European Parliamentary Research Service Blog

Written by Marketa Pape,

© enanuchit : Adobe Stock

International maritime transport is the backbone of the global economy. However, vessels release emissions that pollute the air and contribute significantly to global warming. As shipping is forecast to grow, reducing these emissions is urgent, in order not to undermine emissions-reducing efforts in other areas, to keep humans healthy, preserve the environment and limit climate change. Although international shipping was not explicitly mentioned in the 2015 Paris Climate Agreement, efforts to make shipping cleaner and greener have since progressed.

International rules to reduce air-polluting emissions from ships have been agreed in the International Maritime Organization (IMO). Their impact, in particular the application of stricter limits for sulphur content in marine fuels since 1 January 2020, is yet to be evaluated. Parallel efforts to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from maritime shipping have resulted in the setting of rules on collecting data on fuel oil consumption and the first collected data becoming available. In 2018, the IMO adopted an initial strategy for reducing GHG emissions, aimed at cutting shipping GHG emissions by at least 50 % by 2050, compared to 2008 levels. While concrete steps are yet to be agreed, achieving this goal will require both short-term emission-reducing measures and longer-term measures to make shipping switch to alternative fuels. Short-term guidance from the IMO is expected in 2020.

On the EU front, the European Commission announced in the European Green Deal that GHG from EU transport should be cut by 90 % by 2050 and outlined how this would involve shipping. Initial measures are to be proposed by the end of 2020.

This briefing reviews the existing international and EU rules on shipping emissions and their application, looks into the short-term measures under discussion and maps the landscape of marine fuels and technologies that could help decarbonise shipping in the long term.

Read the complete briefing on ‘Decarbonising maritime transport: The EU perspective‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Listen to policy podcast ‘Decarbonising maritime transport: The EU perspective’ on YouTube.

Written by Nikolina Šajn,

© Natalya Lys / Adobe Stock

Household consumption in the EU has major environmental impacts, which in a number of cases exceed planetary boundaries. Two thirds of consumers in the EU realise that their consumption habits have negative effects on the environment, and the solution that they mention most often is to change consumption habits and production patterns.

However, a number of studies have shown a gap between consumers’ good intentions and their actual behaviour. This happens because sustainability is not the only thing consumers consider when choosing what to buy; they are also influenced by price, availability and convenience, habits, values, social norms and peer pressure, emotional appeal, and the feeling of making a difference. Consumers also use their consumption patterns to communicate who they are to themselves and to others. Studies on the impacts of consumption show that these are influenced mainly by people’s income.

The European Union has a number of policies that are relevant for consumers’ sustainable choices. These include environmental product requirements, information and labelling requirements, rules on product guarantees, climate legislation that attempts to build the price of CO2 emissions into production expenses, and waste legislation that makes it easier to recycle. The European Commission now plans to add a legislative initiative to empower consumers for the green transition.

The European Parliament has long been a supporter of making consumption in the EU more sustainable, and has recently called for measures to ensure that consumers are provided with transparent, comparable and harmonised product information, especially when it comes to the durability and reparability of products and their environmental footprint.

Read the complete briefing on ‘Sustainable consumption: Helping consumers make eco-friendly choices‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Listen to policy podcast ‘Sustainable consumption: Helping consumers make eco-friendly choices’ on YouTube.

Written by Clare Ferguson,

© European Union 2019 – Source : EP/Michel CHRISTEN

Parliament’s second plenary session of November 2020 sees Members again able to speak in debates from the Parliament’s external offices in EU countries (and as has been the case since March, they can follow the debates and vote from home). The agenda naturally reflects the ongoing coronavirus situation, but also touches on other issues central to the Union that have been much in the headlines recently – the single market and media freedom. While it now seems unlikely that differences between Member States over the EU’s next long-term budget will be resolved in the coming days, if there were to be a break-through, Parliament would be ready to move quickly to add the rule of law conditionality and the long-term budget (multiannual financial framework) files to the agenda.

Everyone should have access to accurate and verified information, and a free, independent and sufficiently funded media is vital to democracy and upholding the rule of law. On Monday evening, Members are expected to debate the deteriorating media environment in Europe and what measures could best strengthen media freedom, protect journalists, and tackle hate speech and disinformation in the EU. Parliament’s Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (LIBE) has identified six main areas where EU action could make a difference in improving the situation. These include: ensuring robust media freedom and pluralism, and the political independence of the media; protecting (particularly investigative) journalists; tackling the distortive effects of an insecure financial environment on media ethics; and charting a course through the tension between justified freedom of expression and unjustified permissibility of hate speech, as well as disinformation. The committee proposes stronger monitoring, including checks on public funding of media, as well as increased measures against misinformation, particularly on the part of digital platforms. The Vice-President of the Commission/High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy (VP/HR) will also attend the session on Tuesday afternoon to make a statement on the fight against impunity for crimes committed against journalists around the world. The Council and Commission are also expected to make statements on Hungarian interference in the media in Slovenia and North Macedonia, on Wednesday afternoon.

The plans to achieve carbon neutrality by 2050 will demand an effort from every one of us. However, changing our production and consumption patterns requires a strong lead from the EU to make durability a focus of manufacturing processes. One way to achieve this is to help manufacturers to improve their products on one hand, and by enabling consumers to make sustainable choices and to repair and recycle more easily on the other. The first item on the agenda on Monday afternoon is a debate on an Internal Market (IMCO) Committee report on improving the sustainability of the single market for both business and consumers, suggesting that consumers could be encouraged to make better environmental choices by ensuring a ‘right to repair’, improving guarantees and promoting better product information. In a separate debate on Tuesday morning, Members will consider representative actions to protect the collective interests of consumers. Often known as ‘collective redress’, EU proposals seek to enable consumer organisations or independent public bodies to bring actions in the name of consumers to court, to end infringements of consumer legislation and to allow compensation. This legislative proposal now needs its second reading in Parliament, on the basis of the text agreed with Council in trilogue. A statement is also expected on Monday afternoon from the European Commission on the planned post‑2020 New Consumer Agenda.

In response to the coronavirus public health emergency in seven EU countries, as well as an earthquake in Croatia and flooding in Poland, Members will vote on draft amending budget 9/2020 during Monday evening’s voting session, which would mobilise a total of €823.5 million from the EU Solidarity Fund. To help people in the affected regions, Parliament’s BUDG committee stresses the urgency of releasing the funding quickly.

Partly due to the coronavirus crisis, violence against women has worsened in the EU. Parliament has consistently supported a strong stance on the issue, repeatedly calling for EU accession to the Istanbul Convention and for its ratification by those individual Member States that have not yet done so. On Wednesday morning, Members will hear a Commission statement on the Istanbul Convention, which sets legally binding standards on prevention of such violence. However, as things stand, Parliament will not be formally requested to consent to EU conclusion of the Convention until the European Court of Justice has delivered an opinion on the Convention’s compatibility with the Treaties.

Later on Monday evening, Members are expected to debate the foreign policy consequences of the Covid‑19 outbreak, following a short presentation of a Foreign Affairs (AFET) Committee report. The committee urges the EU to seize the opportunity to respond to the changes in the international landscape, following both the effects of the pandemic and the results of the recent United States election, to play a stronger role in rebuilding the multilateral order. The report suggests a new forum for liberal Western cooperation, emphasises the need for strategic autonomy, and presses for an EU global sanctions regime for human rights violations, among other proposals. Looking back to our own, European, elections of last year, on Tuesday morning Members are expected to vote on a Constitutional Affairs (AFCO) Committee report proposing to strengthen the electoral process. While turnout was higher in 2019, the report regrets that the results do not reflect the true diversity and gender balance in Europe’s population. It also raises possible improvements to the European electoral system, such as remote voting for citizens in specific circumstances; transnational lists; and the establishment of a European Electoral Authority, among other things. Furthermore, the report suggests a reflection on the Spitzenkandidaten process during the forthcoming Conference on the Future of Europe, and highlights the dangers of foreign interference in the run-up to elections.

On Tuesday afternoon, Members will hear a statement by the VP/HR on the geopolitical implications of the Abraham Accords, followed by a debate (held over from the November I session). Parliament has a long commitment to peace in the Middle East, and (despite Palestinian Authority and Palestinian factions’ concerns), has welcomed the United States-brokered normalisation of relations between Israel and the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain and Sudan.

