European Parliamentary Research Service Blog

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.

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 online shoppers.

Twitter Hashtag #EUandME

Like many of us, you probably shop online. The use of devices connected to the internet like computers, mobile phones and tablets to buy goods (e.g. clothes and toys), access digital content (movies, e-books), and book services (e.g. hotel booking, car rental) online is increasing. More than 65 % of European internet users shop online, and e commerce is a growing phenomenon especially amongst young people.

© Stanisic Vladimir / Fotolia

However, EU internet users often complain that they cannot access what they want because geo-blocking practices restrict access to websites, content and services offered online in another country. As a result, on average two in three cross-border online shopping attempts made in the EU fail, and online shoppers must accept different conditions and prices for the same product or service, depending where they live.

The EU supports e-commerce and ensures European consumers can buy the goods and access the digital content and services they want online with less restrictions. Since April 2018, EU internet users benefit from new rules on cross-border portability for streaming their favourite TV series online when they travel, or are on holiday in another EU country. Furthermore, thanks to the EU, many geo-blocking practices restricting access to websites and online services are prohibited. By 2019, if you’re shopping online, you will be able to buy gifts for Christmas, book a hotel, or rent a car online, wherever you live in the EU without being blocked or paying unfair prices.

Further information

• EPRS publication, E-commerce: Ban on unjustified geo-blocking and discrimination practices among customers, 2018
• European Parliament, press release Parliament votes to end barriers to cross-border online shopping, 2018
• European Commission, factsheet Ending unjustified Geoblocking to boost online shopping in the EU, 2017

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 cyclists.

Twitter Hashtag #EUandME

As a means of transport over short distances, cycling helps reduce congestion and pollution, lessens our dependence on fuels, brings new jobs and improves public health. It also involves some challenges, such as improving cyclists’ safety, coordinating mobility planning and securing financing for cycling infrastructure. While in some EU countries, people use their bikes for more than a third of their daily trips, in others this is the case for less than 5 % of journeys. The proportion of regular cyclists is higher in cities.

© archimede / Fotolia

Cycling policies are a national – not EU – matter, each country providing its own regulatory framework in addition, in many cases, to country-wide cycling programmes; practical measures are generated mostly at local or regional levels, notably in cities.

Despite this, the EU takes an active role in favour of more cycling. EU support consists principally of guidance, exchange of best practice, and financial support, for instance in helping to build the European cycle route network Eurovelo.

European countries and the European Parliament have called on the European Commission to develop an EU Cycling Strategy to get more people to cycle more often. Cycling organisations have recommended measures that can make a cost-efficient impact, including more EU investment in cycling projects, vehicle regulations which would make motorised vehicles safer for people walking and cycling, and giving Member States the possibility to introduce reduced VAT for bicycle purchases through a reform of EU law.

Further information

• EPRS publication on a coordinated approach to cycling for local and regional authorities in the EU: Moving cycling forward, http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/IDAN/2016/582033/EPRS_IDA(2016)582033_EN.pdf
• European Commission’s Directorate General for Mobility and Transport website, https://ec.europa.eu/transport/themes/urban/cycling_en
• European Cyclists’ Federation webpage, EU Cycling Strategy, https://ecf.com/what-we-do/eu-cycling-strategy

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 chess players in school.

Twitter Hashtag #EUandME

The benefits that school pupils can reap from learning chess are numerous and well-documented. Chess can help children to develop essential cognitive skills, such as concentration, memory, logical and critical thinking, and enhance their creativity, through problem solving. Playing chess also teaches planning, determination and sportsmanship – all positive aspects in a child’s personal development.

EU countries are solely responsible for organising their educational system and its content. Nevertheless, those countries agree that the EU should contribute to the development of quality education, by encouraging cooperation between countries. This means that it supports or supplements national education systems, and develops an exchange of experiences on common educational topics.

© spass / Fotolia

The social virtues of chess in schools, like helping social integration, were emphasised in a March 2012 European Parliament declaration, endorsing the introduction of the ‘Chess in School’ programme in all EU countries. This programme is a cooperation between the European Chess Union (ECU), an independent association with 54 national federation members, and the Kasparov Chess Foundation Europe. Since then, according to ECU, the number of pupils learning chess at school is expanding.

As this game is classified as a sport, it is more accessible to pupils as an option during sports periods at school. It is also eligible for funding under the not-for-profit sport events strand of Erasmus+, the EU funding programme dedicated to education, youth and sport.

