European Parliamentary Research Service Blog

Citizens are asking what are the main common rules and national provisions for electing Members of the European Parliament. The procedures for electing Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) are governed both by European Union (EU) legislation, which defines certain rules common to all Member States, and by provisions specific to each Member State.

Common rules

© Momius / Fotolia

Common rules for electing MEPs are defined in Article 14 of the Treaty on European Union, Articles 20, 22 and 223 of the Treaty on the functioning of the European Union, Article 39 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and the Act of 20 September 1976, amended in 2018, concerning the election of the representatives of the Assembly by direct universal suffrage.

The main common rules include:

• Representation of the EU’s citizens shall be digressively proportional, with a minimum threshold of 6 members per Member State and a maximum of 96 seats. The overall total number of seats shall not exceed 751.
• MEPs shall be elected for a term of 5 years by direct universal suffrage in a free and secret ballot.
• MEPs shall be elected on the basis of proportional representation, using the list system or the single transferable vote, where the voter has one vote, but can rank the candidates.
• Elections to the European Parliament are held within the same period in all Member States, starting on a Thursday morning and ending on the following Sunday, with the exact date and times being fixed by each Member State.
• Member States may provide for the possibilities of advance voting, postal voting, and electronic and internet voting. They shall ensure the reliability of the result, secrecy of the vote and protection of personal data. Member States shall take the necessary measures to ensure the prevention of double voting.

Furthermore, Directive 93/109/EC lays down detailed arrangements for the exercise of the right to vote and stand as a candidate in elections to the European Parliament for citizens of the Union residing in a Member State of which they are not nationals.

National provisions

In addition to the common rules, Member States set up their own provisions. For instance, Member States may establish constituencies for elections to the European Parliament and/or may set a minimum threshold for the allocation of seats. At the national level, this threshold may not exceed 5 % of valid votes cast.

Voting is compulsory in five Member States (Belgium, Bulgaria, Luxembourg, Cyprus and Greece): both nationals and registered non-national EU citizens are under a legal obligation to vote.

Other matters are also governed by national provisions, such as the minimum voting age or the minimum age for standing as a candidate.

More information

The ‘2019 European elections: National rules‘ infographic provides an overview of the national provisions for electing MEPs.

More information is available on the European Parliament website, in the section entitled ‘EU fact sheets – The European Parliament: electoral procedures‘.

The ‘European elections‘ section of the ‘Your Europe‘ website offers further insight into the various aspects of the European elections.

Continue to put your questions to the Citizens’ Enquiries Unit (Ask EP). We reply to you in the EU language that you use to write to us.

Written by Ralf Drachenberg,

fotolia

On 25 November 2018, EU Heads of State or Government are scheduled to meet for a special European Council to endorse the Brexit withdrawal agreement and approve a political declaration on future EU-UK relations accompanying the withdrawal agreement. This briefing outlines the main elements of the withdrawal agreement, notably the solution to the Irish border issue. It also provides an overview of the European Council’s deliberations and guidance regarding the Article 50 negotiations to date, as well an outlook of the next steps towards ratifying the agreement.

1. European Council meeting 25 November 2018

On 14 November 2018, the EU and UK negotiators agreed on a draft Article 50 withdrawal agreement, which was subsequently approved by the UK government. The EU’s chief negotiator, Michel Barnier, announced that ‘decisive progress’ had been achieved. Achieving sufficient progress in the eyes of the EU, was set as a condition, at the October 2018 European Council, for holding a special European Council meeting. Consequently, the President of the European Council, Donald Tusk, called for a special European Council (Article 50) meeting on 25 November 2018, with the aim being to ‘finalise and formalise the Brexit agreement’. This includes endorsing the draft withdrawal agreement and the draft political declaration outlining the future EU-UK relationship.

2. Draft withdrawal agreement

The draft withdrawal agreement comprises 185 articles, and has three protocols (on Gibraltar, the UK base areas in Cyprus, and Ireland/Northern Ireland) and numerous annexes. It addresses the main issues (see Table 1), such as citizens’ rights, the financial settlement, and governance of the withdrawal agreement, as well as a number of other areas, and provides for a transition period.

Table 1: Main agreements on priority issues in the withdrawal agreement

Priority issue Main solution Citizens’ rights EU citizens in the UK and UK citizens in the EU retain the right to stay and continue their current activities. Financial settlement The EU and UK will meet the financial commitments which were agreed while the UK was a member of the EU. Governance of the agreement Disputes regarding the interpretation of the withdrawal agreement will initially be dealt with by a Joint Committee (comprising representatives of the EU and UK) responsible for the implementation of the withdrawal agreement.

If no resolution is found, the issue can be referred to an arbitration panel (in cases not involving EU law). The decision of the panel is binding on the UK and EU. The Court of Justice of the European Union is the ultimate authority for issues related to EU law. Protocol on Northern Ireland and Ireland Includes a ‘backstop’ solution which would establish a common EU-UK customs territory, thus ensuring there will be no hard border on the island of Ireland and more broadly ensuring mutual respect for the provisions of the Good Friday agreement. Transition period As it stands, the transition period will end on 31 December 2020. The transition can be extended only once, for a limited period of time, and such a decision must be taken before 1 July 2020 by the Joint Committee. The Irish ‘backstop’ solution

The Irish ‘backstop’ was one of the most difficult subjects for negotiators to reach agreement on. From the outset, preventing the creation of a hard border on the island of Ireland was a core priority for the EU. This can be seen in the guidelines for Brexit negotiations, adopted by the European Council (Article 50) on 29 April 2017, outlining the main EU priorities. In the draft withdrawal agreement, the ‘backstop’ solution would only come into play after the transition period (including any extension) has ended, and if a better solution had not been agreed by then.

If the ‘backstop’ were to be used, the UK would leave the single market but remain in a single EU-UK customs territory. Such a customs arrangement would facilitate free trade by ensuring both the EU and UK apply the same import duties on goods entering either area. This means goods can then travel freely between the EU and UK. There would be no checks on rules of origin between the EU and UK, because the UK would align its rules to those of the customs union. The UK would comply with state aid and competition rules, and maintain current international and EU standards on goods. Existing checks at airports and ports on agricultural products would be increased. Northern Ireland would remain part of the UK’s VAT area but would remain aligned to the EU VAT rules with respect to goods. By contrast, the concept of the single market has a broader scope, including the free movement of goods, services, capital and people. Being closely linked to the customs union would, however, make it more difficult for the UK to agree trade deals with third countries, since it would have to maintain EU and international standards and could not apply lower customs tariffs or have different rules of origin on products from third countries.

The backstop provides an ‘insurance policy’ for the EU to avoid the possibility of a hard border at any point on the island of Ireland, as indicated by the Taoiseach, Leo Varadkar. This was also confirmed by Michel Barnier: ‘This backstop is not meant to be used. Our objective remains to reach a new agreement between the EU and the UK before the end of the transition.’

3. The European Council and the negotiation process

Timeline and key milestones of European Council involvement

Following the UK referendum on EU membership, the Heads of State or Government of the EU-27 have met regularly, first informally, often in the margins of regular European Council meetings, and later, after the triggering of Article 50, in the European Council (Article 50) format, where they have reviewed the process and provided guidance when appropriate.

Procedural arrangements

Table 2: Responsibilities of the different EU institutions in the negotiation process

EU institution Involvement / responsibilities European Council Adopted guidelines defining the negotiation framework, setting out the overall position and principles of the EU in the negotiations. Updated the guidelines in the course of negotiations as necessary. General Affairs Council invited to swiftly adopt the decision authorising the opening of negotiations. General Affairs Council Adopted negotiating directives, inter alia, setting out the arrangements governing the relationship between the Council, its preparatory bodies and the Union negotiator. Ensured that negotiations are conducted in line with the European Council guidelines and provided guidance to the Union’s negotiator. Amended or supplemented negotiating directives as necessary. Council, Coreper, and dedicated working party Ensured that negotiations are conducted in line with European Council guidelines and Council negotiating directives, and provided guidance to Union negotiator. Presidency of the Council Informed, and exchanged views with the European Parliament before and after each General Affairs Council meeting European Commission Made recommendations to Council on the decision authorising the opening of negotiations. Acts as the Union’s negotiator. Included a representative of the rotating presidency of the Council in the negotiation team. Invited representatives of the President of the European Council to attend and support all negotiation sessions alongside Commission staff. Systematically reported to the European Council, the Council and its preparatory bodies. Kept the European Parliament closely and regularly informed. European Parliament Representatives of the European Parliament invited to participate in the preparatory meetings of the representatives of the 27 Heads of State or Governments (Sherpas / Permanent Representatives). European Parliament President invited to be heard at the start of European Council meetings. NB: The members of the European Council, the Council and its preparatory bodies representing the United Kingdom do not participate in the discussions or in the decisions concerning it.

