European Parliamentary Research Service Blog

Written by Liselotte Jensen.

Following prolonged talks, the 26th Conference of the Parties ended late on 13 November 2021. With countries’ nationally determined contributions (NDC) ahead of the event leading to an estimated 2.7°C warming towards the end of the century, the host, the United Kingdom, set the goal to keep a limit of 1.5°C warming within reach.

Outcomes of the conference

A main outcome of the 26th Conference of the Parties (COP26) is the Glasgow Climate Pact, requesting leaders to revisit their nationally determined contributions (NDCs) ahead of next year’s COP27. It notes the need to reduce emissions by 45 % by 2030, from 2010 levels, to align with the Paris Agreement’s 1.5°C ambition. From COP27, annual ‘pre-2030 ambition’ high-level ministerial meetings are to ensure climate action in this critical decade. A work programme to deliver on the global goal for adaptation was launched. Doubling of adaptation finance levels by 2025, compared to 2019, within the annual US$100 billion climate finance pledge was also agreed. The text further specifies the need to ‘phase down’ unabated coal and phase out inefficient fossil-fuel subsidies. COP26 also delivered on its goal to finalise the Paris rulebook, which allows for operationalisation of key aspects such as international carbon markets, the agreement on emissions accounting and reporting under the Enhanced Transparency Framework, and agreed common timelines in NDC submissions (every five years with a ten-year view).

Countries representing 85 % of world forest cover promised to halt and reverse deforestation by 2030. The Global Methane Pledge reached 100+ signatories, as did a clean vehicles pledge. Other commitments focused on reducing aviation and shipping emissions, while 30 countries and development banks vowed to end new public financing for unabated fossil-fuel projects by 2022. The Breakthrough Agenda will seek to deliver development and deployment of innovative technological solutions across several key sectors.

European Parliament position and role

Ahead of COP26, the European Parliament adopted its COP26 resolution at its October II plenary session, calling on world leaders to raise ambitions and for Europe to lead the way in ensuring a green global recovery and climate policies, in line with the just transition principle. The Parliament pointed to the overall need for increased climate finance, including striking a balance between mitigation and adaptation funds, to achieve the conditional aspects of NDCs. It urged a global end to fossil fuel subsidies, and pointed to the need to address specific sector challenges and potent warming gases such as methane. It called on the parties to finalise the Paris rulebook, ensuring transparency, strong environmental integrity and ambition. The Parliament previously adopted a resolution on climate diplomacy in 2018, and declared a climate and environment emergency in 2019. On the basis of the ‘Fit for 55‘ proposals, the European Parliament will have a key role as co-legislator in ensuring a legal framework fit to deliver the targets set in the Climate Law.

Reactions and next steps

Disappointment was voiced at the final text calling for a ‘phase down’ rather than a ‘phase out’ of coal, although observers point to this as significant, as it is the first time coal is singled out in a COP decision text. Criticism from developing countries regarding failed climate finance promises created tension ahead of COP26. An overruled proposal by the G77 and China for a finance facility dedicated to loss and damage reportedly almost jeopardised the Glasgow Climate Pact. Instead, a ‘Glasgow Dialogue’ on funding for loss and damage was launched, along with a strengthening of the Santiago Network. An ad-hoc work programme to quantify the post-2025 climate finance goal was also agreed. To close the Paris rulebook, carry-over of some 2013‑2020 Kyoto Protocol credits was agreed, an admission starkly criticised by some climate non-governmental organisations.

Read this ‘At a glance’ on ‘COP26 climate change conference: Outcomes‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Written by Jaan Soone.

On 14 July 2021, the European Commission presented a package of proposals to equip the EU’s climate, energy, land use, transport and taxation policies to reduce net greenhouse gas emissions by at least 55 % by 2030, compared with 1990 levels – the ‘fit for 55’ package. The package includes a proposal to revise the 2014 directive on alternative fuels infrastructure and turn it into a regulation.

In the draft regulation the Commission proposes binding targets for electric vehicle charging points and hydrogen refuelling points, electric charging for stationary aircraft at airports and on shore power supply for ships at ports. It also contains provisions for EU Member States to ensure coverage of refuelling points for liquefied natural gas (LNG) dedicated to heavy-duty vehicles and LNG refuelling points in maritime ports.

In the European Parliament, the file has been referred to the Transport and Tourism Committee.

Versions

• November 2021: Deployment of alternative fuels infrastructure: Fit for 55 package (1st edition)

Proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the deployment of alternative fuels infrastructure, and repealing Directive 2014/94/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council Committee responsible:Transport and Tourism (TRAN)COM(2021) 559
14.07.2021Rapporteur:Ismail Ertug (S&D, Germany)2021/0223(COD)Shadow rapporteurs:Jens Gieseke (EPP, Germany)
Caroline Nagtegaal (Renew, the Netherlands)
Anna Deparnay-Grunenberg (Greens/EFA, Germany)
Roman Haider (ID, Austria)
Carlo Fidanza (ECR, Italy)
Elena Kountoura (The Left, Greece)Ordinary legislative procedure (COD)
(Parliament and Council on equal footing – formerly ‘co-decision’) Next steps expected: Publication of draft report © teksomolika / Adobe Stock

Written by Jaan Soone.

In December 2019 the European Commission published a communication on the Green Deal, in which it outlined its priorities to transform the EU into a resource-efficient and competitive economy and to meet the EU’s climate commitments.

Subsequently, in line with the Green Deal, the European Climate Law was adopted in July 2021, setting in law the EU target for 2030 of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by at least 55 % compared with 1990 levels. To deliver the targets agreed in the European Climate Law, the Commission adopted a set of legislative proposals known as the ‘Fit for 55’ package on 14 July 2021. To speed up emissions reductions in transport, the package includes proposals to tighten the emissions trading scheme and widen its scope, proposals to increase the use of alternative fuels in aviation and shipping, stricter CO2 emissions standards for road vehicles, and a proposal to amend the Alternative Fuels Infrastructure Directive (AFID) and transform it into a regulation.

This briefing provides a snapshot of the current state of play in alternative fuels recharging and refuelling points, and in the number of alternative fuel vehicles in circulation in EU countries. Since the adoption of the AFID in 2014, infrastructure deployment for the various alternative fuels in road transport has grown, however differences persist between Member States. Similarly, the uptake of alternatively fuelled vehicles differs between Member States, and petrol and diesel engines continue to dominate vehicle fleets. Nonetheless, the market for electric vehicles has strongly matured, and the market for hydrogen fuel cell vehicles has also developed. The market for natural gas and liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) vehicles is mature and has seen slow growth, but vehicles have remained concentrated in a few Member States. The briefing also summarises recent projections for future take-up of these vehicles.

See also the EPRS ‘EU Legislation in progress’ briefing on the revision of the Directive on the Deployment of Alternative Fuels Infrastructure (AFID).

Read the complete briefing on ‘Alternative fuel vehicle infrastructure and fleets: State of play‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Written by Clare Ferguson.

Parliament’s second plenary session of November takes place in Strasbourg, with Members firmly focusing their agenda on one of Parliament’s most important tasks – its scrutiny of the way in which EU funds are spent.

Citizens expect the EU to spend its budget efficiently and transparently, and the European Parliament represents citizens’ interests through several mechanisms allowing for thorough checks of EU spending. One of the main ways in which the EU spends its budget remains the common agricultural policy (CAP). Following a joint debate scheduled for Tuesday morning, Members are scheduled to vote on the agreement reached (after lengthy negotiations between the co-legislators) on three proposals to reform EU farm policy for the new budgetary period – the 2021‑2027 multiannual financial framework (MFF). However, given the time taken to reach these agreements, the new reforms would come into effect on 1 January 2023, with a temporary extension currently in place for 2021 and 2022 spending. The first file concerns the new requirement for each EU Member State to draw up a CAP strategic plan, setting out exactly how they will use the CAP to support farmers, and market and rural development. This new delivery model should provide greater flexibility and subsidiarity, and is expected to better align CAP spending with EU environmental and climate priorities. The agreement on the CAP horizontal regulation on financing, management and monitoring rules reflects Parliament’s desire for a stronger crisis reserve and a clearer division of tasks in the governance system. Members are then expected to consider the compromise reached on reform of the common market organisation in agriculture, which governs production of and trade in agricultural products, including issues such as geographical indications. Parliament has been keen to ensure that the reform leads to a more agile agricultural market that responds to consumer and producer needs alike, and reflects the EU’s priorities in protecting our natural resources. Underlining the focus on climate measures, Members will also hear Council and Commission statements on the outcome of COP26 in Glasgow on Wednesday morning.

