Written by Branislav STANICEK.
The European Parliamentary Research Service (EPRS) held a round table on the new Roma strategy for equality, inclusion and participation on 1 June 2021.This event was part of the regular EPRS policy series, and was a follow-up to the seminar held last year with Vice-President Lívia Járóka (NI, Hungary) who is responsible for the Western Balkans and a member of the High-Level Group on Gender Equality and Diversity. The event marked the 15th anniversary of the adoption of Lívia Járóka’s report entitled Situation of Roma women in the European Union (adopted 1 June 2006).
In his welcome speech, Director of the EPRS Members’ Research Service Etienne Bassot recalled that the EU Roma Strategic Framework for Equality, Inclusion and Participation was adopted by the European Commission on 7 October 2020. The new Roma strategy was endorsed not only by the European Union but also by all Western Balkan countries at the ministerial meeting in Tirana, Albania on 27 October 2020. The ministerial meeting was a follow-up to the 2019 Poznan meeting and declaration on Roma integration in the EU enlargement process.
The new Roma strategy proposes seven qualitative and quantitative targets for 2030. Three of these objectives are horizontal in the areas of equality, inclusion and participation. The other four are sectoral objectives in the areas of education, employment, housing and health. The European Commission requires the Fundamental Rights Agency to conduct surveys and assess the situation, both in the EU and Balkan countries. In 2021, the survey will be extended to Serbia and North Macedonia.
Vice-President Lívia Járóka, the first Roma ever elected to the European Parliament, stated in her keynote speech that human rights and inclusion for all citizens should remain a cross-cutting priority both for the European Union and Western Balkan countries. Roma participation in some countries remains fragile, and the situation was aggravated during the Covid‑19 pandemic. She also recalled the important role played by the Roma in European culture and emphasised the need for increased Roma political participation, in particular by Roma women. Alongside increased political participation, better and positive media coverage would be highly beneficial.
Sónia Pereira, Portugal’s High Commissioner for Migration responsible for the Roma communities integration strategy and President of the Management Board of the High Commission for Migration, presented the views of the Portuguese Presidency to the European Council. She reviewed the successful adoption of the strategic framework in March 2021, as well as the Portuguese Presidency conference ‘Working together for Roma rights’ held in April 2021. Roma rights are a cornerstone of social rights, and the combat against hate speech and anti-gypsiysm should be taken up by all citizens. Finally, she stressed that the new framework should be implemented in line with multilevel governance, together with regions and cities, respecting the subsidiarity principle.
Marta Garcia Fidalgo, advisor for the coordination of Roma policies and Equality Coordinator at the European Commission (DG NEAR), presented the Roma situation in the Western Balkans accession countries. She noted that, considering that the Roma’s status in the Western Balkans has hardly improved in the last 20 years, despite considerable financial investment by the EU, the new strategic framework is important to Roma equality and participation. The Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance (IPA) includes the financing of Roma inclusion projects. It is important that references to Roma employment and social inclusion be retained in the new Investment Plan for the Western Balkans adopted last October.
Beata Bislim Olahova, advisor on Roma and Sinti issues at the Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR), and the Organization for Security and Co-Operation in Europe (OSCE), presented the social and economic situation of the Roma, as well as their political participation within the OSCE countries. The European Commission recognises that the high NEET rate (not in employment, education or training) among Roma in the EU is a problem. The Commission therefore set an objective to cut the gap in the NEET rate by at least half. Currently the NEET rate among Roma in the EU is 62 %, compared to 10 % among the general population.
Some Roma face double difficulties as they live in poor regions and disadvantaged communities. Marja Eronen, chief coordinator of the International Romani Union in Finland, described the social challenges that the Roma population is facing in Europe. Low schooling rates and frequent premature school leaving, crowded housing and insufficient health care are among the main challenges. Participation in the labour market and social inclusion are fundamental for improving the living conditions of Roma in Europe. She also described the role of the Roma ombudsman in Finland.
Finally, Branislav Stanicek, policy analyst for the External Policies Unit at the EPRS, spoke about the need for accurate data on the Roma population for better policy-making. He pointed to some successful projects, such as the Atlas of Roma Communities, initiated by Iveta Radičová, former Prime Minister of Slovakia, and currently being developed by Ábel Ravasz, former governmental envoy for Roma communities in Slovakia. The countries of Central and Eastern Europe might also better share their best practices with the accession countries of the Western Balkans. Finally, he noted the fact that Roma rights are placed within the first negotiations policy cluster of ‘fundamentals’, establishing the central role of this policy for EU accession of the Balkan countries.
The new EU Roma Strategic Framework: Towards equality, inclusion and participationWritten by Eszter Fay.
©Viperagp/AdobestockFake news? Disinformation? Misinformation?
Misinformation is always troubling, not least in science. Scientists feel distress when public understanding diverges from facts. Intentional disinformation (fake news) is not, however, the only source of misinformation. Citizens living in modern democratic societies frequently face the dilemma of whether to consider true or false – and accept or reject – information they receive concerning climate change, vaccinations, genetically modified agricultural products, nanotechnology, artificial intelligence, or Covid‑19.
Misinformation is not new – but the information ecosystem within which it is now spreading is. The public sphere has evolved into a completely new phase, where information filtering mechanisms are often ineffective. The producers of messages disseminated through social media can broadcast news unchecked by any scientific or editorial authority. We have entered a world of public communication where facts play a limited role in substantiating the content of the statements.
Political misinformation and disinformation have always existed. What is different today is that contemporary lies by populist actors often have no apparent purpose, but create a climate of shocks and chaos. Although misinformation is a topical issue, there is little consensus concerning the different types of misinformation, however. McCright and Dunlap[1] have recognised the need to differentiate between types of misinformation in order to know how to deal with them. Yet, their types – ‘truthiness, bullshit, systemic lies, and shock-and-chaos’ – are mostly connected with political misinformation and disinformation.
Disinformation is a hot topic today and is of course a global phenomenon, but may also have a correlation with how new and older democratic societies present and teach scientific achievements and innovation in their education systems. The topic of fake news has been extensively studied in political science, but surprisingly enough, no study has dealt with fake science news. As mentioned above, misinformation that contains intentionally false information is known as disinformation, and fake science news usually falls into this category.
Part of the mission of the European Science-Media Hub (ESMH), operating under the political responsibility of the EP’s Panel for the Future of Science and Technology (STOA), is to identify and disseminate trustworthy information sources in the field of science. During a health emergency, it is essential to explore how science information circulates and how people get their news and knowledge about science and new technology. In this context, the ESMH supported a project to conduct a survey examining the spread of disinformation among young people in some countries of Central Europe and in Italy, to explore the public understanding of scientific topics and address the damaging impact of disinformation and junk science.
The survey outcomes were presented to the European Parliament’s Committee on Culture and Education (CULT) at its meeting on 19 April 2021. The recording is available here.
Gullibility of false science news in central European countriesThe ESMH/STOA study ‘Disinformation and Science – A survey of the gullibility of students with regard to false scientific news’ resulting from the above ESMH project discusses the disinformation phenomenon, its causes related to social trust and types of media consumption among university students in Austria, Croatia, Czechia, Hungary, northern Italy and Slovakia. The survey was coordinated by Professor György Csepeli from Eötvös Loránd University (ELTE) in Budapest.
How to tackle the infodemic?In the midst of the research, Europe was hit by the coronavirus pandemic that highlighted the radically new features of our information ecosystem by magnifying the most controversial aspects of the public sphere. Falsehood has literally become a lethal problem on an unprecedented scale. Pandemics affecting our health will come and go, but the pandemic of misinformation (known as the ‘infodemic’) will stay. The lesson to be drawn from the survey’s results is that, to tackle the infodemic, there is a need to enhance the level of public trust in science. Consumers and producers of social media should be motivated and trained to use fact-checking mechanisms enabling them to distinguish between true and false information. Furthermore, misinformation consumed by credulous persons should be distinguished from disinformation that is manufactured intentionally to cause havoc.
Myths are no doubt inherent parts of the human mind-set. However, myths cannot serve as the only means of constructing reality. Real knowledge, in contrast, lies in recognising information and thoughts produced by trustworthy sources. Science communication alone, however, does not guarantee against inaccuracies and errors. Real wisdom is the art of doubting: this is a lesson Europeans can draw from this experience.
The EuroScience Open Forum 2020 RoundtableThe ESMH/STOA study findings were also presented at an earlier ESOF2020 roundtable discussion on 4 September 2020. The EuroScience Open Forum (ESOF) is a biennial, pan-European, general science conference dedicated to scientific research. The 2020 event brought together over 4 500 leading thinkers, innovators, policy-makers, journalists and educators from more than 90 countries, to discuss current and future breakthroughs in contemporary science.
The ESOF roundtable ‘Perspectives on science-related fake news among young people in Central-Eastern Europe and Italy’ was opened by Eva Kaili (S&D, Greece), STOA Chair. The project team members presented the results of the survey. Keynote speaker Stephan Lewandowsky from the University of Bristol addressed the questions of science, misinformation and conspiracy theories in the age of Covid‑19. The ESMH and its activities during the corona crisis were presented at another ESOF2020 panel session devoted to science communication in times of crisis.
Your opinion matters! If you read our study or watched the presentation, let us know what you think at stoa@europarl.europa.eu.
What are the psychological determinants of gullibility? 'Escape from complexity' @ISIG_Gorizia @EPCulture
Study: https://t.co/YjIh40khwW #ESMH #STOA #disinformation #falsenews pic.twitter.com/qflc93WgWV
[1] A. M. McCright and R. E. Dunlap, Combatting Misinformation Requires Recognizing Its Types and the Factors That Facilitate Its Spread and Resonance, Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 2017, 6(4) 389-396.
Written by Magdalena Sapała with Nina Thomassen.
