European Parliamentary Research Service Blog

Written by Rachele Rossi,

© Aurielaki / Adobe Stock

Farm structure refers to the composition and organisation of an agricultural productive unit, typically for growing crops and rearing farm animals. Farm structure data allow analysis of the functioning of farms and their responses to events and agricultural policies. While basic statistics are key for capturing the essentials of the EU farming sector, understanding the various elements of farm structure implies more thorough analysis of the data.

Measuring farm structure

Farm structure defines an agricultural productive unit in terms of sizes of the land area and livestock herds, the labour force working on the farm and its main characteristics (such as age or working time), the means of production, and legal and organisational aspects of land tenure, farm management and market access. It is a key aspect of an agricultural system, along with agro-ecological (farming system, soil, altitude, climate, etc.) and economic factors (farm resources and inputs, product diversity, integration in the food chain, etc.).

In the past century, the development of agricultural policies prompted the need for information on farm structure, with the objective of understanding how agriculture was changing, what elements were triggering such change and what future direction it might take. On the basis of farm structure statistics, it is possible, for example, to build up typologies of farm types, analyse the drivers of farm structural change, and evaluate the interaction between agricultural policy and structural change in agriculture.

In the EU, the Farm Structure Survey (FSS) has delivered a continuous record of harmonised data on the structure of European farms since 1966, providing a picture of the situation every third year, on average. Although the topics covered have remained significantly stable, some changes have been introduced to reflect changing realities over the years. The legislation adopted in 2018 introduced a new approach to collecting data as from the Agricultural Census 2020, with the objectives of both preserving the continuity of the survey’s core elements and introducing flexibility in data collection to better address data needs.

EU farm structure in basic figures

The FSS includes information on land use, livestock numbers, labour input, etc. These can be aggregated by dimension such as geographic level, time and farm type. Therefore, there are countless ways to analyse and present the data on farm structure, depending on the information need to be addressed.

Farm and farm workforce size

Distribution of EU farms by land area (hectares)

A common indicator to describe farm structure is the farm size, though it can refer to various measures, such as land area, economic outcomes, or farm labour. The FSS data indicate that two thirds of the 10 million EU farms have less than five hectares of land and the majority of these farms do not exceed two hectares (see figure to the right). Also, more than two thirds of EU farms have a total standard output (i.e. an estimate of the average farm output based on standard values) of below €8 000 a year. EU farms count on average less than one annual work unit (i.e. the equivalent of a full-time job). Indeed, while about 20 million people work on EU farms, this figure includes full- and part-time farm managers and workers, seasonal labour, and farmer’s family members providing help (often free labour) when needed.

Land use and livestock

Crops and animals are vital elements of the farm structure. The average EU farm has 16 hectares of agricultural land, compared to averages of 180 hectares in the United States, 315 hectares in Canada, and 4 331 hectares in Australia. Altogether, EU farms utilise roughly 157 million hectares of land, of which about one third for growing cereals, slightly less than one third for permanent grassland, and the remaining area for other crops (with industrial crops, permanent crops, and temporary grass and grazing occupying the largest surfaces). Moreover, 5.6 million EU farms with livestock count millions of farm animals – with pigs being the largest group followed by bovines, sheep and goats – plus countless poultry birds as well as other types of animals (e.g. rabbits and horses). On average, they have 21 livestock units (i.e. a reference unit to calculate livestock as the equivalent of one dairy cow). The distribution of land and livestock varies a lot across EU farms, with the smallest farms showing the greatest diversity in terms of on-farm activities.

Beyond the main figures

Basic indicators such as farm distribution by size class or average size are invaluable tools to get a glimpse on the predominant characteristics of farm structure. These are very much revealing of an EU farming sector largely made up of small-sized farms. However, these figures do not embrace the extreme diversity in the EU farming sector (disclosed in Eurostat’s agriculture regional statistics). Therefore, more details are needed for planning adequate farm policies or drawing conclusions on farm economics, including on the methodology behind available data.

Need to dig into the data

Average livestock units per farm with pigs and/or poultry

Understanding how farm structure affects the functioning of the farm involves information on such issues as farming specialisations, agricultural practices, agronomic and environmental conditions, and the degree of local development. Therefore, going beyond the main indicators may reveal whether a given farm structure is just right or not adequate at all for a viable farming activity. For example, it may help to explain whether a significant farm workforce is an appropriate labour input or if it stems from a low level of mechanisation or a lack of alternative job opportunities. Also, farms may have large or small acreage, or no land at all, without this accounting, on its own, for strong or weak economic performance. Indeed, farms may have large surfaces because they keep land under cereal production or breed animals on extensive grazing areas. On the other hand, fruit groves or the use of common land (especially for sheep and goat farms) often relate to farms with small land area. The table to the right shows a relevant example of farms with no land area rearing pigs and/or poultry indoors. Although they are not counted as large farms based on hectares of land, these are certainly very large farms based on their high animal numbers compared to the average pig and poultry farm.

Methodological caveats

The European Union’s farm statistics legislation allows national authorities a certain degree of autonomy in defining the scope of the survey, while respecting minimum coverage requirements which ensure appropriate representation of the farming sector. Hence, each country defines the set of thresholds above which an agricultural activity is in the scope of the survey. This limits the survey’s cost and burden by focussing on the farms targeted by agricultural policies and excluding very small units. Therefore, a given farm would be below the survey’s thresholds in a country where agricultural production takes place mostly in medium-sized to large farms, but be included in the scope of the survey in a country where semi-subsistence or small farms are the backbone of agriculture. As a result, the high share of small farms at EU level overall originates from a small group of countries (largely from Romania). However, this should not result in over- or under-representation of any agricultural sectors or farming types. The national methodological reports detail the diverse approaches, where the scope of the survey varies from the absence of any thresholds (such as in Malta and Romania, where all entities in the administrative farm register are included) to relatively high thresholds (such as in Germany and Sweden, where farms are included only with a larger number of farm animals or cultivated hectares compared to other countries).

Read this ‘at a glance’ on ‘Understanding farm structure‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Written by Damiano Scordamaglia,

© clin0000 / Adobe Stock

Every year since 1983, the EU has chosen a special annual theme to celebrate and to bring to public attention. The idea is to raise awareness on the issue, encourage public debate on it across the EU and underline its political importance. The process can lead to new EU initiatives or legislation. 2021 has been designated European Year of Rail, to stir debate on railways’ contribution to the European Green Deal and the environment. A wide range of events are planned, reaching out to the general public, to demonstrate the challenges and opportunities offered by rail, and promote it as a sustainable, innovative and safe mode of transport.

Background

In December 2019, the European Commission adopted a new development strategy, the Green Deal, to address environmental challenges and climate change. To contribute to the United Nations 2030 Agenda for sustainable development, this new strategy centres on achieving climate neutrality by 2050 and a more resource-efficient economy. For this to happen, as transport accounts for a quarter of EU greenhouse gas emissions, a 90 % reduction in transport emissions is necessary by 2050 and an important share of the 75 % of inland freight currently carried by road will have to shift to rail or inland waterway transport. Rail’s green credentials speak for themselves: in 2016, rail represented 0.5 % of the CO2 emissions from all transport modes. Railways are also energy-efficient: while they account for roughly 2 % of energy consumption in EU transport, in 2018, they transported 12.6 % of freight and 6.9 % of passengers. Despite this, the share of freight transported by rail has been decreasing continuously since the mid-1990s and passenger traffic has stagnated. Rail has played an important role during the pandemic, ensuring the circulation of people and essential goods, and it will support the post Covid-19 economic recovery. If the EU wants railways to become more attractive to passengers and businesses and help to improve traffic congestion and air pollution, it needs to give this sector additional support.

European Commission proposal

On 4 March 2020, the European Commission adopted a proposal to designate 2021 European Year of Rail (EYR) and promote the use of rail for passengers, companies and public authorities. This specific year was chosen in part because it will coincide with the first full year of the implementation of the new rules on governance and domestic passenger market opening, agreed under the fourth railway package. In addition, the international arts festival Europalia will devote its 2021 edition to the influence of railways on arts and their contribution to social, economic and industrial change. The overarching aim of the EYR is to raise awareness of the challenges and opportunities offered by rail, and support the efforts made by the EU, Member States, regional and local authorities to expand the market share of this transport mode.

EYR: organisation and objectives
With its initiatives, debates, dedicated events, exhibitions and promotional campaigns, the EYR will reach out to the wider public, in particular young people, to promote rail as a sustainable, innovative and safe mode of transport. The EYR is also designed to underline the cross-border dimension of rail and its contribution to relations with neighbouring countries and to EU cohesion, economy, industry and society at large. It will cover aspects relating to regional development, industrial competitiveness, sustainable tourism, employment, innovation, education, youth and culture, while focusing on improving accessibility for disabled people and people with reduced mobility (DPRMs).
In order to tailor the EYR to the needs of EU countries, each Member State will appoint a national coordinator and the EU will set up a steering group. The financial allocation for the EYR is estimated at €8 million; the final envelope will be decided in accordance with the multiannual financial framework 2021-2027. European Parliament position

In a resolution of 15 January 2020, the European Parliament welcomed the European Green Deal, underlining the need for all transport modes to contribute to the decarbonisation of transport and calling for enhanced investment in EU rail connectivity. Parliament expressed its first opinion on the EYR proposal in June 2020, when the rapporteur (Anna Deparnay-Grunenberg (Greens/EFA, DE)) presented her draft report to the Committee on Transport and Tourism (TRAN), responsible for this file. The rapporteur noted that the EYR would give visibility to rail as an attractive transport mode and highlighted the importance of digitalisation and, more specifically, further development of the European rail traffic management system (ERTMS). Shadow rapporteurs insisted on the need to focus on enhancing train accessibility for DPRMs and supporting rail in the urban context. On 12 October 2020, with very broad support (45 votes in favour, none against and two abstentions), the TRAN committee adopted its report along with 15 compromise amendments and the decision to start interinstitutional negotiations. In order to create a truly European rail network, the TRAN committee called for support for regional cross-border rail connections and action to promote completion of the trans-European transport network (TEN-T). The report invited the Commission to study setting up a rail connectivity index to identify areas where investment is especially necessary. It also advocated for EYR activities to inform citizens better of their rights as rail passengers. The Committee report also endorsed some recommendations from two other parliamentary committees. In particular, TRAN supported the call to improve train accessibility for the elderly, disabled and persons of reduced mobility, and other measures put forward by the Committee on Regional Development, such as efforts to promote the EU’s night train networks and develop rail networks and infrastructure in regional and border areas. Finally, the TRAN Committee supported the idea of the Committee on Culture and Education to promote better geographical coverage of rail services, considering their impact on the uptake of certain EU programmes, such as Erasmus + and DiscoverEU. On 24 June 2020, Council agreed a common position for a negotiating mandate on the proposal. It added some themes such as rail for end-to-end mobility and better distribution of information on passengers’ rights. It also proposed that the Commission launch a feasibility study during the EYR on the creation of an EU label to promote goods transported by rail. Interinstitutional negotiations began on 27 October 2020.