As can be seen from the organisation of CAP funding, 80 % of EU expenditure overall is handled at national level, through shared management of EU programmes. The variety of different reporting systems used by EU governments (over 290) unnecessarily complicates this vital task. A Budgetary Control (CONT) Committee legislative-initiative report calling for digitalisation to streamline the reporting, monitoring and auditing of EU spending is therefore scheduled for consideration on Tuesday afternoon. The report demands that an integrated and interoperable electronic information and monitoring system is set up before the end of 2021, to collect, monitor and analyse information about recipients of EU funding in all Member States. The EU Financial Regulation itself, which governs the establishment, implementation and scrutiny of the EU budget, also needs to be updated to ensure good governance of the funding made available under the new MFF and the Next Generation EU fund. On Monday evening, Members will consider an own-initiative report anticipating the European Commission’s forthcoming proposal for an update to the Financial Regulation. The report calls for modernised budgetary rules that fully reflect EU values (e.g. on the rule of law, on climate impacts and on gender). It also underlines the need to increase transparency and democratic accountability by ensuring information about recipients of EU funding is made public and, importantly, that the Parliament’s role in scrutinising expenditure is respected. This is considered particularly important when managing crises or when ‘off-budget instruments’ are established.

Negotiations to agree the EU budget for 2022 took place in a very dynamic context, with the urgent need to tackle the Covid‑19 pandemic, climate change and humanitarian crises uppermost in negotiators’ minds. On Tuesday afternoon, Members are scheduled to consider Parliament’s position on the provisional agreement reached this week between the co‑legislators. Parliament has insisted that funding should be boosted for the top priorities for 2022 spending: funding the coronavirus recovery and the green and digital transitions, including a focus on groups hard-hit by the pandemic such as small businesses and young people. Parliament also supports stronger health measures, including for the COVAX programme, as well as spending on security, migration, asylum and integration, fundamental rights and Union values.

The rule of law was one Leitmotif of the European Council meeting of 21‑22 October 2021 and Members will hear Commission and Council statements on the outcome of that meeting on Tuesday afternoon. This will be followed by statements on the situation in Belarus and at its border with the EU, particularly the security and humanitarian consequences. Belarus opposition leader Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya is expected to make a formal address to Parliament on Wednesday lunchtime.

Parliament’s Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (LIBE) Committee has tabled a legislative-initiative report for Tuesday afternoon, which calls for a package of amendments to current EU legal migration policy and law, to make it easier for non-EU citizens who migrate legally to the EU to find employment. The EU workforce is ageing, and could fall to 51 % of the total population by 2070. While the EU has already taken measures to allow highly qualified non-EU citizens to take up employment in the EU, a gap remains, as labour markets need low- and medium-skilled workers. The proposals include: creating a talent pool for non-EU applicants who wish to migrate legally; a voluntary framework for talent partnerships with third countries; an admission scheme for self-employed and entrepreneur migrants; a framework to recognise third-country nationals’ skills and qualifications; possibilities for short-term mobility to complement legal migration; and creation of a transnational advisory service network.

Finally, Council and Commission statements are expected on Thursday morning on the International Day of Elimination of Violence against Women and the state of play on the ratification of the Istanbul Convention.

• Digitalisation to streamline reporting, monitoring and auditing of EU spending (Think Tank)
• Legal migration policy and law (Think Tank)
• Financing, management and monitoring of the post-2022 EU agricultural policy (Think Tank)
• Amending rules on the common market organisation (CMO) in agriculture (Think Tank)
• Revision of the Financial Regulation (Think Tank)
• Strategic planning in the EU’s post-2022 agricultural policy (Think Tank)
• Adoption of the European Union’s 2022 Budget (Think Tank)

Written by Anna Caprile.

The culmination of two years’ preparatory work and worldwide mobilisation events, the United Nations Food Systems Summit took place on 23 September 2021. The idea behind the summit, initiated by United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres, was to start a process of transforming the way the world produces, consumes and thinks about food – as a crucial step in progressing on all 17 sustainable development goals (SDGs).

The summit was announced in October 2019 – before the Covid‑19 pandemic became a hunger crisis in many parts of the world – and the stakes have since risen acutely, bringing a new sense of urgency and creating an opportunity to boost the level of reform ambition for global food systems.

More than 150 countries took part in the event, which took place entirely on line, wrapping up a process that has generated a remarkable level of mobilisation and public debate through multiple platforms. Although the summit revealed ample consensus on the need for a radical reform of food systems, it also evidenced profound divergences as to how to approach the daunting tasks ahead.  

A follow-up mechanism has been designed to advance the national and global transformative actions announced at the summit, and the United Nations Secretary-General will convene a global stock-taking meeting every two years to measure progress.

This briefing updates an earlier edition, published in September 2021 ahead of the Summit.

Read the complete Briefing on ‘United Nations Food Systems Summit 2021: Process, challenges and the way forward‘ on the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

• Why a food summit
• The food system in the context of other systems

Written by Tambiama Madiega (1st edition).

The European Commission unveiled a new proposal for an EU regulatory framework on artificial intelligence (AI) in April 2021. The draft AI act is the first ever attempt to enact a horizontal regulation of AI. The proposed legal framework focuses on the specific utilisation of AI systems and associated risks. The Commission proposes to establish a technology-neutral definition of AI systems in EU law and to lay down a classification for AI systems with different requirements and obligations tailored on a ‘risk-based approach’. Some AI systems presenting ‘unacceptable’ risks would be prohibited. A wide range of ‘high-risk’ AI systems would be authorised, but subject to a set of requirements and obligations to gain access to the EU market. Those AI systems presenting only ‘low or minimal risk’ would be subject to very light transparency obligations. While generally supporting the Commission’s proposal, stakeholders and experts call for a number of amendments, including revising the definition of AI systems, broadening the list of prohibited AI systems, strengthening enforcement and redress mechanisms and ensuring proper democratic oversight of the design and implementation of EU AI regulation.

Versions

• November 2021: Artificial intelligence act (1st edition)

Proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the council laying down harmonised rules on artificial intelligence (artificial intelligence act) and amending certain Union legislative acts Committee responsible:Internal Market and Consumer Protection (IMCO) (provisional)COM(2021)206
21.04.2021Rapporteur:Brando Benifei (S&D, Italy)2021/0106(COD)Shadow rapporteurs:Deirdre Clune (EPP, Ireland)
Svenja Hahn, (Renew, Germany)
Kim Van Sparrentak (Greens/EFA, the Netherlands)
Kosma Zlotowski, (ECR, Poland)
Kateřina Konecna (The Left, Czechia)Ordinary legislative procedure (COD)
(Parliament and Council on equal footing – formerly ‘co-decision’) Next steps expected: Publication of draft report

• Pyramid of risks

Written by Nera Kuljanic.

The way most food is produced is harming the planet. A profound change is needed, involving all agri-food actors. As consumers, we sit at the end of the agri-food chain. Our daily dietary choices implicitly support certain food systems, production methods and types of food. What could help us make better choices?

Our food comes with a climate cost. Food systems are responsible for about a third of global greenhouse gas emissions. The majority of these are related to land use (such as deforestation) and on-farm production (related to fertilisers, cattle digestion and fuel use for example). Food transport, packaging and waste account for much less. Meeting the goals of the Paris Agreement may become impossible if we continue the current trend of greenhouse gas emissions from food production alone. Beyond emissions, the environmental impacts of modern-day agriculture also include its water footprint, water eutrophication, soil degradation and biodiversity loss. Besides being an environmental issue, food waste is also unethical.

Europeans seem concerned about the environmental footprint of the food on their plates. For almost 60 % sustainability considerations have at least some influence on their food choices – so they would like to see such information on food products. At the same time, a lack of information, the challenge of identifying sustainable food options, and their limited availability, are the most frequent barriers to sustainable eating (besides price).

