European Parliamentary Research Service Blog

Written by Andrés García Higuera and Mihalis Kritikos (STOA) with Nuala Polo and Corinna Pannofino (Trilateral Research)

The European Parliament’s Panel for the Future of Science and Technology (STOA) partnered with three EU-funded Horizon 2020 projects – SHERPA, SIENNA and PANELFIT – representing a €10 million investment in research by the European Union, to host the online workshop, ‘Policy options for the ethical governance of disruptive technologies‘. This event took place on 23 March 2021.

In view of the (now published) legislative proposal on artificial intelligence (AI), the workshop focused on identifying the main ethical challenges associated with the development of disruptive technologies and the best practices for mitigating the related risks. It also aimed at building on these findings to ensure that ethical principles and societal values are prioritised in the design and development of future technologies.

In her opening remarks, Susana Solís Pérez MEP (Renew, Spain) and Lead STOA Panel Member for this event, emphasised the need for Europe to take the lead in the creation of a legal framework enabling the development of a responsible innovation ecosystem in the field of AI. Despina Spanou, Head of Office of the European Commission Vice-President for Promoting our European Way of Life Margaritis Schinas, then delivered an insightful policy keynote speech. She emphasised the importance of AI in several areas and the need for high standards of protection of fundamental rights, to ensure the responsible development, deployment and use of these technologies to protect privacy and promote security. She further presented the Commission’s upcoming legislative and policy plans in the domain of AI, which put forward a risk-based, technology-neutral, holistic approach consistent with the European way of life.

The first panel discussion was based on the results of the SHERPA project, ‘Ethical, social and legal challenges of AI – Open questions and outstanding challenges’. This panel featured Members of the European Parliament, academics, technology developers and policy-makers, who engaged in a lively discussion and debate on best practices for harnessing the benefits of AI in order to improve citizens’ lives, while mitigating potential ethical, social and legal risks. It was agreed that ethical aspects of AI should not be seen as an obstacle but as a matter of ongoing critical reflection that is particularly important for protecting vulnerable people and children when using AI systems. The panellists emphasised that AI could help us fight climate change and achieve the Sustainable Development Goals, and stressed the need to construct AI ecosystems with governance structures that provide incentives for ethical uses of AI.

The second panel was based on the results of the PANELFIT project, ‘Mitigation options – What can be done to identify and address current and future challenges of emerging technologies?’. This panel also featured Members, privacy engineers, academics and developers, in discussion on how to better understand and address the ethical implications of new and emerging technologies in the early stages of design and development, to minimise potential negative impacts on society. Discussion centred on the importance of EU-wide policy and standards to achieve a dynamic and enforceable approach to address systemic risks and incorporate ethics in the design of data-driven technologies. It was agreed that certification schemes and self-regulation are not sufficient to address algorithmic bias and restore transparency and accountability.

These interactive discussions were followed by a keynote speech delivered by Yoshua Bengio of the University of Montreal and one of the world’s leading experts in AI. He considered ways for governments to better incentivise technology development and AI innovation in a way that promotes long-term benefits for society, for example, open science, data sharing and use of rewards based on delayed (technological) outcomes, rather than simply grants. His speech focused on the need to promote and facilitate the sharing of knowledge and data for the public good, which in effect could strengthen the social dimension of AI. His presentation is available here.

Yoshua Bengio’s keynote was followed by the event’s final panel, based on the results of the SIENNA project, ‘Beyond AI – Ethics and human rights implications of emerging technologies’. In addition to Members, this panel featured AI ethicists, and academics, who considered best practices for building ethical and legal regulatory frameworks, to ensure the ethical governance of new and emerging technologies. The discussion focused on the importance of protecting democratic values and fundamental rights, to ensure that technology works for the collective good and the whole of society. All panellists agreed on the need to strengthen multidisciplinary input in the design and deployment of AI, including the shaping of definitions in the domain of AI.

The final panel was followed by a roundtable discussion on policy options from an international perspective. The discussion focused on the various AI ethics initiatives adopted by international organisations and considered ways to enhance global efforts in standards development in strategic emerging technology fields, and strengthen the normative value of ethics and the role of the EU as an ethics trailblazer.

Mariya Gabriel, European Commissioner for Culture, Education and Youth, and Eva Kailli (S&D, Greece) and STOA Chair brought the event to a close, with Eva Kaili reiterating the importance of strengthening a harmonised EU-wide approach to the design and development of future and emerging technologies prioritising ethical and social values to enrich and improve society. In her view, the discussions had highlighted the importance of interdisciplinary collaboration and working with end-users to develop solutions that protect EU values, democracy and fundamental rights.

The event, moderated by BBC journalist Vivienne Parry, featured Q&A sessions with members of the audience, and opened up a critical discussion on how we can make use of AI and big data for public good. A recording of the event is available here.

Your opinion counts for us. To let us know what you think, get in touch via stoa@europarl.europa.eu

Written by Gianluca Quaglio with Virginia Mahieu,

Across the board, the message is clear: the Covid‑19 pandemic has shone a spotlight on the need for better EU policies for public health, especially in relation to diagnostic testing and the sharing of healthcare data. Indeed, this was the subject of a recent STOA workshop, which featured discussions on – but not limited to – the impact and challenges of the new in vitro diagnostics regulation (IVDR) and the Commission’s proposal for a European Health Data Space (EHDS).

The event, held online on 22 April 2021, was jointly organised by STOA, the Biomedical Alliance in Europe (BioMed Alliance), the European Hematology Association (EHA), the European Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (EFLM), and the European Society of Cardiology (ESC). It included speakers from a range of backgrounds, including policy-makers, experts from the European Commission and health professionals representing medical associations.

Alexandra Geese, Member of the European Parliament (Greens, Germany) and STOA Panel member, opened the workshop, noting that the coronavirus pandemic has highlighted the importance of science in public life, and the need for policy decisions and regulatory systems to be guided by scientific and clinical evidence. Scientific input is crucial to ensure that health policy initiatives can lead to better public health and enhance resources for patients. The trend has been accelerated greatly by the need for a shared response to the Covid‑19 pandemic, and by the unprecedented investment announced for the EU4Health programme.

Andrzej Rys, Director for Public Health and Risk Assessment at the Directorate-General for Health and Food Safety (DG SANTE) of the European Commission then outlined the current and future EU health agenda. He introduced the two new implementing regulations on medical devices and in-vitro diagnostics (MDR and IVDR), as well as the main initiatives currently in progress: the EU Pharmaceutical Strategy, pointing out the need for a holistic approach covering the full lifecycle of medicines, the new EU framework for cooperation on Health Technology Assessments (HTA), and the Health Union Package. The main goal of this last initiative is to strengthen the EU’s health security framework, and reinforce the crisis preparedness and response capacity of key EU agencies, the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC) and the European Medicines Agency (EMA).

He also introduced some items from the Commission’s upcoming legislative agenda, highlighting the plans for the EHDS, which aims at implementing a timely and simplified exchange of and access to health data for different uses (healthcare provision, digital health services, pharmacovigilance, public health, research etc.). He also emphasised the need to put the Beating Cancer Plan into practice, strengthening the EU approach at every key stage of the disease: prevention, diagnosis, treatment and survivorship.

Impact of changes under the new in vitro diagnostic medical device regulation (IVDR)

The first part of the online meeting focused on the new medical devices regulation (MDR) and IVDR and how they differ from the previous directives in place. Olga Tkachenko, from the DG SANTE Unit for Medical Devices and Health Technology Assessment and chair of the In vitro Diagnostics Working Group, described the three themes that the new IVDR brings to diagnostic devices used in clinics: higher standards of evidence, transparency and traceability, and harmonisation. She explained the current state of authorisation of the notified bodies (i.e. the companies that are designated to perform conformity assessments) needed to support the stricter requirements of this new regulation, but noted a thus far worrying lack of applications from manufacturers for their IVD devices to be evaluated under the new regulation.

Perspectives from physicians representing medical associations were then shared as to how the IVDR will affect patients and diagnostic specialists, with particular emphasis placed on the provisions for in-house diagnostic devices, also referred to as lab-developed tests (LDTs). Christa Cobbaert, from EFLM, supported the overall goal of the IVDR, which is to improve the clinical effectiveness and safety of medical tests for improved patient outcomes. She noted that the stricter requirements for medical device registration will put an administrative and financial burdens on both manufacturers and end-users and may impact the timely delivery and availability of these tests in clinics. It could also hinder testing innovation and precision diagnostics, especially for rare diseases. She added that, although LDTs are exempt from evaluation by a notified body under the IVDR, labs will be required to use commercially-approved (CE) tests when available and this could endanger the flexibility of labs to repurpose their own tests when needed, which was a cornerstone of the early stages of Covid‑19 testing. Christa Cobbaert asked that the Commission provide a transparent contingency plan, with EU-wide flexibility for derogations.

