European Parliamentary Research Service Blog

Written by Svetla Tanova-Encke.

The planned deployment of 5G technology in Europe comes with many expectations, but also with some serious concerns. What do we know about the technology behind the fifth generation of mobile networks? What are the benefits for society and the economy? How will the new technologies be implemented and regulated? Does 5G have an impact on our health and on the environment? Is 5G a security risk?

The new 5G digital knowledge map from the European Science-Media Hub (ESMH; https://map.sciencemediahub.eu/5g) addresses this complex topic in a new interdisciplinary and interactive way. It looks at the new technology from different angles: from the technology itself and the politics surrounding it, to business, health concerns, cybersecurity and impacts on society. The idea is to present all these aspects and the interlinkages among them as objectively as possible in a wider context.

An interactive, playful way to explore a complex issue

The vast content, equivalent in terms of size to an 80‑page publication, is presented in a visual, interactive and non-linear way, allowing the reader to explore the information across different layers.

At first glance, you will see an overview of the map with all its parts. (5G technology, regulation and politics, economy, health concerns, and impact on society). From this first level, zoom in to click on in-depth information on your chosen topic. The details can be found in 81 different explanatory ‘bubbles’. These highlight scientific findings wherever possible and for full transparency, provide links to a total of 488 sources.

The map is enriched with 11 interviews (the majority in video format) with experts in the different fields. Nine infographics complement the content visually. Finding specific information is made easy through a search bar and table of contents, and a glossary explains the technical terms. The ESMH team worked with many knowledgeable experts, including within EPRS, to ensure the information is trustworthy. The map was produced in cooperation with Kontextlab (Munich, Germany), who developed software combining the visual structures of mind and concept maps with multiple layers and a content management system, to build and publish digital knowledge maps. Their expertise lies in using new techniques to explain complex topics in the most accessible way for a general audience.

What content can you find in the different sections? 5G technology

This section explains the technological details. This part of the map presents the 5G system, the underlying technological components and key services made available by 5G from a technical point of view – such as Massive Machine Type Communication or Ultra Reliable Low Latency Communication. Several infographics illustrate technical aspects in detail.

Regulation and politics

In this important section, the map covers policy-making, the standard-setting process and the related work at the European level. The international relations and cybersecurity aspects of 5G are also explained here. The map includes interviews with several policy-making, international relations and cybersecurity experts.

Economy

This section shows expectations related to businesses and jobs. The map explores what 5G means more concretely for the future of e.g. e-health, smart cities and smart factories, self-driving vehicles or augmented virtual reality.

Health concerns

A major part of the map is dedicated to health concerns. Here, the main takeaways from two STOA studies (recently completed) dealing with the impact of 5G on health and the environment are incorporated. The aim is also to illustrate the scientific discussion and link it to the currently available knowledge – from researchers and from entities such as the World Health Organization (WHO) and its International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), or the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP).

Impact on society

Here, we explain the positive expectations, as well as the concerns around 5G technologies. Experts discuss the relationship between technologies, people, democracy and data protection. In this section, you will also find information about the phenomena of conspiracy theories and misinformation.

Follow us on Twitter at @EP_ScienceTech to stay informed about our activities. https://twitter.com/EP_ScienceTech/status/1400107164686077955

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

Written by Beata Rojek with Morgane Speeckaert.

Each year, millions of live animals are transported by road, sea, rail and air within, and to or from, the European Union, for a number of reasons, such as slaughter, fattening or breeding. To protect their welfare during those journeys, the EU adopted Regulation 1/2005 on the protection of animals during transport. An evaluation of the regulation showed that, when correctly implemented and enforced, it had a positive impact on the welfare of animals. However, in some areas weaknesses still persist, largely due to insufficient implementation. In light of these conclusions, and bearing in mind its 2012-2015 animal welfare strategy, the European Commission developed guidelines for handling animals during transport, to be disseminated and used for training of transport personnel and enforcement agents. Despite these measures, however, in recent years, repeated breaches of the rules, resulting in accidents and severe animal welfare crises, have been highlighted by EU and national control bodies and by animal welfare organisations.

On 19 June 2020, the European Parliament set up the Committee of Inquiry on the Protection of Animals during Transport (ANIT). The work of the committee focussed on investigating how EU rules are being implemented by Member States and enforced by the European Commission. It held public hearings with the participation of stakeholders, representatives of national authorities, and experts. Insight from these debates fed into the committee’s report and recommendations to the Council and the Commission.

This briefing is one of four requested by the ANIT Committee to provide research and analysis following the results of a questionnaire sent out by the Committee to Member States. It focuses on one of the topics investigated by the Committee, namely the use and dissemination in Member States of guidelines on the protection of animals during transport. It also gives an overview of available species-specific research on the welfare of animals during transport.

Read this complete briefing on ‘Protection of animals during transport: Guidelines and research‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Written by Klemen Žumer and Yann-Sven Rittelmeyer.

Since 1991 the Republic of Slovenia has had a parliamentary system composed of the Državni zbor (National Assembly) and the Državni svet (National Council). The Slovenian Parliament has the features of an ‘incomplete bicameral system‘, based on ‘asymmetric duality‘ – the National Council has less authority and fewer competences than the National Assembly, in accordance with Chapter IV of the Constitution.

The National Assembly is described as the ‘supreme representative and legislative institution, exercising legislative and electoral powers as well as control over the Executive‘. Its members are elected every four years from nine constituencies by a universal, equal, direct, and secret vote. Different, specific, rules apply to the election of one member each of the Italian and Hungarian national communities. The Government of Slovenia is accountable to the National Assembly, and the Prime Minister is elected by the National Assembly by a majority vote of all of its members.

The National Council is the representative body for social, economic, professional, and local interests and has mainly a consultative role. According to Article 96 of the Constitution, it is composed of a fixed number of representatives of labour and social interests (employers, employees, farmers, crafts and trades, independent professions and non-commercial fields) and representatives of local interests (territorial interests). The members do not hold office professionally and are elected for a five-year term from the relevant interest organisations or local communities. Political parties are not specifically represented in the National Council but it is not entirely free of political influence, especially when it comes to members representing local interests.

The National Assembly is the sole body that can adopt laws, under a legislative procedure governed by the Constitution and the Rules of Procedure of the National Assembly. Legislative proposals may be initiated by the Government, any Assembly member, a minimum of 5 000 voters (Article 88 of the Constitution), or by the National Council (Article 97). Whereas the National Assembly is in charge of adopting the laws, the primary role of the National Council is to convey its opinion and it has a ‘suspensive veto’ that allows to ask the National Assembly to examine a law once more, within seven days of its adoption and before its promulgation. Like the National Assembly, the National Council can also demand inquiries on matters of public importance, when this is requested by a third of its members (Article 93).

Read this complete briefing on ‘The Slovenian Parliament and EU affairs‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Written by Philip Boucher.

When we talk about artificial intelligence (AI), we often use metaphors. Even the term ‘AI’ relies upon a metaphor for the human quality of intelligence, and its development is regularly described as a ‘race’. While metaphors are useful in highlighting some features of their subject, they can be so powerful that it becomes difficult to imagine or discuss their subject in other terms. Here, we examine some challenges presented by the central metaphor of ‘intelligence’, and whether metaphors for AI and its development emphasise competition at the cost of cooperation. Perhaps new metaphors could help us to articulate ambitious visions for AI, and new criteria for success.

Metaphors play a remarkable role in human history. They provide useful shortcuts to help us understand complex concepts, as well as powerful images of the world and how it could or should be in future. Whether unintentionally framing subjects or deliberately mobilising arguments, metaphors open some ways of thinking while closing others down. So, while they are an integral part of language and communication, specific choices of metaphors are worth reflection and care in how they are used.

AI is an umbrella term which refers to a wide range of technologies. It includes ‘expert systems’ – whereby humans encode their own knowledge and experience into rules – as well as ‘machine learning’ systems that identify patterns in data to generate rules by themselves. Discussions of AI are replete with metaphors for both the technology and its development.

Potential impacts and developments

The choice of the term ‘intelligence’ is a legacy of early scholarship and ambitions in the discipline. However, it poses some enduring difficulties for the definition of the technology. First, since human intelligence is itself a subjective and contested concept, the concept of AI is also destined for constant debate and reinterpretation. Second, by defining AI with reference to how we evaluate its apparent performance (intelligence), rather than by what it does (applications) or how it does it (techniques), AI can refer to almost any technology – from thermostats to ‘terminators’ – whether they exist or not. And third, since the various AI applications have such a diverse range of impacts, using the same word to refer to all of them can amplify the appearance of disagreements and make debates less productive. Technologists have long recognised these limitations, and tend to prefer more precise alternatives such as ‘machine learning’ or, simply, ‘statistics’. Nonetheless, AI retains its usage in public and policy settings.

Metaphors have linked minds and machines for centuries. From hydraulics to telegraphs and computers, we have conceptualised the brain with reference to the key technologies of our times. Today, we also reverse these metaphors to explain technologies in terms of human functions. For example, ‘artificial neural networks‘ (ANNs) invoke the neural networks in our brains. The metaphors of machine ‘vision’, ‘learning’, ‘recognition’, and ‘understanding’ suggest that machines fulfil the same functions as humans, in the same kind of way. While this is misleading, the comparison is so well established that, since the Turing test, AI advancement has been continually measured and evaluated against human performance of the same tasks. Contemporary assessments and ambitions for AI tend to focus on trustworthiness and trust which, as metaphors for the qualities of the AI and our relationship with it, can anthropomorphise the technology and divert accountability from those responsible for its use when something goes wrong.

Neuroscientists are concerned that metaphors reduce our brains to the status of computers, and make it difficult to imagine other – perhaps better – conceptualisations of what a technology does, and how. Likewise, metaphoric thinking elevates our software to the status of our minds. This poses several risks for AI development. First, it might tempt us to over-estimate the capabilities of AI tools and entrust them with tasks that they are not competent to perform. Indeed, this is the danger at the heart of many of the highest-risk AI applications. Second, when something goes wrong, we might be tempted, as alluded to above, to assign fault to the machine itself, rather than the people and organisations that inappropriately delegate tasks to them. Third, and perhaps most importantly, by reinforcing the idea of equivalence between what humans and computers do and how they do them, we position them in competition to perform the same kinds of tasks, rather than in cooperation to perform complementary tasks. The engrained language of AI as doing things ‘like humans’ imposes a potent conceptualisation for our future relationship with machines. It shapes how we articulate our ambitions, prioritise our development paths, and evaluate our progress.