© European Union, 2021, EPRSIn December 2020, the adoption of the legislative package on the 2021-2027 multiannual financial framework (MFF) and the Next Generation EU (NGEU) recovery instrument marked the end of an important stage in the process of launching a unique financial stimulus package – the recovery plan for Europe. However, in order to make the plan fully operational, additional conditions need to be met and preparatory steps completed.
First, there is the financing of NGEU, based on borrowing operations carried out by the European Commission on behalf of the European Union. These operations could start only once the Member States had ratified the Own Resources Decision (ORD). This procedure was completed before the end of May 2021. In the meantime, the Commission started preparing for its role as a borrower on an unprecedented scale and published its diversified funding strategy for the financing of NGEU. The Commission has ensured that the preparations are advanced and that it would be ready to begin the borrowing operations as soon as ratification of the ORD was finalised and the act in force.
In parallel, preparations are ongoing for the spending of the biggest part of NGEU (90 %) under the Recovery and Resilience Facility (RRF). This process includes the drawing up of national recovery and resilience plans by the Member States, their evaluation by the European Commission, and approval by the Council of the EU. Only then will the Commission conclude an agreement with each Member State on a legal commitment authorising the financial contribution to be made, and begin pre-financing. An indicative timeline of the whole process shows that the first payments for Member States could be made between July and September 2021.
Read the complete briefing on ‘Recovery plan for Europe: State of play‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.
Written by Vivienne Halleux.
© JasperSuijten / Adobe StockBased on Member States’ reporting under the Birds and Habitats Directives, the backbone of European Union (EU) nature conservation policy, the latest assessment on the state of nature by the European Environment Agency shows that despite some encouraging developments, the overall picture remains bleak. Only 15 % of habitats and around 27 % of species protected under EU legislation have a good conservation status. An EU-wide assessment of terrestrial, freshwater and marine ecosystems found that, overall, the condition of ecosystems in the EU is unfavourable. Worldwide, most indicators of ecosystems and biodiversity show rapid decline. Targets set to tackle biodiversity loss by 2020, at both EU and global levels under the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), have not been met.
Under the EU biodiversity strategy for 2030, part of the European Green Deal, the EU has therefore set itself new targets for the next decade. These include enlarging the current network of legally protected areas to cover at least 30 % of the EU’s land area and 30 % of the EU’s seas; and setting legally binding EU nature restoration targets to restore degraded ecosystems. The recent zero-pollution action plan for air, water and soil proposes additional commitments relevant to biodiversity protection.
Parties to the CBD, including the EU, are due to meet on 11-24 October 2021 in China to agree on a post-2020 global biodiversity framework. The EU intends to push for global 2030 targets in line with the commitments set out in its biodiversity strategy and for a much stronger implementation, monitoring and review process. The issue of resource mobilisation will be an important one, especially in the context of the coronavirus crisis, affecting the funding available for biodiversity.
On 28 May 2021, Parliament’s Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety adopted an own-initiative report with recommendations to strengthen the EU biodiversity strategy for 2030. The vote in plenary is scheduled for the June I plenary session.
Read the complete briefing on ‘Biodiversity protection: Where do we stand?‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.
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 President of the European Parliament has recently received a large number of messages regarding a non-binding own-initiative report on the ‘situation of sexual and reproductive health and rights in the European Union, in the context of women’s health’. Citizens first began to write to the President on this subject in May 2021, expressing concerns about the draft report, which they saw as threatening the powers of EU countries to regulate access to abortions. The Committee on Women’s Rights and Gender Equality amended the draft report and adopted its report by 27 votes to 6, with 1 abstention on 11 May 2021. In its report, the committee recognised that the EU has no direct powers to deal with sexual and reproductive health and rights (SRHR) in EU countries. In addition, it called on EU countries to safeguard the right of all persons to make their own informed choices with regard to sexual and reproductive health and rights, and to ensure that every person has equal access to these services and rights.
Please find below the main points of the reply sent to citizens who took the time to write to the President of the European Parliament on this matter (in English and in French).
Main points made in the reply in EnglishOn 11 May 2021, the European Parliament’s Committee on Women’s Rights and Gender Equality (FEMM) adopted its report on the situation of sexual and reproductive health and rights in the EU by 27 votes to 6, with 1 abstention. In doing so, the committee amended the draft report to which you are referring. The report, currently only published in English, will be available here in the other official EU languages in early June 2021. It is an own-initiative, non-binding report.
In the report, the FEMM committee points out that the EU has no direct powers to deal with sexual and reproductive health and rights (SRHR) in EU countries. In accordance with Article 168(7) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, it is the Member States’ responsibility to define national health policies and organise and deliver health services and medical care. The Union complements the actions of its Member States. It encourages them to cooperate and can lend them support.
The FEMM committee report calls on EU countries to safeguard the right of all persons to make their own informed choices with regard to SRHR, and to ensure that every person has equal access to these services and rights. The report also voices concerns about the impact of the Covid‑19 pandemic on access to health services and sexual and reproductive rights.
For more information on the FEMM committee’s standpoint, the European Parliament’s press release of 11 May 2021, entitled ‘EU countries should ensure universal access to sexual and reproductive health’, is available to the public.
The committee’s report will be submitted to Parliament in plenary and put to the vote on 23 June 2021. More details on the procedure can be found here. The results will be published in the section Plenary sitting, Votes, Results of votes. To view them, select a date in the ‘Search by date’ calendar located on the right and the results will appear at the very bottom of the minutes page.
The President of the European Parliament is not permitted to give voting instructions to Members of the European Parliament who, under Article 2 of the Statute for Members of the European Parliament, exercise their mandate freely and independently.
Main points made in the reply in FrenchLe 11 mai 2021, la commission des droits des femmes et de l’égalité des genres (FEMM) du Parlement européen a adopté par 27 voix pour, 6 contre et 1 abstention son rapport sur la situation de la santé et des droits sexuels et génésiques dans l’Union européenne. Ce faisant, la commission a modifié le projet de rapport auquel vous faites référence. Le rapport, publié pour l’instant uniquement en langue anglaise, sera disponible ici dans les autres langues officielles de l’UE début juin. Il s’agit d’un rapport d’initiative non-contraignant.
Dans le rapport, la commission des droits des femmes et de l’égalité des genres rappelle que l’Union européenne n’a pas de compétence directe en ce qui concerne la santé et des droits sexuels et génésiques (SDSG) dans les pays de l’Union européenne. En effet, conformément à l’article 168, paragraphe 7, du traité sur le fonctionnement de l’Union européenne, c’est aux pays de l’UE qu’il incombe de définir les politiques nationales de santé, y compris l’organisation et la fourniture de services de santé et de soins médicaux. L’Union complète l’action de ses pays membres. Elle encourage la coopération entre eux et peut soutenir leur action.
Le rapport de la commission FEMM invite les pays de l’UE à sauvegarder le droit des personnes à faire un choix informé en ce qui concerne la santé et les droits sexuels et génésiques et à assurer l’égalité d’accès de toute la population à ces services et droits. Par ailleurs, il exprime des préoccupations concernant les effets de la pandémie de coronavirus sur l’accès aux services de santé et droits sexuels et génésiques.
Pour plus d’informations concernant la position de la commission FEMM, vous pouvez consulter le communiqué de presse du Parlement européen du 11 mai 2021 intitulé « Les États membres doivent garantir l’accès universel à la santé sexuelle et génésique ».
Le rapport de la commission va désormais être soumis au Parlement en séance plénière, pour un vote prévu le 23 juin 2021. Vous trouverez ici plus de détails sur la procédure. Les résultats des votes seront publiés dans la section Séance plénière, Votes, Résultats des votes. Vous pouvez choisir une date dans le calendrier « Recherche par date » à droite et vous trouverez les résultats des votes au fond de la page du procès-verbal.
Le Président du Parlement européen ne peut donner d’instructions de vote aux députés européens qui sont libres et indépendants, comme le prévoit l’article 2 du statut des députés au Parlement européen.
Main points made in the reply in ItalianL’11 maggio 2021 la commissione per i diritti della donna e l’uguaglianza di genere (FEMM) del Parlamento europeo ha approvato la sua relazione sul tema “La situazione della salute sessuale e riproduttiva e relativi diritti nell’Unione europea” con 27 voti favorevoli, 6 contrari e 1 astensione. In tal modo, la commissione ha modificato il progetto di relazione cui Lei fa riferimento. La relazione, per il momento pubblicata solo in lingua inglese, sarà disponibile qui nelle altre lingue ufficiali dell’UE all’inizio di giugno. Si tratta di una relazione d’iniziativa non vincolante.
Nella relazione, la commissione per i diritti della donna e l’uguaglianza di genere ricorda che l’Unione europea non ha alcuna competenza diretta in materia di salute sessuale e riproduttiva e relativi diritti nei paesi dell’Unione europea. Infatti, a norma dell’articolo 168, paragrafo 7, del trattato sul funzionamento dell’Unione europea, spetta ai paesi dell’UE definire le politiche sanitarie nazionali, comprese l’organizzazione e la fornitura di servizi sanitari e di assistenza medica. L’Unione integra l’azione degli Stati membri, incoraggiando la cooperazione tra questi e sostenendo le azioni intraprese.
La relazione della commissione FEMM invita i paesi dell’UE a tutelare il diritto delle persone a compiere una scelta informata in merito alla salute sessuale e riproduttiva e ai relativi diritti nonché a garantire a tutti parità di accesso a tali servizi e diritti. Esprime inoltre preoccupazione per gli effetti della pandemia di coronavirus sull’accesso ai servizi per la salute sessuale e riproduttiva e i relativi diritti.
Per maggiori informazioni sulla posizione della commissione FEMM, può consultare il comunicato stampa del Parlamento europeo dell’11 maggio 2021 dal titolo “Gli Stati membri devono garantire l’accesso universale alla salute sessuale e riproduttiva”.