Written by Monika Kiss,

© stnazkul / Adobe Stock

Statistics and research results show that in recent decades, before the coronavirus pandemic, the EU’s labour market witnessed an increase in female employment rates. Women’s employment seems to have been more resilient than men’s to the economic and financial crisis in 2008. This was due in part to long-term developments and changes in the institutional framework, but also to women’s tendency to work in particular sectors and accept flexible working arrangements (such as part-time work or teleworking).

The coronavirus crisis, however, has had a harsher impact on women than on men when it comes to the labour market. One of the main reasons is that men tend more to work in sectors considered as essential economic activities (with the exception of healthcare), whereas women’s work often involves contact with customers and clients, making teleworking impossible. Women have also been faced with increased childcare needs, reducing their ability to work, while enjoying a lower level of social protection owing to their working arrangements.

Although EU legislation takes account of the situation of women in the labour market, and a number of legislative and non-legislative initiatives have recently been taken at EU level, a number of challenges remain. Areas where action is required include: the harmonisation of retirement schemes, to take the specific nature of women’s careers into account; better reconciliation of work and family life by means of more flexible employment arrangements; and action to address the perennial gender pay gap.

Read the complete briefing on ‘Recent trends in female employment‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Listen to policy podcast ‘Recent trends in female employment’ on YouTube.

Written by Rosamund Shreeves and Martina Prpic,

© Artem Furman / Adobe Stock

Violence against women is a violation of human rights and a form of gender-based discrimination. Rooted in inequalities between men and women, it takes many forms. Estimates of the scale of the problem are alarming. Such violence has a major impact on victims and imposes a significant cost burden on society.

The instruments put in place by the United Nations and Council of Europe, including the latter’s ‘Istanbul Convention’, to which the EU plans to accede, are benchmarks in efforts to combat violence against women.

The EU is tackling the problem in various ways, but has no binding instrument designed specifically to protect women from violence.

Although there are similarities between national policies to combat violence against women, the Member States have adopted different approaches to the problem.

Parliament’s efforts have focused on strengthening EU policy in the area. Parliament has repeatedly called for a European Union strategy to counter violence against women, including a legally binding instrument.

Stakeholders have expressed a range of concerns, also regarding the impact of the coronavirus pandemic and the related need to expand and adapt support for victims, and have highlighted the need for a comprehensive EU political framework on eliminating violence against women. They have also launched new initiatives of their own.

This is a further update of an earlier briefing by Anna Dimitrova-Stull, of February 2014. The most recent previous edition was from November 2019.

Read the complete briefing on ‘Violence against women in the EU: State of play‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Written by Marcin Grajewski,

© Jon Anders Wiken / Adobe Stock

Joseph Biden, a former US Vice-President and long-time Senator with a strong interest in foreign affairs, won the US Presidential election for the Democrats, defeating the incumbent Republican President, Donald Trump. Over the past four years, Trump shook the established rules-based international order, notably by withdrawing US funding from various multilateral organisations and pulling out of various international agreements, by renegotiating trade deals, imposing provocative customs duties, and progressively reducing America’s foreign military presence. Although Trump has not yet conceded defeat, his allegations of election fraud and related attempts at litigation are widely seen as frivolous. Once Biden becomes President, the US is expected to seek to strengthen the Transatlantic alliance and revive the multilateral system, without necessarily being able to pursue any significant liberalisation of trade, given domestic political pressures and the ambiguous situation in the US Congress.

This note offers links to recent commentaries, studies and reports from major international think tanks on issues related to US elections and President Biden’s expected policies in a number of areas.

Biden’s win creates a new global trade challenge: Delivering results
European Centre for International Political Economy, November 2020

Trump spaltet, Biden versöhnt? wer so denkt, hat die usa nicht verstanden
Deutsche Gesellschaft für Auswärtige Politik, November 2020

What will President Biden’s United States look like to the rest of the world?
European Council on Foreign Relations, November 2020

Views from the capitals: What Biden’s victory means for Europe
European Council on Foreign Relations, November 2020

Western democracies united
European Council on Foreign Relations, November 2020

Why populism in Europe will survive Trump’s defeat
European Council on Foreign Relations, November 2020

Course correction in US-Iranian relations: A road map for the Biden administration
European Council on Foreign Relations, November 2020

What we have lost: Trump, Biden, and the meaning of transatlantic relations
European Council on Foreign Relations, November 2020

Anxious allies: European sovereignty after the US election
European Council on Foreign Relations, November 2020

With no landslide win for Biden, Beijing benefits
European Council on Foreign Relations, November 2020`

What are the laws governing military force during U.S. elections?
Council on Foreign Relations, October 2020

President-Elect Biden on foreign policy
Council on Foreign Relations, November 2020

One America, two nations
Council on Foreign Relations, November 2020

Postelection forecast: More polarization ahead
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, November 2020

A new direction?
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, November 2020

America under Biden won’t go soft on China
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, November 2020

Joe Biden’s election will mainly affect citizens in the Middle East and North Africa
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, November 2020

Europe’s high expectations for a U.S. President Joe Biden
Carnegie Europe, November 2020

Is the U.S. election a make or break for America?
Carnegie Europe, November 2020

Picking up the pieces: America after the 2020 election
Bertelsmann Stiftung, November 2020

L’élection de Biden-Harris: Un répit en vue de quoi?
Institut français des relations internationales, November 2020

Top 5 financial regulatory priorities for the Biden administration
Brookings Institution, November 2020

Recalibrating America’s role in the world under a Biden presidency
Brookings Institution, November 2020

A fitting legacy for George Floyd: Vice President Kamala Harris
Brookings Institution, November 2020

It’s not just Trump and Biden: State and local ballot measures could have a big impact on community recovery
Brookings Institution, October 2020

Whoever wins the US elections will need to save democratic capitalism through ‘new Bretton Woods’
Atlantic Council, October 2020

Joe Biden just won the presidency: What does that mean for America’s role in the world?
Atlantic Council, November 2020

Biden’s victory provides an ‘inflection point’ for American democracy
Atlantic Council, November 2020

How a President-elect Biden will confront climate change
Atlantic Council, November 2020

Europe and Biden’s America: Making European autonomy and a revamped transatlantic bond two sides of the same coin
Instituto Affari Internazionali, November 2020

Top 10 priorities for President Biden to tackle the climate crisis
World Recourses Institute, November 2020

After a hard election, the real work begins
Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, November 2020

The Biden administration must strongly advocate for working people
Aspen Institute, November 2020

In search of Biden doctrine
Foreign Policy Research Institute, November 2020

U.S. election 2020: America’s restlessness is a mark of its unique strength
Hudson Institute, November 2020

Americans choose their president: Europe must live with the consequences
Centre for European Reform, November 2020

No, State Legislatures aren’t going to override the popular vote on presidential electors
Cato, November 2020

United States: Leaders must put democracy above partisan interests
Freedom House, November 2020

How are countries reporting on the U.S. election?
German Marshall Fund, November 2020

U.S. Midterm elections: What the results mean
Chatham House, November 2020

US foreign policy priorities
Chatham House, October 2020

U.S.: Voters choose Biden as President
Human Right Watch, November 2020

Stalemate 2020
American Enterprise Institute, November 2020

What would a Biden presidency mean for US-EU trade relations?
Centre for European Reform, October 2020

Turning the tide: How to rescue transatlantic relations
EU Institute for Security Studies, October 2020

The first 100 days: Toward a more sustainable and values-based national security approach
Center for American Progress, October 2020

Stop saying Biden is ‘A lot like Trump’ on China
National Bureau on Economic Research, October 2020

Read this briefing on ‘U.S. Presidential election‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Written by Angelos Delivorias (1st edition),

A prospectus is a legally required document presenting information about a company and the securities that it offers to the public or seeks to admit to trading on a regulated market. The relevant EU legislation consists of a directive, adopted in 2003, amended in 2010, and finally replaced by a regulation in 2017. Drawing up a prospectus entails time and costs, which in the current economic context may deter issuers in distress from seeking to raise new funds, in particular equity. To remedy this, the Commission proposed to amend Regulation (EU) 2017/1129. These amendments aim at creating a temporary (18 month) regime for a short-form prospectus and to simplify the procedure for issuers (so that they can rapidly raise capital), as well as to release pressure on financial intermediaries.