Elizabeth MacIntyre from EHA, explained that high-complexity diagnostic assays are frequently developed in-house, and that, as these tests are rarely used, they are less interesting to the commercial sector and as a result only a few are CE-marked. However, when they are needed, they are vital for patients. She expressed concern that, due to the strictness of the IVDR, some of these tests will disappear from the commercial market. As the use of LDTs must be justified if no alternative CE-marked test is available, this will increase workload and potentially delay patient treatment. She commented that she hoped the increased costs and workload will be offset by the benefits of the IVDR.

More evidence-based EU policies for health: the cases of the European Health Data Space, Health Technology Assessment and artificial intelligence in medicine

In the second part, several EU initiatives relevant to health policy were presented within specific case studies providing examples of how these initiatives are viewed by European medical professionals and how they may impact clinical practice.

Iona-Maria Gligor, Head of Unit at DG SANTE and responsible for Digital Health and European Reference Networks, presented the draft plans for the European Health Data Space (EHDS), the public consultation for which will be launched soon. She described the Commission’s legislative proposal in four pillars: (i) sharing of health data for healthcare, and improving the limited interoperability between healthcare providers; (ii) consolidating the use of health data in research and policy-making, refining cross-border access to health data, and strengthening digital infrastructures; (iii) supporting a single market for digital health services; and (iv) promoting the development and rollout of artificial intelligence (AI) in health and medicine and supporting regulators to evaluate AI algorithms.

In relation to this issue, Frank Rademakers, from University Hospital Leuven, discussed the role of AI in healthcare policy, which is increasing due to the massively increasing amount of data becoming available. He stressed that one of the most important aspects of the upcoming EHDS proposal will be the interoperability of the system. Similarly, data ownership and standardisation will be paramount to training AI algorithms, and involving stakeholders in developing these working guidelines to mitigate risk. Aldo Maggioni, Director of the Research Center of the Italian Association of Hospital Cardiologists (ANMCO), discussed several real-world case studies in which the EHDS could support clinical practice and thereby guide policy-making, by defining target populations for new therapeutic approaches, undertaking post-market surveillance of drugs and devices, and providing a platform to conduct randomised clinical trials.

Another topic where more evidence-based EU policies for health are needed, was presented by Piotr Szymański, from ESC. He discussed the scientific and clinical rationale for a health technology assessment (HTA) tool to support clinical decision-making – HTA is an evidence-based process to evaluate the effectiveness of new and existing medical technologies from both a physician’s and a patient’s perspective, in order to guide correct decisions on pricing and reimbursement. It is active over four clinical domains: diagnosis, technical characteristics, clinical effectiveness, and safety. The EU-wide implementation of this process will avoid duplication of efforts and improve the functioning of the EU single market.

In his closing remarks, Member of the European Parliament and STOA Panel member Tiemo Wölken (S&D, Germany), reiterated the timeliness and importance of the topics discussed in the workshop, and noted the full and ambitious EU legislative agenda in this field. He commented that, although the new IVDR will involve stricter requirements aimed at improving patient care, policy-makers are aware of the concerns regarding the challenges in its implementation. He argued that the EHDS will promote better exchange and access to data, but clear rules on liability and interoperability will be key to ensuring the benefits of digital health. Finally, he noted his appreciation for the upcoming HTA proposal, which will speed up and improve access to new medicines and medical devices for patients, ensuring equal access across the EU.

The full recording of the workshop is available here.

Written by Clare Ferguson,

© European Union – European Parliament

With Covid 19 vaccination campaigns in full swing, the 17 to 20 May 2021 plenary session could potentially be one of the last sessions where Members exclusively follow the debates and vote from home. A full agenda features measures to move forward on meeting EU climate ambitions, data protection, and votes on a number of programmes under the 2021 2027 multiannual financial framework, among other issues.

As environmental matters have risen to the top of the EU agenda with the European Green Deal, Members are expected to vote on Committee on Industry, Research and Energy (ITRE) own-initiative reports on developing EU strategies on hydrogen and on energy system integration following a joint debate (scheduled for Monday evening). The transport, buildings and industry sectors still rely heavily on the use of fossil fuels, a situation that should change if the EU is to reach its climate neutrality ambition. The ITRE committee points out that an EU hydrogen strategy should be based on clean hydrogen and that measures to speed up hydrogen market and value chain development are required. The committee also underlines the need to balance energy systems and to ensure energy accessibility. Crucial energy efficiencies could be achieved through investing in upgraded EU energy infrastructure, storage and interconnections, as well as encouraging consumers to play their part too, for instance by contributing to energy production. The EU’s climate ambitions underlined in the European Green Deal also require far-reaching change in regions currently reliant on production and or use of fossil fuels, and high-emission industry. In recognition of the difficulties this poses for the populations affected, the EU is set to launch its Just Transition Fund, should Parliament agree to formalise the compromise reached with the Council (following another Monday evening debate). Parliament has had considerable input in the final agreement, securing voluntary top-ups from cohesion policy, conditionality on climate neutrality, higher co-financing rates and a new Green Rewarding Mechanism. While Parliament’s ambitions for a larger budget did not prevail, the final agreement nevertheless allocates €17.5 billion to helping workers who lose their jobs in fossil fuel production, as well as the transformation to clean energy technologies. Finally, the issue of access to justice on environmental issues under the Aarhus Convention returns to plenary (on Wednesday evening). Members are expected to debate and vote on an Environment Committee (ENVI) report that should pave the way for negotiations with Council. If finally agreed, the changes would open up the review mechanism to allow qualified members of the public other than NGOs to challenge acts that breach environmental law. Third parties could also be permitted to comment, and court proceeding costs could be limited to ensure full accessibility to legal redress.

See our latest video: Types of hydrogen

In a joint debate scheduled for Thursday morning, Members will discuss two files concerning the thorny and long-debated issue of international transfers of personal data. A first draft resolution, tabled by Parliament’s Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (LIBE), concerns the Schrems II ruling, which forbids the transfer of personal data to a non-EU country (the United States in this case) without an equivalent level of data protection. The committee’s draft resolution maintains Parliament’s position that, without reform, surveillance laws in the USA prevent the Commission adopting a new adequacy decision. As the United Kingdom is also now a third country, an interim solution has been found but runs out next month, and the European Commission has drafted a, much-criticised, proposed adequacy decision. The second LIBE draft resolution therefore calls for improvements to the decision in view of the UK’s level of data protection.

Debates are scheduled for Tuesday evening on several programmes where the EU particularly supports young people. Parliament is keen to continue support for the European Union Youth Orchestra and seeks a special focus on the music industry and cinema in the 2021‑2027 continuation of the Creative Europe programme. Parliament is expected to vote at second reading on the proposal, and has already indicated that it is keen to see the €1 842 million (36 % more than the previous programme) budget support cultural projects, in an area hard-hit by the Covid‑19 pandemic. One of the EU’s most known and best-loved programmes, Members are also likely to adopt at second reading the regulation on Erasmus+. While Parliament did not manage to raise the budget for this flagship policy as much as it had hoped, it has secured an extra €1.7 billion and has insisted on ensuring the inclusion of young people with fewer opportunities in the target of 12 million participants. The programme will continue to translate strategy on education, training, youth and sport into opportunities for EU students. Parliament is also expected to debate its adoption at second reading of the proposed revision of the European Solidarity Corps Regulation, where Parliament’s negotiators have secured a number of modifications to focus the programme on volunteering opportunities for young people in solidarity and humanitarian projects, particularly outside their home country, including a 15 % increase on the previous budget.

The European Commission issues regular reports on the situation in EU accession countries. On Tuesday afternoon, Members will debate Parliament resolutions on the European Commission’s latest country reports on Turkey and Montenegro. The 2019 and 2020 reports on Turkey reflect the strained nature of EU relations with the country in the light of backsliding on democratic values and tensions in the eastern Mediterranean. While Parliament’s Committee on Foreign Affairs (AFET) has many concerns regarding Turkey’s commitment to the rule of law, democratic values and women’s rights, it has also pointed out that Turkey is hosting some 4 million refugees. Until relations improve however, accession talks are effectively at a standstill, and prospects for modernisation of the Customs Union remain suspended. A candidate for accession since 2008, the Commission’s reports on Montenegro show progress in accession negotiations and demonstrable respect for democratic standards in recent elections. Nevertheless, the AFET committee is critical of the lack of progress on freedom of expression and media freedom in the country.