Environmental labelling is already part of certain European Union (EU) policies. For some types of products sold within the EU single market, such information is provided in a standardised way and is often mandatory. This helps to remove the information asymmetry between consumers and producers when it comes to the carbon cost of such products. Car manufacturers are required to state carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions for all cars advertised or sold, and household electric appliances carry energy efficiency labels. A voluntary EU Ecolabel is awarded to products and services for environmental excellence throughout their life-cycle. When it comes to food, products carrying various labels and claims about their eco-friendly character abound on our supermarket shelves. While some labels focus on single ‘issues’ (water use, greenhouse gas emissions, packaging), others have a more holistic approach that encompasses the environmental, social and economic dimensions of sustainability. The labels are issued by non-governmental organisations (NGOs, e.g. FAIRTRADE mark), or national authorities (e.g. EU organic logo). Similarly, private brands often make self-declared environmental claims on their products. Labels can also indicate ‘country of origin‘ and ‘sustainable fish‘. Existing food labels are overwhelmingly ‘endorsement labels’, which simply certify that a product has met certain pre-defined criteria, offering no possibility to compare between products. Such proliferation, with the absence of clear or shared underpinning standards, may also be considered greenwashing. Consequently, even the most motivated consumers can be at a loss when it comes to purchasing eco-friendly food.

Consumers need clear guidance and reliable information to play their part in reducing the environmental footprint of modern agriculture. Information or claims regarding products at the point of purchase (ecolabels) can help consumers understand their environmental impact from farm to fork, nudging them to make a more sustainable choice. Preliminary scientific evidence suggests that ecolabels could provide an effective policy tool to promote more environmentally friendly food choices.

Potential impacts and developments

For the sake of transparency, credibility and consumer trust, a single labelling system is needed to present consistent information based on clear criteria. A pilot project using front-of-pack environmental scores in the form of traffic light labels has been taking place in the EU and the United Kingdom since September 2021. Based on the results of the pilot, an ‘optimal environmental labelling system’ should be launched in 2022.

Designing a standard, applying it to products and overseeing its implementation is not straightforward. The format, position and types of claims made by labels are important. Sensible criteria for placing labels and claims on products are needed to provide useful guidance to both vegans and meat-eaters. However, the vast diversity of food products means trade-offs are inevitable. Agri-food chain complexity, the range of environmental impacts and ambiguous definitions of sustainability make it difficult to calculate the net environmental impact of a product precisely. Lastly, the consumer decision-making process is complex. These are some of the challenges to be addressed before ecolabels on foods can be implemented effectively.

Nevertheless, simply printing labels and logos is not a silver bullet that will translate consumer intentions to make more climate-friendly food choices into action. To ‘activate’ consumers, they need to be aware of ecolabels, know how to read them, and understand their purpose in the context of efforts towards living within planetary boundaries. This knowledge then needs to result in a behavioural change. Researchers identified many factors affecting our purchase and eating behaviour, including age, gender, education, socioeconomic status, food price, taste, habits and convenience. Consumer groups may respond to labels differently: those who are committed to making environmentally friendly choices in their daily lives will be more responsive to ecolabels, for example. There are other issues: a particular combination of an ecolabel and a health claim on a product may result in a conundrum, tempting a consumer to, for example, select a healthy product that is harmful for the environment or vice versa. It is crucial to changing behaviour to identify and address such barriers, real or perceived. Wide communication and education campaigns are therefore needed to ‘activate’ consumers. This will require substantial effort and resources.

Finally, the implementation of ecolabels involves putting a credible assessment system in place. Such a system is essential to support regulatory authorities when awarding labels and monitoring products and claims to prevent fraud. The assessment will have to select relevant environmental impacts across a huge diversity of production methods and products. It will involve developing analytical methods, choosing appropriate indicators and setting up data-collection standards.

This mammoth task is not without challenges. It is unclear to what extent environmentally friendly food choices translate into sustainability benefits for our planet. It is impossible to link a particular claim and product to a specific effect on the environment. There is also a big difference between a single outcome improvement and a product’s environmental impact across its full life-cycle. Biodegradable packaging or reduced freshwater use in production does not guarantee that a product’s net environmental impact is not harmful. A farmer practising regenerative agriculture to improve soil health can still be a net greenhouse gas emitter. Another challenge is the relatively frequent innovation in ingredients and product formulations, and the variability in sourcing ingredients. This means that a single product’s environment-related attributes can often vary. Another problem is data-related: claims are mostly made on the basis of perceived impacts or proxy variables, rather than specific product life-cycle assessments or on-the-ground measurements. If data collection is required from farm to fork, it may place a huge burden on small producers and suppliers.

Anticipatory policy-making

Food labelling is already regulated in the EU, including the placing of nutrition and health claims. As announced in the EU farm to fork strategy, the European Commission is expected to propose a sustainable labelling framework in 2024, which will cover, in synergy with other relevant initiatives, the nutritional, climate, environmental and social aspects of food products. Introducing such standardised environmental labels on foods requires the issues outlined in the previous section to be addressed. Besides commitment from governments; farmers and business, researchers and NGOs also play key roles. For example, climate and agricultural research can provide inputs for developing models for impact assessment across food systems, and insights from consumer science can help set up effective labelling schemes. Such research can be funded through EU programmes including Horizon Europe. Consumer groups and other NGOs are important partners for communicating the tangible aspects of sustainability and the power of consumer action. Ecolabels can work in two ways. To consumers, they can signal eco-friendly food choices. To producers, they can be an incentive for sustainable farming, rethinking supply chains, and reformulating products. Nevertheless, ecolabels are not a panacea to transforming food systems. A broad set of policy measures is needed to make a sustainable food choice the easiest option for consumers. Actions have to be taken throughout the product life-cycle from farm to fork (or dump), combining regulatory initiatives, fiscal ‘carrots and sticks’, and information and education campaigns.

Read the complete briefing on ‘What if ecolabels could nudge us to choose greener food?‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Listen to policy podcast ‘What if ecolabels could nudge us to choose greener food?’ on YouTube.

Written by Marcin Szczepański.

On 8 October 2021, the OECD announced that, following years of intense negotiations, 136 countries had finally reached an agreement on how to tackle the tax policy challenges arising from the digitalisation of the economy. A growing realisation that these challenges cannot be addressed by the existing tax system – over a century old – helped achieve the breakthrough. With this, one of the main questions pertinent to the digital economy – how to fairly tax businesses that rely on intangible assets and have no or only an insignificant physical presence in the tax jurisdictions where they operate – seems to have been answered.

The EU and other international bodies have been discussing these issues for some time. In March 2018, the EU introduced a legislative package on the fair taxation of the digital economy. It contained proposals for an interim and a long-term digital tax. However, there was no immediate political agreement in the Council. As finding a global solution at the OECD level or a coordinated EU approach was not yet feasible at the time, some Member States started designing or implementing their own digital taxes, which gave rise to trade tensions.

The two-pillar solution agreed under the auspices of the OECD will put an end to this fragmentation. Pillar One would reallocate taxation rights concerning the largest and most profitable multinationals, and Pillar Two would introduce a global minimal corporate tax rate. While the consensus has been broadly welcomed, the new rules have also sparked controversy, particularly regarding their impact on developing countries, their complexity and their resilience to possible circumvention. The agreement will be presented for endorsement during the G20 Leaders’ Summit scheduled for 30-31 October 2021 in Rome.

This Briefing updates a previous one from March 2020.

Read the complete briefing on ‘Taxing the digital economy: New developments and the way forward‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Listen to policy podcast ‘Taxing the digital economy: New developments and the way forward’ on YouTube.

Written by Anita Orav.

The European Asylum Support Office (EASO) is a European Union agency that provides tools to help the EU Member States prepare for an influx of asylum applicants and implement EU legislation on the ground. The Malta-based agency was established in 2010 as an impartial centre of expertise, with the objective of developing practical cooperation between the Member States, offering support in the event of particular asylum-related pressures and providing evidence for EU policy-making.

