European Union

President Donald Tusk said Friday (28 June) the EU was "closer" to finding a compromise over the bloc's top jobs but an immediate breakthrough should not be expected ahead of a crunch Brussels summit.

EU environment ministers met on Wednesday (26 June) to take stock of how a landmark climate deal fell short of a final agreement last week. Signs now suggest that the European Council will stick to its end-of-year deadline and Poland will finally get on board.

After the Pope backed a carbon tax to stem global warming earlier this month, Louise Sunderland argues carbon taxes will be efficient and cost-effective enough only when coupled with a strategic use of the revenues.

Facts and figures on EU farming policy.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel's office sought to calm nerves after she suffered a second bout of uncontrolled trembling in just over a week, saying the veteran leader was en route to Osaka on Thursday (27 June) as planned for the G20 summit.

Written by Lieve Van Woensel with Richelle Boone,

© Maxuser / Shutterstock.com

What if blockchain revolutionised voting? What if your emotions were tracked to spy on you? And what if we genetically engineered an entire species? Science and policy are intricately connected. Via monthly ‘What if’ publications, the Scientific Foresight Unit (STOA; part of the European Parliamentary Research Service) draws Members of the European Parliament’s attention to new scientific and technological developments relevant for policy-making. The unit also provides administrative support to the Panel for the Future of Science and Technology (STOA), which brings together 25 Members from nine different parliamentary committees who share a strong interest in science and technology in the context of policy-making.

Science, policy and society influence each other in many ways. For instance, scientific developments often give us new ideas about ourselves and our place in the world. These new ideas might change our expectations and moral standards, and might therefore call for a revision of established policies. Furthermore, new technological innovations and possible solutions to societal challenges put forward by scientists can only be implemented through policy. Scientific results and technological innovations could also spark new problems, dangers or ethical concerns. It is up to policy-makers (in interaction with scientists and societal actors) to address, mitigate and regulate those cases. Policy-makers however do not only deal with the products of scientific endeavour, they also have the power to prioritise certain fields of research and development, and to steer scientific practice by (binding) rules or (voluntary) ethical codes. The decisions made in all these types of science–policy interaction can be highly political.

Science and policy mainly meet at the agenda-setting and consultation stages of policy-making. In the agenda-setting phase, scientists (or others) highlight new scientific and technological developments that call for legislation or ethical regulation; the need for mitigation of certain rules limiting scientific freedom; or a detected pressing issue in society or nature, such as the need for new work skills or strategies to combat climate change. In the consultation phase, policy-makers might turn to scientific advisors for policy advice concerning research topics scientists are working on, such as the safety of artificial colorants in food. Looking to science for inspiration and information contributes to evidence-informed policy-making. It should however be noted that evidence-informed decisions are in the end always the result of a negotiation between such scientific input on the one hand, and the societal/political context on the other.

To support Members’ work in the agenda-setting phase, the Scientific Foresight Unit (STOA), prepares, among other things, monthly ‘What if’ publications to help Members detect new and interesting developments in the fields of science and technology. These publications cover both current developments that might spark immediate policy action and possible future developments that demand reflection today. Such considerations about future possibilities could, for instance, elucidate current debates, or make sure the first elements of an ethical framework are in place when a potentially disruptive new technology actually arrives, or they could be used to decide if a developing technology or strand of research should preferably be stimulated or even halted. To create the ‘What if’ publications, the Scientific Foresight Unit investigates the current state of a development and employs foresight methodology to map potential impacts on society and wider developments, and to list possible anticipatory policy options for Members.

Potential impacts and developments

As mentioned above, each ‘What if’ publication includes an overview of potential societal impacts and wider developments of the scientific or technological innovation in question. These include, for example, possible future advances, existing and future applications, ethical and societal concerns, normative challenges and probable consequences for daily life, uncertainties, risks and dangers, philosophical considerations, and new types of questions, specific to the particular technology. Both intended and possible unintended applications of a new technology are listed. Unintended applications could for instance include cases of dual-use, of the technology ‘falling into the wrong hands’, of unexpected side effects relevant to some stakeholders, or of creative uses in new domains, such as the use of drones to deliver commercial goods. By examining the potential impacts of a scientific or technological development from many angles (from social, technological, economic, environmental, political/legal, ethical and demographic viewpoints), and by taking many stakeholders’ perspectives into account, the Scientific Foresight Unit tries to make the analyses as complete as possible. Of course, some impacts and developments will always remain unforeseen.