At their informal meeting in December 2016, EU-27 Heads of State or Government and the Presidents of the European Council and Commission issued a statement, outlining procedural arrangements for the Article 50 TEU negotiation process with the United Kingdom. Donald Tusk described the organisational structure of the negotiation process on the EU’s side as ‘the European Council maintaining political control over the process and the Commission as the Union’s negotiator’. He justified the limited role of the European Parliament in the negotiation process, pointing to the specific roles of the various European institutions.

At the first formal meeting of the European Council (Article 50) of the EU-27 on 29 April 2017, EU leaders took a united stance on the main priorities for the Article 50 negotiations, namely to i) guarantee EU and UK citizens’ rights, ii) settle the UK’s financial obligations to the EU, and iii) avoid a hard border between Ireland and Northern Ireland. They agreed on a phased approach for the negotiations, i.e. the negotiations on the future relationship with the UK could only start once sufficient progress had been made on the three priority issues.

4. Recent and next steps

Following the agreement between EU and UK negotiators on 14 November 2018, various steps have been taken to prepare for the special European Council (Article 50) meeting on 25 November. Afterwards both the UK Parliament and the European Parliament will debate and vote on the draft withdrawal agreement, before the Council can conclude the agreement from the EU side.

Read this briefing on ‘Outlook for the special European Council (Article 50), 25 November 2018‘ on the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Written by Eamonn Noonan,

Telemaco Signorini, “Mercato Vecchio a Firenze”

Machiavelli wrote about the difficulty of spotting evils before they hatch; this is a good reason to build expertise about developments in the world around us. A new EPRS publication does this by analysing economic and social trends to 2035. It does not shy away from coming challenges.

By 2035, the EU-27 may not be among the world’s three biggest economies. This reflects not only China’s rise, but also that of India. However, the rapid growth of emerging economies can benefit European industry; the EU has already adjusted to the rise of China.

At the same time, liberal and democratic values may have a reduced role in shaping global governance. Europe faces a future in which it will have less scope to shape international events. Hopes that prosperity would lead China towards democracy and a market economy have been dashed. One issue to watch is whether China will come to accept the free movement of capital; this would complicate central control of its economy.

New insights

Several of the EPRS study’s insights deserve wider consideration.

• Over time, the internal market may become less important for the EU than external markets.
• The leading high tech firms enjoy extremely high profit margins, compared to manufacturing industry generally.
• While artificial intelligence and blockchain dominate the headlines, the search for transformative breakthroughs in quantum computing deserves closer consideration.
• The EU’s efforts for a green energy shift may mean that EU emissions fall to less than one tenth of the global total – but the EU will have limited influence on what happens with the other 90 %.
• The rapid expansion of generating capacity in emerging economies may mean long-term dependence on fossil fuels.

Increasing inequality: perception and reality

A data-driven and nuanced analysis of inequality both within and between countries provides several important insights. As a generalised trend, an increase in inequality throughout the EU cannot be confirmed; but perceptions of inequality have their own significance. There are strong differences between developments in Europe and in the United States, where the influential Harvard economist Ken Rogoff recently concluded that ‘We live in an era of rising inequality and falling income shares for labour relative to capital. Governments need to do more, not less, to redistribute income and wealth.’

There has been some convergence towards greater prosperity between regions in the EU. Several newer Member States have done especially well. But progress is not automatic, and North-South convergence has been lacking. The study emphasises the role of education and investment in R&D in promoting stronger growth. It also notes that strong governance (including low corruption and fair taxation) is key to better outcomes.

Trend spotting and scenario development

The study also includes an exercise in text analysis, in order to identify new trends. One finding is that the term ‘income inequality’ only came to the fore in the present decade. It is tempting to see this as an outcome of the 2008 financial crisis.

Following a close look at major trends, the study addresses different future scenarios. Among these, the outliers are low growth and low convergence, and high growth and high convergence. This chapter includes a look at the economic policy implications of populist parties entering government in EU Member States.

Building a culture of foresight

This study is part of a broader effort to develop foresight capacity for the European Parliament. It was commissioned by EPRS and drawn up by the Centre for European Policy Studies. Daniel Gros is lead author, with Cinzia Alcidi leading a strong team of co-authors. The work complements earlier work produced or supervised by the Global Trends Unit, including the external ‘Geopolitics and international power’ study and three editions of the EPRS Global Trendometer.

This new publication offers Members of the European Parliament an up-to-date view of global economic and social trends, and a glimpse of their implications for the EU over the coming decades.

Further Reading

• Global Trends to 2035 – Economy and Society, November 2018
• ‘Global Trends to 2035’ Geo-politics and international power, September 2017
• Global Trendometer – Essays on medium- and long-term global trends, July 2018
• Global Trendometer: Essays on medium- and long-term global trends, Summer 2017
• Global Trendometer, October 2016

Written by Cemal Karakas,

© European Union, 2018

Research and innovation have become indispensable elements in many areas of our daily lives, including health and wellbeing (e.g. radiotherapy, vaccinations), the search for a sustainable environment (e.g. weather forecasts, solar energy), safety and security (e.g. tsunami alerts, biometric border control) and end-user products (e.g. smart phones, e-cars).

Despite the correlation between research, development, innovation and competitiveness, when it comes to international comparisons, most Member States lag behind the ‘Barcelona target’ to invest 3 % of national gross domestic product (GDP) in scientific research and innovation. Better coordination of transnational research activities and the completion of the European Research Area (ERA) could benefit the EU economy by an extra €16 billion per year.

The instruments, governance and scope of the framework programmes (FP) for research have changed dramatically over time. These changes include the development of public-public and public-private partnerships, the establishment of the European Research Council (ERC) and the European Institute for Innovation and Technology (EIT), and the introduction of specific instruments for small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), as well as individual mobility grants.

To date, the current FP, Horizon 2020, has supported over 18 000 projects with more than €31 billion in funding. Nevertheless, Horizon 2020 has shortcomings, including complex procedures, a high administrative burden, a lack of flexibility when it comes to reacting to unforeseen circumstances, and insufficient synergies with other EU funds and public interventions and/or private finance.

Read the complete briefing on ‘Research and innovation in the EU: Evolution, achievements, challenges‘ on the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Written by Martina Prpic,

© jcomp / Fotolia

Although on the EU agenda for decades, recent events, such as the migration crisis and the issues with the rule of law in some Member States, have brought the issue of values back into focus. EU values are those of inclusion, freedom and respect for diversity, including religion. Freedom of religion and belief has significant protections in the EU and under the international legal framework.

Religion, represented by churches, religious communities and other actors, is also a significant factor in the protection and promotion of human rights, both in the world and in the European Union. International human rights bodies have even formalised the participation of religious actors, mostly through exchanges and dialogues, and the European Union is no exception. Its Article 17 Dialogue with churches, religious and philosophical organisations offers an opportunity for those groups to make their voices heard at EU level. Religious actors have made significant contributions in, for example, migration, deradicalisation, social justice and education for tolerance.

However, the role of religion in the human rights arena is sometimes perceived as challenging, since some religious actors and some secular human rights actors may not see eye-to-eye in some areas. Experts therefore suggest that it is important to maintain that all human rights have equal worth, that everyone who may be affected by the issue is included in the dialogue, and to try to find a compromise that will not alienate any party from further cooperation.

