European Parliamentary Research Service Blog

Written by Ionel Zamfir,

© radekprocyk / Fotolia

The recent large-scale flows of refugees and migrants have brought to the world’s attention more forcefully than ever the plight of persons who are forced to flee their homes due to war, insecurity or persecution. They have also exposed how ill-prepared the international community has been to deal with this challenge and how disproportionate the distribution of the burden of caring for such people has been among countries.

In 2016, to enhance preparedness for refugee crises, improve the situation of refugees and relieve the burden on host societies, the UN member states convened in New York and adopted a declaration paving the way for a non-binding international compact on refugees. They annexed to this declaration a comprehensive refugee response framework that spelled out a series of short and longer-term measures to address refugee crises. The framework has been applied in several pilot countries and the lessons learnt have fed into a global compact on refugees, which is being drafted by the UN Refugee Agency (UNHCR) through broad consultations with various stakeholders. The second draft was published at the end of April; consultations on it took place from 8 to 10 May 2018. A third draft was published on 4 June.

The global compact focuses on international-, regional- and national-level mechanisms for achieving a fairer distribution of the responsibilities related to refugees, and on areas where action can be improved. It has been criticised, among other things, for its non-binding character and for excluding victims of natural disasters from its scope.

Read this briefing on ‘Towards a global compact on refugees: Strengthening international cooperation to ease the plight of refugees in the world‘ on the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Written by Carla Stamegna (1st edition),

© ibreakstock / Fotolia

In 2012, the Commission proposed to recast the 2000 Insolvency Regulation in order to address the cross-border aspects of insolvency in the EU. Adopted in 2015, the recast regulation introduced clear rules on the jurisdiction and law applicable to a debtor’s insolvency proceedings and made mandatory the recognition of those proceedings in other EU Member States. Its remit was expanded to include not only bankruptcy but also hybrid and pre-insolvency proceedings, as well as debt discharges and debt adjustments for natural persons (consumers and sole traders).

In late 2016, as a further step and a follow up to the Insolvency Recommendation of 2014, the Commission proposed to adopt a directive on business restructuring, which would provide new legal tools to rescue viable businesses in distress and give honest but bankrupt entrepreneurs a second chance. The proposal focuses on three key elements: common principles on early restructuring tools, which would help companies to continue operating and preserve jobs; rules to allow entrepreneurs to benefit from a second chance through a discharge of debt; and targeted measures allowing Member States to increase the efficiency of insolvency, restructuring and discharge procedures. The initiative is a key deliverable under the capital markets union action plan. It will also contribute substantially to addressing the high levels of non-performing loans in banks’ balance sheets. The draft report was presented to the Parliament’s Committee on Legal Affairs (JURI) in September 2017. In May 2018 the Council reached agreement on part of the proposal.

Versions

• June 2018: ‘New EU insolvency rules give troubled businesses a chance to start anew‘ (1st edition)

Proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on preventive restructuring frameworks, second chance and measures to increase the efficiency of restructuring, insolvency and discharge procedures and amending Directive 2012/30/EU Committee responsible: Legal Affairs (JURI) COM(2016) 723
22.11.2016 Rapporteur: Angelika Niebler (EPP, Germany) 2016/0359(COD) Shadow rapporteurs:

 

  Sergio Gaetano Cofferati (S&D, Italy)
Kosma Złotowski (ECR, Poland)
António Marinho E Pinto (ALDE, Portugal)
Jiří Maštálka (GUE/NGL, Czech Republic)
Joëlle Bergeron (EFDD, France) Ordinary legislative procedure (COD) (Parliament and Council on equal footing – formerly ‘co-decision’) Next steps expected: Vote in committee on the draft report

Written by Nikolina Šajn (1st edition),

© Tierney / Fotolia

On 11 April 2018, the European Commission published a proposal for a directive on better enforcement and modernisation of EU consumer protection, as part of its ‘new deal for consumers’ package of measures. The proposal comes after a fitness check of consumer legislation and an evaluation of the Consumer Rights Directive showed that the EU consumer legislation is fit for purpose, but could benefit from certain aspects being clarified and brought into line with the reality of the digital economy. The proposal focuses on various consumer issues, including penalties for infringements, transparency on online marketplaces, protection for consumers of ‘free’ digital services and dual quality of products. It would amend the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive, the Consumer Rights Directive, the Unfair Contract Terms Directive and the Price Indication Directive. The proposal is in now under consideration in the European Parliament and the Council of the EU.

Versions

• June 2018: ‘Modernisation of EU consumer protection rules: A new deal for consumers‘ (1st edition)

Proposal for a directive on better enforcement and modernisation of EU consumer protection rules Committee responsible: Internal Market and Consumer Protection (IMCO) COM(2018) 185
11.4.2018 Rapporteur: Daniel Dalton (ECR, United Kingdom) 2018/0090 (COD) Shadow rapporteurs:

  Evelyne Gebhardt (S&D, Germany)
Julia Reda (Greens/EFA, Germany)
Marco Zullo (EFDD, Italy) Ordinary legislative procedure (COD) (Parliament and Council on equal footing – formerly ‘co-decision’) Next steps expected: Publication of draft report

Written by Joanna Apap,

20 June is World Refugee Day. While those fleeing conflicts are often in the headlines, every year since 2008, an average of 26.4 million persons around the world have been forcibly displaced by floods, windstorms, earthquakes or droughts. This is equivalent to one person being displaced every second. Depending on the frequency and scale of the major natural disasters occurring, there are significant fluctuations in the total number of displaced people from one year to the next, yet the trend over recent decades has been on the rise. Many find refuge within their own country, but some are forced to go abroad. With climate change, the number of ‘climate refugees’ is likely to rise in the future. Due to a lack of a clear definition of the term ‘climate refugee’, however, a protection gap for these persons needs to be addressed.

Our recent briefing, ‘The concept of ‘climate refugee’: Towards a possible definition’ explains that so far, the national and international response to this challenge has been limited, and protection for the people affected remains inadequate. Adding to the gap in the protection of such people – who are often described as ‘climate refugees’ – is that there is neither a clear definition for this category of people, nor are they covered by the 1951 Refugee Convention. This latter extends only to people who have a well-founded fear of being persecuted because of their race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, and are unable or unwilling to seek protection from their home countries. While the EU has so far not formally recognised climate refugees, it has expressed growing concern, and has taken action to support and develop resilience in the countries potentially affected by climate-related stress. Of the 186 countries assessed in a recent survey on climate vulnerability, Chad was rated as the one facing the greatest peril. The fact that this country has one of the fastest-growing populations in the world only compounds the problem. In the future, environmental changes could have enormous effects on many populations, especially those in coastal and low-lying areas, such as Vietnam, as well as countries in the Western World such as the Netherlands and certain parts of the United States.