We also find several powerful metaphors in debates about the international dimensions of AI development. Perhaps the most prominent is that of the ‘global AI race‘, often positioning the EU as struggling for a bronze medal behind the USA and China. This provides an intuitive framing for AI development at global scale. However, a race implies a single ‘finish line’, which fails to capture that AI is a range of technologies and applications used by actors with different strengths, priorities and values. In turn, a single ‘finish line’ implies a single ‘winner’ of a zero sum game in which those that did not win must have lost. In doing so, the race metaphor emphasises competition over cooperation, sharing and mutual benefits. It may compel us to follow the direction and pace of those we consider to be in front, rather than following our own path. A more specific version of this metaphor invokes an ‘AI arms race‘, a framing which has been criticised for closing down debate and transforming investments in militarised AI from options into necessities.

Finally, metaphors are also used to refer to positions in the AI debate. For example, the ‘terminator’ metaphor often serves to frame concerns about AI development as unjustified fears of fictional technologies that reveal a misunderstanding of its capabilities. However, studies of Europeans’ attitudes towards robotics and AI show that citizens overwhelmingly associate robots with production-line machines, and not humanoid forms like the terminator. Indeed, respondents were broadly supportive of AI while expressing some concrete concerns about today’s applications, notably their impacts on employment. While the terminator metaphor misrepresents how people make sense of AI, it serves as a powerful metaphor for public perspectives that may undermine questions about the concrete impacts of today’s AI.

Anticipatory policy-making

The definition of AI as ‘systems that display intelligent behaviour’ – as used in the 2018 European Commission communication AI for Europe – would be too ambiguous for a legal text. Notably, the recent AI Act was more precise, defining AI not by apparent intelligence, but with reference to specific techniques such as machine learning, expert systems, and statistics. That such a diverse range of tools came to be bundled together in a ‘tech-specific’ legislative proposal is testament to the power of the AI metaphor in policy.

In debates about AI, we could follow the approach of many developers in referring to specific techniques and application contexts. For example, if we target messages towards ‘machine learning diagnostic support’ or ‘biometric identification in public spaces’ rather than just ‘AI’, we might reveal more common ground between our positions. Furthermore, by reducing our reliance on core metaphors such as ‘intelligence’ and ‘trust’, which allude to human qualities and capabilities, we could create space for new metaphors that describe AI in its own terms. In doing so, we would be better placed to articulate visions for the future and benchmarks for success, which focus on complementing rather than competing with humanity. Likewise, when talking about competition in global AI development, we could move on from the ‘race’ metaphor to speak of an ‘AI Olympics’ which celebrates a plurality of global achievements, or of ‘moonshots’ that invoke the Apollo project to inspire grand ambitions for the benefit of all humanity. While still capturing the notion of competition in global development, they would articulate a role for cooperation, sharing and mutual benefits. Ultimately, whichever metaphors we use, it is important that they articulate agency for Europe to define the direction and pace of its development, and the criteria for evaluating its success.

Read the complete briefing on ‘What if we chose new metaphors for artificial intelligence?‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Listen to policy podcast ‘What if we chose new metaphors for artificial intelligence?’ on YouTube.

Written by Clare Ferguson.

Parliament sits again in plenary in Strasbourg for the last session before the summer break – and the first for the incoming Slovenian Council Presidency – with the final adoption of a number of funding programmes for the 2021-2027 period on the agenda. It is Slovenia’s second turn in the Council chair since joining the EU in 2004, and the parliamentary dimension has grown in importance in the meantime, with the Slovenian parliament taking on the role of facilitating national parliaments’ contribution to EU work over the coming six months.

Parliament continues to work with the European Commission and Council to revise the EU legislative framework on asylum and migration, but in the meantime, the institutions have agreed on the measures the new specific heading on financing migration and border management in the EU’s 2021‑2027 multiannual financial framework should fund. Following a joint debate scheduled for Tuesday evening, Members will consider adoption at second reading of the agreed text on the proposed Asylum, Migration & Integration Fund 2021-2027. This fund aims at strengthening the common European asylum system, supporting legal migration and countering irregular migration, as well as managing migrants’ return and readmission to third countries. Parliament has succeeded in changing the name of the fund to the Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund (AMIF) to better reflect the focus on solidarity and responsibility, including legal migration, as well as efficient management of migration flows. Under the revised agreement, those Member States most affected by migration and asylum challenges should receive appropriate and proportionate financial and practical assistance. Parliament is also expected to consider its formal adoption at second reading of an agreement on establishing an Integrated Border Management Fund to provide financial support, allocated proportionately to the countries most affected by requirements for external border management and visas. Parliament has been keen to ensure that the instrument respects fundamental rights, fair treatment of third-country nationals and the right to asylum and international protection, including the obligation to save people in danger at sea.

One of the objectives of the Integrated Border Management Fund is to operate in conjunction with the new Internal Security Fund (ISF) to tackle terrorism and radicalisation, organised crime and cybercrime, and to assist victims. On Tuesday lunchtime, Members are scheduled to vote on adoption of an agreement on the proposal to establish the ISF to ensure a high level of security within the EU, at second reading. The agreement takes account of Parliament’s demand to align the actions funded with fundamental rights, and extends the objectives of the funding to better preparation and protection against security risks, with a final budget allocation of €1.9 billion.

While health matters have long been the exclusive prerogative of national governments, the Covid‑19 pandemic underlined the need for an EU-wide health policy. To date, Parliament’s focus has been on better protecting people in Europe by ensuring medicines and medical devices are both accessible and available. On Wednesday afternoon, Members will consider Parliament’s position at first reading on European Commission proposals to reinforce and extend the mandate of the European Medicines Agency (EMA). The proposal aims at stronger EMA coordination of the EU response to health crises, particularly in respect of monitoring and mitigating critical medicine and medical device shortages, which proved to be a weakness during the pandemic, as well as greater EU coordination of clinical trials. Parliament’s Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety (ENVI) would like to see much more transparency built in to the proposals, including for a digital platform to monitor medical supplies, as well as within the work of the proposed steering group.

Parliament’s Committee on Budgets is keen to see all available funding used to boost the coronavirus recovery, and accordingly calls for the EU budgetary surplus resulting from higher revenues and unspent funding in 2020 to be dedicated to assisting victims of the pandemic. The surplus mainly results from higher than expected customs duties and lower expenditure – itself partly due to Covid‑19. On Tuesday lunchtime, Members will vote to adopt Parliament’s position on Draft Amending Budget No 3/2021, which aims at entering the 2020 general budget surplus, totalling almost €1.77 billion (less than in the previous year), as revenue in the 2021 budget. If agreed, under the current rules, the move will reduce Member States’ gross national income contributions to the 2021 budget.

Action to preserve a healthy environment can also protect people’s health and wellbeing. With the aim of ‘living well, within planetary boundaries’, the proposed eighth EU environment action programme for 2021‑2030 should encourage a societal step-change through a ‘sustainability first’ approach that accelerates measures to reach the EU’s long-term environmental goals. On Wednesday afternoon, Members will consider an ENVI committee report on the Commission’s proposal, with a view to fixing the committee’s mandate for trilogue negotiations. Aiming to ensure the changes required by the environmental and climate transition do not lead to inequality, the committee calls for priority objectives to be achieved by 2030, including ending fossil fuel subsidies by 2025, with the programme becoming a governance tool for environmental policy beyond the Green Deal. The committee notes that a sustainability agenda can indeed boost prosperity and proposes integrating the sustainable development goals, biodiversity, and social objectives into the European Semester process.

Financing the Green Deal and Europe’s long-term climate ambitions is increasingly the focus of the European Investment Bank (EIB), the world’s largest multilateral banking facility. However, the Committee on Budgetary Control’s (CONT) report on the control of the EIB’s financial activities in 2019 highlights the danger that a lack of transparency and accountability could lead to fraud and corruption in respect of the bank’s operations. Members will consider the committee’s report on Monday afternoon, in a joint debate in the presence of Werner Hoyer, President of the EIB. On Tuesday lunchtime, Members will also vote on Parliament’s position on a CONT committee report on the European Commission’s 2019 report on protection of the EU’s financial interests and the fight against fraud – an issue of particular concern given the need to ensure sound management of coronavirus recovery funding. Fraudulent activity appears stable in 2019, although detection remains difficult and violations of public procurement rules in the health sector are of particular concern. The CONT committee notes that over half the reported fraud in 2019 concerns only two Member States, and calls for improved information exchange, data collection and control. The committee also welcomes the recent adoption of conditionality rules aimed at protecting the Union budget.

Seamless networks are also key to promoting growth and competitiveness in the EU, as well as strengthening cohesion and boosting sustainability. Following a joint debate scheduled for Tuesday morning, Members will consider Parliament’s formal adoption at second reading of agreements on the Connecting Europe Facility (CEF) and ‘smart TEN T’. These legislative initiatives seek to renew not only European transport networks, but also energy and digital connections across the Union. While the proposals for a ‘smart TEN-T‘ aim at financing a programme of swifter transport permit processes, the CEF proposal aims at establishing a financing infrastructure to facilitate investment in key network projects. The €30 billion allocated to the proposed CEF will be shared between measures to upgrade transport, energy and digital networks. This is, however, significantly less than Parliament had requested.

The proposal to exempt internet providers from e‑Privacy measures temporarily, so that they can legitimately remove child sexual abuse material online, raises serious concerns, particularly in respect of the unintended consequences for fundamental rights to privacy and data protection. Parliament’s Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (LIBE) recommended significant additional privacy safeguards and a shorter application period. Parliament’s negotiators have secured the exclusion of audio communications from the proposed regulation’s scope and mandatory impact assessments of data protection, as well as compulsory human review. On Monday evening, Members will consider the resulting agreement on this sensitive file at first reading, aiming to square EU privacy rules with measures to combat child sexual abuse online.

Finally, EU funding support for the fisheries sector has changed greatly since the 1970s, with increasing focus on the social and environmental aspects of the sector. However, this shift is not without contention, as the regulators grapple with the issue of avoiding that investment in fishing capacity leads to overfishing. On Monday evening, Members will consider Parliament’s second-reading position on a hard-won agreement with the co-legislators to continue funding the common fisheries policy through the European Maritime, Fisheries and Aquaculture Fund. The change to the fund’s name reflects an increased focus on aquaculture. While financial assistance to shipping fleets would be extended to cover 12‑24 m vessels, stricter conditions will apply.

Written by Piotr Bąkowski and Sofija Voronova.

On 14 April 2021, the European Commission presented its new 2021-2025 strategy on combating trafficking in human beings – 10 years after the adoption of Directive 2011/36/EU, the core EU instrument addressing this phenomenon and protecting its victims. Despite some progress achieved in recent years, a number of challenges still lie ahead.