Read the complete briefing on ‘Religion and human rights‘ on the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Written by Philip Boucher,

© 2018 EU-EP/DB

At the STOA-ESMH workshop ‘How to win Elections: Reflections on the use and misuse of technology in electoral campaigns’, a full house of parliamentarians, journalists and citizens heard a panel of distinguished scholars and practitioners discuss the role of technology and analytical techniques in contemporary election campaigns. While many criticisms of these technologies have been discussed since the Cambridge Analytica scandal, it is important to remember that technology has also made more direct communications possible between politicians and citizens and that, in theory, the internet could provide the building blocks for greater transparency, accessibility and accountability.

In her welcoming address Eva Kaili (S&D, Greece), MEP and STOA Chair, emphasised the role of STOA and its newly established European Science-Media Hub (ESMH) in informing both policy-makers and citizens. Kaili also highlighted the need for smart regulations that respond to challenges without curtailing freedoms. For example, she argued that, while it is important that citizens understand the implications of highly customised newsfeeds, if some people want to receive tailored information based upon their profiles then they should be free to do so. Chairing the event, Maria Teresa Giménez Barbat (ALDE, Spain), introduced the debate by stressing the benefits of living in contemporary democracies that are increasingly peaceful and prosperous. She also highlighted the important role of good-quality knowledge in responding to the challenges of the day, and suggested that, in the end, it is good arguments that win elections.

© 2018 EU-EP/DB

The four panellists provided a broad range of insights into how technologies and analytical techniques are deployed during election campaigns. First, Jeroen van den Hoven from Delft University of Technology outlined the challenges presented by a ‘Bermuda triangle’ of various technologies and analytical techniques that has led to crises of autonomy and truth. Echoing more established concepts such as privacy by design and ethics by design, he argued that we now need human rights, rule of law and democracy by design. While John Dewey had said that we have to reinvent democracy every day anew, van den Hoven contended that we also have to design for it every day anew. He concluded by highlighting potential initiatives, such as large-scale deliberative platforms, and invited the audience to imagine a ‘Wikipedia of opinions’.

The next speaker, Sophie Lecheler from the University of Vienna, explored how changes in the way news is produced and consumed have led to changes in citizens’ expectations, and also place new demands on the role and activities of journalists. Interestingly, her research shows that the reliance of journalists on social media actually reduces the credibility of news in the eyes of the reader. In another study of journalistic practices, she found a strong reliance on Google, in particular its first page, which she described as evidence that this search platform not only structures how the internet is presented to citizens, but also influences news production from the earliest stages.

© 2018 EU-EP/DB

The next speaker was Inès Levy, representing Liegey Muller Pons, a company that provides tech services for election campaigns, particularly to support decision-making about voter engagement and activism. For them, the message that direct communication is more effective than indirect mass communication need not lead to micro-targeted internet adverts, but back to direct human interaction. For example, they used digital tools to organise a large-scale door-to-door ‘listening exercise’ well before the French presidential election campaign, which served to mobilise and engage the activists working on the campaign, and also to understand more about the perspectives of citizens.

Long before these issues reached the mainstream, the final speaker, David Stillwell from the University of Cambridge, published an article on the power of sending personalised messages to internet users based upon personality traits inferred from data about them. While considering many of these activities useful and relatively harmless – such as book recommendation systems – he expressed concern about the lack of transparency and control over how individuals can be categorised and targeted, and also called for all advertisements to be stored in a repository so that claims and promises can be seen by everyone.

© 2018 EU-EP/DB

Following the panel presentations, an interesting discussion and Q&A took place, which highlighted a recent resolution adopted by the European Parliament on 25 October 2018 proposing a ban on profiling for electoral purposes, including the analysis of online behaviour that may reveal political preferences. While the discussions highlighted some red lines that should be respected – most notably in human rights, the rule of law, transparency and accountability – it also recognised the potential of these often maligned technologies. The challenge is to mobilise them to foster more meaningful deliberation and deeper democratic engagement.

If you missed out this time, you can access the presentations and watch the webstream of the workshop via the event page. Also, watch this space for future STOA events!

Click to view slideshow.

Written by Silvia Kotanidis,

© Cesar Andrade / Fotolia

Over more than 20 years, the European Ombudsman’s office has established a reputation and working methods that reflect the work of the three different office-holders to date. Without real power of enforcement, the Ombudsman’s strength lies in the exercise of ‘soft power’, an approach based on the idea that change within an administration comes from understanding where shortcomings occur and an openness to remedying them.

The Ombudsman’s mission pivots around the notion of ‘maladministration’, an open-ended concept that encompasses, but goes beyond, legality. Borrowing an expression from a previous Ombudsman, referring to maladministration as a ‘life beyond legality’, maladministration can be identified with those aspects of administrative behaviour which it is not necessarily possible to subject to judicial review, such as lack of transparency, negligence, delays, service-mindedness, and impartiality.

The Ombudsman can act in both a reactive and a proactive role. On the reactive side, the Ombudsman analyses complaints from citizens, companies or associations and endeavours to reach a ‘friendly solution’. If this is not possible, and maladministration is uncovered, the Ombudsman issues recommendations to address the issue, to which the European Union institutions must react within three months. If, after that, the recommendation is not accepted, the Ombudsman issues a ‘finding of maladministration’. The Ombudsman may also, however, issue recommendations where there is no clear finding of maladministration but nevertheless identifies improvements to the system to propose. In this proactive role, the Ombudsman may begin investigation on the office’s own initiative if, as the result of a complaint or from another source, occurrence of maladministration is suspected in a specific field.

The activity of the Ombudsman can be assessed based on the Ombudsman’s annual reports from 2009 to 2017, which show that the Ombudsman is most engaged regarding matters of transparency, including access to documents (20-30 %). The second area where the Ombudsman is concerned (9‑21 %) appears to be the Commission’s role as ‘guardian of the Treaties’, where the reasonableness of the exercise of that role comes into play. A further 15‑20 % of the Ombudsman’s activities concern a heterogeneous area encompassing broader administrative behaviour, while 13‑19 % concerns financial or contractual issues, such as delays in payments to suppliers. The Commission’s proactive role is also to be highlighted, as a way in which the Ombudsman can exercise a certain influential ‘political’ leverage, by highlighting a specific topic. In recent years, increased strategic use of own-initiative inquiries for issues connected with democratic enhancement and EU institutional ethics, such as accountability, integrity and transparency, can also be observed.

This paper explores possible modifications to the Ombudsman’s Statute that could range from minimal to more substantial ones. While the former could amount to consolidating some established practices, e.g. that of informing the committee responsible for an issue instead of submitting a special report to Parliament, or formalising the existence of the European Network of Ombudsmen, more substantial changes could give the Ombudsman power to refer matters to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), or to intervene in cases pending before the Court. Both these latter proposals, explored in the literature, however confront counter-arguments that depend highly on the type of Ombudsman that is ultimately desired, as attention must be paid to avoid denaturing the role of the European Ombudsman as it currently stands.

Read the complete In-depth analysis on ‘The European Ombudsman: Reflections on the role and its potential‘ on the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Written by Mihalis Kritikos,

Algorithms are step-by-step procedures for solving a problem, usually expressed in computer code as a set of instructions for a computer to follow in order to complete a task. An algorithm can be hand-coded by a programmer or generated automatically from data, as in machine learning. The latter is considered a form of artificial intelligence. Day-to-day decisions around the world are based increasingly on data science techniques powered by machine-learning algorithms. For example, the intermediary platforms that propose accommodation (AirBnB) or transport services (Uber) use algorithms extensively. At the same time, algorithms, implicitly or explicitly, are not neutral, as their design is based on value-laden judgments that can potentially have race or sex biases, for example. This raises an important question: is it possible to ensure that algorithms are ethical?

© wladimir1804 / Fotolia

Algorithms are widely employed to make decisions that have far-reaching impacts on individuals and society. They have the power, not least, to affect the distribution of social goods such as education, employment, police protection and medical care, as well as the protection of fundamental rights such as the right to life, the right to a fair trial and the presumption of innocence, the right to privacy, freedom of expression and workers’ rights. Cases such as the Volkswagen algorithm, which enabled vehicles to pass emissions tests by reducing their nitrogen oxide emissions during those tests, and policing software for pinpointing repeat offenders, which frequently appears biased against black people, are instances of how algorithms’ ethical shortcomings have led to ‘algorithmic tragedies‘.