Further information

• Official website of the European Chess Union, http://www.europechess.org/board/ecu-profile/
• EPRS publication on ‘Chess teaching in schools in the European Union’, http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/bibliotheque/briefing/2011/110223/LDM_BRI(2011)110223_REV1_EN.pdf
• European Commission Erasmus + programme guide, https://ec.europa.eu/programmes/erasmus-plus/sites/erasmusplus2/files/files/resources/erasmus-plus-programme-guide_en.pdf

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 involved in politics.

Twitter Hashtag #EUandME

Young politicians have recently been elected to the highest positions of power in several EU countries, yet many young people still choose to stay away from politics.

If you’re a young activist, or simply follow politics, the European Union has taken steps to encourage your participation in political life, in line with the obligation introduced by the Lisbon Treaty. European cooperation in the youth field aims at promoting young people’s participation in representative democracy. The Erasmus+ funding programme finances youth exchanges and projects to promote participation in democratic life and active citizenship in Europe, particularly through its youth chapter. Encouraging young people to take part in politics comes from the highest EU levels.

© juan_aunion / Fotolia

To involve young people in decision making, the EU has built specific channels. The EU provides numerous young people with opportunities to make their views known on selected policy topics during 18-month policy cycles. Do you want to take part? Have a look at the Youth Portal (Have your say!).

European young people are also involved in shaping EU external policies, together with their counterparts from Africa or the Eastern Partnership.

The European Parliament has also launched its own initiatives. The Euroscola Day allows high school students to experience first-hand what it means to be a parliamentarian for a day in Strasbourg. The biennial European Youth Event (EYE) provides young Europeans with the opportunity to share their ideas on the future of Europe.

Further information

• European Commission website, Youth Portal, https://europa.eu/youth/EU_en
• European Commission website, Erasmus + projects, http://ec.europa.eu/programmes/erasmus-plus/projects/eplus-projects-compendium/
• European Parliament, Euroscola, http://www.europarl.europa.eu/euroscola

Written by Marcin Grajewski,

© Daniel Berkmann / Fotolia

The discussion on how to deepen and improve the functioning of Economic and Monetary Union (EMU) continues on several fronts. Issues under discussion include euro-area governance, the role of the European Central Bank (ECB), the fiscal rules, debt-mutualisation, risk-sharing, and the nature of, and political compromises between, French and German perspectives within the system. The dispute between Italy and the European Commission over the former’s budget for 2019 is now a major topic for discussion at Eurogroup meetings, as are Banking Union and the sustainability of economic growth, notably in light of the expected tapering of the ECB’s bond-purchase programme. In a separate development, European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker has proposed increasing the international role of the euro, which some analysts say could replace the US dollar in certain international transactions, given the volatility of US economic policies.

This note brings together commentaries, analyses and studies by major international think tanks and research institutes on challenges facing the euro area and related issues. Earlier publications on the topic can be found in a previous edition of ‘What Think Tanks are Thinking’ published in June 2018.

Euro area reform: An anatomy of the debate
Centre for Economic Policy Research, Bruegel, November 2018

Steuer über Bord? Die schwierige Debatte um eine EU-Digitalsteuer
Jacques Delors Institute Berlin, November 2018

European fiscal rules require a major overhaul
Bruegel, October 2018

Commission rejection of Italian budget may be justified, but what comes next?
Centre for European Policy Studies, October 2018

A better European Union architecture to fight money laundering
Bruegel, October 2018

Europe’s search for a safe asset
Peterson Institute for International Economics, October 2018

A European safe asset? Perceptions from France and Germany
Jacques Delors Institute Berlin, Bertelsman Stiftung, October 2018

The international use of the euro: What can we learn from past examples of currency internationalisation?
Bruegel, October 2018

The Italian budget: A case of contractionary fiscal expansion?
Peterson Institute for International Economics, October 2018

Reform of the international monetary system and new global economic governance: How the EU may contribute
Egmont, October 2018

The problem is not EU’s fiscal rules, but Italy’s economic strategy
LUISS School of European Political Economy, October 2018

Should central European EU members join the euro zone?
Bruegel, September 2018

Financial stability implications of increasing interest rates
Centre for European Policy Studies, September 2018

High public debt in euro-area countries: Comparing Belgium and Italy
Bruegel, September 2018

Europe’s payments revolution: Stimulating payments innovation while protecting consumer privacy
Centre for European Policy Studies, September 2018

The German government’s strategy for the euro area in view of Italy’s instability
LUISS School of European Political Economy, September 2018

Italien als Belastungsprobe für den Euroraum
Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik, September 2018

