Committee on Industry, Research and Energy Ordinary meeting
Legend
Transcript markers
- text Sentence being played
- text Search result
- text Intervention cited by the link you opened
Click a sentence to play the video from that moment. Select text to quote it with the speaker, timestamp and link.
More options
ITRE European Parliament
Follow its sittingsPaulo Cunha
Thank you, sir. Allow me to speak in Portuguese. The council.
Decision on ending the RFCS clearly reflects the vision they're showing vis a vis the path that the EU should be following with its industrial policy. Now this program, this fund and its abolition means there'll be another leap forward in the energy transition to carbon neutrality, and the EU is showing the way, proving that this energy transition will benefit our industry and our economy and won't harm it. It will also guarantee that those regions and industries most affected by decarbonization have a mechanism that will contribute to their transformation. This council decision, which I support, means that the financing available under the fund is increased. It also means that the funds will be available until 2034.
This can be translated into real economic added value to the European Coal and Steel Community, which will be dissolved. The money available under this fund will support research and studies into the sector and allow for the transition into more efficient processes, and should allow for long term research, allowing for long term impact, increasing the productivity and competitiveness of EU industry. It's also important to guarantee that this fund does not focus solely on steel-producing areas, but also steel processing sectors across the whole value chain. We want the impact of the fund to be as wide as possible by support to solutions which are industrially viable rather than taking an approach which is focused solely on technological solutions, which are not yet fit for purpose. It's more important to ensure that this decision allows for full alignment with the clean industrial deal and Horizon Europe, with the necessary co-financing available.
We cannot undermine the Industry Accelerator Act. We have to support the EU competitiveness in strategic sectors. Finally, let me repeat that this type of mechanism can be real levers to help the EU make the most of its industry and increase its competitiveness. This will only happen if we decide to act together on several different elements throughout the value chain. Here, our objective is to support new technologies and processes to allow for better processing of raw materials in a sustainable and ever more efficient manner, to ensure a high quality product and reduce strategic dependence on other markets.
We want to support the rest of the value chain and ensure, at the end of the day, we have high quality, low priced products, which can be competitive on a global market. Thank you.
Matthias Ecke
Yes. Thank you, Chair Rapporteur. I'm speaking on behalf of Jens Gayer today, who is a shadow rapporteur for S&D. And we thank the rapporteur, Bose Budka, for his draft report. And we have refrained from tabling our own amendments due to the comprehensive text, and also to enable an implementation of the council decisions swiftly.
The Research Fund for Coal and Steel, RFCS, is the only European Union instrument providing sector research funding for coal and steel. As has been mentioned already, the Council decision will provide the fund with a reliable perspective for the period from 2027 until its expiry in 2034. This creates the necessary planning security for research institutions, companies, and for the affected region, of course. Of particular importance here is the historical development and the earmarking of funds. With the expiry of the ECSC Treaty on July 23, 2002, the remaining assets were transferred to the union budget but with an explicit allocation to continue to be used for transformation research in the coal and steel sector. So this earmarking has to be maintained by the European legislature since the funds originally came from the levies of these industries.
A weakening of this earmarking would contradict the historical compromise and the legitimacy of the instrument, too. We currently assume that the ECSC in liquidation will no longer have any liabilities or receivables from August 2027, and the remaining assets will be used to finance research calls in the coal industry sector through 2034. So referring to the last consolidated accounts, the amount that relates to the reserves of the ECSC and liquidation for the assets of the research fund, which were created in the context of the winding up of the ECSC in liquidation, is around €593,000,000 as of December 24. So the proceeds of the funds will be used under the RFCS to support collaborative research and technology development in Europe, with research playing a pivotal role in advancing the green transition and strengthening the competitiveness in line with the European Green Deal. In particular, our research is key to accelerating clean innovation, circular economy processes, energy efficiency, and the deployment of climate neutral technologies, all of which are essential for achieving a deep, effective, and long-term decarbonization for the European economy that we all strive for.
The current Council proposal further reinforces this orientation by introducing clear criteria, improved evaluation mechanisms, and greater transparency and usability for research results. And the core sector production continues to focus on post-mining challenges, particular soil remediation, reduction of methane emissions, and the development of new economic prospects for a just transition. These measures are of relevance for the whole EU. For example, for regions such as the Silesian coal field, as was mentioned, Asturias or the Belgian, French or German region where coal has been mined, which are at different stages of the structural change. So the aim is to maintain Europe's technological lead in this area, in the field of material science.
And the negative impacts on the environment, such as methane emissions, silencing or improvements in mine water management need to be reduced. In the steel sector, RCS supports the transition to clean steel production and continues to support projects to decarbonize, develop innovative steel products, and strengthen competitiveness and sustainability. A successful transformation of the steel industry is essential for Europe's industrial base in securing good jobs. We just had the safeguards decision a few days ago. This includes the promotion of new production methods such as hydrogen-based steel production.
So, taking into account all of these aspects, the sectoral orientation of the fund has to be maintained. Research and innovation remains a central aspect to achieve both ecological and economic goals and to actively shape the industrial transformation in Europe. Given their historical responsibility, the clear earmarking of the funds, and the strategic importance for many regions, On behalf of S and D shareholder operator Jenskaya, I recommend approving the rapporteur's draft report without amendments. Thank you.
Paolo Borca
Thank you. Thank you, Czer. Good morning, colleagues. Well, I think we are not just discussing our research program. We are dealing with a structural question.
Does Europe still want to produce steel? Or is it resigning itself to becoming a consumption market, dependence on others? The council had put forward a text that modernizes the funds, and the rapporteur rightly highlights the strategic importance of this instrument. But, today, it is not enough to manage the fund more efficiently. We need to be clear about what it's for.
Today, our plants are operating at around 65% of capacity, and the sector has lost around 100,000 jobs since 2008. In general, if we look at the transition, very concrete limits emerge even on a so-called green steel. Globally, around 28,000,000 tons of capacity have been announced, but only about one-third is actually under construction. In Europe, this amounts to around 18,000,000 tons compared to a demand of over 130,000,000. On top of this, there is a key constraint. Green hydrogen is not available at industrial scale and still costs between 2 times and 5 times more than conventional alternatives. In conclusion, without competitiveness, there can be no fair transition, and you will not lead any transition if it stops producing steel.
Thank you. Thank you very much.
Sophie Wilmès
Thank you, chair. I will be very short. Just to thank you for your work and your presentation, we will not table any amendment, as we are supporting your opinion. Thank you.
Borys Budka
We still wait for the shadow Donathan, but we've got the representative from the commission, mister Carsten, Scherenbeck. So please, one minute for you.
Carsten Scherenbeck
Okay. Many thanks, the honorable chair. I would like to thank you for the report and the support for the file and also the recognition of the members that swiftly treatment of the file will be important so that we can implement the reform timely for the stakeholders and so that it can benefit research and industry. The improvements will provide higher funding rates, particularly for SMEs, aligning it to Horizon Europe, and will also help to welcome newcomers. We agree also with the report that steel and coal transition will need further support in the long term, and this should be considered in due time.
So just the thanks, for the support of the parliament and of the chair. Thank you.
Borys Budka
And just in time, perfecto. Elena Donato. Excellent, as always. So we have just all shadow rapporteurs. And now last, but, of course, not least, the chair, Elena Donatson, about our report.
Thank you, Elena.
Elena Donatson
Thank you, dear president. I was in the previous committee, so just take my okay. I will speak in Italian. Yuri can go.
Well, I believe it's fundamental to talk about the research into coal and steel, because these represent the basic materials which were at the basis of the foundation of Europe. For many years, of course, the situation was demonized, and it was obviously very important to focus on decarbonization. And we should, however, do that without demonizing these basic materials. Decarbonization, of course, is positive, and everyone supports that. But there has to be a sustainable transition in time.
Speaker 9
And I know this is something that our chair believes in, too. So thank you, Chair. And I would table some amendments which are only about neutrality. And I hope, therefore, that they will be acceptable because today, obviously, we're in a huge transformation stage, and we do need something to support us in this route, in substituting the materials. So we've got resources which have to be processed.
And obviously, this instrument is fundamental in helping us with this. This is an opportunity for us and shouldn't be looked at as a further restraint or restriction. We have to look into finished and semi-finished products so that we can be practical in finding solutions. And I know that the chair has done an excellent piece of work, and he would perhaps favor this approach. And I'm very happy as shadow rapporteur.
Thank you.
Borys Budka
Elena, thank you very much for all the shadows, for the effort you've made and, of course, for all your proposals and the final vote, because this is the urgent procedure will be May 6 during our committee. We, unfortunately, don't have the time for the cut the eye procedure, so I close this item five. And we move to item six immediately. And this is the draft report and rapporteur, Sophie Wilms. And I will not repeat all the rules we have here.
So, we I give the floor to the rapporteur, then shadows, and if time permits, we will have the CATCHDI procedure. So, Sophie, the floor is yours.
Sophie Wilmès
Thank you, chair. I will indeed give you a brief summary of my draft report on the proposed council regulation. First, I would like to underline the fact that I strongly support the objective of the Yohatan program to strengthen the union's competitiveness and decarbonization by advancing research and training in nuclear science and technology. In the current geopolitical context, I also want to stress the strategic role of nuclear energy for energy security, decarbonization, and industrial competitiveness. In my report, I thereby underline that despite decades of underinvestment, yearly plant closure, and a loss of expertise, Europe remains a major player in nuclear technology and must remain one.
Indeed, in the face of increasing international competition, it is essential to revive investment and innovation to strengthen European competitiveness. And in this context, my report recalled significant investment needs identified in the nuclear illustrative program with capacity that could reach up to 144 gigawatts by '50, an investment estimate at $241,000,000,000, to which the needs related to the development of SMR must be added. So I, therefore, welcome the proposed increase in the program's budget, but, of course, it remains insufficient. In my report, I therefore propose a strengthening of the funding in line with the Parliament's draft interim report. And to compensate the imbalance between funding allocated to fusion and fission research, I propose to allocate this budget to nuclear fission research because there is an imbalance, and this imbalance, no matter how, I believe, should be corrected.
