclear long-term financing plans can weaken the very social cohesion security policy is meant to protect.

Sustained security depends not only on military capability, but also on public legitimacy to sustain these investments over time.

Governance as a strategic enabler

Governance and human security are not luxuries. They are strategic enablers of sustainable security. Well-governed, people-centred security institutions enhance operational effectiveness, strengthen social cohesion, and build resilience against future shocks.

This recognition underpins the decision by the OECD, in partnership with DCAF, to launch a process to revise the OECD Development Assistance Committee (DAC) Handbook on Security Sector Reform. The aim is not to restate governance as a moral imperative, but to adapt guidance to today’s geopolitical realities — bridging human and hard security, and ensuring security and development investments reinforce rather than undermine one another.

The Munich debate was right about urgency. The next step is to recognise that governance is not an optional extra. It is the foundation that makes security investments endure.

What this means for governments

If Munich marked a turning point in security and defence spending, the next phase must focus on durability. This requires:

• Embedding affordability and sustainability assessments into major defence procurement and security assistance decisions.

• Protecting investment in governance, rule of law, and prevention, alongside increased defence and security budgets.

• Strengthening parliamentary oversight and transparency mechanisms, even under accelerated procurement or assistance timelines.

• Ensuring that DAC guidance and policy frameworks reflect the interconnected nature of security, fragility, and resilience, both within Europe and in international security cooperation.

Security investments made in haste should not create vulnerabilities tomorrow.