Human trafficking is not only a serious and borderless crime, but also a lucrative business, driven by demand for sexual (and other) services. Criminals exploit vulnerable people (increasingly children), making high profits and taking relatively low risks. Vulnerability can result from a whole range of factors, including socio-economic ones, and migrants are a particularly vulnerable group.

Gender also plays an important part, as women and men are not trafficked in the same way or for the same purpose. Women and girls represent a disproportionately high number of victims, both globally and at EU level, especially in terms of sexual exploitation. This form of exploitation is still dominant in the EU, even though other forms are on the rise, such as exploitation for forced labour and for criminal activities.

The Covid-19 pandemic has brought new challenges for victims, as well as amplifying the vulnerabilities of those most at risk. Traffickers – like legal businesses – moved to digital modi operandi, making victims even less visible and less able to ask for help and protection. In its efforts to eradicate human trafficking, the EU has not only created a legal framework, comprising an anti-trafficking directive and instruments to protect victims’ rights and prevent labour exploitation; it has also put in place an operational cooperation network involving EU decentralised agencies, including Europol, Eurojust, CEPOL and Frontex. Moreover, trafficking in human beings is a priority of the EU policy cycle for organised and serious international crime. The European Parliament plays a major role, not only in designing policies but also in evaluating their implementation.

Read the complete briefing on ‘Understanding EU action against human trafficking‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Listen to policy podcast ‘Understanding EU action against human trafficking’ on YouTube.

Written by Denise Chircop.

European Union cooperation in the field of education and training has developed in a number of areas that now have well-established roots. The best-known example is possibly the Bologna Process that led to the establishment of the European higher education area. The Copenhagen Declaration lent impetus to a process of cooperation in vocational education and training. This was accompanied by two strategic framework agreements for European cooperation in education and training (ET2010 and ET2020).

The stocktaking on the expiry of the second framework for cooperation – ET 2020 – revealed some positive trends as the numbers of both young children in early childhood education and of graduates rose. However, the number of underachieving 15 year-olds remains high and the participation of adults in learning is low.

The European Commission, the Council of the EU and the European Parliament seem to concur that cooperation in education and training needs to be reinforced. The Commission has set out its vision for a European education area in three communications, which show that this is still work in progress. The Council, on the other hand, has endorsed another framework for cooperation up to 2030, which is clearly aimed at supporting the implementation of such an area. The May 2021 Education Council conclusions give pointers as to how aspects of this area are to be addressed.

The debate in the European Parliament is in its initial phase with the rapporteur noting that, while there is agreement on the need for a European education area and ongoing cooperation, the European institutions have yet to adopt a single approach.

Read the complete briefing on ‘The European Education Area and the 2030 strategic framework for education and training‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Listen to policy podcast ‘The European Education Area and the 2030 strategic framework for education and training’ on YouTube.

Written by Beatrix Immenkamp.

A 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 the complete briefing on ‘European Peace Facility – Investing in international stability and security‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Listen to policy podcast ‘European Peace Facility – Investing in international stability and security’ on YouTube.

• Military CSDP operations
• African-led peace support operations with ongoing APF/future EPF funding

Written by Suzana Anghel and Ralf Drachenberg.

The regular European Council meeting of 24-25 June 2021 was noteworthy on several fronts. First, there was an extensive discussion on the rule of law and European values, a topic rarely discussed at the level of EU leaders. It took place in the context of a new Hungarian law on child protection, which includes provisions considered by many as discriminatory against LGBTQI+ people. Second, following a Franco-German proposal, there was an intense debate about the EU approach to relations with Russia, with apparent disagreement on whether it is currently worthwhile engaging in high-level dialogue with the country. Among the other topics considered were coordination efforts in response to the coronavirus pandemic and economic recovery after the crisis. On migration, EU leaders quickly reviewed the situation on migration routes, mainly reiterating previous commitments. In the field of external policy, alongside Russia, EU leaders also discussed EU-Turkey relations, the situations in Belarus, Libya, Ethiopia and the Sahel, and cybersecurity. EU leaders were also presented with the 2021-22 Leaders’ Agenda. In the framework of the Euro Summit, EU leaders addressed the future of the euro area, inviting the Eurogroup to continue its work towards the completion of Banking Union and to move quickly to implement the capital markets action plan.

1. General aspects and new commitments

This European Council meeting started with an exchange with the Secretary-General of the United Nations, António Guterres, on global challenges and geopolitical issues over lunch. This was followed by an address to EU leaders by the President of the European Parliament, David Sassoli. As rotating president-in-office of the Council, the Portuguese prime minister, António Costa, reported on the Portuguese Presidency and in particular on the follow-up to European Council conclusions. As the June 2021 meeting was the last under the current 2020-21 Leaders’ Agenda, the President of the European Council, Charles Michel, presented EU leaders with a new indicative Leaders’ Agenda 2021-22 outlining the main meetings planned and policy topics that EU Heads of State or Government are due to address over the coming nine months. Designed to provide an important framework for structuring European Council activities, this the third edition of the Leaders’ Agenda, the tentative nature of which is foreshadowed in the title, appears to be less detailed and comprehensive than the first and second editions.

Table 1 – New European Council commitments and requests with a specific time schedule

Policy area Action Actor Schedule Migration Report to the Council on the planned use of at least 10 % of the NDICI financial envelope and funding under other relevant instruments for actions related to migration Commission By November Migration Put forward action plans for priority countries of origin and transit Commission, the High Representative Autumn 2021 2. European Council meeting EU coordination efforts in response to the coronavirus pandemic

Acknowledging the generally improved epidemiological situation across the Union, EU leaders commended the progress with the vaccination campaign, but also expressed concerns regarding the spread of variants. The President of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, stated that the vaccine delivery target would be exceeded for the second quarter and at least 60 % of adults would have had one vaccine dose by the end of the week. Prior to the meeting, some EU leaders had voiced disapproval at the relaxation of restrictions for travellers coming from third countries in certain Member States, in particular travellers from the UK, where the more virulent Delta variant was the dominant strain. They argued that the move was not in line with the official, albeit non-binding, EU guidance, and thus insisted on including in the conclusions a sentence stressing the need to be careful and ‘coordinated’ in relation to the variants. EU leaders also underlined the importance of the EU digital Covid certificate and the two Council recommendations, on travel within the EU and into the EU, for facilitating safe cross-border travel.

Furthermore, EU leaders welcomed the Commission report on early lessons learned from the pandemic and invited the incoming Slovenian Presidency to work in the Council at improving EU preparedness and response capacity. They also reiterated the EU’s commitment to international solidarity in the face of the pandemic, specifically the need to boost global vaccine production and access, through COVAX, the global initiative to ensure fair access to safe and effective vaccines. EU leaders welcomed the organisation of a special session of the World Health Assembly to discuss a global convention on pandemic preparedness, the EU strongly supporting work aimed at an international treaty on pandemics.

Main message of the President of the European Parliament: David Sassoli stressed that coordination of the EU’s response to cross-border health threats should be on the agenda of the Conference on the Future of Europe, as ‘crises can act as a catalyst for reforms that were once inconceivable’.

Economic recovery

Following the Commission’s first ever bond issuance to feed the Recovery and Resilience Facility, the European Council pushed for swift adoption by Council and implementation of the national recovery and resilience plans. Currently, 24 national plans have been submitted to the Commission, 12 of which have been approved; in the latter, the targets in terms of green and digital spending have been met, and often overshot. The aim is now ensure rapid disbursement of the funding in order to support economic recovery. The European Council also endorsed the Council recommendation on the economic policy of the euro area for 2021. Finally, EU leaders expressed their hope for swift progress in the G20/OECD-led process aimed at reaching global and consensus-based reform of the global corporate tax system, a reform to which the G20 finance ministers’ reaffirmed their commitment in spring 2021.

Migration

As flagged up in the EPRS Outlook, discussions on migration were brief and limited to external borders and cooperation with countries of origin and transit; reform of the common European asylum system was not addressed. EU leaders agreed to intensify ‘mutually beneficial partnerships and cooperation with countries of origin and transit’. This is no new commitment and replicates the idea of ‘migration compacts’, which were called for by the European Council and already established with priority countries back in 2016. Likewise, the conclusions aim at close cooperation with the UNHCR and IOM and the need to tackle root causes, eradicate smuggling and trafficking, reinforce border control, address legal migration, and ensure return and readmission reiterate established concepts under the ‘comprehensive approach to migration policy’ developed by the European Council during the migration crisis. By contrast, the European Council statement condemning and rejecting any attempt by third countries to ‘instrumentalise migrants for political purposes’ is new. Within the context of the EU’s overall migration policy, EU leaders also called on the Commission to put forward formal proposals for continued financing for Syrian refugees in Turkey, Jordan, Lebanon and other parts of the region.

Main message of the President of the EP: David Sassoli stressed that the external dimension alone was not enough without a common immigration and asylum policy at home. He criticised as morally unacceptable the fact that ‘migration and asylum issues are constantly linked to the electoral fortunes of individual Member States. He reminded the leaders of the European Parliament’s call for a new pact of solidarity on migration and insisted on the need for the European Council to take effective action.

Turkey

As flagged up by the EPRS Outlook, the European Council did not, for now, give a green light to launching the EU-Turkey positive agenda, as more has to be done to meet established conditions. President von der Leyen confirmed the ongoing technical work in Council on modernisation of the customs union, but stressed that the road ahead was still long.

Russia

The European Council discussion on Russia, which according to earlier indications had been expected to be reflective and considered, heated up following the presentation, the day before the summit, of a Franco-German proposal. The most divisive point was the proposed high-level dialogue with Russia, which many leaders, including the President of Lithuania, Gitanas Nausėda, the Prime Minister of the Netherlands, Mark Rutte, and the Prime Minister of Poland, Mateusz Morawiecki, considered to be premature given Russia’s ‘aggressive politics’. The Prime Minister of Latvia, Krišjānis Karinš, stressed that ‘dialogue has to come also at a certain cost to Russia’, calling for conditionality.

At stake in this debate were the European Council’s unity – forged back in 2014 after the annexation of Crimea, when EU-Russia summits were suspended – but also the EU’s credibility vis-à-vis Eastern Partnership countries, at a time when eastern Ukraine is still in conflict and the Minsk Agreements have not yet been implemented in full. The conclusions reassured the eastern partners of the EU’s intention ‘to further deepen and intensify political, economic and people-to-people ties’; there was no reference however to the western Balkans, mentioned in the Franco-German proposal.

