In June 2023, the European Commission proposed a regulation to establish a
new European Strategic Technologies Platform (STEP). STEP will reprogramme
resources from existing EU instruments by channelling EU funds to strategic projects that support the development of digital technologies and the production of clean technologies, in particular biotechnologies, to meet the challenges of the green and digital transition. According to the European Commission, STEP would be a step towards a sovereign Europe.
Despite the fact that its report was voted by a large majority in the European
Parliament’s plenary session in Strasbourg, STEP is bleeding from a thousand wounds.
STEP was initially intended to be the new European Sovereignty Fund – but now
it is not. The problem stems from the fact that the original proposal already suffers from three incompatible objectives: (1) to produce the clean technologies needed to meet climate targets, (2) to increase Europe’s sovereignty, (3) to strengthen cohesion between EU Member States.
The STEP should first and foremost aim to support technologies produced in Europe. However, this requires taking into account the needs of the industries in the Member States. To this end, the development of an EU governance structure is of paramount importance. Another aim of STEP is to build up European sovereignty, above all to counteract the impact of the US anti- inflation law on European companies and businesses.
There are many MEPs in the European Parliament who believe that STEP, as
adopted, will do nothing more than redirect existing funds for research and infrastructure for public authorities into the hands of the European private sector.
As adopted, the Commission is asking Member States for an additional €13 billion, a drop in the ocean compared to the money needed to achieve the
goals agreed in STEP, according to some MEPs. It is also questionable which companies and businesses would benefit from this project, as most of the companies and businesses currently existing in Europe do not meet the environmental and social standards required by the EU.
If the EU were serious about fighting climate change and protecting workers, it
would allocate STEP grants to European businesses under strict environmental
and social conditions. Given the circumstances, several MEPs say there is no
guarantee that STEP investments will not cause significant damage.
Many have a legitimate fear that the monitoring mechanism proposed by the
European Commission will be made up of industry and business lobbyists. It
would have been much more democratic if other stakeholders such as trade
unions, NGOs and academics were allowed to participate in the work of the
monitoring committee, but this was rejected.
STEP is in fact doing nothing more than mobilising funds previously earmarked
for infrastructure and research investment for private companies, which many see as tantamount to privatising public assets. Left-wing MEP Younous Omarjee
(La France Insoumise, France) said, “The European Commission used a budgetary rider by inserting, into a regulation with a different objective, provisions concerning cohesion. This is not a good method. I also regret that in
the absence of new money, it is still the cohesion policy which is being used in
the worst possible way by giving a blank cheque to multinationals with the
structural funds. European Regional Development Funds are made for SMEs
and SMEs only. But it is true that as soon as an opportunity presents itself to
open the floodgates for multinationals, the Commission rushes in. And it remains risky that tinkering around the edges will not achieve the set objectives of reindustrialisation while respecting the principles of cohesion.”
Moreover, the scope of STEP remains too broad: nuclear energy and carbon capture and storage are not eligible for public funding. However, the proposal lacks clear conditions for public funding.