With a view to further strengthening cooperation between EU countries on tax issues, a vote on formal adoption of the regulation setting up the Fiscalis programme for 2021‑2027 is also expected, on Wednesday evening. Following Parliament’s successful negotiations of an increased budget (€269 million), mainly earmarked for IT systems to support EU tax policy and cooperation.

Finally, in a little housekeeping under the current year’s finances, Parliament is expected to vote to approve Amending Budget No 2/2021, along with a decision mobilising the EU Solidarity Fund to provide (somewhat overdue) assistance to those hit by natural disasters in France and Greece, and to help 17 Member States and 3 accession countries to face the impact of the coronavirus pandemic. Among other issues, the amending budget sets aside financing for the EU Covid‑19 response, including the yet-to-be-agreed ‘digital green certificate’. Parliament’s Committee on Budgets underlines that any decision regarding the amending budget does not mean that this proposal is automatically accepted, and regrets that the Commission has combined so many urgent issues and technical adjustments in a single amending budget.

Written by Ivana Katsarova,

No other composer left a mark on music quite like Ludwig van Beethoven. From Bonn to Brisbane, from Vienna to Vancouver, Beethoven is still the superstar among classical music composers. A global artist embodying the then-new ideal of the musician as a passionate, politically engaged Romantic hero, Beethoven needs no introduction and his language requires no translation. Monuments and busts of this distinguished figure can be found on every continent and the legacy he left behind comprises over 650 compositions. The original handwritten composition of his most well-known piece of music – the Ninth Symphony – is part of UNESCO’s Memory of the World Register, which makes Beethoven an international cultural treasure. The Ode to Joy, crowning the symphony’s final movement, became the Council of Europe anthem in 1972, before being adopted as the European anthem in 1986.

A lively EPRS online roundtable entitled ‘Beethoven’s Ode to Joy: From musical masterpiece to European anthem‘ on 5 May 2021 gathered members of Parliament, historians, musicologists and journalists, who paid tribute to the great composer. What is a good symbol? Does the EU need an anthem? Is a famous piece of classical music a good candidate for a modern entity such as the EU? Does an anthem need lyrics? These were just some of the questions participants tried to answer, while the audience took part in three instant polls and could enjoy a series of inspiring musical interludes.

Jutta Schulze-Hollmen, Director for Resources within DG EPRS, set the scene for the debate by underscoring the potential of culture to build bridges and reminding the audience of a famous quote attributed to Jean Monnet, ‘If I had to start all over again, I would start with culture’.

Recalling the significance of culture in these troubled timesChair of the European Parliament committee on Culture and Education, Sabine Verheyen, retraced the genesis of the Ode to Joy and the criticism it prompted at the time. Indeed, Beethoven dared to break away from the traditional norms of the genre by including vocal soloists and a chorus in a symphony. Since then, the Ode to Joy’s lyrics based on a poem by Friedrich Schiller, have become a leitmotiv for peace, equality, joy and friendship. Importantly, as the European anthem, the Ode does not replace national anthems but instead underscores the EU’s shared values: freedom, piece and solidarity. Inspiring flash mobs and impromptu concerts during the lockdown, Beethoven’s call for unity and solidarity is now more relevant than ever. Its symbolic value is perfectly reflected in the EU’s motto ‘United in diversity’.

Recalling the convoluted path that led to the Ode becoming the European anthem, Professor Esteban Buch of the École des Hautes Études en Sciences Sociales, Paris, France) reminded the audience that building Europe has never been an easy task. He focused in particular on the controversy surrounding the copyrighting of the anthem’s arrangement by conductor Herbert von Karajan – a former member of the Nazi party. The copyrighted piece of music quickly became a concern, to the point that the then Secretary-General of the Council of Europe, Lujo Tončić-Sorinj, tried to convince Karajan to abandon his rights for the musical arrangement, however regrettably, Karajan insisted his arrangement was an original creation and withheld the rights.

Following this historical introduction, Professor François Foret of IEE-Cevipol, at the Université Libre de Bruxelles, looked at the European anthem through the prism of political science, focusing on two questions in particular: ‘What is the role of a good symbol in politics? and ‘How does the European anthem qualify for one?’ Quite counterintuitively, a good symbol is supposed to create both unity and conflict, thus ‘allowing people sharing little in common to meet under the same flag’.

The different meanings can however lead to varying interpretations, thus prompting conflict(s). The resilience of political communities is judged precisely by their capacity to remain the arenas of such conflicts of interpretation, but also to be the places where solutions are found, so that the members of such communities agree how to disagree. Based on this definition, the potential of the European anthem to create unity and to manage dissent appears quite high. These are the preliminary findings of a survey carried out in eight Member States, analysing how the Ode of Joy fares compared to other EU symbols.

Marie König, musicologist and freelance journalist challenged preconceived ideas about the Ninth Symphony. She regretted, for instance, that Schiller’s beautiful but rather old-fashioned text mentioned ‘brothers’ but not ‘sisters’. She also wondered whether it was not somewhat cynical to sing of joy when witnessing the images of those losing their loved ones while trying to join the EU by boat. Marie König suggested that we should not perceive Beethoven’s symphony as a memorial, but rather view it as an empty room that we can rearrange according to our views, and approach the great composer as a human being. Participants and attendees of the event were also treated to a series of musical interludes. Among those were the first performance of the Ode to Joy as an anthem in the European Parliament in its official version (without lyrics) on 15 September 1992. Attendees could also enjoy three other video excerpts of original renditions of the Ode to Joy performed respectively by:  El Sistema (Japan), the Rotterdam Philharmonic Orchestra and the Quatuor ‘Avena‘, thus witnessing the wide differences in the Ode’s perception by the public and messages conveyed.

In her closing remarks, Sabine Verheyen agreed with the decision to have an anthem without lyrics, because meaning is invariably lost in translations and can lead to misunderstanding. Such emotional symbols show that the EU is not simply a rational economic construct, but also a community of people sharing common values and remaining united in diversity.

The event gathered some 90 virtual participants from Parliament and beyond. Interestingly, three instant polls among those attending the event revealed that 95 % of respondents consider the EU needs an anthem, 48 % are convinced that there is no need for lyrics (with additionally 20 % backing translations of the original and 20 % advocating for modern lyrics) and 94 % support the idea that a piece of classical music can represent a modern entity such as the EU.

An EPRS briefing entitled ‘Story of the European anthem‘ – available also in French and German – provides further insight into the topic.

 

Written by Tarja Laaninen,

© progressman / Adobe Stock

In its Europe’s Beating Cancer plan, published in February 2021, the European Commission suggests – among other initiatives concerning cancer prevention – several actions concerning alcoholic beverages, such as limiting online advertising and promotion, and reviewing European Union (EU) legislation on the taxation of alcohol. Also among the proposals is mandatory labelling of ingredients and nutrient content on alcoholic beverages by the end of 2022. Health warnings on labels should follow by the end of 2023.

Labelling of ingredients and nutritional values on alcoholic drinks already has a long history. First attempts to label ingredients were made in the late 1970s, resulting in the Council not being able to agree on any of the proposed models. Alcoholic drinks containing more than 1.2 % by volume of alcohol (ABV) are exempted from the obligation set on other drinks and foodstuffs, to list the ingredients and make a nutritional declaration on the label.

The European Commission adopted a report in 2017, concluding that it had ‘not found objective grounds that would justify’ the absence of information on ingredients and nutritional information on alcoholic beverages. Following on from the Commission’s report, the European associations representing the alcoholic beverages sectors presented their self-regulation proposal in March 2018, suggesting that some sectors would list all ingredients on labels, while others could use online means of communication instead.

Stakeholders have differing views on the desirability and feasibility of such listings on-label; some would prefer this information to be allowed to be given off-label through QR-codes, apps or websites, while others absolutely insist that alcoholic drinks should be no different from other sectors of the food and drink industry. The European Parliament has called on the European Commission to consider a health warning and calorie content on alcoholic beverage labels.

Read the complete briefing on ‘Alcohol labelling‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Listen to policy podcast ‘Alcohol labelling’ on YouTube.

Written by Tarja Laaninen,

© progressman / Adobe Stock

In its Europe’s Beating Cancer plan, published in February 2021, the European Commission suggests – among other initiatives concerning cancer prevention – several actions concerning alcoholic beverages, such as limiting online advertising and promotion, and reviewing European Union (EU) legislation on the taxation of alcohol. Also among the proposals is mandatory labelling of ingredients and nutrient content on alcoholic beverages by the end of 2022. Health warnings on labels should follow by the end of 2023.

Labelling of ingredients and nutritional values on alcoholic drinks already has a long history. First attempts to label ingredients were made in the late 1970s, resulting in the Council not being able to agree on any of the proposed models. Alcoholic drinks containing more than 1.2 % by volume of alcohol (ABV) are exempted from the obligation set on other drinks and foodstuffs, to list the ingredients and make a nutritional declaration on the label.

