Feed aggregator

Jorge Domecq, EDA Chief Executive, today met with Jan Selstrand, Swedish State Secretary to the Minister of Defence to exchange views on the preparation of the European Council in June 2015 and Sweden’s participation in EDA projects. 

“It has been a very fruitful meeting with Jorge Domecq. It is of great importance that we not only exchange views ahead of the European Council in June 2015, but that we also discuss how we can further deepen our participation and cooperation in EDA projects”, said Swedish State Secretary Jan Salestrand. 

“Sweden is an active member of the European Defence Agency. It is for example involved in the Agency’s work on maritime capabilities where the EDA runs projects focussing on unmanned maritime systems, maritime surveillance, as well as maritime mine counter measures. Sweden is also the lead nation of the MIDCAS project developing a mid-air collision avoidance system which will contribute to the safe integration of Remotely Piloted Aircraft Systems into normal airspace. This project reached an important milestone end of April with the successful completion of a series of flight tests”, Jorge Domecq said after the meetings. 

The visit in Sweden is part of a series of visits by Mr. Domecq to all EDA Member States following his appointment as EDA Chief Executive and ahead of the Ministerial Steering Board on 18 May 2015. So far, Mr. Domecq visited Spain, Lithuania, Latvia, the United Kingdom, Belgium, Germany, Portugal, the Netherlands, Ireland, France, Romania, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Slovenia, Croatia, Estonia, Poland, Slovenia, Greece, Cyprus and Finland. He will next travel to Italy.

 

More information:

• News "Jorge Domecq in Luxembourg to discuss cooperation" (5 May 2015)
• News "Defence cooperation talks in Cyprus" (23 April 2015)
• News "Chief Executive meets Hungarian Minister of Defence" (23 April 2015)
• News "EDA Chief Executive visits Athens" (22 April 2015)
• News "Jorge Domecq in Poland for defence discussions"(20 April 2015)
• News "Jorge Domecq meets Estonian Minister of Defence" (20 April 2015)
• News "Meeting with Croatian Defence Minister in Zagreb" (17 April 2015)
• News "Slovenia welcomes Jorge Domecq" (15 April 2015)
• News "EDA Chief Executive visits Czech Republic" (13 April 2015)
• News "Jorge Domecq in Bulgaria to discuss defence cooperation" (8 April 2015)
• News "EDA Chief Executive travels to Romania" (8 April 2015)
• News "EDA Chief Executive meets French Minister of Defence" (30 March 2015)
• News "Jorge Domecq exchanges views with Irish Minister of Defence Simon Coveney T.D." (25 March 2015)
• News "EDA Chief Executive visits The Netherlands" (23 March 2015)
• News "Discussions on European defence in Portugal" (19 March 2015)
• News "Jorge Domecq meets German Secretary of State" (19 March 2015)
• News "Belgium and EDA discuss future defence cooperation" (18 March 2015)
• News "Jorge Domecq in the UK for cooperation talks" (25 Feb 2015)
• News "Latvia and EDA discuss cooperation opportunities" (19 Feb 2015)
• News "EDA Chief Executive visits Lithuania" (17 Feb 2015) 

 

By Maj. Gen. David Fastabend, U.S. Army (Ret.)
Best Defense book reviewer

A book release with a more promising premise is hard to imagine: the inside story on the military’s elite Joint Special Operations Task Force adaptation in the War on Terror, reversing the outcome from failure to success. Moreover, the lessons learned from that experience can be applied to the leadership and management of any organization struggling to address the dynamic, complex environments of our globalized lives.

Up front, Stan McChrystal offers a vital caveat that all readers ignore at their peril: Team of Teams is not a war story. This is a leadership story and a management story, masterfully crafted and compellingly delivered by McChrystal with the assistance of two former Navy SEALs — David Silverman and Chris Fussell — and Tantum Collins, a Yale graduate currently studying at Cambridge.

The text is a tour de force of management theory over the past century. Beginning with Taylor’s work on efficiency and the foundation of scientific management, the authors establish the underpinnings of most legacy military and business organizations. Next there is a thorough treatment of complexity, carefully distinguishing it from mere complication, and how this phenomenon defeats most adherents to scientific management. The next transition is to resilience thinking, adaptability, and the important distinctions between team thinking and command thinking. Finally, there are key observations on how modern technology enables shared consciousness, greater transparency of decision-making and devolution of decision-making authority to lower levels. Anecdotes and vignettes mined from the authors’ military experiences and management studies weave through and connect the argument.

Team of Teams offers explicit and substantive prescriptions for what ails modern organizations. The argument is that the benefits of small, effective teams can be scaled up significantly through a network approach built on transparent decision-making and an “eyes-on / hands-off” devolution of decision authority to the lowest practical levels. The recommendations include the physical co-location of key stakeholder representatives and robust attention to liaison representation where that is not possible. Technology can be leveraged for large scale communication of context and intent to the “team of teams.” Most importantly, there is a unifying emphasis throughout on the human dimension of organizational behavior and culture.

GEN McChrystal argues compellingly that this is no “zero-defects” approach, and that leaders in a complex environment must be content with a 70% solution. I suspect Stan was significantly “hands-off” in his authorship role here, because 70% is how I would score the military perspective of Team of Teams. Granted — it is not a war story — but most military officers picking up this text will utter a short prayer: “Please God, don’t let this be about how SOF won the war. And if SOF has to win the war, please don’t let it be about how only the SEALs did it.”

Alas, such prayers go largely unanswered. There is no mention of the 160,000 non-SOF military members that shared the Iraqi battle space with JSOTF, or their complementary role as the admittedly non-cool, non-special team in the team of teams. Although there is grudging acknowledgement that there are non-Navy SOF elements, the SEALs overwhelm the narrative with extensive accounts of BUDS training, etc. In a world where the SEALs are painfully over-exposed, this will generate some anti-bodies in more experienced military readers. Such readers will also not find co-location of the joint and inter-governmental battle-staff, attention to LNO assignments, or extensive televideo conferencing of daily O&I meetings as ground-breaking innovations, as these have been standard practice in the conventional forces at least back to Army operations in Bosnia in the mid-90s.

In spite of the scope of this text as a management treatise, intriguing questions go unanswered. The enemy is portrayed as being superiorly adaptive and resilient, with scant explanation of how they achieved that. The role of their ideology as a substitute for directive command and control is unexplored. Although decision authority can be decentralized in an “eyes on / hands off” environment, accountability can not be decentralized — is this risk always acceptable? How does one navigate the treacherous tensions between authority and accountability?

Finally, the elephant in the room is that for all this adaptation and innovation the enemy they defeated has forced the evacuation of the old JSOTF base of operations at Balad, Iraq. Strategy still eats organization and process for breakfast. This omission of context particularly frustrates me because I witnessed GEN McChrystal’s personal and vital role in recognizing the Sunni revolt in Anbar Province and setting the strategic conditions in place that enabled a temporary window of stability in Iraq. The book would be improved if this exemplary, self-effacing leader was more hands-on in explaining the role of effective strategy — in the absence of which even teams of teams will flounder.

Notwithstanding these quibbles, Team of Teams slashes useful trails through the jungle of complexity that bewilders most modern organizations. It is a story worthy of a careful read and even more careful reflection.

David Fastabend is a retired Army officer who served as Multinational Forces Iraq C3 in 2006-2007 and Director of Strategy, Plans and Policy for the Army Staff 2007-2009.

Les commémorations du 70e anniversaire de la capitulation de l’Allemagne nazie se sont déroulées, vendredi 8 mai 2015 dans toute la France.

Die EU-Kommission will Flüchtlinge in Europa künftig per Quote verteilen. Einen entsprechenden Vorschlag will die Behörde in Brüssel an diesem…

By Gautam Mukunda
Best Defense book reviewer

Team of Teams, by General Stanley McChrystal, Tantum Collins, David Silverman, and Chris Fussell, is essentially two books.