Learning algorithms can invisibly reproduce and deepen various forms of prejudiced social classification, manifesting a new form of ‘rational discrimination‘ harming people’s life-chances. In fact, algorithms may amplify racial and gender biases as they contain the values and judgements of their human developers, who decide which data to include or exclude and how to weight each component. Biased or incomplete data can build flawed statistical models and reinforce societal biases if there are no impact assessment, audit or oversight procedures in place. Far from eradicating human biases, algorithms could magnify and entrench them, potentially leading to loss of human agency, especially if algorithms start creating new algorithms.

Thus, a 2016 ProPublica analysis of the use of automated decision-support software under the name COMPAS uncovered evidence of racial bias within the US criminal justice system. Nevertheless, US judges are increasingly using this risk assessment algorithm to ground their decisions across a range of stages in the criminal justice process. In addition, recent evidence indicates discrimination against communities of colour resulting from the use of credit-scoring systems in the US. In the case of health data, there are three ways in which bias can have an impact: human bias; bias that is introduced by design; and bias in the ways systems use the data. In the same context, the development by UK local councils, amid mounting financial pressure, of ‘predictive analytics’ systems to algorithmically identify families for attention from child services may intrude into individual privacy and reinforce the stigmatisation of certain population groups.

Challenges to the design of ethical algorithms

The embedding of ethical principles in algorithmic decision-making would have its challenges, given the proprietary nature of algorithms and the need to safeguard privacy. Certain questions need to be asked before implementing an algorithmic decision-making system. Should the ethical assumptions in the algorithm be transparent and easy for users to identify? What about the development teams that create them – are they sufficiently diverse? Will people affected by these decisions have any influence over the system? Even if algorithms were made transparent, how could they be understood by multiple stakeholders of varying technical algorithmic literacy? Could ethical principles such as fairness and the right to privacy be encoded in the system and, if so, what should those principles be and who should decide upon their choice and weighting? Do our societies have universal, moral standards that can be codified?

In response to a mounting number of news articles about the ethics of algorithms, various market solutions that offer ‘algorithmic accuracy, bias and fairness’ certification are starting to emerge, including the AI fairness toolkit, Audit-AI by Pymetrics, Facebook’s Fairness Flow and ORCAA. Recognition of the need to operationalise moral judgement for the development of autonomous vehicles and to integrate artificial moral agents that can manage complexity into new technologies has led to a series of algorithm design initiatives based on various ethical theories, such as one by the National Science Foundation. The emergence of artificial intelligence and advanced machine-learning may lead to self-driving cars being equipped with an ethical knob that could set key patterns of behaviour. IBM has meanwhile developed a new set of open-source software in order to help developers deal with black-box algorithms and understand how the artificial intelligence they use makes decisions.

What does developing ethical algorithms mean for European policy-making?

When it comes to ethical impacts of algorithmic decision-making systems, there are as yet no established certification models and procedures that could expressly address ethical considerations, including bias and transparency, in the domain of algorithms. This is partially due to a lack of existing standards on these issues to certify against. Developing ethical principles and codes for algorithms means identifying the decision-making principles and norms and the allocation of roles and responsibilities of the decision system.

The IEEE global initiative for ethical considerations in artificial intelligence and autonomous systems, the Toronto Declaration and Facebook’s Fairness Flow indicate the need to set socially oriented goals and benchmarks for the development of algorithms. Given, however, that algorithms are unstable objects of ethical scrutiny, their ethics could still be investigated via the use of algorithmic impact assessments, and ‘algorithmic audits’ may need to become a legal requirement when implementing any systems of this kind. These audits would address ethical questions, such as the legitimacy of the use of an algorithmic decision-making system in certain contexts (e.g. evidence-based sentencing or lethal weapons), and be performed by ethical committees, accreditation bodies and certification agencies.

Their aim should be to evaluate the proposed uses of algorithmic decision-making in highly sensitive and/or safety-critical application domains and investigate suspected cases of rights violations in the frame of the same technological context. Moreover, these instruments could help system developers and decision-makers revisit some of their own assumptions of what an algorithm actually is, and explain decisions in areas such as credit, for instance.

Interestingly, the requirement for data controllers to provide data subjects with ‘meaningful information about the logic involved’ in an automated decision-making process – introduced by the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) – may pave the way for the development of practical algorithmic ethics that address virtues, consequences and norms. Shedding light on the assumptions built into the algorithm or disclosing the code of the system or information about its logic demands a careful examination of the relevant rules concerning intellectual property rights that may set limits on accessibility.

To conclude, EU policy-makers have a unique opportunity to lead the world in the ethical regulation of the digital revolution, by promoting the development of a general ethical framework governing the design, implementation and development of algorithms. These should remain under human oversight and control and be responsive to bias complaints and to the findings of reports on other undesired effects.

Read this At a glance on ‘What if algorithms could abide by ethical principles?‘ on the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Written by Cemal Karakas (1st edition),

© luzitanija / Fotolia

In June 2018, the European Commission presented a legislative proposal on a European Defence Fund, including a budget allocation of €13 billion in current prices for the 2021 to 2027 period. The proposal aims to streamline and simplify the current legislation by integrating the Preparatory Action on Defence Research (research window) and the European Defence Industrial Development Programme (as one part of the capability window) into a single fund. The main aims of the fund are to foster the competitiveness and innovativeness of European defence and to contribute to the EU’s strategic autonomy. In this regard, the fund would support collaborative industrial projects; co-finance the costs of prototype development; encourage the participation of small and medium-sized enterprises; and promote projects in the framework of permanent structured cooperation. Synergies are expected with other EU initiatives in the field of cybersecurity, maritime transport, border management, Horizon Europe, the space programme and the European Peace Facility.

Versions

• November 2018: ‘European Defence Fund: Multiannual financial framework 2021-2027‘ (1st edition)

Proposal for a regulation establishing the European Defence Fund Committee responsible: Industry, Research and Energy (ITRE) COM(2018) 476
13.6.2018 Rapporteur: Zdzisław Krasnodębski (ECR, Poland) 2018/0254 (COD) Shadow rapporteurs:

 

 

  Françoise Grossetête (EPP, France)
Edouard Martin (S&D, France)
Dominique Riquet (ALDE, France)
Neoklis Sylikiotis (GUE/NGL, Cyprus)
Reinhard Bütikofer (Greens/EFA, Germany)
Fabio Massimo Castaldo (EFDD, Italy)
Christelle Lechevalier (ENF, France) Ordinary legislative procedure (COD) (Parliament and Council on equal footing – formerly ‘co-decision’) Next steps expected: Vote in committee

Written by Ionel Zamfir,

© Arpad Nagy-Bagoly / Fotolia

As the world celebrates the Universal Children’s Day on 20 November, it is important to remember that many children are still victims of grave abuses. One of these is child labour. Many children, particularly in developing countries worldwide, continue to be used in child labour, despite a comprehensive international normative framework that prohibits child labour and extensive efforts by governments, international organisations and civil society to eradicate it. It is important to distinguish ‘child labour’ – which is banned and has to be fully eradicated – from orms of work that children can acceptably perform, for example at home, or when they are training, and that contribute to their skills, development and well-being. To the contrary, ‘child labour’ is usually defined as work that deprives children of their childhood, their potential and their dignity, and that is harmful to their physical and mental development. The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), adopted by the UN General Assembly in 1989, states that children must ‘be protected from economic exploitation and from performing any work that is likely to be hazardous or to interfere with the child’s education, or to be harmful to the child’s health or physical, mental, spiritual, moral or social development’. The International Labour Organisation (ILO) has set a minimum age for admission to employment and defined the worst forms of child labour in two specific conventions: ILO Convention No 138 (1973), concerning the Minimum Age for Admission to Employment; and ILO Convention No 182 (1999), concerning the Prohibition and Immediate Action for the Elimination of the Worst Forms of Child Labour. According to the former, the minimum age for employment is 15 years (or 13 years for light work and 18 years for hazardous work). However there is a certain flexibility for developing countries. The worst forms of child labour include – besides work that is generally harmful to children – all forms of slavery or practices similar to slavery, the use of a child for prostitution or pornography, as well as the use of a child for illicit activities (such as trafficking drugs).