The European Commission adopted a report in 2017, concluding that it had ‘not found objective grounds that would justify’ the absence of information on ingredients and nutritional information on alcoholic beverages. Following on from the Commission’s report, the European associations representing the alcoholic beverages sectors presented their self-regulation proposal in March 2018, suggesting that some sectors would list all ingredients on labels, while others could use online means of communication instead.

Stakeholders have differing views on the desirability and feasibility of such listings on-label; some would prefer this information to be allowed to be given off-label through QR-codes, apps or websites, while others absolutely insist that alcoholic drinks should be no different from other sectors of the food and drink industry. The European Parliament has called on the European Commission to consider a health warning and calorie content on alcoholic beverage labels.

Read the complete briefing on ‘Alcohol labelling‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Listen to policy podcast ‘Alcohol labelling’ on YouTube.

Written by Eric Pichon,

© doom.ko / Adobe Stock

The challenges posed by migration have put EU Member States’ solidarity to the test. Responding to a European Council request, in September 2020 the European Commission proposed a new pact on migration and asylum, to reinforce solidarity among the Member States and to strengthen EU migration management and asylum procedures, while also making them more consistent. The proposed pact has an external aspect as well: building on current EU migration partnership frameworks, it aims to reinforce international partnerships with a view to ensuring effective returns, combating migrant smuggling more effectively, and developing legal migration channels.

In the context of migration, the EU’s external policy has among its objectives to help third countries tackle the root causes of irregular migration or quests for asylum. The European Parliament often emphasises this point, while warning at the same time that security and migration management concerns should not result in diverting funds from core EU development cooperation objectives.

This is also a concern among academia and non-governmental organisations dealing with migration issues: several have pointed out that the Commission’s proposals for the above-mentioned pact and the working document, recommendations and legislative proposals accompanying it put a lesser emphasis on pathways to legal migration than on measures aimed at incentivising third countries to retain possible irregular migrants or to accept returns.

Read the complete briefing on ‘The external dimension of the new pact on migration and asylum: A focus on prevention and readmission‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Listen to policy podcast ‘The external dimension of the new pact on migration and asylum: A focus on prevention and readmission’ on YouTube.

Written by Eric Pichon,

© doom.ko / Adobe Stock

The challenges posed by migration have put EU Member States’ solidarity to the test. Responding to a European Council request, in September 2020 the European Commission proposed a new pact on migration and asylum, to reinforce solidarity among the Member States and to strengthen EU migration management and asylum procedures, while also making them more consistent. The proposed pact has an external aspect as well: building on current EU migration partnership frameworks, it aims to reinforce international partnerships with a view to ensuring effective returns, combating migrant smuggling more effectively, and developing legal migration channels.

In the context of migration, the EU’s external policy has among its objectives to help third countries tackle the root causes of irregular migration or quests for asylum. The European Parliament often emphasises this point, while warning at the same time that security and migration management concerns should not result in diverting funds from core EU development cooperation objectives.

This is also a concern among academia and non-governmental organisations dealing with migration issues: several have pointed out that the Commission’s proposals for the above-mentioned pact and the working document, recommendations and legislative proposals accompanying it put a lesser emphasis on pathways to legal migration than on measures aimed at incentivising third countries to retain possible irregular migrants or to accept returns.

Read the complete briefing on ‘The external dimension of the new pact on migration and asylum: A focus on prevention and readmission‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Listen to policy podcast ‘The external dimension of the new pact on migration and asylum: A focus on prevention and readmission’ on YouTube.

Written by Lieve Van Woensel and Mihalis Kritikos with Sara Suna Lipp,

Sequencing and analysis of the human genome – all the genetic information stored in our DNA – provide us with understanding about a person’s ancestry, health and other traits. Thanks to DNA sequencing, medicine and the life sciences are able to predict and cure diseases. As DNA sequencing technologies continuously improve and become less costly, what if we all soon possessed our personal, smart DNA sequencers and apps to analyse our DNA?

© Adobe Stock

The genetic ‘alphabet’ contains four ‘letters’ or, in other words, four chemical codes for the information stored in DNA, representing a sequence that, if unwrapped, can stretch up to two metres and fill a book of one million pages. DNA contains complete hereditary information about a person, from their eye and hair colour to their sex, some personality traits and disease vulnerability. DNA sequencing is a method that determines the precise order of the ‘letters’ within DNA, allowing us to ‘read’ the information in a genome. While deciphering the human genome for the benefit of scientific research, medical applications and public health, DNA sequencing of other species is also important: to verify biodiversity, to gain knowledge of crops and farmed animals, and to learn about the origin of emerging pathogens. In the case of a public health crisis, such as the Covid‑19 pandemic, genomic sequencing of SARS-CoV-2, the virus causing Covid‑19, facilitates the design of treatments and vaccines. It also aids in mapping the spread of the virus as it evolves and helps monitor containment measure effectiveness.

The Human Genome Project, which aimed to decipher the complete human genome, was completed in 2003. With the aid of international research, this took about three years and cost approximately three billion euros. However, the cost of and time needed for genomic sequencing are falling. Currently, it takes only about an hour and less than a thousand euros to sequence a complete genome. This technological progress has paved the way for the commercialisation of genome sequencing. Dozens of personal genomics companies, such as 23andMe or Ancestry, offer direct-to-consumer DNA testing, that can be bought online for less than fifty euros, offering to provide a range of information. As advanced genomics becomes more accessible and increasingly affects our daily lives, ethical concerns such as identifiability, consent, data privacy and security rise. It is therefore desirable to have regulation in place that keeps up with developments in technology before we all own our personal DNA sequencers, which could provide more than ancestry and disease risk information.

Potential impacts and developments

The decreasing cost and increasing speed of DNA sequencing techniques make genomics more accessible. Increasingly important worldwide, genomics offers more effective healthcare solutions. For example, if genomics analysis indicates a person’s genetic predisposition for type‑II diabetes, modifications in lifestyle, such as exercise and a healthy diet, could delay or prevent the onset of the disease. Genomics facilitates a more precise characterisation of medical conditions – such as cancers, some rare diseases and infectious diseases – and, accordingly, the choice of medication to target the disease. It can provide better diagnostics for disease prevention and has the potential to move personalised medicine and therapies forward. Prenatal genomic sequencing for every embryo may become a standard protocol, serving as a life-long health reference. Besides the benefit of assisting individuals to make decisions about their health, gathering information about genetic traits and diseases within populations, the field of public health genomics, could offer strategies for improving public health. This not only helps to access and monitor health problems, but also to frame public policy options.

DNA sequencing technologies can be used to scan and detect pathogens in real time and provide a surveillance system to prevent epidemic outbreaks. Portable DNA sequencers, smaller than a smartphone, such as MinION, which is the first of its kind, were used during the Zika virus epidemic in 2016 and the 2014‑2016 Ebola virus outbreak, to help identify and track the viruses. Farmers in Tanzania have benefited from portable DNA sequencing for the timely diagnosis of sick plants infected with viruses. IDseq, an open-source cloud-based platform defining itself as ‘infectious disease detectives’, launched a service where users can upload sequencing data for a free analysis. IDseq is also being used for molecular diagnostics to tackle Covid‑19. Genomic sequencing of SARS‑CoV‑2 is key to understanding the evolution and trajectory of the virus, assists containment measures, and has provided evidence that the virus is not a bioweapon. Recent research has even claimed that an on-the-spot DNA test integrated into smartphones could make real-time monitoring of diseases and pathogens possible.

The technology for pocket-size, portable, smartphone-integrated DNA sequencing is already available. This, together with improved mobile genome analysis applications, which enable the exploration of desirable genetic data, are opening an era of great possibility and risk. It is only a matter of time before personal DNA sequencers are commercialised and used to detect pathogens, food contamination or information about ourselves and others. In future, sequencers may be found in public spaces, such as hospitals or bathrooms, cars, or integrated into a fridge in our kitchens, to monitor genomes in real time. However, the interpretation of all this genomic information is not as easy as it may appear.

While genomics holds invaluable information for scientists, doctors and others, it also provides much more information about who we are, how and even where we live, where we go and with whom we interact. In a human sample (e.g. saliva), genomics can also detect genomic sequences of the microbiome, microbes residing in the human body, which can reveal a lot about an individual. As data analysis advances, there will be much more to uncover in genomic data, and consumer genomics may possibly enable a person to be identified from anonymous DNA databases. We also know that investigation of the genomic information of a part of a population facilitates the inference of the DNA make-up of the rest of that population. All this information can be commercially relevant. The question of who owns the DNA sequencing data and who else has access to it after one has given consent over the data are therefore crucial. The consumer genomics business faces challenges regarding privacy, data ownership and sharing, as well as data security. Genomic databases have already been hacked. DNA testing services can be cracked, sometimes revealing email addresses alone, whereas, in 2020, hackers accessed an online DNA database used by police for criminal searches.