One is a Gladwell-esque attempt to relate a variety of stories, most familiar but some new, that are meant to illuminate different aspects of both the history of management thought and of the authors’ solution to the problem of how to make large bureaucratic organizations flexible and adaptive enough to succeed in the modern world.

The other is a description of how McChrystal and his team radically improved the performance of the Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC) in Iraq by transforming it from a rigid hierarchic structure to, in their term, a “team of teams.” JSOC’s new structure and method of operating allowed it to integrate intelligence more effectively and plan and launch operations much more quickly than it ever could have before, resulting in a series of (temporary) triumphs, culminating in the killing of Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi, the leader of al Qaeda in Iraq.

Team of Teams has some significant weaknesses, but its description of how a remarkably gifted leader transformed an organization in the most challenging of circumstances both adds to our understanding of the Iraq War and is likely to be helpful and occasionally inspiring for executives. It may be particularly useful for business leaders who are unlikely to read the academic research that has come to very similar conclusions, but who might instead be drawn to a story of organizational transformation under literal, not metaphoric, fire.

Many large organizations today struggle with exactly the problem McChrystal and his co-authors identify: the need to be far more agile, adaptable, responsive to information from the environment, and able to learn and innovate quickly in response to new, unanticipated, and rapidly-evolving threats than they would have had to be a generation ago. The solutions they identify, of breaking down organizational silos, building personal ties between members of different units within the organization to enable information flow and cooperation, and minimizing or eliminating leaders’ tendency to micromanage subordinates in favor of empowering people to make their own decisions whenever possible, are familiar, but also useful, powerful, and likely to be implementable by business leaders.

Team of Teams’ strongest effect is that it leaves me enormously impressed by McChrystal’s abilities. Few leaders could have stepped back from the war effort in Iraq and rethought some of the most basic assumptions about how the military should operate. Even fewer could have countered the tendency to throw more resources at the problem or optimize current processes instead of reinventing the organization wholesale. Even more impressive, of course, is that after McChrystal and his team diagnosed the problem they faced, they were able to successfully implement this radically new approach in extraordinarily difficult circumstances.

Teams of Teams’ most useful aspects for executives are likely its concrete examples of how McChrystal and his team reformed JSOC, with analogues of many of those approaches available to business leaders. Their solutions may not be new, but few people can claim to have implemented such ideas so successfully or in such adverse conditions. Team of Teams’ suggestions are far from complete but they are, without question, useful, interesting, and often thought-provoking.

Team of Teams is far from flawless. It does not explain, for example, which circumstances that make its preferred organizational form preferable to traditional ones, or describe the advantages of the old form over the new one. It could have been strengthened by engaging more deeply with the management literature on the organizational forms it describes, particularly the work of Michael Tushman on ambidextrous organizations and Ranjay Gulati on disrupting organizational silos. It does not engage with the differences between militaries and businesses, nor does it offer advice to leaders with authority less absolute than McChrystal’s was on how to win over opponents.

The book also stumbles when its attention shifts from the military in general and Iraq in particular. Its stories of Frederick Taylor pioneering scientific management, for example, may be interesting to readers unfamiliar with them, but they are likely to be old for many, and they tend to distract from the book’s primary goal of explaining a different model of management. In some cases the authors’ relative unfamiliarity with business shows — their attribution of the financial crisis to a lack of supervision of junior employees in Wall Street firms by senior managers, for example, shallowly (and arguably mistakenly) analyzes a complex event of surpassing importance.

It also has a small number of factual and editorial errors. But these should not impede anyone from reading Team of Teams or taking its ideas about management seriously.

Despite its weaknesses, Team of Teams is valuable. Its most important advice for leaders, however, is likely to be the hardest for them to take. Information technology enables leaders to monitor their organization with unprecedented immediacy and fidelity. McChrystal and his co-authors acutely observe that this is a double-edged sword. Such transparency can be a huge asset when it allows leaders to learn about what their followers are doing, and when it allows followers to observe leaders and get general guidance from them. When it is used to enable leaders to micro-manage their followers instead, this transparency is an organizational bane. McChrystal’s description of his personal struggle with his controlling instincts (instincts shared by most leaders) is therefore likely to be particularly valuable to other leaders struggling to make the same organizational transformation.

Gautam Mukunda is an Assistant Professor at Harvard Business School and the author of Indispensable: When Leaders Really Matter. He has published on leadership, military innovation, and the security and economic implications of advances in synthetic biology.

Amazon

BELGRADE, 12 May 2015 – Cross-border co-operation in water governance can significantly contribute to security and safety of citizens, concluded the participants of a two-day discussion on water management in the OSCE area, which closed in Belgrade today.

Over 200 officials and key stakeholders from non-governmental organizations, academia and international organizations representing the OSCE’s 57 participating States, discussed water governance in the OSCE context at the second Preparatory Meeting of the 2015 OSCE Economic and Environmental Forum on 11 to 13 May 2015. 

“Water governance is not just one more environmental issue but one of the most important challenges we are currently facing,” said Serbian State Secretary of the Interior Ministry, Aleksandar Nikolić. “Regional co-ordination and operational co-operation in joint monitoring, information exchange and training, with neighbouring and other countries, is crucial if we are to succeed.”

Last year’s devastating floods in the Western Balkans showed the importance of trans-boundary co-operation in case of natural disasters. “The risk of flooding is one of our main threats,” said the President of the International Commission for Protection of Danube River, Croatian Ministry of Agriculture, Dražen Kurečić. “With joint efforts and the development of forecasting systems, we can overcome this threat and give our citizens the security they need.”

The Co-ordinator of OSCE Economic and Environmental Activities, Halil Yurdakul Yigitguden, stressed that the involvement of stakeholders and collaborative decision-making processes can ensure responsiveness to local needs and contributes to increasing transparency. “Good water governance is key to meeting water demands and preventing conflict.”

The Director of the Environment Division of the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe, Marco Keiner, said: “Participatory and accountable water governance is necessary for well-informed choices and can help prevent or reduce negative effects of investments on development and on water resources.” He also stressed the importance of co-operation in the management of natural resources, tackling environmental threats and increasing security and stability.

On 13 May, some 100 participants will visit the areas most affected by the May 2014 floods, namely Bijeljina in Bosnia and Herzegovina, as well as Šabac and Obrenovac in Serbia. These field trips are supported by the OSCE Missions to Bosnia and Herzegovina and Serbia.

The findings from the meeting will complement conclusions from January’s 1st Preparatory Meeting, and pave the way to the Forum’s Concluding Meeting in Prague on 14-16 September 2015.

Related Stories

• OSCE meeting on water governance to take place in Serbia
• Spanish Foreign Minister calls on participating States to reaffirm their commitment to fundamental OSCE principles
• Chairperson Dačić condemns violence in Kumanovo, announces visit by OSCE officials to Skopje

 

I liked the book more than either of these guys. I think it is one of the best things I have read about how the military needs to change to move from the Industrial Age to the Information Age.

I‘ve written a review that I am told is going to run in Marine Corps Gazette’ s June issue. When it does, I shall endeavor to run an excerpt and if possible a link to the whole thing.

New America/Thomas E. Ricks

Russia will reportedly spend some 7 billion rubles ($140 million) to build a new high-speed helicopter.

The Centre for European Policy Studies (CEPS), invited on Tuesday May 5th to the seminar: ‘Network Neutrality: Challenges and Responses in the EU and in the US’. “ Given the fact that “in Europe, key aspects of net neutrality regulation remain controversial and general opinion still differs on all aspects of net neutrality, even on its definition”, the seminar, chaired by Colin Blackman (Director, Digital Forum Unit, CEPS), aimed to “compare the approach adopted in the US with the current debate in Europe.”

 Scott Marcus (Independent Consultant):

 How should we define Net Neutrality?

There is a bunch of different definitions and actually it is very hard to find a ‘one size fit all’ definition for net neutrality:

     -. Is it the ability of all Internet end-users to access and distribute information or run applications exercising their choices?

     -. Is it the absence of unreasonable discrimination on the part of network operators in transmitting Internet traffic?

