The EESC issues between 160 and 190 opinions and information reports a year.
It also organises several annual initiatives and events with a focus on civil society and citizens’ participation such as the Civil Society Prize, the Civil Society Days, the Your Europe, Your Say youth plenary and the ECI Day.
The EESC brings together representatives from all areas of organised civil society, who give their independent advice on EU policies and legislation. The EESC's326 Members are organised into three groups: Employers, Workers and Various Interests.
The EESC has six sections, specialising in concrete topics of relevance to the citizens of the European Union, ranging from social to economic affairs, energy, environment, external relations or the internal market.
In a new opinion package the EESC argues that the whole semiconductor value chain needs to be bolstered, including the final stages of production, where COVID-19 also exposed critical gaps.
At its June plenary the EESC adopted a package of opinions on the Chips Act for Europe initiative. Hailing the Commission's proposals as a very good initiative overall to address the shortages experienced during COVID-19, the EESC stressed nonetheless that the Commission should go further in specific areas.
First and foremost, the EESC believes that for European industry to achieve strategic resilience, the whole semiconductor sector needs to be taken into account: "The Commission's 'lab to fab' principle does not go far enough because the value chain does not end with manufacturing", stresses Heiko Willems, rapporteur for the EESC opinion on the Chips Act for Europe.
The EESC flags up that the later stages of production –packaging, testing and assembly– are not really fully covered. "European production is sometimes shipped to South-East Asia for packaging and then shipped back to Europe: this is not the right approach to strategic autonomy, having seen the dangers we've encountered in recent years", says Dirk Bergrath, rapporteur for the EESC opinion on Europe's semiconductor ecosystem (Chips Act).
At the same time, it is important for Europe to stay open as the chips sector is one of the most globalised value chains in the world. Establishing a closed value chain would make no economic sense. Striking the right balance between boosting Europe's capacities and strengthening partnerships with like-minded countries is, in the EESC's view, the right path to follow.
To alleviate the semiconductor shortage, the EU needs to address several issues: access to raw materials, R&D facilities, intellectual property, technological know-how and availability of skilled labour. This requires a great deal of investment and support from the public sector. The Commission has planned to raise EUR 43 billion in the coming years. However, a large chunk of this budget is already earmarked for other programmes such as Horizon Europe and Digital Europe, and will only be reallocated.
"Where is the fresh money for the industry?" asks Stoyan Tchoukanov, rapporteur for the EESC opinion on the Chips Joint Undertaking. "Compare this with the US, which is investing USD 52 billion between 2021 and 2026, and China, looking to mobilise USD 150 billion by 2025. Even a smaller country like Korea is planning to invest USD 450 billion by 2030."
The EU will need to find additional public funds and the EESC is calling on the Commission to flesh out its investment plans. Private investment will also need to be boosted to raise 43 EUR billion.
The Commission is opening the door for state aid up to 100% of the funding gap for first-of-a-kind facilities, i.e. facilities that do not yet exist in Europe, to support technology segments that are particularly vulnerable due to geopolitical concerns or strategic relevance.
"We all agree that if we have strong dependencies in Europe and a lack of capacities where we need strength, projects will need to be financed with public money too," say the three rapporteurs, "but 100% state aid rings the alarm bell, because then you can come up with a project which is not really sustainable.". The economic viability of such facilities must be guaranteed, at least in the medium term, with no subsidy race, no creation of overcapacities and no market distortions. (dm)