Advisory committee and stakeholder views

The European Economic and Social Committee (EESC) adopted its opinion on the legislative proposal on 15 July 2020. Supporting the EYR, the EESC considered that this initiative should be an opportunity to communicate on rail’s safety record, sustainability and on EU rail investment policies. It also underlined that the EYR should be promoted to regain consumers’ trust in rail, contribute to sustainable tourism and give new momentum to DiscoverEU. The European Committee of the Regions (CoR) adopted its opinion on the EYR on 14 October 2020. It called for the EYR to be used to highlight rail’s contribution to the EU economy and completion of the single market, and to offer solutions to urbanisation issues. The CoR was of the view that the EYR should also underline the attractiveness of employment in the rail sector and recommended increasing the EYR budget to €12 million. In March 2020, the Shift2Rail joint undertaking welcomed the EYR and declared that it was a very timely opportunity to raise awareness of rail’s potential to become the backbone of a future sustainable, climate-neutral transport system. In April 2020, the European associations representing infrastructure managers, railway operators, intermodal companies, wagon keepers and the rail supply industry welcomed the European Parliament resolution on Covid-19 and the recovery and reconstruction plan. In their statement they called for support for rail beyond the pandemic, to enable this sector to make a substantial contribution to cleaner mobility and the development of multimodality. UIC, the worldwide railway organisation, also welcomed the initiative and underlined the role rail has to play in decarbonising transport, due to its energy efficiency, long life cycles and frugality in public space occupation. In a letter sent to EU Commissioner for Transport Adina Vălean, and signed jointly by the European Passengers’ Federation (EPF), the European Consumer Organisation (BEUC) and the network of non-profit organisation AGE Platform Europe, the European Disability Forum (EDF) insisted on the necessity for the EYR to focus on rail passengers’ rights and how to promote them to make rail a truly convenient choice for all citizens, including disabled people and people with reduced mobility. BEUC, meanwhile, published its proposal for the EYR in May 2020, observing that the ongoing reform of rail passengers’ rights should send a strong political signal to EU passengers and that the EYR should focus on making rail travel more convenient and affordable and on increasing the quality of services.

Read this ‘at a glance’ on ‘2021: European Year of Rail‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Written by Maria Niestadt,

© Fabio / Adobe Stock

The coronavirus pandemic has had an unprecedented impact on air transport in the European Union and the rest of the world. During the first wave, most Member States imposed entry or flight bans and other travel restrictions, bringing passenger flights almost to a standstill. However, many airports serving major cities stayed open for limited scheduled, humanitarian, repatriation, and cargo flights, and for aircraft parking. The drop in passenger flights has meant that the air freight sector has had to adjust to the situation by occasionally carrying cargo in passenger compartments. As the industry looks for ways to cut costs, it has announced job cuts and/or reduced work patterns, wage reductions and hiring freezes. A number of airlines have already declared bankruptcy.

With the public health situation improving in the EU by the summer of 2020, Member States started to lift some travel restrictions, allowing airlines to slowly resume operations while leaving in place numerous inconsistent and constantly changing travel rules and guidelines, limiting air travel significantly. In addition, airlines and airports apply strict health and sanitary measures that entail higher costs both for the industry and passengers. The International Air Transport Association (IATA) forecasts that airlines would lose about 66 % of their passengers and see total revenues drop by US$419 (€357) billion in 2020. The final impact of the crisis on air transport will depend on factors such as its duration and magnitude, the level of consumer confidence, and the stringency of the containment measures. In all likelihood, the sector will feel the effects well beyond 2020.

The EU has worked on several levels to help the sector meet the challenge, whether by publishing guidelines (e.g. on passenger rights) and recommendations, or by legislative work. One of the first measures it took was to change EU rules on the allocation of airport slots, so as to help airlines avoid flights with very low load factors. However, a lot of work still lies ahead, in particular regarding the coordination of travel restrictions. The European Commission has also authorised several national aid schemes for airlines and airports. However, this raises questions about fair competition and whether the aid should be linked to environmental considerations.

Read this complete briefing on ‘Air transport survival during the pandemic‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Written by Suzana Anghel,

© Adobe Stock

In the context of a major spike in coronavirus infections across all EU Member States, Heads of State or Government met by video-conference on 29 October 2020 in a bid to strengthen collective EU efforts to defeat the pandemic. Placing testing, tracing and vaccines at the centre of their strategy, EU leaders stressed the urgent need to ensure the mutual recognition of rapid testing − to support the free movement of people and keep the EU’s internal borders open − as key to preserving a functioning internal market. The informal format of the meeting was conducive to information exchange and coordination and did not require binding decisions. EU leaders also adopted a joint declaration condemning the recent terrorist attacks in France and expressing full solidarity with France and the French people at this difficult time. They also raised the issue of the relationship with Turkey and condemned the mounting tensions in the Eastern Mediterranean.

Video-conference of the members of the European Council

At their video-conference meeting on 29 October 2020, focusing on the fight against the coronavirus pandemic, EU leaders considered short-term containment measures with a view to stemming the second wave of coronavirus infections (such as for example, common recognition of rapid testing). They also discussed longer-term measures, notably economic recovery and the preservation of the single market. In line with past meetings, they stressed the importance of maintaining unity and of acting in a coordinated manner.

This was the seventh meeting of the European Council to be held by video-conference since March 2020. Six of these meetings have focused on tackling the coronavirus but this was the first such meeting since the beginning of the second wave of the pandemic. The European Council President announced that this meeting was one of a series, signalling that the European Council was re-entering the active crisis monitoring mode that had shaped its agenda during the spring of 2020. In this respect, the fact that the new Leaders’ Agenda presented in early October did not mention the pandemic specifically among the topics to be addressed by the EU leaders in the coming months provides confirmation of its adaptability.

As the meeting was considered to be an informal one, European Council President Charles Michel sent no formal invitation to EU leaders, and no conclusions were issued. However, prior to the meeting, Michel used a recently introduced tool – a newsletter – to communicate on the pandemic. Although primarily addressed to EU citizens, when issued just days ahead of a meeting of the Heads of State or Government, the European Council President’s newsletters appear to provide him with a means to set the agenda and steer the process. In his 27 October newsletter, Michel outlined most of the points that were subsequently considered by the EU leaders; namely: testing and tracing, a common approach to quarantine, and vaccine distribution. The informal nature of the meeting also meant that the President of the European Parliament, David Sassoli, was not invited to present Parliament’s view.

Coronavirus pandemic second wave: state of play in the EU

In the weeks preceding the EU leaders’ meeting, a number of Member States’ intensive care capacities were approaching saturation, resulting in new national measures to counter the spread of the virus. Health policy is a national competence, however, in contrast with the situation this spring, containment measures are now being introduced in a relatively coordinated manner. As stressed by President Emmanuel Macron, EU leaders spoke to one another before the video-meeting and before setting measures at national level. However, the German Chancellor, Angela Merkel, pointed to the ‘failure of leaders to act quickly enough to stop the second wave of infections’.

National level containment measures range from the introduction of curfews to nationwide lockdowns. Notably, they include the closure of restaurants and/or non-essential shops in several countries, including Belgium, France, Germany and the Netherlands. Nevertheless, analysts point to distortions in competition resulting from the closure of small shops while major supermarket chains (which sell a mix of essential and non-essential goods) and on-line platforms are able to continue with their business. While education remains a national competence, the political will to preserve the economy and the single market is visible through decisions to maintain schools open in several Member States, including France, Germany and the Netherlands. Other Member States, given their specific epidemiological situations, have chosen to prolong the autumn holiday (Belgium), opted for a ‘hybrid’ system where full on-line learning can be triggered at any time if needed (Romania), or chosen to temporarily close schools (Czech Republic). It remains to be seen if these measures will be sufficient to tackle the second wave or if more robust measures, including school closures, might be needed to limit the spread of the virus.

Prior to the summit, Commission President Ursula Von der Leyen made an assessment of the medical situation, stressing its gravity and urging fellow EU citizens to wear masks, observe strict hand hygiene and avoid the ‘three Cs’: crowds, contacts and closed spaces with poor ventilation. She underlined the risk of fatigue and called for patience and determination.

European Council’s coronavirus crisis response

The European Council entered crisis mode in March 2020. A series of crisis meetings was held by video-conference in March 2020, allowing the European Council to formulate a short-term response to the crisis (see Figure 1). By 23 April 2020, EU leaders had articulated a long-term response based on two pillars: 1) the recovery roadmap and 2) the financial package linking the Next Generation EU (NGEU) to the upcoming multiannual financial framework (MFF). As for October 2020, the European Council has once again entered crisis management monitoring mode, focusing this time on both the short- and long-term responses to the crisis. Two main messages appear to be key, namely, the need to maintain unity and the need to coordinate responses at EU and national levels.

Figure 1 – Key topics in the European Council on the coronavirus pandemic

Maintaining unity

In contrast to the situation in March 2020, when the European Council first worked to achieve unity and overcome Member States’ individualism, this time around, EU leaders have shown a more united front in tackling both the health and the economic dimensions of the coronavirus crisis. At the press conference following the meeting, Charles Michel stressed that the EU was united in fighting the common challenge of the pandemic but also spoke of a ‘severe crisis’, pointing to the battle facing citizens and EU Member States currently confronted by a massive second wave of infections.

Coordinating responses

Faced with a shortage of protective medical equipment back in spring 2020, Member States were tempted to look for individual solutions, but rapidly realised that the challenges posed by the pandemic could only be tackled through solidarity and cooperation. This led to increased coordination and cooperation efforts at EU level, for instance with the creation of the European reserve of emergency medical equipment (rescEU stockpile). It is now expected that the role of the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC) will be expanded. While the lockdowns of spring 2020 were largely uncoordinated, there was greater coordination on lockdown-exiting strategies, although Ursula Von der Leyen has stressed that ‘measures were relaxed too soon’.