     -. Is it the assurance that all traffic on the Internet is threaten equally, whatever its source, content or destination?

 Network neutrality could be said to be at the heart of a web of crucial issues that appropriately concern European citizens. Indeed, net neutrality is the heart of a web of public concerns:

We distinguish between Direct and Indirect linkages:

Direct linkages to anti-competitive behaviour: innovation and investment, privacy and data protection, consumer awareness, empowerment, and protection, and freedom of expression.

Indirect linkages to network and information security: broadband policy, Internet governance, and more.

 What matters when speaking about net-neutrality?

Technical Aspects: Quality of Experience (QoE)

The Quality of service (QoS) parameters and mechanisms are important to enable network operators to design, build and manage their networks, but they are not directly visible to end-users.

Crucial for the end-users, however is the quality that they personally experience during their use of a service.

These Quality of Experience (QoE) requirements are strongly dependent on the application. Some are sensitive to delay.

E-Mail has little sensitivity to packet loss and delay.

Real-time two way Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) tends to be highly sensitive- delays greater than some 150 msec cause problems.

Real-time two-way videoconferencing is similarly sensitive, and with greater bandwidth consumption.

One-way video may or may not be sensitive, depending on user expectations for how quickly the stream starts (zapping time).

Economic background of network neutrality

At least three distinctions:

Quality differentiation and price differentiation are well-understood practices. In the absence of anticompetitive discrimination, it generally benefits both, producers and consumers.

Another view: a two-sided market:

Internet can be thought as a two-sided platform, with network operators serving d a platform connecting providers of content with consumers. Disputes are only on how costs and profits should be divided between the network operators and the two or more sides of the market

Economic foreclosure: Foreclosure occurs when a firm that has market power in one segment attempts to project that market power into vertically related market segments where competition would otherwise lead to efficient outcomes.

 What do the stakeholder think of this?

The European Commission conducted a public consultation on net neutrality at the end of 2012, with an eye to a legislative initiative in 2013.

 

The public consultation (2012-2013):

• In the consultation citizens were troubled by most forms of traffic management but more by some forms than others.
• A one page summary of the consultation appears in the Impact Assessment for the Telecommunication Single Market (TSM), but the Commission never published a comprehensive analysis of the results.
• The 131 non-confidential textual stakeholders responses were publicly available, and generally thoughtful and of high quality, thus enabling me to complete the public consultation in abbreviated form based on a sample of responses
• We gratefully acknowledge the Commission’s assistance in tabulating more than 400 multiple-choice (citizen) responses to the public consultation.

 

What did the consultation dealt with?

 

1)Current management practices in Europe.

2)   Appropriate versus inappropriate forms of traffic management.

3)   Opportunities and risks associated with new services.

4)   Deep packet inspection and its implications for pricacu and data protection.

5)   The risk of divergent policy interventions among the Member States.

6)   The path to be taken going forward.

 Consultation results:

• Most NRAs, ISPs, content providers and consumer’s advocates considered traffic management to be appropriate under suitable preconditions.
• Consumer advocates and other civil society organisations appear deeply troubled by limitations on Voice over IP; but network operators view this differently
• There was widespread agreement that for a network operator to prioritise its own traffic ahead of traffic for applications that compete with its own services is problematic.

 European regulatory views:

The Body of European Regulators for Electronic Communications (BEREC) is committed to the open Internet and believes that the existing regulatory tools, when fully implemented, should enable NRSAs to address net-neutrality related concerns.

Berec in his annual report 2013 stated that very few NRAs have reported specific relevant net neutrality incidents. The prevailing approach among Nras is that possible deviations from net neutrality are dealt with on a case by case basis. There is a wide agreement among national regulators that the existing tools enable NRAs to address competition concerns related to net neutrality for the time being.

In the year 2012 instead on his consultation report, Berec stated that regulation should not be unnecessarily intrusive, since flexibility appears indispensable in such a fast-changing environment.

 Regulation: EU

In the European framework, market power is a key concern. Regulation addresses last mile market power in the fixed network, both for the PSTN (public switched telephone network) and for the Internet, thus fostering competition.

Internet interconnection is generally unregulated to the extend that market power does not seem to be a concern.

During the year 2009, the regulatory framework was revisioned:

 The ability of end users to access content, applications or services of their choice is now an explicit goal of European policy.

Providers of electronic communication services must inform end users of their practices in regard to traffic, management and provide end users with the right to change providers without penalty if they are dissatisfied with a change in these practices.

 Differences btw the US and the EU

• The US regulatory approach to network neutrality responds to different circumstances than those relevant to Europe.
• The Overall US regulatory approach is partly a cause and partly a response to a very different marketplace.
• Real consumer choice of an alternative broadband supplier in the US is limited to the point where the threat of consumers switching is no longer felt to constrain the behaviour of network operators.
• The radical US deregulation of 2002-2005 left the US-FCC with the minimal ability to regulate broadband services; as a result, the US debate has been dominated by issues of legal sustainability rather than by policy goals.
• The US regulatory approach to network neutrality responds to different circumstances than those relevant to Europe.
• The overall US regulatory approach is partly a cause and partly a response to a very different marketplace.
• Real consumer choice of an alternative broadband supplier in the US is limited to the point where the threat of consumers switching is no longer felt to constrain the behaviour of network operators.
• The radical US deregulation of 2002-2005 left the US FCC with minimal ability to regulate broadband services; as a result, the US debate has been dominated by issues of legal sustainability rather than by policy goals

 Regulation US:

Telecommunication services are subject to numerous regulatory obligations; information services are subject to few explicit obligations.

Information services were felt not to be subject to market power, so long as basic services were available on a non-discriminatory basis. It was this distinction that historically enabled the FCC to avoid regulating the Internet core.

During the George W. Bush years, the FCC classified broadband access when bundled with Internet service to be an information service (ignoring last mile market power concerns).

Weakened of lifted precompetitive remedies, thus reversing the growth of retail competition for DSL lines.

Lifted non-discrimination obligations.

 The FCC’s Report and Order of March 12th 2015, goes somewhat further than the 2010 Order (the one which had been overturned by the courts).

NO Blocking: (ISPs) shall not block lawful content applications, services, or non-harmful devices, subject to reasonable network management.

No throttling: (ISPs) shall not impair or degrade lawful Internet traffic on the basis of Internet content, application, or service, or just use of a non-harmful device, subject to reasonable network management.

 Europe: The Telecoms Single Market Regulation

A messy discussion of the Telecom Single Market (TSM) in Europe was kicked off by a weakly conceptualised European Commission proposal in September 2013.

In April 2014 instead, the European Parliament, just before elections, passed a stripped down version.

Network neutrality was small but important part of the original legislative proposal, but together with mobile roaming is the only portion that appears to have survived the subsequent legislative process.

Commission’s net neutrality concerns focused on inconsistent legislation in the Member States (Netherland, Slovenia), not necessarily on any need for different or stricter legislation.

 Aspects to consider:

1)   Does the legislative or regulatory instrument used strike the right balance in preventing harmful divergence, while providing appropriate flexibility?

2)   Does it strike the right balance in preventing harmful differentiation, while permitting non-harmful differentiation?

3)   Does it enable prioritisation of services that legitimately need it, potentially including real time voice and videoconferencing over the public Internet, mission critical services (including public protection and disaster relief (PPDR), and transport, and health?

 Andrea Renda Senior Research Fellow:

 There is no need to state that the devil is in the detail.

Recently, EU policymakers seem to have become obsessed by the concept of ‘neutrality’ when discussing future digital policy. I see a mounting debate in Europe concerning the extension of neutrality; whatever the neutrality is understood to be (cloud, or other services).

The situation we are facing nowadays at the European level is a situation of pure fragmentation. After 12 years of debate we are still struggling on many points and the progress made was very slow. The first proposed Telecom Packages in the years 2007 and 2009 could be seen as the first steps towards a harmonization of the internal market, and the creation of a Single Digital Market, but they were never implemented. 

Member states in the meanwhile took the lead on this manner, imposing national regulations concerning net neutrality.