The Council published its negotiating mandate on 16 October 2020. The European Parliament’s Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs (ECON) ‘is expected to vote on adoption of its report on 19 November 2020.

Complete version

• Prospectuses for investors – Simplifying equity-raising during the pandemic (1st edition)

Proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EU) 2017/1129 as regards the EU recovery prospectus and targeted adjustments for financial intermediaries to help the recovery from the Covid‑19 pandemic Committee responsible: Economic and Monetary Affairs (ECON) COM(2020) 281 final
24.7.2020 Rapporteur: Ondřej Kovařík (Renew, Czechia) 2020/0155(COD) Shadow rapporteurs: Sirpa Pietikäinen (EPP, Finland)
Alfred Sant (S&D, Malta)
Jörg Meuthen (ID, Germany)
Ernest Urtasun (Greens/EFA, Spain)
Eugen Jurzyca (ECR, Slovakia)
José Gusmão (GUE/NGL, Portugal) Ordinary legislative procedure (COD) (Parliament and Council on equal footing – formerly ‘co-decision’) Next steps expected: Adoption of report in committee

Written by Costica Dumbrava (1st edition),

© dechevm / Adobe Stock

In September 2020, the Commission put forward a new pact on migration and asylum, setting out a comprehensive approach to European Union (EU) migration policies that links external borders, asylum, return systems, the Schengen area of free movement and the external dimension of migration. The pact includes a proposal for a new regulation on the screening of third-country nationals at external borders aiming to clarify and streamline the rules on dealing with third-country nationals who are not authorised to enter or stay in the EU.

The proposal would introduce a pre-entry screening procedure allowing national authorities at external borders to channel irregular third-country nationals to the appropriate procedure, i.e. asylum or return procedures. The screening would start with preliminary health and vulnerability checks and finish with the transmission of a debriefing form to the appropriate authorities. The proposal would provide for the establishment, by each Member State, of an independent monitoring mechanism for fundamental rights.

Complete version

• Screening of third-country nationals at the EU external borders (1st edition)

Proposal for a regulation introducing a screening of third-country nationals at the external borders Committee responsible: Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (LIBE) COM(2020) 612
23.9.2020 Rapporteur: Birgit Sippel (S&D, Germany) 2020/0278 (COD) Shadow rapporteurs: Tineke Strik (Greens/EFA, The Netherlands) Ordinary legislative procedure (COD) (Parliament and Council on equal footing – formerly ‘co-decision’) Next steps expected: Initial discussions in committee

Written by Wouter van Ballegooij and Katharina Eisele,

© Adobe Stock

Fast-tracking procedures at European Union external borders for determining whether individuals are entitled to international protection is a priority in the proposed Pact on Migration and Asylum. Asylum procedures at the border are in fact not new in European Union policy.

What are the rules for asylum and international protection in the EU? EU Member States have committed to offering protection to those who have to leave their home country to seek safety from persecution or serious harm. Through the ‘Common European Asylum System’ (CEAS), the EU has developed legal and policy instruments for the management of asylum in the EU that apply from the moment someone has lodged an asylum application until the moment the application has been recognised or rejected upon appeal.

The CEAS includes common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection, laid down in the Asylum Procedures Directive (APD). Article 43 of the APD allows for border procedures: When applications for international protection are made at the border or in a transit zone of a Member State prior to a decision on the entry of the applicant, Member States can provide for admissibility and/or substantive examination procedures at these locations. Furthermore, the directive allows the possibility to apply border procedures in transit zones or in proximity of borders in the event of large numbers of arrivals.

Key findings of the EPRS European Implementation Assessment

A European Implementation Assessment, based on two external studies, concludes that uniform and fair asylum procedures at the European Union border have not been achieved to date. Why is this? While the failure is due to patchy implementation of EU law, it is also caused by lack of clarity in the underlying EU legal framework.

In terms of effectiveness, important differences remain between Member States with regard to the concept and scope of the EU border procedure, notably on restrictions of liberty and procedural guarantees. Furthermore, implementation is not properly monitored and enforced.

The systematic and extended use of (de facto) detention in the context of border procedures is not in line with the right to liberty. Procedural guarantees provided for in the APD are not, or only restrictively, applied in practice. Vulnerable applicants, including unaccompanied minors, continue to be subject to border procedures and held in detention facilities, raising questions as regards compliance with the rights of the child.

Short time limits to lodge and decide on appeals and the lack of suspensive effect of appeals in certain countries, raise concerns as to whether effective remedies are provided. The costs of border procedures are significant and probably disproportionate under the current circumstances, given that their objectives are not being achieved. Beyond administrative costs, border procedures entail significant human cost for the individuals affected by their application. In terms of coherence, the framework for border procedures under the APD is complex and unclear, in part due to the various cross-references to other provisions of the APD and the application of other CEAS instruments.

The way forward: recommendations

The European Implementation Assessment makes a number of recommendations to address these shortcomings in future legal and practical arrangements for border procedures:

• Importantly, access to asylum procedures should be ensured at all times and at all external borders of the European Union. EU law should further limit the applicability of the border procedure. The border procedure should only be used following an individual assessment of the circumstances of the case, including an examination of potential special reception and procedural needs.
• The asylum applications of (unaccompanied) children and asylum applicants with special (reception and/or procedural) needs should not be processed in a border procedure. Where EU authorities seek to return an individual to a non-EU country, the safety of such return is to be ensured.
• Adequate funding and training of border guards and appropriate time limits are needed, to ensure that the determining authority is able to gather all necessary information and can take a careful asylum decision. Member States need to collect and transmit statistics on the scope of their border procedure. Independent monitoring, through the creation of an EU asylum monitoring mechanism, should verify the quality of the decision-making process and its outcome, as well as detention conditions and compliance with procedural safeguards.
• Any use of detention, as well as restrictions of free movement, should be mandated by domestic law in compliance with EU legislation on reception conditions for asylum-seekers, and subjected to proportionality assessment in each case, taking alternatives into account. Border detention facilities must be adequate and ensure a dignified standard of living that guarantees subsistence and protects physical and mental health. A decision to detain an applicant or restrict her/his free movement should be subject to a speedy judicial review.
• During a border procedure, applicants for international protection should be entitled to free legal and linguistic assistance by qualified legal advisers and interpreters. Applicants should also be able to communicate with the outside world, in order to gather information about the asylum procedure and, to gather and submit evidence in support of their asylum claim.
• Finally, the time frame allowed should be sufficient to enable applicants to prepare and substantiate their asylum application and to make effective use of all procedural rights granted to them, including those during appeal.

Written by Ivana Katsarova,

The only parliament in the world to award a film prize, the European Parliament has been shining a spotlight on European cinema every year since 2007. This year the prize is gearing up to become a European Audience Film Award. Over the past 12 years, the LUX Film Prize has helped promote over 100 films, supporting the dissemination of European (co-)productions in a bid to overcome the language and distribution barriers faced by the European film industry. Prize-winners have gone on to be highly successful in the EU and beyond, making the LUX Film Prize a synonym for quality film-making.

Read this ‘at a glance’ on ‘LUX Prize 2.0: Pan-European Audience Film Award‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

 

Written by Katarzyna Sochacka and Clare Ferguson,

Copyright © European Union 2020 – Source : EP/DAINA LE LARDIC

During the first November 2020 plenary session, the main debate followed Council and Commission statements on the multiannual financial framework (including own resources), on a rule of law conditionality mechanism and the recovery fund for Europe, subsequent to the agreements recently reached by Parliament’s negotiators in trilogue negotiations. Members also discussed the outcome of the United States presidential elections, and condemned recent terror attacks following Council and Commission statements on fighting terrorism and the right to freedom of expression and education. Members also held debates on access to Covid‑19 vaccination and the impact of Covid‑19 emergency measures on democracy, fundamental rights and the rule of law.