Health policy is a national prerogative, but Member States seem to have learned from the first wave that a coordinated response is key. The reflex to coordinate action has gradually gained traction since the spring, as expressed at the European Council meetings of 1-2 October, 15-16 October and 29 October, and as reflected at national level in the close bilateral and multilateral coordination of the new lockdowns. Following the recent meeting, the Prime Minister of the Netherlands, Mark Rutte, stressed that, for as much as health policy is a national competence, ‘exchange of knowledge, distribution of medicines and vaccines’ are areas where coordination and cooperation are needed.

Main results of the EU leaders’ video-conference

The meeting featured an exchange of views on ways to limit the spread of the virus, vaccines and economic recovery, but given its informal nature, no binding decisions were taken.

Limiting the spread of the virus

As shown in Figure 1, limiting the spread of the virus was a central concern in the European Council discussions both on 29 October and during the first wave of the pandemic in the spring of 2020. This time, EU leaders discussed a series of measures, including data sharing and common recognition of testing and tracing, as part of their strategy to limit the spread of the virus.

Data and knowledge sharing

The Commission President stressed the crucial importance of sharing data on the epidemic ‘in real time’ with the ECDC platform, not only to secure accurate situation awareness, but also to provide indicators for anticipation and coordinated responses, including the planning of patient transfers between Member States. The Commission has unblocked €220 million for the specific purpose of cross-border medical assistance, while a network of national government health advisors and EU health advisors is to be established to facilitate knowledge sharing among Member States.

Test and trace policies

Limiting the spread of the virus relies in part on extensive testing. There was agreement on the need for common recognition of existing polymerase chain reaction (PCR) tests and their results, and for validation of the new rapid antigen tests. These tests are complementary, both to ascertain the spread of the virus and to preserve the internal market. The tracing strategy, meanwhile, relies on two pillars: 1) interactive apps connected through the European Interoperability Gateway; and 2) a passenger locator form. Twenty-two Member States have developed tracing apps, downloaded by 50 million European citizens. The European Interoperability Gateway is designed to facilitate inter-operability between the different national apps. The Commission aims to have the passenger locator form in place by the end of 2020. Nine Member States have already developed their own passenger locator forms, collecting differing data, hence the need for harmonisation.

Vaccines

Ursula von der Leyen stressed the need for ‘accuracy and speed’ in the validation of vaccines. She underlined that, exceptionally, the European Medicines Agency would proceed on a ‘rolling basis’ to evaluate incoming data. Vaccines would be distributed fairly and simultaneously among the EU Member States, in proportion to their share of the EU’s population, as soon as one or more became available. Coordination would still be needed on three points: 1) defining priority target groups (who would receive the vaccine first, in particular the elderly, the chronically ill, medical staff); 2) the logistical preparation of the vaccination campaign, tackling all aspects linked to the transport, storage and conservation of vaccines at an early stage; and 3) communication campaigns aimed at raising EU citizens’ awareness of the vaccination process. In this respect, EU leaders agreed on the need to coordinate communication on future vaccination campaigns and to counter disinformation.

Economic recovery

EU leaders stressed the importance of preserving the internal market and of enabling economic recovery, including by keeping borders open and refraining from the national reflexes that had led to the closure of borders during the spring of 2020. Furthermore, Charles Michel stressed the urgency of reaching an agreement between Council and Parliament on the financial package – NGEU and the MFF – agreed by the EU leaders in July 2020.

Other items Terrorist attacks in France

EU leaders adopted a joint declaration condemning the terrorist attacks recently perpetrated in France and calling on other international leaders to promote dialogue, not division. Charles Michel expressed solidarity with France and condolences for the victims’ families. He emphasised that ‘we stand together: the European family united for our democratic values and freedoms’. Von der Leyen stressed that Europe stood ‘united and determined against fanaticism’.

Turkey

As confirmed by Charles Michel, EU leaders discussed the relationship with Turkey, asking ‘to be respected’ and condemning the multiplication of provocations in the Eastern Mediterranean. He recalled the European Council’s offer to Turkey proposing to work jointly on a positive agenda, and confirmed the intention of EU leaders’ to return to this topic in December 2020, when, depending on developments, both a positive agenda and a less bright scenario could be examined.

Read this briefing on ‘Outcome of the European Council video-conference of 29 October 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 on the current situation of the rule of law in Spain. Citizens first began to write to the President on this subject in October 2020 calling on the Parliament to intervene in favour of the rule of law in Spain, which the Spanish government is allegedly not respecting. With regard to the rule of law in the European Union, the European Parliament has called for an EU mechanism to protect and strengthen democracy, the rule of law and fundamental rights. In October 2020, the European Parliament warned that the Union is facing an unprecedented and escalating crisis of its founding values.

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

Main points made in the reply in English

With regard to the rule of law, we would like to inform you that on 7 October 2020, the European Parliament adopted, by 521 votes in favour, 152 against and 21 abstentions, a resolution proposing the creation of an EU mechanism to protect and strengthen democracy, the rule of law and fundamental rights.

The European Parliament ’emphasises the urgent need for the Union to develop a robust, comprehensive and positive agenda for effectively protecting and reinforcing democracy, the rule of law and fundamental rights for all its citizens; insists that the Union must remain a champion of freedom and justice in Europe and the world; warns that the Union is facing an unprecedented and escalating crisis of its founding values, which threatens its long-term survival as a democratic peace project’.

The European Commission published the 2020 Rule of Law Report on 30 September 2020. The report includes a chapter on Spain.

Regarding the allocation of EU funds, the European Parliament ‘reiterates its call to ensure that systematic violations of the values referred to in

Finally, we take this opportunity to inform you that the European Commission is the institution responsible for ensuring the application of EU law in the Member States, managing European policies and allocating EU funds.

Main points made in the reply in Spanish

Con respecto al Estado de Derecho, le informamos de que el Parlamento Europeo ha aprobado el 7 de octubre de 2020, por 521 votos a favor, 152 en contra y 21 abstenciones, una resolución en la que plantea la creación de un mecanismo de la Unión que permita proteger y reforzar la democracia, el Estado de derecho y los derechos fundamentales.

El Parlamento europeo “hace hincapié en la necesidad urgente de que la Unión desarrolle una agenda sólida y positiva para proteger y reforzar la democracia, el Estado de Derecho y los derechos fundamentales de todos sus ciudadanos; insiste en que la Unión debe seguir siendo una defensora de la libertad y la justicia en Europa y en el mundo; advierte que la Unión se enfrenta a una crisis sin precedentes y creciente de sus valores fundacionales que amenaza su supervivencia a largo plazo como proyecto de paz democrático”.

La Comisión Europea ha publicado el 30 de septiembre de 2020 el Informe sobre el Estado de Derecho 2020. El informe incluye un capítulo sobre España.

Con respecto a la asignación de fundos, el Parlamento Europeo “reitera su petición de que se garantice la incompatibilidad de las violaciones sistemáticas de los valores a que se refiere el artículo 2 del TUE con la financiación de la Unión” blindando así el presupuesto de la Unión cuando un Estado miembro no respeta el Estado de derecho de forma sistemática.

Por último, permítanos hacerle saber que la Comisión Europea es la institución encargada de garantizar la aplicación del Derecho de la Unión Europea en los países de la UE, gestionar las políticas europeas y asignar los fondos de la Unión Europea.

 

Written by Anja Radjenovic (1st edition),

© Ajdin Kamber / Adobe Stock

In September 2020, the European Commission submitted a proposal on asylum and migration management, to replace the 2013 Dublin Regulation that determines the EU Member State responsible for examining asylum applications. While the proposal ‘essentially preserves’ the current criteria for determining this responsibility, it would also make changes and additions to the regulation, especially on solidarity and responsibility-sharing for asylum-seekers among Member States.

The proposal comes after a failed attempt to reform EU asylum policy following the 2015 migration crisis. While the migratory context has changed since, both in terms of arrivals and the composition of flows, the migration situation remains fragile, as evidenced by pressures on national asylum systems and continual disembarkations after search and rescue operations. According to the Commission, addressing this situation requires a relaunch of the reform of the common European asylum system to achieve a more efficient, fair and harmonised framework that is more resistant to future migratory pressures. The new system would ensure international protection to those who need it and be effective and humane towards those who have to be returned.

Versions

• Reforming asylum and migration management: A shift towards greater solidarity? (1st edition)

Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on asylum and migration management and amending Council Directive (EC) 2003/109 and the proposed Regulation (EU) XXX/XXX [Asylum and Migration Fund] Committee responsible: Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (LIBE) COM(2020) 610
23.9.2020 Rapporteur: To be appointed 2020/0279 (COD) Shadow rapporteurs: Ordinary legislative procedure (COD) (Parliament and Council on equal footing – formerly ‘co-decision’) Next steps expected: Initial discussions in committee

Written by Nicole Scholz (1st edition),

© Idea.s / Adobe Stock

The European Commission has proposed to amend Directive 2004/37/EC, by expanding its scope and by including and/or revising occupational exposure limit values for a number of cancer- or mutation-causing chemical agents. The initiative is proceeding in steps and has now become a continuous process. Following on from three previous legislative amendments, which covered a total of 26 priority chemical agents, the present (fourth) proposal addresses an additional three.

The proposal was announced as one of the first measures of the Commission’s commitment to fight cancer under the forthcoming Europe’s Beating Cancer plan.

Broad discussions with scientists and social partners fed into all four proposals. The Commission’s feedback period on the proposal will run until 20 November 2020. While broadly welcoming the proposal, professional organisations, trade unions and patient groups would like carcinogenic and mutagenic hazardous medicines as well as substances toxic for reproduction to be brought within the scope of the current proposal.

The legislative process is in its early stages. In Parliament, the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs is in charge of the file. The working party on social questions is dealing with it in the Council.