In 2016, EASO played a major role in implementing the immediate actions outlined in the European agenda on migration, which focused on strengthening the EU’s emergency response to the migration crisis. The European Commission has also called for a strengthened role for EASO in other related areas. To enable the agency to fulfil its new tasks, build up staff, and deliver operational and technical support to Member States, EASO’s budget has seen a nearly tenfold increase over the past seven years, from €14.6 million in 2014 to close to €140 million in 2021.

However, concerns have been voiced regarding the way EASO’s mandate has expanded in practice, without the necessary legal basis, and regarding the lack of transparency or appropriate monitoring mechanisms vis à vis its activities. In 2016, as a response to the shortcomings revealed in the EU’s migration management, the Commission presented a proposal to amend and expand EASO’s mandate, also changing its name to the European Union agency for asylum to reflect its stronger powers. As part of the asylum reform package, the proposal was put on hold, but was then relaunched as part of the new pact on asylum and migration in September 2020. On 29 June 2021, the European Parliament and the Council reached a political agreement on the agency. To enter into force, the agreement now needs to be endorsed formally by the co-legislators. The text agreed was debated in plenary session on 7 October 2021, and the Parliament is expected to vote on it during November 2021.

Read the complete briefing on ‘Introducing the European Union agency for asylum‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Listen to policy podcast ‘Introducing the European Union agency for asylum’ on YouTube.

Evolution of EASO appropriations

Written by Marcin Grajewski.

The 2021 United Nations Climate Change Conference of Parties, also known as COP26, held in Glasgow, made limited progress on measures to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases. Leaders and government officials did agree on plans to limit deforestation and emissions of methane, one of the gases responsible for global warming, but they made little headway on curbing CO2 discharges. Notably, the leaders of China and Russia did not attend. Before the conference, scientists, analysts and many politicians had urged swift and radical action on climate change, pointing to this year’s weather anomalies – severe floods in Europe and China, fires in the United States, Australia and many other countries, and more frequent hurricanes.

This note offers links to recent commentaries, studies and reports from international think tanks on climate issues, notably the European Green Deal, a set of policy initiatives by the European Commission with the overarching aim of making Europe climate neutral by mid-century. Links to more studies on COP26 will be published in a forthcoming item in this series in the next few weeks.

Top takeaways from the UN world leaders summit at COP26
World Resources Institute, November 2021

The European Green Deal: How to turn ambition into action
European Policy Centre, November 2021

A new economic geography of decarbonisation?
Bruegel, November 2021

Is the ECB right to take on climate change?
Bruegel, November 2021

How green are electric vehicles?
Bruegel, November 2021

COP 26: L’Europe ouvre la voie vers la neutralité climatique
Institut Jacques Delors, November 2021

Conditions are ideal for a new climate club
Bruegel, Energy Policy, November 2021

What near-term climate impacts should worry us most?
Chatham House, October 2021

COP26 and the foreign policy blind spot in Europe’s climate action
Carnegie Europe, October 2021

Climate politics: Why the old diplomacy no longer works
Chatham House, October 2021

BECCS deployment: The risks of policies forging ahead of the evidence
Chatham House, October 2021

Zero emissions, zero problems?
Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik, October 2021

Fonds social pour le climat pour une transition énergétique juste
Institut Jacques Delors, October 2021

COP26 in Glasgow
Centre for European Policy Studies, October 2021

Green democracy in Europe
Carnegie Europe, September 2021

Can climate change be tackled without ditching economic growth?
Bruegel, September 2021

Climate change risk assessment 2021: The risks are compounding, and without immediate action the impacts will be devastating
Chatham House, September 2021

Winners and losers of energy and climate policy: How can the costs be redistributed?
Bruegel, Ifo, September 2021

A green fiscal pact: climate investment in times of budget consolidation
Bruegel, September 2021

The Green transition, finance and biodiversity
Centre for European Policy Studies, September 2021

5 big findings from the IPCC’s 2021 Climate Report
World Resources Institute, August 2021

Climate change, diversity, justice
Bertelsmann Stiftung, August 2021

Hydrogen development strategies: A global perspective
Bruegel, August 2021

EU-India cooperation in addressing climate risks
Clingendael, August 2021

The European Union’s carbon border mechanism and the WTO
Bruegel, July 2021

The risks from climate change to sovereign debt in Europe
Bruegel, July 2021

Fit for 55: Is the European Green Deal really leaving no-one behind?
Centre for European Policy Studies, July 2021

Fit for 55 marks Europe’s climate moment of truth

Bruegel, July 2021
European Green Deal

Centre for European Policy Studies, July 2021
Mission probable: The EU’s efforts to green security and defence

Clingendael, July 2021
The ‘fit for 55’ climate proposals explained

Centre for European Reform, July 2021
Avoiding the pitfalls of an EU carbon border adjustment mechanism

Centre for European Reform, July 2021
Climat: Comment votent les députés européens?
Institut Jacques Delors, July 2021

The external dimensions of the European Green Deal: The case for an integrated approach
Deutsches Institut für Entwicklungspolitik, July 2021

Wie die EU die 2030-Klimaziele in den Sektoren Straßenverkehr und Gebäudewärme erreichen kann: Optionen einer konsistenten EU-weiten Regulierung im Verkehr und Gebäudesektor
Institut der Deutschen Wirtschaft Köln, July 2021

Der Effekt von klimapolitischen Maßnahmen auf CO2‐Emissionen und CO2‐Fußabdrücke
Bertelsmann Stiftung, July 2021

Between and within country distributional impacts from harmonizing carbon prices in the EU
Zentrum für Europäische Wirtschaftsforschung, July 2021

Measuring progress towards climate neutrality
Ecologic Institute, European Climate Foundation, Institut du développement durable et des relations internationales, July 2021

Ein CO2-Grenzausgleich für den Green Deal der EU
Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik, July 2021

‘Greening’ the EU’s cultural diplomacy: Uncovering the potential of the culture-climate nexus
Egmont, June 2021

The EU and climate security: Toward ecological diplomacy
Carnegie Europe, Open Society European Policy Institute, June 2021

Greening the European Green Bond market
Centre for European Policy Studies, June 2021

EU–UK climate cooperation post-Brexit: A case for optimism?
European Policy Centre, June 2021

Green concerns and salience of environmental issues in Eastern Europe
Free Network, June 2021

Is the EU’s building renovation wave ‘fit for 55’
European Policy Centre, June 2021

How to decarbonise EU road transport without summoning the gilets jaunes
Centre for European Reform, May 2021

Will only a green power remain a great power?
Egmont, May 2021

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

Sofija Voronova with Romy Boden.

Child sexual exploitation and sexual abuse are among the worst forms of violence against children, and constitute serious crimes that know no borders. The continuous increase in child sexual exploitation and abuse, not least due to the Covid‑19 pandemic, underscores the importance of harmonised national legislation and international cooperation to prevent these offences, protect the victims and prosecute the perpetrators. The European Day contributes to raising awareness on the need for prevention and protection of children.

Background

18 November marks the European Day on the Protection of Children against Sexual Exploitation and Sexual Abuse – a yearly Council of Europe initiative raising awareness and facilitating open discussion on the need to prevent child sexual exploitation and abuse, and to protect children against these crimes. The 2021 edition focuses on ‘Making the circle of trust truly safe for children’. Indeed, abuse mostly occurs in the child’s circle of trust (at home, at school or in their community) and is inflicted by someone the child knows, which makes it extremely difficult for children to report and overcome such abuse. As acts of abuse are largely under-reported, it is difficult to measure the true scale of the phenomenon, and the known number of cases only represents the tip of the iceberg. A recent Unicef report estimated that child sexual abuse and exploitation were prevalent in all countries of the world, and that 1 in 8 children globally have been sexually abused or exploited at some point in their life. In Europe, about 1 in 5 children are estimated to be victims of some form of sexual violence, and between 70 and 85 % of the child victims know their abuser. One third of abused children never tell anyone about the abuse. Reasons include feelings of shame and guilt, fear of not being believed, not knowing whom to tell, or being unable to recognise the abuse, for example.