EU general budget for 2021

Members discussed next year’s spending plans in anticipation of the formal adoption of the final agreement on the 2021‑2027 multiannual financial framework (MFF). Members debated and adopted, by large majority, amendments to the Commission’s proposed EU general budget for 2021, focusing on the effects of the coronavirus pandemic. Among other priorities for Europe’s recovery, Parliament voted to increase funding (by €15 billion compared to the Commission proposal) for 15 flagship programmes to support young people, the health sector and the European Green Deal. The 21-day conciliation period, during which Parliament and Council seek to reconcile their positions, now starts, with the aim of reaching agreement in time for Parliament to adopt the 2021 budget during the December plenary session.

EU4Health

Members debated the establishment of an important programme of EU health policy actions, known as EU4Health. Funded under Next Generation EU, the new programme should strengthen EU coordination on health matters, in line with Parliament’s position to place stronger focus on preventing disease, promoting health measures and reducing health inequality throughout the EU. Trilogue negotiations on the programme can now begin, as Members adopted Parliament’s position on the basis of the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety (ENVI) Committee report on financing the EU4Health programme 2021‑2027, by a significant majority.

Sustainable Europe Investment Plan

Members debated and adopted, by large majority, a joint Budget (BUDG) and Economic and Monetary Affairs (ECON) Committee report, welcoming the Sustainable Europe Investment Plan and supporting the mix of public and private funding, but also questioning whether the promised €1 trillion can indeed be mobilised by 2030, given the negative economic outlook. Parliament proposes changes to the current plans to take account of the role of trade policy, to measure the impacts of the support effectively, and to ensure that the ‘do no harm’ principle is respected.

EU-China Geographical Agreement

Members approved the EU-China agreement on cooperation on and protection of geographical indications by a significant majority. The agreement, protecting geographical indications for 100 products each from the EU and China, with a further 175 products to be protected within 4 years, can now be formally concluded by the Council. Parliament’s International Trade (INTA) Committee calls for strong implementation of the measures in the agreement, including deeper customs cooperation.

European network of public employment services

Members adopted, by a large majority, a report on revision of the European Network of Public Employment Services that would extend the agreement on cooperation among organisations supporting job-seekers to 31 December 2027. The report by Parliament’s Committee on Employment and Social Affairs (EMPL) highlights the benefits reaped by these organisations working together and proposes a revised focus for the network – to work towards preventing unemployment and increasing employability.

Baltic cod fisheries

Members approved proposals to support permanent cessation of fishing by fishermen affected by the closing of the eastern and western Baltic cod fisheries owing to the poor health of fish stocks in the Baltic Sea, as well as the related western Baltic herring fisheries. Under the agreement, financial support will be made available for crews and communities to remove fishing capacity permanently.

Senegal and Seychelles fisheries agreements

Parliament gave its consent to two EU fisheries agreements with Senegal and Seychelles. The first ever EU bilateral fisheries agreement, signed with Senegal in 1979, allows EU vessels to fish in Senegalese waters while also helping to support the development of a sustainable fisheries policy in the region. Members voted to consent to a new protocol to implement the agreement. Members also approved a new agreement with the Seychelles, the EU’s most financially significant tuna agreement, giving EU vessels access to fishing grounds in the western Indian Ocean, and confirming cooperation on sustainable fishing in the region.

Election of a Vice-President of the European Parliament

Members elected Roberta Metsola (EPP, Malta) as first Vice‑President, following Mairead McGuinness’s nomination as Commissioner for Financial Services, Financial Stability and Capital Markets Union. Replacing the President in the chamber, Vice-Presidents are responsible, as members of the Bureau, for financial, organisational and administrative decisions on Parliament’s functioning, and interinstitutional relations.

Opening of trilogue negotiations

Members confirmed four mandates for negotiations: from the Culture and Education (CULT) Committee on the proposal for a decision of the European Parliament and of the Council for the European Capitals of Culture for 2020‑2033; from the ECON committee on the proposal for a regulation laying down a general framework for securitisation and creating a specific framework for simple, transparent and standardised securitisation to help the recovery from the Covid‑19 pandemic, and on the proposal for a regulation as regards adjustments to the securitisation framework to support the economic recovery in response to the Covid‑19 pandemic; and jointly from BUDG and ECON committees on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a Recovery and Resilience Facility.

Read this ‘at a glance’ on ‘Plenary round-up – November I 2020‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

© Adobe Stock

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

The President of the European Parliament has recently received a large number of messages calling on the Parliament to condemn the hostilities between Armenia and Azerbaijan. Citizens first began to write to the President on this subject in September 2020, when violent clashes between both countries resumed over the disputed Nagorno-Karabakh region. In October, citizens renewed their call in reaction to the strikes on the Azerbaijani city of Ganja, and more broadly in view of the escalation of the conflict.

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

Main points made in the reply in English

The European Parliament and the Head of EU diplomacy, High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy/Vice-President of the Commission Josep Borrell held a plenary debate on the European Union reactions to the renewed escalation in violence between Armenia and Azerbaijan over the disputed Nagorno-Karabakh region on 7 October 2020.You can watch the video recording of the debate on the Multimedia Website (starting from 9:16:30 minutes).

In his statement, HR/VP Josep Borrell indicated that the current military confrontation along the line of contact in the Nagorno Karabakh conflict zone was of utmost concern for the EU. He also said: ‘Our position is clear: the fighting must stop. Both sides need to re-engage in meaningful negotiations (..). There can be no military solution to the conflict, nor external interference. This position was reinforced by the European Council held on the 1st and 2nd of October’.

Leading Members of the European Parliament have issued a joint statement on the military clashes in which they express great concern about the renewed escalation of violence on the line of contact and call on the authorities of Armenia and Azerbaijan to observe the ceasefire strictly.

The European Union has welcomed the humanitarian ceasefire agreement reached on 10 October between Armenia and Azerbaijan. HR/VP Josep Borrell deplored the strikes on the Azerbaijani city of Ganja resulting in civilian loss of life and serious injury.

HR/VP Josep Borrell has contacted the ministers of Foreign Affairs of Armenia and Azerbaijan and stressed the necessity to fully respect the agreed ceasefire without delay and to stop targeting of civilians. He confirmed that the EU remained ready to support the parties in a long-term solution to the conflict and will continue to monitor the situation.

The European Parliament has also held debates and adopted resolutions on the situation in Nagorno-Karabakh region in previous years.

In a 2018 recommendation on the negotiations on the EU-Azerbaijan Comprehensive Agreement, Parliament recommended, ‘to ensure that high priority is given to dialogue between Armenia and Azerbaijan and to enhanced EU participation in peacefully solving the Nagorno-Karabakh’.

In addition, Members of the European Parliament have addressed parliamentary questions on various issues concerning the situation in the region to the European Commission. In an answer of 31 August 2020 to a parliamentary question regarding the Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh, HR/VP Josep Borrell indicated on behalf of the European Commission: ‘The EU has urged both sides to stop the armed confrontation, refrain from action and rhetoric that provoke tension, and undertake immediate measures to prevent further escalation. (..) both sides should make use of their mechanism for direct communication. (..) The EU has encouraged all regional actors to support efforts toward de-escalation’.

Furthermore, we would like to draw your attention also to the efforts made by the European Parliament’s Delegation for relations with the South Caucasus, the homepage of which also contains numerous communications from the delegation and its chairs on recent developments in these countries.

Main points made in the reply in German

Das Plenum des Europäischen Parlaments und der Hohe Vertreter der Union und Vizepräsident der Kommission Josep Borrell debattierten am 7. Oktober 2020 über den Umgang der Europäischen Union mit der erneuten Eskalation des gewaltsamen Konflikts zwischen Armenien und Aserbaidschan um die umstrittene Region Bergkarabach. Die Videoaufzeichnung der Debatte finden Sie auf der Multimedia-Website des Parlaments (ab Minute 09:16:30).

In seiner Erklärung wies Josep Borrell darauf hin, dass die militärischen Auseinandersetzungen an der Kontaktlinie im Konfliktgebiet Bergkarabach der EU große Sorge bereiten. Er ließ auch wissen: „Unser Standpunkt ist klar: Die Kämpfe müssen aufhören. Beide Seiten müssen sich wieder an sinnvollen Verhandlungen beteiligen […]. Der Konflikt kann weder militärisch noch durch Einflussnahme von außen gelöst werden. Der Europäische Rat bestätigte diesen Standpunkt auf seiner Tagung vom 1. und 2. Oktober.“

In einer gemeinsamen Erklärung zu den militärischen Auseinandersetzungen äußern hochrangige Mitglieder des Europäischen Parlaments ihre große Besorgnis über die erneute Eskalation der Gewalt an der Kontaktlinie. Sie fordern Armenien und Aserbaidschan auf, die Waffenruhe strikt einzuhalten.