Versions

• Fourth revision of the Carcinogens and Mutagens Directive (CMD) (1st edition)

Proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive 2004/37/EC on the protection of workers from the risks related to exposure to carcinogens or mutagens at work Committee responsible: Employment and Social Affairs (EMPL) COM(2020) 571
22.9.2020 Rapporteur: To be appointed 2020/0262 (COD) Shadow rapporteurs: Ordinary legislative procedure (COD) (Parliament and Council on equal footing – formerly ‘co-decision’) Next steps expected: Initial discussions in committee

Written by Marcin Grajewski,

The European Union faces multifaceted foreign security and defence policy challenges. First and foremost, it awaits the outcome of the US Presidential election, which is set to determine in significant part global economic and political developments to in the short to mid term. The Union also faces a tough choice about how to treat China: more as a rival or as a partner, and in which areas? An increasingly assertive Russia represents yet another challenge. The EU’s stance on climate, migration, Africa, terrorism and developments in its near neighbourhood policy add to this complex scene.

This note offers links to recent commentaries, studies and reports from major international think tanks on EU foreign, security and defence policies.

Europe’s pivot to Africa: Shaping the future of the strategic partnership
European Policy Centre, October 2020

An election of stark choices for Americans, but also for Europe
European Policy Centre, October 2020

Europe as a global standard-setter: The strategic importance of European standardisation
European Policy Centre, October 2020

What should Europe expect from American trade policy after the election?
Bruegel, October 2020

China’s carbon neutrality goal spells competition for the EU in the market for low-carbon technology
Centre for European Policy Studies, October 2020

EU trade and investment policy since the Treaty of Lisbon
Centre for European Policy Studies, October 2020`

Geopolitical ambitions in the Black Sea and Caspian region
Bertelsmann Stiftung, October 2020

L’éviction de l’Europe du Moyen-Orient
Institut français des relations internationales, October 2020

Battalions to brigades: The future of European defence
Egmont, October 2020

Talking to the Houthis: How Europeans can promote peace in Yemen
European Council on Foreign Relations, October 2020

A balance of values and interests: Germany, realpolitik, and Russia policy
European Council on Foreign Relations, October 2020

Trump or Biden: Three ways to make Europe matter in the Middle East
European Council on Foreign Relations, October 2020

The Caucasus burns while Europe struggles
Carnegie Europe, October 2020

Lessons from Belarus: How the EU can support clean elections in Moldova and Georgia
European Council on Foreign Relations, October 2020

How the EU became marginalised in Nagorno-Karabakh
European Council on Foreign Relations, October 2020

Security realities
European Council on Foreign Relations, October 2020

Europe must grow up and stop moaning about Trump
Carnegie Europe, October 2020

How China could push Europe and India closer together
European Council on Foreign Relations, October 2020

Three dangers Trump’s Covid poses for the world
European Council on Foreign Relations, October 2020

Resilient Ukraine is solution to aggressive Russia
Chatham House, October 2020

Europe, the U.S.s and China: A love-hate triangle?
Centre for European Reform, September 2020

Non-summit shows EU-China ties at new low
Bruegel, September 2020

Diversification and the world trading system
Bruegel, September 2020

European foreign policy is drowning in the Mediterranean
Carnegie Europe, September 2020

The future of the Transatlantic Alliance: Not without the European Union
Egmont, September 2020

Use connectivity to strengthen multilateral cooperation in the EU’s neighbourhood
Egmont, September 2020

An alliance of democracies: With the US or for the US?
Egmont, September 2020

The Corona transformation: How the pandemic slows globalization and accelerates digitalization
Bertelsmann Stiftung, September 2020

An appropriate European Union response to tensions in the Eastern Mediterranean
Bruegel, August 2020

Unboxing the future: Finding the futures hidden in plain sight
EU Institute for Security Studies, August 2020

Disorder from chaos: Why Europeans fail to promote stability in the Sahel
European Council on Foreign Relations, August 2020

Differentiated cooperation in European foreign policy: The challenge of coherence
Barcelona Centre for International Affairs, August 2020

What future for a ‘geopolitical’ Europe?
Centre for European Reform, July 2020

The challenges of the post-pandemic agenda
Bruegel, July 2020

A challenging agenda for the new Trade Commissioner
European Policy Centre, July 2020

Rethinking the EU’s approach towards its southern neighbours
Centre for European Reform, July 2020

Trump sounds the retreat: Can European defence advance?
Centre for European Reform, July 2020

The future of the E3: Post-Brexit cooperation between the UK, France and Germany
Chatham House, July 2020

The big engine that might: How France and Germany can build a geopolitical Europe
European Council on Foreign Relations, July 2020

Religion and forced displacement in the Eastern Orthodox World
Foreign Policy Centre, Aston University, July 2020

Uncharted territory? Towards a common threat analysis and a strategic compass for EU security and defence
EU Institute for Security Studies, July 2020

The EU’s strategic compass for security and defence: Just another paper?
Jacques Delors Centre, July 2020

Ensuring cyber resilience in NATO’s command, control and communication systems
Chatham House, July 2020

Europe in a multipolar world
LSE Ideas, June 2020

An initiative to end the standstill: Desirable security policy objectives of a united EU
Friedrich Ebert Stiftung, June 2020

The weaponisation of the US financial system: how can Europe respond?
Jacques Delors Centre, June 2020

European defence in the post-Covid world
Instituto Affari Internatzionali, June 2020

EU ‘sanctions’ and Russian manoeuvring: Why Brussels needs to stay its course while shifting gears
Instituto Affari Internatzionali, June 2020

Protracted conflicts in the EU’s neighbourhood: Does resilience apply?
Barcelona Centre for International Affairs, June 2020

Rethinking EU crisis management: From battlegroups to a European legion?
Wilfried Martens Centre for European Studies, June 2020

The EU’s external action on counter-terrorism development, structures and actions
Finnish Institute for International Affairs, June 2020

Has CovidD-19 dented the EU’s credibility in the Balkans?
Bruegel, June 2020

Sharpening EU sanctions policy: Challenges and responses in a geopolitical era
Finnish Institute for International Affairs, May 2020

European defence and PESCO: Don’t waste the chance
Instituto Affari Internationali, May 2020

EU foreign policy needs ’embedded’ differentiation
European Policy Centre, May 2020

Challenges and constraints facing a ‘Geopolitical Commission’ in the achievement of European sovereignty
Robert Schuman Foundation, May 2020

Who’s first wins: International crisis response to Covid-19
EU Institute for Security Studies, May 2020

The impact of sanctions imposed by the European Union against Iran on their bilateral trade: General versus targeted sanctions
Wiener Institut für Internationale Wirtschaftsvergleiche, May 2020

Read this briefing on ‘EU foreign, security and defence policies‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Written by Tania Lațici,

Strategic autonomy – what does it mean? what for? from whom? and how? – were some of the questions that were discussed during the European Parliamentary Research Service (EPRS) online policy roundtable on strategic autonomy in security and defence and the EU’s role in promoting peace. This timely discussion took place in the backdrop of ongoing high-level strategic reflections, namely the Strategic Compass process in the European Union (EU), and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization NATO2030 process.

As the European Parliament is currently debating the implementation and future of the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) and the Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP), as well as more precise initiatives such as the Permanent Structured Cooperation (PESCO), EPRS gathered a virtual panel covering the institutional, academic and think tank spectrum. Etienne Bassot, Director of Members’ Research Service in the EPRS, set the scene for the debate, and Tania Lațici moderated what was a highly dynamic and interactive debate.

Kicking off the discussion was Sven Mikser (S&D, EE), who is currently drafting the Parliament’s annual report on the implementation of the CSDP. Affirming that EU strategic autonomy is very high on the Parliamentary agenda, he noted that strategic defence capability gaps need to be filled for the EU to be able to meet its political and military levels of ambition. Sven Mikser also emphasised that the EU’s ambition is much broader than the military, also encompassing conflict prevention, multilateralism, disarmament and non-proliferation. He concluded by advising against giving in to the temptation of cutting defence budgets due to the impact of the coronavirus pandemic, as that would impair capacity to properly address current threats.

Hannah Neumann (Greens, DE), the European Parliament’s rapporteur on arms exports, noted that there are more versions of what strategic autonomy means than there are Member States. She emphasised the need to clarify the purpose of strategic autonomy for the EU and highlighted the opportunity to make better use of the provisions in the Lisbon Treaty, for example, by making use of constructive abstention provisions or enacting majority voting when it comes to human rights violations. Hannah Neumann expressed hope that the Strategic Compass process would result in a better convergence of views among EU Member States as regards threats and addressing them.

While pointing out the importance of the current discussions of strategic autonomy at EU level, Dr Sven Biscop of the Egmont Institute argued that Member States should accept the reality that they can only be autonomous collectively. Referring to EU instruments such as PESCO, he noted that the EU is only currently using 10 % of the framework’s potential and argued in favour of integrating forces at the EU level. Reacting to the recent discussions on potentially making use of qualified majority voting (QMV) in foreign policy, Sven Biscop argued that there is no reason as to why the EU cannot vote with QMV on everything, except for obliging a Member State to commit troops to operations.

Representing the European External Action Service, Jean‑Pierre Van Aubel described the state of play of ongoing EU defence initiatives, with an emphasis on PESCO and its ongoing strategic review. On the latter, he noted that PESCO is much more than a capability development process and that discussions on how to better incentivise Member States to deliver on their commitments are ongoing. Regarding the Strategic Compass, he emphasised that its purpose is to translate the EU Global Strategy into concrete deliverables and political ambition to build a common European strategic culture.

Dr Jana Puglierin, the Director of the Berlin Office of the European Council on Foreign Relations, observed that the progress and enthusiasm seen in the defence realm after 2016 seems to have hit a plateau, in part also as a result of the coronavirus crisis. She noted that foreign and defence policy does not seem to figure highly on the EU agenda and feared that uncoordinated defence budgets would result as a consequence of the Covid‑19 crisis. As regards transatlantic relations, Jana Puglierin emphasised the need for the EU to reflect on how to engage the United States in achieving its ambition for EU sovereignty.

Focusing on the changing nature of peace and security due to new threats and challenges –illustrated in particular by the coronavirus crisis – Dr Elena Lazarou, Acting Head of the EPRS External Policies Unit noted that the Lisbon Treaty was not written bearing these challenges in mind. She explained the reason for the EU’s current strategic reflection processes and emphasised that the EU will have to reflect on how it can use its entire toolkit of peace and security to address these threats and promote peace and security in a holistic manner. She also noted the importance of foresight in these processes and of the EU’s engagements with strategic partners such as the United Nations, NATO and the African Union.