Child labour remains widespread. ILO estimates indicate that child labour has only slightly decreased in recent years: the proportion of children aged 5 to 17 years engaged in child labour fell by only 1 % over the 2012-2016 period, from 168 million to 151.6 million. The highest share by far of children in child labour was in Sub-Saharan Africa, with 22.4 % of 5 to 17 year-olds affected – a slight increase compared to 2012. According to ILO, ‘most child labour takes place within the family unit. More than two-thirds of all children in child labour work as contributing family labourers’. A common assumption about child labour is that it is caused by poverty. However research on the issue paints a more complex picture: in rural households, child labour is also perpetuated by social values and by its perceived value as a form of training for future adult life in rural settings.

Child labour takes place in numerous economic sectors, but it is most prevalent in agriculture. According to ILO, children usually work for small family farms and rural enterprises. This often renders their labour invisible, and therefore difficult for authorities to tackle. Children who work in the production of locally consumed agricultural products also receive less public attention than those who produce for international supply chains, such as coffee, cocoa, tobacco or cotton, where international eradication campaigns have been launched. Despite these efforts, however, child labour persists in these sectors too. According to the Cocoabarometer 2018, ‘Child labour remains at very high levels in the cocoa sector, with an estimated 2.1 million children working in cocoa fields in the Ivory Coast and Ghana alone’ (the two countries are the main producers of cocoa worldwide). Numerous voluntary initiatives have been set up to deal with the issues of child labour in global value chains, involving multinational companies, local producers, governments, NGOs and consumers. However their effectiveness is limited and disputed.

Children also work in textile factories and workshops (e.g. in South Asia), in the fishing industry (e.g. in Thailand), in mines extracting gold, diamonds and other minerals (such as cobalt in the Democratic Republic of Congo). Many of those who work outside their families are in forms of employment that amount to forced labour and enslavement, having often been trafficked and with their freedom of movement severely curtailed.

What does the EU do to fight child labour in the world?

The EU puts a special emphasis on protecting the internationally recognised rights of the child worldwide. To increase the coherence and consistency of relevant policies, the EU Council has adopted the EU Guidelines on the rights of the child, which it revised in 2017. These list the fight against the worst forms of child labour as one of their objectives. The EU also adopted Guidelines on Children and Armed Conflict in 2008.

The EU promotes respect for the rights of the child and fights child labour through its external policies. The human rights clause that is systematically included in its trade and cooperation agreements covers all human rights, including the rights of the child. The trade and sustainable development (TSD) chapters included in more recent EU trade agreements refer to the parties’ obligations under ILO norms, including those relevant to child labour. For example, the EU did not grant preferences in textile trade to Uzbekistan until the country largely eradicated child (forced) labour in cotton harvesting, in cooperation with ILO. The European Parliament blocked the initial deal in 2011, and only gave its consent in 2016, when it considered the issue as solved. The Parliament also insists that the eradication of child labour is included among the general principles that should guide the modernisation of existing EU trade agreements, e.g. with Chile.

A similar conditionality is contained in the EU’s unilateral Generalised System of Preferences (GSP), which targets developing countries. The International Convention on the Rights of the Child, as well as the ILO Conventions on minimum age, and on the prohibition of the worst forms of child labour are listed in Annex VIII of the EU GSP Regulation among the international conventions that have to be respected by beneficiary countries. Moreover, the GSP+ (a special strand of GSP providing free market access for developing countries that would otherwise not qualify) establishes a strengthened monitoring mechanism. The beneficiary countries have to ratify these conventions and comply with their reporting and monitoring obligations. Most of the countries with high prevalence of child labour benefit from EU trade preferences. This gives the EU an important leverage. The EU has for example carefully monitored the issue of child labour in the GSP+ countries, highlighting child labour in its 2018 reports as an issue of concern in Bolivia, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, and the Philippines.

The European Union also supports third country ratification and implementation of the three relevant international conventions by political and diplomatic means. The EU cooperates with international organisations competent in the area. The EU further supports the elimination of child labour through development cooperation, for example in the employment and education sectors Financing programmes that address the particularly worrying situation of children in armed conflicts is another EU priority, seeking the release of child soldiers, and their comprehensive and successful reintegration. Moreover, the EU promotes responsible business conduct. According to Directive 2014/95/EU on non-financial reporting, from 2018 large EU companies are required to report on their policies on respect for human rights.

The European Parliament has addressed the issue of child labour in numerous resolutions urging the states concerned to take appropriate measures and the European Union to provide support. In a resolution of February 2018, the Parliament addressed the issue of widespread forced child labour in Haiti, urging the country’s authorities to implement measures to end this practice. In a 2017 resolution on EU priorities for the UN Human Rights Council sessions in 2017, the EP called on the EU to promote children’s rights by eliminating child labour. With respect to global supply chains, the Parliament supports the establishment of binding obligations on EU based companies that import goods that may have been produced with child labour. The EP has urged the European Commission to consider a legislative proposal on establishing a traceability mechanism to make sure goods imported into the EU are free of child labour and to ban those which are not.

Written by Katarzyna Sochacka and Clare Ferguson,

© European Union 2018 – Source : EP

The highlights of the November I plenary session were the debate on the future of Europe with Angela Merkel, Chancellor of Germany, as well as the debate and vote on the interim report on the Multiannual Financial Framework 2021-2027. Parliament also held debates on floods in Europe; regulating virtual currencies and initial coin offerings; and EU resilience in the face of foreign actors’ potential attempts to influence the upcoming EP election campaign. Cyril Ramaphosa, President of South Africa addressed the Parliament in a formal sitting. Members debated HR/VP Federica Mogherini’s statements on the future of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, Central American migrants at the Mexican border, and the effects of US sanctions on Iran for European companies. Parliament voted on legislative proposals, inter alia, on energy efficiency; promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources; on the European Electronic Communications Code and BEREC; and on rail passengers’ rights and obligations. Members adopted reports on the implementation of the EU Agreements with Georgia and Moldova, and voted on reports on humanitarian visas and on the implementation of the EU Common Position on arms exports. The 2018 Lux Prize, which promotes European cinema, makes promising films accessible to a wider audience and encourages debate on values and social issues across Europe, was awarded to ‘Woman at war’ (Kona fer í stríð), by Icelandic director Benedikt Erlingsson.

Interim report on the multiannual financial framework 2021-2027

Members discussed and adopted the interim report on the Commission’s proposals for a new multiannual financial framework for 2021-2027, which sets out the next EU budget. In the light of the commitments the EU has already undertaken, the report criticises the proposal to cut the EU’s resources as a share of post-Brexit EU-27 GNI to 1.3 %. However, it also welcomes the opportunities to increase financial flexibility and the move towards ambitious reform of EU resources and revenue. On the basis of the position agreed during the session, Parliament is ready to begin negotiations with the Council with the aim of adopting the new MFF before the May 2019 elections.

Implementation of the EU-Georgia and EU-Moldova Association Agreements

During a joint debate, Parliament discussed and adopted two reports on implementation of the EU Association Agreements with Georgia and Moldova. Parliament’s Foreign Affairs (AFET) Committee reported that implementation of the 2014 Association Agreement with Georgia is largely positive. While dealing with some foreign interference from both Russia and Turkey, Georgia is nevertheless making good progress on rule of law and human rights issues, with some exceptions regarding high-level corruption and the protection of vulnerable groups. Moldova, a priority country for Parliament’s democracy support within the Eastern Partnership, on the other hand, appears to be seeing some serious backsliding on democratic values and electoral reform.

Clean energy package

Preparing the governance of the energy union to face the challenges of climate change and meeting international commitments on reducing emissions was the subject of a joint debate on the clean energy package for the EU. Following negotiations between the EU institutions, Members approved compromise agreements regarding three proposals, which include a binding 32 % target for use of energy from renewable sources by 2030, indicative targets on national contributions and on a 32.5 % improvement in energy efficiency and the governance of the energy union.