The UN 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development includes several migration-related targets and calls for regular reviews of progress towards their achievement, using data disaggregated by, inter alia, migratory status. However, the response to the challenges of an annual displacement of millions of persons worldwide due to environmental disasters has been limited, and protection for those affected remains inadequate. Many find shelter within their own country, but some are forced to go abroad, and in the context of climate change, such movements are likely to increase.

To address the issue of such large movements of refugees and migrants, on the UN General Assembly adopted the New York Declaration for Refugees and Migrants on 19 September 2016, in which it called for the development of two global compacts, one on refugees and one on other migrants, both to be adopted in 2018. While the reasons for the internal or international displacement of individual migrants or diasporas vary, the UN Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre (IDMC) and the Norwegian Refugee Council identify natural disasters as the number one cause for this phenomenon. With rising sea levels, desertification and extreme weather events, climate action must be a part of any meaningful agreement on refugees or migrants. Governments are currently negotiating a global compact on safe, orderly and regular migration. The compact is meant to protect the rights of those displaced and help address the root economic, environmental and social drivers that are compelling people to leave their communities and countries. On 5 February 2018, the UN released the draft compact (the Zero Draft), and will have until December 2018 to negotiate the final details. A key area in which the document falls short is on commitments to tackle the primary causes of migration. A stated aim of the compact is to ‘mitigate the adverse drivers and structural factors that hinder people from building and maintaining sustainable livelihoods in their countries of origin’. However, the current text lacks actionable commitments to control the numerous man-made forces underlying global mass migration.

A 2017 Parliament resolution on Addressing refugee and migrant movements: the role of EU external action stressed that EU development cooperation should continue to address and effectively tackle the root causes of forced displacement and migration, including lack of economic opportunities and climate change, in line with Goal 16 in the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and the principles laid down in the UN Charter and international law. It also called on the EU and its Member States to take their responsibilities seriously concerning the challenge of climate change, to swiftly implement the Paris Agreement, and to take a leading role in recognising the impact of climate change on mass displacement, given that the scale and frequency of displacements are likely to increase. It took the view that persons displaced by the effects of climate change should be given a special international protection status that takes account of the specific nature of their situation.

In the long term, it is possible that the conclusion and acceptance of various regional agreements concluded within the remit of the global compact on migration and the international climate change framework would lead to the creation of customary international law. While this clearly remains a far-reaching proposition at present, it is worth recognising that the climate change-related body of law in individual states has developed significantly over a comparatively short time, and that ultimately it is through such state practice that customary law evolves.

Internal displacement of persons due to natural disasters

Written by Angelos Delivorias (1st edition),

© Christian Delbert / Fotolia

The assignment of a claim refers to a situation where a creditor transfers the right to claim a debt to another person. This system is used by companies to obtain liquidity and access credit. At the moment, there is no legal certainty as to which national law applies when determining who owns a claim after it has been assigned in a cross-border case. The new rules proposed by the Commission clarify which law is applicable for the resolution of such disputes: as a general rule, the law of the country where assignors have their habitual residence applies, regardless of which Member State’s courts or authorities examine the case. This proposal will promote cross-border investment and access to cheaper credit, and prevent systemic risks.

Versions

• June 2018: ‘Law applicable to the third-party effects of assignments of claims‘ (1st edition)

Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the law applicable to the third-party effects of assignments of claims Committee responsible: Economic and Monetary Affairs (ECON) COM(2018) 96
12.3.2018 Rapporteur: Pavel Svoboda (EPP, Czech Republic) 2018/0044(COD) Shadow rapporteurs: Mady Delvaux (S&D, Luxembourg)
Kostas Chrysogonos (GUE/NGL, Greece) Ordinary legislative procedure (COD) (Parliament and Council on equal footing – formerly ‘co-decision’) Next steps expected: Vote in committee

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 religious minorities.

It is the fundamental right of everyone in the EU to practise the religion of their choice and express their religious beliefs freely. Many EU citizens exercise this right and there are a great many different religious communities in the EU. As a member of a religious minority, however, you might have concerns over how this could impact your daily life.

© Rawpixel.com / Fotolia

Founded on the fundamental value of respect for human rights, including the rights of minorities, EU law explicitly prohibits discrimination and harassment on the basis of religion or belief in the fields of employment and occupation, vocational training, or membership of employer and employee organisations. This means that you should not be treated less favourably or be put at a disadvantage because of your religion or beliefs. If you feel that your rights under this law have been violated, the EU has also established mechanisms to make it easier for you to seek justice: EU countries are obliged to ensure that judicial and administrative procedures are available to anyone who needs them. EU law also makes it easier for you to bring your case to court.

Incitement to discrimination or hatred, including online hate speech, is prohibited under EU law and the EU has ensured that in all EU countries offences against people based on religion are punishable under criminal law and that victims of crime have a certain standard of rights.

The EU also funds projects to help minorities, collects field data, and helps EU countries to exchange best practice.

Further information

• European Commission, website on combating racism and xenophobia, https://ec.europa.eu/info/policies/justice-and-fundamental-rights/combatting-discrimination/racism-and-xenophobia_en
• EPRS publication on EU measures against discrimination, 2017, http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/ATAG/2017/603887/EPRS_ATA(2017)603887_EN.pdf
• Directive 2000/78/EC on equal treatment in employment and occupation, http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/LSU/?uri=CELEX:32000L0078

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 racial and ethnic minorities.

If you are of a different race or ethnic background than most people in the country where you live, you might worry that you will face discrimination when you look for a job or that your child will be treated unfairly at school. However, the EU is founded on respect for human rights, including the rights of minorities, and is looking after your interests, even if you don’t have EU citizenship.

EU law prohibits discrimination based on racial or ethnic origin in most walks of life: employment, education and vocational training, social protection, and access to goods and services, including housing. This means that you should not be treated less favourably or put at a disadvantage because of your racial or ethnic background. When discrimination occurs, there are mechanisms in place to make it easier for you to seek justice. EU countries are obliged to ensure that judicial and administrative procedures are available to everyone. EU law also makes it easier for you to bring your case to court.

© Mat Hayward / Fotolia

Harassment based on race or ethnicity, and incitement to discrimination or hatred, including online hate speech, are strongly prohibited under EU law. Thanks to the EU, offences against people based on race or ethnic origin are punishable under criminal law and victims of crime are ensured minimum standards in all EU countries.

The EU also funds projects to help minorities, collects field data, and helps countries to exchange best practices.