Finally, the event gathered some 114 virtual participants at its peak and the audience engaged with the panellists by posing questions related to the current crisis in the eastern Mediterranean, the future of the EU’s strategic partnerships, and the prospects for QMV in foreign policy.

Towards strategic autonomy in European security and defence: The EU role in promoting peace in today’s world

Written by Katarzyna Sochacka and Clare Ferguson,

© European Union 2020 – Source : EP / Emilie GOMEZ

During the second October 2020 plenary session – the first at which Members were able to speak remotely, and not only vote, from the Member States – the European Commission presented its 2021 work programme, which Members largely welcomed. Members also discussed the conclusions of the 15‑16 October 2020 European Council meeting, EU measures to mitigate the social and economic impact of Covid‑19, police brutality within the EU, the sale of EU passports and visas to criminals, the State of the Energy Union and aligning the Energy Charter Treaty with the European Green Deal. Parliament announced that its 2020 Sakharov Prize will be awarded on 16 December to the Belarusian opposition, in particular the Coordinating Council, for ‘an initiative launched by courageous women’.

Joint debate on the common agricultural policy

Members conducted an important joint debate on the Commission’s package of three legislative proposals to overhaul the common agricultural policy (CAP) for 2021‑2027. While Parliament supports the modernisation of the CAP, it warns against moves to introduce budget cuts, particularly in view of the challenges of restructuring this vital sector to help farmers protect the environment, and distribute funds more fairly. The proposals seek to establish a new delivery model by combining interventions under the two pillars of the CAP in strategic plans drawn up by Member States; improving financial management, with Member States allocated greater responsibility for conformity and control of agricultural support spending; and introducing amendments to five regulations, including on the common market organisation (CMO) in agricultural products (including controversial issues concerning, for instance, authorised wine grape varieties and the labelling of plant and dairy-based meat substitutes). Parliament adopted its position for negotiations with the Council following votes on a series of amendments to all three Agriculture and Rural Development (AGRI) Committee reports. However, some Members and stakeholders felt that the final compromise does not go far enough towards protecting the European Green Deal’s ambitions and climate goals.

Joint debate on digital services

Following important debates on the need to regulate digital services and artificial intelligence to ensure that they maximise benefits to people in the EU while also minimising the risks, Members adopted three own-initiative resolutions, of which two are legislative. Parliament has long called for revision of the outdated EU online services framework, particularly in the light of large discrepancies in application of the rules between EU countries. In advance of the expected Commission proposal on a Digital Services Act package, Parliament adopted its initial position on the revision, set out in three committee reports. Members approved an Internal Market and Consumer Protection (IMCO) Committee legislative-initiative report calling on the Commission to amend its proposals to ensure that the rules apply to all goods and services providers, wherever they are located, and better protect EU consumers against fraud, targeted advertising, and automated decisions. Members also approved the parallel Legal Affairs (JURI) Committee legislative-initiative report recommending standards to which platforms should be held and the application of different approaches to ‘legal ‘and ‘illegal’ online content. The report seeks to balance protection of both users’ rights and their right to freedom of speech. Finally, Members approved, by a large majority, a Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (LIBE) Committee own-initiative report echoing the same concerns and calling for improved cooperation between service providers and national supervisory authorities, as well as the creation of an independent EU body with the power to place sanctions on online operators.

Joint debate on artificial intelligence

During the same debate, Members also considered the implications – both positive and negative – of harnessing the potential of artificial intelligence (AI) technology, for the lives of people in the EU. In advance of the Commission proposal expected in 2021, Parliament voted with large majorities on three reports from the Legal Affairs (JURI) Committee, on ethics, civil liability, and intellectual property in artificial intelligence, setting out Parliament’s positions. The first legislative-initiative report deals with the requirements for a framework of ethical principles for the development, deployment and use of AI, robotics and related technologies, which will be vital to ensuring innovation also protects people’s rights. The second legislative-initiative report sets out recommendations for a legal framework for civil liability that identifies a hierarchy of risks, and measures to compensate for harm caused by the technology. A third own-initiative report highlights the need to foster the free flow, access, use and sharing of data, while also protecting intellectual property rights and trade secrets.

Discharge decisions

Members voted by a large majority to refuse to discharge the 2018 EU general budget for the European Council and Council, and for the European Economic and Social Committee (EESC), following Budgetary Control (CONT) Committee re-examination of the files. Parliament has refused to grant discharge to the European Council and Council since 2009, due to a lack of cooperation on accountability and transparency. Parliament’s decision also reflects a lack of accountability, budgetary control and good governance of human resources at the EESC in relation to serious misconduct by one of its senior members.

European Globalisation Adjustment Fund

Parliament approved, by an overwhelming majority, the decision to mobilise €2 054 400 from the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund to support workers who have lost their jobs as a result of financial difficulties at two shipyards in Galicia (Spain).

Implementation and governance of Permanent Structured Cooperation (PESCO)

In view of the strategic review of PESCO taking place this year, Members adopted, by a large majority, a Foreign Affairs Committee (AFET) report on the implementation and governance of Permanent Structured Cooperation (PESCO), the EU’s Treaty-based military and defence cooperation mechanism. Under PESCO’s binding commitments, participating Member States aim at achieving a competitive European defence industry through collaborative projects. While Parliament has long supported the creation of PESCO, it is critical of certain shortcomings, including project coherence and strategic justification. Parliament also calls for increased scrutiny powers, including for national parliaments.

Relations with Belarus

Parliament endorsed AFET committee recommendations on relations with Belarus, calling for an end to the violence and fresh elections. While endorsing the overall EU stance towards Belarus following the disputed August 2020 elections, Parliament calls for solidarity, support for the population and sanctions against the regime. Parliament declines to recognise Lukashenka as the legitimate president of Belarus, recognises the Coordination Council, and calls for a peaceful resolution to the standoff.

Global deforestation

Members voted by an overwhelming majority in favour of imposing mandatory EU rules to fight global deforestation. Parliament calls on the European Commission to take regulatory action, following the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety (ENVI) Committee legislative-initiative report proposing to prevent products associated with deforestation or forest degradation from entering the EU market. The ENVI committee proposes a new EU framework to protect forests worldwide, guaranteeing that commodities imported into the EU are legal and sustainable.

Opening of trilogue negotiations

Members confirmed two mandates for negotiations: from the Transport and Tourism (TRAN) Committee on the proposal for a decision of the European Parliament and of the Council on a European Year of Rail (2021); and jointly from the Budgets (BUDG) and Economic and Monetary Affairs (ECON) Committees on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the public-sector loan facility under the Just Transition Mechanism.

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

Written by Marcin Grajewski,

© wladimir1804 / Adobe Stock

A resurgence in the number of coronavirus infections since the summer has evidently turned into a second wave of the pandemic, which has now hit many European Union countries. The pandemic is putting renewed pressure on European health systems, and authorities are introducing stringent but targeted preventive measures in a bid to cushion the negative economic impacts while preserving people’s health and ensuring hospitals are not once again overwhelmed. An increasing number of EU countries are clamping down on travel and imposing strict social distancing measures, such as night-time curfews in major cities and limits on social contacts, although most schools and businesses remain open throughout Europe.

The International Monetary Fund said in its October World Economic Outlook (WEO) that global growth in 2020 is projected at -4.4 per cent owing to the pandemic, a less severe contraction than forecast in the June 2020 WEO. The revision reflects better than anticipated second quarter GDP outturns – mostly in advanced economies, where activity bounced back sooner than expected following the scaling back of national lockdowns in May and June – as well as indications of a stronger recovery in the third quarter.

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 25 September.

The global compact for migration and public health in the context of the Covid-19 pandemic
Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik, September 2020

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

Europe and the Covid-19 crisis
Centre for European Policy Studies, September 2020

Who will really benefit from the Next Generation EU funds?
Centre for European Policy Studies, October 2020

Measuring price stability in Covid times
Centre for European Policy Studies, October 2020

In the name of Covid-19
Centre for European Policy Studies, October 2020

A proposal for a public infrastructure leasing entity for Europe
Centre for European Policy Studies, October 2020

Covid-19 has democratic lessons to teach. Has Angela Merkel helped Germany to learn them?
German Marshall Fund, October 2020

Trump infected with corona: What are the consequences for the United States?
German Marshall Fund, October 2020

The pandemic was supposed to be great for strongmen. What happened?
European Council on Foreign Relations, September 2020

Europe’s double bind
European Council on Foreign Relations, October 2020

Schengen will survive the pandemic: The single market may not
Centre for European Reform, October 2020

Taking pandemic preparedness seriously: Lessons from Covid-19
Council on Foreign Relations, October 2020

What is the world doing to create a Covid-19 vaccine?
Council on Foreign Relations, October 2020

EU law in the time of Covid-19
European Policy Centre, September 2020

Covid-19 et immigration: Le grand laisser-faire européen
Confrontations Europe, September 2020

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

A sectarianised pandemic: Covid-19 in Lebanon
Istituto Affari Internazionali, October 2020

Covid lies go viral thanks to unchecked social media
Chatham House, October 2020

Ensuring a greener recovery from the pandemic
Chatham House, October 2020

Preparing for Covid-20
European Council for International Political Economy, October 2020

As election day nears, Covid-19 spreads further into red America
Brookings Institution, October 2020

Lessons learned from Taiwan and South Korea’s tech-enabled COVID-19 communications
Brookings Institution, October 2020

Corporate bond market dysfunction during Covid-19 and lessons from the Fed’s response
Brookings Institution, October 2020

What Covid-19 may—or may not—change about swing state politics
Brookings Institution, October 2020

New poll: More Europeans prioritise the environment than prioritise the Covid-19 economic recovery
Friends of Europe, October 2020

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

Covid-19 and Africa’s recession: How bad can it get?
Istituto per gli Studi di Politica Internazionale, October 2020

Changes in adult alcohol use and consequences during the Covid-19 pandemic in the US
Rand Corporation, September 2020

Managing the challenge of workforce presentism in the Covid-19 crisis
Rand Corporation, September 2020

How Russia targets U.S. Elections, black workers and Covid-19, TikTok: RAND weekly recap
Rand Corporation, October 2020

Understanding the Romanian diaspora: Diaspora mobilisation during Covid-19
Foreign Policy Centre, October 2020

Contre la pandémie et pour le climat: La science et l’innovation
Institut Jacques Delors, September 2020

Trade in pandemic time
Institut Jacques Delors, September 2020

The Corona transformation: How the pandemic slows globalization and accelerates digitalization
Bertelsmann Stiftung, September 2020

Why has Covid-19 hit different European Union economies so differently?
Bruegel, September 2020

Common eurobonds should become Europe’s safe asset: But they don’t need to be green
Bruegel, September 2020

Will European Union countries be able to absorb and spend well the bloc’s recovery funding?
Bruegel, September 2020

Government-guaranteed bank lending six months on
Bruegel, September 2020

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

© Adobe Stock

The European Union (EU) first unified summer-time arrangements in 1980, to ensure a harmonised approach to time switching within the single market. Until then, national summer-time practices and schedules were different, with obvious consequences for time differences between neighbouring countries. A 2000 EU Directive on summer-time arrangements now governs seasonal clock changes. It defines the summer-time period as ‘the period of the year during which clocks are put forward by 60 minutes compared with the rest of the year’ and stipulates that it begins ‘on the last Sunday in March’ and ends ‘on the last Sunday in October’. The directive states that coordinated summer-time arrangements are ‘important for the functioning of the internal market’.