La relazione della commissione FEMM sarà presentata in Aula durante la sessione plenaria del Parlamento, con una votazione prevista per il 23 giugno 2021. Maggiori dettagli sulla procedura sono disponibili qui. I risultati delle votazioni saranno pubblicati sulla pagina del Parlamento alla sezione Plenaria, Seduta plenaria, Votazioni, Risultati dei voti. È possibile scegliere una data nel calendario “Ricerca per data” a destra della pagina. I risultati dei voti si trovano in fondo alla pagina del processo verbale.
Il Presidente del Parlamento europeo non può dare istruzioni di voto ai deputati europei, che sono liberi e indipendenti, come previsto dall’articolo 2 dello statuto dei deputati del Parlamento europeo.
Main points made in the reply in SpanishEl 11 de mayo de 2021, la Comisión de Derechos de las Mujeres e Igualdad de Género (FEMM) del Parlamento Europeo aprobó su informe sobre la situación de la salud y los derechos sexuales y reproductivos en la Unión por 27 votos a favor, 6 en contra y 1 abstención. Al hacerlo, la Comisión modificó el proyecto de informe al que usted hace referencia. El informe, que actualmente solo está disponible en inglés, se publicará aquí en las demás lenguas oficiales de la Unión a principios de junio. Se trata de un informe de propia iniciativa no vinculante.
En él, la Comisión de Derechos de las Mujeres e Igualdad de Género recuerda que la Unión no tiene competencias directas en materia de salud y derechos sexuales y reproductivos en los países de la Unión. De hecho, de conformidad con el artículo 168, apartado 7, del Tratado de Funcionamiento de la Unión Europea, es responsabilidad de los Estados miembros definir las políticas nacionales de salud, incluida la organización y prestación de servicios sanitarios y atención médica. La Unión complementa la acción de los Estados miembros, fomenta la cooperación entre ellos y puede prestarles apoyo.
El informe de la Comisión FEMM pide a los países de la Unión que salvaguarden el derecho de las personas a tomar decisiones con conocimiento de causa en lo que concierne a la salud y los derechos sexuales y reproductivos, y que garanticen la igualdad de acceso de todos a estos servicios y derechos. También expresa su preocupación por las consecuencias de la pandemia de coronavirus sobre el acceso a los servicios de salud y derechos sexuales y reproductivos.
Si desea más información sobre la posición de la Comisión FEMM, puede consultar el comunicado de prensa del Parlamento Europeo de 11 de mayo de 2021 titulado «EU countries should ensure universal access to sexual and reproductive health» (Los Estados miembros deben garantizar el acceso universal a la salud sexual y reproductiva).
El informe de la Comisión se presentará al Parlamento en la sesión plenaria para una votación prevista para el 23 de junio de 2021. Puede encontrar más información sobre el procedimiento aquí. Los resultados de las votaciones se publicarán en la sección «Sesión plenaria, Votaciones, Resultados de las votaciones». Puede elegir una fecha en el calendario de «Búsqueda por fecha» que se encuentra en el ángulo inferior derecho de la página. Los resultados de las votaciones se encuentran al final de la página del acta.
El presidente del Parlamento Europeo no puede dar instrucciones de voto a los diputados, que son libres e independientes, como prevé el artículo 2 del Estatuto de los diputados al Parlamento Europeo.
Written by Anita Orav.
© Fotofreundin / Adobe StockMigration to the European Union from third countries has been substantial over the past few decades, as Europe has historically been considered a continent of relative economic prosperity and political stability. While many foreign-born individuals arrive in the European Union (EU) to work, pursue studies or join family members, the EU also experienced a peak of irregular arrivals beginning in 2014 and only starting to subside in 2016. Those large migratory flows included a substantial number of asylum-seekers and refugees fleeing war and instability in their home countries. As host societies, EU Member States are required to facilitate their integration, i.e. their acceptance in society and ability to access different services and the labour market.
EU law envisages access to employment for refugees as soon as they are granted refugee status, or for asylum-seekers at the latest within nine months of lodging an asylum application. However, employment rates for migrants in general, and refugees and asylum-seekers in particular, are persistently lower than those of native-born populations. Moreover, they are more likely to be employed in low-skilled occupations that have high automation potential in the future. If this potential is exploited through the use of artificial intelligence and digitalisation, the European economy is expected to see a decline in low-skilled employment. To ensure that migrants’ skills will match the future EU labour market, focus should be turned to facilitating the proper recognition of their qualifications, as well as to upgrading their education and skills. The EU supports Member States’ integration efforts through its EU action plan on integration and inclusion.
Read the complete briefing on ‘Labour market integration of asylum seekers and refugees‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.
Written by Ionel Zamfir.
© Сake78 (3D & photo) / Adobe StockThe 47th G7 summit is scheduled for 11-13 June 2021, and will be chaired and hosted by the United Kingdom. After a year-long break caused by the pandemic and the former US administration’s inability to organise the 2020 summit at a later date than initially scheduled, this year’s event is expected to mark a return to strong global cooperation among the world’s major democracies. The leaders of four guest states – Australia, India, South Africa and South Korea – will join the leaders of the G7 nations and the European Union, thus reinforcing the group’s global democratic representativeness. The G7 has built up a reputation for being an informal framework of cooperation on major global issues, which is driven by a shared commitment to the fundamental values of liberal democracy. This year’s summit is expected to reaffirm these values in the face of assertive authoritarian tendencies elsewhere in the world.
Ahead of the summit, ministerial meetings in areas selected by the presidency have already taken place, shaping future cooperation among the G7 nations. ‘Beat[ing] Covid-19 and building back better’ is an obvious priority this year. Achieving it includes ensuring more equitable and rapid access to vaccines and other medical supplies for developing countries. While the group has reaffirmed its general commitment to this priority, the US proposal to waive patent rights for the production of vaccines still needs to find common ground among the G7 members. Another US initiative – setting a minimum global corporate tax rate – could make history for the G7, marking a major change in the international taxation system. Reinforcing cooperation on the regulation of digital developments is another priority, as are ambitions linked to honouring the commitments under the Paris Agreement.
As every year, the EU, which is a G7 member in its own right, will be represented by the Presidents of the European Council and of the European Commission.
Read the complete briefing on ‘G7 summit, June 2021: Asserting democratic values in the post-crisis context‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.
Written by Philip Boucher.
STOA’s Centre for Artificial Intelligence (C4AI) produces studies, organises public events and acts as a platform for dialogue and information exchange on AI-relevant topics within the Parliament and beyond. It aims to contribute to the quality and coherence of discussion and policy-making as the EU seeks to coordinate its efforts and influence global AI standard-setting.
Last year, STOA and the European Parliamentary Research Service (EPRS) launched a partnership on artificial intelligence (AI) with the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) Global Parliamentary Network (GPN). The GPN is a hub for legislators and officials from parliaments around the world to share experience, identify good practices and foster international legislative cooperation. It includes a Parliamentary Group on Artificial Intelligence, and benefits from proximity with the OECD’s AI Policy Observatory and Global Partnership on AI.
In the context of this partnership, we are currently producing a series of podcasts examining various aspects of AI development and policy with key experts from the field.
Image by Gerd Altmann from PixabayThe first podcast in the series explores the role of international cooperation in AI governance. It includes an extensive conversation between STOA Chair Eva Kaili (S&D, Greece) and Anthony Gooch, Director of Public Affairs & Communications at OECD and Chair of the GPN, on the importance of international cooperation on AI and the role parliaments can play in this respect in the context of the Covid‑19 pandemic, as well as a way of promoting human autonomy and empowerment in relation to AI.
There are also contributions from Jeremias Prassl, Deputy Director of the Institute of European and Comparative Law, University of Oxford, who shares his perspectives on best practices and capacity building in AI governance, and Kate Crawford, AI scholar and author of the book ‘The Atlas of AI: Power, Politics, and the Planetary Costs of Artificial Intelligence’, who talks about multilateral initiatives and the distribution of costs and benefits of AI.
You can listen to the podcast here. Watch this space for further podcasts in the series.
Follow us on Twitter at @EP_ScienceTech to stay informed about our activities.
Your opinion counts for us. To let us know what you think, get in touch via stoa@europarl.europa.eu.
Written by Marcin Grajewski.
© Arjan / Adobe StockFormally, the EU and China have been strategic partners since 2003 – a partnership that was broadened five years ago by the EU-China 2020 Strategic Agenda for Cooperation. However, more recently, EU officials and politicians have been expressing increasing concerns over China’s economic expansionism and human rights violations. The current coronavirus pandemic and developments in Hong Kong have had a marked negative impacted on EU-China relations.
This note offers links to recent commentaries, studies and reports from major international think tanks on China, its ties with the EU and related issues. The previous issue on the subject was published in October 2020.
Xi Jinping thought on the rule of law: New substance in the conflict of systems with China
Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik, April 2021
New trade agreements in Asia: Liberalisation in times of geopolitical rivalry
Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik, April 2021
Home advantage: How China’s protected market threatens Europe’s economic power
European Council on Foreign Relations, April 2021
Multilateralism after covid-19
European Council on Foreign Relations, April 2021
Chinese sanctions: How to confront coercion and avoid a squeeze on Europe
European Council on Foreign Relations, April 2021
The new China shock
European Council on Foreign Relations, April 2021
Decade of patience: How China became a power in the Western Balkans
European Council on Foreign Relations, February 2021
Après le Brexit, appliquer la ‘méthode Barnier‘ avec la Chine
Institut Jacques Delors, February 2021
Reshaping trade ties with China in the aftermath of Covid-19
Wiener Institut für Internationale Wirtschaftsvergleiche, February 2021
The United States, China, and Taiwan: A Strategy to prevent war
Council on Foreign Relations, February 2021
China’s digital silk road: Integration into national IT infrastructure and wider implications for Western defence industries
International Institute for Strategic Studies, February 2021
China’s grand industrial strategy and what it means for Europe
European Policy Centre, April 2021
EU crash course in geopolitics: Lessons from the foreign policy ‘battlefield’
European Policy Centre, March 2021
Chips on our shoulder: Is Europe neglecting design in its semiconductor strategy?