Furthermore, my report broadens the specific objectives of the Eurotome program by expanding the scope to the field of fission beyond safety, because this is technology that we know, and it's a technology that we need. This program should also become a genuine driver for innovation in nuclear fission by supporting the development of cutting-edge European technologies, accelerating the transition to industrial deployment, structuring a competitive European value chain and fostering the emergence of start-ups, particularly in the field of small and advanced modular reactors. As nuclear is so strategic for your union, I also explicitly regret that the European Parliament does not have the same competencies as the Council under the Euratom Treaty and that this program is not adopted by means of the ordinary legislative procedure. And in this context, I plead for the parliament to be consulted at all relevant stages during the implementation and evaluation of the program. I further advocate for strong synergies with Horizon Europe and other EU programs, notably through joint actions, coordinated coal and co-financing mechanism, in particular, for innovative projects in the field of nuclear fission.
Finally, I put emphasis on several cross-cutting priorities: the development of advanced nuclear fuel to strengthen security of supply, support for young researchers, the reinforcement of skill and expertise within the union, strategic autonomy, and the protection of nuclear infrastructure. Thank you again, dear colleague. I look forward to fruitful exchanging with you today and indeed in the coming weeks and months. I am happy to answer any of your questions.
Thomas Tobe
Well, thank you, Cher, and thank you to Rabotr, Wilmes for what I would say a very solid draft report, which I think goes in the right direction. I mean, EPP, we welcome the commission proposal because, of course, we need to make sure that we have a stronger Eurotome program. I would, though, like to highlight that I think we also need to put some time to discuss, and also on content, the importance of stronger focus on fission. Because, of course, we know that we need to have a discussion in Europe on lifetime extensions of existing facilities, on development and demonstration of small modular reactors, and, of course, also that we can make sure to have more advancements also when it comes to fission technologies. And I think Eurotom here has a role to play, even stronger when it comes to research, standardization, and also skills development.
I would also like to mention that I do think that we need to strengthen European capacity when it comes to our supply. And that basically means with nuclear fuel in the value chain. Of course, here, we need to think both on resilience, but also on the issue of security, I would say. And I fully, of course, am in favor of that we have to work with Fusion, but I think this needs to be even more in parallel with the more immediate needs, which we also see in Eficient. So from EVP, myself and many colleagues, we will work on the amendments.
And of course, we look forward to a very constructive cooperation. Thank you.
Borys Budka
Thank you, Thomas. And there's someone from the SND. No? Okay. So we don't have any other shadows here, but we've got opinion giving committee and reporter from batch is Yuri Rattas.
So the floor is yours.
Jüri Ratas
Thank you, dear chair, dear colleagues. Thank you for this opportunity. As the EPP rapporteur for the patch opinion, I would like to raise a few points. First, I want to underline that the main task of the budgetary assessment is to explain the financial and budgetary aspects of the proposals, and to ensure that the legislative and financial elements are fully aligned. I would also like to recall the need for predictable and sufficient annual resources for the program, especially given the long term nature of the projects it supports as well as the need for educate human resources.
In addition, I want to stress the increase in flexibility proposed by the commission must not come at the expense of predictability. Sudden changes in available resources would negatively affect beneficiaries, researchers, SMEs, and start ups working in this sector need stable commitments that do not shift from year to year. I kindly ask your support, and I really hope that we can reach a pragmatic and constructive decision. Thank you.
Borys Budka
Thank you very much for this, opinion-giving committee, and on behalf of SND, the chair, Georgia Gori.
Giorgio Gori
I'm sorry. I'm going to intervene on behalf of Benkova on the other item, not this one.
Borys Budka
Okay? Okay. So on this. Okay. So we've got, yeah.
We've got the shadow from the Greens, Miss Yutta Paulus. The floor is yours.
Jutta Paulus
Thank you very much, chair. Thank you very much to the repertory for your work and your draft. Unfortunately, in our opinion, the draft goes way beyond the underlying objectives, and therefore, we are not fine with the wasting of more taxpayers' money because we believe that the industrial development of the so-called small modular reactors and the advanced modular reactors is misplaced in a regulation, which is primarily on the financing of the fusion mega project ITER and on research, training, and safety of fission technologies. And, I don't believe also that ITER will, in the long run, strengthen the union's competitiveness or its decarbonization efforts because, looking at the overruns in time and cost, which we have already experienced in that program and on the further timeline for building demos and then finally, a commercial fusion reactor by a time where we have to be fully decarbonized already. I'm not sure whether this is the smartest way to allocate taxpayers' money.
Speaker 14
Starting in 2035, ITER is expected to produce 10 times the input power for 600 seconds. And there, we want to spend tens of billions of euros for ten minutes. I don't know. Also, I would like to point to an often-overlooked, geopolitical issue. We are with ITER in an international cooperation where Russia remains an active full member until 2042, with full access to all data, to all findings, and that in a time where we're trying to end all cooperation with this autocratic hostile regime.
Jutta Paulus
So regarding simplification, I would like this program to stick to the nuclear safety, security, safeguards, radiation protection, waste management, and decommissioning. These are sufficient objectives to cover, and, we will have to cover them in due time with ever more nuclear fission reactors ending their lifetime in the European Union. And, therefore, I would like to widen the regulation in order to respond to the geopolitical situation. For example, when it comes to protection against cybersecurity threats, drone attacks, or terrorist attacks, I think that is much more timely and a better allocation of taxpayers' money. Thank you.
Borys Budka
Thank you very much. So now it's time for Georgia, your story. Sorry. Yeah. Perfectly, on behalf of Shado Penkova.
Giorgio Gori
I will read a statement on behalf of Sevelina Penkova. The S and D group welcomes this draft report and supports the ambition to strengthen Europe's research and training capacity in the nuclear field for the period 2023 to 2032. At the time of growing geopolitical uncertainty, increasing energy needs, and fierce global technological competition, Europe must invest in knowledge, innovation, skills, strategic capacity. In that respect, this report sends an important signal. We particularly welcome the report's emphasis on stronger synergies with Horizon Europe and other union programs on supporting young researchers and on preserving and developing nuclear skills and competences across the union.
These are essential priorities if Europe wants to maintain scientific excellence, reinforce its industrial base, and avoid losing critical expertise. We also see clear added value in supporting research infrastructures, cross-border cooperation, and better coordination between union and national efforts. We also take positive note of the report's recognition that nuclear research and innovation can contribute to Europe's wider objectives of the carbonization, competitiveness, and strategic autonomy. The focus on innovation, including efficient technologies, fuel supply resilience, and the development of new industrial capacities, reflects the reality that Europe must be able to shape technological progress rather than depend on others. The proposed budget increase is also an important political message.
If Europe is serious about remaining a global player in nuclear science and technology, then it must be ensured that our level of ambition is matched by adequate resources. Investment in research and training is not only about technology. It is also about quality jobs, skills, industrial leadership, and Europe's long-term capacity to act. For SND, this must remain firmly anchored in our core values, the highest standards of safety and security, strong democratic oversight, and a clear focus on delivering benefits to society. But overall, we see this report as a constructive contribution to building a stronger, more innovative, and more resilient European research framework.
Thank you.
Borys Budka
Thank you very much. And now we've got the shadow from the ECR, Mrs. Maria Terrazza Vivaldi.
Speaker 16
Thank you very much, chairman, colleagues. The Commission's proposal arrives at a very crucial moment for the energy future of the European Union. Supply, competitiveness, industrial competitiveness, and so on are objectives which have to be dealt with together. Therefore, that being the context, nuclear has come back to the center of things, but with a more pragmatic approach, free of ideology. We have to have a basis, a solid basis for nuclear.
Other important sectors are affected, such as the health sector, obviously. And therefore, we do have to highlight that nuclear has been part of the climate strategy of the EU, as well as respecting technical neutrality. That should guide our choices. Therefore, we do have to avoid any kind of marginalization of the nuclear field and guarantee some financing for it to reinforce the competitiveness at the European level, which means that we are independent and self-sufficient and that we have industrial capacity. We also have to commit ourselves, therefore, to research, which is very important for the proper management of fuels.
And we have to look at recycling as well. We have to, therefore, arrive at dealing with nuclear fusion. Euratom is not simply a research instrument, but is a strategic instrument for the future of Europe. We have to make it more ambitious, more balanced, and more efficient. Thank you.
Borys Budka
And now we've got guests from the commission. So I will give the floor to, for two minutes each, Miss Ulla Engelmann, of nuclear safety and security.
Ulla Engelmann
Thank you very much, Chair, dear Madame Nacapoteur, Miss Wilmes, honorable members of the European Parliament. Thank you for the draft IT report submitted by the Nacapoteur on April 18 and the positive assessment to the URATUM program proposal. The Commission welcomes the report, highlights the important new aspect of the proposed regulation. These have been introduced to take into account recent and future developments in energy research and innovation fields. First, the link to competitiveness and decarbonization, two key aspects of EU policy and strategy.
To this end, it is important that the next Euratom program works both Horizon Europe and the European Competitiveness Fund, not only at an operational level but also at a strategic level. Second, the importance of nuclear innovation. Globally, technological development is unstoppable, and it is up to the EU through the policy it chooses to pursue to keep its pole position as a leader in this area. It is also a way to ensure we are well prepared, including for future and advanced systems in EU's regulatory framework through the work of direct and indirect research actions. It entails ensuring that innovation is paired with responsible, safe, and safeguarded use of future nuclear technologies like SMRs and AMRs.
Modelling tools like simulation codes are needed to facilitate the licensing processes and enhance the integration of energy systems. Important areas of development of nuclear medical applications, particularly in the fight against cancer. Third, the need to attract and retain nuclear talent, investing in education, training, and developing skills is essential to ensure the long time viability of nuclear in the EU. Direct actions are particularly engaged in fission. And I would further like to add that the JRC has the exclusive mandate for actions under the Euratom programme on nuclear safeguards and security, which in the current geopolitical and security context are more essential than ever.