Zur Lage in Bergkarabach hat das Europäische Parlament auch in den vergangenen Jahren bereits Debatten geführt und Entschließungen angenommen.

In einer Empfehlung aus dem Jahr 2018 zu den Verhandlungen über das umfassende Abkommen zwischen der EU und Aserbaidschan trat das Parlament dafür ein, „dem Dialog zwischen Aserbaidschan und Armenien und der stärkeren Mitwirkung der EU an der friedlichen Beilegung des Konflikts um Bergkarabach […] oberste Priorität“ einzuräumen.

Darüber hinaus haben Mitglieder des Europäischen Parlaments parlamentarische Anfragen zu verschiedenen Aspekten der Lage in der Region an die Europäische Kommission gerichtet. In seiner Antwort vom 31. August 2020 auf eine parlamentarische Anfrage zum Konflikt zwischen Armenien und Aserbaidschan um Bergkarabach erklärte Josep Borrell im Namen der Europäischen Kommission: „Die EU hat beide Seiten nachdrücklich aufgefordert, die bewaffnete Auseinandersetzung zu beenden, von Handlungen und Worten abzusehen, die weitere Spannungen hervorrufen können, und umgehend Maßnahmen zu ergreifen, damit die Lage nicht weiter eskaliert.“ Beide Seiten sollten außerdem direkten Kontakt miteinander aufnehmen, und die EU habe „alle regionalen Akteure ermuntert, die Bemühungen um eine Deeskalation zu unterstützen.“

Hinweisen möchten wir Sie auch auf die Bemühungen der Delegation des Europäischen Parlaments für die Beziehungen zum Südkaukasus. Auf ihrer Website finden Sie zahlreiche Mitteilungen der Delegation und ihrer Vorsitzenden zu den aktuellsten Entwicklungen in den betroffenen Ländern.

Main points made in the reply in Italian

Il 7 ottobre 2020 il Parlamento europeo e l’Alto rappresentante/Vicepresidente Josep Borrell hanno tenuto un dibattito in plenaria sulle reazioni dell’Unione europea alla nuova escalation di violenza tra Armenia e Azerbaigian nella regione contesa del Nagorno-Karabakh. È possibile guardare la videoregistrazione del dibattito sul sito Multimedia Centre del Parlamento (a partire dal munito 9:16:30).

Nella sua dichiarazione, Josep Borrell ha affermato che l’attuale scontro militare lungo la linea di contatto nella zona di conflitto del Nagorno Karabakh è causa di profonda preoccupazione per l’UE. Ha inoltre aggiunto: “La nostra posizione è chiara: i combattimenti devono fermarsi. Entrambe le parti devono riprendere negoziati significativi (…). Non ci può essere alcuna soluzione militare al conflitto né alcuna interferenza esterna. Questa posizione è stata rafforzata dal Consiglio europeo del 1° e del 2 ottobre”.

Alcuni deputati di spicco al Parlamento europeo hanno rilasciato una dichiarazione congiunta sugli scontri armati, in cui esprimono grande preoccupazione per la rinnovata escalation di violenza sulla linea di contatto e invitano le autorità di Armenia e Azerbaigian a rispettare rigorosamente il cessate il fuoco.

Negli anni scorsi il Parlamento europeo ha inoltre tenuto dibattiti e approvato risoluzioni sulla situazione nella regione del Nagorno-Karabakh.

In una raccomandazione del 2018 sui negoziati relativi all’accordo globale tra l’UE e l’Azerbaigian, il Parlamento ha raccomandato “di garantire che sia attribuita un’elevata priorità al dialogo tra l’Azerbaigian e l’Armenia e alla partecipazione rafforzata dell’UE alla risoluzione pacifica del conflitto del Nagorno-Karabakh”.

I deputati al Parlamento europeo hanno inoltre rivolto alla Commissione europea interrogazioni parlamentari riguardanti varie questioni relative alla situazione nella regione. Nella risposta del 31 agosto 2020 a un’interrogazione parlamentare sul conflitto tra l’Armenia e l’Azerbaigian nel Nagorno-Karabakh, l’Alto rappresentante/Vicepresidente Josep Borrell ha dichiarato a nome della Commissione europea: “L’UE ha esortato entrambe le parti a porre fine allo scontro armato, ad astenersi da azioni o retorica che provochino tensione e ad adottare misure immediate per evitare un’ulteriore escalation. (…) entrambe le parti dovrebbero utilizzare il meccanismo di comunicazione diretta. (…) L’UE invita tutti gli attori della regione a sostenere gli sforzi a favore della distensione”.

Inoltre, desideriamo richiamare la Sua attenzione anche sugli sforzi realizzati dalla delegazione per le relazioni con il Caucaso meridionale del Parlamento europeo, la cui pagina iniziale contiene anche numerose comunicazioni elaborate dalla delegazione e dai suoi presidenti sui recenti sviluppi nei paesi interessati.

Written by Danièle Réchard,

© Adobe Stock

The European Strategy and Policy Analysis System (ESPAS) – the strategic foresight network of the European Union institutions – offers a valuable ‘free space’ in which to conduct a genuine continental, and potentially global, conversation about where the world is heading over the medium to long run. It was initiated by the European Parliament almost a decade ago in order to help promote a serious discussion of this kind.

The third ESPAS Global Trends Report, Global Trends to 2030: Challenges and Choices for Europe, as published in April 2019. Transposing into the European context the kind of strategic foresight analysis undertaken in the United States by the National Intelligence Council (NIC) on global trends since the end of the 1990s, it aims to sketch the global and longer-term backdrop against which Europeans will seek to shape their future. The coronavirus pandemic broke out less than a year later.

At the moment, as Bruno Tertrais has put it, ‘we’re still at the stage in which everyone sees their views and assumptions as being confirmed by the corona crisis. This is true in the West and East, on the left and on the right’. This is understandable and projections based on reliable data are still scarce. The time-horizon of analysis generally does not go beyond 2022-23 (for example, the IMF and OECD Economic Outlooks). So the starting-point of any reflection is uncertain: What is the true death toll of the pandemic? How serious will the second wave be, and will there be a third? Which of the (possibly already) observable economic, societal, political and geopolitical consequences of the crisis will have a serious and long-lasting impact? Many strategic foresight teams, for example at the Atlantic Council, have nevertheless started to draw up ‘post Covid-19 scenarios’, which have been usefully listed by the OECD.

This paper aims to help distinguish the ‘signal’ from the ‘noise’. It provides a rolling review of the ‘inflections’ to the mega-trends – or at least of their perception among a wide array of global thinkers – that were identified in the 2019 ESPAS Global Trends Report. It follows the distinction used in the ESPAS report between ‘mega-trends’, ‘catalysts’ and ‘game-changers’ and stresses their inter-linkages.

Once we have taken enough steps back and gathered solid data and expertise, we will possibly be able to produce a new narrative about our future. This will most likely involve a ‘reshuffling’ of the trends. In particular, two ‘meta-trends’ might be singled out that transversally permeate all other trends and indeed all aspects of human life: technological innovation and inequality.

Read the complete briefing on ‘Global mega-trends: Scanning the post-coronavirus horizon‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Written by Krisztina Binder,

© donvictori0 / Adobe Stock

In 2017, the European Union–Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) dialogue partnership celebrated its 40th anniversary. The same year saw the 50th anniversary of the founding of ASEAN. The ASEAN region is currently the world’s fifth largest economy, a dynamic economic area home to more than 660 million consumers.

To ensure better access to opportunities in the region’s market, the European Union (EU) started negotiations with ASEAN for a region-to-region free trade agreement (FTA) in 2007. After negotiations were suspended in 2009, the EU decided to pursue bilateral trade agreements with the individual ASEAN member states. To date, six have begun talks on bilateral FTAs with the EU: Singapore and Malaysia in 2010; Vietnam in 2012; Thailand in 2013; the Philippines in 2015; and Indonesia in 2016. Negotiations have already been concluded and FTAs entered into force with two of these countries, Singapore and Vietnam, in November 2019 and August 2020, respectively. Negotiations are under way with Indonesia, while talks are currently on hold with Malaysia, the Philippines and Thailand.