Taking for instance the three ‘What if’ publications referred to in the introduction of this paper: each of the technologies mentioned would bring both opportunities and risks. Applying blockchain technology, for example, can speed up elections and reduce the risk of fraud, which would reduce costs and possibly lead to higher voter turnouts. However, to build a strong democracy, the whole electorate – even those disappointed with the result – must accept that the voting process was legitimate and reliable. It is not yet clear whether an intricate blockchain process can inspire enough public confidence. Moving on to the next kind of innovation, facial recognition technology can have many kinds of applications in many different fields, especially when it is combined with emotion recognition: it could identify potential shoplifters, track mental health, personalise marketing, facilitate faster entrance to events, or provide a patient’s medical history in emergency situations. The technology comes, however, with many ethical dilemmas, for example: what if it were used by state authorities or malicious employers to carry out mass surveillance, tracking peoples’ moves and emotions without their consent? And, finally, gene-drive technology – the technology that could be used to genetically engineer an entire species, by introducing a modified gene that easily spreads through a population – could be used to eradicate malaria, to fight invasive species that cost the European economy billions of euros, or to decrease resistance to pesticides or herbicides in pests and weeds. However, at the same time, hostile nations could turn gene-drive technology into a biological weapon by targeting species key to European ecosystems, such as bees.

Anticipatory policy-making

As impact and development analyses show: the introduction of a new scientific idea or a new technology can lead to many different futures, depending on the way in which the innovation is implemented and spread. The Scientific Foresight Unit (STOA) maps these different futures and identifies policy options for stimulating desirable futures and avoiding undesirable ones. Of course STOA analysts remain neutral, and it is up to Members to decide which futures they consider desirable or undesirable. Returning to our three examples: for blockchain voting procedures, the ‘What if?’ publication illustrated that the process would have to comply with various areas of European law, such as data protection for voters; to secure transparency and fairness in facial recognition technology, the paper underlined the option for Parliament’s Members and committees to play an active role in EU institutions’ efforts to formulate regulations and guidelines for artificial intelligence; and on gene-drive technology, the ‘What if?’ paper highlighted scientists’ calls for an appropriate risk assessment framework and a ban on for-profit exploitation.

To facilitate Members’ and committees’ preparations for policy action, STOA offers a wide range of services. Members can, for instance, apply for an extensive technology assessment or foresight study, or request a workshop on their topic of interest. Experience during the eighth parliamentary term proves that these services can be very effective: the STOA foresight study on the ‘Ethics of cyber-physical systems‘ contributed substantially to the February 2017 Parliament resolution on ‘Civil law rules on robotics‘.

Read this ‘at a glance’ on ‘What if policy anticipated advances in science and technology?‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Listen to podcast ‘What if policy anticipated advances in science and technology?‘.

The top British civil servant in charge of no-deal Brexit planning has quit, the Guardian revealed on Thursday. Tom Shinner was director of policy and delivery coordination at the Department for Exiting the EU. The likelihood of a no-deal Brexit on 31 October has increased significantly, with both candidates to replace Theresa May as prime minister, Boris Johnson and Jeremy Hunt, refusing to rule it out.

Top French, German and British diplomats were meeting with the US envoy for Iran in Paris on Thursday (27 June) in a bid to salvage the Iran nuclear deal which the Trump administration has abandoned, amid continuing tensions between Washington and Tehran.

Tobacco company British American Tobacco sponsored the popular Playbook newsletter this week - saying it is not against the law because the advertisements were not about specific products. Now the Belgian authorities are preparing to investigate.

For all the ink spilled on whether the Spitzenkandidaten process will survive and speculation over the name of the next European Commission president, for real political junkies in Brussels, the action is somewhere else.

Cyprus is seeing a major increase in the number of migrants from third countries arriving from Turkey, with the tacit approval of Ankara, Cypriot interior minister, Constantinos Petrides, told a group of Brussels journalists on Thursday (27 June).

Facebook has agreed to hand over the identification data of French users suspected of hate speech on its platform to judges, France’s minister for digital affairs Cedric O said on Tuesday (25 June).

EDA’s Steering Board in Capability Directors composition today endorsed the first edition of the Strategic Context Cases (SCC) which will guide the practical implementation of the 11 EU Capability Development Priorities approved by EDA Member States in June 2018. The SCC should ensure the priorities are implemented in a way that improves the coherence of the European capability landscape and leads to cooperative projects which contribute to close identified capability shortfalls.

The 11 SCC – one for every priority agreed last year (*) – describe in concrete terms what the current capability situation is, including the activities planned or already ongoing at national and/or multinational level in order to address the shortfalls. The outcomes of the NATO Defence Planning Process and the activities undertaken in the context of the Framework Nations Concept (FNC) are also taken into account in order to ensure coherence of output and avoid unnecessary duplication.