Further information

• European Commission, website ‘Combating racism and xenophobia’, https://ec.europa.eu/info/policies/justice-and-fundamental-rights/combatting-discrimination/racism-and-xenophobia/combating-racism-and-xenophobia_en
• EPRS publication ‘EU measures against discrimination’, 2017, http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/ATAG/2017/603887/EPRS_ATA(2017)603887_EN.pdf
• Directive 2000/43/EC of 29 June 2000 implementing the principle of equal treatment between persons irrespective of racial or ethnic origin, http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=LEGISSUM:l33114&from=EN&isLegissum=true

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 fishing enthusiasts.

Are you one of the many Europeans who love to cast a fishing rod in their free time? Through actions such as protecting European waters and studying the impact of recreational fishing, the EU is helping not only to protect the environment, but also to ensure the future of this popular hobby.

© Hetizia / Fotolia

Every fisherman knows that fish are best caught in clean rivers, lakes and coastal waters. The EU has taken important steps to protect our waters against all kinds of risks, thereby supporting healthy fish populations. One such risk is pollution, which the EU has reduced thanks to strict legislation. Another risk is posed by non-native fish infesting European waters. The EU has passed special laws to protect our native European fish populations against invasive fish species. These and other EU measures help not only to ensure a natural balance of species, but also to improve your chances of success on your fishing trips!

Recreational sea fishing has received a lot of attention in the EU recently, because it is a popular activity and it supports many jobs in coastal areas. At the same time, not a lot is known about the impact that this type of fishing has on European fish stocks. The EU has therefore commissioned new research in this area. The results will make it easier in the future to adopt EU rules that strike the right balance between sustainable sea fishing, on the one hand, and your desire to catch the big ones, on the other.

So, thanks to EU action, you and future generations should be able to enjoy fishing throughout Europe for years to come!

Further information

• European Parliament Policy Department study on ‘Marine recreational and semi-subsistence fishing – its value and its impact on fish stocks’, 2017, http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2017/601996/IPOL_STU(2017)601996_EN.pdf
• 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 bathers.

Europe’s bathing water is much cleaner today than previously. Europeans can now swim in increasingly cleaner coastal and inland bathing areas, thanks to EU laws and national water policies that protect our health and the environment.

In 1975, environmental and health concerns led to the first EU legislation on bathing water. It set out minimum quality standards for clean bathing water across Europe and was revised in 2006 to introduce quality management and simplify controls.

Photo credit: © soupstock / Fotolia

Under the EU rules, countries have to monitor bathing water quality according to clear procedures, improve the management of water resources, provide timely information to the public, and report annually to the EU. Water quality is assessed using microbiological data, and rated as excellent, good, sufficient or poor, depending on the level of pollution. Preventive measures are taken if water quality is poor (banning bathing, closing the site, informing people), alongside tackling the pollution and health threats.

In 2016, around 21 000 European sites reported on their water quality – 10.8 % were classified as having ‘sufficient’ and ‘good’ water quality, and only 1.4 % were rated as ‘poor’. The assessment highlights that 85.5 % of the sites monitored were free from harmful water pollutants, as they met the highest, ‘excellent’ quality standard (an increase from 78.1 % in 2011).

Further information

• European Environment Agency, State of bathing water, https://www.eea.europa.eu/themes/water/status-and-monitoring/state-of-bathing-water/state/state-of-bathing-water-3
• European Commission’s Directorate General for Environment website, Bathing water quality, http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-bathing/index_en.html
• European Commission’s Directorate General for Environment website, Legal Obligations under the EU Bathing Water Directive, http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-bathing/summary.html

Written by Marcin Grajewski,

© Nuthawut / Fotolia

The European Commission has made proposals for the new long-term budget and on own resources for the European Union. The Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) for 2021-2027 is slightly bigger than the current MFF, in constant prices. The budget proposal takes into account the shortfall on the revenue side caused by the UK’s withdrawal from the EU, on the one hand, and the growing need to finance new priorities, on the other. The Commission proposes to increase funds for such areas as competitiveness, migration and security, and to reduce spending on traditional policies, such as cohesion and agriculture. For the first time, the Commission proposes to make the availability of funds dependent on the respect for the rule of law and EU values in recipient countries.

This note offers links to a selection of recent commentaries, studies and reports from some of the major international think tanks and research institutes, which discuss the EU’s long-term budget and related reforms. More reports on the topics are available in a previous edition of ‘What Think Tanks are Thinking’, published in March.

Budget de l’Union européenne: Quel compromis possible entre la France et l’Allemagne?
Fondation Robert Schuman, June 2018

Budget européen: Le bal des hypocrites
Mouvement européen, June 2018

The MFF proposal: What’s new, what’s old, what’s next?
Notre Europe, Bertelsmann Stiftung, May 2018

New priorities for the EU
Institut der deutschen Wirtschaft, May 2018

What to know about the EU’s new budget
Chatham House, May 2018

On the future of the European Union
Institut der deutschen Wirtschaft, May 2018

Should the EU budget have a stabilisation function?
Centre for European Policy Studies, May 2018

The Commission’s proposal for the next MFF: A glass half-full
Bruegel, May 2018

The battle over Europe’s budget
Centre for European Reform, May 2018

Allen Behauptungen zum Trotz: Die Gemeinsame Agrarpolitik hat kaum Entwicklungswirkungen
Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik, May 2018

Der nächste Mehrjährige Finanzrahmen: Reaktionen auf den Vorschlag der Europäischen Kommission
Konrad Adenauer Stiftung, May 2018

The next EU budget: Firmly rooted in the past?
European Policy Centre, May 2018

The Multiannual Financial Framework, where continuity is the radical response
Centre for European Policy Studies, May 2018

EU funds for migration, asylum and integration policies
Bruegel, May 2018

Agriculture in Europe: Greener practices and a brighter future for the sector
European Policy Centre, May 2018

What does Europe care about? Watch where it spends
Bruegel, May 2018

New EMU stabilisation tool within the MFF will have minimal impact without deeper EU budget reform
Bruegel, May 2018

How large is the proposed decline in EU agricultural and cohesion spending?
Bruegel, May 2018

The EU budget after Brexit: Reform not revolution
Centre for European Reform, April 2018

The European budget talks: Financial threat to a global Europe
European Council on Foreign Relation, April 2018

Common or own goals: Reforming the financing of the European Union
Research Institute of the Finnish Economy, April 2018

The EU budget: The Union risks having the wrong debate
Centre for European Reform, April 2018

A done deal? Why innovation could struggle to be a priority in the next MFF
Jacques Delors Institut Berlin, April 2018