With the rapid digitalisation of our societies, child sexual abuse and exploitation increasingly occur online. As the European Commission reports, the United States-based non-profit organisation, the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC), registered a dramatic increase in reports of online child sexual exploitation over the past decade. The number of reports worldwide rose from 1 million in 2010 to almost 17 million in 2019, including nearly 70 million images and videos, and jumped to a record high 21.7 million in 2020. As regards the European Union (EU), the number of reports increased from 23 000 in 2010 to more than 725 000 in 2019, with over 3 million images and videos. According to the Internet Watch Foundation, Europe – where almost 90 % of such material was hosted in 2019 – has become the largest host of child sexual abuse material (CSAM) in the world. These developments have further intensified with the Covid‑19 pandemic, as during the lockdowns children spent more time online unsupervised, which has made them more vulnerable to exploitation. Europol observed a surge in the (already huge) amount of CSAM shared on the internet, highlighting the need to promote preventive and educational initiatives across Europe.

International and EU efforts to combat child sexual abuse International legal framework

The 1989 United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) formed the starting point for an international framework for combating child sexual abuse and exploitation, providing for the protection of children from all forms of (sexual) exploitation and abuse, and maltreatment. In 2007, the Council of Europe adopted a Convention on the Protection of Children against Sexual Exploitation and Sexual Abuse (CETS No 201). Known as the ‘Lanzarote Convention’, it was the first international instrument to establish the various forms of child sexual abuse as criminal offences. Furthermore, it requires parties to adopt appropriate legislation and measures to prevent these offences from occurring, to protect victims, and to prosecute perpetrators. It entered into force on 1 July 2010 and has been ratified by all EU Member States.

EU legal framework

The main EU legal instrument is Directive 2011/93/EU of 13 December 2011 on combating the sexual abuse and sexual exploitation of children and child pornography. The directive has criminalised various forms of child sexual abuse and exploitation, harmonised these criminal offences across the EU and established minimum sanctions. Furthermore, Article 25 of the directive, on the removal of and blocking access to websites containing or disseminating CSAM, contributes to the fight against online child sexual exploitation and abuse. Adopted one year later, the victims’ rights Directive 2012/29/EU complements the existing framework, as it takes a child-sensitive approach and requires primary consideration to be given to the best interests of the child.

Recent developments

Combating child sexual abuse, especially online, is among the main priorities on the current EU agenda and one of the objectives of the new EU Security Union strategy for 2020‑2025. In July 2020, the European Commission adopted the EU strategy for a more effective fight against child sexual abuse, setting out eight initiatives aimed at fully implementing and developing the EU legal framework, identifying remaining gaps, strengthening the law enforcement response, enhancing prevention, involving industry and supporting international multi-stakeholder cooperation. The strategy also envisages the creation of a European centre to prevent and counter child sexual abuse. The Commission also plans to propose new legislation requiring online communication services (i.e. instant messaging platforms and applications) to detect, report and remove CSAM. In the meantime, the co-legislators adopted a temporary derogation from EU rules on confidentiality of electronic communications to enable voluntary detection, reporting and removal. In parallel, EU lawmakers are working on the proposal for a digital services act (DSA) aimed at updating the rules governing digital services and creating a safer online environment. The DSA would put detailed notice and action mechanisms in place for online platforms and hosting services to fight the dissemination of illegal content, including CSAM. Ensuring that children can safely navigate the digital environment is also a priority in the new EU strategy on the rights of the child, which envisages stepping up the fight against all forms of online child sexual abuse and updating the strategy for a better internet for children.

International cooperation through EU agencies, initiatives and networks

EU agencies such as Europol support law enforcement cooperation among Member States, to form a united front against (online) sexual exploitation and abuse of children in Europe and beyond. The stop child abuse – trace an object initiative, aimed at helping trace the origin of objects linked to criminal investigations, is an example of Europol’s cooperation efforts with society at large; it led to the identification of a number of victims, as well as offenders. Eurojust supports judicial cooperation among Member States, to facilitate the prosecution of child sexual abuse perpetrators in cross-border cases. The European Commission also funds and supports several initiatives and networks, such as the better internet for kids initiative to raise awareness of the potential risks children may face online, and INHOPE, a network of hotlines combatting online CSAM by analysing and reporting illegal content. The WePROTECT Global Alliance, supported by the USA, the United Kingdom, and the European Commission, develops political and practical solutions to make the digital world safe for children, and aims to prevent online sexual abuse and long-term harm. The Internet Watch Foundation (IWF), co-funded by the EU, provides a hotline for reporting online sexual abuse content globally, and raises awareness through prevention campaigns.

European Parliament position
The European Parliament condemns all forms of child sexual exploitation and abuse, and is supporting the Commission in its efforts to combat these crimes both offline and online. In its resolutions (e.g. 2015/2129(INI); 2019/2876(RSP); 2020/2791(RSP); 2021/2523(RSP)), the Parliament urges Member States to fully implement Directive 2011/93/EU and calls for better protection of children, as well as a greater focus on prevention and awareness-raising. Voicing its concerns about the surge in online child sexual abuse, Parliament stresses that information and communications technology companies and online platforms should take their share of responsibility in the fight against child sexual abuse and exploitation online and calls on the Member States to enhance cooperation between law enforcement authorities and civil society organisations, including hotline networks. Parliament also supports the creation of a European centre to prevent and counter child sexual abuse.

Read this ‘at a glance’ on ‘European Day on the Protection of Children against Sexual Exploitation and Sexual Abuse‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament

Written by Alex Wilson (1st edition).

On 14 July 2021 the European Commission adopted the ‘fit for 55’ package, adapting existing climate and energy legislation to meet the new EU objective of a minimum 55 % reduction in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 2030. The fit for 55 package is part of the European Green Deal, a flagship of the von der Leyen Commission that aims to put the EU firmly on the path towards climate neutrality by 2050, as set out in the recently agreed European Climate Law (July 2021).

One element in the fit for 55 package is the revision of the Renewable Energy Directive (RED II), to help the EU deliver the new 55 % GHG target. Under RED II, the EU is currently obliged to ensure at least 32 % of its energy consumption comes from renewable energy sources (RES) by 2030. The revised RED II strengthens these provisions and sets a new EU target of a minimum 40 % share of RES in final energy consumption by 2030, together with new sectoral targets. In the European Parliament, the file has been referred to the Committee for Industry, Research and Energy, with the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety as associated committee under Rule 57. Discussions on the file have also begun in the Council of the EU.

Versions

• November 2021: Revision of the Renewable Energy Directive: Fit for 55 package (1st edition)

Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive (EU) 2018/2001, Regulation (EU) 2018/1999, and Directive 98/70/EC as regards the promotion of energy from renewable sources, and repealing Council Directive (EU) 2015/652 Committee responsible:Industry, Research and Energy (ITRE)COM(2021) 557
14.7.2021Rapporteur:Markus Pieper (EPP, Germany)2021/0218(COD)Shadow rapporteurs:Nicolás González Casares (S&D, Spain)
Christophe Grudler (Renew, France)
Ville Niinistö (Greens/EFA, Finland)
Paolo Borchia (ID, Italy)
Evžen Tošenovský (ECR, Czechia)
Sira Rego (The Left, Spain)Ordinary legislative procedure (COD)
(Parliament and Council on equal footing – formerly ‘co-decision’) Next steps expected: Publication of draft report

Citizens often send messages to the President of the European Parliament (or to the institution’s public portal) expressing their views on current issues and/or requesting action from the Parliament. The Citizens’ Enquiries Unit (AskEP) within the European Parliamentary Research Service (EPRS) looks into these issues and replies to the messages, which may sometimes be identical as part of wider public campaigns.

The European Parliament has recently received a large number of messages on the rule of law in Poland and the European Union (EU) response to the reform of the Polish judicial system. Citizens first began to write to the Parliament on this subject in October 2021, criticising the approach of the European Union on the matter. The European Parliament considers that the Polish Constitutional Tribunal is illegitimate and deplores its decision of 7 October 2021 as an ‘attack on the European community of values and laws as a whole’.

Please find below the main points of the reply sent to citizens who took the time to write to the European Parliament on this matter (in English and Polish).

Main points made in the reply in English

On 21 October 2021, the European Parliament adopted a resolution on the rule of law crisis in Poland and the primacy of EU law. The European Parliament considers that the Polish ‘Constitutional Tribunal’ is illegitimate, ‘lacks legal validity and independence’, and has been transformed ‘into a tool for legalising the illegal activities of the authorities’. The European Parliament ‘deeply deplores’ the Tribunal’s decision of 7 October 2021 ‘as an attack on the European community of values and laws as a whole’.