Anticipatory policy-making

Genomic sequencing unveils very rich data and raises considerable legal, security and private as well as societal and ethical issues, touching upon basic human rights. As genomic technologies are evolving rapidly, it is desirable that regulation match this pace and that adequate safeguards are put in place. It is also important to raise societal awareness about this technology, capable of revealing people’s identities, and as such open to misuse. The declaration on genomics cooperation, signed by 13 European countries in 2018, on cooperation in sharing their genomic information, aims at sequencing ‘1+ million genomes’ in the European Union (EU) by 2022, thereby linking genomic databases to create a secure health data infrastructure across Europe, while ensuring that ethical and legal aspects are covered and that Member States are aware of the opportunities and challenges of genomics. A 2018 JRC report provides a comparative overview of Member States’ legislation on genomics.

Direct-to-consumer genetic testing is not currently harmonised at EU level. The legislative framework is fragmented and ranges from an absolute ban on these tests (France), to a complete lack of any legislative reference to this form of testing. At EU level, the revision of the In-Vitro Diagnostics Medical Devices Regulation that will come into force on 26 May 2022, will touch upon their clinical validity, meaning that EU Member States will continue to regulate medical supervision, genetic advice and monitoring and informed consent issues at the local and/or national level. In a future where personal DNA sequencers may be as common as smartphones, vigilance could be required on both legal and ethical issues. Genomic information is difficult to protect; we leave traces of our DNA, such as hair and fingerprints, wherever we go. Therefore, attention should be paid to data security, data ownership and sharing. Blockchain technologies may help to address some of these issues. Ethical issues such as individual autonomy and equality of access, as well as anti-discrimination laws and compensation for people affected by data abuse should also be considered.

Read this ‘at a glance’ on ‘What if consumers could use devices to sequence DNA?‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Listen to Science and Technology podcast ‘What if consumers could use devices to sequence DNA?’ on YouTube.

Written by Lieve Van Woensel and Mihalis Kritikos with Sara Suna Lipp,

Sequencing and analysis of the human genome – all the genetic information stored in our DNA – provide us with understanding about a person’s ancestry, health and other traits. Thanks to DNA sequencing, medicine and the life sciences are able to predict and cure diseases. As DNA sequencing technologies continuously improve and become less costly, what if we all soon possessed our personal, smart DNA sequencers and apps to analyse our DNA?

© Adobe Stock

The genetic ‘alphabet’ contains four ‘letters’ or, in other words, four chemical codes for the information stored in DNA, representing a sequence that, if unwrapped, can stretch up to two metres and fill a book of one million pages. DNA contains complete hereditary information about a person, from their eye and hair colour to their sex, some personality traits and disease vulnerability. DNA sequencing is a method that determines the precise order of the ‘letters’ within DNA, allowing us to ‘read’ the information in a genome. While deciphering the human genome for the benefit of scientific research, medical applications and public health, DNA sequencing of other species is also important: to verify biodiversity, to gain knowledge of crops and farmed animals, and to learn about the origin of emerging pathogens. In the case of a public health crisis, such as the Covid‑19 pandemic, genomic sequencing of SARS-CoV-2, the virus causing Covid‑19, facilitates the design of treatments and vaccines. It also aids in mapping the spread of the virus as it evolves and helps monitor containment measure effectiveness.

The Human Genome Project, which aimed to decipher the complete human genome, was completed in 2003. With the aid of international research, this took about three years and cost approximately three billion euros. However, the cost of and time needed for genomic sequencing are falling. Currently, it takes only about an hour and less than a thousand euros to sequence a complete genome. This technological progress has paved the way for the commercialisation of genome sequencing. Dozens of personal genomics companies, such as 23andMe or Ancestry, offer direct-to-consumer DNA testing, that can be bought online for less than fifty euros, offering to provide a range of information. As advanced genomics becomes more accessible and increasingly affects our daily lives, ethical concerns such as identifiability, consent, data privacy and security rise. It is therefore desirable to have regulation in place that keeps up with developments in technology before we all own our personal DNA sequencers, which could provide more than ancestry and disease risk information.

Potential impacts and developments

The decreasing cost and increasing speed of DNA sequencing techniques make genomics more accessible. Increasingly important worldwide, genomics offers more effective healthcare solutions. For example, if genomics analysis indicates a person’s genetic predisposition for type‑II diabetes, modifications in lifestyle, such as exercise and a healthy diet, could delay or prevent the onset of the disease. Genomics facilitates a more precise characterisation of medical conditions – such as cancers, some rare diseases and infectious diseases – and, accordingly, the choice of medication to target the disease. It can provide better diagnostics for disease prevention and has the potential to move personalised medicine and therapies forward. Prenatal genomic sequencing for every embryo may become a standard protocol, serving as a life-long health reference. Besides the benefit of assisting individuals to make decisions about their health, gathering information about genetic traits and diseases within populations, the field of public health genomics, could offer strategies for improving public health. This not only helps to access and monitor health problems, but also to frame public policy options.

DNA sequencing technologies can be used to scan and detect pathogens in real time and provide a surveillance system to prevent epidemic outbreaks. Portable DNA sequencers, smaller than a smartphone, such as MinION, which is the first of its kind, were used during the Zika virus epidemic in 2016 and the 2014‑2016 Ebola virus outbreak, to help identify and track the viruses. Farmers in Tanzania have benefited from portable DNA sequencing for the timely diagnosis of sick plants infected with viruses. IDseq, an open-source cloud-based platform defining itself as ‘infectious disease detectives’, launched a service where users can upload sequencing data for a free analysis. IDseq is also being used for molecular diagnostics to tackle Covid‑19. Genomic sequencing of SARS‑CoV‑2 is key to understanding the evolution and trajectory of the virus, assists containment measures, and has provided evidence that the virus is not a bioweapon. Recent research has even claimed that an on-the-spot DNA test integrated into smartphones could make real-time monitoring of diseases and pathogens possible.

The technology for pocket-size, portable, smartphone-integrated DNA sequencing is already available. This, together with improved mobile genome analysis applications, which enable the exploration of desirable genetic data, are opening an era of great possibility and risk. It is only a matter of time before personal DNA sequencers are commercialised and used to detect pathogens, food contamination or information about ourselves and others. In future, sequencers may be found in public spaces, such as hospitals or bathrooms, cars, or integrated into a fridge in our kitchens, to monitor genomes in real time. However, the interpretation of all this genomic information is not as easy as it may appear.

While genomics holds invaluable information for scientists, doctors and others, it also provides much more information about who we are, how and even where we live, where we go and with whom we interact. In a human sample (e.g. saliva), genomics can also detect genomic sequences of the microbiome, microbes residing in the human body, which can reveal a lot about an individual. As data analysis advances, there will be much more to uncover in genomic data, and consumer genomics may possibly enable a person to be identified from anonymous DNA databases. We also know that investigation of the genomic information of a part of a population facilitates the inference of the DNA make-up of the rest of that population. All this information can be commercially relevant. The question of who owns the DNA sequencing data and who else has access to it after one has given consent over the data are therefore crucial. The consumer genomics business faces challenges regarding privacy, data ownership and sharing, as well as data security. Genomic databases have already been hacked. DNA testing services can be cracked, sometimes revealing email addresses alone, whereas, in 2020, hackers accessed an online DNA database used by police for criminal searches.

Anticipatory policy-making

Genomic sequencing unveils very rich data and raises considerable legal, security and private as well as societal and ethical issues, touching upon basic human rights. As genomic technologies are evolving rapidly, it is desirable that regulation match this pace and that adequate safeguards are put in place. It is also important to raise societal awareness about this technology, capable of revealing people’s identities, and as such open to misuse. The declaration on genomics cooperation, signed by 13 European countries in 2018, on cooperation in sharing their genomic information, aims at sequencing ‘1+ million genomes’ in the European Union (EU) by 2022, thereby linking genomic databases to create a secure health data infrastructure across Europe, while ensuring that ethical and legal aspects are covered and that Member States are aware of the opportunities and challenges of genomics. A 2018 JRC report provides a comparative overview of Member States’ legislation on genomics.