EU leaders also reiterated past conclusions, notably (i) condemning the downing of flight MH17 and the lack of transparency in the inquiry, and (ii) the EU’s attachment to the five guiding principles governing the EU’s Russia policy. President Michel specified that the focus of the debate was on ways to implement the guiding principles, while President von der Leyen indicated that the EU and Russia were ‘in a negative spiral’ and ‘need(ed) to brace for further downturn’. She confirmed that the ‘push back, contain and engage’ approach outlined in the recent joint communication would be operationalised. EU leaders invited the High Representative, Josep Borrell, and the Commission to boost people-to-people contacts and support Russian civil society, while identifying ‘options for additional restrictive measures, including economic sanctions’ and cyber-sanctions. The EU’s resilience to cyber-attacks and other malicious activities originating in Russia was at the core of the cybersecurity debate, with EU leaders condemning recent attacks on Ireland and Poland.

Other external relations topics

On Belarus, EU leaders welcomed the recent restrictive measures imposed on the country, calling for the release of ‘all political prisoners’ and reaffirming the Belarussian people’s right to ‘new, free and fair elections’. The President of Lithuania, Gitanas Nausėda, expressed concern at the situation on the EU-Belarus border, as Belarus policy consisted simply of sending migrants over the border.

On Libya, EU leaders reaffirmed their commitment to Libya’s stabilisation process under the auspices of the UN, stressed that elections should take place on 24 December 2021 as agreed in the roadmap ‘For the Preparatory Phase of a Comprehensive Solution’, and called for progress on a locally owned inclusive political dialogue and for the withdrawal of ‘foreign forces and mercenaries’.

On Ethiopia, EU leaders considered the situation in Ethiopia’s Tigray region, called for the cessation of hostilities and the withdrawal of the Eritrean forces, condemned human rights violations, and reiterated the commitment of the EU and its Member States to supporting democratic reform.

Concerning the situation in the Sahel, EU leaders reaffirmed their support for the Transition Charter in Mali and reaffirmed the EU’s commitment to capacity-building in the G5 Sahel.

Rule of law and European values

Not originally on the agenda, EU leaders held an impromptu debate on the rule of law and European values, which in the views of President Michel and President von der Leyen, was an ’emotional, personal as well as necessary discussion’. Prior to the meeting the topic became very prominent in public debates after the adoption of amendments to Hungarian child protection legislation including measures banning the portrayal of homosexuality to minors, considered by many as discriminatory against LGBTQI+ people. In joint reactions ahead of the European Council, 17 EU leaders and Member States condemned developments in Hungary and called on the European Commission to ‘use all the tools at its disposal to ensure full respect for EU law, including by referring the matter to the ECJ’. The Commission President referred to the Hungarian bill as a ‘shame’, as it ‘clearly discriminates against people based on their sexual orientation’ and promised to use all the legal powers of the Commission to ‘ensure that the rights of all EU citizens are guaranteed’. Charles Michel stressed ‘the primacy of EU law and the primacy of European values’, expressing the hope that the Conference on the Future of Europe would provide the opportunity to take forward European beliefs and fundamental rights. However, the debate and views expressed at the European Council meeting are not reflected in the text of the conclusions adopted, as the inclusion of any paragraph requires consensus between EU leaders.

Main message of the President of the EP: David Sassoli expressed concern about the recent law in Hungary. ‘No tradition or so-called cultural specificity can justify a failure to respect human dignity’.

3. Euro Summit

Joined by the Presidents of the European Central Bank and the Eurogroup, Christine Lagarde and Paschal Donohoe, the Euro Summit met on 25 June in inclusive format with all EU-27 leaders, to discuss the future of the euro area after the coronavirus crisis. Outlining the progress of work in the Eurogroup on the completion of Banking Union, Paschal Donohoe informed EU leaders on his decision to delay talks on the European deposit insurance scheme, a key but sensitive component of Banking Union, due to remaining divergences of views between the Member States. In that context, the Euro Summit reiterated its commitment to the completion of Banking Union and invited the Eurogroup to pursue its work on all outstanding elements. EU leaders also called for the rapid implementation of the capital markets union (CMU) action plan, thereby underlining that green finance, notably the adoption of a green bond standard, could constitute a catalyst towards a fully fledged CMU. The next Euro Summit will take place in December 2021 to review progress.

Read this complete briefing on ‘Outcome of the meetings of EU leaders, 24-25 June 2021‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Written by Katarzyna Sochacka and Clare Ferguson.

© European Union 2021 – Source : EP/Alain ROLLAND

During the June II 2021 plenary session in Brussels, Parliament continued to debate and adopt programmes financed under the multiannual financial framework for 2021‑2027, specifically this session in the areas of regional development, with the Common Provisions Regulation, European Territorial Cooperation Regulation, European Regional Development Fund and Cohesion Fund all finalised. Important debates on Council and European Commission statements were held, in particular on the preparation of the European Council meeting on 24‑25 June 2021 and the relaunch of the Malta Declaration on external aspects of migration, on the urgent need to complete nominations for the full functioning of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office, and on the future of EU-Swiss relations. Members also debated and adopted, inter alia, the proposed European Climate Law, the Public Sector Loan Facility, and discussed the Commission’s 2020 rule of law report. António Guterres, the recently re-elected Secretary-General of the United Nations, addressed Parliament in a formal sitting.

Common Provisions Regulation

During a joint debate on cohesion policy, Members debated and approved an early second-reading agreement (without a vote, as no amendments were submitted) on the Common Provisions Regulation for 2021‑2027, which sets out new, simplified financial rules for eight EU funds in the light of the EU’s policy objectives for a greener, smarter, more social and connected Europe. Parliament has succeeded in raising co-financing rates for the regions, increasing resources earmarked for sustainable urban development, and ensuring the rules better reflect the EU’s new policy objectives.

European Regional Development Fund and Cohesion Fund

During the joint debate, Members also approved, at early second reading (without a vote), the agreement reached during negotiations on the proposed revised regulation on the European Regional Development Fund and the Cohesion Fund. The compromise agreed between Parliament and Council follows Parliament’s focus on lower thematic concentration and greater funding for sustainable urban development. Funding should now be available for job creation and digital connectivity, with a focus on renewables under the Cohesion Fund. With around one third of the entire EU budget dedicated to reducing regional disparities and promoting cohesion during this seven-year MFF period, the Regional Development Fund seeks to support infrastructure and energy efficiency investment, as well as providing economic assistance for small businesses, while the Cohesion Fund should encourage environmental projects and transport infrastructure in the least-developed regions. In line with the EU’s climate ambition, fossil fuel and landfill-related investments will be ineligible for funding.

European Territorial Cooperation (ETC)

The third item debated during the joint debate was the revision of the regulation on European Territorial Cooperation, (‘Interreg’). Parliament approved the agreement on the compromise reached between the co-legislators on the changes at early second reading (also without a vote). Although Parliament has successfully secured the reintroduction of maritime border cooperation, as well as increased co- and pre-financing for Interreg programmes, the increased €8.05 billion budget for cross-border, outermost region and inter-regional cooperation nonetheless falls short of Parliament’s initial ambitions. The proposal is expected to launch a revamped cooperation programme, removing barriers to development and fostering innovation and joint strategies to help border regions find solutions to the issues they face in common, emphasising their proximity rather than their location in different countries.

European Climate Law

Members debated and adopted the compromise agreed with the Council on the proposed European Climate Law. The agreement reflects Parliament’s consistent demands for a higher net greenhouse gas emissions reduction target for 2030, particularly as it states that the EU should advance the volume of reductions and removals of greenhouse gases, possibly to a net reduction of 57 %, by 2030. Achieving climate neutrality by 2050, however, is going to take concerted effort. The EU has proposed measures that should both assist the recovery from the coronavirus pandemic and ensure that climate ambitions become reality. The European Green Deal provides an action plan for these efforts, and the European Climate Law creates the legal framework underpinning these measures.

Public Sector Loan Facility under the Just Transition Mechanism

Members debated and approved the provisional agreement on a Public Sector Loan Facility, which incorporates many of Parliament’s demands, including beneficiaries’ compliance with EU values, and a greater share of the loans going to the poorest regions. The Public Sector Loan Facility is the third pillar of the EU Just Transition Mechanism, part of the InvestEU scheme (a key financial element of the EU Green Deal), which aims at mobilising €25‑30 billion in public investment through grants and loans in 2021‑2027.

Northwest Atlantic fisheries management

Parliament approved a provisional agreement with the Council setting out EU compliance with the conservation and enforcement measures for the Northwest Atlantic fisheries. Under the agreement, EU fishing vessels will respect conservation measures when fishing outside national waters in the region. These include seasonal closure and bans on bottom-fishing in some locations. The measures aim at encouraging realistic measures to protect endangered species, such as the Greenland shark, as well as to ensure responsible management of cod fisheries.

EU Ombudsman’s Statute

The European Ombudsman is the EU’s independent guardian of accountability and transparency, ensuring EU institutions adhere to principles of good administration and respect EU citizens’ rights. In its 27 years’ existence, the role has developed considerably, leading to a need to revise the underpinning Statute, last amended in 2008. Following Parliament’s debate and vote to adopt a new statute for the European Ombudsman during the June I plenary session, and the Council’s subsequent consent, the plenary formally adopted the revised European Parliament Regulation governing the role of the Ombudsman. This completes the procedure, begun in 2019, to further strengthen and improve the Ombudsman’s role and effectiveness.

Opening of trilogue negotiations

Members confirmed the mandate for negotiations from the Agriculture and Rural Development (AGRI) Committee on the proposal for a regulation on the extension of the term of Community plant variety rights for the species asparagus and the species groups flower bulbs, woody small fruits and woody ornamentals. The committee can therefore launch negotiations as of now.

Read this at a glance note on ‘Plenary round-up – June II 2021‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Written by Tania Latici with Mathilde Betant Rasmussen.

Achieving peace and security in the world is an increasingly complex task that relies on managing a number of changing and compounding threats, ranging from violent conflict and terrorism to global pandemics and climate change. The 2021 Peace and Security Outlook maps these threats in a global context and assesses the EU’s contribution to addressing a constantly changing global security landscape. To mark the 2021 edition of this publication, the EPRS organised an expert roundtable on Thursday 17 June 2021, entitled ‘Peace and security in the world today: what difference is Europe making and how can we make its impact even bigger?’ chaired by Etienne Bassot, Director of the Members’ Research Service at EPRS. Following an introduction to the topic and context for the event by Anthony Teasdale, Director-General of EPRS, David McAllister, Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee of the European Parliament, opened the event with a keynote speech highlighting the need for the EU to speak with one voice on foreign policy issues. To increase the EU’s impact on peace and security globally, Mr McAllister emphasised the importance of aligning EU foreign policy goals with other policy areas, including trade, development and the environment. He also recommended wielding the EU’s human rights sanctions powers, as well as conducting thorough threat assessments. Finally, Mr McAllister outlined key foreign policy priorities for the EU, such as boosting the transatlantic partnership, strengthening security in the eastern and southern neighbourhoods, upgrading relations with Taiwan and implementing a new EU-China strategy.