European Parliament President on launching legal action

The President of the European Parliament Mr David Maria Sassoli stated: ‘The European Parliament has debated this matter in plenary. We listened very carefully to what Prime Minister Morawiecki had to say, but wish to stress that Poland wrote the European laws in force along with the rest of us. We made these rules together, so there can be no talk of them being imposed by the European Union.

We have together adopted an EU law that creates a close link between the protection of the EU budget and the respect of the rule of law. This law is in force and we believe that the procedure should now be launched in order to protect our budget and secure the respect of the rule of law. This is why I have asked the Parliament’s legal services to refer a case to the Court to ensure that legislation is duly applied. We do not intend to shirk our institutional role in defending the basic principles on which the European Union is founded.’

Previous EP reaction

Previously, on 17 September 2020, the European Parliament adopted resolution on the determination of a clear risk of a serious breach by Poland of the rule of law.

In the resolution, the European Parliament expresses its concerns related to the functioning of the legislative and electoral system and to the protection of human rights. The Parliament expresses its deep concern that the situation in Poland ‘has seriously deteriorated since the triggering of the procedure referred to in Article 7(1) TEU’. The Article 7 procedure includes two mechanisms: preventive measures, if there is a clear risk of a breach of EU values; and sanctions, if such a breach has already occurred.

Main points made in the reply in Polish

21 października 2021 roku Parlament przyjął rezolucję w sprawie kryzysu praworządności w Polsce i nadrzędności prawa Unii. Uważa on, że Trybunał Konstytucyjny w Polsce jest nielegalny, „nie ma mocy prawnej i niezależności’ i został „przekształcony w narzędzie legalizacji bezprawnych działań władz’. Parlament „głęboko ubolewa nad decyzją’ Trybunału „wydaną 7 października 2021 r., która stanowi atak na całą europejską wspólnotę wartości i praw’.

Wypowiedź przewodniczącego Parlamentu na temat podjęcia kroków prawnych

Przewodniczący Parlamentu Europejskiego David Maria Sassoli powiedział: „Parlament Europejski omówił tę kwestię na posiedzeniu plenarnym. Z uwagą wysłuchaliśmy wypowiedzi premiera Morawieckiego. Pragniemy jednak zwrócić uwagę, że Polska opracowywała obecne prawo wraz z pozostałymi państwami Unii. Ustaliliśmy te zasady wspólnie, nie można więc powiedzieć, że Unia Europejska je narzuca.

Wspólnie też przyjęliśmy prawo unijne, w którym ściśle powiązano ochronę budżetu Unii z poszanowaniem prawa unijnego. Prawo to obowiązuje i uważamy, że należy teraz uruchomić procedurę, by chronić nasz budżet i zapewnić poszanowanie praworządności. Dlatego też zwróciłem się do służb prawnych Parlamentu o skierowanie tej sprawy do Trybunału, aby zapewnić przestrzeganie przepisów prawa. Nie zamierzamy uchylać się od obowiązku ochrony podstawowych zasad, na których opiera się Unia Europejska’.

Wcześniejsze reakcje Parlamentu

Już 17 września 2020 r. Parlament Europejski przyjął rezolucję w sprawie stwierdzenia wyraźnego ryzyka poważnego naruszenia przez Rzeczpospolitą Polską zasady praworządności.

W rezolucji tej wyraził obawy co do funkcjonowania systemu ustawodawczego i wyborczego oraz ochrony praw człowieka w Polsce. Parlament wyraził głębokie zaniepokojenie, że sytuacja w tym kraju „uległa poważnemu pogorszeniu od czasu uruchomienia procedury przewidzianej w art. 7 ust. 1 TUE’. Artykuł 7 procedury przewiduje dwa mechanizmy: środki zapobiegawcze, jeżeli istnieje wyraźne ryzyko naruszenia wartości Unii, oraz sankcje, jeżeli takie naruszenie miało już miejsce.

Written by Katarzyna Sochacka and Clare Ferguson.

The November I 2021 plenary session in Brussels was the first to be held without the use of remote voting since March 2020. During this mini-session, Parliament debated, in particular, a statement from the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy/Vice-President of the Commission, Josep Borrell, on the escalating humanitarian crisis on the EU/Belarusian border, in particular in Poland. Members also heard an address by Filippo Grandi, UN High Commissioner for Refugees. Another debate covered the outcome of the first meeting of the new EU-US Trade and Technology Council (TTC). Several resolutions and legislative acts were adopted, inter alia on strengthening democracy, media freedom and pluralism in the EU, the statute and funding of European political parties and foundations, the European Education Area, disclosure of income tax information by certain undertakings and branches, the European Partnership on Metrology, the European Union Agency for Asylum, and on serious cross-border threats to health.

Strengthening democracy, media freedom and pluralism in the EU

Members adopted an own-initiative resolution on strengthening democracy, media freedom and pluralism in the EU. Parliament has always been very active in the defence of freedom of expression and opinion, and this resolution addresses the issue of lawsuits taken out against journalists in the interests of silencing their reporting. Known as SLAPPS (strategic lawsuits against public participation), such legal action attempts to avoid public scrutiny of their initiators’ activities, by intimidating journalists and activists. Parliament’s Legal Affairs (JURI) and Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (LIBE) Committees prepared a report that proposes that the Commission bring forward both legislative and non-legislative measures to protect victims of SLAPPs, including training for judges, funding for victims and awareness-raising regarding such abusive legal actions.

Disclosure of income tax information by certain undertakings and branches

Responding to citizens’ expectations regarding fairness in taxation, the EU has long aimed to lead the world in promoting financial and corporate transparency. Following protracted negotiations, Members debated and approved a political agreement reached with the Council, which should ensure that multinational corporations publish full information on the taxes they pay and where they pay them. Corporations with revenues over €750 million will be obliged to report on their activities in each EU country, and to disclose income tax information in a standard format on the internet. The measure aims to fight corporate tax avoidance and aggressive tax planning.

Statute and funding of European political parties and foundations

An important element in raising awareness of EU values and encouraging pan-European political understanding, European political parties are non-profit political alliances of national parties. They must have a presence in at least 25 % of EU countries to be considered truly European and therefore eligible for EU funding. Members considered and adopted the findings of the latest report by the Committee on Constitutional Affairs (AFET) on the implementation of the regulation that governs the statute and funding of European political parties and foundations. The committee proposes several changes to make it easier to start a European party, and to improve transparency regarding their functioning and financing.

Opening of trilogue negotiations

Members confirmed without vote a mandate for negotiations from the ITRE committee on the proposal for a directive on measures for a high common level of cybersecurity across the Union.

Read this ‘at a glance’ on ‘Plenary round-up – November I 2021‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament

Written by Elena Lazarou and Philippe Perchoc.

The strategic autonomy concept can provide a useful roadmap to address the challenges of the new century, including burgeoning United States-China rivalry. To further explore this concept, and what it means for the European Union (EU), the Jean Monnet House hosted its first ‘EPRS Jean Monnet seminar’ on European strategic autonomy on 22 October 2021. The event gathered experts and practitioners from several Member States and the European Parliament.

In her opening message, First Quaestor of the European Parliament, Anne Sander (EPP, France) explained the European Parliament’s strategy for the Jean Monnet House – to create a European ‘lieu de mémoire‘ – providing a museum to reflect on the past; a Jean Monnet Academy to train European Parliament civil servants; and a place to reflect upon the main challenges facing the European Union. Anthony Teasdale, Director-General of the European Parliamentary Research Service (EPRS) explained that this new series of Jean Monnet seminars seeks to enhance the European Parliament’s expertise on key issues, by placing EPRS at the heart of the European conversation on future challenges. The Jean Monnet House is the ideal location for such reflection, having served as the venue for debate on major historical European initiatives. Ambassador Pierre Vimont, senior fellow at Carnegie Europe and former Secretary General of the European External Action Service, also attended to give a keynote speech laying out a number of challenges to be reflected upon and taken forward.

