European Union

Contributions from the EU and its member states to help developing countries reduce their greenhouse gas emissions and cope with the impacts of climate change showed a sharp increase in 2015, particularly for adaptation finance. 

The total was confirmed on 24 October 2016 at a meeting of the EU Economic and Financial Committee, ahead of a UN climate change conference in Marrakesh. 

Total contributions from the EU and its member states amounted to €17.6 billion in 20151, a significant increase compared to 2014. The contributions were successfully channelled into climate change mitigation and adaptation initiatives in developing countries. 

The contribution is seen as an important step towards the implementation of the legally binding climate change agreement reached in Paris in December 2015. 

The latest figure demonstrates the EU's determination to scale up its international climate finance contribution towards the $100 billion per year goal set for industrialised countries by 2020 and through until 2025. Before 2025, the parties to the UN framework convention on climate change will set a new collective goal.

In response to the Paris conference, outcome in 2015, the member states also particularly welcome the concrete 'roadmap' prepared by developed countries, which illustrates the measures developed countries are taking to achieve the $100 billion goal. Contributions for mitigation and adaptation will be jointly mobilised from a wide variety of sources: public and private, bilateral and multilateral, including alternative sources of finance and with transparency of implementation.

1 - This figure includes climate finance sources from public budgets and other development financial institutions, as reported by member states in the context of article 16 of regulation 525/2013. It also includes €1.5 billion from the EU budget and €2.2 billion from the European Investment Bank. 

The European Union deeply regrets the Republic of South Africa's decision to initiate its withdrawal from the Rome Statute. We equally note with deep concern that Burundi has formalised steps to withdraw from the Rome Statute. Until now, no State has ever withdrawn from the Rome Statute.
 
South Africa played a significant role in the establishment of the ICC and was one of the first signatories of the Rome Statue. We will continue to engage with both countries on how they can remain partners to the Rome Statute.
 
The International Criminal Court (ICC) is a key institution to assist citizens achieve justice when confronted with the most serious crimes, where this is not possible at the national level. A majority of African situations were submitted by the national authorities concerned. The Court is also involved in situations all over the world.
 
We all have a shared interest in strengthening the rule of law and working together with the ICC, including along the lines suggested by the President of the Rome Statute's Assembly of States Parties.
 
The EU and its Member States remain staunch supporters of the ICC and are committed to full co-operation on the prevention of serious crimes falling under the jurisdiction of the Court.  Where concerns are raised within the framework of the Rome Statute, we remain open for constructive discussion.

On 29 September 2016, the Council adopted Decision (CFSP) 2016/1746[1] implementing Council Decision 2013/255/CFSP.

The Decision amends the list of persons and entities subject to restrictive measures as set out in Annex I to Decision 2013/255/CFSP.

The Candidate Countries the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia*, Montenegro*, Serbia* and Albania*, the EFTA countries Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway, members of the European Economic Area, as well as Ukraine and the Republic of Moldova align themselves with this Council Decision.

They will ensure that their national policies conform to this Council Decision.

The European Union takes note of this commitment and welcomes it.

[1] Published on 30.9.2016 in the Official Journal of the European Union no. L 264, p. 30.

* - The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Montenegro, Serbia and Albania continue to be part of the Stabilisation and Association Process. 

 On 29 September 2016, the Council adopted Decision (CFSP) 2016/1745[1]. 

The Council Decision renews existing measures until 31 October 2017.

The Candidate Countries the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia*, Montenegro*, Serbia* and Albania*, the country of the Stabilisation and Association Process and potential candidate Bosnia and Herzegovina, and the EFTA countries Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway, members of the European Economic Area, as well as Ukraine and the Republic of Moldova align themselves with this Council Decision.

They will ensure that their national policies conform to this Council Decision.

The European Union takes note of this commitment and welcomes it. 

[1] - Published on 30.9.2016 in the Official Journal of the European Union no. L 264, p. 29.
* The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Montenegro, Serbia and Albania continue to be part of the Stabilisation and Association Process.

Hungarians went to the polls on 2 October to vote on the following question: ‘Do you want the European Union to be able to order the obligatory settlement of non-Hungarian citizens in Hungary without the consent of the Hungarian National Assembly?’

The referendum was supposed to give citizens a decision that will then be enacted in legislation. But the referendum could not have had such a result. The misleading phrase ‘obligatory settlement
of non-Hungarian citizens’ alludes to the resettlement of applicants for international protection, who must belong to a nationality with a minimum acceptance rate of 75%. With two legallybinding decisions taken in September 2015, the European Council had already established the mechanism. What purpose, then, did the referendum serve?