Finally, we would make two further points. We thank SeraPorte for recognizing the importance of nuclear fission research by proposing to increase the budget. In its proposal, the Commission had already proposed to double the budget for collaborative fission research. This support for indirect nuclear research action is in line with the trend for other EU research programs over the years. However, we have to be mindful of other spending programs, and it has to be balanced in a harmonious way.
And, therefore, an increase to a sufficient budget by the magnitude proposed in the Itur report would most probably bring reduction elsewhere. We acknowledge the demand for more involvement of the European Parliament in the decision-making process regarding the adoption of the Eurotome training program, while underlining that we have to respect the Eurotome provisions in this regard. We think a voluntary invitation to the parliament to comment is the correct way to proceed in the legal framework. We would also like to thank the ITRE committee for its ongoing support and interest in the ITER project on fusion energy, as demonstrated by the visit of the members to the ITRE construction site. We welcome that the report acknowledged the importance of the EU's continued investment in the ITA project by preserving the budget allocation proposed in the commission's proposal.
ITA represents a major milestone in the quest for fusion energy and the testament to the international community's commitment. And with this, we look forward to continuing our collaboration with the ITRE committee to ensure the success of the Eurotome actions.
Borys Budka
Thank you. Thank you very much. And now I give the floor to our second guest, Miss Elena Mastantuono, rapporteur from the European Economic and Social Committee. So it will be for two minutes and opinion, giving on this file.
Elena Mastantuono
Dear chair, dear honorable members of the European Parliament, let me share with you the main recommendations of the European Economic and Social Committee, your advisory body. We adopted the opinion on eighteenth March, therefore, well in advance to contribute to your preparatory process. And I can only echo what the rapporteur said, that we really need to enable industrial players to address the challenge of delivering energy that is stable, safe, sustainable and resource efficient. I will share with you our main three points. The first one is that we welcome the overall streamlined approach proposed in the next MFF, and we also call for strong synergies between different programs.
We also welcome the simplification because this is needed for easy access to all potential beneficiaries. While taking, we stressed the need for taking into account the specificities of the sector that is largely made up of large companies. Second point is that we highlight the importance of international cooperation in developing new technologies and solutions. But at the same time, we stress the need to work with real reliable partners, and hence our question: do we want to build our future with Russia, which is still a partner of Etern? Third point is that we stress the need to focus on urgent priorities.
The proposed budget of €9,700,000,000 allocates 5,700,000,000 to ITER, which, in our view, risks prioritizing long-term solutions over today's energy needs, particularly nuclear fission. Therefore, greater support is needed for fission and other nuclear technologies and new designs, including small and advanced model reactors, advanced fuels and materials, and safe solutions for radioactive waste and spent fuel management with particular attention to the nuclear fuel cycle. And we also encourage increased investment in non-power applications of nuclear technologies such as in medicine, space, agriculture, and industry. Thank you very much, and I am available for any further questions.
Borys Budka
Thank you very much. I can't see any catch eye. Yeah. You want, okay. So, Mr. Van Dijk.
Thank you.
Tom Van Dijk
Thank you very much, chairman. First and foremost, I wanted to take this opportunity to thank you and all those who have taken the floor in this debate. And thank you also to the people who drafted this report. It's a really important one. Chairman, I remember a discussion we had in this meeting room a while ago.
We had an exchange with the commissioner, Commissioner Joergensen, and we were talking about the future of energy on that occasion. And some of our colleagues also raised the question of nuclear energy. And basically, what we were faced with was some people arguing that this was energy from the past. Now in Flanders, we tend to say a lot of water can flow under the bridge over time. And if we want decarbonization for Europe, we can't do that with wind energy or solar energy.
You actually need to have nuclear energy in the mix. It is necessary, I'm afraid. In the recent past, we closed down a number of plants, and I actually deplore that personally. We closed them down not so much for technical reasons, but for ideological reasons, political reasons. And I think that is actually very nefarious, and we see the consequences of that today.
So therefore, I welcome the fact that we're taking an initiative which is important for the short term, medium term. It's important for SMEs. The whole file here, the Itrofile, is so important for the future, and we need to use this opportunity. We're not just talking about energy. We're also talking about isotopes.
We're talking about cancer treatment. In Europe, we have made real progress, significant progress in these areas. So let's build on that. And therefore, I take this opportunity to thank all those who have worked on this report. I thank the commission, of course, as well.
And I take note of the fact that in our laboratories, in our facilities, and in various fora, if you look around, a lot of people are talking about, you know, the safety of our installations of our plants. And, yes, by all means, we need to strengthen that security, but I'm very much in favor of it, and I thank you for your support.
Borys Budka
Okay. And now we've got Missus Angeline Fourette on behalf of Missus Julia, Roshny as a shadow from the PFE. Would you like to take the floor?
Angéline Furet
Yes. Of course, chairman. I will speak in French, if you don't mind. Chair,
reporter. I'm taking the floor today on behalf of Julie Rechinier, and I'd like to thank you for the quality of the work you put into this report on the Ureten program. The text is finally acting on what we've been calling for many years. We want to get back to basics with our energy policies. For far too long, the commission has been waging an absurd ideological war against nuclear energy by excluding it systematically from so-called green energies.
Now this has set us back a long way and has led to a lack of skills, competencies, and impacted our industrial sovereignty, whilst other global powers have leapt forward with energy technology. All of this dissatisfied the dogma of the punitive green energy strategy. It's just window dressing. Today, Vondelain is exercising a U-turn and has accepted this as a strategic mistake. It is about time.
Thanks to this report, Madame Vilmes, we are finally changing from a defensive approach that is waste treatment, and instead embarking on a real industrial policy. And this is something that we can support. We want to relaunch the use of fission and invest in research so that we can have a new generation of reactors. But we need to go further. We need to support nuclear energy, but this cannot be an isolated approach.
Co-financing needs to be open to other EU programs, either electrification, securing critical materials, or health applications. The EU needs to support member states like Belgium, who have taken the pragmatic approach and extended the lifespan of their existing power plants. Believe that we cannot restrict this to Brussels. We need to increase our competitiveness and our strategic energy across the EU. Thank you.
Borys Budka
Thank you very much. And before I will give the floor to our reporter for the closing remarks, I just want to welcome our special visitors today, special guests of our committee, students from the Munich University of Applied Sciences in Brussels. So it's our pleasure that you are here with us. So Herzlich Willkommen. And now, the floor is for our shadow rapporteur for the closing remarks.
Sophie Wilmès
For once, I'm a rapporteur. You are undermining my title. It's very painful. But thank you, Chair, for bringing that back. All right.
So first of all, I would like to thank you all for what I consider to be a very broad support, with one exception. If I have to be complete, I have to take notes of what has been said in a nutshell, because I'm not going to repeat. But I took note of the will of a stronger focus on fission. I have also taken note of the importance of agility but also predictability as far as the budget is concerned. The whole question of strategic autonomy that you can already find in the report, the support for the increase of the budget.
There is a point which has also been made on recycling. I really heard GRC comment on the SMA, but also on the other application, which has also been made by Mr. Van Dyck and others, then energy, which is medicine, but other applications as well. And when I'm thinking about medicine, I'm talking about the fight against cancer, for which I think a lot of people will be very sensitive to. European Economic and Social Committee, thank you also for having given us a very comprehensive report in due time for us to be able to work with this.
And I really hear you well when you are talking about the involvement of Russia. As far as other comments have been made about taxpayer money, I do strongly believe that when you are enhancing your strategical autonomy and when you are enhancing your competitiveness, you are actually protecting taxpayer money. This is the best way. It's the best response for taxpayer money, and it's also the best response for the geopolitical problems that we have now. And I also understand the wish to also work on security, on drone attacks, etcetera.
Great, but it does not belong to this commission. For the rest, I am for this committee, sorry. For the rest, I'm very glad to be able to work with you in the coming weeks and months, again, in a very strong, constructive way, which I look forward to. Thank you.
Borys Budka
Thank you, reporter. Thank you for this your effort, and the deadline for amendments is April 17 at midday. So we close this item. We are perfect in time, and we switch to item seven. And it will be establishing the European Fund for Economic, Social, and Territorial Cohesion, agriculture, and rural fisheries and maritime prosperity and security for the period 2028-34.
It will be a consideration of draft opinion, and our reporter is Yana Nagova. So, the floor is yours.
Jana Nagyová
Thank you, chair. And, first of all, I'd like to thank all shadows who worked either openly, or in shadow on this opinion with me. I have to admit that I hope that at least in ITRE, as far as I consider ITRE as a very pragmatic committee, well, court on sanitary will be put aside, but it didn't happen fully. Anyway, I hope next time. Before coming to details of the report, I'd like to say that I looked at this report or all these plans, NRPP, from the perspective of somebody coming from the country, which is cohesion still is a cohesion country, but in coming years, we expect about 2030, we will become net payer.
So, our perspective is really mixed. And at the same time, I have to say that, look, I am looking on all the commission proposal as from the perspective that we cannot have social peace if there are side by side rich and poor regions, which is basics of the regional policy. And what does it mean for ITRA? For ITRA, it means, first of all, that we have to focus on development of industry, research, energy, in line with priorities, and all the new strategies because the European Union came with very new strategies, which means significant, or at least in some parts, terms from what happened in the last five years. So it should contribute to these EU strategies.
And at the same time, this plan or this fund has to be very closely coordinated with directly managed funds like competitiveness funds, Safe Horizon, Innovation Funds, etcetera. So now coming to the content of my report. I focused on or we focus on four priorities. First was a strong industrial base, secure and affordable energy, digital infrastructure, and innovation in all regions. We elaborated it around 3 key areas.