The European Electronic Communications Code and BEREC

Parliament discussed and adopted a package of telecoms proposals to establish a European Electronic Communications Code and develop the mandate of the corresponding regulatory body, (known as BEREC). The proposed lighter regulatory regime seeks to boost investment in high-capacity networks, improve use of radio frequencies, and provide access to broadband services for all citizens, as well as reinforcing consumer protection. A cap on charges inside the EU has already been agreed.

Multiannual plan for Adriatic fisheries

Parliament adopted its position on a proposed multiannual plan for Adriatic fisheries. Overfishing has exhausted anchovy and sardine stocks in the Adriatic, and current fisheries management is criticised as ineffective. Parliament’s Committee on Fisheries (PECH) opposed Commission proposals for radical changes to setting allowable catches, preferring instead to strengthen current measures.

Rail passengers’ rights and obligations

Members discussed a Transport and Tourism Committee (TRAN) report on Commission proposals to strengthen rail passengers’ rights and obligations that deal with the difficulties of obtaining compensation when booking parts of a journey with different carriers, as well as others, such as accessibility and assistance. Carriers’ rights to claim force majeure have been the subject of disagreement to date. As Members endorsed the report, backing strengthened passenger rights, higher compensation rates and better assistance to persons with reduced mobility, this fixes Parliament’s position for interinstitutional negotiations, once Council reaches its position.

Mobilisation of the European Union Solidarity Fund for Latvia

Parliament approved a decision on mobilisation of the European Union Solidarity Fund to provide assistance to Latvia. The country will receive some €17 730 519 for reconstruction of the regions affected in floods in 2017, subsequently qualified as a ‘major natural disaster’.

Implementation of the EU Common Position on arms export

Members adopted a resolution calling for strict interpretation and full implementation of the EU Common Position on arms export. The EU’s unique position ensures transparency and information-sharing on conventional arms exports by setting common minimum standards for Member States to assess export licence applications for military technology and equipment. The motion calls for increased parliamentary and public oversight of national arms exports from the EU.

Humanitarian visas

Members discussed a call for a Commission proposal on a system of humanitarian visas in the EU, to give people a clear procedure to follow when in need of international protection. Parliament voted 349 in favour of and 199 against (with 47 abstentions) the resolution, thus not reaching the absolute majority required by Article 225 TFEU. Despite protestations, the President rejected the request to re-run the vote.

Opening of trilogue negotiations

Four parliamentary committee decisions (from EMPL, ECON, IMCO, INTA) to enter into interinstitutional (trilogue) negotiations were confirmed. Only one vote was held, on an EMPL committee report on transparent and predictable working conditions, where the committee’s decision to enter into interinstitutional negotiations was approved.

Read this ‘At a glance’ note on ‘Plenary round-up – Strasbourg, November I 2018‘ on the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

With European elections coming up in May 2019, you probably want to know how the European Union impacts your daily life, before you think about voting. In the latest in a series of posts on what Europe does for you, your family, your business and your wellbeing, we look at what Europe does for Supporters of value-driven trade policies.

Twitter Hashtag #EUandME

If you, like many Europeans, are concerned about the impact of EU trade policies on other parts of the world, the EU addresses your concerns in various ways.

© corlaffra / Fotolia

First, the EU often includes rules on sustainable development and human rights in its trade agreements. This supports workers’ rights and environmental objectives in other countries. The EU is also a member of various important conventions that commit it to international cooperation in this area. One example is its membership of the 1973 Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species, which protects more than 35 000 species of flora and fauna.

The EU also, meanwhile, has its own laws to deal with specific concerns. Since 1996, for example, EU rules on trade in wildlife have determined which animals and plants can be imported and exported. More recently, in 2016, the EU updated legislation banning the export of goods that can be used for capital punishment or torture. This helps prevent EU exports from contributing to human rights violations abroad. In 2017, the EU also adopted new rules to outlaw conflict minerals mined in unstable countries by armed groups and sold on international markets. The EU’s rules aim to halt the abuse of local miners, and prevent conflict minerals from being exported to the EU and ending up on your dressing table. A final example concerns a new law currently being drafted by the EU on the illegal import of cultural goods. It seeks to ensure that unique items that are part of a country’s cultural heritage cannot be exported illegally to the EU to finance criminal activities.

Further information

• EPRS publication on ‘Fighting trade in tools for torture and executions’, 2017 http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/BRIE/2017/599275/EPRS_BRI(2017)599275_EN.pdf
• EPRS publication on ‘Regulating imports of cultural goods’, 2018 http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/BRIE/2018/614697/EPRS_BRI(2018)614697_EN.pdf
• European Commission’s Directorate General for Trade website, http://ec.europa.eu/trade/
• European Commission’s Directorate General for Environment website, http://ec.europa.eu/environment/index_en.htm

With European elections coming up in May 2019, you probably want to know how the European Union impacts your daily life, before you think about voting. In the latest in a series of posts on what Europe does for you, your family, your business and your wellbeing, we look at what Europe does for families with mixed nationalities.

Twitter Hashtag #EUandME

Are you an EU citizen and your spouse or registered partner, dependent child or parent is a non-EU citizen?

EU law ensures that your family members can move with you from one EU country to another. Your spouse, children under 21 and some other dependent family members have the right to reside in the same country, irrespective of their nationality.

© Rob / Fotolia

Moreover, several EU policies help third-country nationals to stay in close touch with their culture and country of origin.  For example, the EU’s external aviation policy has made international travel easier, safer and cheaper, allowing to stay in touch with loved ones abroad. The EU has also made it safer and cheaper to send money to relatives in non-EU countries. New legislation will strengthen consumer rights when sending transfers and money remittances outside the EU or paying in non-EU currencies.

The EU also has one of the most extensive sets of anti-discrimination legislation in the world. The EU’s Charter of Fundamental Rights prohibits discrimination on the grounds of race, colour, ethnic origin and religion or belief. The EU has passed detailed legislation that addresses discrimination in various areas of life. EU countries are also bound to use criminal law to combat public incitement to violence and hatred against people of different race, colour, religion, or national or ethnic descent.

Further information

• European Commission, website ‘The right to reside’, http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=460&langId=en
• Payment Services Directive, http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-15-5793_en.htm
• European Agency for Fundamental Rights, http://fra.europa.eu/en/theme/racism-related-intolerances

Written by Marcin Grajewski,

© Ricochet64 / Fotolia

World leaders are preparing for the ‘COP 24’ summit on tackling climate change in Katowice, Poland, in December, which is meant to debate how to implement the 2015 Paris Agreement. Meanwhile, a United Nations report has called for more measures to cut emissions of greenhouse gases: On 8 October, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) published its latest findings, which indicate that limiting global warming to the 1.5˚C increase agreed in Paris would require rapid, far-reaching and unprecedented changes in all aspects of society.

This note brings together commentaries, analyses and studies by major international think tanks and research institutes on climate talks and wider issues relating to climate change. Earlier publications on the issue can be found in a previous edition of ‘What Think Tanks are Thinking’ published in November 2017.