First, it had an international dimension. Hungary has consistently refused to participate in the refugee mechanism, and so the government was looking to bolster the group of like-minded states who
don’t want to be involved. But while the Hungarian government is against relocation, it’s more frustrated by the fact that such a decision could be made by a qualified majority in the first place. Like Slovakia, Hungary has brought the issue to the European Court of Justice on the grounds that the European Council decision has ignored the principle of subsidiarity. Given the pressing need to find a European solution, Hungary has little hope of winning its case, but it can continue to seek wider public support.

Domestically, the vote was a show of force in the run-up to the 2018 general election. It diverted attention from issues such as corruption, decreasing social mobility or segregation. The Hungarian Socialist Party (MSZP) and the centre-left Democratic Coalition (DK) argued that the referendum was a test of Hungarians’ views on EU membership. Over the last six years, polls suggest an average of 49% of Hungarians trust the EU.

But the public media seems to be preparing the ground for a battle between EU membership on one side, and security and secession on the other.

The way the question was formulated put domestic political opponents in a bind. Not to engage with it would have meant staying silent on a topic that made headlines, but engaging was problematic too: advocating a “Yes” was made to sound like openly relinquishing sovereignty.Not surprisingly, the Eurosceptic far-right Jobbik supported “No”, and the centre and the Left were
divided. MSZP, DK and three other parties called for a boycott of the vote. Only the Liberals (MLP) urged a “Yes” vote.

The Hungarian referendum was part of a quest to preserve national sovereignty, wrapped in a manipulative campaign against asylum-seekers. It was about inciting and exploiting hatred and
fear. The quest might have been legitimate, but it remains a dangerous gamble with unforeseeable consequences.

IMAGE CREDIT: Believeinme/Bigstock.com

The post Hungary’s sham immigration referendum appeared first on Europe’s World.

Diplomatic relations between the European Union and Africa have long been shaped by post-colonial continuity: Africa exports raw materials, and Europe sends back manufactured goods. Another key aspect is Europe’s role as a source of development assistance. A number of momentous events have led to a review of this relationship. One is the rise of China as Africa’s leading trade partner. But no development has shaken the foundations of Africa-Europe cooperation as much as the seismic outcome of the UK referendum on EU membership.

Much of the initial analysis of Brexit’s impact justifiably focused on doomsday scenarios invoking “disaster” or “calamity”, and the uncertainty cannot be downplayed. The framing of the concerns,
though, reflects a traditional thinking that ignores both Africa’s economic vision and British aspirations in the post-Brexit world.

The EU has long sought to continue its traditional trade relationships by signing Economic Partnership Agreements it says are “tailor-made” for Africa’s regional realities. These EPAs are an attempt to address concerns regarding non-reciprocal EU trade deals deemed inconsistent with World Trade Organisation (WTO) rules. EPAs have been pursued with Africa’s regional economic communities, but not all members of each REC have been enthusiastic. Brexit has forced some of their concerns into the open. For example, Tanzania has withdrawn from the EPA being negotiated with the East African Community (EAC), citing post-Brexit uncertainties and unequal power relations with the EU.

Aziz Mlima, Permanent Secretary of the Tanzanian Foreign Ministry, expressed concerns that ‘the EPA will not benefit local industries in East Africa. Instead, it will lead to their destruction, as developed countries are likely to dominate the market.’ This view was reinforced by Tanzania’s former president Benjamin Mkapa, who said ‘I don’t understand how such a powerful trade bloc can have a free trade agreement with the developing economies of Africa. There is no way that our small economies can have free trade with Europe.’ The reference to the nascent state of African
industries underscores Africa’s shift from dependence on rawmaterial exports to an expansion of industry. African relationshipswith the rest of the world are starting to take account of the potential
impact on this vision.

“No development has shaken the foundations of Africa-Europe cooperation as much as the seismic outcome of the UK referendum on EU membership”

Countries that approach Africa in the context of competition with other nations, such as China, are unlikely to appreciate how the continent is repositioning itself. “Agenda 2063”, adopted in 2013 by the African Union (AU), seeks to refocus the continent as a collection of learning economies operating through regional economic blocs. The policy basis is laid out in the AU’s Science, Technology and Innovation in Africa Strategy (STISA-2024) of 2014. More specific strategies include efforts to transform agriculture and master the digital revolution, building on the continent’s experiences since adopting mobile technology.