Excess liquidity and bank lending risks in the euro area
Bruegel, September 2018

ESM reform: No need to reinvent the wheel
Jacques Delors Institut, Bertelsmann Stiftung, August 2018

Italian risk spreads: Fiscal versus redenomination risk
Centre for European Policy Studies, August 2018

Real and imagined constraints on euro area monetary policy
Peterson Institute for International Economics, August 2018

Recovery and Resolution of CCPs: Obsessing over regulatory symmetry?
Centre for European Policy Studies, August 2018

Greek bailout: IMF and Europeans diverge on lessons learnt
Chatham House, August 2018

The German barrier to a global euro
European Council on Foreign Relations, August 2018

A supervisory architecture fit for CMU: Aiming at a moving target?
Centre for European Policy Studies, August 2018

Les raisons du ’miracle portugais’
Institut Thomas More, August 2018

Le futur de la zone euro: Perspective croisée franco-allemande
Institut Jacques Delors, July 2018

Sovereign debt restructuring: Rules versus discretion
LUISS School of European Political Economy, July 2018

L’urgence d’une réforme de la fiscalité en Europe
Confrontations Europe, July 2018

ECB non-standard policies and collateral constraints
Centre for European Policy Studies, July 2018

The future of the Economic and Monetary Union
Swedish Institute for European Policy Studies, Clingendael, June 2018

The Meseberg declaration and euro-zone reform
Bruegel, June 2018

Towards a more resilient euro area
Centre for European Policy Studies, June 2018

Is the European Semester effective and useful?
Bruegel, June 2018

How to exit the euro in a nutshell: ‘Il Piano Savona’
Centre for European Policy Studies, June 2018

Comment consolider la zone euro?
Fondation Robert Schuman, June 2018

Economic convergence as the cornerstone of EMU resilience
LSE Ideas, June 2018

The future of the European Central Bank
LSE Ideas, June 2018

It’s business models, stupid!
Institut der deutschen Wirtschaft, June 2018

A review on ESBies: The senior tranche of sovereign bond-backed securities
Netherlands Bureau for Economic Policy Analysis, June 2018

Welcher Weg zur Euro-Reform?
Heinrich Böll Stiftung, June 2018

Fiscal implications of the ECB´s Public Sector Purchase Programme
Institut für Weltwirtschaft Kiel, June 2018

A stabilization fund can make the euro area more crisis-proof
Deutsches Institut für Entwicklungspolitik, June 2018

Read this briefing on ‘Challenges for the euro area‘ on the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Written by Clare Ferguson,

© European Union 2014 – Source EP / Eve VAN SOENS

The European Parliament agenda this month is dominated by some of the big set-pieces of the EU calendar: the latest in the continued debates on the Future of Europe; the EU budget; the award of the LUX prize to this year’s winning film; not forgetting the campaign now well under way to select nominees, known as ‘Spitzenkandidaten‘, for the election of the next Commission President.

The Chancellor of Germany, Angela Merkel, attends Parliament for the latest debate on the Future of Europe (at 15:00 on Tuesday afternoon) in what may be the last chance that Parliament, at least in its current make-up, gets to hear this particular German Chancellor’s ideas on the way forward for Europe and its democratic institutions. Cyril Ramaphosa, President of the Republic of South Africa will also address Parliament in a formal sitting on Wednesday morning.

On Tuesday morning, Members will discuss 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. 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 would be ready to begin negotiations with the Council. In respect of spending under the current budgetary period, Parliament will consider mobilisation of the European Union Solidarity Fund to provide assistance to Latvia. The country could receive some €17 730 519 for reconstruction of the regions affected in floods in 2017, subsequently qualified as a ‘major natural disaster’.

More generally, a Commission statement on Monday evening on floods in Europe will look at responses to the recent series of floods in a number of European countries. Preparing the governance of the energy union to face the challenges of climate change and meeting international commitments on reducing emissions is the subject of a joint debate later on Monday evening, on a clean energy package for the EU. Following negotiations between the EU institutions, Members will consider three proposals, which include a binding 32 % target for use of energy from renewable sources by 2030, and indicative targets on national contributions and on a 32.5 % improvement in energy efficiency.

The LUX prize, to be awarded on Wednesday lunchtime, has become the recognised label of a good film. Nevertheless, whichever laureate wins this year, European filmmakers continue to struggle against fierce competition from the USA and beyond. The LUX prize award continues to support EU cinema through help with distribution and translation costs, allowing winners to break through the barriers of largely national distribution markets, to reach film fans throughout the EU.