Concerning the EU-US debate on net neutrality, it is not clear what is emerging.

The only thing they have at the US level and we don’t have at the EU level is a decision. Indeed there is something strange at the EU level but also at the transatlantic level. We need to be carefully and not rushing, the higher risk is that we end up with totally different regulations on both the sides.

 One thing that emerges clearly from the FCC rule is the urgency to try to establish a bright line view. The ultimate outcome, indeed, is most importantly depended by the other rules that are already there.

 Why did we want neutrality in the first place?

 Anonymity of the users: nobody wants it anymore today. Only Anonymous is still in this position. The anonymity of the end users is not a fee on the table anymore.

• Competition and fair business practices: there might be a problem as market power can emerge at all layers of the internet protection, and thus potentially a large IT giant could exploit superior bargaining strength vis-à-vis ISPs.
• Innovation: Is innovation slowing down? Are new ideas, products facing more barriers to entry the market?
• User choice and Openness: End users are not protected against restrictions to content availability and application discrimination applied by platforms located at higher layers.
  Openness is thought to be intended as a means, not an end. It would be a mistake to believe that once net neutrality is mandated, the internet would become open, let alone neutral
• Freedom of expression/Pluralism: Very discussed over the past five/six years. Neutrality at all layers is the wrong answer to this problem, which though is very important. Just try to consider if a neutral search engine foster media pluralism? Personally I don’t think this could work. We need a specific media policy to ensure pluralism, advocating neutrality rules!

 If we are looking for Net neutrality because of the reasons listed above, we are on the wrong track. In my opinion the reason why we might consider Net Neutrality, as the best option is because it minimizes the implementation cost and regulatory errors.

Moreover when dealing with the next attempt of regulation, we should probably look more at the things from a consumer perspective, what this means is that consumers don’t always want 100% neutrality everywhere, there are other areas that are more important for end users. I’m convinced that we have to look at the whole net neutrality issues also from a more social point of view.

 Concluding let me state that:

– Yes! there is a way to implement these rules.

– The European Commission should take courage and give a hint to the implementation of these rules.

– We need to think a lot before translating our considerations, into actions. 

Network Neutrality: Challenge and responses in the EU and in the US

The Centre for European Policy Studies (CEPS), invited on Tuesday May 5th to the seminar: ‘Network Neutrality: Challenges and Responses in the EU and in the US’. “ Given the fact that “in Europe, key aspects of net neutrality regulation remain controversial and general opinion still differs on all aspects of net neutrality, even on its definition”, the seminar, chaired by Colin Blackman (Director, Digital Forum Unit, CEPS), aimed to “compare the approach adopted in the US with the current debate in Europe.”

 

1. Scott Marcus (Independent Consultant):

 

How should we define Net Neutrality?

There is a bunch of different definitions and actually it is very hard to find a ‘one size fit all’ definition for net neutrality:

Is it the ability of all Internet end-users to access and distribute information or run applications exercising their choices?

Is it the absence of unreasonable discrimination on the part of network operators in transmitting Internet traffic?

Is it the assurance that all traffic on the Internet is threaten equally, whatever its source, content or destination?

 

Network neutrality could be said to be at the heart of a web of crucial issues that appropriately concern European citizens. Indeed, net neutrality is the heart of a web of public concerns:

We distinguish between Direct and Indirect linkages:

Direct linkages to anti-competitive behaviour: innovation and investment, privacy and data protection, consumer awareness, empowerment, and protection, and freedom of expression.

Indirect linkages to network and information security: broadband policy, Internet governance, and more.

 

What matters when speaking about net-neutrality?

Technical Aspects: Quality of Experience (QoE)

The Quality of service (QoS) parameters and mechanisms are important to enable network operators to design, build and manage their networks, but they are not directly visible to end-users.

Crucial for the end-users, however is the quality that they personally experience during their use of a service.

These Quality of Experience (QoE) requirements are strongly dependent on the application. Some are sensitive to delay.

E-Mail has little sensitivity to packet loss and delay.

Real-time two way Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) tends to be highly sensitive- delays greater than some 150 msec cause problems.

Real-time two-way videoconferencing is similarly sensitive, and with greater bandwidth consumption.

One-way video may or may not be sensitive, depending on user expectations for how quickly the stream starts (zapping time).

Economic background of network neutrality

At least three distinctions:

Quality differentiation and price differentiation are well-understood practices. In the absence of anticompetitive discrimination, it generally benefits both, producers and consumers.

Another view: a two-sided market:

Internet can be thought as a two-sided platform, with network operators serving d a platform connecting providers of content with consumers. Disputes are only on how costs and profits should be divided between the network operators and the two or more sides of the market

Economic foreclosure: Foreclosure occurs when a firm that has market power in one segment attempts to project that market power into vertically related market segments where competition would otherwise lead to efficient outcomes.

 

What do the stakeholder think of this?

The European Commission conducted a public consultation on net neutrality at the end of 2012, with an eye to a legislative initiative in 2013.

 

The public consultation (2012-2013):

• In the consultation citizens were troubled by most forms of traffic management but more by some forms than others.
• A one page summary of the consultation appears in the Impact Assessment for the Telecommunication Single Market (TSM), but the Commission never published a comprehensive analysis of the results.
• The 131 non-confidential textual stakeholders responses were publicly available, and generally thoughtful and of high quality, thus enabling me to complete the public consultation in abbreviated form based on a sample of responses
• We gratefully acknowledge the Commission’s assistance in tabulating more than 400 multiple-choice (citizen) responses to the public consultation.

 

What did the consultation dealt with?

1)   Current management practices in Europe.

2)   Appropriate versus inappropriate forms of traffic management.

3)   Opportunities and risks associated with new services.

4)   Deep packet inspection and its implications for pricacu and data protection.

5)   The risk of divergent policy interventions among the Member States.

6)   The path to be taken going forward.

 

 

Consultation results:

Most NRAs, ISPs, content providers and consumer’s advocates considered traffic management to be appropriate under suitable preconditions.

Consumer advocates and other civil society organisations appear deeply troubled by limitations on Voice over IP; but network operators view this differently

There was widespread agreement that for a network operator to prioritise its own traffic ahead of traffic for applications that compete with its own services is problematic.

 

European regulatory views:

The Body of European Regulators for Electronic Communications (BEREC) is committed to the open Internet and believes that the existing regulatory tools, when fully implemented, should enable NRSAs to address net-neutrality related concerns.

Berec in his annual report 2013 stated that very few NRAs have reported specific relevant net neutrality incidents. The prevailing approach among Nras is that possible deviations from net neutrality are dealt with on a case by case basis. There is a wide agreement among national regulators that the existing tools enable NRAs to address competition concerns related to net neutrality for the time being.

In the year 2012 instead on his consultation report, Berec stated that regulation should not be unnecessarily intrusive, since flexibility appears indispensable in such a fast-changing environment.

 

Regulation: EU

In the European framework, market power is a key concern. Regulation addresses last mile market power in the fixed network, both for the PSTN (public switched telephone network) and for the Internet, thus fostering competition.

Internet interconnection is generally unregulated to the extend that market power does not seem to be a concern.

During the year 2009, the regulatory framework was revisioned:

<!–[if !supportLists]–>o   <!–[endif]–>The ability of end users to access content, applications or services of their choice is now an explicit goal of European policy.

<!–[if !supportLists]–>o   <!–[endif]–>Providers of electronic communication services must inform end users of their practices in regard to traffic, management and provide end users with the right to change providers without penalty if they are dissatisfied with a change in these practices.