This vision provides a new beginning for Africa, and a chance to engage constructively with the rest of the world through cooperation on science, technology and innovation. The scope of such cooperation with the EU and the UK will continue to expand irrespective of the outcomes of Brexit. Indeed, the UK has pledged not only to continue to work with its EU counterparts, but also to
extend cooperation to the rest of the world. Deepening science and technology cooperation with Commonwealth countries would be a natural next step. But British scientists are being dropped from EU-funded projects, prompting calls for action to safeguard their roles. This is occurring despite assurances from the European Commissioner for Science, Research and Innovation, Carlos Moedas, of continued support for existing collaborative programmes such as Horizon 2020. The benefits of scientific cooperation will probably outweigh political considerations in the end. Science offers nations the chance to work together despite political differences. It is against such a background that new relationships between Europe and Africa could build on Africa’s innovation agenda despite Brexit. This view requires analysts to temper their gloom and explore new opportunities.

There are several approaches African nations could adopt when responding to Brexit: mapping emerging trends and opportunities, enhancing economic diplomacy with a stronger emphasis on
innovation and entrepreneurship, and reforming governancestructures to reflect new global realities. A trend to watch is how the perception of diminished capabilities on the part of the UK and the EU could lead to a renewed emphasis on science and technology. This is likely to inspire stronger sub-national innovation ecosystems, with closer links between local or city governments, universities and industry. The ecosystems can then serve as focal points for international competitiveness and sources of solutions to global challenges, stimulating technology-based start-ups as well as incentivising existing businesses to scale up so they can operate in global markets.

“New relationships between Europe and Africa could build on Africa’s innovation agenda despite Brexit”

Global financial centres such as London will be exploring how to harness the UK’s scientific excellence to foster innovation and entrepreneurship. Such shifts in British and EU approaches will
necessitate adjustments to Africa’s economic diplomacy – Rwanda, Ethiopia and Kenya have in recent years modified their foreign policies to focus on economic and trade issues. Africa’s economic diplomacy will be dramatically shaped by the Continental Free Trade Area (CFTA) negotiations that will conclude in 2017. This builds on the Tripartite Free Trade Area covering 26 countries with 650 million people and a GDP of US$1.5 trillion. The CFTA will comprise a billion people with an initial GDP of $3 trillion. The foundations of the agreement include free trade, infrastructure development and industrialisation. This is a grand opportunity that will shape Africa’s relationships with the UK, Europe and the rest of the world.

Overlooking the doomsday scenarios, long-term perspectives reveal new opportunities to align UK and EU diplomacy with Africa’s economic optimism, which is increasingly guided by the desire to put innovation and entrepreneurship at the centre of the continent’s transformation. Failure to grasp this salient point will result in the squandering of a historic opportunity to reshape Africa-Europe relations in light of 21st century realities.

IMAGE CREDIT: lcswart/Bigstock.com

The post Reshaping Europe’s Africa policies appeared first on Europe’s World.

Tuesday 25 October 2016
Strasbourg
18.00 Speech at the ceremony of the award of the Légion d'honneur to Joseph Daul, President of EPP

Wednesday 26 October 2016
Strasbourg
09.00 Report to the European Parliament on the European Council of 20-21 October

Today, we discussed trade policy. I will shortly pass the floor to Jean-Claude Juncker. But before I do that, let me make two remarks.

Firstly, our citizens are increasingly concerned about whether the trade deals we negotiate are in their best interests. And I am afraid that we won't be able to continue to negotiate Free Trade Agreements if we do not prove in practice that we are very serious about protecting European consumers, workers and companies.

Today we have made some progress in this regard. Leaders committed to reach an urgent agreement on the modernisation of all the EU's trade defence instruments. And we have tasked our trade ministers with breaking the deadlock.

Secondly on CETA let me just say that I remain concerned, for a good trade agreement with a close partner like Canada and for Europe's reputation. All member states but one endorsed the agreement and we will continue with the best will and full engagement of the Commission so I pass the floor to Jean-Claude. Thank you.

To receive the Brussels Briefing in your inbox every morning, sign up here. You must be a registered user of the Financial Times. To register click here.

Theresa May, the woman overseeing the biggest shift in British foreign policy in half a century, was overshadowed by a small region of Belgium at the European Council on Thursday.

Read more

General : When Jean-Claude Juncker became president of the European Commission in 2014, he told the European Parliament he would focus on making progress on growth, employment, investment and the digital economy. As Parliament is keen to ensure these promises are kept, it has developed a digital tool to follow progress on the 10 priorities chosen by Juncker. The Legislative Train Schedule shows the current status of each piece of proposed legislation as well as its development.