Isabelle Arradon, Director of Research at International Crisis Group, launched the discussion that followed, by analysing the impact of the coronavirus pandemic on peace and security in the world. The Crisis Group report ‘COVID-19 and Conflict: Seven Trends to Watch‘ reports that the pandemic has led to armed actors strengthening their grip over territories, particularly in Latin America and sub-Saharan Africa; governments perpetrating increased human rights violations against their populations; and strained diplomatic relations, for example between China and the USA. Despite these trends, Ms Arradon emphasised that the pandemic has had little effect on the world’s major conflicts, such as in Yemen and Somalia, and that ceasefire commitments have not lasted. She concluded that foreign policy priorities should focus on increasing humanitarian assistance and international cooperation to address the continuing needs of conflict-affected populations.

René Van Nes, Head of Division for Conflict Prevention and Mediation Support at the European External Action Service reaffirmed that conflicts across the world have indeed been resilient to the pandemic. He outlined worrying trends arising from the crisis, namely the increase in online disinformation and gender-based violence globally. He then outlined the EU’s peace and security toolbox, including the new Global Europe Instrument, strong partnerships, and the EU’s strength in the peace and security sector as a widely recognised conflict mediator.

Deputy Leader of the Norwegian Nobel Committee and author of The EU as a small power: After the Cold War (2010), Dr Asle Toje, took a more historical perspective on the EU’s role in peace and security, stating that EU involvement in the security sector has become involuntary due to the pressing nature of ongoing conflicts at its borders. Evaporating trust in powerful neighbouring states such as Russia and Turkey, as well as increasing migration from neighbourhood, were seen as central issues for the EU’s foreign policy agenda. Dr Toje also stressed the importance of a unified EU voice on foreign policy matters, adding that timely reaction to external developments is greatly needed.

Finally, Elena Lazarou, Acting Head of the External Policies Unit at EPRS and co-author of the Peace and Security Outlook, discussed the lessons learnt on peace and security in the past year and ways forward to improve the EU’s impact as a security actor. She highlighted the increasingly complex and multidimensional nature of the peace and security landscape, including rising threats such as energy insecurity, disinformation and climate security. She also noted that the most vulnerable regions of the world, such as sub-Saharan Africa, Latin America and Central Asia, are those where most of these threats coincide. As responses to such threats, she highlighted the role of the new Global Europe Instrument, the EU’s human right sanctions regime, as well as the forthcoming Strategic Compass, while emphasising the need for foresight and anticipation, particularly in light of the pandemic, to address current threats while increasing resilience against future risks.

Tania Latici, Policy Analyst at the External Policies Unit of EPRS and co-author of the Peace and Security Outlook, opened the Q&A session by reflecting on the concept of resilience as an increasing part of security and defence policy and its implications for conflict resolution efforts. She introduced the new European Peace Facility into the debate and asked how it might contribute to the EU’s conflict mediation efforts. In light of a week of multiple international summits, she asked Elena Lazarou to weigh the implications of this renewed multilateralism on peace and security and then raised the concept of strategic autonomy in the context of peace promotion, asking Dr Asle Toje for his views.

The event can be viewed online on the EPRS YouTube channel.

David McAllister, Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee of the European Parliament

© Adobe Stock

People often turn to the European Parliament to ask how the European Union manages migration. In recent years, the European Union (EU) responded to serious migratory challenges as it became a destination for people migrating for security, demographic, human rights, poverty and climate change reasons. In 2015, at the peak of the migratory crisis, 1.25 million first-time asylum applicants were registered in the EU and more than 1 million people reached the EU by sea.

EU migration policies

The Treaty of Lisbon introduced the ordinary legislative procedure to policies on both irregular and regular immigration, and stressed the principle of solidarity between EU countries.

The EU shares competence on migration and asylum policies with EU countries, in particular on managing regular immigration, promoting integration, combating irregular immigration and concluding readmission agreements with third countries.

A 2011 European Commission communication, Global approach to migration and mobility, establishes a general framework for the EU’s relations with third countries in the field of migration.

Legal migration

The EU measures on legal immigration cover the conditions of entry and residence for certain categories of immigrants, such as labour immigrants, students and researchers, family members and long-term residents. The EU Immigration Portal provides information for foreign nationals interested in moving to the EU and for migrants who are already in the EU and who would like to move to another EU country. While highly-skilled workers benefit from a blue card scheme, EU rules do not yet include non-seasonal low- and medium-skilled workers, job seekers, investors and self-employed third-country nationals.

In May 2021, the European Parliament called for more avenues for legal migration for workers, noting that both sending and receiving countries benefit from orderly migration, which reduces irregular migration and undermines human traffickers. In its resolution, the European Parliament suggested promoting circular migration, in order to combat the ‘brain drain’ as well as address labour shortages in the EU.

Integration of migrants

In the field of integration, the EU supports EU countries and develops guidance, while national governments are primarily responsible for creating and implementing social policies. In November 2020, the European Commission published an action plan on integration and inclusion, setting out efforts to integrate migrants in the EU and foster migrants’ participation in society.

Irregular migration

Irregular migrants are more vulnerable to labour exploitation and other forms of exploitation. The EU is tackling irregular migration through specific measures against human trafficking networks and smugglers, setting up a humane and effective return policy and targeting employers who hire undeclared migrant workers.

Smuggling of migrants by sea is one of the most dangerous forms of migrant smuggling and often requires serious humanitarian assistance. The European Border and Coast Guard Agency (FRONTEX) supports EU countries in controlling the EU’s external borders and in their return-related activities.

The European Parliament has expressed concern about human rights violations, in particular in the context of informal bilateral agreements on the return and readmission of irregular migrants. In a May 2021 resolution, the European Parliament urged the European Commission to sign formal agreements with third countries, in order to ensure adequate monitoring and evaluation as well as accountability mechanisms in irregular migrant return procedures.

Reform of the Dublin system

Under the current Dublin Regulation, the country where an asylum seeker first entered the EU has the responsibility for examining his or her asylum application. The migration crisis highlighted the weakness of the system, however, which does not provide harmonised conditions of reception. This means a high pressure is placed on a small number of EU countries and imbalances exist in the distribution of asylum seekers.

As a reform of the common asylum policy stalled in September 2020, the European Commission presented a new proposal (New Pact on Migration and Asylum) to replace the 2013 Dublin Regulation. The proposal aims at integrating asylum procedures and border management, implementing a robust crisis preparedness and response system. It also aims at reinforcing the fight against migrant smuggling, working with international partners, attracting skills and talent, and supporting integration. In particular, the European Commission proposes a structured and flexible solidarity mechanism between EU countries and the development of legal pathways for migration to Europe.

This proposal is being put forward for adoption under the ordinary legislative procedure, in which the European Parliament and Ministers of EU countries take decisions on an equal footing. Updates on the legislative procedure are available here.

In December 2020, the European Parliament adopted a resolution calling for a solidarity-based mechanism to ensure the respect of the right to asylum in the EU and a distributed responsibility among EU countries. Moreover, the European Parliament adopted a second resolution stressing the need to allocate more funds to building an effective and sustainable EU return policy.

Further information

• Reforming asylum and migration management, European Parliamentary Research Service, Briefing, October 2020
• EU External Migration Policy and the Protection of Human Rights, European Parliament, Policy Department for External Relations, Study, September 2020
• Immigration policy, European Parliament
• Migration in Europe, European Parliament

Keep sending your questions to the Citizens’ Enquiries Unit (Ask EP)! We reply in the EU language that you use to write to us.

Written by Suzana Anghel and Ralf Drachenberg.

© Adobe Stock

At its meeting on 24-25 June 2021, the European Council will pursue its coordination efforts in response to the coronavirus pandemic, discuss the situation on the various migration routes, return to the strategic debate on relations with Russia, revert to their discussions on Turkey and assess progress with the EU’s economic recovery. ‘The European Council will likely also address Belarus, Libya, Ethiopia and the Sahel. Regarding the EU’s response to the coronavirus pandemic, the EU leaders are expected to address the lessons learned from the pandemic, vaccine production, international solidarity and vaccine sharing, as well as the remaining obstacles relating to the right of free movement across the EU. The strategic debate on relations with Russia will pick up from the EU leaders’ discussion on 24-25 May 2021, on the basis of a new Commission report on the matter. As regards the EU’s economic recovery, the EU leaders will discuss the recommendation on the economic policy of the euro area and review the implementation of Next Generation EU. A Euro Summit meeting on 25 June will review progress on banking union and the capital markets union.

1. European Council agenda points

The only agenda items planned in advance for this June European Council, under the Leaders’ Agenda for 2020-21, were the future of Schengen and relations with the UK. While the latter subject was already addressed at the special European Council meeting of 24-25 May, the former has been taken off the agenda as a point in itself, but Schengen will be an important part of the discussions on the pandemic and on migration. The June 2021 meeting is the last on the current Leaders’ Agenda for 2020-21; whether President Michel will continue using this tool or propose a different way of planning the key topics for the European Council remains to be seen.

Policy area Previous commitment(*) Occasion on which commitment was made Coronavirus The European Council will return to this issue regularly. 1-2 October 2020 Coronavirus The European Commission will report by June 2021 on the lessons learned from the Covid-19 pandemic so far. 25 February 2021 Turkey The European Council will return to this issue. 25 March 2021 Russia The European Council will return to this issue. 24-25 May2021

(*) The 24-25 May 2021 European Council meeting also agreed to discuss migration in June but this was not part of the formal conclusions.

The Presidents of the European Council, Charles Michel, and the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, will report on the G7 discussions of 11-13 June in the UK, and also on the EU-Canada and the EU-US summits, of 14 and 15 June respectively.

The Secretary-General of the United Nations (UN), António Guterres, has been invited to join the meeting to discuss EU-UN cooperation to confront global challenges.

2. European Council meeting Coronavirus pandemic

The European Council will discuss the coronavirus crisis (for the 18th time) addressing lessons learned from the pandemic, vaccine production, international solidarity and vaccine sharing, as well as the remaining obstacles relating to the right of free movement across the EU.

Covid-19: Lessons learned and future preparedness

The European Council will discuss a report on lessons learned from the pandemic, which they requested in February 2021 from the European Commission. Based on this report, EU leaders will discuss improving the EU’s preparedness for future crises; including topics such as diversifying supply chains, EU coordination, joint procurement and strategic reserves, and an annual Commission ‘state of preparedness’ report for the European Council and the European Parliament.