Funding the just transition to a net zero economy in Europe: Opportunities in the next EU budget
E3G, November 2018

The EU will not meet its climate goals unless it makes smarter use of its financial resources European Policy Centre, November 2018
Essential elements of the Paris ‘rulebook’

Center for Climate and Energy Solutions, November 2018
Learning for decarbonisation

Bruegel, November 2018
The climate finance partnership: Mobilizing institutional capital to address the climate opportunity
Atlantic Council, November 2018

Climate change is doing more than raising sea levels: Your bar tab will go up, too
Atlantic Council, November 2018

Climate and energy summit: A landscape of division and transformation lies on the horizon
Friends of Europe, November 2018

Quick takes on climate and energy after the 2018 US midterm elections
Resources for the future, November 2018

Result oriented spending for the climate: Creating strong connections between the EU budget and National Energy and Climate Plans
Ecologic Institute, October 2018

Aligning national and international climate targets
Centre for Climate Change Economics and Policy, October 2018

Sustainable options for reducing emissions from thermal energy: Showcasing successful outcomes from six case studies
Center for Climate and Energy Solutions, October 2018

The new climate math: Energy addition, subtraction, and transition
Resources for the Future, October 2018

COP24: The biggest immediate opportunity for countries to step up climate action
World Resources Institute, October 2018

Global economic leaders should prepare for ‘unknown unknowns’ of climate change
Atlantic Council, October 2018

The 2018 Nobel Prize: Growth and the environment
Bruegel, October 2018

Coordination challenges in climate finance
Danish Institute for International Studies, October 2018

A new north–south divide for climate knowledge? A case study of climate projections in UNFCCC’s National Communications
Centre for Climate Change Economics and Policy, October 2018

The good, the bad and the ugly: The IPCC special report on global warming of 1.5°C
E3G, October 2018

Power-to-gas: Linking electricity and gas in a decarbonising world?
Oxford Institute for Energy Studies, October 2018

1,5-Grad-Bericht des Weltklimarates: Fokus auf striktes Klimaziel ohne „Overshoot“
Heinrich Böll Stiftung, October 2018

Brexit and climate cooperation: Implications for the Paris Agreement and net-zero
E3G, October 2018

Mapping potential climate and development impacts of China’s Belt and Road Initiative: a participatory approach
Stockholm Environment Institute, October 2018

Curbing climate change and preventing deaths from air pollution go hand-in-hand
World Resource Institute, October 2018

Biodiversity and conservation in a time of rapid change
Stockholm Environment Institute, October 2018

Limits to efficiency: Rethinking current perspectives on climate action
Observer Research Foundation, September 2018

Tools to boost investment in low-carbon technologies
Centre for European Policy Studies, September 2018

Climate leadership in uncertain times
Atlantic Council, September 2018

Hurricane Florence: More than just the weather, climate change, too
Center for Climate and Energy Solutions, September 2018

Climate opportunity: More jobs; better health; liveable cities
New Climate, September 2018

Sequencing to ratchet up climate policy stringency
Resources for the Future, September 2018

Scaling disruptive technologies to achieve energy transition
Friends of Europe, September 2018

Export and patent specialization in low carbon technologies
Bruegel, August 2018

Accounting approaches under Article 6 of the Paris Agreement
Center for Climate and Energy Solutions, August 2018

Die Illusion des grünen Fliegens
Heinrich Böll Stiftung, August 2018

Bringing Paris into the future MFF: How to maximise the benefits of EU funding for the achievement of EU climate objectives
Ecologic Institute, July 2018

The economic reasons to act on climate change, and to act immediately
Centre for Climate Change Economics and Policy, July 2018

Comment financer la lutte contre le changement climatique? De nouveaux outils financiers pour des dettes “vertes”
Terra Nova, June 2018

Prospects for electric vehicle batteries in a circular economy
Centre for European Policy Studies, July 2018

Europe’s next challenge? Designing a future-proof climate strategy
E3G, July 2018

From advocacy to action: Projecting the health impacts of climate change
Centre for Climate Change Economics and Policy, July 2018

The geopolitics of climate: A Transatlantic dialogue
Istituto Affari Internazionali, June 2018

The EU and Brazil in the quest for global climate governance: Potentials and perils of a partnership
Istituto Affari Internazionali, June 2018

Towards Paris-compatible climate governance frameworks
IDDRI, June 2018

Europe needs a fresh approach to climate strategy
Bruegel, June 2018

Making concrete change innovation in low-carbon cement and concrete
Chatham House, June 2018

What lies beneath: How climate change could aggravate problems that reach Europe’s shores
European Council on Foreign Relations, June 2018

Europe’s Responsibility to Prepare: Managing climate security risks in a changing world
The Center for Climate and Security, June 2018

Supporting private adaptation to climate change in semi-arid lands in developing countries
LSE, Grantham Institute on Climate Change and the Environment, June 2018

Investing in a just transition: Why investors need to integrate a social dimension into their climate strategies and how they could take action
Centre for Climate Change Economics and Policy, June 2018

A new strategy to clean up European cars, and the air we breathe
Bruegel, May 2018

Enabling factors for cooperation in the climate negotiations: A comparative analysis of Copenhagen 2009 and Paris 2015
Deutsches Institut für Entwicklungspolitik, May 2018

EU trade and climate policy linkages: Potentials in times of repositioning
Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik, April 2018

Developing the EU long term climate strategy
Bruegel, April 2018

The EU can increase its climate targets to be in line with a global 1.5 °C target
New Climate Institute, April 2018

Is climate restoration an appropriate climate policy goal?
RAND Corporation, April 2018

Climate action in land use, land use change, and forestry in the EU member states
Institute for European Environmental Policy, March 2018

Opportunity 2030: Benefits of climate action in cities
New Climate Institute, March 2018

Should all producers of renewable energy automatically receive GOs?
Centre for European Policy Studies, March 2018

Finding climate solutions in nature
Atlantic Council, March 2018

Mobilising trade policy for climate action under the Paris Agreement. Options for the European Union
Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik, February 2018

European regional organizations and climate-related security risks: EU, OSCE and NATO
Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, February 2018

US climate politics in the Trump era: Options for EU engagement
College of Europe, January 2018

Suspended in legal limbo: Protecting investment in renewable energy in the EU
Centre for European Policy Studies, January 2018

Read this briefing on ‘Climate change‘ on the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Written by Gisela Grieger, graphics: Eulalia Claros,

© ISTANBUL2009 / Fotolia

In November 2017, the EU and Chile launched negotiations on a modernised trade pillar of the 2002 EU-Chile Association Agreement, based on a Council negotiating mandate which is the first-ever to have been published prior to the start of negotiations with a view to enhancing transparency and inclusiveness.

After having operated smoothly for 15 years and led to a significant expansion of bilateral trade in goods and services and investment, the trade pillar needs to be broadened and deepened in order to unlock untapped potential, break new ground and keep pace with new trade and investment patterns in a global competitive environment that has fundamentally changed with the growing global footprint of countries like China.

Against the backdrop of rising protectionist trends, the EU and Chile – two like-minded partners – seek to reassert their commitment to keeping their economies open to trade and investment. Both intend to shape, pioneer and promote state-of-the-art trade(-related) and investment rules of the 21st century, including on trade and sustainable development (TSD), trade and gender equality, and the fight against corruption.

Given the large convergence of the EU’s and Chile’s interests and level of ambition, the negotiations are expected to make rapid progress.

Modernisation of the trade pillar of the EU-Chile Association Agreement Committee responsible: International Trade (INTA) Rapporteur: Inmaculada Rodríguez- Piñero Fernández (S&D, Spain)

Read the complete briefing on ‘Modernisation of the trade pillar of the EU-Chile Association Agreement‘ on the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Antonio Tajani, President of the European Parliament

It’s a common question. That can be answered in a mind-boggling range of ways. After all, the EU is huge. But does this necessarily mean it is distant, over-complicated and irrelevant to you and your life?

We are all familiar with the idea of getting together to purchase a better gift for a friend than we would be able to afford individually. When this concept is scaled-up to Continental size however, the scope and the sums become rather harder to grasp on a personal level.

To help you to bring the EU down to an approachable size, Antonio Tajani, President of the European Parliament, today launched a website providing information on examples of the real-life deliveries that result from EU policies.

‘There is no one-size-fits-all response to the question of “What does Europe do for me?” – this site aims to provide citizens with answers that address their questions from their unique perspective.’

Antonio Tajani

Popping the EU bubble

Are you a cyclist? Do you use your smartphone on holiday? Are you worried about the air quality in your city? Are you a bus driver, a brewer or even a bee-keeper? Or are you a young person with a great idea for your own business? The EU has nothing to do with that, right? Wrong! While the EU leaves much of the regulation of your daily life to your national government, it tries to help where doing things together beats doing them alone.

Wherever you live in Europe, as an EU citizen you have the right to expect that EU funding is spent on improving your life. Sometimes the money spent by the EU is not easily visible, however, as it’s redistributed through a variety of programmes and by different national, regional and local players, who often add funding themselves.