European Policy Centre, March 2021
Vaccine diplomacy: Soft power lessons from China and Russia?
Bruegel, April 2021
China has a grand carbon neutrality target but where is the plan?
Bruegel, April 2021
Is the European Union’s investment agreement with China underrated?
Bruegel, April 2021
The EU-China investment deal may be anachronic in a bifurcating world
Bruegel, April 2021
Form a climate club: United States, European Union and China
Bruegel, March 2021
China’s state-owned enterprises and competitive neutrality
Bruegel, February 2021
China and the WTO: Why multilateralism still matters
Bruegel, January 2021
An EU-China investment deal: A second look
Bruegel, January 2021
Europe’s disappointing investment deal with China
Bruegel, January 2021
Northern expedition: China’s Arctic activities and ambitions
Brookings Institution, April 2021
Jack Ma Taunted China: Then came his fall
Brookings Institution, April 2021
An asymmetric defense of Taiwan
Brookings Institution, April 2021
How China’s savings could help save the planet
Brookings Institution, April 2021
What does Biden’s first 100 days tell us about his approach to China?
Brookings Institution, April 2021
US-China phase one tracker: China’s purchases of US goods
Peterson Institute for International Economics, April 2021
China in the WTO
Peterson Institute for International Economics, April 2021
China’s pursuit of leadership in digital currency
Peterson Institute for International Economics, April 2021
US economic sanctions against human atrocities in China and Myanmar
Peterson Institute for International Economics, April 2021
US-China trade war tariffs: An up-to-date chart
Peterson Institute for International Economics, March 2021
China’s Belt and Road Initiative should be on the World Bank and IMF’s agenda
Council on Foreign Relations, April 2021
The climate challenge and China’s Belt and Road Initiative
Council on Foreign Relations, March 2021
China’s Huawei is winning the 5G race: Here’s what the United States should do to respond
Council on Foreign Relations, March 2021
China’s Belt and Road Initiative in Italy: An analysis of financial cooperation
Istituto Affari Internazionali, April 2021
Technological competition: Can the EU compete with China?
Istituto Affari Internazionali, April 2021
Broadening the Transatlantic partnership to address the China challenge
Istituto Affari Internazionali, December 2020
The EU-China comprehensive agreement on investment
Centre for European Policy Studies, May 2021
Read this briefing on ‘Coronavirus: Latest developments‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.
Written by Carmen-Cristina Cîrlig (1st edition).
© Tobias Arhelger / Adobe StockOn 9 December 2020, along with its counter-terrorism agenda, the European Commission adopted a proposal for a regulation to reinforce the mandate of Europol, the EU law enforcement cooperation agency. The proposed regulation principally aims at rendering Europol’s cooperation with private parties more effective; at responding to the agency’s ‘big data challenge’, by providing a legal basis for processing large and complex datasets, including personal data of data subjects not related to a crime; and at providing a reinforced role for Europol in relation to research and innovation for law enforcement. The legislative proposal, which would amend the existing Europol Regulation (EU) 2016/794, is also linked to another legislative proposal to modify Regulation (EU) 2018/1862 on the Schengen Information System (SIS), to allow Europol to issue alerts in SIS under a new category.
Discussions in the Council started in January 2021. In the European Parliament, a draft report was discussed in the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs at the end of May 2021.
VersionsJavier Zarzalejos (EPP, Spain)
2020/0349(COD) Shadow rapporteurs: Franco Roberti (S&D, Italy), Dragoş Tudorache (Renew, Romania), Tom Vandendriessche (ID, Belgium), Saskia Bricmont (Greens/EFA, Belgium), Patryck Jaki (ECR, Poland), Clare Daly (The Left, Ireland) Ordinary legislative procedure (COD) (Parliament and Council on equal footing – formerly ‘co-decision’) Next steps expected: Vote in committee on draft reportWritten by Clare Ferguson,
European Parliament (CC BY-NC-ND 2.0)The European Parliament returns to Strasbourg this month (though still in a hybrid format), for the first time since February 2020. This welcome sign that life is returning to a form of normality in Europe means that many Members who travel to Strasbourg will have direct experience of the issues addressed by an important point on their agenda – the Digital Covid Certificate. As we enter the second summer under coronavirus restrictions, many people in the EU are hoping to be able to travel at last, to visit loved ones or for a holiday. Parliament agreed to an accelerated procedure to consider the proposals for a digital Covid certificate, with the aim of allowing EU countries to open their borders without worsening the coronavirus situation. The co-legislators have agreed to a compromise on this proposal, now named the ‘EU Digital Covid Certificate’, and the system should be in operation by 1 July 2021. Parliament has ensured that the testing required is more affordable and accessible, through the allocation of around €100 million for polymerase chain reaction (PCR) tests. If necessary, EU countries may still impose duly justified additional restrictions with 48 hours advance notice. A second proposal covers travel for third-country nationals within the EU. Members are expected to debate the final adoption of the texts on Tuesday morning.
Over 60 % of European small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), which employ 100 million people, have reported a fall in turnover in 2020. Members will take part in a joint debate on the State of the SMEs Union on Monday evening and have already called for the EU strategy for a sustainable and digital Europe to take the impact of Covid‑19 into account. A new SME strategy for a sustainable and digital Europe is proposed, aimed at supporting SMEs in becoming more sustainable and digital, and at improving access to markets and financing. Parliament has requested that the European Commission set ambitious targets for the reduction of the administrative burden on SMEs by June of this year, and would also like to see better assessment of the costs and benefits for SMEs of proposed EU legislation in future.
In light of these impacts of the coronavirus pandemic, the European Social Fund Plus (ESF+) 2021‑2027 budget for social inclusion will be greatly needed, to provide resources to improve youth employability and equal opportunities for children at risk of poverty. On Tuesday afternoon, Members are expected to debate the adoption at second reading of the text, a compromise reached with the co-legislators after some disagreement, on an €88 billion EU budget for employment, education and social inclusion measures (almost 8 % less than under the previous multiannual financial framework, MFF).
When it comes to tackling the diverse challenges outside the EU, a multi-instrument funding architecture with many and various priorities and management structures is not ideal for the kind of effective and flexible action needed to help other countries cope with the pandemic and other issues. Members will debate Parliament’s consent to an interinstitutional agreement on the proposed regulation establishing a Neighbourhood, Development and International Cooperation Instrument 2021‑2027 on Tuesday afternoon. If agreed, the proposal would allocate €70.8 billion (in 2018 prices) under the 2021‑2027 MFF and bring together the 10 previous funds for external action along with the European Development Fund. The agreement enhances Parliament’s oversight of the strategic direction of the funding, including ending assistance to countries that do not respect democracy, human rights and the rule of law.
External affairs are also scheduled for Wednesday morning, where Members will hear Council and Commission statements on the preparation of the G7 summit of 11‑13 June and the forthcoming EU‑US Summit, which will provide an opportunity for a closer examination of the emerging contours of President Biden’s foreign policy.
A country’s resilience to hybrid threats such as cyber-attack is now considered to be an important indicator of stability, as public administrations become more reliant on digital technologies. Members are expected to hear Council and Commission statements on Wednesday afternoon on recent cyber-attacks on EU and national public and private institutions, particularly in light of the EU digitalisation agenda, as part of a joint debate, including an oral question on the future EU cybersecurity strategy. The 230 000 daily new malware infections detected by the ENISA cybersecurity agency between January 2019 and April 2020, give an idea of the scale of the issue. Parliament is also expected to decide on formal adoption at second reading of a provisional agreement on establishing the instrument for financial support for customs control equipment, on Monday evening. The instrument will be used to purchase, maintain and upgrade detection equipment for customs, border and security controls at external EU borders. Parliament has succeeded in amending the proposal to ensure the equipment has optimal cybersecurity and safety standards. Once adopted, the regulation should come into effect retroactively, as of 1 January 2021.
Meanwhile, a majority of Europeans think that more should be done to improve animal welfare. Many Members of the European Parliament agree, and have been supporting the European citizens’ initiative, ‘End the cage age‘. With nearly 1.4 million signatures, this popular initiative has gained sufficient support to oblige the European Commission to propose legislation to ban the use of the remaining cages, farrowing crates, stalls and pens still authorised in the EU for a range of livestock. Members are scheduled to debate the initiative on Thursday morning, along with an Agriculture & Rural Development Committee motion for a resolution proposing to phase out cages in farming, possibly by 2027. A debate on protecting biodiversity against habitat loss, where trade policy has a clear role to play, is also scheduled for Monday afternoon.
Following 2019 proposals to update the EU Ombudsman’s Statute, to align it with the Lisbon Treaty and strengthen the role of this guardian of institutional accountability and transparency, Members are expected to debate a new European Parliament regulation governing the Ombudsman’s duties on Wednesday afternoon, in the presence of Emily O’Reilly, the current European Ombudsman. Parliament’s proposals include possible extension of the deadline for institutions to reply to the Ombudsman’s findings, and allowing the Ombudsman to carry out own-initiative inquiries. However, other proposals were not retained following discussions with the other institutions. Mention of sexual harassment is less specific and the proposed two-year extension of the deadline for filing complaints was discarded. Although the Council has already informally indicated its agreement with the proposal, its formal consent as well as an opinion from the European Commission will be required before the new statute can be formally adopted in a future plenary session. For Parliament to exercise its own oversight role regarding the EU’s executive in full, a majority in Parliament may set up a temporary committee of inquiry to investigate alleged contraventions or maladministration in the implementation of Union law. However, current legislation restricts Parliament’s investigative powers. Accordingly, such a committee would have no power to summon witnesses, and cannot formally require witnesses to testify under oath, or impose sanctions. As far back as 2012, Parliament proposed to revise the regulation of its right of inquiry, where it has the right of initiative. However, adoption of the regulation is subject to a special legislative procedure requiring Council and Commission consent, which has not been forthcoming to date. Seeking to break the deadlock on strengthening Parliament’s right of inquiry, the AFCO committee has put questions to both the Commission and the Council for oral answer on the plenary agenda for Tuesday evening, seeking assurances that they will engage in good-faith political dialogue with the Parliament to reach agreement.