In the longer term, these bilateral FTAs would allow the establishment of a region-to-region FTA, which remains the EU’s ultimate ambition. By bringing together two of the world’s largest economic areas, the agreement would establish a free trade area with a combined market of more than 1 billion people.

It is in the EU’s interest to strengthen its economic cooperation with ASEAN, in order to maintain its competitive position in this dynamically developing region. Closer trade and investment relations could also pave the way towards the EU’s goal of a strategic partnership between the two regional blocs, encompassing political as well as economic cooperation.

Read the complete briefing on ‘Trade negotiations between the EU and ASEAN member states‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Written by Christiaan Van Lierop,

© darioracane / Adobe Stock

Established in 1990, the first European territorial cooperation initiative, Interreg I, focused on cross-border cooperation. Action in this area has expanded over the years to cover broader initiatives such as trans-national cooperation, involving countries from wider geographical areas, and inter-regional cooperation, which brings together regions from across the whole EU. These three strands together make up European territorial cooperation (ETC), which is one of the two main goals of cohesion policy today and which is celebrating its 30th anniversary this year.

With the removal of many of Europe’s frontier posts, travelling freely across borders has become second nature for millions of EU citizens. European territorial cooperation has brought Europeans closer together, strengthened connectivity and improved the natural environment, supported by EU mechanisms such as the European groupings of territorial cooperation, and macro-regional strategies. Yet despite these achievements, numerous obstacles to closer cooperation still remain, such as divergent national rules in the areas of employment, healthcare and social security. Recent years have witnessed increased calls to address these hurdles, with the 2015 Luxembourg EU Presidency launching discussions on a new instrument for cross-border projects, leading to the 2018 European Commission proposal for a cross-border mechanism, and the Commission rolling out initiatives such as the cross-border review and the b-solutions project, which aims to identify and find solutions to remaining bottlenecks, helping to boost growth and cohesion in EU border regions.

With negotiations under way on post-2020 cohesion policy, there is broad agreement among many stakeholders on the importance of strengthening Interreg beyond 2020. Yet the budget for ETC has been significantly reduced under the current Interreg proposals despite the many achievements of this policy, not least in recent months during which cross-border cooperation has provided a lifeline for many border regions. The coronavirus pandemic has revealed that territorial cooperation arguably needs protecting more than ever, with the sudden closure of EU internal borders a stark reminder that European territorial cooperation cannot be taken for granted.

This is a further updated edition of a briefing from March 2018.

Read the complete briefing on ‘Thirty years of European territorial cooperation‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Written by Marcin Szczepański,

© alotofpeople / Adobe Stock

Article 107(3)(b) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union provides for the possibility of approving state aid for ‘important projects of common European interest’ (IPCEIs). These provisions have been used very rarely until recently. A specific framework enabling the creation of IPCEIs, originally only in the areas of research, development and innovation, and environmental protection has been in place for 15 years, yet only four such projects have been notified to and assessed by the Commission so far. The first two – in the area of infrastructure – were partially annulled by the Court of Justice, and the Commission opened in-depth investigations to examine their compatibility with State aid. One of those concluded that the aid was legal, the other is ongoing.

The next two were launched successfully in the areas of strategic value chains for microelectronics and batteries. After this rather modest start, there seems to be strong momentum to create more IPCEIs, including in the context of the debate on how to foster the emergence of ‘European champions’. The marked political shift towards greater technological sovereignty and strategic autonomy within the EU has been given further impetus with the outbreak of the coronavirus pandemic, which disrupted global value chains and highlighted the case for a more self-sufficient EU model. IPCEIs may be useful tools for creating complex new value chains that have the potential to ensure the EU’s long-term competitiveness and economic growth.

A growing number of governments, experts and organisations have been calling for the simplification of current rules to make IPCEIs more frequently and widely used. The European Parliament would also like to see the requirements for the IPCEIs streamlined to allow smaller industrial research projects also to acquire IPCEI status. In its 2021 work programme, the European Commission announced the revision of the current IPCEI framework planned for the fourth quarter of the year.

Read the complete briefing on ‘Important projects of common European interest: Boosting EU strategic value chains‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Written by Stefano Spinaci (1st edition),

© rukanoga / Adobe Stock

On 28 May 2020, the European Commission adopted a proposal for a regulation on a Technical Support Instrument that would provide Member States with technical support to strengthen their institutional and administrative capacity in designing and implementing reforms. In the context of the ‘Next Generation EU’ recovery plan, it would support them to prepare and implement recovery and resilience plans, and make reforms and investments related to the green and digital transitions.

Modelled on an instrument proposed by the Commission in 2018, the Technical Support Instrument would replace the Structural Reform Support Programme that has helped implement over 1 000 reform projects in the Member States since 2017. Under the current Commission proposal, a budget of €864.4 million has been set aside for the instrument over the 2021-2027 period (by contrast, the Structural Reform Support Programme has a budget of €222.8 million for 2017-2020).

The Council of the EU agreed its position on 22 July 2020. At the European Parliament, the Committee on Budgets (BUDG) and the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs (ECON) are working jointly on this file under Rule 58 of the Parliament’s Rules of Procedure. On 1 October 2020, the joint committee adopted its final report and decided to enter into interinstitutional negotiations. The Parliament confirmed the decision in its first October plenary session.

Versions

• November 2020:  ‘Technical Support Instrument‘ (1st edition)

Proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a Technical Support Instrument Committee responsible:

Budgets (BUDG) and Economic and Monetary Affairs (ECON) (jointly under Rule 58)

COM(2020) 409
28.5.2020 2020/0103(COD) Shadow rapporteurs: Othmar Karas (EPP, Austria)

Dragoș Pîslaru (RE, Romania)

Alexandra Geese (Greens/EFA, Germany) Ordinary legislative procedure (COD) (Parliament and Council on equal footing – formerly ‘co-decision’) Next steps expected: Trilogue negotiations

Written by Martin Russell,

Economical and versatile, palm oil has become the world’s most widely used vegetable oil. Although palm oil can be produced sustainably, rising consumption increases the risk of tropical rainforests being cut down to make way for plantations. Deforestation threatens biodiversity and causes greenhouse gas emissions. In view of this, the EU has revised its biofuels policy to phase out palm oil-based biodiesel by 2030.

Palm oil: A vital commodity

© photomagically / Fotolia

Oil palm trees are native to West Africa, but were introduced to tropical regions of south-east Asia and Latin America in the late 19th century. Oil extracted from the fruit was traditionally used in Africa for cooking, but has now found a wider range of uses: as a substitute for animal fats such as butter in baked products, soaps and cosmetics, or as a feedstock for biodiesel. Around half of packaged products in supermarkets contain palm oil. Although not particularly healthy (it contains higher levels of saturated fats than most other vegetable oils), palm oil has many advantages. Compared to soybean, it requires only one-tenth as much land, one-seventh as much fertiliser, one-fourteenth as much pesticide and one-sixth of the energy to produce the same quantity of oil, and is therefore very cheap. In addition, palm oil is highly resistant to oxidation, making it suitable for frying and giving it a long shelf life. As a result, consumption of palm oil has doubled over the past 15 years to nearly 8 kg per inhabitant of the globe, and shows no signs of slowing down. Until the 1960s, oil palms were mainly grown in Africa, but since then production has shifted to south-east Asia: according to FAO statistics, Indonesia (42 % of global output) and Malaysia (36 %) are the leading producers, followed by Thailand (5.6 %), Nigeria (2.9 %), Colombia (2.2 %) and Ecuador (1 %).

The economic and social impact of palm oil

Palm oil is the main agricultural export of Indonesia and Malaysia, generating 8.8 % and 3.4 % respectively of their exports in 2019. It is claimed that the sector provides direct employment for nearly 1 million in Malaysia and 4 million in Indonesia, often in remote rural areas where alternative employment is scarce. However, not all have benefited; in Indonesia, indigenous communities often lack legal documents certifying their ownership of land, and there are many legal conflicts between oil palm companies granted government concessions in forested areas, and the people who have used the land for centuries. In some cases, this has led to local people losing access to land and resources. As a result of such problems, one survey found that many villages in Indonesian Borneo were strongly opposed to palm oil companies. There are also serious concerns about abusive labour conditions on some plantations.