The SCC highlight in particular the major challenges to the coherence of the European capability landscape in each of these areas in the short, medium and long term. “We all know that there are pressing capability challenges across the whole spectrum. For example, there is a growing threat from the use of mini-drones to our military forces”, EDA Chief Executive Jorge Domecq commented. “The SCC will provide concrete and tangible gains across the Member States in addressing this issue in the short, medium and long term”. They also provide guidance to address these challenges by offering ‘avenues of approach’ for potential cooperation between participating Member States that could help achieve the priorities and improve the coherence of the European capability landscape.

The SCC are integrating documents: each of them also reflects the R&T priorities identified in the Overarching Strategic Research Agenda (OSRA) and related R&T activities linked to each capability priority. Cross references of the SCC to the Key Strategic Activities (KSA) which are considered important for the implementation of the priority such as technologies, skills and industrial manufacturing capacities will be added once the KSA reports are approved by the Steering Board.

To prepare the SCC, EDA worked closely with Member States, the EU Military Committee (EUMC), the EU Military Staff (EUMS) and European industry which was consulted to collect their views on technological solutions to close identified capability gaps and face the new security challenges. The Agency also ran staff to staff meetings with NATO to ensure activities developed by participating Member States within NATO are correctly reflected.

The next step in the elaboration of the first edition of the SCC will happen in February 2020 when EDA will present to the Steering Board part two of the SCC containing roadmaps of ongoing capability development activities and possible new ones which, subject to the necessary ad-hoc decisions by Member States, could be taken forward in the Agency framework. The SCC are living documents and will be updated by EDA over time, also on the basis of Member States’ feedback, to make sure they always reflect the latest developments in the implementation of each and every priority.
 

Background

In June 2018, the EDA Steering Board in Capability Directors formation endorsed the 2018 Capability Development Plan (CDP) and approved the 2018 EU Capability Development Priorities. In their Council conclusions adopted on 25 June 2018, Member States agreed that “these priorities, as a key reference for Member States' and EU's capability development, will inform CARD, PESCO and the European Defence Fund, which bring a step-change in defence cooperation, thus contributing to coherence among these three distinct but mutually reinforcing initiatives”. The June 2018 Steering Board also tasked the Agency to start the preparatory work for the implementation of the 2018 EU Capability Development Priorities, including with a view to the elaboration of SCC. In November 2018, the Steering Board tasked the Agency to proceed with the development of the SCC and to come up with a first edition by June 2019. Endorsed by the Steering Board, the SCC will now be forwarded to the Council as agreed by the Member States in the Council conclusions of 17 June 2019.
 

More information: 

• 2018 EU Capability Development Priorities (EDA brochure)
• CDP factsheet

 

(*) The 11 EU Capability Development Priorities approved by Member States in 2018 relate to the following domains:

• Ground Combat Capabilities
• Enhanced Logistic and Medical Supporting Capabilities
• Naval Manoeuvrability
• Underwater Control contributing to resilience at Sea
• Air Superiority
• Air Mobility
• Integration of Military Air Capabilities in a changing Aviation Sector
• Enabling capabilities for cyber responsive operation
• Space-based information and communication services
• Information Superiority
• Cross-Domain Capabilities contributing to achieve EU’s Level of Ambition. 

 

 

France's independent advisory council on climate has highlighted the relevance of the country's carbon neutrality objective but considered it far from being a concrete reality as carbon emissions continue to be on the rise. EURACTIV France reports.

The European Union should establish a type of “Marshall plan” to support the sustainability of the bloc’s media sector, experts and MEPs said during an event organized by Fondation EURACTIV on Tuesday (25 June).

For Russia, the Council of Europe's surrender to its demands is a huge foreign policy success. For the council, it is a disaster.

Under Manfred Weber's leadership, the European People's Party in February forced through a secret ballot trying to derail more transparency at the European Parliament. Now, Weber is wondering why people perceive the EU as a black box.

The Finnish presidency will draw up scenarios on hybrid attacks, for EU home affairs and finance ministers to practice decision-making when facing acute threats.

The UK continues to entertain the prospect of replacing the Irish backstop with technological alternatives, but one of its leading proponents admitted to MPs on Wednesday (26 June) that he could not provide a precise estimate on the cost of these alternatives.

Craeynest and Others
Environment and consumers
National courts have jurisdiction to review the choice of location of air quality measuring stations and to take all necessary measures against the national authority concerned