Against the background of a number of petitions, citizens’ initiatives and parliamentary questions, the European Parliament called on the European Commission, in a February 2018 resolution, to conduct a thorough assessment of the summer-time arrangements provided in the 2000 Directive and, if necessary, to come up with a proposal for its revision.

European Commission proposal to end seasonal clock changes

On that basis, the Commission conducted a public consultation on the summer-time arrangements. In September 2018, the Commission put forward a new legislative proposal, where it suggests ending the practice of seasonal clock changes.

This proposal for a directive is put forward for adoption under the ordinary legislative procedure, in which the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union, which represents the EU Member States, take decisions on an equal footing. Once both institutions have adopted their respective positions on the proposal, they can enter into negotiation on the proposed legislation. Once these negotiations have been concluded, both the Parliament and the Council need to endorse the agreed deal for it to become law.

European Parliament position in favour of ending seasonal clock changes

In its position on the proposal adopted in March 2019, the European Parliament endorsed the Commission suggestion to discontinue seasonal changes of time, leaving EU countries free to decide whether they want to introduce summer-time or winter-time on a permanent basis. To ensure that the application of summer-time by some EU countries and winter-time by others does not disrupt the functioning of the internal market, however, Parliament called on EU countries and the Commission to coordinate decision-making.

The adopted text sets out Parliament’s position in the negotiations on the proposal with the Council.

Blockage in the Council of the European Union

EU countries discussed the Commission’s proposal at an informal meeting of transport ministers in October 2018, in which a majority of ministers expressed their support for ending seasonal clock changes. However, at the following meeting, in December 2018, ministers indicated that EU countries needed more time for further consultations. In December 2019, the Finnish Presidency of the Council of the EU updated ministers on the status of the European Commission’s proposal. The Council has still to agree its position and EU countries are carrying out consultations to finalise their positions.

Further information

• Discontinuing seasonal changes of time, European Parliamentary Research Service, European Parliament, March 2019
• Directive discontinuing seasonal change of time, European Parliamentary Research Service, European Parliament
• EU summer-time arrangements under Directive 2000/84/EC, European Parliamentary Research Service, European Parliament, October 2017
• Seasonal changes of time, European Parliament
• State of the Union 2018: Q&A on the Commission’s proposal to put an end to seasonal clock changes, European Commission
• Seasonal clock change in the EU, Mobility and Transport – European Commission

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 Eric Pichon (1st edition),

© octofocus / Adobe Stock

The EU is in the process of adapting its budgetary instruments to respond to the consequences of the coronavirus crisis, in particular in raising the established ceilings for some financial instruments. The proposed adjustments include, among other things, measures aimed at helping the most fragile third countries recover from the consequences of the pandemic. In particular, on 28 May 2020, the European Commission put forward a proposal concerning the European Fund for Sustainable Development (EFSD) in order to expand its coverage and raise the funds dedicated to leverage private investment for sustainable development and the guarantees to de-risk such investment. On 21 July 2020, the European Council rejected the draft amending budget that would have provided increased EFSD funding for the current year.

Versions

• Amending the European Fund for Sustainable Development (1st edition)

Proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending regulation (EU) 2017/1601 establishing the European Fund for Sustainable Development (EFSD), the EFSD Guarantee and the EFSD Guarantee Fund Committee responsible: Foreign Affairs (AFET), Development (DEVE) and Budgets (BUDG), jointly under Rule 58 COM(2020) 407
28.5.2020 Rapporteur: To be appointed 2020/0107 (COD) Shadow rapporteurs: To be appointed Ordinary legislative procedure (COD) (Parliament and Council on equal footing – formerly ‘co-decision’) Next steps expected: Publication of draft report and discussion in committee

Written by Marie Lecerf,

© Andrey Popov / Adobe Stock

In 2020, most European Union (EU) Member States have a statutory minimum wage (21 of 27), while six others have wage levels determined though collective bargaining. Expressed in euros, monthly minimum wages vary widely across the EU ranging from €312 in Bulgaria to €2 142 in Luxembourg (July 2020). The disparities are significantly smaller when price level differences are eliminated. Expressed in purchasing power standard, the minimum wage ranges from PPS 547 in Latvia to PPS 1 634 in Luxembourg.

The question of setting a minimum wage is one of the most analysed and debated topics in economics. Over recent years and in the context of the economic and social crisis engendered by the Covid‑19 outbreak, the creation of a European minimum wage is increasingly considered as a useful instrument to ensure fair wages and social inclusion.

In November 2017, the EU institutions jointly proclaimed the European Pillar of Social Rights, setting out the European Union’s commitment to fair wages for workers. Since then, the European Commission has shown its willingness to address this issue. In particular, Commission President Ursula von der Leyen stated in her political guidelines that she will propose a legal instrument to ensure that every worker in the Union has a fair minimum wage. Such minimum wages should be set according to national traditions, through collective agreements or legal provisions.

On 14 January 2020, the Commission launched the first phase of consultation with social partners on fair minimum wages for workers in the EU, to gather social partners’ views on the possible direction of EU action. Based on the replies received, the Commission concluded that there is a need for EU action. The second phase of consultation was launched on 3 June 2020; with a deadline of 4 September 2020 for social partners to provide their opinion. A Commission proposal is expected by the end of 2020.

The European Trade Union Confederation welcomed the European Commission’s initiative and called for the Commission to propose a directive. Conversely, employers’ organisations believe wage-setting should be left to social partners at national level. In their view, if the Commission wished to act, only an EU Council recommendation would be acceptable.

The European Parliament has often debated the issue of low income and minimum income over the last decade, advocating a more inclusive economy.

Read the complete briefing on ‘Minimum wage in the EU‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Written by Ralf Drachenberg,

© Adobe Stock

Without reaching any new decisions, the European Council meeting of 15-16 October 2020 addressed a series of important issues, including the coronavirus pandemic, EU-United Kingdom relations and climate change. It also discussed numerous external relations issues, notably relations with Africa, the EU’s southern neighbourhood, Belarus and Turkey. In the context of rising Covid‑19 infections across all Member States, the European Council expressed its very serious concern about the developing pandemic situation and agreed to intensify overall coordination at EU level and between Member States. Regarding the negotiations on future EU-UK relations, EU leaders expressed their concern about the lack of progress and called on the UK to make the necessary moves. They stressed that the Withdrawal Agreement and its Protocols needed to be implemented in a full and timely manner. As regards the fight against climate change, whilst agreeing to increase the EU’s ambition for the coming decade and to update its climate and energy policy framework, the discussion did not lead to any concrete results and was mainly a preparatory stage before their meeting in December. Finally, following European Parliament President David Sassoli’s address reiterating Parliament’s demands on the 2021‑2027 long-term budget, EU leaders raised the issue, but categorically refused to re-open discussion on the package agreed in July.

1. European Council meeting: General aspects and new commitments

In accordance with Article 235(2) TFEU, the President of the European Parliament, David Sassoli, addressed the European Council at the start of its proceedings. Although negotiations on the multiannual financial framework (MFF) were not on the agenda for the European Council, he insisted on the urgency of achieving an outcome. Recalling Parliament’s key demands, President Sassoli stressed that Parliament was not obstructing the negotiations, but that ‘it is up to the EU leaders to unlock the negotiations on the new EU budget’, thus concluding that ‘the negotiating mandate issued to the German Presidency needs to be updated’. After the meeting, Chancellor of Germany, Angela Merkel reported on the exchange of views with President Sassoli, stressing the European Council’s willingness to negotiate, indicating the existence of some leeway and underlining the need for an agreement on the MFF within the coming weeks, yet categorically refusing to reopen the package agreed in July 2020. As President-in-Office of the Council, Angela Merkel provided an overview of the progress made in implementing previous European Council conclusions.

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

Policy area Action Actor Schedule Coronavirus Come back to this issue regularly European Council 2020-2021 Climate change Return to the topics European Council December 2020

Due to the fact that the Polish Prime Minister, Mateusz Morawiecki, was self-isolating after being in contact with a coronavirus-infected person, Poland was represented by the Prime Minister of Czechia, Andrej Babiš. For similar reasons, both the President of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, and Sanna Marin, Prime Minister of Finland, had to leave the meeting early. The latter was thereafter represented by the Swedish Prime Minister, Stefan Löfven. The increasing number of EU leaders who are unable to attend, or have to leave, European Council meetings, highlights the worsening Covid‑19 situation and raises the question as to whether upcoming physical meetings will take place as planned. President Charles Michel reported on a discussion between EU leaders on this issue and indicated that decisions on the format of EU leaders’ meetings would need to be taken on a case-by-case basis. The informal summit on China in Berlin, planned for November 2020, has already been cancelled.

2. European Council agenda points Coronavirus pandemic

President Charles Michel reported on a ‘long and intense debate on Covid‑19’ between EU Heads of State or Government. As flagged by the EPRS outlook, EU leaders assessed the current epidemiological situation and welcomed the progress achieved so far on overall coordination at EU level, including the recommendation on a coordinated approach to the restriction of free movement. This recommendation, adopted by the General Affairs Council on 13 October 2020, includes common criteria to collect data across the Member States so that the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC) can provide a common map of Europe highlighting the degree of infection with green (low infection rate), orange (medium infection rate) or red (high infection rate) zones. Moreover EU Heads of State or Government called on the Council, the European Commission and the Member States to continue overall coordination regarding quarantine regulations, cross-border contact tracing, testing strategies, joint assessment of testing methods and temporary restrictions on non-essential travel into the EU.