Direct-to-consumer genetic testing is not currently harmonised at EU level. The legislative framework is fragmented and ranges from an absolute ban on these tests (France), to a complete lack of any legislative reference to this form of testing. At EU level, the revision of the In-Vitro Diagnostics Medical Devices Regulation that will come into force on 26 May 2022, will touch upon their clinical validity, meaning that EU Member States will continue to regulate medical supervision, genetic advice and monitoring and informed consent issues at the local and/or national level. In a future where personal DNA sequencers may be as common as smartphones, vigilance could be required on both legal and ethical issues. Genomic information is difficult to protect; we leave traces of our DNA, such as hair and fingerprints, wherever we go. Therefore, attention should be paid to data security, data ownership and sharing. Blockchain technologies may help to address some of these issues. Ethical issues such as individual autonomy and equality of access, as well as anti-discrimination laws and compensation for people affected by data abuse should also be considered.

Read this ‘at a glance’ on ‘What if consumers could use devices to sequence DNA?‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Listen to Science and Technology podcast ‘What if consumers could use devices to sequence DNA?’ on YouTube.

Written by David de Groot,

© Lisa F. Young / Fotolia

The prohibition of discrimination and the protection of human rights are important elements of the EU legal order. Nevertheless, discrimination against lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex (LGBTI) people persists throughout the EU and takes various forms, including verbal abuse and physical violence.

Sexual orientation is now recognised in EU law as grounds of discrimination. However, the scope of the provisions dealing with this issue is limited and does not cover social protection, health care, education or access to goods and services, leaving LGBTI people particularly vulnerable in these areas.

Moreover, EU competence does not extend to recognition of marital or family status. In this area, national regulations vary, with some Member States offering same-sex couples the right to marry, others allowing alternative forms of registration, and yet others not providing any legal status for same-sex couples. Same-sex couples may or may not have the right to adopt children and to access assisted reproduction. These divergent legal statuses have implications, for instance, for partners from two Member States with different standards who want to formalise/legalise their relationship, or for same-sex couples and their families wishing to move to another Member State.

Combating discrimination has become part of EU internal and external policies, and is the subject of numerous resolutions of the European Parliament. However, action in this area remains problematic when it touches on issues pertaining to areas traditionally the preserve of Member States, such as marital status and family law.

This is a further updated version of a briefing originally drafted by Piotr Bakowski. The previous edition, from November 2020, was by Rosamund Shreeves.

Read the complete briefing on ‘The rights of LGBTI people in the European Union‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

See our video on ‘The road to LGBTI equality‘ on YouTube.

Written by David de Groot,

© Lisa F. Young / Fotolia

The prohibition of discrimination and the protection of human rights are important elements of the EU legal order. Nevertheless, discrimination against lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex (LGBTI) people persists throughout the EU and takes various forms, including verbal abuse and physical violence.

Sexual orientation is now recognised in EU law as grounds of discrimination. However, the scope of the provisions dealing with this issue is limited and does not cover social protection, health care, education or access to goods and services, leaving LGBTI people particularly vulnerable in these areas.

Moreover, EU competence does not extend to recognition of marital or family status. In this area, national regulations vary, with some Member States offering same-sex couples the right to marry, others allowing alternative forms of registration, and yet others not providing any legal status for same-sex couples. Same-sex couples may or may not have the right to adopt children and to access assisted reproduction. These divergent legal statuses have implications, for instance, for partners from two Member States with different standards who want to formalise/legalise their relationship, or for same-sex couples and their families wishing to move to another Member State.

Combating discrimination has become part of EU internal and external policies, and is the subject of numerous resolutions of the European Parliament. However, action in this area remains problematic when it touches on issues pertaining to areas traditionally the preserve of Member States, such as marital status and family law.

This is a further updated version of a briefing originally drafted by Piotr Bakowski. The previous edition, from November 2020, was by Rosamund Shreeves.

Read the complete briefing on ‘The rights of LGBTI people in the European Union‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

See our video on ‘The road to LGBTI equality‘ on YouTube.

Written by Velina Lilyanova,

On 4 May 2021, EPRS held a second online policy roundtable dedicated to the new multiannual financial framework (MFF) for 2021‑2027. While the first event focused on lessons learned from the negotiations, this time the focus was on the outcome and the challenges of implementation, as the title ‘Delivering the 2021-27 MFF and NGEU: How to, match strategy, resources and expectations?’ suggests.

Etienne Bassot, Director of the Members Research Service, opened the event with a keynote speech by Johan Van Overtveldt (ECR, Belgium), Chair of Parliament’s Committee on Budgets. Fabia Jones, Head of the EPRS’ Budgetary Policies Unit, moderated the roundtable discussion featuring Hanna Jahns, Deputy Head of the cabinet of the Commissioner for Budget; Jorge Nuñez Ferrer, Senior Research Fellow at CEPS; Eulalia Rubio, Senior Research Fellow at the Jacques Delors Institute, as well as Alessandro D’Alfonso and Alina Dobreva, EPRS policy analysts.

Johan Van Overtveldt shared his view that the ultimate goal of the MFF negotiations was to ensure an EU budget optimally aligned with policies providing the highest added value for citizens. Ambitious plans go hand in hand with ensuring the necessary means to fulfil them. Should the means remain unchanged, the EU needs to rethink the direction in which they flow, he underlined. The need for an even more modern EU budget is evident; one area where Europe is lagging behind is investing in technologies of the future, for example. Johan Van Overtveldt assessed the way strategy, resources and expectations have been matched in the Next Generation EU (NGEU), and its main part, the Resilience and Recovery Facility (RRF) more positively, however. His key message was that the EU must deliver results for the resources invested. Thorough scrutiny, avoiding fraud and taking responsibility – at both the EU and national level – are key ingredients to ensuring a successful EU recovery.

Hanna Jahns detailed how the EU’s new financial package responds to current priorities. She outlined the stages of the negotiations from the initial proposal to the final deal, and assessed the MFF, together with the NGEU, as offering a solid basis to match the strategies with resources and expectations. However, in answer to the question the title of the event posed, Hanna Jahns noted that time is needed, as many of the sectoral programmes are still being prepared. She noted the example of the EU’s Covid‑19 response, for which the EU’s entire resources and resourcefulness have been mustered to support citizens. The pandemic has underlined that the EU budget is the best tool to combine with national measures to support a crisis.

Jorge Nuñez Ferrer flagged some of the challenges of implementing the recovery package. While conceived as an emergency fund, the RRF is essentially a redirection fund, meant to create systemic change in the way the economy works, and bring additionality to MFF funding. Acknowledging its broad scope, Jorge Nuñez Ferrer considers targeting financing to those areas most in need to be crucial, in particular to compensate for the difficulties incurred in structural reforms. He highlighted the need to build a good framework for a dynamic future economy and an asymmetric recovery process; transform the labour market, social policy and education with a longer term focus in view; to accentuate the additionally of the RRF projects and counter the risk of a renationalised recovery and a diminished European dimension.

Eulalia Rubio focused on innovation, research and digital policy in the new MFF, and reflected on the main qualitative changes and the new EU industrial strategy. Speaking of Horizon, Digital Europe, and InvestEU, she shared three main conclusions: a need to rescale the EU resources allocated to the later stages of innovation, i.e. deployment and commercialisation; focusing innovation and research, and coordination and alignment with the national level to boost synergies and compensate for the lack of sufficient resources at the EU level.

Alessandro D’Alfonso explained how the MFF package addresses challenges in the field of climate and border management and migration, the topic of his latest briefing. The fight against climate change is a major challenge of our times and citizens increasingly see green transition as a core EU mission. This calls for significant investment, which the new MFF and NGEU indeed offer: 30 % of their resources are targeted at climate related objectives. Moreover, at the Parliament’s initiative, a Just Transition Fund was created to finance decarbonisation efforts in the regions most exposed to the cost of transition, to ensure inclusive and sustainable recovery. Alessandro suggested introducing new own resources, linked to climate action as a potential solution to maintain the level of climate funding in the future. Migration and border management was also identified as an area in need of more resources and joint action, and as a result, resources have almost doubled.

Alina Dobreva concluded the discussion by linking it with public opinion research. While too early to say how citizens evaluate the new MFF, she presented some key trends identified in her recent in-depth analysis. Alina Dobreva highlighted a positive trend of citizens increasingly supporting greater means for the EU budget (with considerable differences between Member States). According to Eurobarometer, citizens consistently want more EU funds to be spent on employment, social affairs and health, and increasingly on climate change. Just as consistent, however, is the misperception that the EU spends excessively on administration and ‘overspends’ in general, which calls for improved communication on the EU budget.

The whole discussion, followed by a lively Q&A session, is available on our YouTube channel. Those interested in the MFF negotiations can also watch the video of the 14 April debate hosted by EPRS’s European Council Oversight Unit and launched by President Sassoli.