Written by Beatrix Immenkamp.
© Denis / Adobe StockA key objective of the EU’s external action is to preserve peace, prevent conflicts and strengthen international security, in accordance with the purposes and principles of the United Nations Charter. In the context of its common foreign and security policy (CFSP), the Union offers assistance to third states, international organisations and regional organisations engaged in peace support operations. Moreover, the EU’s common security and defence policy (CSDP) – part of the CFSP – provides the Union with its own operational capacity, allowing it to deploy civilian and military assets (provided by the EU Member States) in third countries. While many of the operations and missions the EU supports have military and defence implications, the EU cannot finance activities with military or defence implications from the EU budget. EU Member States therefore have mechanisms to fund expenditure with military and defence implications directly from national budgets.
The European Peace Facility (EPF) is a new off-budget fund with a financial ceiling of €5.692 billion financed by Member State contributions. The EPF, which will be operational by 1 July 2021, will make it easier for Member States to share the costs of EU military operations. It will also help the EU to support military peace-support operations conducted by third countries and regional organisations, anywhere in the world. Controversially, for the first time, the EU will be able to provide the armed forces of partner countries with infrastructure and equipment, including weapons. Several non-governmental organisations (NGOs) have warned that the new facility risks fuelling conflict and human rights abuses around the world. They warn that this could exacerbate violence and arms proliferation, and fuel the very dynamics the EPF seeks to address. By contrast, practitioners believe the facility will ensure that the EU is taken seriously as a security provider and is able to maintain its influence in conflict areas. The Council has called for swift operationalisation of the EPF and has invited Member States and the High Representative to present proposals for assistance measures.
Read this briefing on ‘European Peace Facility: Promoting peace or fuelling conflict?‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.
Written by Jana Titievskaia.
© Mar / Adobe StockInternational trade influences biodiversity through scale, composition and technique effects. Land and sea use change alter natural habitats, while emissions from production and transportation contribute to climate change. Among exports, animal-based agri-food products are particularly land-intensive. Trade policy can play a role in tackling these problems through stronger enforcement of biodiversity-related provisions in trade agreements. The EU Biodiversity Strategy 2030 commits to better assessing trade agreements’ potential impact on biodiversity and to better enforce biodiversity-related provisions. The Trade Committee of the European Parliament has adopted an opinion on the trade aspects of the new strategy.
Impacts of trade on biodiversityHuman economic activity has surpassed for years the rate of biosphere regeneration and total biodiversity stock of the planet. A 2012 study by Lenzen et al. linking species threat records with 15 000 commodities and 5 billion supply chains found that 30 % of threats to species were due to international trade, excluding invasive species. Moreover, the existence of tipping points in planetary boundaries means that gradual degradation in one region can lead to unintended destabilisation at the global level e.g. of water cycles. The option value of nature reflects the additional worth of conservation over use for e.g. business purposes. Different species may be instrumental for wellbeing, while extinction is irreversible. Therefore, protection of ecosystems and biodiversity can be viewed as an investment that will yield future returns.
A 2020 study on trade and biodiversity, commissioned by the European Parliament’s Committee on International Trade (INTA), distinguishes between direct and indirect impacts of trade on biodiversity. Direct impacts stem from transportation (e.g. air cargo, road transport and shipping), arrival of alien pests or wildlife trafficking. Indirect impacts can be divided into scale, composition and technique effects. Trade expansion can deplete natural capital as human demands on the biosphere increase (scale effect). Extractive or pollution-intensive activity can concentrate regionally, reflecting comparative advantages (composition effect). Trade liberalisation can contribute to the adoption of environmental technologies and goods, patents or production methods (technique effects).
In practice, land use change is a considerable driver of terrestrial species loss. Between 1986 and 2009, the majority of new cropland was used for exports. The agri-food industry is the world’s largest land user. Animal-based exports (e.g. lamb, beef, and cheese) are more land-intensive per kilogram of food produced than plant-based goods (e.g. rice, bananas and citrus fruit). Trade in raw materials (e.g. mining, quarrying) also influences the levels of biodiversity through emissions and pollution in air, land and waterways. However, the environmental impacts are highly variable and skewed across and within regions, suggesting that environmental mitigation measures and institution-building can considerably reduce adverse impacts.
European Commission proposalIn 2011, the Commission adopted the EU biodiversity strategy to 2020, which sought to enhance the contribution of trade policy to conserving biodiversity and addressing potential negative impacts of trade. The Commission committed to analyse the impacts on biodiversity in trade sustainability impact assessments and ex-post evaluations, and include biodiversity goals in the trade and sustainable development (TSD) provisions of agreements with partners. In 2020, the Commission adopted a communication on ‘EU Biodiversity Strategy for 2030: Bringing nature back into our lives‘, which calls for at least 30 % of land and 30 % of sea protection in the EU (up by 4 % and 19 %, respectively compared to today) building on the EU Green Deal. On trade, the strategy focuses on implementation and enforcement of these provisions, including through the EU Chief Trade Enforcement Officer. The strategy also commits to an assessment of trade agreements’ impacts on biodiversity (see box). The Commission seeks to further address illegal wildlife trade (following the EU Action Plan addressing wildlife trafficking which will be reviewed in 2021) and to ban EU trade in ivory. The possible revision of the Environmental Crime Directive could broaden its scope and include provisions for types and levels of criminal sanctions. In 2021, the Commission plans to adopt a legislative proposal seeking to avoid or limit EU market entry for imports that contribute to deforestation. Biodiversity has been included among the headline actions in the 2021 trade policy review (new EU trade strategy).
European Parliament positionIn April 2021, the INTA committee adopted an opinion on the trade aspects of the EU Biodiversity Strategy for 2030 (rapporteur Saskia Bricmont, Greens/EFA, Belgium). The opinion recommends to the Commission to focus on a ‘process and production method’ (PPM) approach when drawing up measures to fight biodiversity loss, rather than focusing on the product itself, in line with rules of the World Trade Organization. The opinion takes a stand on phasing out fossil fuels subsidies urgently. It also calls on the EU to explore a white list of endangered species to combat illegal trade. The INTA opinion provided concrete suggestions to the Committee on Environment, Public Health and Food Safety (ENVI) report on the biodiversity strategy (rapporteur César Luena, S&D, Spain), which is due to be voted in plenary in June 2021. The Parliament also adopted, in October 2020, a resolution to halt and reverse EU-driven deforestation advocating for mandatory due diligence requirements for products entailing forest and ecosystem risks.
ViewsWhile EU trade agreements foster international trade through tariff liberalisation and abolition of non-tariff barriers, import-based consumption increases ecological footprints. The footprint data foundation displays the ecological footprints of different countries (in productivity weighted biologically productive hectares). Most of the developed world, including EU countries, the United States and China, is in ecological overshoot, while most of South America and important parts of Sub-Saharan Africa have positive biocapacity reserves per capita. The EU tries to limit these adverse effects by including TSD provisions in trade agreements and making developing countries’ access to tariff preferences conditional on the ratification and implementation of multilateral environmental agreements. However, these provisions are not enforceable in the same way as, for example, trade in goods commitments, which has led researchers to criticise their effectiveness. TSD provisions fall under a separate dispute settlement process, with consultations, panel deliberation and issuance of recommendations, but not economic countermeasures. A notable exception is the EU-UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement (TCA), which includes rebalancing measures (e.g. tariffs) in case of ‘significant divergences’ between parties.
While sustainable development is a key objective in the preamble to the WTO Agreement, biodiversity-focused measures may prove difficult to justify under the general exceptions of Article XX of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) where causation between the measure and the objective must be demonstrated. For example, the revised EU Renewable Energy Directive (RED II) limits the inclusion of crop-based biofuels with significant indirect land-use change (ILUC) risk in the calculation of Member States’ required minimum share of renewable energy. However, Indonesia and Malaysia have challenged this as discriminatory against palm oil used in biofuel production, notably citing the Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Agreement and the Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (SCM) Agreement, in addition to the national treatment principle under the GATT. Researchers have posited that the EU may invoke the GATT general exceptions defence during the dispute, for instance arguing that the objective of RED II is protecting animal / plant life or health (XX b), or conservation of exhaustible natural resources (XX g).
On 19 May 2021, the Commission published a methodology for assessing the impacts of trade agreements on biodiversity and ecosystems, developed by the Institute for European Environmental Policy (IEEP) and partners. The methodology outlines a staged process for impact assessment, recommending a comprehensive approach, using data, research, existing case studies, expert knowledge and stakeholder interviews. For the most significant biodiversity impacts, it recommends quantified analysis whenever possible. The methodology starts with identifying the trade-related driver(s) for change, i.e. sector(s) where an FTA leads to an increase in economic activity. It then ‘translates’ this change into possible pressure on biodiversity – through land or resource use – and assesses the resulting impact on ecosystems and/or species. The methodology also identifies safeguard measures that can be drawn up to mitigate negative impacts. The methodology has already been used in practice in the context of ex-post assessments for the EU–Andean and EU–Central America trade agreements.Read this ‘at a glance’ on ‘Trade policy for the Biodiversity Strategy 2030‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.