Production, delivery and deployment of vaccines

EU leaders are expected to discuss the production, deployment and delivery of vaccines in the EU, with Commission President Ursula von der Leyen providing an update on the state of play (353 million doses delivered and 299 million doses administered as of 14 June 2021). She may also update them on developments regarding issues such as the European Medicine Agency’s approval of a new manufacturing site producing the Moderna vaccine in France, the evaluation and use of some vaccines for children under 18 years of age, the contamination of a batch of an active substance for the Janssen vaccine, and the Commission’s legal action against AstraZeneca.

International solidarity and vaccine sharing

The European Council is likely to reiterate its support for COVAX, the EU being a major contributor, and highlight the need to accelerate the production and delivery of vaccines worldwide. EU leaders may continue to discuss the intellectual property waiver from the Trade-related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) Agreement proposed by South Africa and India, and the alternative proposed by the Commission. President Michel stated at the Global Health Summit on 21 May 2021 that the EU was in favour of a ‘third way’ public-private partnership. However, on 10 June, the European Parliament adopted a resolution proposing to start negotiations on a temporary waiver of the TRIPS Agreement for Covid-19 vaccines and other related medical products.

The proposal for an international treaty on pandemics was first announced by Mr Michel at the Paris Peace Forum in November 2020. At their meeting on 25 February 2021, EU leaders endorsed the suggestion, with a view to its being taken forward within the framework of the World Health Organization. It is expected that they will now also welcome the decision adopted by the 74th World Health Assembly to establish a Special World Health Assembly in November 2021 to consider the development of an international instrument on pandemic preparedness and response.

Remaining obstacles to the exercise of the right to free movement

The European Council is also due to discuss the remaining obstacles to the exercise of the right to free movement, and most likely it will welcome the adoption of the Council recommendation on a coordinated approach to the restriction of free movement in response to the Covid-19 pandemic.

Fewer and fewer Member States have temporary internal Schengen border controls as a consequence of the coronavirus pandemic (Denmark, Finland, France and Hungary). At the same time, however, some of them (including Austria, Germany and Sweden) maintain controls at borders within the Schengen areas on grounds of secondary movements of migrants and/or risks relating to terrorists and organised crime.

In this context, on 2 June, with a view to reducing the need for temporary border controls, the Commission published a new strategy for the Schengen area. This strategy focuses on i) ensuring effective and modern management of the EU’s external borders; ii) reinforcing the Schengen area internally; iii) improving governance and crisis preparedness; and iv) completing the enlargement of the Schengen area. EU leaders might refer to this strategy and call for its rapid implementation.

Migration Illegal border crossings 2009-2020

For the first time since December 2018, migration will formally feature on the European Council’s agenda – although the Commission’s new communication on migration and asylum was submitted back in September 2020. EU leaders are not expected to discuss outstanding decisions on the asylum package, but will probably focus on the protection of the EU’s external borders and on cooperation with countries of origin and transit. They will also review the migration situation on the various routes.

While overall illegal migration flows remain low (see graph above), illegal border crossings between January and April 2021 increased compared to the same period last year:

Western Balkan route1 1600+ 93 %Central Mediterranean route11 602+ 156 %Western Mediterranean route3 167+ 2.6 %Eastern Mediterranean rout4 828– 57 %

This was the case notably for Spain and Italy, which experienced high numbers of irregular arrivals of migrants on their territories this spring. EU leaders are expected to call on the Commission and the High Representative to propose concrete action for cooperation with priority countries.

Economic recovery

EU leaders will assess progress made on implementation of the Next Generation EU recovery fund. While welcoming the entry into force of the Own Resources Decision on 1 June, which has enabled the Commission to start borrowing resources (€20 billion) for the recovery instrument, the European Council is expected to push for rapid implementation of the national recovery and resilience plans. EU leaders are likely to underline the need for timely implementation of these plans in order to allow Member States to make the most of Recovery and Resilience Facility funding. Furthermore, the European Council is expected to welcome the EU headline targets, in line with the Porto Declaration – an instrument through which, on 8 May 2021, EU leaders committed ‘to continue deepening the implementation of the European Pillar of Social Rights at EU and national level’. On the EU economy, EU leaders are also due to discuss the Council recommendation on the economic policy of the euro area for 2021, which encourages Member States to implement priority reforms and investments with the aim of making the euro area and its members more sustainable and resilient.

External relations Russia

The European Council is expected to resume its May 2021 discussion on relations with Russia, on the basis of the joint communication and reiterating the five guiding principles identified in 2016. To uphold these principles the EU would have to simultaneously ‘push back’ against human rights violations, ‘constrain’ Russia’s attempts to undermine the Union’s interests, and ‘engage’ with Russia on subjects of common interest such as health and climate change. President Michel has stated that the EU stands united in condemning Russia’s illegal and provocative behaviour, and underlined that relations could improve ‘if Russia stops [its] disruptive behaviour’. EU leaders may once again express concern about the situation of Alexei Navalny, who is still imprisoned. Ahead of his 16 June meeting with the Russian President, Vladimir Putin, US President Joe Biden stressed that the possible death of Mr Navalny in prison would ‘hurt’ Russia’s relations with the ‘rest of the world’. Russia was discussed at the EU-US summit on 15 June, which confirmed the willingness of both the EU and the US to shape a renewed transatlantic policy agenda based on an enhanced dialogue on Russia.

Turkey

As regards Turkey, the European Council is expected to acknowledge the de-escalation efforts in the eastern Mediterranean. No further decisions are however expected for now since progress is still awaited regarding the resumption of negotiations on the settlement of the Cyprus problem as well as on human rights protection in Turkey. EU leaders might take note of the technical work being carried out to modernise the customs union and of the ‘preparatory work’ undertaken to establish high-level bilateral dialogues on health, climate change and counter-terrorism.  

EU leaders last discussed Turkey in March 2021, establishing the principle of ‘phased, proportional and reversed cooperation’, which will guide EU leaders when considering further cooperation depending on progress made on the normalisation of Greek-Turkish relations, on solving the Cyprus problem and on human rights protection in Turkey. Greece and Turkey have already held several rounds of ministerial-level talks, including on the delimitation of maritime zones, with the objective of ‘attempt[ing] an initial normalisation process’. There has been agreement on the need to ‘resolve differences within the framework of good neighbourly relations, international law and respect for mutual interests’. On the sidelines of the 2021 NATO summit, the Greek Prime Minister, Kyriakos Mitsotakis, and the Turkish President, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, agreed to a ‘quiet year’ for Greek-Turkish relations and to continued maritime delimitation talks and cooperation.

As regards the Cyprus problem, an informal 5+1 meeting was held in Geneva in April 2021, but ‘failed to achieve progress’. Antonio Guterres acknowledged that not ‘enough common ground’ had been found to resume negotiations formally and that another meeting, highly unlikely for now, would be convened ‘in the near future’. The President of Cyprus, Nikos Anastasiades, has stressed that stopping illegal drilling in the Cypriot economic exclusive zone is not sufficient to give a green light to a positive agenda with Turkey, which would require ‘positive behaviour’. He has warned that Cyprus could veto the positive agenda, pointing out that genuine progress on the Cyprus problem is among the conditions outlined by the European Council for further cooperation with Turkey.

3. Euro Summit

On 25 June, the Euro Summit will meet in inclusive format with all EU-27 leaders. The focus will be on economic challenges facing the euro area in the aftermath of the coronavirus crisis. EU leaders will receive an update on the state of play on banking union and the capital markets union.

Written by Clare Ferguson.

© artjazz / Fotolia

For this second session of the month of June, Parliament sits in Brussels, with formal agreement on funding for the European Union’s green ambitions top of the agenda. António Guterres will address the plenary on Thursday, following his re-appointment to a second term as UN Secretary-General, on his priorities for a fair and sustainable post-pandemic recovery.

On Wednesday afternoon, Members will take part in a joint debate on three regulations in the proposed cohesion policy package under the 2021‑2027 multiannual financial framework (MFF) that together ensure the EU continues to fulfil its goals in strengthening development of its regions through targeted Union funding.

The proposed Common Provisions Regulation for 2021‑2027 sets out new, simplified financial rules for eight EU funds in the light of the EU’s policy objectives for a greener, smarter, more social and connected Europe. Parliament has succeeded in raising co-financing rates for the regions, increasing resources earmarked for sustainable urban development, and ensuring the rules better reflect the EU’s new policy objectives. Parliament will consider formal adoption of the compromise text at second reading during this session.

The debate will also consider the proposal for a regulation on the European Regional Development Fund and the Cohesion Fund, with Members also due to vote on these proposals at second reading during this session. With around one third of the entire EU budget dedicated to reducing regional disparities and promoting cohesion during this seven-year MFF period, the Regional Development Fund seeks to support infrastructure and energy efficiency investment, as well as providing economic assistance for small businesses, while the Cohesion Fund should encourage environmental projects and transport infrastructure in the least-developed regions. In line with the EU’s climate ambition, fossil fuel and landfill-related investments will be ineligible for funding. The compromise agreed between Parliament and Council takes up Parliament’s focus on lower thematic concentration and greater funding for sustainable urban development. Funding should now be available for job creation and digital connectivity, with a focus on renewables under the Cohesion Fund.

A third element of the proposed package is the revision of the regulation on European territorial cooperation, or ‘Interreg’, with Parliament expected to vote at second reading on the compromise reached between the co-legislators on the changes. Although Parliament has successfully secured the reintroduction of maritime border cooperation, as well as increased co- and pre-financing for Interreg programmes, the increased €8.05 billion budget for cross-border, outermost region and inter-regional cooperation nevertheless falls short of Parliament’s initial ambitions. If agreed, the proposal will launch a revamped cooperation programme, removing barriers to development and fostering innovation and joint strategies to help border regions find solutions to the issues they face in common, emphasising their proximity rather than their location in different countries.

On Thursday morning, Members attention turns to another opportunity to assist EU regions, specifically those facing the greatest challenges to surmount the transition to climate neutrality. The public sector loan facility within the EU Just Transition Mechanism, part of the InvestEU scheme (a key financial element of the EU Green Deal), aims at mobilising €25‑30 billion in public investment through grants and loans during the 2021‑2027 period. Members are expected to vote on formal agreement of a compromise that incorporates many of Parliament’s demands, including beneficiaries’ compliance with EU values, and a greater share of the loans for the poorest regions.

