An EU expert panel has evaluated the Union’s performance in critical technology areas and discusses policy options for strengthening technological sovereignty.
Technological sovereignty has been at the heart of the recent political debate in Europe. In a latest contribution to this debate, the European Parliament’s Panel for the Future of Science and Technology (STOA) has published a study on key enabling technologies (KETs) for Europe’s technological sovereignty. The interest has significantly increased due to the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic on many value chains. It calls for stronger European independence by promoting the creation of European champions and by protecting European companies against foreign players. The definition of technological sovereignty aims to reconcile two approaches in Europe’s ability to develop, provide, protect and retain the critical technologies required for the welfare of citizens and the prosperity of European businesses. The most important criterion focuses on the ability to act and decide independently in a globalised environment. The definition encompasses three key elements: technological, economic and regulatory.
The study identified six KETs critical for Europe to reach technological sovereignty, namely advanced manufacturing, advanced (Nano-) materials, life-science technologies, micro/nano–electronics and photonics, artificial intelligence, and security and connectivity technologies. The analysis of the KETs led to the identification of key requirements for their development, which are essential to ensure Europe’s ability to master these technologies. Four challenges were found. The first one is the lack of resources and raw materials. Europe is dependent on third countries for access to various critical raw materials needed in the context of KETs. The second challenge focuses on the dependence on non-European suppliers, many of the supply and value chains rely on non-European companies and knowledge that put Europe in a position of vulnerability in the global geo-political context. Thirdly, a lack of digital skills and drain on technological expertise can be observed within academia and the European industry. This can be seen in the existing lack of understanding within the industry of the overall expected benefits of some KETs, e.g. advanced manufacturing. The last challenge observes Europe’s struggle to turn the outputs of scientific research into commercial products and retaining them in Europe. At a more general level, a lack of joint action and coordination between different levels of governance was identified.
In addition, the study identifies key elements that are critical to reaching technological sovereignty concerning KETs-related research and industry. These elements need to be combined to reach the technological sovereignty objective. Some of the elements translate into the following four key capacities. The capacity to develop research and development (R&D) competencies and knowledge thanks to the support of public and private sectors, under the ingredient of R&D and innovation funding. The capacity to turn R&D into market products and a reduction in dependence on third countries, by building the suitable industrial ecosystem through the creation of start-ups in critical technologies. Thirdly, the capacity to achieve and preserve technological leadership, by favouring the delivery of innovation through patenting and co-inventions. Lastly, the capacity to maintain competencies and knowledge through adapted education to ensure the availability of qualified people in the research and production of KETs.
The given policy options of the study are organised into four packages. These packages follow the definition of technological sovereignty and the respective key elements technological, economic and regulatory. The first package proposes a new strategy for KETs based on an institutionalised policy dialogue between the relevant stakeholders, namely EU institutions, Member States, regions, industry stakeholders and SMEs. The other three packages focus on the four key challenges, but they are not KETs-specific and should contribute to improving the access to raw material, reducing dependence on non-European suppliers, advancing skills and commercialisation. The study proposes 25 options to reach Europe’s technological sovereignty.
In conclusion, the study proposes two more general policy options, which are formulated based on discussions with various stakeholders. First, a more coordinated and inclusive approach is necessary for different policy areas and instruments, such as a forum for continuous policy dialogue with the Member States and stakeholders. Secondly, policy-making should be evidence-based. Indicators to measure regulatory impacts and monitoring and evaluation framework for all KETs should be introduced and used to better respond to issues.