Written by Silvia Kotanidis and Giulio Sabbati.
© European Union, 2021 Further information Multilingual PlatformThe Conference’s multilingual platform is a hub giving European citizens and European civil society organisations the opportunity to share ideas on the future of Europe, and to host and attend events. It will act as a repository of contributions and documents, and as an interactive tool to share and debate ideas of citizens. The platform is open to citizens, civil society, social partners, other stakeholders, public authorities at EU and national, regional, local level.
European Citizens’ PanelsThese are vital bodies of the Conference, tasked with debating issues that matter to citizens. The composition of European citizens’ panels (± 200 citizens chosen at random) will be transnational and representative of the EU population, not only with respect to gender but also age, socio-economic background, geographic origin and level of education, with 1/3 of participants between 16 and 25 years of age. The European citizens’ panels will hold debates, including on the basis of contributions from the digital platform, and feed into the discussion of the Conference plenary with recommendations for the EU institutions to follow up. Four thematic citizens’ panels are planned: i) European democracy/values, rights, rule of law, security; ii) climate change, environment/health; iii) stronger economy, social justice, jobs/education, youth, culture, sport/digital transformation; and iv) EU in the world/migration.
European citizens’ panels will meet in deliberative sessions, in different locations and will be dedicated to specific themes. Member States (at national, regional or local level) and other stakeholders (civil society, social partners or citizens) may organise additional citizens’ panels under the umbrella of the Conference, provided they respect the Conference Charter in full.
Joint PresidencyThe Conference is under the tripartite authority of the Presidents of the European Parliament, Council of the EU and Commission, respectively David Sassoli, António Costa, representing the Portuguese Presidency of the Council until 30 June 2021, and Ursula von der Leyen. Based on the rotation established by Council Decision, the Presidency of the Council will then be held by Slovenia (1 July–31 December 2021) and France (1 January–30 June 2022). The tripartite Presidency of the Conference is the ultimate body to which the final outcome of the Conference will be reported, so that each institution may provide the appropriate follow-up in accordance with their own competences.
Conference PlenaryThe plenary comprises a total of 433 representatives, from the three institutions (Commission, Council of the EU and Parliament), national parliaments, citizens’ panels, the European Committee of the Regions (CoR), European Economic and Social Committee (EESC), national events or panels, social partners and civil society. The High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy will be invited when the international role of the EU is discussed. Other stakeholders and experts may also be invited. The plenary will discuss issues and recommendations coming from national and European citizens’ panels as well as input from the digital platform, grouped by themes. Debates will be open, without a predetermined outcome and without limiting topics to pre-defined policy areas. The plenary decides on a consensual basis (at least between the Parliament, Council, Commission and the national parliaments) on the proposals to be put forward to the Executive Board. The latter is responsible for drafting the final report of the Conference, in full collaboration and in full transparency with the Plenary, which will be published on the digital platform and sent to the Joint Presidency for concrete follow-up.
Executive BoardThe Executive Board manages the work of the conference (plenaries, citizens’ panels, and digital platform), oversees all activities, and prepares meetings of the plenary, including input from citizens, and their follow-up. All three institutions (Parliament, Commission and Council) are equally represented in the Executive Board, with three members each and up to four observers. The Executive Board is co-chaired by a representative of each of the three institutions; in the Council’s case by the rotating presidency. The presidential troika of COSAC (the Conference of Parliamentary Committees for Union Affairs of EU national parliaments) have permanent observer status. The EESC and CoR also have observer status. The co-chairs can propose to the plenary the creation of thematic working groups, and invite experts to participate in events of the Conference.
SecretariatA common secretariat composed of equal numbers of staff of the European Parliament, General Secretariat of the Council and the Commission, assists the Executive Board in the organisation of the Conference plenary and the European citizens’ panels.
Read this ‘at a glance’ on ‘The Conference on the Future of Europe‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.
Written by Andrés García Higuera.
The internet of things is already making us reimagine daily life, but could artificial intelligence be the key to reaching the full potential of this technology?
© Elenabsl / AdobeStockSmart objects have evolved beyond the original idea of the internet of things (IoT): to offer a better way to track products, replace obsolete barcodes and improve logistics. The inherent extended capabilities of simultaneous contactless identification of objects using a unique electronic product code (EPC), which can be referenced using the internet, has been apparent for some time. While leading to multiple new applications, it has also raised many concerns.
With information from tagged products directly available to computers, some levels of computer-based intelligence can also be associated with the original object over the internet. In practice, the object becomes ‘intelligent‘ in an abstract way, with no need to incorporate any electronics besides an RFID tag. The result is an intelligent physical object, whose brain is hosted by a computer elsewhere.
This kind of artificial intelligence (AI) can go a step further and associate the object, in the location where it has been identified by a reader, with additional information from sensors located in that area. It is also possible to draw conclusions by correlating the object with other tagged objects in the vicinity. What is more, this virtual network is not restricted to simple objects, but can be extended to more complex devices incorporating their own sensors. Either way, all the objects around us are now becoming intelligent as the technology of connected objects evolves to produce smart objects.
Potential impacts and developmentsSmart objects are transforming the way we interact with our environments at home, at work and in our cities. The IoT network gathers vast quantities of data about our daily activities and is combined with AI to become AIoT (artificial intelligence of things) – a smart, connected network that communicates over powerful 5G links, efficient enough to take full advantage of big data and cloud computing.
We can be linked to the RFID tags in our clothes while wearable devices continuously gather medical data, as well as information about our preferences and habits. Applications include fitness and health tracking devices monitoring heart rate, blood pressure and blood sugar levels. Furthermore, a variety of widgets are also available, ranging from wireless headphones to highly sophisticated augmented-reality/virtual-reality (AR/VR) equipment with many applications, including gaming. Smart home devices such as thermostats, coffee-makers, lights and all sorts of smart appliances learn users’ habits to develop automated home support for everyday tasks. This can improve energy efficiency and safety; but can also be used for entertainment, access control and personal comfort among other applications. Smart cities integrate all levels of services to become safer, more convenient places to live. Applications include open data for better urban planning, optimised energy consumption, smart public transportation and increased public safety through smart traffic surveillance and control. Smart industry devices – the industrial internet of things (IIoT) – use real-time data analytics and machine learning to optimise operations, logistics and the supply chain. Data generated by these devices help industries foresee challenges – preventing costly errors and workplace injuries. The data being gathered may be sensitive, and therefore their protection must be ensured at all times in any communications that could be subject to tampering. Research is ongoing on ways to improve wireless communication standards and provide for encryption at different levels.
Anticipatory policy-makingSmart objects and the AIoT constitute a new paradigm that incorporates all the possibilities attributed so far to both AI and IoT technologies and benefits from others such as 5G, but it also takes in all the related ethical and legal concerns. The compulsion towards guaranteed outcomes may lead certain companies to collect excessively detailed behavioural data incompatible with the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). The EU has been actively regulating these two technologies (AI and IoT) for many years now. Policy discussions on IoT began at least 15 years ago – STOA released a study in 2007. Policy discussions on AI have been ongoing for some time and there is a broad spectrum of dedicated services within institutions such as the European Parliament, the European Commission, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, the Joint Research Centre, Council and others. These services have already performed a variety of studies that have contributed to the development of a new set of EU rules for AI.
Over the years, the EU has become a reference for human rights and democracy. The precautionary principle enables decision-makers to adopt precautionary measures when scientific evidence about risks to the environment or human health is uncertain and the stakes are high. Its application presents many challenges, however, especially when it comes to the treatment of complexity, hazard and exposure assessment, research and economic activities. Nevertheless, it also presents opportunities, mainly regarding the possibility to reduce the overall costs of environmental and health research for society. Yet there are also concerns about the EU getting stuck in these discussions, losing technological sovereignty in the process, and not taking advantage of the fact that a good part of this path has been explored already. As already feared by the European Commission in 2009, the development of technologies such as IoT has been hindered in the EU by concerns about privacy that may have led to over-regulation, possibly over-rating the limited capabilities these technologies had so many years ago. The result was that the EU was left lagging behind, and the same may be happening now with AI. As all these discussions make more sense today because of increased connectivity, by looking to science for inspiration and information, evidence-informed policy-making can help strike the right balance.
On 21 April 2021, the European Commission presented a proposal for new rules and measures, aiming to turn the EU into a global hub for trustworthy AI; this took the form of a new regulatory framework on AI and a revised coordinated plan on AI. The proposal establishes a risk-based approach to regulation, where AI applications are classified according to levels on a pyramid. The broader lower levels of the pyramid refer to applications with minimal or no risk and the classification goes up to a restricted group involving unacceptable risks. Smart objects fit easily into the lower-risk levels in most cases, provided that no tracking is involved and the GDPR is duly respected. New rules on machinery products will complement this proposal by adapting safety rules to increase users’ trust in this new, versatile generation of products.
Through a series of related resolutions, the European Parliament has also been contributing to a comprehensive regulatory framework of ethical principles and legal obligations relating to the development, deployment and use of AI. This includes smart objects, although Parliament has focused mainly on high-risk applications and not so much on the broader low-risk levels of the pyramid.
Some studies suggest that a common EU framework on ethical aspects of AI, robotics and related technologies has the potential to bring the EU €294.9 billion in additional grow domestic product and 4.6 million additional jobs by 2030. The EU cannot afford to miss the opportunities offered by new technologies such as smart objects. By taking advantage of what has already been done at the institutional level, it can still lead responsible development while maintaining ethical values and standards. By setting these standards, the EU can pave the way to ethical technology worldwide, while also ensuring that the EU remains competitive.
Read this ‘at a glance’ on ‘What if objects around us flocked together and became intelligent?‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.
Listen to Science and Technology podcast ‘What if objects around us flocked together and became intelligent?’ on YouTube.