The European Council also welcomed the work at EU level on the development and distribution of vaccines. It reiterated the need for a robust authorisation and monitoring process, the building of vaccination capacity in the EU, and fair and affordable access to vaccines. EU Heads of State or Government also encouraged further cooperation at global level. Chancellor Merkel indicated that EU leaders will regularly exchange information on the situation by video-conference.

EU-UK relations

Asked to put aside all mobile devices for this session, EU leaders took stock of the negotiations with the UK, noting insufficient progress on matters of importance for the EU. The Heads of State or Government called on the UK to take the necessary steps, in full respect of European Council guidelines, statements and declarations, in particular regarding the level playing field, governance and fisheries. Regarding the UK’s Internal Market Bill, the European Council underlined the need for the Withdrawal Agreement and its Protocols to be implemented in a full and timely manner.

President Michel emphasised EU leaders’ support for the work of EU Chief Negotiator Michel Barnier. The latter recalled the EU’s determination to reach a fair deal with the UK, but not at any cost. He underlined that principles had been clear from the outset: if access to the single market were to be granted, a level playing field is an essential prerequisite. He stressed that there was ‘good will’ on agreeing ‘fair play rules’ that would open the door for UK goods to the EU’s market, tariff and quota free. Regarding fisheries, Michel Barnier noted that all 27 EU Member States were united, underlining that eight countries were heavily dependent on fishing quotas in UK waters. He stressed the need for a sustainable, lasting agreement, with stable and reciprocal access to fisheries and a fair distribution of quotas. Michel Barnier acknowledged the UK’s desire for regulatory divergence. However, the EU requires guarantees that this divergence would not only be reasonable, regulated, and transparent, but also embedded in a dispute-settlement system that would ensure enforcement. Should infringement occur in the area of competition policy, the EU would thus be able to take unilateral measures to avail itself of its rights. The two negotiation teams are expected to discuss the outstanding issues during the week of 19 October 2020. The European Council has called upon Member States, Union institutions and all stakeholders to accelerate work at all levels – and for all outcomes – and invited the Commission to give timely consideration to unilateral and time-limited contingency measures that are in the EU’s interest.

Main message of Parliament’s President: David Sassoli conveyed Parliament’s support for an agreement with ‘free and fair competition at its core, a long-term, balanced solution on fisheries, and a robust mechanism to ensure that the rules are observed’. Parliament urges the UK to honour its commitments with respect to the implementation of the Withdrawal Agreement and, as such, to remove the controversial provisions from the UK Internal Market Bill.

Climate change

As announced by President Michel, the European Council held an ‘orientation debate’ on the fight against climate change. Concrete decisions were postponed to December 2020, as a political consensus on the EU’s level of ambition for 2030 is still in the making. President Michel indicated that there was ‘more and more support’ for an increased level of ambition for 2030. Prior to the summit, 11 Member States had expressed clear support for a reduction of greenhouse gas emissions by at least 55 % by 2030, in line with the target date set in the Commission’s communication on ‘Stepping up Europe’s 2030 climate ambition’. President von der Leyen stressed that the minimum 55 % reduction target is an ambitious and achievable goal. The European Council underlined that an increase in the level of ambition for 2030 was needed to meet ‘the objective of a climate-neutral EU by 2050’, an objective to which all except one Member State – Poland – committed in December 2019. Nevertheless, at this meeting, EU leaders seem to have changed course: Achieving climate-neutrality by 2050 would now be a ‘collective EU commitment’, rather than a commitment undertaken by each Member State. This new approach would allow for all Member States to participate and their national situations to be taken into account, as it would provide them with flexibility; however, it would also lower individual levels of ambition as expressed in the nationally determined contributions (NDCs), which Member States have to submit by the end of the year to the UNFCCC. Over the medium to long term, this could hamper the EU’s climate diplomacy efforts and the bloc’s ability to act as a leader on climate change.

Main messages of the EP President: President Sassoli underlined that the proposed European Climate Law represents a cornerstone of the Green Deal, by making the objective of 2050 climate neutrality legally binding and by setting a higher target for greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reductions of 60 % by 2030. He expressed Parliament’s attachment to this more ambitious GHG reduction target and stressed that the EU ‘must act decisively now’ to protect the environment and create new jobs. He also reminded EU leaders of the commitment to implement the Paris Agreement and stressed that the EU ‘must act more resolutely at global level’ on fighting climate change.

External relations Relations with Africa

President Michel spoke of a ‘strategic debate’ on relations with Africa aimed at preparing the ‘strategic meeting’ with the African Union (AU) on 9 December 2020. The European Council stressed its attachment to a strengthened partnership with the AU, based on ‘mutual interests and shared responsibility’. It recalled that ‘Africa is a natural partner’ for the EU and that it is important to further deepen cooperation ‘in all fields’. It added that, in the context of the coronavirus pandemic, it was crucial to strengthen health systems in Africa, whilst developing and distributing vaccines. EU leaders expressed their commitment ‘to furthering international debt relief efforts for African countries’ and tasked the Council with preparing a ‘common approach’ by end-November 2020.

EU leaders identified five sectors as key for cooperation with Africa: 1) digital and knowledge economy; 2) renewable energy; 3) transport; 4) health; and 5) agri-food systems. In addition, they recalled the EU’s commitment to human rights, non-discrimination, good governance and the rule of law. They stressed EU support for peace and security efforts undertaken by African counterparts and for economic integration at both regional and continental level. Engaging with African partners on migration, both legal and illegal, was one of the points most discussed by the EU leaders, underlining that the guiding principles for cooperation on migration should be ‘solidarity, partnership and shared responsibility’.

Main messages of the EP President: President Sassoli stressed that Africa and Europe were ‘united by a shared future’ and should step up their cooperation on climate change, digital economy and health, and welcomed the EU humanitarian air bridge set in place following the coronavirus outbreak. He stressed that, once in force, the new post-Cotonou agreement would foster parliamentary cooperation and respond to the aspirations of citizens.

Southern neighbourhood

EU leaders marked the 25th anniversary of the Barcelona process and announced their intention to hold a ‘strategic discussion’ on the southern neighbourhood in December 2020. The last such discussion was scheduled in October 2015. Leaders then focused primarily on the crises in Syria and Libya, leaving consideration of the neighbourhood policy proper to the Council.

Belarus

Belarus has featured constantly on the agenda of the European Council since 19 August 2020, when EU leaders first discussed the situation in the country. EU leaders expressed solidarity with Lithuania and Poland, which are facing retaliatory measures from Belarus; condemned violence; and endorsed the Foreign Affairs Council’s conclusions of 12 October 2020.

Turkey

A last-minute addition to the European Council agenda, conclusions on Turkey were not initially envisaged, but were adopted at the request of Greece. EU leaders reaffirmed the position expressed earlier in the month, and deplored Turkey’s renewal of exploratory activity in the eastern Mediterranean. They stressed the importance of the status of the Varosha area, reaffirmed the EU’s solidarity with Greece and Cyprus, and confirmed that it remained ‘seized of the matter’.

Main messages of the EP President: President Sassoli called on Member States to speak with one voice and to support German-led mediation efforts in support of the de-escalation of tensions. He called on Turkey to refrain from further provocation and to comply with international law.

Flight MH17

On several occasions (August 2014, October 2015, June 2018, June 2019) the European Council has called on Russia to support efforts to establish the truth as regards the downing of flight MH17 and to continue negotiations with Australia and the Netherlands. It stressed that ‘after more than six years since this tragic event the 298 victims and their next of kin deserve justice’. The other Russia-related item – sanctions following the attempt to poison Alexei Navalny – was not discussed, as sanctions had already been adopted by the Council prior to the European Council meeting.

Read this briefing on ‘Outcome of the European Council meeting of 15-16 October 2020‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Written by Matthew Parry and Carmen-Cristina Cîrlig  –  Graphics: Giulio Sabbati,

© Carsten Reisinger / Adobe Stock

In August 2020, the two major political parties in the United States (US), the Democrats and the Republicans, formally nominated their respective candidates for the 59th US presidential election, which takes place on Tuesday, 3 November 2020. An initially crowded field of contenders in the Democratic primaries developed into a two-horse race between former US Vice-President Joe Biden and Senator Bernie Sanders, with Biden declared the Democratic nominee on 18 August. He will now contest the presidential election against the Republican candidate, who faced no significant primary challenge, the incumbent US President, Donald Trump.

The US President is simultaneously head of state, head of government and Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces. Presidential elections are therefore a hugely important part of American political life. Although millions of Americans vote in presidential elections every four years, the President is not, in fact, directly elected by the people. Citizens elect the members of the Electoral College, who then cast their votes for the President and Vice-President.

While key elements of the presidential election are spelled out in the US Constitution, other aspects have been shaped by state laws, national party rules and state party rules. This explains why presidential campaigns have evolved over time, from the days when presidential candidates were nominated in the House of Representatives by the ‘king caucus’, to an almost exclusively party-dominated ‘convention’ system, and finally to the modern system of nominations based very largely on primary elections, introduced progressively to increase the participation of party supporters in the selection process. A number of additional developments have also played an important role in shaping today’s presidential elections, notably political party efforts to limit ‘front-loading’ of primaries; the organisation of the Electoral College system and the changes to the campaign financing system.

A previous version of this Briefing, written by Carmen-Cristina Cîrlig and Micaela Del Monte, was published in 2016.

Read the complete briefing on ‘Understanding US Presidential elections‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Who can vote in primaries
and caucuses?

Written by Eric Pichon,

On 9 October 2020, the Norwegian Nobel Committee awarded the Nobel Peace Prize to the United Nations World Food Programme (WFP) ‘for its efforts to combat hunger, for its contribution to bettering conditions for peace in conflict-affected areas and for acting as a driving force in efforts to prevent the use of hunger as a weapon of war and conflict’. Adding to a worrying rise in food insecurity, the impacts of the coronavirus pandemic have pushed millions more people to the brink of famine. The WFP’s expertise on emergencies, often in conflict areas, has provided relief to the most fragile populations. The EU supports the WFP through funding, knowledge-sharing, and protecting its vessels from piracy in certain waters.