Achieving climate neutrality by 2050, however, is going to take concerted effort. The EU has proposed measures that should both assist the recovery from the coronavirus pandemic and ensure that climate ambitions become reality. The European Green Deal provides an action plan for these efforts, and the proposed European Climate Law creates the legal framework underpinning the measures. On Thursday morning, Members are expected to consider adoption of the compromise agreed with the co-legislators. The agreement reflects Parliament’s consistent demands for a higher net greenhouse gas emissions reduction target for 2030, particularly as it states that the EU should advance the volume of reductions and removals of greenhouse gases, possibly to a net reduction of 57 %, by 2030.

As other human activities also threaten biodiversity, Parliament is keen to encourage realistic measures to protect endangered species, such as the Greenland shark, as well as to ensure responsible management of cod fisheries. Parliament has therefore negotiated a provisional agreement with the Council setting out EU compliance with the conservation and enforcement measures for the Northwest Atlantic fisheries. Under the agreement, EU fishing vessels will respect conservation measures when fishing outside national waters in the region. These include seasonal closure and bans on bottom-fishing in some locations. Members are expected to vote on the compromise on Wednesday evening.

In a debate on Wednesday afternoon on the preparation of the next European Council, Members will hear statements from the Council and Commission on the preparation of the European Council meeting scheduled for later in the week, on 24‑25 June 2021.

Finally, the European Ombudsman is the EU’s independent guardian of accountability and transparency, ensuring EU institutions adhere to principles of good administration and respect EU citizens’ rights. In its 27 years’ existence, the role has developed considerably, leading to a need to revise the underpinning Statute, last amended in 2008. Following Parliament’s debate and vote to adopt a new statute for the European Ombudsman during the June I plenary session, and the Council’s subsequent consent, the plenary is expected to formally adopt the revised European Parliament regulation governing the role of the Ombudsman on Wednesday evening. This completes the procedure begun in 2019 to further strengthen and improve the Ombudsman’s role and effectiveness.

Written by Lucienne Attard (The Directorate-General for the Presidency).

© tanaonte / Adobe Stock

Slovenia will, in the second half of 2021, hold its second Presidency of the Council of the EU since joining the EU in 2004. It will conclude the work of the Trio Presidency composed of Germany, Portugal and Slovenia.

Slovenia is a democratic parliamentary republic with a proportional electoral system. The Slovenian parliament is bicameral, made up of the National Assembly (composed of 90 members) and the National Council (composed of 40 members). In the National Assembly, there are 88 representatives of political parties and two representatives of the Italian and Hungarian national communities, the latter two elected to represent their interests.

The National Assembly elects the Prime Minister and the government. The current government is a four-party coalition, made up of the Slovenian Democratic Party (SDS); the Modern Centre Party (SMC), the Democratic Party of Slovenian Pensioners (DeSUS) and New Slovenia—Christian Democrats (NSi). The Prime Minister, Mr Janez Janša from the Slovenian Democratic Party (SDS), was elected to office on 3 March 2020. The next general elections in Slovenia will take place no later than 5 June 2022.

Other political parties represented in parliament are the List of Marjan Šarec (LMS), Social Democrats (SD), Party of Alenka Bratušek (SAB), The Left, and the Slovenian National Party (SNS).

Read this complete briefing on ‘Priority dossiers under the Slovenian EU Council Presidency‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Written by Gianluca Quaglio with Virginia Mahieu.

‘Microbiota’ is a collective term referring to the reservoirs of micro-organisms living in the human body, in animals and in the environment. They are nearly ubiquitous, both in our soils and in our gut, working behind the scenes, but providing vital support to our health and well-being. Micro-organisms always live in microbial communities, which are quite diverse. Although the terms are used interchangeably, there is a slight difference between microbiome and microbiota. In fact, ‘microbiota’ refers to the actual organisms (‘bugs’) within a microbial community, and ‘microbiome’ to the organisms of a microbial community in its ‘theatre of activity’, i.e. taking environmental conditions into consideration, for example.

The human being has evolved with microbiomes and they are an integral part of life on Earth, although they have been relatively absent from the public consciousness. Scientific evidence of the last two decades shows the vital importance of microbiomes in our lives. The STOA workshop on the ‘Health and economic benefits of microbiomes‘ , held online on 21 May 2021, provided an insight into the importance of microbiomes in human, animal and environmental health, and how they could contribute to mitigating pollution and climate change, and boosting the European economy. Speakers illustrated the wide variety of applications and impacts of microbiomes and highlighted the ways in which their regulation at EU level could be improved.

STOA Chair Eva Kaili (S&D, Greece) opened the workshop by setting the scene on the role of microbiomes in health and the issues related when their balance is upset, as well as the related threats of antimicrobial resistance (AMR) and healthcare-associated infections (HAIs). She noted the current lack of EU regulation directly pertaining to microbiomes and stressed that it is crucial in the areas of healthcare and environmental sustainability that policy-making is guided by scientific and clinical evidence.

Microbiomes are vital to human, animal and environmental health

Emmanuelle Maguin, senior researcher at the French Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique (INRAE), provided an insight into the roles that microbiomes play in the human being. Microbiomes and the host-microbe interplay are well documented. The human body offers microbiomes a sort of ‘shelter’, and in return they provide a number of ‘services’, such as protection against pathogens and support to our immune system and metabolism, breaking down fibre that we cannot digest, synthesising essential compounds such as vitamins, even metabolising drugs.

In the last 60 years, industrialised societies have markedly changed our lifestyles in terms of nutrition, food systems and food, physical activity, childbirth, drug treatments (including antibiotics), exposure to environmental factors etc. All these recent modifications are putting the human-microbe symbiosis at risk of progressive functional alterations.

The recent accumulation of knowledge on microbiomes radically transforms the human health paradigm inherited from our experience with infectious diseases and other pathological conditions. From a linear vision of one microbial agent and its ability to generate a disease, we have moved to a more complex situation, where the interactions between numerous environmental, host and microbiome factors determine the risk of developing a disease and possibly even the response to a given therapy.

The recent concepts of the One-Health approach and personalised medicine are integrating this complexity considering the specific history of the host, environmental exposure, and sometimes microbiome specificities and modifications over a human lifespan. However, there is still a need to advance knowledge on these multifactorial interactions. A key prerequisite for producing robust data and providing meaningful analyses is the availability and large-scale use of harmonised standards and operating procedures, as well as access to unified repositories.

This new vision necessitates reconsideration of our current health and medical approaches. This should enable us to integrate the environment-microbiome-host interactions as key elements in prevention of disease and maintenance of a healthy state, to re-examine and to create new diagnostic and therapeutic tools, and to devise the required regulatory framework for microbiome-based innovations and increase awareness of, as well as information and training in this paradigm.

The balance of microbiomes is important not only in our bodies and in nature, but also in ‘built environments’, as Elisabetta Caselli, from the University of Ferrara pointed out. Hospitals have their own microbiome, and persistent use of chemical disinfectants on surfaces leads to the selection for multi-drug antimicrobial resistant (AMR) pathogens that can cause HAIs. HAIs are a global concern, each year affecting over 4 million patients in the EU, with about 90 000 avoidable deaths and €1.1 billion of extra sanitary costs.

Modulating the hospital microbiome by using probiotic cleaning hygiene systems to reduce pathogens and AMR in clinical settings could be a new and effective method. This system, called probiotic-based sanitation (PBS), contains selected probiotic bacteria, which are non-pathogenic and also present in the human gut and diet. A number of studies that applied PBS showed a massive decrease in pathogens on surfaces compared to using chemical-based sanitation, as well as a decrease in AMR genes, while presenting no risk to hospital patients. Furthermore, it led to a considerable decrease in costs related to HAIs. The PBS approach could open new perspectives in the fight against infections of bacterial, fungal and viral origin, including SARS‑CoV‑2.

Shifting the focus from human health to that of animals and the environment, Lene Lange, of BioEconomy Research & Advisory, explained that the gut microbiome is highly relevant for the agricultural industry, particularly in the breeding of pigs, chicken and fish. Harnessing it can give a better life to livestock with less inflammation and a lower mortality rate, and could reduce the use of antibiotics and thus the threat of AMR. Animal health can be improved by analysing the gut microbiome and producing feed with beneficial effects: probiotics (beneficial microbes) and prebiotics (fibre) are anti-inflammatory components that can be added to or released through fermentation of the feed, producing a cascade of good products that strengthen the gut flora. She recommended making these gut microbiome-improving animal feed additives a part of dietary requirements in industrial animal breeding.

The speaker also noted that the same concept as HAIs, mentioned above, can be applied to natural ecosystems: ‘undisturbed’ nature offers insight into a healthy balance of microbiomes in soils, and can inform biological measures to strengthen them and reduce pesticide use (crucial for halting biodiversity loss), improve nutrition efficiency, and mitigate climate change. Furthermore, estimates of emissions from permafrost melt can be made by monitoring the soil microbiome, and study of bacteria-rich wastewater can inform soil-improvement products and track the spread and development of AMRs. Dr Lange concluded by saying that microbiomes present a scientists’ dream pool for the discovery of new enzymes, recommending that their research would benefit from becoming more cross-sectorial with EU support and given a high priority.

Microbiomes could support a circular bio-economy, but currently face regulatory gaps

To elaborate on the crucial roles of microbiomes in maintaining life on Earth and their potential role in the economy, Angela Sessitsch from the Austrian Institute of Technology spoke about how these ‘tiny little things run the Earth and the circular economies’. Microbiomes are key for ecosystem function and can be considered a natural resource. In soils, they perform vital functions: contributing to growth and nutrient cycling by fixing nitrogen and methane, breaking down plant cells, and through fermentation, all reducing expensive fertiliser needs and greenhouse gas emissions. They have a variety of important environmental uses such as breaking down organic waste, toxic compounds and plastics, and they can improve sustainable food, feed and biofuel production. Specifically, agricultural management practices can favour microbiome conditions and thus improve food production.

These potential applications for better, more sustainable agriculture and recycling can contribute to a circular bio-economy, which has been acknowledged by several organisations including the World Economic Forum (WEF), the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), and microbiomes can substantially contribute to Sustainable Development Goals and EU Green Deal ambitions. Their many applications are also extremely promising for market growth in medical areas: they can generate economic value through products and therapies, diagnostics, predictions and personalised medicine and food. To best exploit microbiomes, the EU needs to increase awareness about them and integrate them into cross-sectorial policies.

Indeed, microbiomes are not yet regulated at the EU level. Marta Hugas from the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) spoke about the safety and regulatory challenges of microbiome innovations. One of EFSA’s core tasks is to assess risks to human, animal and environmental health from substances linked to food and feed production The increasing role of microbiomes in health calls for a prospective mapping of their various roles into regulatory assessment, with a view to understanding their potential health impact in the various hosts.