Written by Lena Hirschenberger.
How do you think Europe should develop? Youthideas.eu is inviting young Europeans to outline your own ideas on the issues that Europe is facing today and your visions for the Europe of tomorrow. This online platform is available for young people to share ideas on specific topics and questions, not least related to Parliament’s initiatives for youth.
Your ideas will enrich the biennial European Youth Event (EYE) programme, and also provide inspiration and input for other European Parliament youth initiatives. Moreover, Youthideas.eu will forward a selection of the ideas to the Members of the European Parliament and other policy-makers, inviting them to join the debate.
But before you launch your ideas, perhaps you would like to know more about the field of EU action that interests you. The European Parliamentary Research Service (EPRS) has compiled a selection of publications to provide you with background information and insights, linked to the central topics of the EYE.
Climate Change and EnvironmentWritten by Marie Lecerf with Stephanie Brenda-Smialowski.
© Zoran / Adobe StockThe Roma are Europe’s largest ethnic minority. Out of an estimated total of 10 to12 million Roma in Europe, some 6 million live in the European Union (EU), most of whom are citizens of an EU Member State. A significant number of Roma people live in very poor socio-economic conditions. The social exclusion, discrimination and segregation they face are mutually reinforcing. Their restricted access to education, and difficulties in entering the labour market, result in low income and poor health compared with non-Roma people.
Since the mid-1990s, the European Union has stressed the need for better Roma inclusion. In 2011, a key EU initiative emerged with the adoption of an EU framework for national Roma integration strategies up to 2020, aimed at tackling the socio-economic exclusion of, and discrimination against, Roma by promoting equal access in four key areas: education, employment, health, and housing. As the framework had come to an end, the Commission adopted ‘A union of equality: EU Roma strategic framework for equality, inclusion and participation’ (2021‑2030) in early October 2020. Through this new strategy, Member States are invited to tackle the disproportionate impact of the pandemic. In March 2021, the Council adopted a recommendation on Roma equality, inclusion and participation, replacing an earlier one from 2013. This recommendation encourages Member States to adopt strategic frameworks for the inclusion of Roma communities and to communicate them to the Commission by September 2021. The EU also supports Member States in their duty to improve the lives of all vulnerable people, including Roma people, through the European structural and investment funds and other funding instruments.
Issues related to the promotion of democratic values and practices towards Roma, as well as their economic, social and cultural rights, have received particular attention from civil society organisations, while Parliament has advocated for Roma since the 1990s.
Read this briefing on ‘Understanding EU action on Roma inclusion‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.
Written by Marcin Grajewski.
© PX Media / Adobe StockA year and a quarter after the Covid-19 pandemic first broke out, the disease continues to wreak havoc in many countries around the world. The process of vaccination continues at varying speeds across the globe, but with a clear discrepancy between rich and poor countries. Significant pressure is being applied by NGOs, international institutions and a number of national governments to help poor countries with vaccinations, notably because of actual or potential dangerous mutations of the coronavirus. Meanwhile, the EU institutions are close to finalising a ‘digital green certificate’ to facilitate safe and free movement between Member States, by providing proof that a person has either been vaccinated against Covid-19, received a negative test result, or recovered from the disease and carries antibodies.
This note offers links to recent commentaries, studies and reports from international think tanks on the coronavirus and related issues. More studies on the topics can be found in a previous edition in this series, published in February 2021.
A new multilateralism for the post-Covid world: What role for the EU-Africa partnership?
European Think Tank Group, April 2021
Built to order: How Europe can rebuild multilateralism after Covid-19
European Council on Foreign Relations, April 2021
Under cover of Covid, Poland is stifling free media – and all Europe should be worried
European Council on Foreign Relations, April 2021
Belt and Road in Kenya: Covid-19 sparks a reckoning with debt and dissatisfaction
European Council on Foreign Relations, March 2021
A year on, the ‘Color of Covid’ still matters
Council on Foreign Relations, March 2021
The military in the time of Covid-19: Versatile, vulnerable, and vindicating
Egmont, March 2021
Towards cutting-edge European humanitarian leadership
Egmont, March 2021
African intra and inter-continental migration during Covid-19
Egmont, February 2021
The unequal inequality impact of the Covid-19 pandemic
Bruegel, March 2021
An update: Vaccination in the EU
Bruegel, March 2021
Persistent Covid-19: Exploring potential economic implications
Bruegel, March 2021
When and how to unwind Covid support measures to the banking system?
Bruegel, March 2021
Self-employment, Covid-19, and the future of work for knowledge workers
Bruegel, March 2021
The EU’s fiscal stance, its recovery fund, and how they relate to the fiscal rules
Bruegel, March 2021
The impact of Covid-19 on the Internal Market
Bruegel, March 2021
New EU insolvency rules could underpin business rescue in the Covid-19 aftermath
Bruegel, March 2021
Covid-19 credit-support programmes in Europe’s five largest economies
Bruegel, February 2021
Aiming for zero Covid-19: Europe needs to take action
Bruegel, February 2021
Will Covid accelerate productivity growth?
Bruegel, February 2021
Everything will be different: How the pandemic is changing EU economic governance
Jacques Delors Institute, February 2021
Spending EU subsidies well: A challenge for member states
Jacques Delors Institute, February 2021
A European vaccine passport? A healthy debate
Jacques Delors Institute, February 2021
Why Europe should spend big like Biden
Centre for European Reform, March 2021
How Greece can recover from Covid
Centre for European Reform, February 2021
The EU’s troubled leadership: You get what you pay for
Centre for European Reform, February 2021
An unequal recovery would be politically explosive
Centre for European Reform, January 2021
Trade policy and medical supplies during Covid-19
Chatham House, February 2021
Managing global liquidity through Covid-19 and beyond
Chatham House, February 2021
Prioritizing equity after Covid-19
Chatham House, February 2021
Fiscal policy and the post-Covid-19 recovery
Chatham House, February 2021
The Covid-19 pandemic and trends in technology
Chatham House, February 2021
The geo-economics and geopolitics of Covid-19: Implications for European security
International Institute for Strategic Studies, March 2021
The European Union in the Covid-19 storm: Economic, political and stability challenges
International Institute for Strategic Studies, February 2021
Covid-19 vaccine race: The black market opportunity
International Institute for Strategic Studies, February 2021
Non-standard workers and the self-employed in the EU: Social protection during the Covid-19 pandemic
European Trade Union Institute, February 2021
Covid-19 and conservation: Crisis response strategies that benefit people and nature
German Development Institute, February 2021
Health and public communication in the era of conspiracy theories
EUROPEUM, February 2021
Covid 19 and Europewide income disparities
Friedrich Ebert Stiftung, February 2021
Economic Assessment of the Euro Area
EURORAME, 2021
2020: Das schwierige Covid-19-Jahr auf dem Westbalkan
Österreichische Institut für Internationale Politik, January 2021
Impacts of the Covid-19 pandemic on EU industries
Centre for European Policy Studies, March 2021
What can the ECB achieve in a lockdown recession?
Centre for European Policy Studies, March 2021
Vaccines: How to use market-based incentives to ramp up production
Centre for European Policy Studies, February 2021
A transatlantic cure to the pandemic and structural global health
Clingendael, March 2021
One year in, Covid-19’s uneven spread across the US continues
Brookings Institution, March 2021
Getting the Covid-19 vaccine: Progress, and equity questions for the next phase
Brookings Institution, March 2021
Putting girls at the center of the Covid-19 pandemic response in Africa
Brookings Institution, March 2021
Read this briefing on ‘Coronavirus: Latest developments‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.
Written by Vera Vikolainen.
© j-mel / Adobe StockThis briefing provides an initial analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of the European Commission’s impact assessment (IA) accompanying the above-mentioned communication on the new EU strategy on adaptation to climate change (new adaptation strategy), which aims to realise the 2050 vision of a climate-resilient EU. The IA was published on 24 February 2021 and was subsequently referred to the European Parliament’s Committee on Environment, Pubic Health and Food Safety (ENVI).
The Commission’s communication builds on Article 4 of the proposal for a European climate law regulation, which requires the Member States and the EU to enhance their adaptive capacity, strengthen their resilience and reduce their vulnerability to climate change. The new EU adaptation strategy was first announced in the European Green Deal communication in December 2019. The European Parliament welcomed the new strategy as a key component of the EU’s climate policy in its resolution of 17 December 2020 and called for a renewed and improved focus on climate adaptation. The Council, meanwhile, repeatedly stressed the need for further action on adaptation, most recently in January 2020. The new strategy on adaptation to climate change is part of the 2021 Commission work programme.
Read the complete briefing on ‘Establishing the new EU strategy on adaptation to climate change‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.
Following the forced landing of a Ryanair flight by Belarusian authorities on 23 May, Belarus became the central topic on the first day of the special European Council meeting of 24-25 May 2021. EU leaders strongly condemned the ‘unprecedented and unacceptable incident’, and were united in imposing further sanctions on Belarus. As regards Russia, the European Council reconfirmed the five principles guiding the EU’s policy since 2016 and asked the High Representative and the European Commission to present a ‘report with policy options’ by June 2021. On EU-UK relations, EU leaders called on the European Commission to continue to monitor closely the implementation of the two agreements concluded with the UK. On foreign affairs, they also discussed the situations in the Middle East and in Mali, as well as the forthcoming EU-US summit. The leaders’ primary focus on the second day was the fight against the coronavirus pandemic, with the European Council calling for rapid implementation of the EU Digital Covid Certificate, the revision of the Council Recommendation on travel within the EU by mid-June 2021 and accelerated global access to coronavirus vaccines. Finally, regarding climate policy, despite renewed support for the 2030 and 2050 climate targets, diverging views on national efforts to achieve the objectives set remained apparent.