No escape from politics: Four tests for a successful fiscal instrument in the euro area
Notre Europe, Bertelsmann Stiftung, March 2018

For a regional solidarity policy after 2020
Notre Europe, March 2018

The European Globalisation Adjustment Fund: Easing the pain from trade?
Bruegel, March 2018

Rethinking the European Union’s post-Brexit budget priorities
Bruegel, March 2018

EU budget post-Brexit: Confronting reality, exploring viable solutions
European Policy Centre, March 2018

Read this briefing on ‘EU Multiannual Financial Framework‘ on the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Written by Katarzyna Sochacka and Clare Ferguson,

© European Union 2018 – Source : EP

The June plenary session highlights were the continuation of the debate on the future of Europe with the Prime Minister of the Netherlands, Mark Rutte, and the preparation of the European Council meeting of 28 and 29 June 2018. The European Commission and Council participated in discussions on, inter alia, the independence of the judiciary in Poland, humanitarian emergencies in the Mediterranean and solidarity in the EU, and the economic and monetary union package. VP/HR Federica Mogherini’s statements on the Iran nuclear deal, the annual report on human rights and democracy in the world (2017), and on the Georgian occupied territories ten years after the Russian invasion, were also discussed. Debates followed on the first anniversary of the signature of the Istanbul Convention and on the closure of the ivory market to combat poaching. Parliament approved the proposal to amend the regulation on OTC derivatives, an agreement on common rules in the field of civil aviation, on monitoring and reporting of CO2 emissions and on fuel consumption of heavy-duty vehicles. It approved the final text of a proposed directive on proportionality tests for new national professional regulations. It also approved the new composition of Parliament after ‘Brexit’, and further macro-financial assistance to Ukraine.

Iran nuclear deal, human rights and democracy, and Georgian occupied territories

Vice-President of the Commission/High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, Federica Mogherini, made a statement on the Iran nuclear agreement; Mogherini also discussed the annual report on Human Rights and Democracy in the World (2017), and the EU’s policy on the matter, followed by debates on cases of breaches of human rights, democracy and the rule of law in Russia, Bahrain and on the situation of Rohingya refugees. Another topic for discussion was the situation in the Georgian occupied territories, ten years after the Russian invasion.

OTC derivatives

A proposal to amend and simplify the European Market Infrastructure Regulation (EMIR), which deals with the regulation of ‘over-the-counter’ (OTC) derivatives in the EU, was debated and amendments approved by Members, clearing the way for the ECON committee to open trilogue negotiations. The 2017 Commission proposal covers issues such as the clearing obligation, reporting requirements, risk-mitigation techniques and trade repositories in the OTC derivatives market. Parliament’s Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs proposes further amendments that would boost transparency, compliance with reporting requirements, and access to clearing, including the principle that clearing services be provided under fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory (FRAND) commercial terms.

Common rules for civil aviation and European Union Aviation Safety Agency

Europe remains the safest air space in the world and the EU intends to ensure it stays that way. MEPs approved the trilogue agreement on common rules in the field of civil aviation and on reform of the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) statutes. Parliament’s focus in its position on the proposals has been on adapting the rules to heavier air traffic and emerging technologies in aviation. One of the key points also includes the obligation of registering certain recreational drones.

CO2 emissions from and fuel consumption of new heavy-duties

Free movement of goods in the EU is also essential to the success of the internal market. However, the large-scale use of heavy-duty vehicles in transport has consequences for our environment, as they emit around a quarter of all road transport CO2. Parliament’s amendments extend EU targets to reduce these emissions, to include new administrative fines on manufacturers who fail to comply, and introduce new on-road verification tests. Parliament validated the provisional trilogue agreement on the proposal on monitoring and reporting of CO2 emissions and fuel consumption of heavy-duty vehicles that seeks to stimulate market uptake of cleaner, fuel-efficient, heavy-duty vehicles, by an overwhelming majority.

Further macro-financial assistance to Ukraine

Members approved the granting of new macro-financial assistance to Ukraine for a maximum of up to €1 billion, which will help cover Ukraine’s needs in external financing for 2018-2019. Despite the priority accorded to Ukraine under the Eastern Partnership, the EU has already cancelled assistance payments due in the previous programme, because of the country’s failure to meet the conditions regarding governance and economic reforms. Parliament and Council positions to date indicate that any further assistance will be conditional on progress in the fight against corruption, with a proposed Memorandum of Understanding to be signed covering institutional and administrative capacities, including an anti-corruption court.

Proportionality test before adoption of new professional regulations

Parliament adopted a compromise text agreed in trilogue on the proposed directive introducing a proportionality test for new national regulations for professions, which affect employment in areas such as medicine and architecture. Public concern has been expressed regarding the inconsistent application of proportionality principles and a lack of transparency in the access to such professions, which is decided by Member States individually. Parliament’s Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection obtained a compromise between addressing unnecessary national requirements and allowing a specific status for healthcare services, and Council’s desire to limit obligations regarding the transparency of the national regulatory process.

Composition of the European Parliament

The number of Members of the European Parliament is limited to 751 under the Lisbon Treaty. The United Kingdom withdrawal means the seats left vacant by British Members must be redistributed, a situation complicated by the withdrawal date falling just before the next European elections. The composition of the European Parliament will therefore change after ‘Brexit’, providing an opportunity for Parliament to correct the current flawed application of the degressive proportionality principle (minimum of 6 seats per Member State, maximum 96; with each Member elected in more populous states representing more electors than those elected in less populous states, and vice versa), without reopening the Treaties. Parliament voted on whether to consent to a European Council decision on a partial redistribution of seats for the next term, involving no loss of seats for any Member State, reserving 46 seats for future enlargements, and reducing the overall number of Members to 705. Parliament approved the proposal by a very large majority (566 votes for, 94 against, 31 abstentions). The reform is due to be formally ratified at the end of June by the European Council.

Structural and financial barriers to access to culture

EU citizens have a huge range of cultural heritage sites, museums, exhibitions, films, and live performances to choose from, and digital access to cultural services makes it even easier to find cultural stimulation. In addition, the EU offers support to Member States in promoting cultural life. Nevertheless, participation in cultural activities remains low. Against this background, Parliament voted this week on a CULT committee report on the barriers to accessing culture in the EU, which include public funding levels, access, and the role of education.

Opening of trilogue negotiations

Three parliamentary committees’ decisions to enter into interinstitutional (trilogue) negotiations were confirmed: on interoperability of electronic road toll systems and facilitating cross-border exchange of information on the failure to pay road fees in the Union; on charging of heavy goods vehicles for the use of certain infrastructure (TRAN committee); on free flow of non-personal data in the European Union (IMCO committee); and on screening of foreign direct investments into the European Union (INTA committee).

