The EU needs ‘radically’ better technology intelligence, its advisers warn

The EU lacks joined-up intelligence on where it is falling behind on research and technology, and on the impact new breakthroughs will have, a panel of advisers has warned. 

Without better information, the bloc risks stumbling into further technology dependencies on other countries, as has happened with rare earth metals, for example These are crucial for electric cars and weaponry but almost entirely controlled by China. 

“There isn’t currently a sufficiently strong command and control centre” with an overview of the bloc’s strengths and dependencies, said Paweł Świeboda, rapporteur for the  group on the Economic and Societal Impact of Research and Innovation, which released the report last month. “A dashboard would be ideal,” he said.

As things stand, different European Commission directorates general stick to assessing their own technology fields, without enough of an overview of the whole picture, Świeboda said. “The lesson of China’s success is [. . .] that it has to be a whole of government role.” 

Brussels has been trying to strengthen its intelligence-gathering in a new age of geopolitical competition over technology. In 2021, the Commission launched an EU Observatory of Critical Technologies, focused on where it  is particularly reliant on others for defence and space components. 

At the beginning of 2024, the observatory delivered a classified report of its findings to member states. Separately, the Commission is expected to release space technology roadmaps early this year. 

Excessively secretive

But for Świeboda, the observatory’s practice of issuing only confidential reports means  it isn’t open enough. “The EU has adopted an excessively secretive approach to tracking critical technologies,” he said. 

The Commission  confirmed the observatory’s reports will remain confidential. “These reports help map critical supply chains, identify gaps, dependencies, including areas requiring urgent activities,” a spokesperson said. 

With member states, the Commission is also conducting risk assessments of  vulnerabilities in four economically crucial areas: semiconductors, artificial intelligence, quantum technologies and biotechnologies. 

Yet this too is done “behind closed doors, and little sharing of the information even within government administrations,” Świeboda said. 

Technology tracker

The report, ‘Embedding Anticipatory Technology Governance in Europe’s Transitions’, warns of a need to “radically improve” the apparatus for strategic intelligence. 

It points to the Australian Strategic Policy Institute’s Critical Technology Tracker, a public tool monitoring which countries lead research in 64 different technology areas. It would be “fantastic” if the EU set up a similar tool, said Świeboda.

The tracker judges leadership based on the number of highly cited research papers published by each country. Świeboda wants the EU to set up an expanded version, which also looks at technology deployment, based on metrics like patents and market share. 

The Australian tracker is reasonably sanguine about the EU’s strengths, saying it is a “competitive technology player.” If EU countries were added together, the bloc would lead the world in the two technologies of gravitational-force sensors and small satellites, and rank second in 30. 

But the bigger picture is China’s ascendancy over the US: it now leads in 57 of the 64 research areas, according to the tracker. 

Flying without radar

Świeboda’s group isn’t alone in its concern the EU is flying blind when it comes to tracking key technology and supply chain vulnerabilities. Last October, two European think tank analysts also warned that the EU lacked sufficient understanding. 

“Without this knowledge, governments are flying without radar when designing policies to protect and promote assets sensitive to security or competitiveness,” said Rebecca Arcesati, at the Berlin-based Mercator Institute for China Studies, and Tobias Gehrke, at the European Council of Foreign Relations. 

EU member states don’t trust each other enough to share information, because they themselves are economic competitors. Meanwhile, private businesses are also reluctant to share, as they fear intelligence leaking to competitors, “particularly when information channels are not secure.” 

Aside from demanding better technology intelligence, Świeboda’s group has several other messages for policymakers. 

It suggests more EU governance might be needed, even at the research level in some fields, rather than waiting until there are real world technologies to keep in check.

One example is geoengineering, which aims to explore whether the planet could be cooled artificially, although deployment would come with “profound risks”, the report warns. 

The report also questions whether the EU has been too quick to enact legislation to control new technologies, rather than creating less binding, but more flexible alternatives. 

The bloc “has tended not to give sufficient weight to non-binding approaches such as codes of conduct,” the report says, and while a global leader in “agile regulation” it has risked “overregulation in certain areas.”