 

Differences btw the US and the EU

• The US regulatory approach to network neutrality responds to different circumstances than those relevant to Europe.
• The Overall US regulatory approach is partly a cause and partly a response to a very different marketplace.
• Real consumer choice of an alternative broadband supplier in the US is limited to the point where the threat of consumers switching is no longer felt to constrain the behaviour of network operators.
• The radical US deregulation of 2002-2005 left the US-FCC with the minimal ability to regulate broadband services; as a result, the US debate has been dominated by issues of legal sustainability rather than by policy goals.
• The US regulatory approach to network neutrality responds to different circumstances than those relevant to Europe.
• The overall US regulatory approach is partly a cause and partly a response to a very different marketplace.
• Real consumer choice of an alternative broadband supplier in the US is limited to the point where the threat of consumers switching is no longer felt to constrain the behaviour of network operators.
• The radical US deregulation of 2002-2005 left the US FCC with minimal ability to regulate broadband services; as a result, the US debate has been dominated by issues of legal sustainability rather than by policy goals

 

Regulation US:

Telecommunication services are subject to numerous regulatory obligations; information services are subject to few explicit obligations.

Information services were felt not to be subject to market power, so long as basic services were available on a non-discriminatory basis. It was this distinction that historically enabled the FCC to avoid regulating the Internet core.

During the George W. Bush years, the FCC classified broadband access when bundled with Internet service to be an information service (ignoring last mile market power concerns).

 

Weakened of lifted precompetitive remedies, thus reversing the growth of retail competition for DSL lines.

Lifted non-discrimination obligations.

 

The FCC’s Report and Order of March 12th 2015, goes somewhat further than the 2010 Order (the one which had been overturned by the courts).

NO Blocking: (ISPs) shall not block lawful content applications, services, or non-harmful devices, subject to reasonable network management.

No throttling: (ISPs) shall not impair or degrade lawful Internet traffic on the basis of Internet content, application, or service, or just use of a non-harmful device, subject to reasonable network management.

 

Europe: The Telecoms Single Market Regulation

A messy discussion of the Telecom Single Market (TSM) in Europe was kicked off by a weakly conceptualised European Commission proposal in September 2013.

In April 2014 instead, the European Parliament, just before elections, passed a stripped down version.

Network neutrality was small but important part of the original legislative proposal, but together with mobile roaming is the only portion that appears to have survived the subsequent legislative process.

Commission’s net neutrality concerns focused on inconsistent legislation in the Member States (Netherland, Slovenia), not necessarily on any need for different or stricter legislation.

 

Aspects to consider:

1)   Does the legislative or regulatory instrument used strike the right balance in preventing harmful divergence, while providing appropriate flexibility?

2)   Does it strike the right balance in preventing harmful differentiation, while permitting non-harmful differentiation?

3)   Does it enable prioritisation of services that legitimately need it, potentially including real time voice and videoconferencing over the public Internet, mission critical services (including public protection and disaster relief (PPDR), and transport, and health?

 

Andrea Renda Senior Research Fellow:

 

There is no need to state that the devil is in the detail.

Recently, EU policymakers seem to have become obsessed by the concept of ‘neutrality’ when discussing future digital policy. I see a mounting debate in Europe concerning the extension of neutrality; whatever the neutrality is understood to be (cloud, or other services).

The situation we are facing nowadays at the European level is a situation of pure fragmentation. After 12 years of debate we are still struggling on many points and the progress made was very slow. The first proposed Telecom Packages in the years 2007 and 2009 could be seen as the first steps towards a harmonization of the internal market, and the creation of a Single Digital Market, but they were never implemented. 

Member states in the meanwhile took the lead on this manner, imposing national regulations concerning net neutrality.

Concerning the EU-US debate on net neutrality, it is not clear what is emerging.

The only thing they have at the US level and we don’t have at the EU level is a decision. Indeed there is something strange at the EU level but also at the transatlantic level. We need to be carefully and not rushing, the higher risk is that we end up with totally different regulations on both the sides.

 

One thing that emerges clearly from the FCC rule is the urgency to try to establish a bright line view. The ultimate outcome, indeed, is most importantly depended by the other rules that are already there.

 

Why did we want neutrality in the first place?

 

• Anonymity of the users: nobody wants it anymore today. Only Anonymous is still in this position. The anonymity of the end users is not a fee on the table anymore.
• Competition and fair business practices: there might be a problem as market power can emerge at all layers of the internet protection, and thus potentially a large IT giant could exploit superior bargaining strength vis-à-vis ISPs.
• Innovation: Is innovation slowing down? Are new ideas, products facing more barriers to entry the market?
• User choice and Openness: End users are not protected against restrictions to content availability and application discrimination applied by platforms located at higher layers.
  Openness is thought to be intended as a means, not an end. It would be a mistake to believe that once net neutrality is mandated, the internet would become open, let alone neutral
• Freedom of expression/Pluralism: Very discussed over the past five/six years. Neutrality at all layers is the wrong answer to this problem, which though is very important. Just try to consider if a neutral search engine foster media pluralism? Personally I don’t think this could work. We need a specific media policy to ensure pluralism, advocating neutrality rules!

 

If we are looking for Net neutrality because of the reasons listed above, we are on the wrong track. In my opinion the reason why we might consider Net Neutrality, as the best option is because it minimizes the implementation cost and regulatory errors.

Moreover when dealing with the next attempt of regulation, we should probably look more at the things from a consumer perspective, what this means is that consumers don’t always want 100% neutrality everywhere, there are other areas that are more important for end users. I’m convinced that we have to look at the whole net neutrality issues also from a more social point of view.

 

Concluding let me state that:

– Yes! there is a way to implement these rules.

– The European Commission should take courage and give a hint to the implementation of these rules.

– We need to think a lot before translating our considerations, into actions. 

 

Patrick Zingerle

 

 

 

Classé dans:Actualités, BREVES

MEXICO CITY — Carmen Aristegui is a likable hero for Mexico’s perennially embattled media. Given to little makeup or hairstyling, the 51-year-old radio personality has gained a reputation for her lack of pretension. A few weeks ago, I met her at the offices of her online newspaper, Aristegui Noticias, located in a run-down building in the unassuming Anzures district of Mexico City. The setting is more reminiscent of a basement start-up than the bureau of a celebrity broadcaster, whose radio show once regularly drew an average of 15 million listeners.

“I like to use the stairs, it’s the only exercise I get these days,” she explains by way of an apology for the sluggish elevator. After warmly greeting her news team, Aristegui leads the way to a closet-like back office.

There, over the buzz of a worn-out electric fan, she recounts the story of her dismissal in March from MVS Comunicaciones, the Mexican radio and satellite television provider. In Aristegui’s telling, it is a tale of government collusion. MVS, on the other hand, claims that it fired Aristegui and cancelled her popular morning radio program because she refused to accept the station’s new editorial guidelines. But she links her dismissal to her reporting on a major conflict-of-interest scandal with the president at its center.

Last November, Aristegui revealed that Grupo Higa, a major public contractor that won millions of dollars in state business, built a lavish home for the wife of President Enrique Peña Nieto. The investigation into the $7 million luxury mansion, dubbed the “White House” owing to its white interior and color-changing lighting system, sparked subsequent revelations about additional properties owned by Higa and used by the presidency’s inner circles.

“There was no business rationale to cancel the newscast except that MVS was under very strong political pressure, especially after the White House investigation,” says Aristegui from across the table. “It is obvious that the company used a pretext, and that this decision was very probably made by the government.”

She is now taking her fight to the courts. A Mexico City judge has ordered a hearing scheduled for May 12 to determine whether MVS violated its contract with the radio host, and if she should be reinstated. “When MVS refused to negotiate, it left me with no choice but to go to the courts,” she says. “This is not only about my journalistic work or my job. It is about freedom of expression and defending audiences’ right to information.”

The case has whipped up public opinion, turning Aristegui into Mexico’s latest martyr for press freedom. Her supporters across the country have joined six rights organizations to file so-called “amparos,” a Mexican legal procedure intended to protect human rights, in protest of her dismissal.

Her firing has also unleashed a wave of intrigue and conspiracy that would make House of Cards creator Beau Willimon proud. Some people assert that MVS let go of Aristegui to curry favor with the government ahead of an auction for broadcasters’ airwaves next year. Others suggest that the president demanded her dismissal out of fear that her promotion of MéxicoLeaks, a small whistle-blowing website, would give its investigations a higher profile, allowing revelations of more government scandals to reach national audiences. And there is even talk that MVS had lost an important ally against the government — the powerful telecoms mogul Carlos Slim — making the station more vulnerable to political pressure.