Three further TRAN committee decisions to open negotiations were rejected: on the posting of road transport drivers; on driving times, rest periods, and positioning by means of tachographs; and on the occupation of road transport operator and access to the international road haulage market. These reports will therefore be placed on the agenda of the July part-session.

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

Written by Christian Salm,

© vectorfusionart & hin255 / Fotolia

On 14 June 2018, the 21st FIFA World Cup opens with the Russia versus Saudi Arabia match in the Luzhniki Stadium in Moscow – the first time that Russia hosts what is the most important tournament for national football teams. Despite some calls for a political boycott due to Russian governmental policy under the leadership of President Vladimir Putin, there was little speculation that the tournament would not go ahead as planned. However, there were some calls for a political boycott of the 2018 FIFA World Cup. For example, a group of 60 Members of the European Parliament (EP) from five political groups and 16 European Union (EU) Member States signed an open letter calling on EU governments to boycott the 2018 FIFA World Cup in Russia due to the authoritarian and anti-western path of the Russian President.

In fact, debates in the EP on how to react to major sporting events in host countries with a poor track record of human rights have history. At the ends of the 1970s, the EP discussed policy action with regard to the 1978 FIFA World Cup in Argentina and the 1980 Summer Olympic Games in Moscow. The Argentinian World Cup, occurring around two years after the Argentinian military right-wing coup and its violent repression of critics, was described then by many sports and political observers as the most political in FIFA’s history to date. The 1980 Summer Olympic Games, the first to be held in a socialist country, unleashed a hitherto unprecedented boycott by 60 countries, in protest against the Soviet Union’s invasion of Afghanistan in December 1979.

In the case of the 1978 World Cup, the EP held a public hearing, funded by the then Socialist Group, intended to help move forward investigations into human rights violations and the disappearance of around 100 European Community citizens in Argentina. Victims of the Argentinian military regime and representatives of Amnesty International gave evidence to the public hearing. On the basis of the declarations made during the public hearing, the EP adopted a resolution on 6 July 1978. The resolution requested ‘the Foreign Ministers of the Member States meeting in political cooperation, the Commission and the Council urgently to take all appropriate measures to bring about an improvement in the situation as regards the respect of human rights and democratic freedom in Argentina’.

Two political developments, in particular, influenced the conditions and perspective for the EP’s considerations on the right course of policy action towards the Olympics in Moscow in 1980. First, after a period of détente, the international situation deteriorated following the Soviet Union’s invasion of Afghanistan in December 1979; and second, the USSR began a wave of repression against protagonists of human rights. This included the arrest in January 1980 of the academic Andrei Sakharov, a symbolic figure for the human rights movement and winner of the 1975 Nobel Peace Prize. Members of the EP expressed deep concern that Sakharov’s arrest and the USSR’s invasion of Afghanistan were a threat to international détente and peace. As a consequence, the EP adopted a resolution in mid-January 1980, which stated: ‘The European Parliament calls on the Governments of the Nine [the European Community Member States at that time] to express abhorrence of Soviet oppression and aggression by advising their National Olympic Committees to ask their teams and individual athletes not to take part in the Olympic Games in Moscow’. The resolution followed United States President Jimmy Carter’s ultimatum of mid-January 1980 that the US would boycott the Olympic Games if Soviet troops had not withdrawn from Afghanistan by 12:01 a.m. Eastern Standard Time on 20 February 1980.

Then, as now, the protection of human rights was one of the EU’s fundamental values. The EP saw raising public awareness of human rights violations in Argentina and the Soviet Union as a moral responsibility, at a time when both countries gained high public attention as hosts of these major sports events. A more recent example is a public hearing in Parliament’s Subcommittee on Human Rights of February 2014, which focused on the situation of migrant workers in the construction of football stadiums for the 2022 Qatar World Cup. This and other EP public hearings, as well as the above-mentioned open letter calling on EU governments to stay away from the 2018 World Cup in Russia, follow a tradition that originated in EP debates and policy action regarding the 1978 World Cup in Argentina and the 1980 Olympic Games in Moscow.

Read also: ‘Major sporting events versus human rights: Parliament’s position on the 1978 FIFA World Cup in Argentina and the 1980 Moscow Olympics‘.

Written by Svetla Tanova-Encke,

© Shutterstock / Sunny studio

More than ever, science and new technologies surround us in our daily lives. Equally, more than ever, it seems that nobody understands enough about this. Digital communications, artificial intelligence, big data: you do not have to be a high-tech geek to see the impact new technologies are already having on our lives. However, how can average citizens find their way through scientific or pseudo-scientific claims, whom should they trust in the post-truth world, where even issues on which scientists are virtually unanimous, like climate change or vaccines, are heavily questioned and debated?

‘Science is not finished until it’s communicated’, Mark Walport, who was Chief Scientific Advisor to the UK government, once said. ‘Communication to wider audiences is part of the job of being a scientist, and so how you communicate is absolutely vital.’

In this context, science communication plays an important role in helping citizens understand the issues at stake. A constant dialogue between the actors involved in the scientific endeavour – scientists, communicators, policy-makers and journalists – is essential. The European Science-Media Hub (ESMH), newly launched by STOA, should serve as a platform for such dialogue between the European Parliament, the scientific community and the media.

Creating a network

The first task of the Science-Media Hub is to establish contacts with partners from the scientific community, among science journalists and from other relevant stakeholders.

It is important to work across disciplines and across institutions. The Science-Media Hub has already set up an Interinstitutional Advisory Board consisting of representatives from the European Parliament (STOA and DG COMM), the European Commission (DG RTD, DG CONNECT and the Joint Research Centre (JRC)), the European Institute of Innovation &Technology (EIT) and the European Research Council (ERC) Executive Agency.

Monitoring media and innovation

The ESMH will monitor the trends in media coverage of science topics as they happen. Via media monitoring tools the Hub will work to identify the most debated topics in different scientific categories across a wide variety of mainstream media. The team will use additional means to take a closer look at the information streamed on social media. In parallel, the ESMH will identify science-based information, scientists and scientific articles on specific topics, gathering information from scientific publications.

Online platform and knowledge sharing

In the meantime, the ESMH team is working on an online platform for the Hub. The webpage will provide articles on popular topics in the field of science and new technologies, written in a citizen-friendly style. The webpage will also disseminate trustworthy sources of information and promote EU and EP research.

Training for journalists

The ESMH would like to empower quality science journalism through access to such trustworthy information, as well as contacts with scientists and policy-makers. The main target group of the ESMH will be science journalists, young media representatives, science communicators, writers, bloggers and other communication practitioners.