Written by Velina Lilyanova,

On 4 May 2021, EPRS held a second online policy roundtable dedicated to the new multiannual financial framework (MFF) for 2021‑2027. While the first event focused on lessons learned from the negotiations, this time the focus was on the outcome and the challenges of implementation, as the title ‘Delivering the 2021-27 MFF and NGEU: How to, match strategy, resources and expectations?’ suggests.

Etienne Bassot, Director of the Members Research Service, opened the event with a keynote speech by Johan Van Overtveldt (ECR, Belgium), Chair of Parliament’s Committee on Budgets. Fabia Jones, Head of the EPRS’ Budgetary Policies Unit, moderated the roundtable discussion featuring Hanna Jahns, Deputy Head of the cabinet of the Commissioner for Budget; Jorge Nuñez Ferrer, Senior Research Fellow at CEPS; Eulalia Rubio, Senior Research Fellow at the Jacques Delors Institute, as well as Alessandro D’Alfonso and Alina Dobreva, EPRS policy analysts.

Johan Van Overtveldt shared his view that the ultimate goal of the MFF negotiations was to ensure an EU budget optimally aligned with policies providing the highest added value for citizens. Ambitious plans go hand in hand with ensuring the necessary means to fulfil them. Should the means remain unchanged, the EU needs to rethink the direction in which they flow, he underlined. The need for an even more modern EU budget is evident; one area where Europe is lagging behind is investing in technologies of the future, for example. Johan Van Overtveldt assessed the way strategy, resources and expectations have been matched in the Next Generation EU (NGEU), and its main part, the Resilience and Recovery Facility (RRF) more positively, however. His key message was that the EU must deliver results for the resources invested. Thorough scrutiny, avoiding fraud and taking responsibility – at both the EU and national level – are key ingredients to ensuring a successful EU recovery.

Hanna Jahns detailed how the EU’s new financial package responds to current priorities. She outlined the stages of the negotiations from the initial proposal to the final deal, and assessed the MFF, together with the NGEU, as offering a solid basis to match the strategies with resources and expectations. However, in answer to the question the title of the event posed, Hanna Jahns noted that time is needed, as many of the sectoral programmes are still being prepared. She noted the example of the EU’s Covid‑19 response, for which the EU’s entire resources and resourcefulness have been mustered to support citizens. The pandemic has underlined that the EU budget is the best tool to combine with national measures to support a crisis.

Jorge Nuñez Ferrer flagged some of the challenges of implementing the recovery package. While conceived as an emergency fund, the RRF is essentially a redirection fund, meant to create systemic change in the way the economy works, and bring additionality to MFF funding. Acknowledging its broad scope, Jorge Nuñez Ferrer considers targeting financing to those areas most in need to be crucial, in particular to compensate for the difficulties incurred in structural reforms. He highlighted the need to build a good framework for a dynamic future economy and an asymmetric recovery process; transform the labour market, social policy and education with a longer term focus in view; to accentuate the additionally of the RRF projects and counter the risk of a renationalised recovery and a diminished European dimension.

Eulalia Rubio focused on innovation, research and digital policy in the new MFF, and reflected on the main qualitative changes and the new EU industrial strategy. Speaking of Horizon, Digital Europe, and InvestEU, she shared three main conclusions: a need to rescale the EU resources allocated to the later stages of innovation, i.e. deployment and commercialisation; focusing innovation and research, and coordination and alignment with the national level to boost synergies and compensate for the lack of sufficient resources at the EU level.

Alessandro D’Alfonso explained how the MFF package addresses challenges in the field of climate and border management and migration, the topic of his latest briefing. The fight against climate change is a major challenge of our times and citizens increasingly see green transition as a core EU mission. This calls for significant investment, which the new MFF and NGEU indeed offer: 30 % of their resources are targeted at climate related objectives. Moreover, at the Parliament’s initiative, a Just Transition Fund was created to finance decarbonisation efforts in the regions most exposed to the cost of transition, to ensure inclusive and sustainable recovery. Alessandro suggested introducing new own resources, linked to climate action as a potential solution to maintain the level of climate funding in the future. Migration and border management was also identified as an area in need of more resources and joint action, and as a result, resources have almost doubled.

Alina Dobreva concluded the discussion by linking it with public opinion research. While too early to say how citizens evaluate the new MFF, she presented some key trends identified in her recent in-depth analysis. Alina Dobreva highlighted a positive trend of citizens increasingly supporting greater means for the EU budget (with considerable differences between Member States). According to Eurobarometer, citizens consistently want more EU funds to be spent on employment, social affairs and health, and increasingly on climate change. Just as consistent, however, is the misperception that the EU spends excessively on administration and ‘overspends’ in general, which calls for improved communication on the EU budget.

The whole discussion, followed by a lively Q&A session, is available on our YouTube channel. Those interested in the MFF negotiations can also watch the video of the 14 April debate hosted by EPRS’s European Council Oversight Unit and launched by President Sassoli.

Written by Alessandro D’Alfonso,

© European Union 2021, EPRS

The Own Resources Decision (ORD) establishes how the EU budget is financed. Its entry into force requires approval by all EU Member States according to their constitutional requirements. In a majority of Member States, national parliaments are responsible for ratifying the decision. In the others, the government alone decides on the approval. Completion of the ratification procedure by all Member States has generally required more than two years. However, there is a greater sense of urgency for the ORD adopted by the Council in December 2020, since its entry into force is a pre-condition for the launch of the Next Generation EU (NGEU) recovery instrument. The objective is to complete the ratification procedure before summer 2021, with a view to ensuring the timely launch of NGEU. As of 5 May, 19 Member States have ratified the ORD. The ratification procedure is still ongoing in Austria, Estonia, Finland, Hungary, Ireland, the Netherlands, Poland and Romania.

EU own resources: A ‘quasi-Treaty’ procedure

The Own Resources Decision (ORD) sets the financing system of the EU budget. It is one of the most complex pieces of legislation for the EU to adopt and modify, on account of the special legislative procedure set out in Article 311 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). The Council unanimously adopts the decision after consulting the European Parliament. Before entering into force, the decision has to be approved by each Member State in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements. National ratifications must then be notified to the Council.

In a majority of Member States, based on their constitutions, the responsibility for ratifying the Own Resources Decision lies with the national parliament. This approach is usually linked to parliaments’ budgetary powers and/or their role in approving agreements or treaties that have implications for public finances.

In a number of Member States, however, parliamentary approval is not required. In such cases, the government decides on the ratification of the decision; the parliament is informed, and it may hold a non-binding vote (in plenary or in a committee) on the Own Resources Decision.

Given the complexity of the procedure, EU own resources are deemed to have a quasi-Treaty status. Their reform, strongly advocated by the European Parliament, has proved difficult, leading to only minor changes being introduced in the system over more than 30 years.

Unlike the multiannual financial framework (MFF) that sets the maximum allocation of resources for each major area of EU spending over a period of at least five years, the Own Resources Decision has no end date. Its provisions, except those on time-limited corrections to some Member States’ national contributions, continue to apply indefinitely until all Member States have ratified a new Council Decision. This prevents the EU budget from being afflicted by a lack of financing. Once in force, the new decision applies retroactively from the start date of the new MFF, in order for the financing system to be aligned with the financial years of the MFF.

Historically, the ratification procedure has proved lengthy. The entry into force of the last three decisions (2000 ORD, 2007 ORD and 2014 ORD) always took place more than two years after the start of the corresponding MFF, but these time lags did not jeopardise the functioning of the EU budgetary system for the reasons detailed above. However, there is a greater sense of urgency for the Own Resources Decision adopted by the Council in December 2020 (2020 ORD), given that its ratification is a pre-condition for the launch of Next Generation EU (NGEU), the recovery instrument agreed by the EU to counter the severe socio-economic impact of the coronavirus pandemic.

Read the complete briefing on ‘National ratification of the Own Resources Decision: State of play on 5 May 2021‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Written by Alessandro D’Alfonso,

© European Union 2021, EPRS

The Own Resources Decision (ORD) establishes how the EU budget is financed. Its entry into force requires approval by all EU Member States according to their constitutional requirements. In a majority of Member States, national parliaments are responsible for ratifying the decision. In the others, the government alone decides on the approval. Completion of the ratification procedure by all Member States has generally required more than two years. However, there is a greater sense of urgency for the ORD adopted by the Council in December 2020, since its entry into force is a pre-condition for the launch of the Next Generation EU (NGEU) recovery instrument. The objective is to complete the ratification procedure before summer 2021, with a view to ensuring the timely launch of NGEU. As of 5 May, 19 Member States have ratified the ORD. The ratification procedure is still ongoing in Austria, Estonia, Finland, Hungary, Ireland, the Netherlands, Poland and Romania.