Critics say that a pervasive culture of self-censorship in Mexico’s broadcast media contributes to a lack of watchdog journalism in the country. The politically connected Televisa controls almost 70 percent of the broadcast television business, and media owners depend on concessions granted by a regulator that has historically been influenced by special interests. “The level of tolerance for journalism critical of the government is extremely low in Mexico because we don’t have a sufficiently developed democratic system,” Aristegui argues.

But a number of her former superiors and colleagues have criticized the beloved yet battle-prone journalist for her lack of regard for authority. Moreover, there is no proof implicating the government in Aristegui’s banishment from the airwaves. (As Salvador Camarena, Aristegui’s trusted former MVS colleague, admitted to me: “we have no smoking gun.”)

The commotion around Aristegui’s case highlights the government’s sinking credibility. Her no-frills style strikes a sharp contrast to the nattily-dressed, aloof Peña Nieto, whose perfectly coiffed hair was as much a talking point in his December 2012 election victory as his lofty reform promises. Almost three years later, he has made important economic strides. But he has yet to implement tough measures to crack down on corruption or assure Mexicans that the ruling Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI) — once synonymous with greed and a lust for power — has changed its stripes.

Aristegui, meanwhile, has won huge admiration among anti-corruption crusaders and free speech advocates for her unflinching attacks against Mexico’s political elite. Over her 25-year career, she has uncovered a prostitution ring run by a party chief, a pedophile priest protected by a powerful Roman Catholic cardinal, and the alleged involvement of Televisa in a Central American drug-smuggling ring.

When Aristegui blew the lid off the “White House” story last November, the Peña Nieto government was already reeling from accusations of incompetence and corruption. The previous month, 43 students from the Teachers’ College of Ayotzinapa in rural Mexico were allegedly murdered by a corrupt mayor in cahoots with criminal gangs. The scandal sparked an international outcry, not to mention massive protests against the government, whose gaffe-prone communication strategy made matters worse. “Carmen became the pebble in Peña Nieto’s shoe,” said Denise Dresser, a long-time collaborator of Aristegui’s and a former MVS pundit.

But the government isn’t the only institution Aristegui has antagonized, according to numerous interviews with her colleagues and former employers. In 2002, Aristegui hosted a radio show for the broadcasting company Grupo Imagen. But her boss at the time, Pedro Ferriz de Con, fired her over disagreements about the company’s editorial line: “She said terrible things about Imagen on-air during her time there. Imagine how the audience took it?” he said.

In another incident in 2008, W Radio, a joint-venture between Spain’s Grupo Prisa and Televisa, decided not to renew her contract. According to Daniel Moreno, her boss at the time, she arrived at the office late and refused to take commercial breaks, depriving the station of a vital source of revenue. As the bottom line suffered, the company presented her with new rules, Moreno said. But after months of negotiations, she backed out, claiming the station wanted to censor her.

In many of her spats with employers Aristegui has cried foul, turning up the political heat by implying that the powers that be have called for her head. According to Aristegui, Ferriz and businessman Alfonso Romo, a stakeholder in Imagen, had a personal vendetta against her because she exposed a sex scandal involving a highly respected and powerful religious order in Mexico. She also claims that she was dismissed from W Radio due to her criticism of the derisively named “Televisa Law” – a measure passed in 2006 that was widely interpreted as giving the powerful station privileges in gaining new broadcast concessions and expanding its market dominance. “On the program we had months of debate about this law, and it infuriated Televisa,” she said.

Perhaps all this should have sounded the alarm for MVS owner Joaquín Vargas Gómez when he hired her. But the tycoon was seduced by Aristegui’s massive viewership, and loaded her contract with deal sweeteners. This included an ethics code spelling out her editorial control over her show, an MVS ombudsman to safeguard audiences’ rights, and an independent arbitrator to intercede in editorial disputes between her and the company.

Yet Aristegui has a habit of repeating herself. In 2011, the firebrand journalist was let go after Felipe Calderón, the president at the time, called Vargas demanding that Aristegui apologize or be fired for reporting rumors he had a drinking problem. According to Aristegui, Vargas allegedly begged her to yield to the president’s request, saying that he was in the middle of negotiating with the government to hang onto a multi-million dollar broadcast concession. But Aristegui refused, choosing instead to publicize what happened. “Why should I have to equivocate and apologize, and accept the temper tantrum of a president?” she said at her office. Vargas later reinstated her after her huge fan base protested.

Aristegui claimed that the incident did not damage her relationship with Vargas, but that problems resurfaced with the White House investigation. She says he asked her not to air the report on her radio show (requesting her “understanding”). So she broke the story on her own website. MVS has not responded to the allegations.

In the months that followed the White House revelations, her reporting grew relentless, sparking an on-air showdown with her employer that led to her dismissal in March. “There was a loss of confidence in Carmen,” said Ezra Shabot, another journalist at MVS. “The owners felt that they were losing their space on the radio, that she was the owner of it.”

Tensions reached a climax when Aristegui announced on March 10 that her team of investigative journalists at MVS would help promote Méxicoleaks, a new digital tool founded by eight Mexican media outlets and civil society groups courting would-be whistleblowers to help expose state corruption.

Infuriated, MVS issued a series of news bulletins that appeared in the middle of Aristegui’s show, accusing her team of using the MVS brand name to endorse Méxicoleaks deceptively and illegally. It then fired two leading journalists on her investigative team, Daniel Lizárraga and Irving Huerta, both of whom were involved in the Méxicoleaks story.

Aristegui refused to accept their dismissal and picked a fight with the company on-air. “Instead of punishing them we should be rewarding them!” she said on her March 13 broadcast. MVS retaliated, declaring to its audiences it would not accept her “ultimatum,” and published new editorial guidelines on its website imposing restrictions on content.

On March 15, MVS said it would reinstate Lizárraga and Huerta if Aristegui accepted the new editorial rules. But she refused, and that evening received notification from MVS that her show had been cancelled. The next day, news of her firing and that of her 17-member team made headlines, sparking a public uproar.

Aristegui still has a column in the Mexican magazine Reforma and a show on CNN’s Spanish-language program version. But her supporters say that her exile from the airwaves has left a critical gap in the coverage of Mexican politics ahead of important mid-term congressional elections on June 7. The story has also been swept up into wider criticisms of Mexico’s shaky human rights record.

In the same breath that media reports have referenced Aristegui’s firing, they point out that attacks on reporters in Mexico are ticking upward. According to a March investigation by the British rights group Article 19, violence against members of the press rose 80 percent in the first two years of the Peña Nieto administration, relative to the six-year average of his predecessor. The New York-based Committee to Protect Journalists also ranks Mexico among the world’s top 10 countries for journalist killings, and impunity in such cases is as high as 90 percent.

But the crux of the issues in the case of Carmen Aristegui appears to be less about the human rights tale than the slow — and often sporadic — slog toward political reform.

New legislation enacted last July has sought to bring fresh competition into Mexico’s stiflingly uncompetitive broadcast market. It has also created specialized tribunals for media and antitrust matters, helping to fast-track legal procedures. Aristegui’s supporters have utilized the newly formed telecommunications and broadcast courts to file complaints against MVS, claiming that the company’s actions breached the public’s right of access to information. Still, critics argue that these procedures could be bogged down in red tape and that the courts remain over-stretched, lacking both human and financial resources.

“These new legal tools are here to guarantee the rights of journalists and the Mexican people, but it is a big challenge for Mexico’s justice system,” says Aristegui, looking tired for the first time in our interview. Yet the crack in her armor is only momentary. Leaning forward to be heard over the raspy fan, she adds with characteristic zeal: “But it mustn’t drag on, every minute wasted is a minute that the Mexican people lose their right to critical information.”