For this audience, the ESMH will organise training and workshops on current technological developments, both as subjects of their reporting and as means of facilitating their work. The first of these will be organised in the autumn by the ESMH team, together with their colleagues in STOA and DG COMM of the European Parliament, and will look into the issue of how big data and algorithms can influence elections.

Many more interesting events are to come, so stay tuned and be sure to follow the activities of the European Science-Media Hub via the EPRS blog and Twitter!

Written by Irina Popescu (1st edition),

© isaac74 / Fotolia

On 8 March 2018, the European Commission proposed a multiannual plan for the western Mediterranean fisheries exploiting several stocks of fish and crustaceans living close to the sea bottom (i.e. ‘demersal fisheries’). Most of these stocks have long been overfished and are now in an alarming state. The proposed plan aims to reverse this trend and ensure that fishing activities are environmentally sustainable and capable of securing economic and social benefits. The plan concerns fishing fleets from Italy, Spain and France, totalling almost 10 900 vessels.

The proposal would introduce a fishing-effort regime for all trawlers operating in the region, and reduce fishing activities in the first year of application, in line with the scientific advice. In addition, it would restrict trawlers from operating in waters shallower than 100 m for three months each year, to reserve the coastal zone for more selective fishing gear. The plan would also establish regional cooperation among the Member States concerned, with a view to developing provisions on the obligation to land all catches and on the conservation of resources through technical measures.

Versions

• June 2018: ‘Multiannual plan for demersal fisheries in the western Mediterranean‘ (1st edition)

Proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a multi-annual plan for the fisheries exploiting demersal stocks in the western Mediterranean Sea Committee responsible: Fisheries (PECH) COM(2018) 115
8.3.2018 Rapporteur: Clara Eugenia Aguilera García (S&D, Spain) 2018/0050(COD) Shadow rapporteurs:

 

  Carlos Iturgaiz (EPP, Spain)
Ruža Tomašić (ECR, Croatia)
Izaskun Bilbao Barandica (ALDE, Spain)
João Ferreira (GUE/NGL, Portugal)
Marco Affronte (Greens/EFA, Italy)
Rosa D’Amato (EFDD, Italy) Ordinary legislative procedure (COD) (Parliament and Council on equal footing – formerly ‘co-decision’) Next steps expected: Publication of draft report

 

Landings of the main demersal species exploited in the western Mediterranean Sea in 2014 by value (million €)

Written by Magdalena Sapala and Nurseli Ulvieva,

Following the publication of the study on ‘Performance budgeting: A means to improve EU spending‘, an EPRS roundtable discussion was held in the European Parliament library on 5 June 2018. Speakers, including Martina DLABAJOVÁ (ALDE, Czech Republic, Vice-President of EP Committee on Budgetary Control), Maria Rosa ALDEA BUSQUETS (Deputy Director-General, DG Budget, European Commission), Joël COSTANTZER (Principal Auditor, Financing and Administering the Union, European Court of Auditors) and Magdalena SAPAŁA (Policy Analyst, Budgetary Policies Unit, EPRS), contributed to the lively discussion. EPRS Director Etienne BASSOT delivered a welcoming speech, while the event was moderated by Fabia JONES, acting head of the EPRS Budgetary Policies Unit.

Magdalena SAPAŁA – (Policy Analyst, Budgetary Policies Unit, EPRS)

The roundtable discussion was opened by Magdalena SAPAŁA, an author of the study on performance budgeting, who defined performance budgeting and the main challenges to its implementation. Performance budgeting is a way of allocating resources where the goals can be best achieved, as well as a way of managing public finances based on three main elements: budget, information on performance, and decisions on learning from results. However, highlighting that challenges might be attributed to all three elements of performance budgeting, SAPAŁA noted that a crucial point in performance budgeting is the link between information on performance and decision-making process. Moreover, effective and successful implementation of the method requires a change in thinking about public budgets, based on performance culture and performance ethos.

Martina DLABAJOVÁ (ALDE, Czech Republic)

The next panellist, Martina DLABAJOVÁ focused on her experience of dealing with the topic as a member of the Committee on Budgetary Control (CONT) of the European Parliament and the Rapporteur in the discharge procedure for the EU general budget 2014. DLABAJOVÁ pointed out the need to change thinking around budgetary control, from focusing on errors and mistakes to results, performance, and lessons learned. DLABAJOVÁ noted ‘the biggest failure is that we are very good in highlighting errors, mistakes and frauds that form less than 5 % of the EU budget, instead of focusing on promoting the successful stories that form 95 % of the Union’s tax payers contributions’. She continued by adding that performance and results make it easier for citizens and stakeholders to understand the objectives and impacts of the EU budget. Informing citizens of EU achievements is crucial, as the EU future and its budget are based solely on their trust.

Maria Rosa ALDEA BUSQUETS (Deputy Director-General, DG Budget, European Commission)

The floor was then taken by Maria Rosa ALDEA BUSQUETS, who presented the Budget Focused on Results Initiative and emphasised the European Commission’s commitment to implementing performance budgeting. Continuing with actions taken, ALDEA BUSQUETS pointed out the improved reporting with the Integrated Financial Reporting Package (including the Annual Management and Performance Report), simplification of the Commission’s financial rules, and the execution of a Spending Review. ALDEA BUSQUETS also emphasised that the proposal for the next MFF has an increased focus on EU added value and includes further measures to improve the performance framework such as: drastically reducing the number of ‘corporate’ indicators embedded in the spending programmes, decreasing the number of programmes, and creating more flexibility. However, she also noted that creating a full performance culture is a time-consuming process. Furthermore, she highlighted that many challenges remain in this process, specifically for the EU budget with regards to shared management with Member States, and called for the support of the Parliament, Council, Court of Auditors, as well as other stakeholders in the implementation of performance budgeting.

Joël COSTANTZER – (Principal Auditor, Financing and Administering the Union, European Court of Auditors)

The final speaker, Joël COSTANTZER presented the Court of Auditor’s view on the EU performance framework. He highlighted the Court’s overall support for all initiatives that make the EU more performance-oriented and gave examples of the Court’s special reports published recently and focused on the different aspects of performance and results. COSTANTZER described some limitations to implementation of the method to the EU budget, namely the MFF’s limited flexibility as compared to national budgets, the coexistence of different performance frameworks, the use of a large number of sometimes non-relevant objectives and indicators by the Commission. He added that, for the EU, the discussion on the new MFF is a major opportunity to improve implementation of performance budgeting. Therefore, although the negotiations on the 2021-2027 MFF are still in the initial phase, the Court has already noted the positive changes included in the Commission’s proposal, in particular the strong focus on the European added value and performance. In the future, the Court of Auditors will analyse the proposal in detail and the actual steps taken to improve performance orientation of the EU budget.