Those travelling to the plenary session in Strasbourg by train may unfortunately be familiar with the difficulties of obtaining compensation when booking sections of the journey with different carriers. On Wednesday evening, Members will discuss a Transport Committee report on Commission proposals to strengthen rail passengers’ rights and obligations that deal with this specific issue, as well as others, such as accessibility and assistance. Carriers’ rights to claim force majeure have been a subject of disagreement to date. Should Members endorse the report, this will decide Parliament’s position for negotiations with the other EU institutions.

Migration issues are a persistent priority on the EU agenda. Following Council and Commission statements on EU Member States’ support for the UN Global Compact for migration, the final agenda item for Tuesday evening is discussion of a proposal to establish a system of humanitarian visas in the EU, to give people a clear procedure to follow when in need of international protection. This system would allow non-EU nationals whose lives are in danger to apply for a visa, following appropriate security screening. The comprehensive proposals intend to deal with the issue of irregular migration in the EU, a favourite topic in the influence of foreign actors in recent political campaigns. With the upcoming EP election campaign firmly in their sights, Members will take part in a topical debate on Wednesday afternoon on ways to increase EU resilience in the face of disinformation.

Looking further afield, a joint debate is scheduled for Tuesday evening on the implementation of the EU Association Agreements with Georgia and Moldova. Parliament’s Foreign Affairs (AFET) committee reports that implementation of the 2014 Association Agreement with Georgia is largely positive. While dealing with some foreign interference from both Russia and Turkey, the country is nevertheless making good progress on rule of law and human rights issues, with some exceptions for 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 experiencing some serious backsliding on democratic values and electoral reform.

EU arms-export licences almost doubled between 2014 and 2016. A motion for resolution is tabled for Tuesday evening 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 individual 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, which go to destinations such as the United Arab Emirates, India, Saudi Arabia and Egypt.

Parliament will discuss the package of telecoms proposals, to establish a European Electronic Communications Code and develop the mandate of the corresponding regulatory body, known as BEREC, in a joint debate on Wednesday morning. The proposals for a lighter regulatory regime seek to boost investment in high-capacity networks, improving use of radio frequencies and providing access to broadband services for all citizens, as well as reinforcing consumer protection. A cap on charges for phone calls at 19 cents and 6 cents for text messages inside the EU has already been agreed, and the file now awaits Parliament’s final decision.

Parliament is also expected to take an initial position on a proposed multiannual plan for Adriatic fisheries later on Monday evening. Anchovy and sardine stocks are overfished in this part of the Mediterranean, and the current fisheries management is criticised as ineffective. Parliament’s Committee on Fisheries (PECH) is opposed to Commission proposals to radically change the way allowable catches are set, preferring to strengthen the current measures instead.

Written by Didier Bourguignon,

© andreusK / Fotolia

Through its environmental policy, the European Union (EU) has been improving Europeans’ well-being since 1972. Today, the aim of EU environmental policy is to ensure that by 2050 we are living well, within the limits of the planet. To reach this goal, the EU is striving to move towards a low-carbon, resource-efficient economy, to safeguard biodiversity and to protect human health through legislation on air quality, chemicals, climate, nature, waste and water.

Although this policy is delivering concrete benefits (such as a wide network of Natura 2000 protected areas, lower greenhouse gas emissions, increased resource recycling, and cleaner air and water), the outlook for the European environment 20 years from now shows a bleaker picture. Yet transitioning to sustainability could deliver a number of benefits beyond environmental protection, from jobs and economic activity to well-being and health.

In a recent poll conducted for the European Parliament, three quarters of EU citizens expressed support for increased EU action on environmental protection.

Since 2014, efforts have been made in a number of areas, including waste management (for example new recycling targets, restrictions on plastic carrier bags, action on plastics, measures to tackle marine litter); climate (for example the 2030 greenhouse gas emission targets, and measures to decarbonise the transport sector); nature (primarily to improve the way EU rules on biodiversity protection are implemented); and air quality (new rules on maximum amounts of five key air pollutants that EU countries can emit into the atmosphere). The European Parliament has advocated ambitious policies in many of these areas.

In the future, EU environment and climate spending is expected to rise. The Commission is proposing to boost the share of EU spending contributing to climate objectives from 20 % to 25 %, while Parliament has called for this share to be set at 30 %. In the coming years, policies are expected to focus on climate action, nature protection, air quality, the circular economy and pesticides.

Read the complete briefing on ‘EU policies – Delivering for citizens: Environmental protection‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Click to view slideshow.