Source : © European Union, 2016 - EP

General : When Jean-Claude Juncker became president of the European Commission in 2014, he told the European Parliament he would focus on making progress on growth, employment, investment and the digital economy. As Parliament is keen to ensure these promises are kept, it has developed a digital tool to follow progress on the 10 priorities chosen by Juncker. The Legislative Train Schedule shows the current status of each piece of proposed legislation as well as its development.

Source : © European Union, 2016 - EP

Plenary session and committee meetings in Strasbourg

Source : © European Union, 2016 - EP

General : The UK's decision to leave the Union will already affect the EU's budget for next year. "There has already been an unforeseeable situation and now we have to deal with this problem," said Jens Geier, the MEP who will negotiate on behalf of the Parliament regarding the bulk of the EU's budget for 2017. MEPs will vote on Parliament's position in plenary on 26 October. We talked to the German S&D member about how Brexit is affecting the budget and the upcoming negotiations with the Council

Source : © European Union, 2016 - EP

General : The UK's decision to leave the Union will already affect the EU's budget for next year. "There has already been an unforeseeable situation and now we have to deal with this problem," said Jens Geier, the MEP who will negotiate on behalf of the Parliament regarding the bulk of the EU's budget for 2017. MEPs will vote on Parliament's position in plenary on 26 October. We talked to the German S&D member about how Brexit is affecting the budget and the upcoming negotiations with the Council

Source : © European Union, 2016 - EP

As you know we had a long agenda tonight. Let me start with migration.

Irregular flows on the Central Mediterranean route, that is from Africa to Italy, remain far too high and actually haven't changed for the last two years. That is why we discussed how to enhance our cooperation with Africa. The High Representative presented her diplomatic efforts with five priority countries, namely Senegal, Mali, Niger, Nigeria and Ethiopia. The goal is to prevent illegal migration to Italy and to the rest of Europe, and to ensure effective returns of irregular migrants. The High Representative was given our support and will assess progress in December.

When it comes to the Eastern Mediterranean route, the situation has improved, with a 98% drop in arrivals since last year. That is why leaders could discuss getting back to Schengen. We all agreed that the goal is to lift temporary border controls over time, which will be accompanied by the reinforcement of the external borders. Leaders also discussed the question of solidarity among Member States during this crisis. We will consider concrete proposals in December, but the important thing today was to agree that there would be no solidarity a la carte. We will be working on effective solidarity instead.

This evening we had a broad discussion about Russia. Leaders emphasised all sorts of Russian activities, from airspace violations, disinformation campaigns, cyber attacks, interference into the political processes in the EU and beyond, hybrid tools in the Balkans, to developments in the MH17 investigation. Given these examples, it is clear that Russia's strategy is to weaken the EU. We have a sober assessment of this reality, and no illusions. Increasing tensions with Russia is not our aim. We are simply reacting to steps taken by Russia. Of course the EU is always ready to engage in dialogue. But we will never compromise our values or principles. That is why leaders agreed to stay the course. And above all to keep the unity of the EU.

I want to make one specific point on the MH17 investigation. Leaders expressed their full support for the Dutch government in the ongoing investigation. All States that are in a position to assist the investigation and prosecution of those responsible, must do so.

Leaders also discussed Syria. They strongly condemned the attacks by the Syrian regime and its allies, notably Russia, on civilians in Aleppo. The EU is calling for an end to the atrocities and an immediate cessation of hostilities. It will consider all available options, if these atrocities continue. We have asked the High Representative to pursue further diplomatic and humanitarian efforts.

Finally, let me say that we were glad to welcome Prime Minister May to her first European Council. Prime Minister May confirmed that the UK will invoke Article 50 before the end of March next year. There will be no negotiations until Article 50 is triggered by the UK so we didn't discuss Brexit tonight. However, the basic principles and rules, namely the Single Market and indivisibility of the four freedoms, will remain our firm stance. Thank you. 

General : “Acting to stop the bloodshed in Syria should be the number one priority on your list,” European Parliament President Martin Schulz told EU leaders on 20 October at the start of a two-day EU summit. “The European Parliament calls for consequences and accountability for those guilty of committing war crimes and crimes against humanity,” he added. In addition to EU-RUssia relations, the Council summit is also dedicated to trade issues, migration and Brexit.