1. General aspects and new commitmentsIn accordance with Article 235(2) TFEU, the President of the European Parliament, David Sassoli, addressed the European Council at the start of its proceedings. As President-in-Office of the Council, the Portuguese Prime Minister, António Costa, provided an overview of progress made on implementing previous European Council conclusions. As of 12 May 2021, Bulgaria has an interim government and, following established practice, the President, Rumen Radev, represented the country rather than the interim Prime Minister.
Table 1 – New European Council commitments and requests with a specific time schedule Policy area Action Actor Schedule Covid-19 Revision of the Council Recommendation on travel within the EU Council Mid-June 2021 Russia Presentation of a report with policy options on EU-Russia relations High Representative and the Commission June 2021 2. European Council meeting EU coordination efforts in response to the coronavirus pandemic Production, delivery and deployment of vaccinesEU leaders took note of the improved general epidemiological situation (i.e. fewer confirmed coronavirus cases and hospitalisations) and accelerated vaccine delivery across the EU. The President of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, updated EU leaders on the production, delivery and deployment of vaccines. As of 21 May 2021, 241.3 million doses of vaccine had been delivered to the EU Member States, 211.4 million administered, and 40.7 % of the adult EU population had received at least one dose. By the end of July, there should be enough doses for 70 % of the EU’s adult population to be vaccinated. In order to ensure the gradual reopening of European society, EU leaders stressed the need to remain vigilant regarding the emergence and spread of variants, for which vaccine production and adequate supply will be key. EU leaders also considered the vaccination of minors, and President von der Leyen announced that the approval of the first vaccination for 12 to 15 year-old children by the European Medicines Agency (EMA) was expected as early as the end of May.
EU Digital Covid CertificateAs flagged up in the EPRS outlook, EU leaders welcomed the deal reached on 21 May 2021 between the European Parliament and the Council on the EU Digital Covid Certificate, calling for its rapid implementation. President von der Leyen confirmed that the IT infrastructure would be ready at EU level as of 1 June, and that Member States would be able to connect from mid-June. With the same aim of facilitating travel throughout the Union, EU leaders welcomed the agreement on the revision of the Council Recommendation on non-essential travel into the EU, and called for the revision of the Council Recommendation on travel within the EU by mid-June 2021.
International solidarity on vaccinesEU Heads of State or Government recalled that the EU was the largest exporter of Covid-19 vaccines to the rest of the world and pledged to continue efforts to increase global vaccine production capacities. The European Council called for work to be stepped up to ensure equitable global access to Covid-19 vaccines, reiterating the EU’s commitment to step up vaccine sharing to support third countries through COVAX, a global vaccine procurement facility. President von der Leyen announced that the pharmaceutical companies Biontech/Pfizer, Moderna, and Johnson and Johnson had committed to deliver 1.3 billion doses of vaccine, on a non-profit basis for low income countries, and at low cost for middle-income countries.
Main message of the Parliament’s President: David Sassoli welcomed the initial agreement on the Digital Covid Certificate, as this will avoid a patchwork of national solutions. Regarding vaccine exports, he invited the G20 Global Health Forum to follow the example of the EU by exporting vaccines to low- and middle-income countries. He expressed the view that production should be enhanced in these countries in the medium term, including by allowing for mandatory sharing of licences for this purpose – using the flexibility already allowed within the World Trade Organization’s Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) Agreement.
Climate changeThe European Council reaffirmed its conclusions from December 2020, welcomed the co-legislators’ agreement on the EU climate law and invited the European Commission ‘to put forward its legislative package’ (Fit for 55). EU leaders welcomed the US’s return to the Paris Agreement and called on international partners ‘to increase their ambition ahead of the COP26 meeting in Glasgow’.
In recent years, the European Council has managed to steadily and progressively reach agreement on the EU climate goals for 2030 (a 55 % greenhouse gas emissions reduction compared with 1990 levels) and for 2050 (EU climate neutrality). This progress was welcomed by Ursula von der Leyen, who stressed that agreement was nevertheless still needed on how best to achieve the goals set. The Prime Minister of Italy, Mario Draghi, along with other members, questioned whether the European Council should continue with granular technical debates or allow the Environment Council to address climate-related technical matters. Perennial Member State sensitivities were reflected in the final conclusions, which were less ambitious than initially expected, providing no additional guidance to the Commission before its submission of the legislative package.
Main message of the Parliament’s President: David Sassoli stressed that Parliament was ‘working on legislative proposals’, negotiating the EU climate law and had reached an agreement with the Council on the 2030 climate target. He reminded the European Council that it should refrain from using its conclusions, which are not legally binding, to interfere with the legislative process.
MigrationFollowing events in the Mediterranean and the Spanish territory of Ceuta, EU leaders briefly addressed migration, with Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez providing an update on the situation in Ceuta. After the meeting, European Council President Charles Michel reported that EU leaders had reaffirmed full support for the Spanish Government and stressed that ‘Spanish borders are European borders’. The leaders agreed to return to migration at their 24-25 June 2021 meeting.
Main message of the Parliament’s President: To be able to ‘save human lives’, David Sassoli called for a European search and rescue mechanism at sea, a European resettlement system and a genuine European migration reception policy.
External relations BelarusBelarus was a last-minute addition to the agenda at the request of Poland. EU leaders strongly condemned the Belarusian authorities’ action in diverting and forcing the landing in Minsk on 23 May of an Athens-Vilnius flight, operated by the Irish airline Ryanair using a Polish registered aircraft, as well as the detention of Raman Pratasevich and Sofia Sapega, demanding their immediate release. Ursula von der Leyen stated that ‘in the European Council, the judgement was unanimous: This is an attack on democracy. This is an attack on freedom of expression. And this is an attack on European sovereignty’. In a communiqué prior to the meeting, Charles Michel had already spoken of an ‘unacceptable, shocking and scandalous’ event and a ‘threat against the safety of international civil aviation’, and condemned the detention of Raman Pratasevich. The President of Lithuania, Gitanas Nausėda, and the Prime Minister of Poland, Mateusz Morawiecki, qualified Belarus’s behaviour as ‘state terrorism’. The Prime Minister of Greece, Kyriakos Mitsotakis, called for ‘clear and severe consequences for Belarus’, this call was echoed by the Taoiseach of Ireland, Micheál Martin.
In its conclusions, the European Council called on the International Civil Aviation Organization to investigate the forced landing of the Ryanair flight, on the Council to ban Belarusian airlines from operating at EU airports and from using EU airspace, and on EU-based carriers ‘to avoid overflight of Belarus’. They expressed their intention to ‘remain seized of the matter’, expressed solidarity with Latvia for the ‘unjustified expulsion of Latvian diplomats’, and agreed that the Council should proceed ‘to adopt additional listings of persons and entities’ as well as targeted economic sanctions, for which the High Representative and the European Commission have yet to submit a proposal. President von der Leyen emphasised that the €3 billion investment and economic package planned for the country had been ‘frozen until Belarus turns democratic’.
Main message of the Parliament’s President: David Sassoli stated that the events in Minsk were of ‘unprecedented gravity’, demanding the ‘immediate and unconditional release’ of Raman Pratasevich and Sofia Sapega. He called for EU unity, and stressed that an international investigation was necessary to determine ‘if there has been a violation of the Chicago Convention‘.
RussiaAs flagged up in the EPRS Outlook, EU leaders held a strategic debate on relations with Russia during which they reaffirmed ‘the EU’s unity and solidarity’ and reiterated their ‘commitment to the five principles‘ guiding the EU’s Russia policy since 2016. They tasked the High Representative, Josep Borrell, and the European Commission with preparing and presenting a ‘report with policy options’ for the European Council’s consideration at its meeting in June 2021. President Michel stressed that EU leaders condemned Russia’s ‘illegal, provocative and destructive activities’, and expressed solidarity and support for Czechia and Eastern partners. President von der Leyen pointed to Russia’s assertive behaviour, which ‘is consistently challenging both our interests and our values’.
Main message of the Parliament’s President: David Sassoli spoke of a ‘changeable moment’ in international relations, calling for a ‘common European voice’. He underlined that ‘an attack on a Member State is an attack on us all’ and that ‘the safety of one is the safety of all’. He demanded the immediate release of Alexei Navalny, pointed to the rise in disinformation activities and underlined that ‘Parliament has always stressed that our strategic interests go hand in hand with our values’.
United KingdomThe European Council reaffirmed the EU’s intention to have ‘as close as possible a partnership with the UK’, and committed to maintaining EU-UK relations on its agenda at future meetings. EU leaders reaffirmed that the EU-UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement and the Withdrawal Agreement offered the basis for cooperation with the UK. They invited the European Commission to ensure the full implementation of the two agreements, in particular with respect to ‘EU citizens’ rights, fisheries and level playing field’. Ursula von der Leyen pointed to tensions ‘felt around the access for example of EU fishing boats’, while Charles Michel expressed the EU’s support for ‘fair implementation in the letter and the spirit of the [trade and cooperation] agreement’.
Middle EastEU leaders briefly discussed the situation in the Middle East, welcomed the brokered ceasefire, committed to supporting a political solution, along with international partners, and reiterated, for the first time since their December 2017 meeting, the EU’s commitment to the ‘two-state solution’.
MaliEU leaders supported the joint ECOWAS-AU-MINUSMA statement on Mali, condemned the kidnapping of Mali’s interim President, Bah N’Daw, and acting Prime Minister, Moctar Ouane, and stressed that targeted measures could be taken regarding those stalling the transition.
United StatesEU leaders prepared for the forthcoming meeting with the US to be held in June 2021. Ursula von der Leyen indicated the topics that could be discussed with the US President, Joe Biden, which might include external relations, security and defence, climate and trade.
Read this briefing on ‘Outcome of the special European Council meeting of 24-25 May 2021‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.