Legal requirements under EU food law do not specify that risk assessments account for microbiomes. There is currently also no internationally agreed guidance or methodology in place to systematically assess possible effects on the microbiomes, or caused by the microbiomes, on human, animal or plant health. Translating a decrease in microbiome diversity into a functional effect is challenging, as there are currently no standards for defining a healthy microbiome.

EFSA is currently working on integrating the new scientific information on microbiomes and clarifying how it can be applied. There are suspicions that differences between animal and human microbiomes could be the reason for the differences that sometimes exist between studies and clinical trials, which raises questions as to how to interpret toxicological studies. Further questions include determining criteria for when an effect becomes adverse and establishing causality between metabolic pathways and microbiota (i.e. if a disease is the cause or the effect of microbiome imbalance). Research does not usually focus on regulatory science. EFSA will therefore soon publish the research questions the EU and Member State levels need to address from a regulatory perspective, such as the link between microbiomes and diet/toxicology.

While the field of microbiomes holds genuine promise, it is also subject to hype. Challenges remain with regard to the standardisation of terms and protocols, and credible and well-tailored information is needed. These issues were addressed by Kathleen D’Hondt, from the Department of Economy, Science and Innovation of the Flemish Government. For example, many health claims ascribed to food products targeting the microbiome lack sufficient scientific substantiation and are merely associative, with no established causal pathway. For such a promising scientific field to lead to innovative applications, policies on science and innovation could be improved in several areas: (1) international research should be strengthened, with common access to a large interconnected data infrastructure; (2) standard protocols are required for clinical design and marker validation, as better characterisation of a healthy gut will be important for establishing disease biomarkers; (3) public-private collaboration could be reinforced; (4) the framework for evaluating health claims for new food products and new dietary approaches needs to be improved. Finally, (5) healthcare professionals and the public should be informed in a clearer and more understandable way.

In his closing remarks, Othmar Karas, Vice-President of the European Parliament (PPE, Austria) and STOA Panel member, noted how microbiomes dominate every aspect of our lives. Studying microbiomes and their effects opens a range of new possibilities in medicine, agriculture, the circular economy, waste decomposition, recycling, and sustainable energy generation. The last few years have seen a number of tools put forward such as the circular economy action plan, the Farm to Fork Strategy, and the EU4Health programme. Nevertheless, he concluded, a lack of EU regulation persists around microbiomes and these gaps must be filled: ‘Now we need to act’.

The full recording of the workshop is available here.

Written by Hendrik Mildebrath (1st edition).

© ra2 studio / Adobe Stock

Data is a key pillar of the European digital economy. To unlock its potential, the European Commission aims to build a market for personal and non-personal data that fully respects European rules and values. While the volume of data is expected to increase dramatically in the coming years, data re-use is hampered by low trust in data-sharing, conflicting economic incentives and technological obstacles. As the first of a set of measures announced in the European strategy for data, the Commission put forward its proposed data governance act on 25 November 2020. It aims at facilitating (largely) voluntary data sharing across the EU and between sectors by strengthening mechanisms that increase data availability and foster trust in intermediaries. It establishes three principle re-use mechanisms and a horizontal coordination and steering board. While there seems to be considerable support for data governance rules, the appropriate approach remains fundamentally disputed. Issues have been raised concerning, for instance, the ineffectiveness of labelling and registration regimes to foster trust and data re-use, the uncertain interplay with other legislative acts, the onerous rules on international data transfers and the vulnerability of certain mechanisms to commercial exploitation. The co-legislators, the European Parliament and Council, are in the process of assessing whether the Commission’s proposal presents an adequate response to the challenges identified and are working towards defining their respective positions.

Versions

• Data Governance Act (1st edition)

Proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on European data governance (Data Governance Act) Committee responsible: Industry, Research and Energy (ITRE) COM(2020) 767 25.11.2020 Rapporteur:

Angelika Niebler (EPP, Germany)

2016/0340(COD) Shadow rapporteurs: Miapetra Kumpula-Natri (S&D, Finland), Nicola Danti (Renew), Damian Boeselager (Greens/EFA, Germany), Elena Lizzi (ID, Italy), Dace Melbārde (ECR, Latvia), Maria Matias (The Left, Portugal) Ordinary legislative procedure (COD) (Parliament and Council on equal footing – formerly ‘co-decision’) Next steps expected: Committee vote

Written by Andrés García Higuera.

© VITO/EnergyVille

To assess the prospects of success for Europe’s Green Deal policies (most importantly, the transition to a carbon-neutral EU economy by 2050), it is necessary to address the evolving technological and behavioural trends and their impact on the implementation of the Green Deal.

With this in mind, the European Parliament’s Panel for the Future of Science and Technology (STOA) has published a new study exploring the options for decarbonising the iron and steel production processes, focusing on the use of renewable hydrogen as an alternative to fossil coal. This study was commissioned by STOA from VITO/EnergyVille, following STOA Panel approval of a proposal submitted by Panel member Tiemo Wölken (S&D, Germany). The study explains the basic physical and chemical differences between alternative processes, their cost structures and the potential for further cost reductions, as well as the larger implications and longer-term consequences of switching to hydrogen in this key industrial sector.

Steel is one of the most challenging sectors to decarbonise and has recently received special attention due to the potential use of low-carbon hydrogen to reduce fuel combustion and process-related carbon emissions in the industry. This study addresses concerns that might arise while evaluating the potential and limitations of the future role of hydrogen in decarbonising the iron and steel industries. The sector is one of the pillars of the European industry and job market, supporting approximately 2.7 million (direct and indirect) jobs. In 2019, the production of crude steel in Europe was 157 Mt, which accounted for 4 % of the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in Europe.

Investment decisions in the steel sector are challenging, since margins are tight and competition is fierce. The slowdown due to the pandemic has worsened the situation, resulting in a reduction in demand for steel products in 2020. In Europe alone, prices have fallen nearly 30 % since 2018. Furthermore, manufacturing sectors are now including carbon neutrality in their strategies, putting pressure on steel producers to embrace these commitments while remaining competitive and maintaining their place in the supply chain. In Europe, some blast furnaces are almost 25 years old, making them suitable candidates for technology replacement, while others have recently undergone refurbishments that entailed large investment. In the coming decades, this situation could open a window of opportunities to replace current assets with cleaner, novel technologies. Nevertheless, the decision to shift to a cleaner route is site-specific and will come at different times.

Currently, 60 % of steel produced in Europe originates from the integrated blast furnace/basic oxygen furnace route (BF/BOF), which emits around 1.9 tCO2/tsteel. Other routes, for instance, the natural-gas-based NG‑DRI and Scrap‑EAF generate lower emissions, with 1.4 tCO2/tsteel and 0.4 tCO2/tsteel, respectively. Of the total steel produced in Europe, 60 % (94 Mt) originates from the BF/BOF route and is more suitable for the hydrogen direct reduction route (H‑DRI). Estimates suggest that 94 Mt of ‘green steel’ would require approximately 37‑60 GW of electrolyser capacity, producing approximately 6.6 Mt of hydrogen per year.

By comparison, the EU hydrogen strategy aims at installing 40 GW of electrolyser capacity within the EU by 2030. The authors estimate that these electrolysers would consume approximately 296 TWh of green electricity per year; as a reference, Germany produced 176 TWh of green electricity in total in 2020. Several H‑DRI projects have been backed by iron and steel producers across Europe. The companies involved expect the technology to reach commercialisation at large capacities by 2035. This transition will create demand for low-carbon hydrogen (60‑80 kgH2/tsteel). This hydrogen could be supplied by installing electrolysers on-site, in which case the storage of hydrogen could guarantee an uninterrupted hydrogen supply. An alternative is the use of pipelines to link the hydrogen production sites with consumption locations. Both methods are challenging and the prevalence of one over the other depends strongly on the location of the steel plant and access to low-cost renewable energy.

This study was preceded by the STOA briefing ‘The potential of hydrogen for decarbonising steel production‘ and some of its results were presented at the STOA online workshop ‘Decarbonising European industry: hydrogen and other solutions‘ held on 1 March 2021. True to its mission of providing Parliament’s committees and other parliamentary bodies with independent, high-quality and scientifically impartial studies, STOA continues working on this strategic topic and exploring the potential of hydrogen for decarbonising other sectors of EU industry.

Read the full report to find out more.

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

Written by Anja Radjenovic.

© Riko Best / Adobe Stock

The number of people in the world that are forcibly displaced inside or outside their home country has risen significantly in recent years, as also showcased by the unprecedented arrival of refugees and irregular migrants in the EU since 2015. This highlights an urgent need to ensure organised, legal and safe pathways for protecting migrants who embark on dangerous journeys in an attempt to enter countries of destination irregularly, or find themselves in protracted refugee situations.

A potential solution is the community sponsorship scheme, understood as encompassing several different approaches for refugee admission to third countries other than countries of origin or transit. The concept includes a shared responsibility between civil society and the state when engaging in refugee admission efforts, by providing financial, emotional, social and/or settlement support to help newly arrived refugees integrate in a third country.

Community sponsorship for integration is particularly important in the EU, where local and national governments, alongside civil society, have been pondering how best to support newcomers and ease integration and social cohesion. Since 2015, the concept has been piloted and launched in several EU countries, including through the active input of regions and cities.

Read the complete briefing on ‘Community sponsorship schemes under the new pact on migration and asylum: Take-up by EU regions and cities‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Written by Gyorgyi Macsai and Giulio Sabbati (Members’ Research Service) with Igor Tkalec (GlobalStat, EUI).

The US-EU trading relationship is one of the biggest in the world, even though the overall value of traded goods dropped in 2020 in the pandemic. The EU and US economies account for about half the entire world’s GDP, and for nearly a third of world trade flows. The European Commission reported in 2016 that over 10 million European jobs depend on exports to the USA. This Infographic provides you with essential data on trade between the EU and US. This is a further updated edition of an infographic, the last edition of which was published in October 2019.

© European Union 2021, EPRS

Read this at a glance note on ‘US: Economic indicators and trade with EU‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

• EU exports and imports of services to US (2019)
• EU exports and imports of goods to US (2020)
• Top EU partners (2020)
• Main trade partners (2020)
• EU trade with US
• GINI Index (average 2010-2018, US and EU worst and best performers)
• US FDI composition by sector (2019)
• US portfolio investment assets (2017)
• FDI and remittances
• Public finances, monetary and financial data
• Total unemployment rate (% of total labour force) Female labour force participation rate (% of females aged 15-64)
• GDP per capita (€ thousands) Annual GDP growth (%)