Parliamentary committee and lobbies push for green R&D in Competitiveness Fund

The European Parliament’s research committee is sifting through thousands of amendments to arrive at a common position on the proposed European Competitiveness Fund (ECF). One of the questions that could stall the process is whether it should include support for environmental research and innovation.

In its opinion on the research committee’s April draft report, the Parliament’s environment committee pushed for several references to sustainability, decarbonisation and policy frameworks such as the European Green Deal and the Net-Zero Industry Act. 

The amendments also call for more environmental R&D, including on sustainable production in the agri-food sector, and technology development that protects nature.

This sustainability push was voted through the environment committee by a broad coalition, which included the European People’s Party (EPP). Despite this, the idea has been rejected by Christian Ehler, also of the EPP and one of two rapporteurs in charge of research committee’s final report on the ECF.

According to the environment committee rapporteur on the ECF, Stine Bosse of Renew Europe, the amendments are necessary to ensure EU competitiveness.  

“The committee assesses that competitiveness and green transition are prerequisites for each other,” she told Science|Business. “Look at current oil and gas prices: it's hopeless for our competitiveness. We need to move as quickly as possible to our own energy sources: sun, wind, water and nuclear power.”

Bosse’s call for more environmental requirements of the ECF was backed by Claire Skentelbery, director general of EuropaBio, a lobby group representing the European biotechnology industry. References to specific legal frameworks could help “provide direction” and “level the playing field,” she said. 

Skentelbery also pointed out, however, that an overly prescriptive approach could create “unintended barriers” to innovation and scale-ups. “A well-balanced approach,” she told Science|Business, “will be key to ensuring that the fund strengthens both Europe’s environmental objectives and its global competitiveness.”

Adel El Gammal, secretary general of the European Energy Research Alliance, said the question would “undoubtedly” affect low-carbon energy research because of the planned links between the ECF and Horizon Europe, the EU’s main research funding programme. 

In order to support a broad range of low-carbon energy research, he called for an understanding of competitiveness that also prioritises environmental and societal goals and doesn’t focus narrowly on the economy.

“The objective should be to support projects that contribute simultaneously to competitiveness, resilience, sustainability and strategic autonomy, rather than treating these objectives as separate, if not conflicting, policy silos,” El Gammal told Science|Business.

However, these calls to consider the environment may turn out to be in vain. According to Ehler, the environment committee's proposed amendments are “extremely unlikely” to end up in his next draft report.

“[References to external legal frameworks] would just hamper the implementation of the ECF without contributing to a meaningful change on the ground given that all the legal frameworks apply across the Union, regardless of whether the funding for an activity comes from the Union budget,” he told Science|Business. 

Trade-off or prerequisite?

Setting aside concerns over ECF implementation, Ehler also disagreed with Bosse on a principled level. For him, the “green transition” is not a prerequisite for competitiveness. Rather, the EU must weigh three conflicting concerns against each other: the climate, environmental sustainability and competitiveness.

“There is a conflict of objectives between these three areas in the short term,” he said. “With the limited financial and political capital we have at our disposal we will not be able to achieve our objectives across all three areas.”

If “the green transition” is understood to include all environmental objectives at once, a trade-off will have to be made, Ehler said. “We cannot do everything at the same time, so we must prioritise two things: a competitive economy, because that is the prerequisite for any political ambition, and decarbonisation, because this is a generational task.”

Siding with Bosse, Greg Arrowsmith, secretary general of EUREC, a lobby group representing renewable energy R&D groups across Europe, also rejected the trade-off. “I do think [sustainability] is a prerequisite [to competitiveness]. Failing to follow a green energy transition condemns Europe to the high costs of a fossil-fuel driven economy,” he said. 

“It’s slightly harder to argue that protecting nature is good for competitiveness, but pleasant, rich landscapes and safe, healthy food and water are important for people’s wellbeing and attract people to this continent,” he went on.

Energy independence as competitiveness

Adel El Gammal rejected the choice between sustainability and competitiveness altogether, calling it “a false dichotomy.” Instead, he saw the two as complementary. 

“The green transition should not be viewed as a constraint on EU competitiveness. If managed successfully, it can become one of Europe's strongest sources of industrial and technological leadership,” he said.

At present, he went on, the EU is importing nearly 60% of its primary energy in the form of expensive and highly volatile oil and gas. “[This] constitutes a major competitive disadvantage compared to the US or China,” he said.

Related articles

• ECF must focus limited budget on key priorities, lead MEPs warn
• Parliament shares alternative vision for ECF link with Horizon Europe
• Horizon Europe negotiations shape up for October start

Bosse echoed these concerns, highlighting that the US-Israeli war with Iran and the resulting spike in oil prices had shown that the EU’s green transition also makes sense from a business point of view. 

“As long as we depend on Russian gas, Middle Eastern oil, or American gas and oil, we are not secure or independent. We must transition as soon as possible,” she said.  

Political consensus

Despite her disagreements with Ehler, Bosse remained optimistic that at least some of the environmental amendments would be included in the final Parliament position on the ECF. “When the [environment committee] speaks with such broad agreement, from the EPP to the Greens, people have to listen,” she said. 

Ehler, however, pointed out that the environment committee is just one of 11 opinion-giving committees on the ECF file, rendering the coalition in just one of them “useless” for predicting the political groups that will eventually vote the ECF through the plenary.  

“It is the role of [the environment committee] to emphasise the interests related to the topics within their competences. Our role in [the research committee], as lead committee on the ECF, is to bind together the various opinions,” he said.  

The next vote in the Parliament research committee on Ehler’s ECF draft report is scheduled for September 10.