YURI CORTEZ/AFP/GettyImages

Allgemeines : Anstatt ins Reisebüro zu gehen, buchen immer mehr Menschen ihren Urlaub im Internet. Sie kombinieren Angebote verschiedener Anbieter und wählen seltener eine Pauschalreise. Das Parlament hat sich nun mit dem Ministerrat auf neue Regeln geeinigt, um die Rechte der Verbraucher im Zusammenhang mit Reisebuchungen im Internet zu stärken. Wir haben mit der deutschen Berichterstatterin Birgit Collin-Langen (EVP) gesprochen.

Quelle : © Europäische Union, 2015 - EP

The SMM monitored the implementation of the “Package of measures for the implementation of the Minsk agreements”. The SMM, based on its monitoring – which was restricted by third parties and by security considerations* – observed ongoing fighting in and around Donetsk airport and Shyrokyne.

The SMM noted long periods of calm – followed by intense fighting – in areas in and around the destroyed Donetsk People’s Republic” (“DPR”)-controlled Donetsk airport (8km north-west of Donetsk) and Shyrokyne (20km east of Mariupol).

At the Joint Centre for Control and Co-ordination (JCCC) observation post at “DPR”-controlled Donetsk railway station (8km north-west of Donetsk), JCCC representatives told the SMM that there had been no shelling in the area on the night of 10-11 May. However, whilst at the observation post from 08:05 to 17:00hrs, the SMM heard a total of 105 explosions, and sporadic small arms and heavy machine gun fire.

The SMM noted a calm situation in areas around government-controlled Berdianske (1.5km west of Shyrokyne) in the morning of 11 May. At a regular SMM observation post on the eastern outskirts of the village, however, it observed numerous fresh craters – one just metres from the actual observation post. The SMM observed an additional eight craters in residential areas in the village – caused by 122mm artillery rounds – and a further two, caused by 152mm artillery rounds. Local people told the SMM that the shelling had occurred the previous night.

In nearby Shyrokyne village, the SMM noted that a calm situation prevailed. It observed, however, a crater, which, after analysis, it concluded had been caused by an 82mm mortar. According to local people, the round had killed a 47-year-old man on 29 April. The SMM assessed that the round had been fired from a position to the west. As the SMM was leaving the village at 16.15hrs, it heard small-arms and mortar fire in the north-west of the village.

The general calm in the Berdianske-Shyrokyne area came to an end at 16:30hrs, when an intensive exchange of tank, mortar and anti-aircraft rounds began, which continued even as the SMM left the area at 19.20hrs.   

In government-controlled Luhanske (62km north-east of Donetsk), the SMM noted no ceasefire violations, little or no military movement and a relaxed posture amongst Ukrainian Armed Forces personnel. Numerous Ukrainian Armed Forces interlocutors told the SMM that the situation had been calm in the area over the past few days.

The situation in the Luhansk region remained relatively calm, with the SMM noting two instances of limited shelling[1].

In government-controlled Pervomaiske (16km north-west of Donetsk), Ukrainian Armed Forces soldiers told the SMM that a Pravyy Sektor (Right Sector) medical unit in the area had been replaced by a Ukrainian Armed Forces medical unit.

In government-controlled Stanytsia Luhanska (16km north-east of Luhansk), the SMM noted two houses next to a Ukrainian Armed Forces checkpoint, one destroyed and the other damaged. Checkpoint personnel and local residents told the SMM that a barrage of small arms, anti-aircraft, and automatic grenade launcher fire – emanating from across the bridge in “Lugansk People’s Republic” (“LPR”)-controlled territory – had been directed towards the checkpoint for four hours in the evening of 10 May. Interlocutors explained that a gas explosion had resulted, causing the damage to the houses. A fire brigade was on the scene.

Despite claims that withdrawal of heavy weapons was complete, the SMM observed the following weapons’ movement/presence in areas that are in violation of the Minsk withdrawal lines: (i) in “LPR”-controlled areas, three artillery pieces (122mm D-30); and, (ii) in government-controlled areas, six tanks (T-64).

The SMM noted approximately 70 men and women – overseen by 110 police officers – demonstrate in Odessa, demanding the release of Nadiya Savchenko. The protest was organised by the Batkivshchyna Party. A similar gathering – organised by a student non-governmental organisation – took place in Kyiv, at which 300 men and women demanded the release of the Ukrainian Armed Forces pilot from custody in the Russian Federation. Overseen by six police officers, the protests passed off peacefully.

Also in Kyiv, the spokesperson for the Pravyy Sektor (Right Sector) told the SMM that the Pravyy Sektor volunteer battalion had not integrated into regular Ukrainian military structures. He said one proposal – placing the battalion under the control of the National Guard – had been rejected because the National Guard is under the authority of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, which the interlocutor said had still to be “lustrated”. A subsequent proposal – allowing individual Pravyy Sektor members to enlist in the Armed Forces – was also unacceptable, according to the interlocutor, as it would have entailed the dissolution of the battalion.

The SMM continued to monitor the situation in Kharkiv, Dnepropetrovsk, Kherson, Ivano-Frankivsk, Chernivtsi and Lviv.

 

* Restrictions on SMM access and freedom of movement:

The SMM is restrained in fulfilling its monitoring functions by restrictions imposed by third parties and security considerations including the lack of information on whereabouts of landmines.

The security situation in Donbas is fluid and unpredictable and the cease-fire does not hold everywhere.

• Near “LPR”-controlled Ohulchansk (26km east of Luhansk), the SMM was prevented from travelling to “LPR”-controlled Parkhomenko (29km east of Luhansk) by “LPR” “border guards”, who said a “letter of access” was required if the SMM wished to visit the border zone.
• The SMM was stopped and held for an hour and a half near “LPR”-controlled Komisarivka (61km south-west of Luhansk) by two “LPR” members, who did not recognize the SMM’s right to unhindered access to all areas. The situation was only resolved upon the arrival of four other “LPR” members, who allowed the SMM to proceed.
• Ukrainian Armed Forces personnel stopped and searched an SMM vehicle at a checkpoint near government-controlled Nyzhnie (56km north-west of Luhansk). The patrol was allowed to proceed after five minutes.

 

1]   For a complete breakdown of the ceasefire violations, please see the annexed table.

 

Related Stories

• Latest from OSCE Special Monitoring Mission (SMM) to Ukraine based on information received as of 19:30 (Kyiv time), 10 May 2015
• Latest from OSCE Special Monitoring Mission (SMM) to Ukraine based on information received as of 19:30 (Kyiv time), 8 May 2015
• Latest from OSCE Special Monitoring Mission to Ukraine (SMM), based on information received as of 19:30 (Kyiv time), 7 May 2015

As many of the Member States of the European Union painstakingly, and in many cases painfully, deal with the aftermath of the global financial crisis, the Commission attempts to facilitate and aid their recovery in any way it can.[1] The latest attempt to do so is the establishment of the European Fund for Strategic investment (EFSI). Unfortunately this new creation did not receive the collective round of applause across Europe that one might have expected. Quite the contrary. The reason is rather suspicious accounting. The money, apparently, not only has to come from somewhere, but rather astonishingly, from education. In the wake of last year’s internecine institutional strife in which many, including the Commission, battled valiantly to ring-fence key chunks of the education budget (ironically delaying 2014 Jean Monnet applications until the Parliament had approved the MFF), education and its ancillary R&D and innovations budgets appear to have become a prime target for ambitious, but as-yet ambiguous plans by Commission President Juncker. Is this particularly wise? The result may ultimately transfer €2.7 billion from Horizon2020 (currently 3.5% of the overall 2013-2020 budget), to the new EFSI to take effect between 2015-2020, with the apparently bulletproof intention of creating jobs, and boosting economic growth but at a cost of hundreds of millions of Euros to universities across Europe.