The environmental impact of palm oil

Deforestation is the main reason why palm oil is controversial. Booming production means that more land is needed for new plantations. This does not necessarily result in forest-clearing, as oil palms can be planted on degraded land or land previously used for other crops. However, scientific studies cited by the European Commission in 2019 suggest that 45 % of the land area covered by new plantations is on formerly forested land, a much higher share than for other oilseed crops such as soybean (8 %), and that between 2008 and 2011 palm oil caused 4 300 km2 of deforestation worldwide. A second study from 2019 points to oil palm plantations as the single biggest cause of deforestation in Indonesia, accounting for nearly a quarter of permanent forest-clearing in the country between 2001 and 2016.

Deforestation is a major concern for several reasons. Compared to rainforests, oil palm plantations support only one quarter as many animal species. By eating into the habitats of the orang-utan and Sumatran tiger (both critically endangered species) as well as numerous smaller animals, they threaten biodiversity. At the same time, oil palms have less than 20 % as much above-ground biomass as rainforest trees, and a correspondingly lower capacity to absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.

This is an update of an ‘At a glance’ note of February 2018.

Greenhouse gas emissions go up when oil palms are planted on carbon-rich peaty soil – which is the case for around one-fifth of new plantations. Draining such soils, which is necessary for the oil palms to grow, exposes the peat to oxygen, causing it to decompose and release huge quantities of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere over many years. Peat drainage in south-east Asia is estimated to cause the equivalent of 2 % of global fossil fuel CO2 emissions. Fires on dried-out peat, which are very hard to put out, release thick clouds of choking smoke in the atmosphere. In Indonesia, around one-fifth of such fires are directly linked to palm oil.

Some of Indonesia’s worst fires to date were in 2015. For several weeks, Indonesia became the world’s biggest greenhouse gas emitter, as fires destroyed an area almost the size of Belgium. Choking haze spread as far as Singapore, costing the Indonesian economy at least US$16 billion and causing up to 100 000 premature deaths.

Efforts by producers to make palm oil more sustainable

As the world’s largest producer of palm oil and one of the countries worst affected by deforestation, Indonesia has taken several steps to make palm oil more sustainable. Since 2011, Jakarta has stopped issuing new concessions for clearing forests in primary (i.e. old-growth) forests and on peatland; moreover, since the peak fire year of 2015, concession-holders are required to protect and rehabilitate peatland areas. Despite this, the country lost over 10 000 km2 of forests a year between 2017 and 2019, partly due to oil palm cultivation. The good news is that this is still less than half the record deforestation rate of 24 000 km2 in 2016. Deforestation has also slowed down in neighbouring Malaysia, the other main producer, which has a long-standing commitment to keep at least half of its land area under natural forest cover.

Several certification schemes for sustainable palm oil exist, of which the most widely used is that of the international Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO). To be RSPO-certified, palm oil must not come from land that has been cleared by fire or by destroying primary forest. Moreover, since November 2018, the scheme excludes new plantations on peat soil. Opinions on the RSPO are divided: the World Wildlife Fund sees the scheme as an ‘essential tool’ in the drive to ensure that palm oil does not cause deforestation; on the other hand, Greenpeace claims that RSPO standards are not strict enough and that in any case not all participants in the scheme meet their commitments. Besides, less than one-fifth (19 %) of global palm oil production is certified by the RSPO as sustainable.

The EU and palm oil

Several European countries (including France, Germany, Italy and Norway), as well as numerous multinational companies, have already committed to only buying sustainably produced palm oil. In 2016, 69 % of EU palm oil imports were RSPO-certified. At present, there is no EU-level requirement for sustainability, but this could change soon; as part of its ‘Green Deal’, the EU is planning an impact assessment of regulatory and non-regulatory options to promote deforestation-free imports of commodities such as palm oil.

In a bid to curb greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuels, in 2009 the EU’s Renewable Energy Directive set a target of 10 % of transport fuels in Member States to come from renewable sources by 2020. To help meet this goal, nearly two-thirds of the EU palm oil imports are used as biodiesel feedstock. However, studies show that when forests are cleared for plantations, palm oil-based biodiesel actually causes more greenhouse gas emissions than fossil fuels. In response to such concerns, the EU amended its Renewable Energy Directive in 2018. As a result, though biofuels from crops such as palm oil that carry a high risk of deforestation will not be banned, they will no longer count towards the 10 % target from 2030 on.

Apart from these sustainability concerns, the EU also complains that subsidies and tax breaks give Indonesian producers of palm oil-based biodiesel an unfair advantage over their European competitors. To compensate for this, in 2019 the EU imposed countervailing duties on Indonesian biodiesel.

Indonesia and Malaysia have responded sharply to what they see as unfair EU restrictions. In December 2019, Indonesia filed a dispute with the World Trade Organization, arguing that the amended Renewable Energy Directive is discriminatory, and Malaysia plans to do likewise. Palm oil-related tensions stand in the way of an EU-Malaysia trade deal, perhaps also of closer EU relations with south-east Asia as a whole.

The European Parliament has expressed concerns about palm oil as a cause of deforestation, for example in its resolutions of April 2017 on palm oil and deforestation, and of September 2020 on the EU’s role in protecting the world’s forests. The latter calls for a binding ‘legal framework based on due diligence, in order to ensure sustainable and deforestation-free supply chains for products … on the EU market’.

Read this ‘at a glance’ on ‘Palm oil: Economic and environmental impacts‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Written by Clare Ferguson.

The first item on Parliament’s agenda for the November I session, now that the outcome of the US presidential elections is clear, is to take stock of the results, which are likely to have considerable impact on political and trade relations worldwide.

However, before turning to external policy, and in anticipation of a final agreement on the 2021‑2027 multiannual financial framework (MFF), Members will discuss next year’s spending plans in anticipation of the overall framework being formally adopted. On Wednesday afternoon, therefore, Members will debate amendments to the Commission’s proposed EU general budget for 2021, with particular focus on the effects of the coronavirus pandemic. While Council has proposed considerable reductions, Parliament’s Committee on Budgets (BUDG) has tabled a report which reverses many of the cuts and proposes increased spending on programmes linked to Next Generation EU (NGEU) funding, the European Green Deal, and education and employment, among other priorities for Europe’s recovery.

However, the coronavirus crisis has also had an effect on NGEU itself, with doubts raised that the funding available under the Sustainable Europe Investment Plan is sufficient to successfully execute the European Green Deal under current conditions. The need to improve climate-related aspects of the agreement on future EU spending is an important aspect of Parliament’s criticism of the European Council’s agreement on the next MFF. Specifically, Members will debate a report on Wednesday afternoon, adopted jointly by the BUDG and Economic and Monetary Affairs (ECON) Committees that, although welcoming the plan and supporting the mix of public and private funding, questions whether the promised €1 trillion can indeed be mobilised by 2030, given the negative economic outlook. Parliament’s committees propose changes to the current plans to take account of the role of trade policy, to measure the impacts effectively, and to ensure that the ‘do no harm’ principle is respected.

The Covid‑19 pandemic has also highlighted that disease recognises no borders, and led to calls for greater coordination of health matters in the EU. On Thursday morning, Members will debate the establishment of an important programme of EU health policy actions, known as EU4Health. With funding proposed under NGEU, the new programme would strengthen EU coordination on health matters, in line with Parliament’s position to place stronger focus on preventing disease, promoting health measures and reducing health inequality throughout the EU. Parliament’s Environment, Public Health and Food Safety (ENVI) Committee has put forward a report that supports the proposed EU measures, particularly to fight cancer, as well as suggesting that an EU-wide steering group of public health experts is set up to oversee implementation.