First is competitiveness and industry, which all matters which are very, very closely tied to our committee. We ask that the plans because the fund will be delivered through one plan, that the plans clearly support industrial modernization, energy infrastructure, digital transformation, and innovation capacity because this is where the growth and quality jobs come from. We believe that member states should keep full discretion beyond the minimum ring fences, but we encourage them to prioritize investments linked to the Clean Industrial Deal, Net Zero Industrial Accelerator, Critical Raw Materials Act, Digital Decade 2030, and AI Contingent Action Plan. We propose that the plans become a territorial tool to finance net zero acceleration values, as the concrete regional expression of the clean industrial deal. At the same time, we insist on efficiency and fiscal responsibility.
There must be a clear division of labor with the European Competitiveness Fund, Connecting Europe Facility, Horizons so that we avoid overlaps and waste. Is Competitiveness Fund and other EU directly managed funds should focus on large, transformative and often cross border projects and on leveraging private finance, while our plans should focus on regional implementation, last mile infrastructure, skills and innovation diffusion. The second area is regions and just transition. So here, I would like to say that cohesion must be about real opportunities in all regions, not only about flagship projects and capitals. We stressed that the plans must support all regions with special attention to just transition regions, not only centers of excellence.
And we introduced a clear, realistic definition of just transition region based on the current period so that support goes to territories mostly affected by the green and digital transition where industry and jobs are at risk. Third key area is digital and transformation. There, we propose explicit digital chapter in each plan to show in a transparent way how the member states will contribute to the digital decade 2030 targets through territorial investments. And we insist that the digital investments under the plans must complement, not replace, national efforts and union programs like CEF Digital and the Digital Europe program. So they must bring added value to Europe. Fourth and last key area is governance, SME, and implementation.
Here, we would like to reinforce the partnership principle in a very practical way. Then for SMEs, which are the backbones of our economies, we ask for simplified access, lighter application for smaller projects, one-stop shop support for SME participation. And last but not least, just need to skip a little bit, we also adjust the commitment rules and strengthen the performance framework with precise, measurable indicators for industrial, energy, digital and innovation measures, clear by baselines and transparent methodologies. So, dear colleagues, thank you very much for your cooperation, for your attention. I'm looking forward to comments, obviously, all the other colleagues.
And from our perspective, this fund should be about competitiveness, security, innovation, and responsible use of public money, not about bureaucracy or symbolic targets. Thank you very much, and sorry for the time.
Michalis Hadjipantela
Thank you, chair. We are looking at the largest fund in the history of the European Union with over €865,000,000,000 across seven years. As shadow reporter for the APP Group, I have worked on strengthening the HR perspective, introducing amendments to enhance industrial competitiveness, energy infrastructure, digital transformation, and research and innovation. Our amendments send a clear signal. Energy security and affordability are prerequisites for industrial survival.
European industry is losing competitiveness not because of a lack of ambition, but because of lack of affordable energy. The fund must address this explicitly. We are also calling on the commission to develop tracking coefficients for industrial energy and digital objectives in the Perfona regulation, as you cannot enforce what you cannot measure. Furthermore, we are insisting on technological neutrality in making net zero acceleration of Vale's a concrete funded vehicle, and on ensuring that the research and innovation investments in the plants complement Horizon Europe and the European Competitiveness Fund. Finally, on smart specialization strategies, we want synergies between cohesion and research programs to be operational, not merely declared.
Member states must be required to use the three as the actual framework for their research and innovation chapters. I count on broad support for these priorities. The competitiveness of our industry cannot wait. I'm looking forward to working constructively with the rubber-tearing shadows on the content and on delivering a solid opinion for our colleagues. Thank you very much.
Sofia Rekson
Thank you, Chair. For me and the S and D, the negotiations on the national and regional partnership plans are one of the key opportunities to strengthen Europe's industrial competitiveness. But to succeed, we must ensure that this framework truly reflects the realities on the ground. First, we believe that industrial and energy investments must remain firmly rooted in the regions. Europe's industrial transformation does not happen in Brussels or in national capitals alone.
It happens in local ecosystems in regions with specific strengths, skills, and infrastructure. That is why we call for mandatory regional chapters in the NRPP. Without them, we risk disconnecting EU investments from where they are most effective. Second, we must build on what already works. Smart specialization strategies have proven their value in fostering innovation and competitive industries.
These strategies should be at the core of how we guide industrial and technological investments going forward. Third, we cannot leave any region behind. Territories with energy-intensive industries or traditional manufacturing face the greatest challenges. But they also hold key assets for Europe's future. They need targeted support to diversify, reskill their workforce, and attract new clean industries.
This is not only about fairness, but about how we can strengthen Europe's overall competitiveness. Finally, our performance framework must encourage innovation, not limit it. If we focus only on low-risk projects, we will miss the breakthroughs Europe needs. We must allow space for experimentation and ensure that risk is not unfairly shifted onto those driving innovation. In short, we need a strong place-based approach that is essential here.
We will make our investments more effective, more inclusive, and better aligned with Europe's long-term competitiveness. Thank you.
Borys Budka
Thank you, Sophie. And now on behalf of ECR, missus Anna Zalevska, on behalf of missus Berta Shidua, and please send our wishes to missus Shidua because of her birthday.
I will speak Polish.
Thank.
Anna Zalewska
Thank you very much. Thank you for the work that has been done by the rapporteur, I do notice we don't have a lot of statements in this text that correspond to our ambitions in terms of energy security and industrial competitiveness. We would also like to stress that this opinion introduces precise and tangible indices, which is very important to us, and that is the additional throughput of the network capacity, but we do not really agree to treating milestones as achieved without having specific information about the results. We're also skeptical about other elements of this text. First of all, the risk of centralization.
Regions might be limited to the implementation role, in spite of all the other attempts. This might be based, this model is still a top down one, which affects the subsidiarity principle. And amendment number 20 confirms the necessity of confirming the physical implementation. We also need to stress the need to audit the actual cost borne. And this is a solid foundation, but it needs to be further strengthened so that regions have the capacity of spending resources and keeping to the procedures.
Thank you very much.
Katri Kulmuni
Just in time. I apologize. First, I need to take my notes. So dear colleagues, and I apologize, but I was just in time this time. So, the NRPP brings together funding for our cohesion, agriculture, fisheries, maritime and security policy as well known.
But instead of several separate programs, member states will draw up a single national plan covering a vast range of issues in this coordinated manner, which is, no doubt, a new situation. I'd say it is very important to keep in mind that an overly rigid approach or additional earmarking of funds would lead to NRPPs that are too fragmented, depriving them of any potential for real impact. So this must be considered, especially in member states with relatively modest allocations per capita. We must, at the same time, leave sufficient flexibility to address their relevant needs based on local circumstances and priorities. And this also means that not all specific objectives should be mandatory for all member states.
Adequate representation of regions, local authorities, and other societal partners can and must be ensured as the commission has proposed. And finally, also, bloating of specific objectives is unnecessary. Specific objectives are objectives. They do not determine eligibility. So the fact that a particular pet project is not mentioned explicitly in the objectives does not mean that it is not eligible.
Despite being a bit late, I still kept thirty seconds. So that's all I wanted to say.
Borys Budka
Thank you very much, Katri. And now, on behalf of the left, mister Oliviera.
Thank you, chair. I speak Portuguese.
João Oliveira
Ladies and gentlemen, we are discussing the next MFF 2028, 2034, and the national and regional partnership plans. Now the discussion is taking place in the ITRE committee, so it's absolutely crucial to make two preliminary comments on the general guidelines of this proposal for the MFF as it relates to the NRPPs. Firstly, we are faced with a proposal from the European Commission to merge a number of funds, which will lead to a dilution of objectives and a significant reduction in the financing to achieve the objectives of the MFF. At the same time, we're faced with an instrument which the commission is using to centralize skills and budgetary management within the EU in such a way that the EU's budget will be used as a way of applying pressure on member states, especially when it comes to the impact of cohesion funds, which will be squeezed out with the new RPPs. The negatives will be overwhelmed, the impact will be overwhelmingly negative, and I think this does fall within the competence of this committee.
I wanted to highlight, when looking at this draft, that we have stressed a number of points which are absolutely crucial for us. The first of these is the need to tackle the challenges of economic, social, and territorial cohesion. This means we have to accept the need to assign the necessary resources at a regional and national level. And when looking at the reindustrialization strategy, we need to support the member states to do this, to be productive in many different sectors, in the most disadvantaged regions which are lacking resources. It is absolutely crucial to acknowledge the role played by SMEs in industrial development.
It is absolutely essential also when talking about cohesion policy to look at production and distribution and energy supply, which could be supported by the EU in accordance with the needs of each member state and region, not just looking at energy transition objectives, but tackling economic problems which this recent crisis we are witnessing in the energy sector has revealed. And there are also issues related to research and development. It's crucial, when looking at the NRPPs, to apply conditions to granting money to member states. Investment must be made into research and development, not just given the direct impact this could have on economic development, but we have to ensure long-term development in order to tackle national and regional asymmetries, which continue to harm the EU development. All of this has to be taken on board when looking at development going forward, not just for job creation reasons, but also looking out to objectives such as the fight against poverty, which is central to our work and should remain central to our economic and scientific technological development going forward.
Borys Budka
Obrigado. And I can't see any other members who want to, who wants to take the floor. So I will give the floor to our rapporteur for the closing remarks. Dana, the floor is yours.
Jana Nagyová
Thank you very much, yes. Thank you very much, colleagues. I try to put notes of everything that was here. I'm looking forward to your amendments. And I have to say I'm not aware of anything with which I would not agree here before, so I can sign most of those what you say.
Just would like to remind that we are very limited to Itre Remit, you know, because some of the comments were absolutely correct, but unfortunately, very general and more related to Regi than to Itre. So looking forward to your amendments and work with you on the final text. Thank you.
Borys Budka
So, thank you, Janna. And, as a chair, I would like once again to thank all of you for the work and just announced that the deadline for amendments is April 20, and it will be midday. So if you have any amendments, remember this deadline. And now we'll have a very short break because the next item, item eight, will start at 10:45, and it will be the establishment of European business wallet. So now twenty-five minutes break.