The roundtable discussion was followed by a lively Q&A session.

Click to view slideshow.

world day against child labour

The International Labour Organization (ILO) introduced the World Day Against Child Labour in 2002 as part of its efforts to eradicate this unacceptable phenomenon. The day is observed each year on 12 June, and this year the focus will be on how to achieve the international commitments to end all forms of child labour by 2025 and improve health and safety for young people in employment. It is also an opportunity to consider what measures have been taken at international and EU level to prevent child labour, and with what success.

Child labour

The UN defines child labour as work performed by children who are under the minimum age legally specified for that kind of work, or work that is considered unacceptable for children and prohibited because of its detrimental nature or conditions. Not all work performed by children is considered child labour. Forms that do not interfere with childhood and schooling, are beneficial to a child’s personal and social development and provide useful experience and skills are permitted under international standards.

Worst forms of child labour: The gravest concern within the scope of child labour, these forms of work are prohibited under ILO Convention No. 182 for any person below the age of 18 and must be eliminated as a matter of urgency. They include: slavery and other forms of forced labour; involvement of children in commercial sexual exploitation and illicit activities; and work which, by its nature or the circumstances in which it is carried out, is likely to harm children’s health, safety or morals (Article 3).

Global trends. The ILO’s latest global estimates show that of the 218 million children in employment in 2016, 152 million were victims of child labour – and of these, nearly half (73 million) were engaged in its worst forms, including hazardous work endangering their safety or health. Although this represents a significant reduction from the estimated 246 million children in child labour in 2000, progress slowed considerably between 2012 and 2016, particularly for children under the age of 12 and amongst girls. Africa remains the region with highest rate of child labour (19.6 %), compared with between 3 % and 7 % in other regions. Globally, child labour is concentrated in agriculture (71%), services (17%) and industry (12%). Although the phenomenon of child labour is more commonly associated with non-EU countries, in spite of a lack of reliable comprehensive statistical sources, there is evidence that child labour persists in the EU and Europe as well.

Root causes. It is believed that child labour is commonly driven by family and community poverty paired with lack of access to decent work for adults and youth (income insecurity, inadequate wages), weak social protection and lack of free, good quality, public education and other public services.

Future goals. The ILO’s initial goal was to eliminate the worst forms of child labour by 2016. However, despite its efforts, supported by increasing commitment from countries all over the world, and notable progress, that goal has still to be achieved. The UN Sustainable Development Goals, and Goal 8 in particular, set the targets of eliminating all forms of child labour by 2025 and ensuring safe and secure working environments for all workers by 2030. The ILO has highlighted the large number of adolescents aged between 15 and 17 involved in hazardous work and connections between ensuring decent work for young people and eliminating child labour. This will be also be the focus for the ILO campaign and European Commission event in 2018.

Protecting children from child labour in conflicts and disasters. More than 1.5 billion people live in areas affected by conflict, violence and fragility. It is estimated that one in ten of the world’s children live in conflict-affected areas, whilst half of the world’s refugees are children. Conflicts and crisis deprive millions of children of their basic human rights and increase the number of children at risk of exploitation including child labour, human trafficking and sexual abuse. In the recent migration flows to Europe, children, including unaccompanied minors, have represented a significant proportion of arrivals and asylum seekers, presenting the European Union’s commitment to eradicate child labour with even greater challenges. International legal framework for combating child labour

Since its establishment in 1919, the ILO has been committed to the abolition of child labour as one of its main goals. It has played a crucial role in raising awareness of the importance of eliminating child labour, as well as in establishing widely recognised standards. Three major international conventions establish the legal framework for national action against child labour:

ILO Convention No 138 on the minimum age for admission to employment and work, adopted in 1973, has been ratified by 169 countries, including all European Union (EU) Member States. It is a crucial document that lays down the standards for minimum age for employment, calling on the parties to set the minimum age for employment at 15 (Article 2.3) or at least 18 for hazardous work (Article 3.1). It also emphasises the importance of taking all necessary steps to ensure the effective abolition of child labour.

ILO Convention No 182 on the worst forms of child labour, adopted in 1999, has been ratified by 180 countries, including all EU Member States, and is known to have been the fastest ratification in the history of the ILO. It calls on members to ensure immediate and effective measures to secure the prohibition and elimination of the worst forms of child labour as a matter of urgency (Article 1).

The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) adopted in 1989, has been ratified by 196 countries, including all EU Member States. In the framework of prohibiting child labour, the CRC confers upon children the right to 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 (Article 32). Although it does not specify a minimum age for employment, it urges parties to stipulate one as well as to regulate hours and conditions of employment and provide penalties and sanctions.

EU action to combat child labour

The EU’s strong commitment to eliminating child labour is reflected in Article 32 of the 2012 Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (CFR), which prohibits the employment of children and stipulates that the minimum age of employment may not be lower than the minimum school-leaving age. The main legal instrument prohibiting child labour in the EU is Council Directive 94/33/EC. It allows Member States to set the minimum age for employment below the minimum school-leaving age only exceptionally, in Article 4.2. No major difficulties have been encountered with the transposition of the directive into national law; most Member States already had legislation providing for the prohibition of child labour prior to the adoption of the directive.

There is also an external dimension to the fight against child labour, and to the EU’s full commitment to its eradication. Building upon a document from 2010, the Commission Staff Working Document, Trade and Worst Forms of Child Labour, SWD(2013) 173 provides the framework for understanding the complexity of the issue, emphasising the link between trade and child labour, and pointing out the positive impact of economic growth on the elimination of the worst forms of child labour. More recently, a Commission Staff Working Document, SWD(2017) 147, addresses child labour in the context of promoting sustainable garment value chains through EU development action. The Council of the EU has, meanwhile, reaffirmed its strong commitment to eliminating child labour, particularly its worst forms, and stressed the importance of eradicating the recruitment and use of children in armed conflict, including child soldiers.

The European Parliament has addressed the issue of child labour and its various forms within and outside the EU in a number of resolutions, condemning it and calling for measures that would facilitate its elimination. For example, in 2010, Parliament called for all future trade agreements to provide for a ban on the exploitation of child labour. Subsequent resolutions, on the EC-Uzbekistan partnership and cooperation agreement (2011) and on child labour in the cocoa sector (2012) repeated that call, with specific reference to forced child labour, while the 2013 resolution on the global cotton value chain referred to a traceability mechanism for goods produced through child or forced labour. More recently a Parliament resolution on the EU flagship initiative on the garment sector (2017) calls on the Commission to propose binding legislation on due diligence obligations for supply chains in the sector including standards for the elimination of forced and child labour.