EU own resources: A ‘quasi-Treaty’ procedure

The Own Resources Decision (ORD) sets the financing system of the EU budget. It is one of the most complex pieces of legislation for the EU to adopt and modify, on account of the special legislative procedure set out in Article 311 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). The Council unanimously adopts the decision after consulting the European Parliament. Before entering into force, the decision has to be approved by each Member State in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements. National ratifications must then be notified to the Council.

In a majority of Member States, based on their constitutions, the responsibility for ratifying the Own Resources Decision lies with the national parliament. This approach is usually linked to parliaments’ budgetary powers and/or their role in approving agreements or treaties that have implications for public finances.

In a number of Member States, however, parliamentary approval is not required. In such cases, the government decides on the ratification of the decision; the parliament is informed, and it may hold a non-binding vote (in plenary or in a committee) on the Own Resources Decision.

Given the complexity of the procedure, EU own resources are deemed to have a quasi-Treaty status. Their reform, strongly advocated by the European Parliament, has proved difficult, leading to only minor changes being introduced in the system over more than 30 years.

Unlike the multiannual financial framework (MFF) that sets the maximum allocation of resources for each major area of EU spending over a period of at least five years, the Own Resources Decision has no end date. Its provisions, except those on time-limited corrections to some Member States’ national contributions, continue to apply indefinitely until all Member States have ratified a new Council Decision. This prevents the EU budget from being afflicted by a lack of financing. Once in force, the new decision applies retroactively from the start date of the new MFF, in order for the financing system to be aligned with the financial years of the MFF.

Historically, the ratification procedure has proved lengthy. The entry into force of the last three decisions (2000 ORD, 2007 ORD and 2014 ORD) always took place more than two years after the start of the corresponding MFF, but these time lags did not jeopardise the functioning of the EU budgetary system for the reasons detailed above. However, there is a greater sense of urgency for the Own Resources Decision adopted by the Council in December 2020 (2020 ORD), given that its ratification is a pre-condition for the launch of Next Generation EU (NGEU), the recovery instrument agreed by the EU to counter the severe socio-economic impact of the coronavirus pandemic.

Read the complete briefing on ‘National ratification of the Own Resources Decision: State of play on 5 May 2021‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Written by Nora Milotay,

© pogonici / Adobe Stock

The proclamation of the European Pillar of Social Rights (social pillar) by the European Commission, the European Parliament and the Council in November 2017 was the fourth major attempt to strengthen the social dimension of the European Union since its inception.

The social pillar is to be the fifth pillar of the economic and monetary union. It is to serve as a compass for updating the EU’s welfare states and labour markets to the new realities of life and work in the 21st century. Its holistic approach puts upward social convergence at its centre and can help to put economic and social considerations and rights across EU policies on a more equal footing. Its implementation has mainly been the task of the Member States in strong collaboration with the social partners and with the support of the European Union. The social pillar’s very broad interpretation of the social dimension, pointing beyond social and employment policies, means that it has been regarded by some simply as the starting point for new initiatives in a number of policy fields, and by others as a potential game-changer that can bring about a genuinely new policy dynamic around the EU’s social dimension.

The new action plan on the further implementation of the social pillar’s principles continues along this complex path. It also proposes three new headline targets and the redesign of the social scoreboard to make monitoring of the implementation process more detailed and accurate. At the Porto Social Summit to be held on 7-8 May 2021 the action plan will be one of the major inputs into discussions on the social aspects of medium- to long-term recovery from the coronavirus crisis, including unemployment, education and training, social protection and poverty. The objectives include clarifying issues around: the enforceability of the social pillar’s principles and rights, how to achieve a genuine European social protection floor for all, and governance, monitoring and funding in the context of the EU social dimension.

Read the complete briefing on ‘European Pillar of Social Rights: Gothenburg, Porto and beyond‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Written by Nora Milotay,

© pogonici / Adobe Stock

The proclamation of the European Pillar of Social Rights (social pillar) by the European Commission, the European Parliament and the Council in November 2017 was the fourth major attempt to strengthen the social dimension of the European Union since its inception.

The social pillar is to be the fifth pillar of the economic and monetary union. It is to serve as a compass for updating the EU’s welfare states and labour markets to the new realities of life and work in the 21st century. Its holistic approach puts upward social convergence at its centre and can help to put economic and social considerations and rights across EU policies on a more equal footing. Its implementation has mainly been the task of the Member States in strong collaboration with the social partners and with the support of the European Union. The social pillar’s very broad interpretation of the social dimension, pointing beyond social and employment policies, means that it has been regarded by some simply as the starting point for new initiatives in a number of policy fields, and by others as a potential game-changer that can bring about a genuinely new policy dynamic around the EU’s social dimension.

The new action plan on the further implementation of the social pillar’s principles continues along this complex path. It also proposes three new headline targets and the redesign of the social scoreboard to make monitoring of the implementation process more detailed and accurate. At the Porto Social Summit to be held on 7-8 May 2021 the action plan will be one of the major inputs into discussions on the social aspects of medium- to long-term recovery from the coronavirus crisis, including unemployment, education and training, social protection and poverty. The objectives include clarifying issues around: the enforceability of the social pillar’s principles and rights, how to achieve a genuine European social protection floor for all, and governance, monitoring and funding in the context of the EU social dimension.

Read the complete briefing on ‘European Pillar of Social Rights: Gothenburg, Porto and beyond‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Written by Silvia Kotanidis,

© iQoncept / Adobe Stock

After many debates and statements of principle in recent years, the time for a more structured discussion on the future of Europe’s development has arrived. The Conference on the Future of Europe, announced by the Commission’s President Ursula von der Leyen in her inaugural address, is set to start after a long period of standstill owing not only to changed priorities brought by the coronavirus pandemic, but also to lengthy negotiations among the institutions.

The aim of the conference is to debate how the EU should develop in the future, identify where it is rising to the challenges of current times, and enhance those areas that need reform or strengthening. A key aspect of this initiative is to bring the public closer to the EU institutions, listen to people’s concerns, involve them directly in the process of the Conference and provide an adequate and meaningful response. In this respect, the ambition is to set up pan-European forums for discussion, for the first time ever, where citizens of all Member States can debate the EU’s priorities and make recommendations, to be taken into account by the political-institutional powers that be and, ideally, translated into practical measures.

The pandemic hit as the preparation of the conference was just beginning and inevitably caused a delay. In March 2021, the European Parliament, the Council of the EU and the European Commission agreed on a joint declaration, laying down the common rules and principles governing the conference. It was agreed that the leadership of the conference would be shared by the three institutions, with the conference chaired jointly by their three presidents.

The Conference on the Future of Europe has all the prerequisites to be an excellent opportunity to engage in a more structured debate between institutions and citizens, and arrive at concrete proposals to improve the way the EU works, in terms not only of institutional dynamics, but also of policies. Some have cautioned however that the initiative must be conducted with the utmost care, in particular as regards the follow-up, so that it remains a meaningful endeavour.

Read the complete briefing on ‘Conference on the Future of Europe‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Written by Silvia Kotanidis,

© iQoncept / Adobe Stock

After many debates and statements of principle in recent years, the time for a more structured discussion on the future of Europe’s development has arrived. The Conference on the Future of Europe, announced by the Commission’s President Ursula von der Leyen in her inaugural address, is set to start after a long period of standstill owing not only to changed priorities brought by the coronavirus pandemic, but also to lengthy negotiations among the institutions.

The aim of the conference is to debate how the EU should develop in the future, identify where it is rising to the challenges of current times, and enhance those areas that need reform or strengthening. A key aspect of this initiative is to bring the public closer to the EU institutions, listen to people’s concerns, involve them directly in the process of the Conference and provide an adequate and meaningful response. In this respect, the ambition is to set up pan-European forums for discussion, for the first time ever, where citizens of all Member States can debate the EU’s priorities and make recommendations, to be taken into account by the political-institutional powers that be and, ideally, translated into practical measures.

The pandemic hit as the preparation of the conference was just beginning and inevitably caused a delay. In March 2021, the European Parliament, the Council of the EU and the European Commission agreed on a joint declaration, laying down the common rules and principles governing the conference. It was agreed that the leadership of the conference would be shared by the three institutions, with the conference chaired jointly by their three presidents.

The Conference on the Future of Europe has all the prerequisites to be an excellent opportunity to engage in a more structured debate between institutions and citizens, and arrive at concrete proposals to improve the way the EU works, in terms not only of institutional dynamics, but also of policies. Some have cautioned however that the initiative must be conducted with the utmost care, in particular as regards the follow-up, so that it remains a meaningful endeavour.

Read the complete briefing on ‘Conference on the Future of Europe‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.