Source : © European Union, 2016 - EP

General : “Acting to stop the bloodshed in Syria should be the number one priority on your list,” European Parliament President Martin Schulz told EU leaders on 20 October at the start of a two-day EU summit. “The European Parliament calls for consequences and accountability for those guilty of committing war crimes and crimes against humanity,” he added. In addition to EU-RUssia relations, the Council summit is also dedicated to trade issues, migration and Brexit.

Source : © European Union, 2016 - EP

Once Britain leaves the European Union, there will be consequences for the EU as a trading power. Britain was, in 2015, the world’s fifth-largest economy and Europe’s second-largest. It was tenth-biggest exporter of merchandise, and second-biggest of commercial services.

The UK continues to be a member of the EU with full rights and responsibilities, including on current trade negotiations. The EU has several deals on the agenda. The negotiations for the comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) with Canada were finished in August 2014, and the agreement now needs to be signed and ratified. In addition, the EU is negotiating free trade agreements with Japan, India, members of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), Mexico and Mercosur countries. The most important negotiations, though, relate to the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) with the United States, which would create the largest regional free trade area in the world.

TTIP negotiations, irrespective of the Brexit vote, have been progressing very slowly. There are still fundamental differences of opinion between the EU and the US in many chapters. Several important areas, such as government procurement, services, investment protection, agricultural tariffs and geographic indicators haven’t been agreed. Both sides went into the summer
break with hope of deciding on a framework agreement by the end of the year – while President Obama is still in office. But the window of opportunity is closing fast, even without taking Brexit
into consideration.

Shortly after the British referendum, both the EU Commissioner for Trade, Cecilia Malmström, and United States Trade Representative, Michael Froman, reiterated that the rationale for TTIP remained strong even without the UK. But the situation isn’t so simple. The UK was one of the main supporters of the deal in Europe. Britain’s departure could further delay TTIP, with criticism on the rise in major EU countries like France and Germany. And once the UK triggers Article 50, EU officials in Brussels will be busy negotiating Britain’s withdrawal agreement, and will shift their priorities accordingly.

There are also critical comments coming from the other side of the Atlantic. Despite his earlier commitment to the deal, Michael Froman conceded in July that TTIP needed to be readjusted for
Brexit, as 25% of US goods exports to the EU are destined for Britain. He also stressed that the US would lose a quarter of the public procurement market without the UK – which, he warned,
would affect the US offer on government procurement. This in an area in which the EU has offensive interests and wants to gain wide access to the US. The negotiations will probably drag on in this manner for some time.

Brexit will have fewer consequences for other trade negotiations. Even with 27 countries, the EU is still an attractive trading partner, although India may reconsider its free trade negotiations with the EU – which began in June 2007 – since the UK is its closest trading partner and strongest European ally.

Britain has always been one of the closest partners of the Netherlands, Sweden and Germany in the push for open markets, so its departure from the EU will have consequences for the use of protectionism. In March the UK was leading the opposition to stronger trade defences against Chinese steel, together with Sweden and the Netherlands. It opposed limitations to the “lesser
duty rule”, which would have allowed the EU to impose higher tariffs against subsidised Chinese steel imports. With the UK out, countries supporting a more liberal trading regime will lose out.
The group that is more inclined to protect the market – broadly consisting of France, Italy and other southern countries – will gain more leverage. So the departure of the UK may change the
negotiating dynamics of EU trade policy.

Britain was also one of the leading countries pushing for more open intra-EU trade and competition in the common market. A single market for services was at the top of the British agenda, but
there are still problems in cross-border competition for services, a situation that impedes economic growth and the creation of jobs in Europe. With Britain leaving, the new push for a common services market may also lose momentum.

IMAGE CREDIT: digitalista/Bigstock.com

The post Brexit changes the EU’s trade dynamics: don’t expect progress appeared first on Europe’s World.

General : EU-Russia relations have long been difficult but following Moscow’s recent involvement in the bombing of Aleppo they have deteriorated even further. Tonight at the European Council heads of EU states discuss the EU's strategy towards Russia. MEPs have strongly condemned Russia’s role in Syria and called for a "critical reassessment" of EU relations with the country. Read on for an overview of Parliament's position.

Source : © European Union, 2016 - EP

General : EU-Russia relations have long been difficult but following Moscow’s recent involvement in the bombing of Aleppo they have deteriorated even further. Tonight at the European Council heads of EU states discuss the EU's strategy towards Russia. MEPs have strongly condemned Russia’s role in Syria and called for a "critical reassessment" of EU relations with the country. Read on for an overview of Parliament's position.

Source : © European Union, 2016 - EP