Okay. So please, dear colleagues, take your seats, and we are starting item eight, establishment of European business wallets. And now the procedure is as always, we've got forty-five minutes for this item. And now I will give the floor to our rapporteur, Eero Haynaluma, from SND for four minutes, and then it will be the time for our shadows. Then we've got a representative of the commission.
And if time permits, we will have to catch the eye. Okay. So, Rapporteur, the floor is yours.
Eero Heinäluoma
Thank you. And some key priorities from my side in this draft report. First, we have to look at this excellent proposal is also doable in practical terms, and especially that it's doable for the small guys, the SMEs and big enterprises, but also for the local small authorities. My second priority here is to enhance security and technological sovereignty, really important for the whole Union. Thirdly, a balanced approach to dealing with third countries.
And then finally, we need a practical and cost-effective roadmap for implementation. First point about SMEs and local authorities, I have kept the business wallets as voluntary for companies as proposed by the Commission, and this, of course, is important for the needs of SMEs. The Commission has proposed a wide application for the public sector to enable the use of business wallets. I have received some feedback, especially from smaller municipalities, that they are worried about possible duplication with national systems, a low expected volume of transactions, and a disproportionate financial burden in adapting to wallets. And this is the reason that I have thought that it's important to look also at these practical things and needs of the small municipalities.
And therefore, I'm proposing at this point exclusion of the quite smallest municipalities, which means that those municipalities where you have less than 10,000 inhabitants, they would not be obliged to use the business wallet proposal. And this is at this point. I'm also quite heavily concentrating on the need to make sure not only the smaller municipalities, but also the SMEs have a real possibility to use this business wallet proposal. Then my second point, security and technological sovereignty, it's important that we are looking at the demands to make this as much a European solution as possible. And here I have some really important proposals also.
Commission proposal is that business wallet providers must be European. And I fully support this, and I suppose this is quite easy to support also from the whole Parliament side. But at the same time, I think that this is perhaps not enough just to look at the providers of the wallets, as they will be a part of a larger ecosystem such as the integrated secure communication channel and the supporting infrastructure providers such as cloud providers. In my view, this should also be European, and this is what I have proposed in my draft report. In addition to the sensitivity of the data handled by the business wallets, I also suggest that the wallet data should be exclusively processed and stored within the Union.
And these amendments aim to strengthen the EU's digital sovereignty. Then the third country's question, the commission proposal allows for the recognition of similar third-country systems as equivalent to facilitate trusted global exchanges with non-EU partners. While I'm open to this possibility, it's necessary to ensure the right safeguards here. And I have introduced some amendments that prior to any agreement, the Commission should conduct a thorough assessment of the third country systems to ensure a high level of cybersecurity and data protection standards, and the independence of the providers from the control of high-risk entities. And then finally, we need a sensible timeline and practical, cost-effective solutions for implementation.
And therefore, I suggest that the Commissioner, Member States should develop a comprehensive implementation roadmap, identifying key milestones and use cases within business to government and business to business interactions, especially for SMEs. So I hope for a good cooperation and pretty sure that we can do the work according to the timetable agreed. Interested to hear your viewpoints and ready to try to take them also on board when preparing the parliament's proposal for regulation.
Borys Budka
Thank you, Mr. Rapporter. And now, on behalf of EPP, I will give the floor, Mrs. Marion Walzmann.
Marion Walsmann
Thank you, colleagues. I'll speak German. We live in a time where we really need to look at greater competitiveness for Europe, and we need to deepen the single market. That's very much at the core of our activities. And we now have a proposal from the European Commission, and I think it's really a timely proposal.
And from that point of view, the first thing I would like to do is say that on behalf of the EPP group, I would like to support this proposal from the commission concerning the European business wallets. I think it's important for us to have EU-wide use of this facility going forward. Simplification of administrative procedures, promoting digitalization of businesses and interactions between businesses. I think that this proposal really has potential. It has potential in terms of adding value to everything that we do here within the European Union.
And the focal point for us would be the advantages, therefore, advantages for businesses and, in particular, for small and medium-sized enterprises. The European business wallet, I think, could make a real difference going forward. And you know, if we look at the data from the economy, you'll find that it's broadly supported as well as an initiative. There is a desire for rapid implementation to whatever extent possible. At the same time, of course, I also take note of a number of other points where I think there's room for improvement, shall we say, in terms of this proposal.
And allow me, therefore, briefly, Chairman, to touch upon these. First of all, voluntary use by businesses of this facility. We're talking about use by businesses in Europe. It has to be on a voluntary basis. It can't be an obligation that we impose on businesses.
It's not their obligation to use this. And in particular, I would say that it's not a question of having this use accepted by the public entities. So we're talking about, on the one hand, businesses, on the other hand, public entities. And I think that the distinction made here is correct. It is right.
But of course, we need to make sure that all of this pans out in practical terms. You have different administrative structures in the different member states, in particular, at local level. And I think that this is something we need to be mindful of. Also, when it comes to public entities, there, we do have an obligation, and I welcome that obligation without exceptions. I think that is necessary in that domain.
We need to have a broad and inclusive implementation of this. This is the only way of achieving success, and it gives you the right push, if you like, and it also gives you the right prospects for success for European business wallets. Then another point on costs and implementation by SMEs, in particular, to what extent can they implement this. The European business wallets should not actually lead to any additional burdens, be they administrative or financial in nature. And in particular, you know that this is true for SMEs, you know, you have to have flanking measures, accompanying measures to help support them in this area.
And then fourthly, interoperability and avoiding duplication and dual structures. We need to make sure that in our member states, we have systems in place. You know, if there are existing solutions, that's fine, but they're not necessarily interoperable. They don't tend to be interoperable across the board, and that's why we need to do a little bit more on that front to help us, to help the businesses. I mean, there are existing solutions.
They need to be integrated, but successfully, if you like. So we need to avoid parallel structures, of course, burdens on companies. There shouldn't be additional burdens. We need to make sure that we really achieve a plan that will lead us to the result that we're hoping for through this plan. And again, the timeline, it's ambitious.
Digital sovereignty, a lot of expectations from businesses. We know that. You know, they want to make sure that the implementation is as rapid as possible. They want to accelerate the pace. At the same time, it's also a question of sovereignty, and we need this in order to strengthen our position as Europe, as providers.
It really is a European preference matter. And I therefore support this, and I look forward to further cooperation with the Rapporteur and with the other shadows. Thank you very much.
Borys Budka
Thank you, Marion. And now, we've got Missus Angeline Foiret on behalf of Missus Melanie Desidiere.
Angéline Furet
Thank you very much, chairman, colleagues. I'm going to be speaking in French. I speak on this file replacing my colleague, Mélanie Desidière. The commission presents a project which is not based on experiments, but is based on scientific fact. This is, therefore, a progress and gives companies a possibility to have more competitiveness.
We believe, however, that this instrument should not be subject to too much red tape. And we have three major points, therefore, in that direction. First of all, we have to be pragmatic. A manager of a company, a director of a company doesn't do everything by himself. There has to, therefore, be fluidity and delegation of tasks.
So we believe that has to be seen to in order to have flexibility. And then we have this sovereignty issue for our data. These are very sensitive data in our companies, and they have to, therefore, be restricted to the European cloud. We want to promote our European champions and not give them up to foreign competition. And then we have to have an identifier which is in the text and which is the key for fluid cross-border recognition and security.
In conclusion, I have two questions for the commission. Technically speaking, how are you going to guarantee immediate interoperability between this wallet and our registers at the national level? We're being promised simplification, but of course, we mustn't forget the real cost for our SMEs. What do you foresee there for in respect of that? And how can we avoid these wallets being a burden for access to the market?
Thank you.
Richard Coles
Thank you very much, Cher. From the ECR side, we're broadly supportive of this proposal. Obviously, the direction is right. And, clearly, there is a real single market problem across borders. We still deal with the separate systems for identification, authentication, and document exchange.
And particularly, SMEs do not have the capacity to navigate 27 different administrative systems. But Business Wallet can help address that, only if they deliver a real simplification. The text refers several times to reducing administrative burden, respectively, the Recital Five, eleven, thirteen, nineteen, and 24, but it reads as an intention. So what we need to do is to tighten and make it measurable. For businesses, especially small ones, the question is very practical.
Does this actually remove steps, or does it just add another digital layer on top of what already exists? If national processes remain in parallel, then we are not simplifying. We are just digitizing the burden, and we should tighten this and make it more concrete. Second, on interoperability and design, we support a framework that works across member states and builds on existing AI, DIS infrastructure, but it needs to remain technologically neutral. It should not evolve into a single prescribed model by default.
The system has to be flexible enough to reflect different national realities. Otherwise, uptake will be limited from the start. On the link with the European digital identity wallet, I think it is important to keep the distinction clear. This is a business tool, and it should remain focused on that purpose. It should not become a vehicle for broader identity discussions by backdoor.
Third, on implementing powers, a significant part of how this system will function in practice is left to commission implementing acts, standards, specifications, updates. I understand why that is done, but parliament should not be left with only the framework, while the substance is defined elsewhere. We need a more serious discussion on scrutiny and balance here. Fourth, on providers and third-country exposure. This will become part of the union's trust infrastructure, so the conditions matter.
Supervision and operational control should clearly remain within the EU jurisdiction. At the same time, we should be precise and avoid overly rigid approaches, for example, on the capital origin, if entities are properly established and regulated under EU law. The objective should be security without undermining investment or scalability. Separately, the rules on third-country economic operators also need to be robust enough to ensure that access cannot be used in the ways that run against EU strategic interests. And finally, uptake.
This instrument will only matter if businesses actually use it. If onboarding becomes too complex or requirements too heavy, especially for SMEs, then take-up will be weak and the system will not deliver. So from our side, the line is simple. We support the objective, but we will focus on making sure it generally simplifies, remains flexible, preserves proper institutional balance, and is secure. So we will come back to these points with our amendments.
Thank you.