Secretary-General of the European Parliament, Klaus Welle, opened the debate on strategic autonomy, noting its potential for boosting EU independence, self-reliance and resilience. He also underlined that there are three preconditions for strategic autonomy: internal cohesion, shock absorption capacity and strategic planning capabilities. Three interlinked sections then presented key aspects of the strategic autonomy debate, featuring experts and officials from across the EU and the United States.

The first panel examined the challenges of the coming decade, introducing a foresight perspective to the discussion. Panellists in this session discussed the acceleration of trends – such as climate change, the growing gap between the developing and developed world and shifting demographics – with an impact on the global power balance. From a more geopolitical perspective, they drew particular attention to the current power vacuum, to China’s strong diplomatic presence and to global rivalries, as reflected in the Indo-pacific region. The increased tension between China and the USA over Taiwan was particularly identified as a locus for potential crisis. All the speakers agreed on the unpredictability and turbulence of the environment within which the EU is pursuing its strategic autonomy.

The second session focused on the evolving definition of strategic autonomy, from its beginnings as a defence related concept, to a much wider understanding of its context. Here, speakers delved into the progress made in the development of the EU’s defence policy, particularly the capability aspect, since the 2016 Global Strategy. At the same time, they noted other policy fields where strategic autonomy has become an aspiration and a guiding principle, including on energy policy, issues related to supply/global supply chain security, trade, and digital regulation, as well as in the financial realm. A major point discussed in this session was the divergence in views on what Member States’ goal of autonomy should be: the variance in Member State threat perceptions continues to constitute an obstacle to a common understanding and collective agreement on how to bring strategic autonomy from the theoretical realm into practical application.

The final session explored the EU’s autonomy in conjunction with its strategic partnering with key like-minded actors, the United States of America and the United Kingdom (UK). As far as the USA is concerned, it was emphasised that President Joe Biden’s ‘foreign policy for the middle classes’ has meant a recalibration of foreign policy priorities, which reflects on transatlantic relations and on the overall model of US global leadership. The USA may become more selective in its interventions, leaving a gap that an autonomous EU may possibly aim to cover. The UK’s ‘Global Britain’ foreign policy will also depart, to a degree, from previous UK foreign policy, by aiming to be much more multidimensional. Speakers reiterated that the EU and UK share an array of common interests in global affairs and international security and that partnering is of undoubted mutual benefit. The event featured highly interactive sessions throughout the day and ended with the promise to reconvene in a year’s time to re-assess current hypotheses.

Written by Alex Wilson (1st edition).

On 14 July 2021 the European Commission adopted the ‘fit for 55’ package, a set of legislative proposals to meet the new EU objective of a minimum 55 % reduction in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 2030. The fit for 55 package is part of the Commission’s European Green Deal, which aims to set the EU firmly on the path towards net zero GHG emissions (climate neutrality) by 2050.

The fit for 55 package includes a regulation establishing a new social climate fund (SCF). The aim of the SCF is to help vulnerable households, micro-businesses and transport users meet the costs of the green energy transition in the buildings and road transport sector. The SCF is designed to counter the additional costs that vulnerable consumers may face when the EU Emissions Trading System (ETS) Directive is revised to cover these two sectors, as proposed in the fit for 55 package.

The SCF aims to provide over €72 billion in EU funding over the 2025-2032 period, to be paid for mainly by ETS credits in the buildings and road transport sectors. The SCF funds will need to be matched by equivalent social climate funding from Member States, which must prepare social climate plans. As a new budget line to be financed from EU ‘own resources’, the SCF will require amendments to the Own Resources Decision and the 2021-2027 multiannual financial framework. The file has been referred to the Committee on Environment, Public Health and Food Safety (ENVI), where the rapporteur is preparing a draft report.

Versions

• Social climate fund: Fit for 55 package (1st edition)

Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a Social Climate Fund Committee responsible:Environment, Public Health and Food Safety (ENVI)COM(2021) 568
14.7.2021Rapporteur:Esther De Lange (EPP, the Netherlands)2021/0206(COD)Shadow rapporteurs:Petar Vitanov (S&D, Bulgaria)
Ondřej Knotek (Renew, Czechia)
Sara Matthieu (Greens/EFA, Belgium)
Joëlle Mélin (ID, France)
Andrey Slabakov (ECR, Bulgaria)
Petros Kokkalis (The Left, Greece)Ordinary legislative procedure (COD)
(Parliament and Council on equal footing – formerly ‘co-decision’) Next steps expected: Publication of draft report

Written by Laurence Amand-Eeckhout.

World Diabetes Day – marked every year on 14 November – was proclaimed by the United Nations in 2007 to raise awareness of diabetes and related complications, and to promote prevention and care, including through education. World Diabetes Day also offers an opportunity to evaluate progress in the EU.

Background

Diabetes is a chronic disease that occurs when the pancreas is no longer able to produce insulin, or when the body cannot make good use of the insulin it produces. Insulin helps glucose get into the cells. If the body is not able to produce insulin or use it effectively, the result can be raised blood glucose levels (hyperglycaemia), causing damage to the heart, blood vessels, eyes, kidneys, teeth and nerves. People with diabetes are also more likely to become severely ill if infected by the Covid-19 virus.

There are three main types of diabetes: type 1, type 2 and gestational. Type 1 results from a lack of insulin production and is diagnosed mainly in childhood and in teenagers. Its causes are still unknown (a genetic predisposition can exist, but the inheritance pattern is unknown). Daily insulin injections are required to keep blood glucose levels under control. Type 2, which accounts for 90 % of all diabetes cases, results from the body being unable to use the insulin it produces effectively. Type 2 is mainly diagnosed in adults, although an increase in cases has recently been observed among children. Type 2 diabetes often results from excess body weight and physical inactivity. A healthy lifestyle, regular physical activity and maintaining a normal body weight can help prevent type 2 diabetes. However, those who have already contracted type 2 diabetes require oral drugs and/or insulin to maintain safe blood glucose levels. Gestational diabetes consists of high blood glucose during pregnancy. Women affected and their children are at increased risk of developing type 2 diabetes later in life.

The theme for World Diabetes Day in 2021, the centenary of the discovery of insulin by Sir Frederik Banting and Charles Best at the University of Toronto, is ‘Access to Diabetes Care – If Not Now, When?‘.

Facts and figures

According to the International Diabetes Federation (IDF), approximately 463 million adults around the world were living with diabetes in 2019. This number is expected to rise to 700 million by 2045. The life expectancy of people living with diabetes is likely to be reduced as a result of their condition.

In the EU, over 32 million people were suffering from diabetes in 2019, with an additional 24.2 million people estimated to be undiagnosed.

The share of people reporting chronic diabetes varies between age groups, with the disease more likely to affect older people. According to Eurostat data for 2019, 18.5 % of people aged 65 to 74 in the EU reported chronic diabetes and a fifth (20 %) of those aged 75 or over, while the figure for age groups below 25 was under 1 %. Among the EU Member States, less than 5 % of the population aged 15 or over reported chronic diabetes in Ireland and Luxembourg. At the other end of the spectrum, in Croatia 12 % of the adult population were suffering from chronic diabetes, followed by Portugal (10 %) and Finland (9.5 %). The proportion of diabetics in the EU falls as educational level rises: while the percentage of people reporting chronic diabetes reached 10.8 % in 2019 among those with a low educational level, it was 6.8 % for those with a medium level of education and was even lower, at 4.1 %, among those best educated.

Direct costs relating to diabetes amounted to an estimated 9 % of total health expenditure in the EU in 2019, while diabetes can also result in indirect costs that are harder to measure, such as reduced work productivity.

EU action on diabetes

EU Member States are responsible for their own healthcare policies and systems. However, according to Article 168 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, EU action should complement national policies. The EU focuses on prevention, research, information and education, while also fostering cooperation between Member States.