Without using complicated and insider jargon, the site looks at what the EU is doing for you at the human scale: whether in your region, or in your personal life.

So, what does the EU do … for you?

In May 2019, Europeans like you get to make their views clear by voting in the European elections. Recent interference in campaigns in Europe and elsewhere underlines the dangers of people not having access to the information they need to be able to make up their own minds as to how to vote.

The researchers working for the European Parliamentary Research Service have produced 1 800 short notes on what the EU does for anyone from pet owners to parents, and brewers to bee-keepers, as well as a selection that showcase the EU projects that benefit your home region. They are used to producing independent, objective and authoritative information that is useful for all of the Members of the European Parliament, so you can be sure that the content is not linked to any particular political point of view.

‘Every citizen will be able to find  information about what Europe has done for them, not only major legislative initiatives but also smaller changes that have helped improve lives.’

Antonio Tajani

The site will continue to evolve – and we look forward to receiving your feedback. We continue to work on finding interesting facts and projects from your region. At the end of the year, the European Parliament will have an app available for you to download with additional news and information for citizens.

This is an excellent opportunity for you to get your own information about the policies that you pay for. Why not take a look?

Click to view slideshow.

Written by Cemal Karakas (1st edition),

© strichfiguren.de / Fotolia

In June 2018, the European Commission proposed a total budget allocation of €100 billion to finance science, research and innovation projects during the 2021-2027 period, of which the vast majority, €94.1 billion in current prices, would be allocated to the Horizon Europe framework programme. The main aims are to strengthen science and technology, to foster industrial competiveness, and to implement the sustainable development goals in the EU. Horizon Europe would introduce new features such as the European Innovation Council, missions to promote research results, and new forms of partnerships. While the proposal for the framework programme sets out the general and specific objective of Horizon Europe as well as the structure and the broad lines of the activities to be carried out, the specific programme aims to define the operational objectives and activities, especially for missions, the European Research Council, the European Innovation Council, work programmes, and the committee procedure.

Versions

• November 2018: ‘Horizon Europe – Specific programme: Implementing the framework programme‘ (1st edition)

Proposal for a decision of the European Parliament and of the Council on establishing the specific programme implementing Horizon Europe – the Framework Programme for Research and Innovation Committee responsible: Industry, Research and Energy (ITRE) COM(2018) 436
7.6.2018 Rapporteur: Christian Ehler (EPP, Germany) 2018/0225 (COD) Shadow rapporteurs:

 

 

  Soledad Cabezón Ruiz (S&D, Spain)
Evžen Tošenovský (ECR, Czech Republic)
Lieve Wierinck (ALDE, Belgium)
Marisa Matias (GUE/NGL, Portugal)
Jakop Dalunde (Greens/EFA, Sweden)
Rosa D’Amato (EFDD, Italy)
Barbara Kappel (ENF, Austria) Ordinary legislative procedure (COD) (Parliament and Council on equal footing – formerly ‘co-decision’) Next steps expected: Vote in committee

Written by Alessandro D’Alfonso (1st edition),

© nmann77 / Fotolia

The EU budget is financed by the system of own resources and cannot run a deficit. The current system provides sufficient revenue to cover EU expenditure, but has often been criticised as opaque and unfair. The European Parliament, which has little say in the design of the system, has long pushed for its reform, with a view to shifting the focus of budgetary negotiations from geographically pre-allocated expenditure to the policies with the highest European added value. The European Commission is proposing to modify the financing of the EU budget as of 2021, when the next multiannual financial framework should start. Proposed changes include: the simplification of existing own resources; the introduction of three new own resources linked to EU policies on climate, environment and the single market; the reduction of the share of revenue provided by the GNI-based resource, which is perceived as national contributions; the abolition of the UK rebate (following that country’s withdrawal from the EU); and the phasing-out of corrections currently granted to other five Member States. A special legislative procedure applies to the principal decision, requiring unanimity in the Council. This is considered a major obstacle to reform of the system, which has remained substantially unchanged for 30 years.

Versions

• November 2018: ‘Own resources of the European Union: Reforming the EU’s financing system‘ (1st edition)

Proposal for a Council decision on the system of own resources of the European Union
Proposals for Council regulations (1) laying down implementing measures for the system of own resources of the European Union; (2) on the methods and procedure for making available the own resources…; and (3) amending Regulation (EEC, Euratom) No 1553/89 on the definitive uniform arrangements for the collection of own resources accruing from value added tax Committee responsible: Budgets (BUDG) COM(2018) 325, 326, 327, 328 final Rapporteur: Janusz Lewandowski (EPP, Poland)
Gérard Deprez (ALDE, Belgium) 2.5.2018 Shadow rapporteurs:

  Younous Omarjee (GUE/NGL, France)
Marco Valli (EFDD, Italy) 2018/0135(CNS)
2018/0132(APP)
2018/0131(NLE)
2018/0133(NLE)
Consultation procedure (CNS) Next steps expected: Plenary vote on interim report

Mix of EU revenue in 2018 and estimated average for 2021 to 2027 period

 

Written by Dessislava Yougova (1st edition),

© ninenat / Fotolia

Launched in 1992, the LIFE programme is the only EU fund entirely dedicated to environmental and climate objectives. It supports the implementation of relevant EU legislation and the development of key policy priorities, by co-financing projects with European added value. To date, LIFE has co‑financed more than 4 500 projects.

In June 2018, the European Commission submitted a proposal on a regulation establishing a new LIFE programme for 2021-2027. The programme would support projects in the areas of nature and biodiversity, circular economy and quality of life, clean energy transition, and climate change mitigation and adaptation. A total of €4.83 billion in 2018 prices (€5.45 billion in current prices) would be earmarked to the new programme.

In the European Parliament, the proposal has been referred to the Committee on Environment, Public Health and Food Safety (ENVI). The Environment Council considered the information provided by the Commission on the proposal in a public session on 25 June 2018.

Versions

• November 2018: ‘LIFE programme for 2021-2027: Financing environmental and climate objectives‘ (1st edition)

Proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a Programme for the Environment and Climate Action (LIFE) and repealing Regulation (EU) No 1293/2013 Committee responsible: Environment, Public Health and Food Safety (ENVI) COM(2018) 385
1.6.2018 Rapporteur: Gerben-Jan Gerbrandy (ALDE, the Netherlands) 2018/0209 (COD) Shadow rapporteurs:

 

  Michel Dantin (EPP, France)
Nicola Caputo (S&D, Italy)
Arne Gericke (ECR, Germany)
Younous Omarjee (GUE/NGL, France)
Benedek Jávor (Greens/EFA, Hungary)
Eleonora Evi (EFDD, Italy) Ordinary legislative procedure (COD) (Parliament and Council on equal footing – formerly ‘co-decision’) Next steps expected: Vote in committee

 

Written by Ionel Zamfir,

© igor / Fotolia

Twenty years after the UN General Assembly adopted its Declaration on Human Rights Defenders (HRDs) to enhance recognition of their role and encourage states to create a more protective environment, many human rights defenders still face significant threats, and the situation of those working in certain areas has even deteriorated.

Support for human rights defenders is a long established component of the EU’s external human rights policy and one of its major priorities. The EU guidelines on HRDs adopted in 2004 outline concrete measures for protecting HRDs at risk, including the provision of emergency aid, and encourage EU diplomats to take a more proactive approach towards HRDs. The European Commission manages a financial instrument in support of HRDs working in the world’s most dangerous situations.

The European Parliament is a long-standing advocate of a comprehensive EU policy on HRDs and has actively contributed to its shaping. Its urgency resolutions on human rights breaches around the world, some of which have focused on individual HRDs and the particular threats they face, have drawn attention to the difficulties facing HRDs in many countries. Parliament has also organised hearings with HRDs, issued statements about cases of HRDs at risk, and highlighted the plight of HRDs during visits by its delegations to the countries concerned. The Parliament’s Sakharov Prize is the EU’s most visible action in favour of HRDs. It has a significant impact on laureates, providing them with recognition and, in many cases, indirect protection.

This a further updated version of a briefing from December 2017: PE 614.626.

Read the complete briefing on ‘EU support for human rights defenders around the world‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.