Borys Budka
Thank you. And now on behalf of Renu, we've got Miss, Miss, okay, Mr. Morten.
Morten Løkkegaard
I am a Mr. But anyway, that's Mr. Laffegaert. Thank you, Joe. And let me start by thanking the rapport for a very solid work so far on this file.
On behalf of Renew, I can say that we have high expectations for this file, for this idea of a wallet. I think it can be, if it's made fine. It can be a small revolution in digital bureaucracy. So I think we're looking forward to that. I think the wallet has the potential to become a cornerstone of a truly functioning single market.
Today, as we all know, cross border business in the EU is still too complex. The business waters can change that by enabling companies to share verified information across borders and interact more easily with both public authorities and business partners. The principle of equivalence of company data across member states is therefore, of course, essential. It reduces duplication, lowers administrative burden, and makes cross-border business significantly easier. But let us be clear, this is only the starting point.
We must ensure that the framework we built is usable, scalable, and market-driven, allowing both public and private solutions to develop. At the same time, we need to address concerns from some member states, and the rapporteur has already stated this, regarding costs and of implementation. I think these concerns are legitimate. A more gradual implementation can be part of the solution. And we will, of course, come up with amendments on this.
But it should not come at the expense of ambition or innovation. And that is an important point. Finally, we should not overlook the external dimension. Countries like Japan, Brazil, and India are already advancing in this area. And having recently been in India, it's clear to me that the global standards are emerging rapidly.
This creates an opportunity for the EU to lead and to cooperate and to strengthen trade relations through interoperability and mutual recognition. If we get this right, the business world will not just simplify administration, it will strengthen Europe's competitiveness, and I look forward to this work. Thank you.
Borys Budka
Thank you very much. And time for the Greens and Mister Damian Bessehlanger.
Damian Boeselager
Thank you, chair. I think we are all very much aware in this committee of the economic situation that Europe is currently in. I think we really should learn, when we look, for example, at Canada, how they are currently trying to do trade agreements with a lot of different geographies, but also trying to unite the internal market. The business wallet is, I think, a good proposal in this direction because we have a lot of costs, actually hidden costs for companies currently because of, let's say, non-Europe, at least not a fully harmonized market. And I do believe that the European business wallet can help here also, in conglomeration with the EU Inc.
Speaker 40
Proposal to make it a bit easier for businesses to work across the union, especially when it comes to our administration. What our priorities look like is that we do want a very fast take-up of the wallets and a fast rollout. So we would be very much in favor of speeding up the process as much as possible. We also believe that it should work with the existing systems. So I think that's a very good point to make sure that, basically, we do not punish those member states which are fast in digitizing, but that we take that into the system and don't build parallel systems.
Want to make sure that the data localization requirements are fully there in order to make sure that basic cybersecurity is safeguarded. And we do very much care about the principle of equivalence. So if we want to have digital procedures, and this is the idea of the digital wallet, then they should not be undermined by certain industries' interests to keep some procedures in person. And I think this is very important for us that there are no exemptions to the use of digital wallets to replace currently, let's say, more manual or in paper formats that we currently have. So, I do think that a rollout to all communes, even local communities, is necessary in order to have the full, let's say, advantage of the business wallet.
Damian Boeselager
And that's something that we also want to ensure that we can think about a staged approach, maybe when it comes to smaller communes or local municipalities. But in the end, it should be clear that all across Europe, you are able to sign digitally with all authorities involved. Thank you.
Borys Budka
Thank you very much. And now I give the floor to Miss Christiane Quirkater de Vireon, acting director for cyber security and trust. Two minutes.
Christiane Kirketerp de Viron
Thank you, chair, and thank you also for inviting the commission to this very important meeting today, on the presentation of the business wallet report. We are, of course, aware of your dedication to fostering a digital ecosystem that is adapted to the needs of all stakeholders, and we appreciate the commitment to SMEs and smaller municipalities. Our aim is to create a framework that's inclusive and supportive of everyone's needs. Having said that, of course, it's important that the business wallet brings tangible benefits to European businesses and the public sector, and the commission is committed to support the co-legislators to find practical solutions to ensure successful implementation and uptake. Our businesses need a seamless, integrated, and digital single market.
That is the core of the One Europe, One Market strategy, and they need the business wallet to operate efficiently within this market. This initiative is designed to go hand in hand with other key initiatives such as the recent '28 regime proposal and the Industrial Accelerator Act. The single market dimension of the European business wallet is essential. The ability to communicate with all public administrations across Europe through a single channel is the essence and key benefit of this proposal. It's, therefore, also important to ensure that the full range of benefits of the business wallets is available to our companies no matter where they are situated.
So having a single tool that works seamlessly everywhere is also crucial for our SMEs that are often located in smaller municipalities, also in the context of EU Inc. And the 28. This also enhances the digital sovereignty of businesses and will give them the freedom to operate digitally wherever they want without being constrained by fragmented, incompatible or even nondigital systems. Digital sovereignty also means having control over our digital infrastructure. That is why our proposal for CSAT providers must be established in the union and not be controlled from outside the union.
At the same time, we need to remain open to facilitate international cooperation and exchange, and ensure our businesses have access to global markets and opportunities. Further questions regarding interoperability, indeed, the intention is to ensure the interoperability of business wallets, and these will be laid down in an implementing act, along with technical features. And in a similar vein, I would also like to underline that the commission has foreseen in its ECF proposal a reference to supporting the rollout and uptake of our digital public infrastructure, which, of course, includes also the wallets. Thank you very much, and we remain committed to working closely with you to make sure that the business wallets are a success for the single market.
Borys Budka
Thank you very much. And now, we come back to our rapporteur for the remarks and European, after this interesting discussion. So, the floor is yours.
Eero Heinäluoma
Thank you. Thank you, chair. And may I thank all the comments from the shadows, and also the opinion of the commission. It seems so that after hearing your comments, we are still living on the same planet. And it's really important to notice that everyone is sharing the same objectives and the same aims here, that we have to go further in our digitalization processes and to make sure that we can really implement this excellent commission proposal on business wallets.
And this means that when the aims are the same, also after hearing your comments, then the problems will be in the details, as always. But what is really important is that this is not, by any means, after hearing your comments, I can conclude that this is not an ideological project and there aren't any ideological disagreements. So it's a question of how can we make sure that in practice the good aims will be enforced, and when we will see that the real benefits are for the business sector and also for the SMEs. And here we have to be quite hard in our demands towards our own work. We have to look also at the details and the practical things and also listen as you have been saying the comments and the expertise from the Member States because, of course, they have the knowledge how they are doing in businesses nowadays and what are their solutions until now.
So interoperability will be really something which will be important to achieve during this process. I'm sure that after hearing your comments, we can do the work in the timetable agreed. And it's important that we have enough time also to look to practical solutions so that this is doable for both the business and also especially for the local small communities. So ready to start our cooperation between the shadows and quite certain that we will do our work in the agreed timetable.
Borys Budka
Thank you very much, as always, for your efforts as the rapporteur and shadows, for working on this file. And I just want to announce that we've got the deadline for amendments, and it is April 21, and it is 5 PM. So if you have any amendments, remember about this deadline, 21st April and 5PM. Now, again, we will have the break. We are very efficient today, and very fast.
So, the break will last 18 minutes, and we start our last item before the lunch break shortly at 11:30, and it will be the topical debate. So please come back within 80 minutes. Okay, dear colleagues. We've got the last item before the lunch break. So this is item nine.
The topical debate, advanced manufacturing as a strategic sector for the EU. This was the topic proposed by ECR. So thanks a lot for this, our dear colleagues. And we've got one hour here for our debate, and I'd like to thank our guest, missus Anak Saviour, head of the unit for machinery, DG Grow, and mister Karsten Scheinerbeck, head of the unit for industrial transformation, from the commission for being with us today. And I've got, we've got approximately 1 hour for this debate.
We've got a speaker list. And if someone wants to ask the question, there will be cut the eye procedure, so just put your nameplates vertically. And, I just remind everyone to stick to the time. And first, it will be the time for group representatives, two minutes each, and we start with the EPP. And on my list, it is Mr. Wouter Becker.
The floor is yours.
Wouter Beke
Yes. Thank you, chair, and thank you, speakers. When we talk about advanced manufacturing as a strategic sector for Europe, we also need to talk about what it fundamentally depends on, and that is the semiconductors. Because without microchips, there is no digitalization, no automation, and ultimately, also no competitive industry. At the same time, US Europe is still quite vulnerable in the global semiconductor supply chain, especially given the geopolitical tensions and disruptions we have seen in recent years, even in recent months.
Speaker 43
That's a clear, strategic weakness for manufacturing. But, and this is also important, we have real strengths to build on. Europe is home to global leaders like RSML in The Netherlands and top research centers like EMEK. These are key players at the cutting edge of innovation. So my first question is, does the commission see the strengths as a real foundation for strengthening Europe's position in advanced manufacturing?
Wouter Beke
And how will the EU CHIPS Act actually help us build a stronger, more resilient role in the semiconductor value chain, making microchips a true strategic asset for Europe? And second question, I'd like to touch on the link between innovation and advanced manufacturing. These two go hand in hand. If innovation slows down, manufacturing will follow. But the reverse is also true.
Speaker 43
If we lose parts of our industrial base, we risk weakening our capacity and even our incentives to innovate in the future. So my question, my second question is, how does the commission plan to strengthen this link in practice? And how can future EU programs like Horizon Europe and the new competitive defense be better used to support both innovation and advanced manufacturing, and keep Europe strong in key value chains? Thank you.
Borys Budka
Thank you very much. And now, the chair Giorgio Gori on behalf of S and D. Thank you.
Giorgio Gori
Commission's report on advanced manufacturing published in 2024 throws up the weaknesses in our market compared to international competitors. I'm referring in particular to the lack of innovation and new patents. So the new fund and the new horizon are supposed to be going to speed up the relationship between research and the market. In addition to innovation, our competitiveness will depend on the ability to make manufacturing more efficient and to increase the volume. Automation in the processes, therefore, will be a determining factor.