The European Commission addresses diabetes in its work on non-communicable diseases (NCDs). It is supporting Member States as they work towards reaching the nine targets of the United Nations (UN) and World Health Organization on NCDs by 2025, as well as UN sustainable development goal 3.4, which aims to reduce premature mortality from NCDs by one third by 2030. To this end, in 2018 the Commission set up a steering group on health promotion, disease prevention and management of non-communicable diseases, which identifies best practices for dissemination and transfer between countries. As part of its efforts to build a European health union, on 11 November 2020 the Commission proposed a new health security framework that included a proposal to reinforce the mandate of the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC). On 14 September 2021, the European Parliament proposed that the ECDC’s mandate should cover not only communicable diseases, but also major non-communicable diseases such as diabetes, cancer, heart disease and mental illness. In the field of prevention, the Commission’s action focuses mainly on the key risk factors for type 2 diabetes, encouraging the promotion of healthy eating and physical activity and the reduction of obesity and the harmful use of tobacco and alcohol. The EU4Health programme, adopted in March 2021, will continue to provide funding for prevention during the 2021-2027 period. It will also support efforts to facilitate access to medicines and medical supplies, digitalise healthcare services, and set up a European health data space to promote the exchange of and access to various types of health data. Under the Horizon Europe research and innovation programme, the EU supports several projects geared towards preventing diabetes, improving treatment and translating new knowledge into innovative applications.

MEPs Mobilising for Diabetes (MMD)
The MEP Interest Group on Diabetes MMD, which is continuing the work of the EU Diabetes Working Group, was set up in 2020 and is co-chaired by Sirpa Pietikäinen (EPP, Finland) and Christel Schaldemose (S&D, Denmark). The group aims to foster EU policy action around a series of priorities: improving diabetes care and risk reduction; promoting better access to medicines and technologies; and eliminating discrimination against people living with diabetes. In February 2021, the group published a report ‘Blueprint for action on diabetes in the European Union by 2030‘, and held a webinar that discussed the priorities to be addressed in order to flatten the diabetes curve, improve the lives of people living with diabetes, reduce health inequalities and lessen the societal and financial burden for all. Challenges

Diabetes represents a growing threat in the EU. The ageing and increasingly overweight population, unhealthy diets and sedentary lifestyles are resulting in a rapidly increasing number of type 2 diabetes cases. Investment in prevention is essential to prevent diabetes through a healthy lifestyle starting in childhood. Education plays a significant role in preventing not just diabetes but also its complications. This involves a cross-sectoral policy response (relating to health, nutrition, education, mass media campaigns, social services, urban mobility, and physical and recreational activities).

Delivering better long-term care for patients living with diabetes means reducing significant disparities, both between and within Member States, so that all patients have access to quality medicines and medical devices at an affordable price. Investment in research (e.g. innovative tools and technologies, such as continuous glucose monitoring systems and new insulin delivery systems) and improved digitalisation of health services can improve patients’ quality of life and help to reduce health inequalities. To this end, in its own-initiative resolution of 25 March 2021 on a European strategy for data, the European Parliament considers it crucial to speed up the creation of a common European health data space, among other initiatives. This would, at the same time, help to reduce the economic burden for individuals, health systems and society at large.

Read this ‘at a glance’ on ‘World Diabetes Day 2021‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Written by Clare Ferguson.

Parliament’s defence of European Union (EU) values provides the underlying theme to the agenda for the first plenary session of November, in Brussels. Following an expected address by Filippo Grandi, United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, Parliament will hear an account of the outcome of the European Council meeting of 21‑22 October 2021, where a written message from President Sassoli stressed that EU values of democracy, freedom and the rule of law are not negotiable. An important aspect of these values is freedom of expression and opinion. The shocking murders, in Europe, of investigative journalists Ján Kuciak, Martina Kušnírová and Daphne Caruana Galizia, highlighted the need for strong action to strengthen democracy, media freedom and pluralism in the EU. Parliament has always been very active in the defence of freedom of expression and opinion, and on Wednesday afternoon, Members will vote on a resolution addressing the issue of lawsuits taken out against journalists in the interests of silencing their reporting. Known as SLAPPS (strategic lawsuits against public participation), such legal action attempts to avoid public scrutiny of their initiators’ activities, by intimidating journalists and activists. Parliament’s Legal Affairs (JURI) and Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (LIBE) Committees have produced a report that proposes that the Commission put forward both legislative and non-legislative measures to protect victims of SLAPPs, including training for judges, funding for victims and awareness-raising regarding such abusive legal actions.

Responding to citizens’ expectations regarding fair taxation, the EU has long aimed to lead the world in promoting financial and corporate transparency. Following protracted negotiations, Members will debate a political agreement that should ensure that multinational corporations publish full information on the taxes they pay and where they pay them, on Wednesday evening. Corporations with revenues over €750 million will be obliged to report on their activities in each EU country, and to disclose income tax information in a standard format on the internet. The measure aims to fight corporate tax avoidance and aggressive tax planning.

An important element in raising awareness of EU values and encouraging pan-European political understanding, European political parties are non-profit political alliances of national parties. They must have a presence in at least 25 % of EU countries to be considered truly European and therefore eligible for EU funding. On Thursday morning, Members will consider the findings of the latest in a regular series of reports by the Committee on Constitutional Affairs on the implementation of the regulation that governs the statute and funding of European political parties and foundations. The committee proposes several changes to make it easier to start a European party and to improve transparency regarding their functioning and financing.

• Addressing abusive legal actions aimed at silencing journalists (Think Tank)
• European political parties: Statute and funding (Think Tank)
• Disclosure of income tax information by certain undertakings and branches (Think Tank)
• Outcome of the European Council meeting of 21‑22 October 2021 (Think Tank)

Written by Ionel Zamfir.

The 2021 G20 Summit, to be held in Rome on 30 and 31 October, was expected to bring together the major economies’ leaders in a physical meeting for the first time since the pandemic began. However, several leaders (of Russia, Japan, Mexico and China) have announced that they will not attend in person, limiting opportunities to hold informal bilateral meetings in the margins of the summit. Important decisions designed to put the global economy and society on course towards a greener and more sustainable future have already been sketched out at ministerial level meetings. These now need to be endorsed by the heads of state or government.

With its informal nature, the G20 is a vital global platform, bringing together the leaders of all the major developed and emerging economies, regardless of their political systems. In a global context characterised by growing rifts between the major geopolitical powers, the US and China in particular, the 2021 summit will be an opportunity to show how committed countries still are to multilateral rules and cooperation, but also how much trust remains to sustain the G20’s customary voluntary commitments.

The leaders at the summit are expected to reaffirm their commitments to boosting economic recovery, while mainstreaming green and digital objectives. They may also discuss more ambitious climate objectives than their ministers have managed to agree. The summit should take the final decision on the historic reform of global taxation, agreeing on a global minimum tax rate for firms operating multinationally. Vaccine equity and other health challenges relating to the pandemic will also figure on the agenda.

For the EU, the summit is an opportunity to reaffirm its unabatedly strong support for multilateralism. The European Parliament has expressed support for the tax reform debated at G20/OECD level.

Read the complete briefing on ‘The 2021 G20 Summit: Bridging global rifts for a greener and more sustainable future‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

• G20 countries: Total GDP, GDP per capita and population in 2020
• G20 and G7 member states

Written by Magdalena Sapała.

The extent of the negative impact of the Covid-19 crisis on the social and economic situation of women has triggered a debate on the urgent need to take a gender-sensitive approach to the policy response to the pandemic. In this context, the establishment of the EU’s biggest financial instrument supporting recovery in the Member States – the Recovery and Resilience Facility (RRF) – is an opportunity to channel the extraordinary resources to the measures that take into account the principles of gender equality. It is also a chance to put in practice the EU’s long-standing commitments regarding the need to mainstream gender across different policies and apply gender budgeting principles to EU spending.

Offering an overview of how gender equality has been built into the RRF Regulation, this briefing explains what was expected from the Member States when they were preparing their national recovery and resilience plans (NRRPs) as regards gender equality. It also provides practical examples of reforms and investments where gender equality has been taken into account, from the approved NRRPs of Belgium, Denmark, Germany, Greece, Spain, France, Italy, Latvia, Luxembourg, Austria, Portugal and Slovakia. In keeping with the RRF Regulation, all the NRRPs analysed declare gender equality to be a horizontal objective, to be given consideration in all measures. However, not all Member States have included dedicated reforms or investments addressing gender-related challenges explicitly, or indicating women as the main beneficiaries.

Read the complete briefing on ‘Gender equality in the Recovery and Resilience Facility‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.