A crucial part of the economic recovery will involve getting people back into work. On Wednesday evening, Members will vote on formal adoption of a decision on the way forward for the EU network of Public Employment Services (the organisations that support job-seekers) in the EU. The report by Parliament’s Committee on Employment and Social Affairs (EMPL) highlights the benefits reaped by these organisations working together to improve support for those searching for employment. The report proposes a revised focus for the network – to work towards preventing unemployment and increasing employability, especially by encouraging the improvement of digital skills in the EU workforce.

Maintaining a level playing field in trade relations is important to securing employment levels in an economy. In a joint debate on Thursday afternoon, Members will discuss an International Trade (INTA) Committee report on the EU-China agreement on cooperation on and protection of geographical indications. These quality denominations are an important aspect of trade agreements, protecting producers against counterfeiting. The proposed agreement protects geographical indications for 100 products each from the EU and China. The INTA committee report calls for strong implementation of the measures agreed, including deeper customs cooperation.

Turning to a key EU environmental policy, Members consider several issues regarding prudent management of fishing stocks during this session. On Wednesday evening, Members will vote on formal adoption of a provisional agreement to provide financial support for the crew and communities affected by the poor health of cod stocks in the Baltic Sea, including over 300 fishing vessels in Lithuania, Latvia and Poland, Denmark and Germany. As the fisheries will have to close permanently, and there is no capacity for vessels to convert to target other under-pressure species, financial support under the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) will be necessary to cope with the major reduction in fishing opportunities. Parliament’s Committee on Fisheries (PECH) has approved the proposal to close the eastern and western Baltic cod fisheries as well as western Baltic herring fisheries.

The first ever EU bilateral fisheries agreement, signed with Senegal in 1979, has allowed EU vessels to fish in Senegalese waters while also helping to support the development of a sustainable fisheries policy in the region. Following a joint debate on Thursday morning, Members will vote on consent to a new protocol to implement the agreement. Parliament’s PECH committee has recommended that consent be granted, and indicates some priorities for modernising fishing control, to help Senegal fight illegal fishing. In the case of the Seychelles, the EU’s most financially significant tuna agreement, Parliament will also consider on Thursday morning, whether to consent to a new agreement providing access to fishing grounds in the western Indian Ocean, and cementing cooperation on sustainable fishing in the region. Parliament’s PECH committee calls for better implementation of sustainability measures, particularly in view of the overfishing of yellowfin tuna in the region. More generally, the PECH committee criticises the provisional application of international agreements prior to Parliament giving its consent.

Parliament stands by its long-term commitment to a comprehensive and lasting peace in the Middle East, including a negotiated and viable two-state solution to end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The EU has recently welcomed the normalising of relations between Israel and the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain and Sudan, known as the ‘Abraham Accords’. Brokered by the United States, the Palestinian Authority and all Palestinian factions have nevertheless denounced the agreements. On Wednesday afternoon, the Vice-President of the Commission/High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy will make a statement before Parliament on the geopolitical implications of the Abraham Accords in the region.

Finally, following Mairead McGuinness’s nomination as Commissioner for Financial Services, Financial Stability and Capital Markets Union, Members will take part in the election of her replacement as first Vice-President of the European Parliament on Thursday morning. The Vice-Presidents replace the President in the chamber and are responsible, as members of the Bureau, for financial, organisational and administrative decisions on Parliament’s functioning, as well as interinstitutional relations.

Written by Marcin Grajewski,

© ronniechua / Adobe Stock

As the United States has been choosing its President, an explosion of cases in a second wave of the coronavirus pandemic has forced many governments in Europe to reintroduce strict confinement measures, including new lockdowns, curfews, bans on meetings and the closure of many businesses, notably in the hospitality and tourism sectors. The moves are meant to act as a firebreak on the exponential growth in Covid-19 infections and prevent health sectors in many countries from becoming overloaded. Whatever happens next, economies will contract this year in the great majority of countries around the world, even if in varying degrees, with significant social and political implications.

This note offers links to recent commentaries, studies and reports from major international think tanks on pandemic related issues. Earlier think tank studies on the issue can be found in the ‘What Think Tanks are Thinking’ of 23 October.

Preserving development cooperation during Covid-19 times
Friends of Europe, October 2020

Pandemic is a wake-up call for mental healthcare reform in Europe
Friends of Europe, October 2020

The pandemic and the economic crisis: What lies ahead for the Western model?
Friends of Europe, November 2020

The challenge for Spain to use the EU’s pandemic recovery fund wisely
Centre international de formation européenne, November 2020

Crise du covid et lutte contre le changement climatique
Centre international de formation européenne, November 2020

Tracking the mounting challenges among those who have lost their jobs
Brookings Institution, November 2020

As the pandemic rages on, it’s time for NATO to step up
German Marshall Fund, November 2020

As Covid-19 cases surge, the country’s economic recovery is losing steam
Brookings Institution, October 2020

Will Americans trust a Covid-19 vaccine? Not if politicians tell them to
Brookings Institution, October 2020

What Covid-19 has cost the climate
Brookings Institution, October 2020

Can public education return to normal after the Covid-19 pandemic?
Brookings Institution, October 2020

NATO’s response to Covid-19: Lessons for resilience and readiness
Brookings Institution, October 2020

Fighting Covid misinformation
German Marshall Fund, October 2020

European Union recovery funds: Strings attached, but not tied up in knots
Bruegel, October 2020

The pandemic will structurally change the global economy more than we think
Bruegel, October 2020

What role for the European Semester in the recovery plan?
Bruegel, October 2020

Crise du Covid et lutte contre le changement climatique
Centre international de formation européenne, October 2020

Brexit and Covid-19 are a toxic mix
Centre for European Reform, October 2020

Will the Coronavirus pandemic deliver a coup de grâce to Schengen?
Centre for European Reform, October 2020

War and Covid-19 in Yemen
Istituto Affari Internazionali, October 2020

Schengen under pressure: Differentiation or disintegration?
Istituto Affari Internazionali, October 2020

Governments take steps to save tourism from Covid-19
Peterson Institute for International Economics, October 2020

Southern Europe will regret not taking EU loans now
Peterson Institute for International Economics, October 2020

Europa krisenfest machen: Europäische Mindeststandards für die nationale Grundsicherung
Bertelsmann Stiftung, September 2020

The Corona crisis and the stability of the European banking sector: A repeat of the Great Financial Crisis?
Bertelsmann Stiftung, September 2020

After the pandemic: Global overheating to take centre stage at T20 and G20
Istituto per gli Studi di Politica Internazionale, November 2020

Crisis presidency: How Portuguese leadership can guide the EU into the post-Covid era
European Council on Foreign Relations, October 2020

The world is woefully unprepared for climate-driven natural disasters
Council on Foreign Relations, October 2020

Inconfinables ? Les sans-abri face au coronavirus
Fondation Jean Jaurès, October 2020

High hopes, low expectations: Brussels’ perspective on the future of Europe after Covid-19
European Policy Centre, October 2020

The European Parliament’s involvement in the EU response to the corona pandemic
Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik, October 2020

Covid: Faute d’avoir mis à profit les six derniers mois, l’État sacrifie nos libertés
Institut Thomas More, October 2020

Coronavirus tracking apps: Normalizing surveillance during states of emergency
Carnegie Europe, October 2020

Covid-19: Une bataille stratégique entre la Chine et les États-Unis en Amérique latine
Institut des relations internationales et stratégiques, October 2020

Upholding the World Health Organization
Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik, October 2020

The re-shaping of the political discourse in times of crises
Fondation Européenne d’Etudes Progressistes, October 2020

The Covid crisis, an opportunity for a ‘new multilateralism’?
Confrontations Europe, October 2020

Covid-19 and the legal impact on the shipping industry and the case of Cyprus
Cyprus Centre for European and International Affairs, October 2020

L’Europe, le monde et la crise du Covid-19
Terra Nova, October 2020

Global trade today: Five basic facts about global trade
European Centre for International Political Economy, October 2020

Corona politics: The cost of mismanaging pandemics
Kiel Institute for the World Economy, September 2020

28 semaines plus tard: Y aura-t-il un monde d’après?
Fondation pour la recherche stratégique, September 2020

Covid-19 pandemic: Insights from RAND
Rand Corporation, September 2020

The Covid-19 gender gap: How women’s experience and expertise will drive economic recovery
Chatham House, September 2020

Read this briefing on ‘Coronavirus: Europe confronts the second wave‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.