This is the context. And will there be a crucial role to play here to reduce costs? So those who are going to be important here are involved with the digitization and upskilling of workers. The manufacturing platforms will transform the modalities of production of manufacturing. Manufacturing.
And there has to be a deep transformation concerning the use of advanced materials and new processes. So, we hope that the Commission will publish the Advanced Materials Act. And a few questions: In what specific ecosystems will the AI be most significant? What will the impact be? And what measures can be implemented for these processes in order to make them more widespread?
And finally, the circularity factor is vital in order to have a green transition. So what incentives to industry are you going to foresee in order to have use and recycling of materials? Thank you.
Speaker 45
Borja, thank you. Thank you, Chair. I'm going to have my introduction in Italian. Well,
Speaker 50
The numbers speak clearly for this industrial production and the various percentages concerned. If we compare it with the beginning of the 2000s. In Italy, we're minus 20% with respect to '27. The output is less 5% or less 10% if we compare the period after the pandemic. So Italy is risking.
Speaker 48
The situation is risky for its manufacturing capacity. Energy prices are very high. They're double or even 3x what is prevalent at the global level. And we are paying, therefore, for this uncertainty which exists. An example, the regulation on imports.
Speaker 49
And this is obviously a significant factor in terms of energy prices. But at the same time, we are now widening the scope of implementation here. So that being the case, Europe needs energy sources which are more stable and at more competitive prices. And therefore, we have to try to get rid of this instability and uncertainty. But unfortunately, today, this is not the case.
Thank.
Elena Donatson
You, chair. All Italians today. I will speak in Italian, too. Well,
Italians hold this issue very dear to their hearts. Given the situation. We have a problem today. We have the manufacturing sector, which is 20% of GDP, 30 million people working in it, and 70% of exports, as we've heard. But it's losing ground.
200,000 jobs are at risk. So advanced manufacturing represents one of the solutions, but is not the only solution. The drop in manufacturing in key sectors where we were strong before, for example, the automotive industry, these sectors need to be able to manufacture more with investments and incentives. Robotics is obviously one of the solutions to the problem. We've lost a lot of ground to our competitors who are very aggressive, for example China.
And they work in such a way that we cannot stand against them. And on the other hand, the United States has changed their direction for some time now. They're talking about their national security. And public investment is being made with incentives and reassuring attempts. Europe is being crushed by this, so we need to have coordinated action at the European level for many reasons.
Speaker 9
First of all, competitiveness. We have to have advanced manufacturing in order to have more efficiency. From an energy point of view. This is always the big problem. Europe is very strong in research, but it's not able to industrialize the product because there are too many rules.
Elena Donatson
It's only in Europe that we're subject to these rules, and there is a risk, therefore, of deindustrialization. We cannot allow that. Thank you.
Borys Budka
It's time also for Italian. No. We don't have no. Christophe Grudder, and then Dario Ambrano. So Christophe, yeah.
You, chair.
Europe.
Speaker 52
It is an industrial machine, but it seems that we're losing ground. We're losing the battle. In 2024, industrial production fell by 3% in the Eurozone, and the proportion of industrial production to GDP is falling as well. Now steel works, automotive industry, these are falling, but the importance of batteries, for example, is increasing. We are not looking at increasing competition.
We are seeing a reduction in our productive industries. But without industry, there can be no true innovation. Europe is producing more than 30% of industry, but only a low level of technological development. We are producing in factories, but not in laboratories. And without this, there can be no independence, no sovereignty.
We believe this could be a key driver for industrial competition. This will be even better for the GDP. We need to invest in semiconductors, in batteries, and in advanced materials. Robotics can lead to increasing value chains in Europe. But if we don't have a strategy, a clear strategy, this cannot be the case.
China is already taking the lead when it comes to robotics and advanced technology. So the question is simple. Is the commission planning, as of this year, to develop an ambitious European strategy on robotics to support reindustrialization? And how do you plan to stop this industrial hemorrhage, to protect the European industry? Thank you.
Dario Tamburrano
Well, I share the views of most of the colleagues who have preceded me. I was in China just recently. I came back on Sunday, and I had the occasion to visit extensively. And I noticed also how dynamic they are in promoting their products. So that's the difference, really.
About a year ago, BYD introduced robotics as Quick Robotics. And we can see these even in shopping malls. So they're ahead in many sectors. But I would like to dwell on the 3D printing sector. It is actually a key sector in the aerospace industry and the health industry.
And we can make the situation more resilient with a shorter supply chain, and it's of great interest to young people, not only young people, and is an advanced technology. If we go back to China once again, we see that this is something very well advanced, 3D printing. We are lagging behind. And very often, the research results are not actually exploited enough. They are not translated into marketable ideas.
And the legislation is too complex and doesn't allow industrialists to develop. We had a letter to the commission in which we set out some practical examples of how we would like to contribute to advanced manufacturing in Europe. First of all, private public partnerships and also the ability to engage in training and to use unused funds at European level and also to bring in the SMEs with cooperatives and so on local production. Also, the transfer to the market, that is the coordination of the funds at European level. And finally, get over the regulatory barriers.
Today, certification rules are not suitable for a decentralized process, which is digital and flexible. This slows innovation and penalizes SMEs and restricts the creation of more flexible models. And in conclusion, I would say that we still have time. We can catch up so that this kind of advanced manufacturing can contribute to a quality change, which we really need in Europe.
Borys Budka
Dario, now we've got to catch the eye, and I've got my list. So first, it will be Mrs. Pilar de Castillo.
Pilar del Castillo Vera
Thank you very much, chair. Dear colleagues, advanced technologies manufacturers are the backbone of many strategic industries. For that reason, it should be considered a strategic priority. Therefore, it is essential that the EU delivers in different areas. First, given, as I said, advanced manufacturing, the recognition as a cornerstone of the industrial landscape.
Speaker 55
Second, strengthening our capacity to invest, to industrialize, and to commercialize. The European Competitiveness Fund will be a huge opportunity to do so. And third, finally, even the most financing tool is not enough. We must scale up. Pilot lines and demonstration projects must be followed by real industrial deployments, speed up the competitiveness, should competitiveness fund should streamline procedures, accelerate permitting and procurement processes, and ensure predictable timelines.
Pilar del Castillo Vera
Otherwise, capital and talent will migrate out to Europe. Finally, skill up. Skills development and live learning must be integrated into our industrial policy. Cannot be treated as parallel. Technology cannot deliver without knowledge and talent.
Thank you very much.
Matthias Ecke
Yeah. Thank you, chair. I think it was a lot of things have been said about the necessity of advanced manufacturing if you want to keep the high degree of manufacturing contributions to value added in the EU, which has declined, but it is still substantial. I want to raise awareness about some aspects that are directly linked to the work of this committee. On the one hand, we need to think about connectivity because this is an enabler for many technologies. Without high bandwidth, low latency connectivity, particularly in 5G and fiber, factories cannot operationalize in many technologies in the Internet of Things.
So we have the digital networks act here on the table, and we have to make sure that it also works for manufacturing. Second is electronic monitoring, the CHIPS Act. So it is very clear that we need to go beyond first of the kind, what is now in the CHIPS Act. We need to find a definition, the prudence, also the value chain, and we should guarantee a minimum capacity of critical impact factors here in Europe. So my question to the commission is, if we think of critical sectors here in the EU, which also contribute to advanced manufacturing, what is your idea?
Should we have a comprehensive framework? Because when we now do it sector by sector, cloud, chips, whatsoever, do you think that we need a comprehensive framework also for state aid on the critical sectors here in Europe?
Speaker 58
Good morning to everybody. Yesterday, President Zelensky announced two striking facts about Ukraine's war economy. First, since the beginning of the full-scale invasion, more than 50 new types of military technologies have been developed and tested directly on the battlefield. Second, Ukraine has reached a point where nearly 60% of the weapons used by its armed forces are now produced domestically. What does it really mean?
Speaker 57
It means that Ukraine is no longer just a recipient of external support. It has become a country capable of rapidly designing, producing, and scaling advanced technologies under extreme pressure. In other words, industrial capacity has become a decisive factor of survival. This is exactly why advanced manufacturing, especially in defense, must be treated as a strategic sector for the EU. Ukraine shows that the ability to move from innovation to production at speed is not just about competitiveness, it's about security, resilience, and strategic autonomy.
Poland is well positioned to contribute to this effort. A key element is the Uka Siewicz research network, which integrates research and the industry and works on defense-related technologies from advanced materials to systems supporting modern arms forces. Institutions like these are essential because they shorten the distance between invention and deployment. The lesson for Europe is clear. Advanced manufacturing is no longer just an economic sector.
It's a strategic capability that will define our security in these years to come. So my question is, could you comment on this, what's happening in Ukraine and how we can use this lesson and how can it be learned? Thank you.
Thank.
Borys Budka
Thank you very much. To Mr. Cherban.
Martinez from Renu. Ah, but she's not here. So, Missus Ivanovici.
Speaker 59
Romania has one of the highest densities of IT specialists per capita in the EU. Advanced production, advanced manufacturing is the point where software meets metallurgy, and Romania is competent in both. But unfortunately, because of orders of the European Commission were imposed, we no longer have a metallurgy industry. In the context of tensions with Asia, Western European companies are relocating their production closer to home. So Romania is a great destination for nearshoring.
Speaker 61
Our capacity to produce energy at low cost, be it nuclear or solar, etcetera, is a magnet. It's important for companies who have to decarbonize, of course, to do the NZIA. My question is, given the fact that Romania has already contracted over €375,000,000 for the semiconductor industry through its national plan and is a participant in the nano IC strategic project. What are the concrete mechanisms that the commission is going to activate in order to make sure that the funds are not only concentrated in the hubs that already have been developed, making sure that the Eastern States can scale up these pilot lines to bring them into mass production. Thank you.