Food security during the coronavirus pandemic

The Global Report on Food Crises 2020 (GRFC 2020) counted 135 million acutely food-insecure people in 2019 in its analysis of 55 countries and territories – the highest figure since the first report in 2017. A September 2020 update of the report estimates that between 83 and 132 million more people might be under-nourished in 2020 due to the pandemic. This update – covering 26 of the 55 GRFC 2020 countries and territories, plus Togo – confirms that measures to combat the pandemic have compromised access to food for millions. Lockdown and quarantine measures have reduced economic activity and revenue for both households and governments, while infected people have had to face increased health expenditure. The measures also disrupted the food supply chain. Despite the fact that most countries endeavoured to keep essential food and agricultural activities running, lockdown and border closures have hindered food transport and trade, leading also to higher levels of food loss. Food shortages caused by this disruption, combined with revenue losses, have increased nutritional deficiencies for the already most fragile populations, including those with higher nutritional needs such as aged and sick persons, pregnant and lactating women. The first year of the pandemic may have caused more than 120 000 additional nutrition-related child deaths in low- and middle-income countries. Moreover, Covid‑19 restrictions have complicated humanitarian access and therefore obstructed food supply for refugees, internally displaced persons, and other victims of man-made and natural disasters (such as internally displaced persons in central Africa,

Numbers of acutely food-insecure people by key driver (2019)

Venezuelan migrants or Syrian refugees). Coronavirus concerns have also distracted global attention from other crises. Most development aid providers – including the EU and its Member States – have reoriented their funds towards coronavirus-related programmes and projects. Vaccination campaigns against other diseases have slowed. Peace-keeping missions have been scaled back, while at the same time coronavirus-related measures have exacerbated tensions and triggered unrest due to their economic consequences or their impact on freedom of assembly, leaving room for jihadist and other armed groups in fragile countries to operate. This will have a direct impact on food security, as conflict and insecurity are one of the main drivers of food crises (and the primary driver in 22 countries, see Figure 1). The Chair of the Norwegian Nobel Committee underlines that not only does conflict create hunger, and hunger trigger conflicts, but hunger can also ‘be used as a weapon’, despite its prohibition under international humanitarian law.

Read the complete ‘at a glance’ on ‘World Food Programme: Food for peace‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Written by Suzana Anghel, Izabela Bacian, Ralf Drachenberg and Annastiina Papunen,

© Adobe Stock

The role of the European Council is to ‘provide the Union with the necessary impetus for its development’ and to define its ‘general political directions and priorities’. Since its creation in 1975, the European Council has exercised considerable influence over the development of the European Union, a process enhanced by its designation as a formal institution of the Union under the Lisbon Treaty in 2009.

The European Council Oversight Unit within the European Parliamentary Research Service (EPRS) monitors and analyses the activities, commitments and impact of the European Council, so as to maximise parliamentary understanding of the political dynamics of this important institution.

This EPRS publication, ‘Key issues in the European Council’, which is updated every quarter to coincide with European Council meetings, aims to provide an overview of the institution’s activities on major EU issues. It analyses twelve broad policy areas, explaining the legal and political background, the main priorities and orientations defined by the European Council and the results of its involvement to date, as well as some of the future challenges in each policy field.

Read this study on ‘Key issues in the European Council: State of play in October 2020‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Written by Clare Ferguson,

© European Union 2020 – Source : EP

Parliament’s second plenary session in October will be the first ever to be held entirely virtually, due to the ongoing pandemic. Despite meeting online, however, Members will nevertheless address a full agenda that features, among other things, the conclusions of the European Council meeting and discussion of the future relationship with the United Kingdom, as well as hearing the European Commission’s plans for its work programme for 2021. Parliament will also announce the laureate of the Sakharov Prize for outstanding achievements in the service of human rights, on Thursday.

The session commences on Monday evening with an important joint debate on efforts to regulate new technologies to ensure that they maximise benefits to people in the EU while also minimising the risks. Parliament has long called for revision of the outdated EU framework for online services, particularly in the light of large discrepancies in application of the rules between EU countries. In advance of the expected Commission proposal on a Digital Services Act package, Parliament’s committees have tabled three reports setting out an initial position on the revision. An Internal Market and Consumer Protection (IMCO) Committee legislative-initiative report details the measures necessary to update legislation to reflect new information society services. These should ensure that the rules apply to all goods and services providers, regardless of where they are located, and better protect EU consumers against fraudulent practices, targeted advertising, and automated decisions. The parallel Legal Affairs (JURI) Committee legislative-initiative report recommends standards to which platforms should be held and the application of different approaches to ‘legal ‘and ‘illegal’ online content. The report seeks to balance the requirements to protect both users’ rights and their right to freedom of speech. The Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (LIBE) Committee own-initiative report echoes the IMCO and JURI concerns and calls for improved cooperation between service providers and national supervisory authorities, as well as the creation of an independent EU body with the power to sanction online operators who do not comply. While the Commission is not obliged to include Parliament’s position in its proposal, its President has pledged to take account of Parliament’s views.

Parliament has also been active in considering the implications – both positive and negative – of harnessing the potential of artificial intelligence (AI) technology, for the lives of people in the EU. In the same joint debate on Monday evening, Parliament will also consider three reports from the JURI committee on ethics, civil liability, and intellectual property in artificial intelligence, setting out Parliament’s positions. The first legislative-initiative report deals with the requirements for a framework of ethical principles for the development, deployment and use of AI, robotics and related technologies, which will be vital to ensuring innovation takes a direction that protects people’s rights. A second legislative-initiative report sets out recommendations for a legal framework for civil liability that identifies a hierarchy of risks, and measures to compensate for harm caused by the technology. A third own-initiative report highlights the need to foster the free flow, access, use and sharing of data, while also protecting intellectual property rights and trade secrets.

Tuesday morning will be devoted to another important joint debate, on the Commission’s package of three legislative proposals to overhaul the common agricultural policy (CAP) for 2021‑2027. While Parliament supports modernisation of the CAP, it warns against moves to introduce budget cuts, particularly in view of the challenges facing this vital sector, which needs to restructure to play its part in protecting the environment and rural communities, and to attract younger people to the sector. One of the proposals seeks to combine interventions under two pillars of the CAP (income and market support, and rural development) in a strategic plan for all expenditure. Another concerns the improved financial management of CAP funding, with Member States allocated greater responsibility for conformity and control of agricultural support funding. A further Commission proposal concerns amendments to regulations on agricultural product quality schemes – specifically wine production in the EU’s outermost regions, including controversial issues regarding authorised wine grape varieties and the labelling of plant and dairy-based meat substitutes. Parliament is expected to adopt its position for negotiations with Council following the debate.

Agricultural production – of which the EU is a major importer – is also a major driver of global deforestation. On Wednesday afternoon, Members return to efforts to halt the continued loss of forests, which are so vital to the fight against climate change. An Environment, Public Health & Food Safety (ENVI) Committee legislative-initiative report calls on the European, Commission to take regulatory action to prevent products associated with deforestation or forest degradation from entering the EU market. The ENVI committee proposes an EU framework to protect forests worldwide, guaranteeing that commodities imported into the EU are legal and sustainable, and that safeguards indigenous peoples and local communities’ human rights.

In view of the strategic review of PESCO taking place this year, later on Monday evening, Members will consider the implementation and governance of Permanent Structured Cooperation (PESCO), the EU’s Treaty-based military and defence cooperation mechanism that aims to boost EU responsibility for its own security in a vastly more challenging geopolitical environment. Under PESCO’s binding commitments, participating Member States aim at achieving a competitive European defence industry through collaborative projects. Parliament has long supported the creation of PESCO. However, it is critical of certain shortcomings, including the lack of coherence between, and strategic justification for, projects to date. Parliament also calls for increased scrutiny powers, including for national parliaments.

Parliament is also expected to vote on recommendations on relations with Belarus on Tuesday afternoon, following a report from the Foreign Affairs Committee (AFET) on relations with Belarus. While agreeing with the overall EU stance towards Belarus following the disputed August 2020 elections, the AFET committee supports the general EU line of action, recommends that Parliament decline to recognise Lukashenka as the legitimate president of Belarus and calls for a peaceful resolution to the standoff.

With exclusive competence to grant, postpone or ultimately refuse discharge for the execution of the EU budget (once the Council has delivered its recommendation), Parliament returns on Monday evening to the discharge of the 2018 EU general budget for the European Council and Council and the European Economic and Social Committee (EESC). Having postponed a decision in May 2020, Parliament’s Committee on Budgetary Control (BUDG) has re-examined the files and proposes that Parliament refuse discharge in both cases. Parliament has seen no change in the lack of cooperation from the European Council and Council, specifically on accountability and transparency, which has led Parliament to refuse to grant discharge since 2009. Parliament also considers the EESC has displayed a lack of accountability, budgetary control and good governance of human resources in relation to serious misconduct by one of its senior members.

Finally, the last agenda item on Monday evening concerns a request to mobilise €2 054 400 from the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund to support workers who have lost their jobs as a result of financial difficulties at two shipyards in Galicia (Spain). Parliament’s Committee on Budgets (BUDG) report on the proposal agrees with the proposal to support workers, which will also help them to reskill in what was already a region of low employment before coronavirus struck.

Written by Magdalena Sapala with Sophia Stutzmann,

© exopixel / Adobe Stock

Access to stable and adequate financial resources is a crucial condition for the realisation of the global goals of intergovernmental organisations (IGOs). In recent decades, alongside global political changes and the evolution in the role of multilateral cooperation, the resourcing and budgetary management of IGOs have also changed. Moreover, funding available to IGOs has become ever more diversified and complex both in terms of its origin and type.

This briefing presents selected aspects of the financing of three of the world’s largest IGOs: the United Nations (UN), the World Trade Organization (WTO) and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). It presents the size and evolution of their budgets as well as the main contributing countries to these budgets, with a particular focus on the EU Member States. The analysis is based mainly on budgetary data for the financial year 2018.

Read the complete briefing on ‘Understanding the financing of intergovernmental organisations: A snapshot of the budgets of the UN, NATO and WTO‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Listen to policy podcast ‘Understanding the financing of intergovernmental organisations: A snapshot of the budgets of the UN, NATO and WTO’ on YouTube.