 Sustained growth and new jobs are, indeed, a key precondition for the wellbeing of all Europeans. There’s no argument there.  As Commission Vice-President Jyrki Katainen, responsible for Jobs, Growth, Investment and Competitiveness pointed out, “we need fresh investments in Europe and for this we need to mobilise extra private finance.[2]” The approach however, seems recklessly short-termist. Achieving investment, monetary fluidity and commercial momentum is a huge part of sustained attention to the education sector. Sustained investment of education is also a first-class method of in-house job creation in an ever-developing sector ultimately gives Europe a hard-won edge over other regions of the world, many of whom still focus on manufacturing rather than innovation and research. Achieving such benefits at the expanse of world-class research, teaching and learning, which itself is a genuine catalyst of EU innovation and competitiveness however makes little sense.

 So, congratulations to Britain. At a time when the UK is convulsing over its national future and international vocation, the danger to education funding, set against the backdrop of European recovery was the prime concern for the single largest UK delegation of university Vice Chancellors who at the end of April travelled without delay to Brussels to voice their concerns. Among them was Sir Ian Diamond, principal and vice-chancellor of the University of Aberdeen, who argued that “excellence in research is being challenged in every way by these cuts.” Sir Leszek Borysiewicz, Vice-chancellor of the University of Cambridge, stated that the cuts would hit pure research in UK universities, who would then be unable to borrow money to replace lost funds despite the existence of a loan scheme designed for this purpose. “There are programmes in Horizon2020 focused on pure research that cannot get this money back,” he said, adding that “€2.7 billion is a lot to give up from a programme we know works”[3]. Similarly, Kurt Deketelaere, Secretary-General of the League of European Research Universities, was involved in a similar lobbying effort in Brussels. “I’m not sure it’s going to end well,” he said. While lawmakers in the European Parliament are inserting text into the legal proposal to ensure a greater link between the fund and research and innovation spending, the window for finding a compromise on budget cuts is closing according to Deketelaere.[4] 

The British backlash is not, in this sense, an isolated one. A variety of other institutions lent their voices to the Commission’s proposal. A joint statement was released by Science Europe, the European Association of Research and Technology Organisations (EARTO), the European University Association (EUA), the League of European Research Universities (LERU) and the Conference of European Schools for Advanced Engineering Education and Research (CESAR), stating that while they supported the Commission’s actions to boost economic growth and job creation through R&I investment, Horizon2020 remained “the only strategic European-level instrument supporting R&I activities” and actors. As the joint statement made clear: “Horizon2020, much like national R&I funds, is based on granting funds recognising that R&I actors such as universities, research performing organisations (RPOs) and research and technology organisations (RTOs) have specific business models requiring strong public support (that cannot primarily come from loans).[5] 

What informs the Commission’s perspective on this latest funding fracas? According to Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker, “if Europe invests more, Europe will be more prosperous and create more jobs – it’s as simple as that.“[6] Thus, by re-allocating funds from Horizon2020 to the EFSI, Europe will “attract much more important sums that will then be reinvested in innovation,” thereby “delivering higher returns” utilising the same amount of money. Moreover, the Commission argues that “the overall amount of investment on innovation mobilised by the EU budget in the next years will be higher than with Horizon2020 only”. More importantly,  funding initially foreseen for Horizon2020 will allegedly not be lost, that is “not lost for innovation.”[7]  The arcane mysteries of bookkeeping aside, one can argue that ESFI-branded funding, according to the Juncker proposal will now be dispersed amongst different projects, which in real terms dilutes the funding designed to underwrite Horizon2020 projects.

ESFI and Horizon2020 simply do different things, and neither they, nor their funding structures can realistically reinforce each other. EFSI primarily aims at attracting private investors, while Horizon2020 funds mostly research undertaken by universities and research institutes and centres, many of which are publicly funded and work on a different “business model” than private companies. Even the briefest of glances at how universities do, or indeed ought to operate, makes this much clear. Therefore, regardless of the Commission’s enterprise-led discourse, projects undertaken by higher education institutions across Europe are likely to be negatively affected. Ironically, more astute research could have enlightened the commission on this point: a decent assessment regarding the impact of funds diverted from Horizon2020 would indicate which projects could potentially benefit from EFSI funding, and which (arguably the lion share) of projects must be ring-fenced within the original structures of Horizon2020.

Retrospective accounting is never popular. And infrequently effective.  The creation of new jobs may yield higher employment in the short-term, but it does not ensure that these new jobs will not be subsequently reduced or re-located elsewhere, or indeed that the commercial boost of the ESFI will not fall onto the presently fallow commercial ground of the Eurozone. Research is project-specific, dedicated, rarely fungible given its capital-intensive nature and largely conditioned exclusively to the institutional dynamic from which it first emerges, i.e. the presence of faculty-based facilities and higher-education expertise. Its purpose is not to underwrite a faltering Eurozone in raw funding from the bottom up but to boost the top-down ideas, projects, dynamics and outputs that are themselves the catalyst to enhanced productivity, jobs and competition.

What now? The usual standoff between ardent voices from a key sector attempting to persuade the Commission and key Member State governments to block the re-allocation of funds? Our hope lies, for now, in the European Parliament, where a considerable number of MEP currently oppose the idea of hollowing out Horizon2020 funding. We should remember that MEPs backed amendments safeguarding research funding for programmes like Horizon2020 being used for EFSI-supported projects. As MEP Van Brempt argued, “our researchers, our universities around the EU, need this money if we want to keep our future-oriented vision and to enhance the EU’s competitiveness and global strength.”[8] Last ditch hopes rest also with a motivated educational sector, and key voices being heard. Unfortunately, apart from the charge of last week, and some immediate media coverage, there has been virtually no public discussion or sustained media attention regarding the proposed changes.

Funding reallocations are hardly glamorous, admittedly. But a full-frontal assault on the funding structures underwriting innovation (much of it connected to sustaining Eurozone industry and commerce) is worthy of attention. Insights beget illumination, illumination sustains innovation. And innovation keeps things efficient and effective. Not tinkering with the most important hands-off budget in Europe. Universities have survived the storm necessitating corporate benchmarking and impact and knowledge exchange in bidding for funding; but hollowing out Horizon2020 and any related educational budgets risks substituting instrumental forms of performance for genuine progress.

 Sources

http://www.euractiv.com/sections/energy/meps-back-ringfencing-juncker-plan-money-single-vote-313766

http://ec.europa.eu/priorities/jobs-growth-investment/plan/docs/efsi_qa_en.pdf

http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-14-2128_en.htm

http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/news/uk-v-cs-lobby-in-brussels-on-eu-research-cuts/2019698.article

http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/news/v-cs-go-to-brussels-to-lobby-against-cuts/2019654.article

http://www.sciencebusiness.net/news/76989/Big-guns-of-UK-universities-lobby-against-research-cuts-in-Brussels

http://horizon2020projects.com/policy-research/commission-faces-juncker-plan-backlash-by-research-community/

http://horizon2020projects.com/policy-research/eit-and-erc-expected-to-lose-millions-in-juncker-investment-plan/

http://ec.europa.eu/unitedkingdom/press/frontpage/2014/14_124_en.htm

http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-14-2128_en.htm

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-32257724

[1] With profound thanks to CCCU Politics/IR Graduate Michal Gloznek. Having gradauted with distinction from Politics/IR here at CCCU in 2014, Michal is completing the first year of his MPhil in Latin American Studies at the Latin American Centre, School of Interdisciplinary Area Studies, St Antony’s College, Oxford.

[2] http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-14-2128_en.htm

[3] http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/news/uk-v-cs-lobby-in-brussels-on-eu-research-cuts/2019698.article

[4] http://www.sciencebusiness.net/news/76989/Big-guns-of-UK-universities-lobby-against-research-cuts-in-Brussels

[5] http://horizon2020projects.com/policy-research/commission-faces-juncker-plan-backlash-by-research-community/

[6] http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-14-2128_en.htm

[7] http://ec.europa.eu/priorities/jobs-growth-investment/plan/docs/efsi_qa_en.pdf

 [8] http://www.euractiv.com/sections/energy/meps-back-ringfencing-juncker-plan-money-single-vote-313766

 

The post Horizon 2020: EU investment offensive or offensive investment? appeared first on Ideas on Europe.