Borys Budka
And that is the end of my speaker list. So now I will give the floor to our guests from the commission. So first, Mrs. Anna Xavier.
Anna Xavier
Good morning, everyone, and thank you very much, Chair, for inviting us here today. Thank you for the opportunity to discuss such an interesting and important issue. Thank you also for all the interventions made, because I think that they touch upon very critical points. And to some extent, what I'm going to say reinforces many of the points made. So indeed, for us, advanced manufacturing, and when we talk about advanced manufacturing for us, it means, of course, robotics, 3D printing, but also other technologies like clouds, AI, etcetera, etcetera.
So for us, these technologies are, of course, very important. They have a very strategic importance for a couple of things that you've mentioned, both on the competitiveness side and also on what you mentioned, sovereignty, security, and autonomy. So for us, this is indeed a very important set of technologies, which we hope one day will become more mainstream. And that is also what we would like to see. And this is indeed because of many of the points you've made.
They improve productivity, but not only improve productivity, they ensure more flexible ways of production. They also ensure less weight waste because you can produce just for the needs that you have to meet. Because if something was mentioned was Ukraine. These technologies have indeed been very important in Ukraine in the context of their defense capabilities. I think also one thing we haven't mentioned here, but it is important to keep in mind, is that the population is aging in the EU.
We will lose about 40 million people in the coming decades in terms of working age population. So we will need to address these potential labour shortages. Now just a few words on indeed on competition, and we are facing very strong competition in this sector. And you mentioned China. Indeed, for example, when we look at deployment of some of these technologies, the commission, together with our colleagues in JRC, we have seen that, indeed, we deploy, for example, in terms of robotics, 16% of all the deployment capacity.
China does a lot more than that. So this means that we need not only to develop, we also need to have a greater uptake of these technologies. So it is true, and I reinforce the point made. We agree. We have the research ability.
We have the skills, and we need then to go from the development to the market to the uptake. So indeed, in this respect, we pretty much agree with the analysis that has been put forward. Then in terms of strategy, and we talk about do we need one specific strategy? Do we need to make a specific plan, etc.? I would like to say that being strategic doesn't mean that we necessarily have to have or not a specific strategy.
What we need to make sure is that we have strategies at your level that ensure the business environment is the correct one, and that we have the right opportunities to develop and to deploy such technologies, and that this helps the industry at large. So in this respect, and just to address some of the points made, obviously, when we talk about the environment, we talk about, for example, the single market. We have this is one of the great things of the EU. So we need to make it stronger, and also for these technologies. So we need to ensure that these technologies do not face significant barriers in their deployment and end use.
Obviously, we are doing a lot of different policies in this area to make sure that we have a more simplified business environment. On competitiveness, several points were made in terms of the costs of energy, for example, in terms of incentives, etcetera. I mean, you know that we have been trying to put quite a lot of effort on a more clean energy, so increasing our independence in terms of energy, and this means on using more clean energy. We have the clean industrial deal. We had a state aid framework that was more supportive of clean energy.
We had also tax credits to support cheaper, more affordable, more independent energy sources that indeed can support the use of these technologies because some of them are quite energy consuming. We also have, of course, the now more recently, the industrial Accelerator Act, which also tries to simplify some permitting rules in some strategic sectors, which could, of course, be of use for this particular deployment of these particular technologies. If I may, of course, we well, my colleague will talk more about the research findings and so on. But one thing that is, and that was the point on Ukraine. One thing that we must sort of take good note of is, of course, the funding that is available through now the EDIP and the fundings for the defense and security.
There's quite a lot. And a lot of these technologies have indeed what we call dual use. So this is an area where we not only can benefit the companies that are developing these technologies, but it can also help the industry at large. And so this is one point that I would also pay attention to. The other is indeed that we must, and we are trying to do so, see how these technologies can be used across the manufacturing sector.
And for example, we are organizing an industrial dialogue on April 29, where we put together construction companies and robotics companies, and we are trying to see what can be the synergies between these two sides of the picture since, you know, we also have to contribute to more affordable housing, and we have to increase the productivity of this sector. So, I mean, I can say more, but perhaps my five minutes have gone over time. So, Carsten, maybe you want to add.
Carsten Scherenbeck
Thanks for having this topical debate. I think the honorable members have already highlighted very much the situation that we're in with the competitive pressure that European manufacturing is facing. But also being fully aware of the cross-sectoral importance of Advanced Manufacturing because Oliver mentioned that advanced manufacturing is the backbone, and that also innovation in advanced manufacturing goes hand in hand. And I think this is also what we strive to do with the European Competition Fund and Horizon Europe. And in terms of research, I think it's important to flag that, under Horizon Europe, we have supported quite a lot since 2010.
Advanced manufacturing was 2,500,000,000 with additional funding still to come in 2026 and 2027 with 180,000,000. In fact, we.
Carsten Scherenbeck
A European partnership called Made in Europe, specifically on advanced manufacturing, where €94 projects have been funded since '21. And, examples are not only the excellence on the research on the advanced manufacturing, but also contributing to a more circular economy, circular by design products, re on demanufacturing and recycling, and to bring digitalization with manufacturing as a service and supporting this. So there was also the request about, you know, where the gains are, and all this advanced manufacturing can contribute to a reduction of 15 to 30% of increasing the productivity and a reduction, in terms of cost also, because there's possibility of 20 to 40% energy efficiency improvements. And I think given the cost of energy, this is also a key driver for competitiveness across different sectors. The honorable members also asked about which specific ecosystems there should be a focus on.
And to give an example on the major sectors that, for instance, are being targeted by the funding under the Made in Europe partnership, in order of importance is automotive, aerospace, consumer electronics, household goods, agriculture food, medical equipment, and textiles. And this is basically where the bulk of the funding goes for and where also 23% of the SMEs go. One of the honor members also mentioned semiconductors. I mean, there is also the CHIPS joint undertaking on semiconductors, and that is viewed also very much as an enabler for manufacturing. And also on the research side, I mean, we're exploring also, for instance, with joint courts, to give an example, where the partnership on advanced manufacturing goes together with the partnership on batteries in order also to bring and enforce this cross-sectoral notion to bring innovation from one area into another.
I think this is also very much important. So, to say, I think we need to support and make better use of AI, because if you also look in 2024, only 10% of companies used it. I think there is more need to do it, and also in the area of advanced manufacturing. The startup and scale up strategy has also supported there, for instance, also with the charge off access for industrial users to get more access to research and technology infrastructures to also explore with advanced manufacturing in order to take it up more. I think, overall, there is more that needs to be done in order to push and to make use of advanced manufacturing to boost competitiveness across the sectors and to be more efficient there.
So that is, I think, just to say on the side of research innovation. Thank you.
Borys Budka
Thank you very much, and we've got time for follow-up questions. If you want to ask for details or you have other questions, we've got time and our guests, so you can ask. So yes, please.
Wouter Beke
Well, thank you for all the answers that you gave us. I think that it's important to evaluate also all the initiatives that we, in the opinion, that we take and that we constantly benchmark ourselves against our main economic competitors because we are taking initiatives, but they are also taking a lot of initiatives, of course. And so benchmarking and making assessments of all the instruments that we are using is, I think, very important to benchmark ourselves constantly. Thank you. Thank you very much.
I, Giorgio?
Giorgio Gori
Yes. I have a very quick question in Italian. The
Data in the report stop at 2023. So my question to the representatives of the commission is, do they consider the rapidity of these innovations, if there have been any new discoveries over the last few years? Thank you.
Anna Xavier
Okay. Thank you very much, indeed. Maybe I start with the last point on the data and information. And, indeed, we are doing, with our colleagues in JRC, a study on advanced manufacturing. It's going to be done throughout 2024.
It is our aim to get more up-to-date data. Obviously, we are also following very closely with, for example, our colleagues in the representation in China because they also follow this issue. So we also get some information from there. We will try to publish this dashboard. No?
I understand some this summer, so we will have some more updated data that hopefully will be useful to keep us all better informed. So this is one point. It doesn't evaluate now, there was a point on evaluating our initiatives. So it doesn't necessarily evaluate, but at least it gives a better mapping of where we are, and it does refer to, it does try to list various initiatives. So, hopefully, it is useful in that sense.
I think we are, important I didn't mention, well, obviously, to say that we within the commission, we work very closely together. So, of course, JRC, RTD colleagues, colleagues in DG Connect. And there is a lot of work happening, for example, with what is called the Apply AI strategy as well, where we, of course, have to develop some alliances. We'll have to check the annual uptake of AI. So that probably will also give us some more feedback directly from the industry on their uptake of AI solutions, but also what could be their challenges in adopting this technology.
I understand we are also doing a pilot project with the European Parliament on digitalization, which may also help us understand, for example, what could be the current challenges with permitting digitalization. The digitalization of permitting processes, which can be quite cumbersome with these technologies. I mean, for example, we learned we went to my colleague, Abi here, he went to a meeting on additive manufacturing where because it's different from mainstream manufacturing, the permitting process is quite cumbersome because then it gets more delayed because, of course, what is a product is slightly different in terms of definition. So there are some interesting points. We are and projects that, of course, we will be following.
As I said, we are looking, we are working very closely with the industry. Notably, there is.
Anna Xavier
New association on additive manufacturing, which is a very important sector, a very fast growing sector, and we are trying to understand better how we could approach the sector. Could be an alliance. Could be something else. We are trying to understand better how this will go. We also in industrial forum, you know, we have now a new industrial forum, and we will have project teams.
We will have other meetings. So we very much hope that this topic will be followed up under the industrial forum, which will hopefully give us some more information, and also will make us understand better the issues for the industry that produces, develops these technologies, and also for the industry that would use it as an input to their manufacturing. So I think this is some points that I wanted to also mention, which I did not mention before. I don't know if obviously, we have great hopes with the new European Competitiveness Fund. I think it's an understanding that, indeed, we have to follow the whole sort of what we call the supply chain or from the sort of concept and research to actual market deployment.
Ask anything about this video — I analyse its transcript to answer.