Written by Silvia Kotanidis and Ralf Drachenberg,

Participants in Future of Europe debates in the European Parliament, 2018

Against the background of the many challenges which the European Union has faced in recent years, the European Parliament has taken the lead in launching and hosting a series of high-profile debates on the Future of Europe, intended to run for the whole of 2018. While the Heads of State or Government of countries holding the rotating presidency of the Council – this year, Boyko Borissov of Bulgaria and Sebastian Kurz of Austria – routinely debate with MEPs in plenary, the leaders of other EU Member States are now able to set out publicly their vision for Europe’s future in a dialogue with the only directly elected European institution, during its plenary sittings.

This process is all the more important at a time when the EU’s Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) for the next seven years is being discussed: the choices surrounding the MFF and the direction in which the EU decides to develop are intrinsically linked.

So far, at the invitation of its President, Antonio Tajani, the European Parliament has hosted the leaders of six Member States in the context of these ‘Future of Europe’ debates, welcoming the prime ministers of Ireland (Taoiseach), Leo Varadkar; Croatia, Andrej Plenković; and Portugal, António Costa; the President of France, Emmanuel Macron; and the prime ministers of Belgium, Charles Michel; and Luxembourg, Xavier Bettel.

This Briefing provides an overview of where the Future of Europe debate stands in a number of key policy areas, such as economic and monetary union (EMU), the EU’s social dimension, migration policy, security and defence, and broader institutional issues. It takes stock of the views expressed by those EU Heads of State or Government who have intervened in the debate so far, on how these areas might develop in the future.

Read this briefing on ‘Future of Europe debates: Parliament hosts Heads of State or Government‘ on the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Overview of topics addressed by each Head of State or Government

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 Bird watchers.

Like many of us, you may derive great pleasure and inspiration from watching wild birds and listening to their song. Birds are also an essential element of our ecosystems, which provide us with clean water, pure air, food, medicines and important raw materials.

For these reasons, the European Union protects the 500 wild bird species naturally present in Europe. Through a law adopted in 1979 (the oldest EU law on the environment), the European Union protects bird species in two ways. On the hand, it created protected areas to maintain habitats for 194 species that are particularly threatened (these nature protected areas are part of the wider Natura 2000 network of wild spaces). On the other hand, it bans most activities that directly threaten wild birds, like killing them deliberately, capturing or trading them.

© Jesus / Fotolia

BirdLife, an international non-governmental organisation (NGO) developed, with European Union financial support, a system to collect information on threats to and plans for conservation of about 50 bird species. Projects protecting 54 bird species also have priority access to European funds under the LIFE programme.

You may have noticed that numbers of common farmland birds in Europe, such as sparrows and swallows, have fallen recently. However, EU action has helped to protect Europe’s most threatened birds from further decline. One example is the Spanish Imperial Eagle (Aquila Adalberti), whose population has recovered from 50 pairs in 1974 to about 150-160 pairs today.

Further information

• EPRS publication on ‘Safeguarding biological diversity: EU policy and international agreements’ http://www.europarl.europa.eu/thinktank/en/document.html?reference=EPRS_IDA(2016)582020
• European Commission’s Directorate General for the environment website, http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature

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 young people not in education, employment or training (NEETS).

Many Europeans aged between 15 and 24 years are likely to have experienced difficulties in finding a job and becoming independent, largely due to the 2008 economic and financial crisis. In 2015, 12 % of young Europeans (6.6 million individuals) were not in work, education or training – a social phenomenon known as the NEETs (young people who are ‘not in education, employment or training’).

© Kar Tr / Fotolia

In response to the poor outlook for young people, all EU countries committed to implement a Youth Guarantee in April 2013. The Guarantee promises a good quality offer of employment, further education, an apprenticeship or traineeship to all young people under the age of 25 years, within a period of four months of becoming unemployed or leaving formal education. To help European countries to fulfil this commitment, the EU is spending €6.4 billion on the Youth Employment Initiative (2014-2020), with an extra €1.2 billion in 2017.

Up to now, much effort has been made to reintegrate young people in short term unemployment. European countries also frequently focus on helping young people with disabilities or illnesses. Other strategies that foster equality between young Europeans and boosting female employability include assisting young people who are NEET due to family responsibilities, enhancing young people’s skill sets (basic or digital skills, entrepreneurship), and matching their skills to job market needs.

Further information

• EPRS publication on NEETs: who are they? Being young and not in employment, education or training today
• Eurostat publication on Statistics on young people neither in employment nor in education or training
• Eurofound publication on Exploring the diversity of NEETs

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 undergraduate students.

If you are studying your first degree or are considering in enrolling for one, you may think about going abroad for a part of those studies. In that case, your university’s international office will have information about the possibility of an Erasmus exchange. As an Erasmus student, you do not have to pay registration or tuition fees to your host university, your studies count for your degree, and you receive an EU grant.

You should also know that as an EU citizen, you are entitled to study in any other EU country under the same conditions as nationals. The Your Europe website has information on admissions, fees, financial help, or working while studying to help you plan for your degree abroad.

© kasto / Fotolia

However, the recognition of academic diplomas in different EU countries is not yet automatic. By supporting the development of the European higher education area, the EU is promoting a process that gradually makes this simpler. In the meantime, centres exist in all EU countries that assess the comparability of diplomas. Once you obtain your degree you can also ask your university for a Diploma Supplement to ease recognition.

One of the EU’s targets is for over 40 % of young people to complete higher education by 2020. To this end, the EU brings together policy-makers from the Member States to exchange experiences on updating higher education in terms of attractiveness, accessibility and relevance to contemporary realities. The EU also ensures that graduates receive a quality job offer or an opportunity to further their studies by means of its Youth Guarantee programme.

Further information

• Erasmus+, http://ec.europa.eu/programmes/erasmus-plus/
• Your Europe: Education & Youth: University, https://europa.eu/youreurope/citizens/education/university/index_en.htm
• The Bologna Process and the European Higher Education Area, http://ec.europa.eu/education/policy/higher-education/bologna-process_en
• Enic-naric.net, http://www.enic-naric.net/
• Diploma Supplement, http://europass.cedefop.europa.eu/documents/european-skills-passport/diploma-supplement
• Attainment : raising graduate numbers, http://ec.europa.eu/education/policy/higher-education/attainment_en
• Working Group on the Modernisation of Higher Education, https://ec.europa.eu/education/policy/strategic-framework/expert-groups/modernisation-higher-education_en
• Youth Guarantee, http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=1079